let us speak worthily of it, and maintain its integrity and moral power. I hesitate not to say that there is no other function of our system, not even yours, sir, which has an equal capacity for usefulness. The Presiding Elder, traversing his district, urging forward the great interests of its Churches-discussing them in his sermons-calling out recruits for the ministry-directing the studies and molding the character of his young men-projecting new churches-adjusting local troubles-representing in his person the unity, and promoting the esprit de corps of the cause, and stimulating it by a commanding official influence-what officer have we who has an equally effective power? This is the office-but where is the officer? "There's the rub." No man in his senses can deny the potential capacity of the office, but its very capacity exposes it to unfortunate criticism by the incapability of its incumbent. Our wretched policy, in the appointment of Presiding Elders, has nearly despoiled the office of its importance in some of the Atlantic Statesand the appointing power, whether in the Episcopacy or the cabinet, may hold itself responsible for much of the "radicalism" which prevails among us respecting it. We are redeeming ourselves of late years, I hope, in this respect. Perhaps, too, there is an apology, in part, for the evil; the fact is, our cause has grown so fast that it is almost impossible to meet some of its necessities. We have much talent; no American denomination, I soberly believe, has more; but we have not yet enough to work our system at its maximum power, or anything near it.

The great cry of the Church is for master minds. The pulpits of the cities, our literature, and our educational institutions--so comparatively recent make the demand ring incessantly in the ears of the Episcopal cabinet. Our prosperity is, in fine, our embarrassment. Let us thank God that the evil is so fortunate a one, and meanwhile press forward loyally and bravely through our difficulties. large-hearted man, not to say large-minded, should blush to be heard croaking under such circumstances.

One of two things seems to be inevitable, respecting the Presiding Eldership in the Atlantic States-either the appointment to it of our most commanding talents, or a very thorough modification of it. On the latter point I shall venture to say something below.

motives-that would be unbrotherly, to say the least-but more egregious logical blunders could hardly be made, than I have heard in the arguments for this revolution (for such it would be) in our economy. I speak now, of course, of the demand for an indefinite term of appointment. The mere addition of one or two years is a very different question; it involves nothing not already involved and conceded in our present term of two years, instead of one; and when we come to consider the question of how far the Church can meet these " reformatory" demands, it will be seen that your correspondent has no alarming bigotry on the subject. The doctrine of an indefinite appointment, however, he hesitates not to pronounce a downright practical heresy, striking at the very constitution of Methodism; and one of its ugliest features is, that its extreme impolicy will be liable to render suspicious every other and more admissible "reform" with which it is associated. design of this section of my letter is not so much to argue these questions, as to make explanatory references to them, preparatory to the more practical question that remains. Without, then, attempting to grapple with the discussion here, allow me merely to enumerate some of the objections to this extreme change.

The

First. It would take off one of the most important checks upon the appointing power. The present restriction, it is well known, was made purposely to qualify that power. The ministerial appointments were originally indefinitebeing discretionary entirely with the bishop; but they were attended with unmanageable difficulties. They included not only two years or one year, but often, even in large cities, but six months. Few things contributed more to the settlement of the Churches than the introduction of the present restriction. It was found necessary as a relief to both the bishops and the Churches.

Next to this question, there is a disposition among many in these regions, and, I think, throughout the Atlantic Conferences, to extend the term of the ministerial appointments. The question is very vague yet, but it excites no little interest, especially among an important class of ministerial brethren. Some propose a period of three years-others, four; I think the largest party would take off all restriction-leaving the appointment to the Episcopacy, and, of course, the concurrence of the people. The most emphatic criticisms upon our economy, that I have ever heard within the Church, have been upon this subject. There are superior men among us, and not a few, who consider the change a "sine qua non ;" they doubt the further success of Methodism, in the denser communities at least, without it. It will not do to ascribe the zeal of these men on the subject to personal

It should be remarked that the disastrous troubles in the Wesleyan body have not once involved the question referred to; both parties have the good sense to hold fast to the Itinerancy.

gationalism, as sustained by our Congregational brethren, I have nothing to say it has its place in the great providential system of religious provisions for the salvation of the country, and its Churches are distinguished for zeal, beneficence, and success; but Methodism has also its place, and our sister Churches hold us responsible for it; we cannot be congregationalists.

That the proposed change will congregationalize us, I will not delay to argue. It would be superfluous to do so. The only motive for the change would be that the preacher might retain longer the appointment, the people retain longer the preacher. The concession once made, every day would make it less and less possible to disturb the relation, unless where mutual discords intervened to demand a change; the discontents the mutual quarrels of Churches and pastors-must then become the rule of our itinerant changes, not that mighty motive, of the best distribution of the best energies of the Church, which has hitherto regulated our policy and made it everywhere to triumph. This would do well enough for Congregationalism, but not for a militant system like ours, around which we have all joined hands with the voluntary pledge of sacrificing the smaller advantage for the greater.

