THE ARENA.

"OUR DISJOINTED EPISCOPACY."

DR. POTTS has given us in the last November Review a very clear statement of our two kinds of episcopacy and a remedy for removing what seems to him, and to many, a weakness in our Church polity. With much that he says all will agree, but there are two sides to questions of such importance. Such questions are usually discussed from an American standpoint, concluding that what is good for America must be adapted to our work in all lands. The fact, however, remains that the peoples, the methods of work, the composition of the Conferences, the necessity for supervision of work, and the general environments differ greatly in different countries, and that these different conditions almost surely call for some modifications of Methodist polity in order to meet the special demands which are now made.

It is well known that the Indian brethren almost unanimously believe in, and plead for, the continuance of the plan of missionary bishops. At their Central Conference in 1896-made up of ministerial delegates from all the Annual Conferences in southern Asia, with an equal number of lay delegates from the District and womans' Conferences-they unanimously asked that the plan that gave India missionary episcopacy might not be changed, and urged that an additional bishop be appointed to make their special supervision more efficient. At their late Conference with two general superintendents, one missionary bishop, and a representative of the managers of the Missionary Society on the platform-they confirmed their former position with a practically unanimous vote. All of the three bishops and the representative of the board spoke by special invitation on the question, and on one point all were agreed, that India must have more episcopal supervision by men resident in India. In the same report this Central Conference officially welcomed the general superintendents to India, believing that there could be no conflict between the special and the general supervision. Each Annual Conference also heartily approved the plan of the visits of the general superintendents, and the people in every place gave Bishop Foss a very sincere welcome. There is no word of opposition to this plan in India.

These missionaries, Hindustani ministers, and laymen-including a goodly number of elect women of this Central Conference-are all experienced in the India work, and their success shows that they must have some practical wisdom for such services. Hence it is evident that they must have strong reasons for their action, or such a body-made up of ministers and laymen, Americans, Europeans, Eurasians, and Hindustani from every part of southern Asia-could not be unanimous on

such a question as this. They should therefore be patiently and freely heard for their work's sake.

Their reasons grow out of the peculiarity of their methods, the rapid spread of their work, and their necessary environments in a heathen land. We are in a country full of people who are generally idolaters, with the views of truthfulness, of honesty, and of morality in general that idolaters usually have. The idea that the religicus man must be a moral man has not entered . their creed. We are here to save these people and build them into the Church of Christ. One of the first lessons we have learned is that Americans can never reach and save these masses; and hence our work must be to save and train India's sons and daughters, to set in motion workers, methods, and institutions, and to establish an Indian Church for saving India. We came as Methodists, and hence naturally commenced our work according to Methodist usages. We soon had converts, some were called to preach, and the question at once arose, "Shall we receive these into our Annual Conference?" The discussion reached the home papers, and one well-known writer gave us a note of warning, saying that by taking these men so lately from idolatry into our Annual Conference we were sowing dragons' teeth for our future reaping. The missionaries on the field, however, were convinced that some of the wisest and best of these preachers should have a place in our Annual Conference, with equal rights with ourselves, and that only such should be received. The others were given exhorters' licenses or local preachers' licenses, according to their ability and experience. A four years' course of study was arranged for the exhorters and another for the local preachers. When an exhorter had passed his four years' course and had given a good record of work, he could be licensed as a local preacher; and when his four years' course of study was passed as a local preacher he could enter the Annual Conference if he proved to be the kind of man needed in that body. Many workers never reach the Annual Conference. This body must be kept intelligent and strong, religiously and morally. Hence the graduate of our theological seminary even may not enter this Conference until he has been tested four years in the work.

From the above facts it will be evident that the very large portion of our regular workers are not in the Annual Conferences. Our work in the entire field has over 2,100 male workers, and only 222 are in the Annual Conference. The necessity, therefore, for having a body for all of these men where they could discuss their work, hold their examinations, and receive their appointments led to the formation of the "District Conference." This was organized and worked in India several years before it was authorized by the General Conference, and when authorized it was done on a memorial from India. These Conferences include all the male workers, and must naturally have a stronger influence on forming methods of work, on removing old customs, and on the building up of the native Church than any other Conference can have. One

District Conference, as an example, has 242 members, with an American presiding elder. There are four other missionaries in the District, three of whom are chiefly engaged in educational work, and twenty-five native members of the Annual Conference. All others who are regular workers are exhorters and local preachers, working under the presiding elder. He appoints them-with counsel, of course-he removes them, fixes their salaries, and directs their work. Hence this large Conference will naturally, almost necessarily, be guided by the will of the presiding elder. Within this district there are twenty circuits, and 112 subcircuits, each under a pastor, working in 1,222 villages in which 13,773 Christians reside. One more example: Over near Nepaul is a very large district under an excellent Hindustani presiding elder. There is no missionary in the entire field. This presiding elder, under the direction of the finance committee, administers the finances, fixes salaries, pays the workers, appoints and changes men, and presides at the District Conference, including in its field 2,000,000 people, which will, no doubt, in the near future become an Annual Conference. These are the Conferences that are near the people and have such a great power in developing their lives, in molding methods of work, and in training the workers. If there are any Conferences in the Methodist connection that require the presence of a bishop who has gained broad experience in the work and who can give careful supervision to the teachings, the methods, and the general development of the Church, are not these the Conferences that need it most? Is it wise, is it safe to leave so great responsibility, financial and religious, upon a presiding elder?

