direct administrative powers are extensive and absolute, while its indirect executive influence is potent and commanding, even when it is purely discretional or doubtful. In the more direct line of duties the bishop presides at conferences, forms districts, fixes appointments, oversees the spiritual and temporal business of the Church, decides questions of law, prescribes courses of study for under-graduate ministers, and travels through the connection at large, exercising every-where and at all times the conservative, guiding, and wholesome influence of his office among the people. With so great initial power, and with the inevitable enlargement of the influence of a bishop in proportion to his intellectual growth and his exhibition of justice and equity in administration, it might happen that one bishop might undertake to give tone and direction to a majority of the bishops in their superintendency, originating classes in the episcopacy, some favoring one method of administration, others an opposite method, and still others taking a different view of their duties and the laws governing them. To prevent variance and conflict, and secure uniformity of episcopal administration, in spite of variant individual judgments and overlapping of individual influence, is a result difficult to obtain, nor is it obtainable alone by means of law; but the connectional spirit, brooding over all episcopal proceedings, guards against divisions, confines irreconcilable views to unimportant details, and insures to the world over an harmonious administration of the economy of Methodism.

It means much that ours is a joint superintendency, not an isolated diocesan fragmentary government, every bishop supreme in a district, with right to differ, antagonize, and reverse the decisions of a brother bishop in another district, creating confusion and distrust in the Church. The position of independent bishops is very like that of the judges of the courts of a State, who may render the most contradictory opinions, one issuing a mandamus, another granting a stay, and others giving other orders, disturbing the processes of litigants, and interfering with the course of justice. The joint superintendency in Methodism-the product of connectionalism-forbids such independence of administration as to produce mutual antagonism in the episcopacy and ill-concealed discontent in the Church. On main issues, in which either the principles of church government or the bulwarks of Methodism are involved, the episcopacy is a unit, without partisanship, without symptom of division, without hypocrisy of sentiment or action. It is remarkable that from the time of Asbury until now, save in the unfortunate period of 1844, the episcopacy has not been disturbed by internal quarrels or dismembered by partisan antagonisms. So long as the connectional spirit shall be felt in the episcopal office so long will uniformity of administration be secure, and additional safeguards against partisanship and division will not be required.

By common consent the General Conference is recognized as the legislative, as the episcopacy is recognized as the executive, department of Methodism. Notwithstanding its constitutional limitations, which are strictly defined in six restrictive rules, its powers of legislation are quite adequate for general purposes; reformers and radicals of all sorts as

energetically employing them as those more conservative and more fearful of sudden changes in church polity. Seldom is complaint made of the extent of the legislative prerogative of the General Conference; but many thoughtful minds regard it as possessed of extra-legal powers, which, unduly exercised, might endanger the safety of the Church. No one will dispute the legislative capacity of the General Conference-a capacity for hasty as well as sober legislation; a capacity for injudicious and unjust as well as wholesome and conserving legislation; a capacity for partisan, fanatical, and subverting as well as restraining and antiquated legislation, the regulation of which is not in its own temper, or restrictions, or extant laws, but in that connectional spirit which, allowing freedom of thought within judicious limits and legislation for the interests of Methodism, never encourages that latitudinarianism which overrides the boundaries of justice or the established precedents and tendencies of Methodism. In the presence of this spirit, sufficient to quiet storm and prevent rupture, restrain the hot-headed as it spurs the iron-clad, chastening sentiments of revolution as it energizes the slow pulses of non-progressive participants, lies the safety of the Church in its crises and in its halcyon days of peace.