Third. By localizing the higher talents of the Church, in given places, it would prevent that distribution of our energies which we now secure. Methodism does not ignore the claims of genius or of talent for befitting posts; that would be as absurd as to attempt to neutralize a natural law-it proposes only to regulate the natural tendency of talent in this respect. And in doing this, it offers special facilities to talent; a young man of genius in most other Churches, after graduating at the theological school, must find the vacant place, wherever it may be perhaps in the obscure mountain village; while self-respectable and well-fed mediocrity often retains, by mere right of long preoccupation, the great city positions. He may be hid in his obscurity, year in and year out, until his chance comes. Mere accident is almost his only hope of getting recognized, and at last called into a more prominent placethe accident of an occasional journey beyond his parish, of a visit to the city, &c. A young Methodist preacher of talents cannot, on the other hand, escape general recognition, did he even wish to; he is whirled about by the Itinerancy in such manner that he cannot but be quickly seen by the general Church, and his chief danger is that he shall be prematurely promoted to responsibilities which may break him down for life. Congregationalize us now, and what follows? Why, on the one hand, that the men of talent, in important places, are kept there, instead of being transferred to other posts which they might soon make as important; and on the other, that men of no special claims, who through any cause (and there are causes various enough) get into strong positions, will be very likely to hold them to the exclusion of better, but less fortunate men; and we shall soon have, like other denominations, a host of unsettled, disappointed men, hanging about the connection, with talents and domestic necessities justifying important ap

pointments, but with no suitable opportunity

for them.

But not only this. If it were the case that talent could easily find its legitimate place in such a state of things, and were concentrated in the important stations, your feeble posts would suffer in a manner which is not possible now, with your incessant redistribution of men. I doubt not that under any congregational arrangement, Methodism would fall away onefifth in five years. Your poorer Churches would fail-your poorer preachers would retire. And is this a consideration to be disregarded by devout and generous men, who have been providentially placed under our effective system?

Fourth. The proposed arrangement would open the flood-gates of unceasing discord between the appointing power and the Churches. The only hope of peace would be the succumbency of the former.

Fifth. The great and noblest economical principle of Methodism that of seeking the general, instead of local advantage-would be sacrificed.

Such is but a glance at the argument against this most preposterous design.

The most important remaining project of "reform" is Lay Representation. Some propose it on grounds of expediency, as a source of energy to the system. Others claim it on grounds of abstract, of "mutual rights." I shall refer to the question at length directly. The Church is familiar with its outlines from old controversies.

One of my questions remains yet to be answered-How are we to treat these demands?

ous.

not.

First. Let me say, and with all possible emphasis, that the time has passed (and forever passed, I hope) in which we should treat the men who propose such changes with proscription. I do not say that we have ever done so in any judicial manner; but I think there has been a somewhat general disposition among us to tacitly proscribe them as disloyal and dangerIt has done us much moral harm, I doubt It has made our ostensible men, who are fitted to lead us through desirable experiments, over-cautious; and thereby given to inferior and dangerous leaders the control of public opinion, in times of agitation. Look at the anti-slavery movement among us, if you want proof of the fact. Nearly all our northern men-the leading men, and the mass of the conferences-stand to-day where the first leaders of Methodist abolitionism stood. Yet the latter, under the Rev. Mr. Scott and his associates, were left to rush on impetuously into ultraism and schism, and to drag large por tions of the Church after them. It may certainly be said, that if the commanding minds of the Church had taken, in those disastrous days, the stand which they now take, on slavery. and its relative questions, incalculable mischief would have been averted from us. I know that this intimation will not be very acceptable to

* Dr. Wayland said in his anniversary sermon at Rochester, that there are now four thousand Churches in the Baptist denomination destitute of pastors-s number equal to nearly two-thirds of the whole Methodist ministry. The statement implies that there must be, also, a very large number of pastors destitute of Churches.

