ART. VII.-METHODIST EPISCOPACY IN TRANSITION. METHODIST episcopacy is both apostolic and scriptural. It is apostolic, in that it first came into existence as the outgrowth of an extraordinary spiritual movement, after the manner of primitive episcopacy; and it is scriptural, in that it was founded in remarkable harmony with scriptural precedent and under the liberal charter of self-government which the New Testament grants to every Christian organization. Every friend of Christian unity and Christian liberty, and especially every Methodist, should ever thank God that Mr. Wesley was led to set apart the first Methodist bishops himself, without interposition of any prelate claiming to exercise his functions by an authority derived from an unbroken line of successors to the original apostles. Beyond all doubt, this fiction of an "historic episcopacy is the greatest barrier in the way of Christian unity throughout the world to-day; and the most practical, as well as the most effective, protest which has been made against it is the widespread presence of another episcopacy-historic, without having any history to be ashamed of, and apostolic, without possessing a long succession of prelates many of whom were models of all that apostles should not be. This modern form of episcopacy is rapidly extending its influence, and seems destined to a still wider and more rapid extension in the future.

I have used the word "outgrowth" as descriptive of the origin of Methodist episcopacy, meaning that God directed by providential tokens those who first gave it a definite shape. No one among the early founders of Methodism, from Mr. Wesley down, anticipated at the outset that such a feature would ever be impressed on the Methodist system. It took shape very gradually; and, while its formal acknowledgment by the election of Bishops Coke and Asbury as bishops of an independent Church had some of the suddenness of a surprise, this momentous act was in reality but the culmination of a long series of events which logically led up to it and which could hardly have terminated differently. It follows naturally that a system which, from the very first, was subject to the laws of providential development can never acquire the character of a rigid framework beyond the reach of either amendment or adjust

ment to new emergencies. As a matter of fact, it has been subject to modification from the beginning, and will, no doubt, continue to be so as long as the Church retains the vitality of a growing body. It ought to be admitted as inevitable, therefore, by every Church accepting this form of episcopacy, that the system will change from time to time; and the discussion of modifications which may seem desirable and at times inevitable should never be regarded as implying disloyalty to the system itself. As a simple matter of history, the episcopacy which was adopted at the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church has already been modified in several important respects, until at the present day, so far as its practical workings are concerned, it differs very widely from that which bore the same name a century ago.

What were the chief distinctive features of the Methodist episcopacy in the days of Coke and Asbury? In the first place, it was presbyterial, as distinct from the sacerdotal, or prelatical, episcopacy with which the world had become familiar in the Roman, Eastern, and Anglican Churches. Next, it was general, as distinguished from the diocesan feature which many maintained had been handed down from the apostles and had thus become as inviolable as the episcopacy itself. The bishop was not regarded as inseparable from a limited, and usually very small, piece of territory, but could have duties assigned to him in any part of the wide domain of the Church. In the third place, the position which he held was regarded as an office bestowed upon him by the suffrages of his equals, and not as the prerogative of an order received at the hands of superiors. In office he stood above his brethren; but in ministerial orders they were his equals. As such, he was amenable to these brethren for his conduct, could be placed on trial by them, and could make no appeal against their action to a higher order of ministers. In every feature of the episcopacy the supremacy of the Church and the subordination of the bishop were recognized. Lastly, it is to be noted that the bishop was not only a general superintendent, in the sense of exercising a general supervision over the Church, but that this supervision was of a militant character. The early Methodist bishop was expected to be a leader. The Church of Asbury's day was, in the best sense of the word, a militant Church. The supervision of the

bishop was that of a commander on the battlefield, and in every action he was expected in person to keep close behind the skirmish line. If his authority was very great, corresponding to the militant character of his office, his subordination was equally marked. The senior of the first two bishops once had his jurisdiction limited by a simple vote of his brethren, so that his status was made to correspond in a remarkable degree to that of a missionary bishop at the present day. It will thus be seen that Methodist episcopacy, as first formulated, was a very unique institution in the Christian world. Nothing exactly corresponding to it had been seen since the early days of Christianity. Under God, it owed its origin to the Church. In both of these respects it became a living protest against the prevailing "historic" error, that the Church owed its origin to the episcopacy and could not even exist without its presence and control.