In respect to the legal rights and powers of the Annual Conference, it is to be remembered, that having delegated its legislative functions to the General Conference, it exists and acts under very definite limitations, being governed by the General Conference which acts for it, and exercising inde'pendently only those powers which it refused to grant away. The Annual Conference is not, therefore, a legislative body. In its subordinate relation it is an administrative body, with quasi judicial functions, it having the conferred right to try its members or to restate such cases in the broader forum of a Judicial Conference. Whatever it may or may not do, executively or judicially, it is important to note that the same limitations, the same rights, the same duties, and the same privileges belong and entail to every Annual Conference in Methodism, securing unity of polity and consensus of sentiment throughout the world-wide domain of the Church. To be sure this unity is established and fostered by law; but it was the connectional spirit that prompted the surrender of power on the part of the Annual Conferences, and it is the same spirit that holds them together in their subordinate relation to the legislature of the Church. For what motive would be strong enough to induce an Annual Conference to sacrifice its right of self-government, except loyalty to the unity of the whole? The accrued gain to the Annual Conference by this surrender is small indeed; it is eclipsed by the more general result of a stable denominational organism. Connectionalism deprives the Annual Conference of legislative powers; but it converts the Church into a denominational institution. Without connectionalism there would be as many Legislative Conferences as there are Annual or Administrative Conferences; with it, there is one Legislative Conference and many Administrative Conferences-the E pluribus unum in ecclesiasticism.

In like manner the Quarterly Conference is purely executive in its rela

tion either to the Annual Conference or the Church, of which it is the representative, but possessing only derived powers. Hence, it cannot be independent in action, nor may the Church under its guidance act for itself outside of the powers of the Quarterly Conference. In our Methodism there are no local or independent churches, as in other denominations, but all are in subordination to the law-making body, and are free only within the limitations prescribed by law. The surrender of the local church to supreme authority is due to the connectionalism that asks it for the good of the whole, the main point being that the unity of the denomination is more important than the autonomy of a local church. Connectionalism is the antipodal extreme of congregationalism.

In this spirit, and for the several purposes enumerated, Methodism commenced its career, and has made some history. The government of the Church-comprehending executive, legislative, and judicial departments -freely appropriating the services of its ministers and as freely laying financial burdens upon its members, has perpetuated itself neither artificially nor tyrannically, though it has required the mutual surrender of rights; but may trust its future to that gracious love of unity which is stronger than the love of abstract right, and to the connectional spirit, which unless checked will give momentum to Methodism for a thousand years to come.

In no department of the Church are the results of connectionalism more manifest than in its publishing agency, or the strictly business section of Methodism. From the time of John Dickins until the present year of grace Methodism has sustained publishing-houses whose object has been to furnish a suitable and varied literature to our people and at the same time provide funds for the support of superannuated preachers and the widows and orphans of our deceased ministers. The methods of these houses have received more or less criticism from outside parties, because in some particulars they have been unlike those of ordinary business houses, and have been conducted from the view-point of the General Conference; but the answer to criticism is the satisfactory result of this unique business. Without capital in the beginning, and never relying upon the general market for the sale of its books and periodicals, it has amassed property, attained credit, originated and circulated a new literature, and is annually contributing large amounts to the Conferences for the support of ministers and others in need. In number its periodicals exceed those of any other denomination, and in circulation they surpass those of other Churches. To what is this result due? Not exactly to business methods, nor to General Conference supervision, but to that connectional spirit which anticipates the co-operation of every minister in the sale of books and the circulation of periodicals, and which secures the support of Sunday-schools, Methodist churches, and members in the use of the same. Left to individual enterprise the profits of the publishing-houses would accrue not to the Church but to the proprietors; and the sale of books and periodicals would depend not upon the aggregate co-operation of the Church, but upon the claims the proprietors would urge in their behalf.

The difference between connectional and individual enterprises would have such a striking illustration in this department as to determine the superiority of the former to the latter.

Equally obvious is the influence of connectionalism in the management and success of our benevolent societies. No one of these could hope for general favor; without the indorsement of the whole Church by the General Conference no one could exist. Connectionalism unites the whole Church to the missionary movement, awakens its sympathy with our people of color, uplifts church-extension to the gaze of all Methodism, and promotes good-will toward all reformatory and benevolent work, whether at home or abroad.