some estimable brethren; I nevertheless utter it, respectfully but unhesitatingly. The prevalent over-cautiousness among us must be characterized as timidity, because it is unnecessary. It is not only unnecessary, but very impolitic. It is not the best way to meet public difficulties. It is not what the people have a right to expect of those to whom it confides its fate. My own sympathy, my ultraism, if you please, in favor of the specialities of Methodism, is, I believe, not denied. Yet I must insist that we are too fastidious in our judgment and treatment of brethren who suggest changes. We are still too much disposed to characterize them as "Radicals," a term which, however good in its etymology, is a synonym of proscription in our ecclesiastical vocabulary. Let us have done with this. It is out of season. It harms us not only by intimidating the prudent men who should be our leaders, but by giving to imprudent and dangerous would-be leaders the energy that comes of a sense of persecution or desperation. Let it be conceded among us that good men-our best men-may loyally conceive that changes are desirable in our system that their very loyalty may lead them to propose such changes, and demonstrate itself in the interest, yet prudence and magnanimity with which they may be advocated. How much better this, than for such men to be compelled always to feel that they are thrown, by the severity of a limited and vague public opinion, into a posture of antagonism to the Church? "But this has always been conceded," it will be said. Yes, it has, hypothetically, but not practically.

Second. Let us place the vindication of our ecclesiastical system on its true basis-on utilitarian grounds alone for it has none other, and needs none other; and let me say further, it can stand on none other. This is a genuine sentiment of Wesleyanism. Excepting the admitted doctrine of the divine authorization of the Christian ministry, John Wesley, after reading Lord King, threw to the winds-whether rightly or wrongly-most pretensions to divine authority in matters of ecclesiastical economy; and this, whatever others may think of it, was in the estimation of the Methodists one of the noblest demonstrations of his practical good sense and progressive intellect. Southey justly says that he devised nothing in his scheme, a priori; he adopted whatever God sent in his providence. He was turned out of the churches, and thence came out-door preaching. Maxwell exhorted in his absence, and spoke well, and did good, and thence came the Lay Ministrythe greatest fact in the Church since the Reformation. Local religious interest, in places apart, required him and his laborers to travel to and fro, and thence came the Itinerancy. Little gatherings at Bristol to procure funds for the church debt, were found profitable for religious conversation, and thence arose the Class Meeting. The untrained character of his ministerial recruits rendered it necessary that he should assemble them together at times for counsel and redistribution, and thence came the Annual Conference. The withdrawal of the English clergy of this country during our Revolution, deprived the people of the sacraments in the middle and western states; Wesley pro

vided for the exigency by the ordination of Coke; and thence came the Methodist Episcopacy. A few men were ordained by the new bishops to traverse sections of the Church for the purpose of administering the omitted sacraments; they were found useful in other administrative matters, and thence came the Presiding Eldership. In fine, the whole organic system of Methodism arose thus from adventitious, or rather providential circumstances; and this is the secret of its practical effectiveness, notwithstanding its undeniable and almost untraceable complexity. And this is the only way that a good constitution. for either Church or State can arise. There never was a practicable one constructed a priori; and hence the failure of the constitutions of the late European revolutionists. Our own federal constitution is no exception to the remark, for it was but a reconstruction and generalization of the colonial constitutions under which the people had been educated.

What then is the summary doctrine of a genuine Methodist, regarding Church politics? It is this, viz. :-That the ecclesiastical system which works best-which best accomplishes the mission of religion, the spread of holiness over the world-is the best one, and therefore the right one. There is but one qualification that a genuine Methodist Churchman will want to attach to this postulate, and that is the proviso that the system enforces no duty or disability on clergy or laity, which a good man cannot admit without wronging his conscience.

Now precisely here does Methodism theoretically stand; and here only, I repeat, can it stand one hour under the scrutiny of sensible men; and here, to such men, it stands altogether triumphant. We have erred egregiously in our attempts to defend it on abstract political grounds-to find in it justificatory analogies with systems of civil polity. I plead guilty to no little vexation at hearing good Methodists belabor their opponents with proofs that the system is republican! It is not republican. But is it aristocratic then? No. Is it monarchical? No. What is it then? Why, it is Methodistical. And there is no evasion whatever in this reply. Are our corporate companies democratic, aristocratic, monarchic? Do we require that every combination for a given practical purpose should be studiously modeled after the type of your political scheme? We have a military and naval regime, and it requires the patriotic citizen to obey unto death at the cannon's mouth; but does the citizen, who voluntarily enters the army or navy, cease to be a citizen and a republican? No, he is under the broad constitution of the State, and under that protection he can safely put himself to any special privation or responsibility for any special end that utilitarian reasons may justify, and conscience not deny. What follies should we perpetrate if the demand for a republican type of government were made in all our voluntary and business combinationsbanks, manufacturing companies, army, navy, &c.?

