such a movement means, and to interpose an obstacle to its progress. No advocate of the episcopacy as it is will claim that it is a perfect institution, or that our system of government is unimprovable; but allowing that it is not ideally complete in its constructive and adaptative equipments, it is unwise to tear it into pieces and pronounce it an abomination. We willingly allow the imperfection of the whole, but any other system would De deficient, and similar difficulties would confront us in working it. All that may be asked for our episcopal system is that its defects be remedied without striking at its fundamental principle, and that the disadvantages of the system be reduced to the lowest limits.

Episcopacy is an ecclesiastical word, implying the government of the Church by bishops, as Presbyterianism implies government by presbyters, and as Congregationalism implies government by both clergy and laity. If the New Testament instructs on the subject, it permits one kind of government as well as another, but in no instance does it warrant one to the detriment of another. In our liberalistic construction of apostolic teaching, any form of government adopted by the Church is legitimate, and no form can be said to be unscriptural. From the Didache we learn that bishops and deacons, worthy of the Lord, were appointed in the infant Church, and that bishops and presbyters were synonymous terms. St. Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, says the apostles appointed bishops and deacons, but "in no new fashion;" by which we understand that ordained pastors consisted of presbyters and deacons― the two orders of the ministry. To this apostolic precedent Methodism has strictly conformed, not because it was mandatory, but because it had the force of a judicious example which commended itself to the fathers of Methodism. It was at this point that the Church of England departed from the apostolic example, for it established an episcopate not hinted at in the New Testament, and instituted a third order in the ministry. It is, therefore, a concession to truth to substitute "historic episcopate for "apostolic succession;" and if the Church of England will honestly confess that it borrowed the episcopate it now maintains from the third century, and not from the New Testament precedent or teaching, it may heal the breach which it created in Christendom. With no specific warrant on the subject the question of government has excited friction in Protestantism, dividing it into many religious bodies, and it is the chief corner-stone of the papal hierarchy. St. Clement says that the "apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office." History has verified the prophecy of friction over the office and the title of the incumbent. In the early history of Methodism it had to contend for the right to ecclesiastical existence, defending its episcopal government and the legitimacy of its self-proclaimed and self-originated independence. In this contest we have won the victory, compelling the advocates of "apostolic succession" not only to explain themselves, but to defend their indefensible attitude toward Christendom, and to attempt to give a reason for their continued existence.

Having demonstrated the providential and historic triumph of its episcopacy, with its life tenure and non-diocesan characteristics, Methodism should be slow to re-open the question, or consider the expediency of reducing its tenure, or constituting an episcopacy whose chief feature shall be the rotation or ineligibility of incumbents after a given number of years of occupancy. The proposition to place it within sight of the clock or under the hammer is fraught with more evils than can be enumerated, while the advantages that accrue to the Church under the episcopacy as it is counterbalance all the disadvantages that may be imagined. What is the episcopacy? It is usual to designate it as the appointing power in Methodism; but, while this is not a comprehensive view of its functions and relations, it will appear from a moment's reflection that a short-term episcopate will reduce the high prerogative of supplying the churches with pastors into a mechanical and undisguised political performance, resulting in the degradation of the episcopacy and peril to the itinerant system. Like Elijah, every bishop is a man of like passions with other men, and it is useless to expect that ambition for re-election will expire in him so soon as his elevation to the bishopric shall have been accomplished. Such an ambition is not necessarily unholy, nor does it signify a lust for power; but human nature does not readily relinquish its opportunity to accept power when it may be lawfully gained. It is granted that, in order to circumvent ambition for re-election, ineligibility to a second term might be made a condition of election to the office; but in that event our superintendents would be men ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of their high position. A diocesan or a short-term bishop may be a very weak man; but a general superintendent should be strong, wise, pure, a man of intellect and approved of God. In selecting men for the general superintendency with a life-tenure the Church will be more careful than if it were choosing men for a short term or for diocesan purposes. The shortterm plan, with privilege to re-election, offers inducements to political scheming such as are impossible in the present plan, or promises an incompetent, hastily chosen, and uncertain class of superintendents. The proposition is a step downward, with no corresponding advantages. Every Annual Conference would feel that it had for president a politico-ecclesiastical bishop, who would be interested in the election of delegates to the General Conference, and who would be under the influence of the delegates-elect during the remainder of the session. Every court of appeal would have for chairman a man whose eyes might be open to future friendships and whose hands might be open to bribes. The Church at large, complaining occasionally of the reign of the political spirit in General Conference elections, would realize that the highest office in its gift is the subject of political manipulation, and its incumbents would be regarded as a trifle more adroit than their unsuccessful rivals. It seems to test the Church to be required to elect all other officers every four years; but to add the duty of electing bishops every four or eight years would be more than a General Conference could endure. The sea of ecclesiastical politics would boil over. This may reflect on human nature, but the problem

