home, though they may deprive us of the warm and happy greetings of other days.

Still, however, we admit these great occasions are import ant, and we are happy to know that in some parts they are maintained. They exert an excellent influence in counter acting our tendency to localism, and create a sympathy between adjoining societies, both pleasant and profitable. Besides, they have a good appearance, which strengthens our influence in community.

But we are wandering from the point. Our object is to show the importance of the episcopacy, aided by the presiding eldership, to the efficiency, stability, and perpetuity of the itinerant system. It seems to have been contrived and endowed with special reference to it. Less power would not have answered the purpose-more, might have been dangerous. The happy medium seems to have been discovered. Preachers now entering the itinerancy, surrender the abstract right of choosing their own places of labor, and submit to the appointment of the bishops. They do it voluntarily-nobly. Thus devoting themselves to the system, they are bound by their own choice to conform to its regulations, and occupy such fields as are assigned them. They are not at liberty to select for themselves, or enter into any negotiations with the people, with a view to obtain a particular appointment. This is at variance with the system, and is dangerous to its existence. Yet it is perfectly consistent for them to represent their situation to the bishops, and "ask what they will." The only difficulty about this practice is, brethren are liable to be niore emphatic than is suitable, and if their wishes are not gratified, to be offended and complain. They do not consider that other preachers have claims, or that the wishes of the

people are to be consulted as well as their own. They view the subject in one aspect only, and thus are deceived. If in imagination they would exchange places with the bishop a few moments, they might conceive many reasons why they should not be indulged.

On the other hand, the people coming into the church surrender the right of choosing their own preachers, and engage to take their chance with others. They accordingly secure the use of their pulpits to the ministers of the church duly appointed, reserving the right of representation and petition, similar to that enjoyed by the preachers in regard to their appointments. As it is improper for the preachers to enter into any negotiations with them, so the least attempt on their part to negotiate with the preachers, contrary to the stipulations of the system, is a breach of solemn contract. It is clandestinely attempting to exercise a right they have relinquished openly, and may be characterized as “pious fraud.”

Our itinerant system is, therefore, one of compromise, involving a mutual sacrifice for a general good, and vesting the executive or motive power in our bishops. That it is powerfully effective will not be denied. We believe it is equally safe. But take away the executive power from our bishops, the rights now surrendered revert to their original owners, our system is dissolved, and our appointments, like our breakfasts, become a matter of "truck and dicker.”

If any are disposed to deny this, we refer them to history. What has become of Lady Hundingdon's itinerancy? How have seceders prospered in renouncing the "terrible power of episcopacy," and standing upon abstract rights? A father and a leader in the experiment has just called to consult about his return to the direction of that power; and ere the words we are writing will see the light, that brother will

probably be restored to the itinerant ranks. He has learned by experiment that an efficient itinerancy cannot co-exist with Congregationalism that nothing short of moral sovereignty in the appointing power is equal to the undertaking, and, therefore, he submits to it again for conscience sake. What he has learned by experience, we have long since been convinced of by other means; and never witness any serious attempts to remodel our episcopacy, either in its principles or subordinate agencies, without trembling for the result.

CHAPTER V.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE M. E. CHURCH WELL BALANCED.

ITS DANGERS AND SECURITIES.

THE principal objections urged against our system converge to this one point, viz., the power of the ministry. It is assumed that it is too great, and, therefore, dangerous to the rights and liberties of the people. A brief consideration of this general charge is essential to our object. Preliminary, however, to the main question, we beg leave to remind the reader,

1. That we do not pretend that our system is absolutely perfect; nor, if it were so, that it would never fail of securing the proper objects of government; since so much imperfection of knowledge and judgment attach to its administrators, to say nothing of its subjects. Melancholy results have sometimes occurred under the safest and best of systems.

2. That this power, whatever it be, has settled upon the ministry providentially, and by a sort of necessity, rather than by the ambition and self-seeking of its incumbents. God first raised up a Wesley, and endowed him with peculiar grace. A few individuals, being awakened, came to him for advice, and submitted themselves to his direction. Here his power commenced. He could do no less than to suggest certain rules for them to observe, such as he deemed neces sary to secure the great object of their pursuit. Nor was it reasonable for him to continue the relation of spiritual guide

to them, if they would not yield to his advice. As the num ber multiplied, and new difficulties arose, his responsibility increased, and further advices and rules became necessary, which he, as the teacher and guide of the flock, must make. When his charge became too great for him to supervise alone, and Providence raised up other men of his own spirit, he employed them to aid him, and gave them the part of his own authority their new duties required. Here was the beginning of their power. Some of his children, emigrating to this country, and commencing religious operations, as we have shown, solicited the extension of his episcopal and fatherly watch-care to them, also, which he could not refuse. But how should he guide and govern them, but by the same means he had adopted at home? Hence the introduction of his minutes, which constituted our discipline at the first, and the preachers he sent to act for him, and, therefore, clothed with his authority, to do his work, and report to him. Hence, also, his ordination of Dr. Coke, and the arrange. ments for an episcopal form of government, and the organi zation of the societies into a church. There was no plan ning, no preconcert, no "stealing the march of the people," -no "jesuitical contrivance to establish another hierarchy," nothing of the kind. Things came along as they were needed. The want was first seen, and the supply was fitted to it. And thus it has been through our whole history, and none have been better pleased with the little additions and subtractions which have occurred from time to time, than the people themselves; and we believe the day has not yet dawned when they would not have been deeply afflicted by a radical revolution, though it Lad imposed on them twice their present authority in the government. For proof of this, we refer to the two incon testable facts of history, viz., 1. That every effort that has