Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1883-09-12
lBy Request
Removal of the Rule Of Limitation,
BY REV. D. A. WHEDON, d. d.

Let us rid ourselves at the outs ct q
some of the misconceptions that uni or tu
nately for its fair consideration hay
gathered around this question.
l. AS to the relation of the rule 10 tb
constitution of the church. In his wei
known Quarterly ReUiew article DR.. Il. O
Haven used this remarkable Ian suaye
Strike out these words (namely, tbos
.ppoint) and the itinerancy absolutely ha
no constitutional regulation whatever
There is no compulsory itinerancy left :.
If this means anything, it is that tn
regulation" is in the constitution; for !
it meant rule in accordance with HI
constitution, the statement would b.
untrue, since the rule empowering tn,
bishops to appoint would still rerain
Yet even the astute DR.. Buckley endorse.
him, and the genial DR.. George, quotin.
''the constitutional term' approvingly
Ills into the same error They all thre,
make he rule Of limitation part OF th,
constitution (the general rules nd restrict
i've rules taken togeher.) whereas it il
simply sta ute amendable or re vocable a
pleasure by the general conference. Th,
constitution simply protects the power o
the bishops to fix the appoinlme nis.
9. As to the itineracy. When in th,
general conference of 1861 resolution
was offered instru ting com millee /,
consid,r the expediency of the removal o
the rule Of Limitation. Dr. & ,iswplI
shout' d as the vote TO table was belns
aiken: 1T is a movement to strike
d, alh blow al the tineracyH And so the
question went down; and vet hese
nine'ee intervening years of experience
and thought have taught thousands WHO
love the tineracy that the measure il
ests of the church. 1t can be neither
shouted down nor ridiculed down; if i
can pe argued down, let it he done.
Precisely what was DR.. Griswold's view
of the iiineracy we do not know. ID.
Haven seems to have held it to bt
identical with the rule of limitation. The
popular understanding is frequent
moving under episcopal direction. Bu
what is its meaning as interpreted by the
history of the churchP Simply this: it is
a system of appointment year by year o
pastors to chul ches by a third parry tc
whom both ministers and people have
entrusted that power. Any limiting o
that power is limiting of the itineracy
So Asbury regarded it. A removal of the
limit strengthens that power, an d SO, con
trary to DR.. Havun's view, strengthens the
itineracy.
3. As to settled pastorate. 1t is said
that the removal of the rule will work d
settled pastorate. In the nature of things
this is impossible. In such a pastorate the
arrangement at the outset provides for
permanency, with no question, as year
is closing, of the continuance of the the
relation. 1t goes on as a matter of course.
But under the Methodist system pastor
is appointed for only one gear at q time
and rs the ear closes the question of his
continuance inevitably comes up. He
may remain u second year, or third Or
even fifth, as some advocates of extern
ston desire, and so be in a very harmless
sense permanent pastor, that is, so long
as he stays; but only by a misuse OF
episcopal power can he be appointed for
more than single year at time. 1t
would be an infraction of the itneracy
which is worthy of the attention of those
lovers of it who regard themselves as
appointed for the term of three years and
feel apprehensive of the results to the
itineracv and themselves of either the
extension to five years or the removal of
the limit.
That there are objections to theremoval
of the limit and equally to extension is
conceded. There are always objections to
suggested changes, and wise conserva-
tism always finds them and weighs them
But, with what has been said above, most
of them may be soon dismissed. 1t is
said, for instance, that some exhaust their
usefulness in the legal term. Very likely
and they should move; but some have
but fairly begun it, and these should stay
Then thare is the dd honlinen1 argument
reminding us that we may not ourselves
be numbered with the favored few, as if
personal considerations were the highest
motive for honest men. There is also the
dd cdptdndunl argument which sefishiy
appeals to the ambition Of young minis
ters for the chief appointments, the sole
effect of which upon noble souls can be
but to disgust them. Then comes the
point of honor" argument on which
many now stay three years when their
work is earlier done, which is really an
argument for return TO the true timer.
acy, by an appointment for single year.
WtlgUll6SL Vi itll anu IuOSI us
well, is the alleged episcopal feebleness,
which will oe unable to move without
friction minister who ought to be moved.
The worn and weary Asbu'y who was
intensely devoted TO frequent moving, i,
summoned from his grave as a witness
for times and conditions as far as the
poles from his own, AMI a pleasant saying
OF Bishop James, the very embodiment OF
will, is as graveIy cited as if it were
decision on the bench. Our ministers and
people are not the disloyal set tnat is
implied; and our bishops have never yet
shown that timidty of spirit and weakness
of will that such an objection supposes.
Not one of them, if they may be judged OF
from forty years acquaintance. would
for momr1t hesitate to send half con-
terence across the continent if he believed
it necessary for the good of the church,
and yet we are called trembingly 10 gaze
upon him standing awe struck and pale
before some refractory minister whose
time 10 go is fully come! Such bishop
would manitestly be unit for his place
1t is admitted that there are exception.
al cases" in which the rule works iniuri-
ously. There are, in fact, so many of
them that they constitute large class.
Side by side stand Methodist and, say,
Presbyterian church, with pastors ofequal
ability and devotion, and both doing
grand work. There is no reason why the
Methodist should leave, which does not
apply to his brother, except that cast
iron rule turns him out, while the neigh
boring church would not surrender their
pastor if you would pay the salary of his
successor. He remains, and, steadily
carrying on his work, adds strength to
strength. The Methodist leaves and his
successor comes. He loses time and
strength in learning his new field. He
vainly tries to adjust himself to his new
relations and never is able to gather up
the thread which his predecessor laid
down. His pastorate is not success, and
the church loses vigor and heart and
waits in patience for the term to expire.
So it has been again and again.
Cities and towns are not few where
Methodism was once the strongest and is
now among the weaker denominations.
the explanation of which is to be found in
our frequent pastoral changes. What is
proposed is to examine that successful
brothers. work annually and let him stay