It would be interesting to note the changes which gradually took place in the evolution of our episcopacy; but space will not permit this, nor is it necessary to notice them except in brief outline. It was quickly found that the bishops could not all be present at each Conference session, and this obligation was quietly dropped. The rapid extension of the work soon made it impossible for them to be present at all the circuits, and in consequence their faces began to be less and less familiar to the mass of the common people. The creation of a General Conference strengthened their position and added in some respects to their functions, but did not tend to draw them nearer to the people. Their judicial functions became more strictly defined, and their responsibilities in general more weighty, as time passed. There was no regular rotation in the presidency of the Annual Conferences; and in the New England Conference, where Bishop Hedding presided for five or six successive years, a "districted episcopacy" was for a time in practical existence, without any attention being called to the fact.*

* Since the above was written an article has appeared in Zion's Herald, written by Dr. D. H. Ela, in which the case as here presented is greatly strengthened. Dr. Ela says: "The general superintendency has not kept pace with the growth of the body. It has nothing like the acquaintance with, and supervision of, the Church which existed in earlier days. Indeed, it has been in danger of losing its vital relation to the body, Bishop Asbury presided at sixteen of the first nineteen sessions of the New England Conference. He knew personally every man, and visited annually nearly every circuit in the Conference. Bishop McKendree attended every session but one of the Conference from 1809 to 1817-the first five with Asbury. Bishop Hedding attended twenty of the twenty-six sessions from 1824 to 1849.

The Asburyan era practically came to a close in 1852. Three of the four bishops elected in that year were, each in his way, representatives of new ideas and new policies. The time was favorable for an advance in many directions. The separation of the Southern Conferences was a relief, not only from embittered controversy, but from an intolerable situation. A new wave of emigration was rolling westward. New educational institutions were springing into existence, and ministerial education had just received its highest indorsement by the election of Bishop Baker. The Missionary Society was just beginning to realize the purpose for which it had been founded, and in the great cities leading men were waking to the momentous responsibilities which confronted the Church. It was a time for great leaders and brave leadership; and at no period in our history have more capable men come to the front, both in the episcopacy and outside of it.

It was at or near this date that the first attempt was made to introduce a regular system into the work of supervising the Annual Conferences. To each bishop a certain number of Conferences was assigned for a period of twelve months; and, although these Conferences were not by any means selected with regard to contiguity of territory, yet a most important principle was thereby recognized and a still more important precedent established. Each bishop was placed in charge of a specified field for the term of twelve months. For that length of time the whole work was divided into districts; and this policy prevails to the present day. As the years passed by the foreign missions began to enroll converts in many countries, and in due time Annual Conferences were organized in foreign lands, at first tentatively, but later with all the rights and privileges of Annual Conferences in the United States. These Conferences were placed under the permanent supervision of the several bishops, the same general superintendent in some cases retaining exclusive jurisdiction over a Conference for a dozen years or more. In this way another most important precedent was established, namely, that the

Down to 1854 no bishop presided alone in the Conference until he had attended at least one session of the Conference in company with an older bishop. Such acquaintance with, and personal supervision of, the Conference by the bishop has become year by year less possible and more neglected, till now it begins with the opening of the annual session and closes with the reading of the appointments."

'general itinerant superintendency" does not require an interchange of the supervision of the Conferences among the bishops every twelve months. Meanwhile, the creation of Judicial Conferences, the immense expansion of our publishing interests, the increase of benevolent societies in the Church, the growth of legislation, and the outline on the horizon of new questions of the greatest importance have all combined to add to the responsibilities of the bishops, and, at the same time, to withdraw them more and more from the sphere of active leadership which pertained to them during the Asburyan era.

It seems very probable that with the advent of a new century our Church will enter upon the third stage of her history. We are now in the closing years of the second era. Many changes have occurred during the past fifty years, and the end is not yet. In the early days of Asbury no one foresaw the rapid expansion of the country, both in territory and population, and certainly no one anticipated that before the close of the present century our ministers, in different parts of the world, would be witnessing for Christ in thirty-six different languages. No one foresaw, no one could have foreseen, the extraordinary development of new interests which has taken place; and hence it was simply impossible a century ago, or even half a century ago, to formulate a policy which would meet the demands of an era like the present. The episcopacy of a hundred years ago is not equal to present emergencies. A hundred Asburys could not now supervise the work as the one Asbury did it in the beginning; while it is as certain as any future and contingent event can be that the difficulties of the situation will increase rapidly, rather than diminish, with the lapse of years. A widespread impression prevails among our people that some parts of our present episcopal system need readjustment, in order to adapt the Church to her new responsibilities and prepare fully for the stupendous duties of the coming century. Among various proposals, perhaps the most prominent, as well as the most practical, is that of giving more definite fields of labor to the several general superintendents.

The demand for a "districted episcopacy" is more urgent and much more general at the present time than is commonly sup posed. No episcopal system can permanently succeed which