Let us away, I repeat, with such blundering logic; we injure our cause by it, for by it we concede to our assailants the very vantage ground from which they attack us. We must

not allow them to enter on that ground. Our system ignores entirely the very proposition they would put in debate. When, therefore, a man rises up within or without our pale, demanding a change in our system, we have but one summary argument for him, and it is in the old Socratic form- Will the change make the system work better? If it will, then it is from God, and "let God be true, but every man a liar;" if it will not, away with it. We are under this system for a given practical end; we stop not for any fine theorizing about political forms; we have secured our rights and those of our children, under the guardianship of the State; in this religious movement, called Methodism, we have placed ourselves under a quite militant regime, to be sure, but we have done so because there is evidently yet some hard fighting to be done in the moral world, and because evidently this system is doing it better than others; and because, further, its sacrifices are reciprocal between preachers and people, and offend not the conscience; and because, finally, we submit to them voluntarily, and can withdraw from them when we don't like them.

Thus viewed, the concessions of a Methodist to his Church economy are not slavery, but heroism; and every Methodist should so assert them.

I have dwelt the longer on this generalized view of the subject, because I think it is comprehensive of almost every point in debate about our system, and will, therefore, save me the delay of more particularized reasonings.

First. It throws down almost every barrier, founded on "divine rights," or traditional authority, against useful changes.

Second. It vindicates our honor as men and citizens, for submission to an ecclesiastical system which we approve, notwithstanding we may admit many of the objections of our oppo

nents.

Third. It implies the right, and even the duty of loyal Methodists to seek such changes of their economy as may be recommended by utilitarian reasons-but none other.

Fourth. It justifies the Church against reproach for declining to risk the efficacy of its system by changes demanded merely on theoretical grounds-grounds of " abstract rights," or "mutual rights;" or by any other logic than that of a sheer utilitarianism.

Fifth. It requires the Church to stand in a favorable attitude for improvements-leaning forward ever-backward never. She is not shackled by unalterable precedents. Her now stupendous interests and responsibilities should never be risked by whimsical experiments, but the highest wisdom of her policy-the only stability of her power-will be, under God, the good sense with which her leading minds shall comprehend the public opinion of her people, and the wants of the times, and meet them by changes so continuous that they shall never have occasion to become convulsive or revolutionary.

I will venture, my dear sir, still farther in these concessions; for I believe that it is by wise forbearance, by the settlement of a wise policy respecting changes in our system, that we are to secure it against those ever-recurring

troubles which have agitated it from the days of O'Kelly down to our own. I will admit, then

Third. That we should hold it as a subject open to discussion. This is an inevitable result from the fundamental view of our economy just stated. Nothing but practical expediency can be a good argument in favor of such changes, and nothing but the same argument can be relevant against them; any such utilitarian expediency must be a matter of progressive development in the history of the denomination; it must, therefore, be revealed by the changing circumstances of the Church, and these circumstances can be ascertained and appreciated only by observation and discussion. A large liberty of discussion is then, I repeat, a necessity of our cause; in no other denomi nation should it be more freely accorded. The whole genius of our system presupposes it. Its healthfulness depends upon it.

And I have no vague meaning when I thus, from my loyalty to our common cause, demand open discussion of these subjects for it. I mean that its official organs should be open for such discussions. The inquiry, how can its practical system be made more and still more effective, is one of their most legitimate topics, and one that would subserve greatly the welfare of the Church. It would keep up a lively interest for it among the people. It would bring out the vindication of it, and make, therefore, more secure what is really important in the system. while it would lead to a more ready rectification of what is defective or obsolete. It would keep the popular mind more fully acquainted with and therefore better contented with its peculiarities-a matter rendered necessary by its unquestionable complexity. It would preserve the loyalty of many good but dissatisfied men, who, seeing the system habitually open to scrutiny and discussion, would feel assured that what they deem exceptionable in it, must sooner or later be made right, or shown to be so already. It would take away the provocation for separate movements and separate papers, and keep such discussions under the control of the Church. But would it not lead to unhealthy agitations? No. And let me say that such a question deserves something different from a respectful negative. It is an obsolete question in our age. It is against all the conditions of healthful inquiry and progress that characterize the civilization of our times. have editors, and they certainly have powers enough. They alone ought to be held responsible for any excesses to which they may allow such discussions to go. I believe that most of the evils which beset such controversies come of the peculiar provocations which a timid and proscriptive treatment of them produces. Any man who should write an able article through our papers, on the means of rendering our missionary schemes more effective, could hardly fail to deepen the interest felt for that cause, however impracticable his suggestions. No such writer would be deemed

We

There have been at least five secessions, more or less strong, from the Methodist Episcopal Church, within eighty years, averaging one to every sixteen years. All, except one of them, were accompanied with agitations respecting our Church polity.

disloyal; quite otherwise: "he is actively interested in the good cause," would every one say. Why then, in the name of all logic, should we treat differently the discussion of our ecclesiastical system; a system confessedly founded in expediency, and therefore subject to the influences of time and place? Personally I am the more solicitous that we should right ourselves in this respect, because I consider our fears a species of cowardice, and believe that they do us harm among valuable men within our pale, and the religious public without our pale. We need not these fears; our system, so literally magnificent in its results, may challenge any tests-especially while we vindicate it on the genuine Wesleyan ground of practical utility, stated above.

