ing a new ecclesiastical body. Indeed, had the existing churches made provision for the nurture and direction of this new life which was arising in various parts of their territory, both these older churches and the revivalists' congregations might have secured a needed benefit; and separation would probably have been prevented. But no such fostering official care was offered them. On the contrary, they were set at naught, and left to their own leaders.

2

Of the general apathy of the churches of the time there can be no doubt whatever. So, in the present instance, there was the contact of a religion of observances or of indifference with a genuine, if sometimes ill regulated, religious enthusiasm-of snow with fire.

When, in the year 1800, the new society did become a separate ecclesiastical organization, under the name of The United Brethren in Christ, it was a most logical result that such men as Otterbein and Böhm, recognized as true fathers in God, should be asked to continue the supervision of the work which had grown up chiefly under their hands. Accordingly an episcopal form of government was adopted, and these two chief evangelists were elected as the first bishops of the organized evangelistic Church."

"Step by step, and without any purpose on his part to form a new and separate religious denomination, Mr. Otterbein was led onward in a course which, under the shaping hand of Providence, ultimately led to this result.

Like Mr. Wesley, the leader of the movement which gave Methodism to the world, he was disposed to cling to his mother Church; and, in fact, he never did formally separate himself, nor was he by any formal action of the coetus ever separated from the German Reformed Church." (Berger, "History of the United Brethren in Christ" (American Church Series), p. 328.)

"When it became evident that a life which was foreign to the Reformed Church was in course of development, many ministers and churches gradually withdrew from this well-meant evangelistic movement." (Dubbs, “History of the Reformed Church, German" (American Church History Series), p. 312.)

"Otterbein and Böhm traveled much, visiting various charges, and directing the ministers in their work, sending them on tours to different places as exigencies demanded. . . . When the first of the regular succession of Annual Conferences was held, that of 1800, these men, Otterbein and Böhm, were accordingly elected and fully authorized to perform in an official

The present government of the United Brethren, who have become almost wholly a Church of English-speaking people, is largely democratic. Even the delegates, both ministerial and lay, that compose the General Conference, which is the lawmaking body of the Church, are elected by the people. Women are eligible to membership in this body, and also in the regular ministry of the Church.

The ministry exists in one order only-that of the eldership. Bishops are chosen by the General Conference, and for a term of four years, subject to indefinite reëlection;1 and are not set apart to their office with any form of ordination. They preside over the Conferences, both General and Annual. Each bishop is assigned to a district consisting of the territories of several Annual Conferences-at present from six to thirteen-by a committee elected for the purpose.

The Church territory is divided among the Annual Conferences, which are composed of ministers, both itinerant and local, and lay delegates—one of the latter for each pastoral charge.

The territory of an Annual Conference is divided into districts under the supervision of Presiding Elders elected by the Conference.

The method of pastoral supply is that of the itinerancy. Pastors are appointed to their charges by a Stationing Committee, which consists of the presiding Bishop and the Presiding Elders of the preceding year, together with any that may have been elected to succeed them. The appointee has the right, in case of dissatisfaction, to appeal to the Annual Conference—a right, however, which is rarely exercised. The pastoral term, originally one year, then extended to two, then to three, is now without limitation."

A still later representative of the idea of scriptural and expedient episcopacy is The Reformed Episcopal Church, organized in 1873. "This Church recognizes and adheres to Episcopacy, not as of divine right, but as a very ancient and desirable form of church polity."

way the work they had so long done in an unofficial way." (Berger, "History of the United Brethren in Christ" (American Church History Series), D. 364.)

"Bishop Glossbrenner was elected for ten successive terms, after which, being no longer efficient, he was elected bishop emeritus, his death occurring two years after." (Berger, "History of the United Brethren," p. 365.) "Discipline of the United Brethren in Christ (1905).

"Declaration of Principles of the Reformed Episcopal Church.”

VII.

THE EPISCOPAL IDEA: AMERICAN EPISCOPAL

METHODISM.

THE idea of a scriptural and expedient episcopate has received its strongest embodiment in American Methodism. As we have seen, the patriarchal or autocratic form, which it assumed first of all in the person of Wesley himself, gave place in the British Islands, at the close of his personal administration, to a government by the Conference, with no marked episcopal features. But in America the course of development was conspicuously different. Here the Conference became supreme before the venerable founder's death, while on the other hand the episcopal office was retained with much of its original power, responsibility, and opportunity. It is this latter development which we are now, as briefly as may be, to trace.