must be treated in the light of facts and probabilities. The short-term plan, or rotation in office, simply means perpetual ecclesiastical ferment, with no decided gains either to the bishops or the Church, but an opening of Pandora's box, with all its evils, into the lap of Methodism.

The episcopacy, however, is more than the appointing power in the Church, and any proposed modification must have regard to the larger interpretation which the office bears. It represents the collective elements, forces, and functions of Methodism as no other department of the Church can represent them, and is in this respect indispensable to the integrity and solidity of Methodism. It is inherently the expression of the consummation of the significance of Wesleyan religion. It is, in concrete phrase, the incarnation of connectionalism which is the secret of our strength and the inspiration of our activities. To the uninformed, connectionalism may seem to be that mysterious bond or principle that separates Methodism from other organizations, or that exclusive system that shuts out external factors of co-operation; but this conception or definition is not all-inclusive. There is a connectionalism that is selfish, Jesuitical, seeking its own ends, aiming at self-preservation. There is also a connectionalism that represents the unity of power in an organization whose purpose is the extension, not of itself, but of that which it represents. Methodistic connectionalism is of the latter kind—a union of all Methodistic plans, teachings, and activities, or a concentration of Methodistic forces for the good of mankind. In what way may connectionalism be preserved and promoted? Neither by the decrees of the General Conference nor by the conservatism of broadminded and far-seeing pastors, nor scarcely by our connectional societies, though all these powerfully contribute to its maintenance, but chiefly through an itinerant episcopacy, which guards with jealous loyalty the whole system from innovation, and perpetuates it throughout the Church by the connectionalism of which it is the chief exponent. Methodism is a connectional system, perpetuating itself through a connectional episcopacy. To strike at episcopacy is to strike at the inherent connectionalism of the system, and the whole falls to the ground. It is useless to hope to preserve the connectional power of the episcopacy by reducing the official tenure, for in that case the connectional principle will no longer be an aim of the episcopacy. The spirit of unity will be lost in the rapid changes of the incumbents, who will be more concerned with personal interests than with the perpetuation of a system that hitherto has depended upon the episcopal force for continuity in government and unification of the highest forces in Methodism.

Among the duties of a Methodist bishop are those requiring him "to travel through the Connection at large," and "to oversee the spiritual and temporal business of our Church" (Discipline of 1888, ¶ 161, §§ 6, 7). We affirm that a bishop under a time-limit can very imperfectly, if at all, discharge these duties according to the spirit of the law. He would reduce himself to a diocesan bishop de facto, while he would be a general superintendent de jure. He could not include in his range the demands

of world-wide Methodism, nor could he oversee the business of the Church among all nations. A diocesan bishop understands his diocese, but he is not equally well informed of all parts of his church field. Our superintendents necessarily are men acquainted with Methodism in all lands, and have a world-wide knowledge of Christianity in all its movements, and of changes in governments and religions, with their effects on the Church and Methodism. No other class of men among us are engaged in the world-wide survey of Christianity, and we cannot afford to sacrifice the advantages that accrue to the Church from these officers and their opportunities to conciliate the surge for change. Hence we view with alarm the indirect assault recently made upon connectionalism as a principle of church-life, for it betokens a more direct assault upon episcopacy. The two stand or fall together.