Our New-England brethren remember an experimental proof of the view here given. There was a time when their atmosphere was rife with agitation, and scarcely an altar was there among them that did not tremble with the shock. The anti-slavery excitement was transferred to the arena of Church politics. Our fundamental economy was in question, and the question was exasperated beyond any precedent in our history, by the fact that it was complicated with slavery-a great problem that touched the humanity and conscience of the people. The Churches were tried as by fire in that memorable day. How did they treat the subject in their organ, Zion's Herald, the paper that Dr. Dixon's book says has done more than any other in the country for the development and demonstration of Methodism? Did they fear and evade the discussion? Not at all; they affirmed that their system could stand any scrutiny. They opened a department on the fourth page of their paper for discussions pro and con respecting it; and prescribed but two conditions for these discussions: the first was, that no personal vituperation should be used -the editor having power to expunge it, became responsible for it. The second was, that nothing should be admitted which was not in a spirit of loyalty to the common cause-designed not to injure it, but, by supposed amendments, to help it. Exterior enemies, they remarked, had their own organs; they accorded them the right of assailing the Church to their hearts' content, but the Church's own columns were sacred to its own use; any genuine Methodist had, however, the right of free speech within them, subject to these two conditions. What was the result? The truth came out, as it always will in fair debate. The agitation subsided; the people were confirmed in their Methodistic fidelity, and are more so now than any other section of the country; as there was no unreasonable restraint on discussion, the strongest usual provocation to it was gone; the disputants fell off one after another to attend to better things; by and by an occasional shot was faintly heard and then came unbroken calm.

This was the legitimate result of the policy pursued.

Let us then cease to fear in this respect. The Church is safe, so far as these questions are concerned, if our editors only lead us wisely. Allow me most respectfully to say, that I think the discussion of practical Methodism a want in our papers generally. The people will love VOL. VII.-6

it, and stand firmly by it, if they comprehend it; but it is a complicated machinery-wheels within wheels-thence comes its effectiveness, but thence also comes the liability of misapprehensions respecting it. Our official organs have the best power to maintain for it a popular sympathy by giving it popular expositions.

I am aware, dear sir, that there are some rather delicate implications in the preceding remarks. There are good men in the Church who will not readily admit that there is any such tacit disability among us, in the discussion of these questions. There are others, of different mettle, who would like, perhaps, to resent the implication. Both must accord me the privilege of differing from them. If they believe that the writer respecting the improvement of our Church economy fares no worse than he who, as above supposed, writes in the same manner about our missionary plans, I have only to assure them that I should heartily rejoice to share their comfortable views of the case, but have failed so to observe the tone of opinion among us.

I consider the above topic a fundamental one in the discussion, and therefore worthy of this distinct and special notice. I have long despaired of the settlement of the main questions involved, unless some of these incidental ones could be first cleared up.

Thus far, we have considered some of the proposed "reforms" of our Church economy, and the manner in which the demand for them should be treated. I have been the more anxious that a clear and prudent word should be uttered on the subject, because I think that, though the disposition for such changes is gradually and surely extending in the Church, it is so tranquil and considerate that now is precisely the time for such an utterance-that such an utterance, especially if it could come from higher authority than in the present instance, would tend much to avert the agitations which may yet proceed from these "reform" questions, should the guides of public opinion among us treat them imprudently. I am tempted, therefore, to venture in this letter a little further, and, having shown the general treatment which these questions should receive at the hands of the Church, dismiss the subject with some more specific references to the points of "reform" in question-gathering up and reporting the best sense of the Church respecting them, as far as my late travels have made it known to me. I wish the task I have attempted had been undertaken by any one more authoritative than myself; but as it has not, my brethren generally will forbear with me. I shall constrain them at least to admit that my remarks are candid, and in the spirit of a genuine loyalty to our common cause.

I need say but little respecting the question of prolonging the time of our ministerial appointments, as I have discussed it at some length. An indefinite term (the favorite plan, I think, of many in this section) is, as I have shown, altogether inadmissible. Allow me to say even that the proposition is a blunder, and in that sense unfortunate for the advocates of "reform," as it tends to excite among the conservative friends of the Church apprehensions at any more reasonable change. Nor should the ad