In tracing the effect of connectionalism on our system of doctrine we observe that it has secured unity of faith with liberty of inquiry, and an orthodoxy of sentiment that is in contrast with the heretical tendencies of liberalism and the loose and miscellaneous beliefs of heterodox teachers. It is easy to discover that this oneness of faith is not the result of an ironclad legalism, nor of any required loyalty to a specific standard of doctrine, but of that quiet and powerful feeling, born of the oneness of Methodism, that rejects on its first appearance an error in teaching and latitudinarianism in practice. The word "heresy" means, in Methodism, not so much a break of faith with a particular doctrine as with the whole system, or with such doctrine as is essential to the solidity of the structure. Variant and tentative views on particular dogmas are admissible, and become heretical only when the foundations are disturbed. Methodism requires the same general faith every-where. It cannot require rigid faith in one section and a liberal faith in another; but in all places it demands cordial assent to its doctrinal system, and this it enforces through the agency of connectionalism.

It is sufficient to say in its favor that in whatever department of the Church it has exercised its legitimate influence, whether in government or polity, in legislation or the exercise of administrative authority, in the episcopacy or itinerancy, in our publishing-houses or benevolent societies, in our social usages or the forms of faith, connectionalism has been effectual in guarding, restraining, directing, inspiring, and unifying all the forces at hand, and in producing the largest and most satisfactory results. In those departments in which the connectional spirit has not had full play, as in our educational system, evils have appeared which might cease under its vigilant and disciplinary influence. Hence the tendency of the times is not to local autonomy in any sphere of the Church, but to a closer and yet broader connectionalism, which, in harmony with variety of method, shall conserve unity of result. In this view the final test of Methodism is its aggregated power in the form of connectionalism.

III. THE CONDITIONS OF ITS MAINTENANCE.

As elsewhere intimated, connectionalism has rarely been a subject of direct legislation. It has existed independently, and strengthened itself by the influence of its presence in all the councils of the Church. It is

not at the present time appealing for legislation, nor is it in any stress requiring the powerful co-operation, by enactment, of the General Conference. It is a principle that defends itself. Attacked from whatever quarter, the raison d'etre is of sufficient force to repel the opposition. Approved, it goes smilingly on its way. It is such an element in the Methodist economy that when it shall no longer be able to sustain the economy, the economy will no longer be able to sustain connectionalism. Nevertheless, like episcopacy or itinerancy, it can exist only by the suffrage of Methodism. Instead of a living force it will become a dead weight so soon as the people shall repudiate it.

To prevent the decline of its influence it is important to believe that connectionalism is indispensable to the Methodist purpose. Loss of respect for it would result in the degeneracy of the whole institution. We shall uphold it only so long as it is deemed vital and fundamental. It will also be needful to maintain it in its general principles, applying it, as heretofore, to the various departments of church government and polity; but it should not be extended so far as to interfere with the natural rights of ministers or with the rights and prerogatives of the churches. It may compel the sacrifice of some things, but there is a limit to burdenbearing even when grace makes it bearable. Methodism does not depend upon one thing, but, consisting of laws, doctrines, and usages, it must obey the first, preach and believe the second, and conform to the third, so far as is practicable. Connectionalism is not every thing, but it is a chief thing, and should be maintained, not for its own purpose, but in the interest of Methodism. When it shall cease to stimulate the Church, and shall dominate because it exists, its days will soon expire.

It is evident that the connectional spirit should recognize new conditions and adapt itself to the workings of the present age. It should not be invoked to stay a progressive movement, nor plant itself in the way of changes and reforms dictated by intelligence and piety. The admission of laymen into the General Conference and the extension of the pastoral term were not incompatible with connectionalism; nor will other modifications of government and polity compromise its spirit or weaken its power in the administration of the order of the Church. Exercising universal influence in Methodism, it shall reach its greatest glory when, dispossessed of the semblance of oppression, it shall co-operate, not only with the great departments of the Church, but with the humblest minister in his field of toil and with the most obscure lay member in the most remote parish, breathing sympathy, unity, and concord into their work, and beauty and happiness into their lives, being itself born of the Master, who came "not to be ministered unto, but to minister."