It is no small argument for the life tenure of the episcopacy that it represents to the world the fact of a great itinerant Church, with no other object than the moral improvement and redemption of the race. Other Churches with diocesan bishops or a settled pastorate impress the world that they are rooted in society, with noble humanitarian prospects in view; but the itinerant Church, with bishops flying over the world, like the angel in the Apocalypse, and with pastors going to and fro, must impress men that it labors under the conviction that its business requires haste and that it has no time to rest or settle. The itinerant Church is set over against the settled Church, and is efficient only while it is in motion. The itinerancy is another of the distinguishing marks of Methodism, with which it cannot afford to part; and the episcopacy, with its itinerating duties, can do more to preserve it from decay than all other agencies combined. The short-term plan diminishes the probability of a perpetual itinerancy; for short-term bishops would fall in with spasmodic movements for violent or revolutionary changes, and even instigate them if it were necessary to promote individual ends. To an episcopacy that is permanent in character, a unit in conviction respecting our ecclesiasticism, and harmonious in respect to fundamental doctrine, the Church may safely commit connectionalism, itinerancy, doctrinal integrity, and all other institutions that require constant guardianship for their preservation.

The value of the episcopacy to Methodism is somewhat contingent on the element of stability and permanency which the life tenure confers upon it. The short term, or rotatory plan, has had full experiment in our history in all the other official positions of the Church. The time-limit is imposed upon the pastorate; the quadrennial election of editors, book agents, and connectional secretaries is a constitutional requirement; and whatever of evil or good may inhere in the experiment or law requiring it has been realized in these departments. It is quite enough to observe that there is a growing desire in Methodism practically to abolish, under suitable restrictions and safeguards, the time-limit respecting all positions, pastoral and otherwise, on the ground that men add to the probability of increased efficiency by prolonged and uninterrupted experience in such positions. It is inopportune, therefore, and anomalous, that while the general tend

ency is to longer terms of service in other positions the proposition to shorten the term of the episcopacy should be sincerely mooted. To lengthen the short terms and shorten the long terms is a legislative contradiction that will hardly bear inspection.

Moreover, the episcopacy is a unique department, differing from all others in essential faculties and prerogatives, though resting upon the common basis of the eldership. The bishop is primus inter pares, but separated from the elders by official lines he is primus alone; that is, he is first because of a difference of prerogative and of a difference of tenure. To limit the difference to prerogative is to limit the prerogative which for ⚫ its fullest exercise and development requires the unlimited arena and lifespaces of Methodism. It is clear that no time-limit is affixed to the presbyter; that is, he is a presbyter for life and he is a pastor for life, except as crime may deprive him of either of these functions. In like manner the bishop, being a presbyter, is per se under no time-limitation, though it is within the province of the Church to delimit or even abolish his office. Without the interposition of the Church the presbyter elected to the episcopacy carries the life tenure from his order into his office. If life tenure apply to the higher, or the order in the ministry, surely it may apply without injury to the lower, or an office in the ministry. If it be said that this implies, therefore, that editors and secretaries, going from an order to an office, carry the life tenure of the one into the other, thereby permitting them to remain for life in their positions, we reply that the difference of function between a bishop and other officers makes the life tenure of the one a necessity and the short tenure of the other an expediency. The episcopacy would dash itself into pieces on the rotatory plan; other departments, sometimes crippled by it, are possessed of a potency that enables them to survive the disasters of frequent mutation. In its very nature the episcopacy is dependent on permanency for its efficiency; other departments are efficient in spite of the adverse influence of change, or possibly because of it. Whatever the origin of Christian episcopacy, for there have been political episcopacies, nothing was said at the time, or later, in reference to the official tenure of the iлiσколоs, except to confirm the view that it should be for life. In none of the ancient churches, Greek or Latin, and in none of the modern, the Church of England or the Methodist, was a bishop ever appointed or elected for any period less than life. Rejecting or accepting the episcopacy as a third order, no difference of sentiment has ever prevailed as to tenure. There have been differences as to prerogatives and differences as to "order," but none as to tenure. From the time of Cyprian to the present day the bishop in all the Churches, except some minor bodies that do not affect history, has been a life officer, not simply because he exercised spiritual prerogatives, but also because he represented the integrity of the Church. We accuse Episcopalians, so called, of perverting the New Testament in favor of their peculiar government; let it not be said of us that we have departed from the true history of life-tenure episcopacy by imposing a time-limit on the highest office in the Church. In maintaining our episcopacy as it is we are not