I. THE CONNECTIONAL IDEA.

Let us think, then, of a few scattered Wesleyans in the American Colonies in the sixth decade of the eighteenth century. Among them are three local preachers-Robert Strawbridge a small farmer, Philip Embury a carpenter, and Captain Thomas Webb a battle-scarred soldier of the British army. Societies began to be formed, converts gained, "preaching houses" built or bought.

How shall these societies be governed and inter-related? Conceivably each little congregation might manage its own affairs, with no recognition of any outside authority or supervision. Meantime new congregations of like faith and order would be established, all self-governing and self-propagating, but all in more or less fraternal association with one another. This would have been the way of the Independent or the Baptist. But the Wesleyan formative idea was that of connectionalism, not that

of independency. So the American Methodists sent an urgent request to Wesley, three thousand miles away, to provide them with ministerial service. Wesley, on his part, felt the responsibility of a pastor toward "these poor sheep in the wilderness." They were exposed to false doctrine, to laxity of discipline, to many perils from which it was incumbent upon him, as far as possible, to protect them.

Not only so, but they represented an opportunity to do a larger work in the New World, to which he could not blamelessly be indifferent. The aggressive spirit of evangelism, of the Christian soldiers' league "offensive and defensive" which he would fain have formed, appealed to him. For the abiding vision of the Holy War which had caught Wesley's eye was not that of the conquest and re-conquest of a single elect Mansoul. It was that of conquering in love the rebellious multitudes of his own and other lands, even of the whole world, to the obedience of the Lord Christ who had died for their salvation. And here in the American Colonies was a continental mission field.

Accordingly a missionary volunteer, Richard Boardman, was appointed by Wesley as his "assistant," or superintendent of societies, in these Colonies.

There was but one pastoral charge, or circuit. Its name appears in the minutes of the English Conference of 1770 as "America;" and of this wide but almost wholly uncultivated field Boardman took the oversight. He was superseded, after two years, by Francis Asbury. But as the number of societies increased, other circuits were organized, and a "general assistant," Thomas Rankin, was appointed to take charge of the whole work. Afterwards, on Rankin's return to England in the beginning of the War of the Revolution, Asbury, by the choice of the preachers and the subsequent recognition of Wesley, became general assistant. He was not superseded and he never quitted the field-the man of the hour had come.

The proposed form of government was an extension to America of the polity of British Methodism. Wesley's authority must be supreme, here as there. The general assistant, as his repre

sentative, was to call the Conference together, preside over its deliberations, decide every question that might be brought before it, and make the appointments of the preachers to their fields of labor. He might be removed from office and recalled to England, and any one else or no one at all appointed in his place, at any time. And to this absolute personal government the preachers agreed for a little more than a decade.' As to the people, there was no thought of giving them any share in governmental affairs.

Now is this to be classed as a scriptural and expedient procedure? Shall evangelic church government, like Romanism, offer an example of no other individualism than that which it exemplifies by the concentration of all its powers in a single individual? Its advocates would certainly search in vain for a precedent in the New Testament. Nor could they, on any reasonable ground, plead for its recognition as a model method of government for the Church of Christ. Let it be remembered, however, that no such pleas were ever put forward in its behalf. On neither side of the Atlantic was Wesley as yet consciously building a church. He was only organizing societies for spiritual culture and the publication of the gospel, supplementary to the Church of England. Besides, the practical, rather than any theoretical, aspect of the question was that which chiefly deter

"On hearing every preacher for or against what is in debate the right of determination shall rest with him [Asbury] according to the Minutes." (Action of the Delaware Conference, 1779.)

This, it is true, was the action of an irregular body, not properly a "Conference" at all. But it seems to have fairly embodied the principle on which the Conference acted in all its sessions--excepting, of course, those of 1778, '79, '80, at which Asbury did not preside-till the regular session of the year 1784, inclusive.

"When we follow the course of events to which Wesley, from year to year, and with so much address and tact conformed himself, it is quite easy to see how and under what influence he was led so to construct his society, and so to organize its legislature, and its judicial and its administrative council, as in fact nullifies, nay, puts contempt upon, the very first principle of a true Church organization." (Isaac Taylor, "Wesley and Methodism," p.