A gentleman of great experience, after looking into our plans of work, remarked that he fully believed in our plans-in fact, he saw no other way by which with our limited means we could carry on this extensive work-and that we would be compelled to increase the number of our native presiding elders and put more and more responsibility upon the Hindustani brethren, but that, if we continued to do this, it was as clear as daylight that we must give all this work careful and efficient supervision. There are now in southern Asia, in the field under the episcopal care of Bishop Thoburn, twenty-nine District Conferences, five Annual Conferences, and one Mission Conference-making a total of thirty-five Conferences and over 2,100 male workers with 110,000 converts, over which a bishop should have supervision. It is too evident to need discussion that one bishop, even with the aid given by the general superintendents, cannot possibly give to such an extended field the supervision thus demanded.

It has been asked with great force, "Why should a District Conference in India have a bishop to preside over it any more than a District Conference in America?" The answer is found in the difference in the make-up of the Conferences. There are no such Conferences in America. In India these are the Conferences of the mass of the workers that lay the foundations for our Church and fashion the superstructure.

Another, acknowledging the great need of supervision, asks, "Why not revive the old plan of superintendents of missions?" Such a plan would not meet the demand in ordaining men, making transfers to meet emergencies, and to perform other necessary duties. Besides, it has no proper place in Methodist economy, and has never worked without friction, and never can. One presiding elder as superintendent of another presiding elder would work no better in India than it would in America. Our Methodist episcopacy was first ordained for special supervision like what we need in India. The Church in America has perhaps outgrown this special phase of the work of a bishop, but the Church in India needs to-day what the Church in America needed in the beginning-authoritative, special, careful supervision, with sufficient superintendents to make the work really effective.

Bishop Foss while in India clearly saw and freely spoke of this need for more episcopal supervision, and in his episcopal address, read at the opening of the Central Conference, he says: "While the results already realized are a rich fruitage of labors which preceded them and an inspiration for the workers who are the burden-bearers of the day, they are also an earnest of larger ingatherings which must come in multiplied millions before India will have realized her redemption. Standing as we do between the exceptional successes of the past and the limitless opportunities of the immediate future, there is no question demanding our consideration of greater gravity than what modifications of our economy may be necesaary to provide for the careful supervision of the native agency needed to furnish instruction and guidance for the multitudes willing to accept the Gospel." In closing his address he says: "One important action taken by the Central India Conference at its last session furnishes clear indication of your sense of the manifest need of more episcopal supervision. I refer, of course, to the request then made for the election of an additional missionary bishop. The notable progress secured since that time and the very great, I may even say startling, development of the manifest possibility of far more rapid progress in the near future render that need still more urgent. There is no one of the bishops of our Church whose responsibilities are so grave and whose duties of supervision, in view of the swift developments sure to come in southern Asia, are of such vast and far-reaching importance as those of your resident bishop. The last General Conference gave earnest consideration to the question of the increase of episcopal supervision necessary in this immense territory, and thought it wise to attempt to supply that need by a method other than that which you had suggested. Few questions can engage the attention of the next General Conference which will require greater wisdom than this, and the right solution of which will be fraught with more important results for the future of Methodism, not only in southern Asia, but also, as a precedent, in other mission fields and possibly even in America. I know you will join me in the fervent prayer that He who raised up Methodism and has guided 53-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. XIV.

its course from the beginning till now will give wisdom for this emergency." The native agencies referred to by Bishop Foss we must have, and they must increase. It is our only way of carrying forward this work, and these must have that "careful supervision" which is regarded by the bishop as urgent.

This Central Conference over which Bishops Foss and Thoburn jointly presided placed on record their report on episcopacy published in the "Arena" department of the May Review, which expresses the settled conviction of that body. Evidently the conviction is deep and strong in the minds of all who have become interested in our work that more careful supervision is needed, and that by resident bishops, and that the Indian brethren believe they can secure this end with greater efficiency through missionary bishops, with official visits from the general superintendents, than through any other plan.

But, it is asked, "Could not Bishop Thoburn and could not other men who would be chosen as missionary bishops for India do just as good work as general superintendents?" They reply is easy. Bishop Thoburn could not have been elected as general superintendent under the Discipline. India delegates tried through two General Conferences for this and failed, and finally accepted what they could get, which was not what they asked. Should India select another man, or two men, as it selected Bishop Thoburn-men who could give it the special efficient supervision demanded in all these districts-these men could not be elected as general superintendents under the present law of the Church, with the prospect that should their health fail at any time they would return to America and take their places regularly on the board of bishops. The bishop for Africa could not have been so elected. To elect men as general superintendents who would not be so elected except for their fitness for the work of one special field would under our present law be a measure so evidently unwise that no General Conference will ever make such an election. But to refuse a country like India the supervision demanded by the exigencies of the work, because the men fitted for this work are not the men who would naturally be selected for general superintendents, is also a measure so unwise that we do not believe another General Conference will refuse it. Dr. Potts's plan of electing the special superintendents as general superintendents and of electing "any other experienced missionaries to the same office when the exigencies of the work require it" could only be carried out under some law that would strictly and permanently limit the fields of these missionaries. No General Conference will allow men who have been in a foreign field all their lives to return to America and fill places on the board of bishops there. The plan is neither wise nor workable, either for America or for India, nor would it make our episcopacy less "disjointed" to have general superintendents who could exercise their authority only in a special field.

Why should we not then acknowledge the fact that our churches in