The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-04-29

that. the ohurehfwould ~ so far become pro-
vinciai Nevertheless, there are weghty rea-
sons WHY this should be done csptcially IN
the case Of the editors a notable reason for
this would be the eliminating from the gen
cral conference Of that disturbance OF the
deliherative poise which aiweys results from
30 many elections. During the last luadren
mum all but two of the official Aoyocates
have been making losses instead OF prohts.
~ the matter OF sinking sn average OF s-9,Vv'
year 10 being looked into pretty sharply,
even though possibly the system be more
70 blame than the men. vet publishing agents
ana editors are being reminded that they are
cmployed and nad by the church to nut
their whols dime aud energy into the work
assigned them and not into lecturinR ana
such like for I'm additional consideration. IL
is altogethsr possible that the situation may
eNtn teopardfzc the reelection OF come oi
these gentlemen
In the last part Of the last century James
o'Keiy Of Virginia led of the hrst seces-
sion from fine Methodist Episcopal church
on the question OF the election Of presiding
elders In 1873 the Methodist Protestant
church was organized. partly on the same
issue. Up 10 this day the rrteiding elders
continue 10 be nfpoined by the bishops. pnt
AGAIN. AMI again the question comes IN. It's
tcnarkahlc vitality indicates that there "
great force in the proposition. This wear the
Baltimore conference through three days
cehate on this question. finally voting IN
IL. n
favor OF II 10 the general conference. so.
after 100 years debate and strenuous opposi-
ton. this question will be no again. but IN
lust what form can not now be stated. ~
NAV be an outright election by tho annual
conferences, or II may be merely nomi-
nation by the annual conference to be CON
hrmod bv the bishops or Vt may be
nomination bS the bishops. to be conhrmel
by tho conference.
Certain episcopal appointments of presid-
ing elders within the last few qundrennums
have forced again upon the church tho dis
cussion of this question. for it is quite GER
tain that men have been appointed by the
bishops who never could have commanded
tho vote Of their conferences Whenever in
order to show his superior wisdom author
itv bishop refuses. or forestals the counsel
Of his authorized advisors In the selection
OF presiding elder or when for similar
reasons. he refuses TO currers an admitted
mistake that has already been made. in
every such case the bishop not only seri-
ouslg damages the interests OF the church
but he also Fits with a heavy tlow, the
present episcopal prprogatiye That when
makes tolerable the hardships of the timer
ancy and of the present mode of ministerial
supply namely ty absolute episcopal ap-
pontment is the sublime confidence of the
disuterestedness and the wisdom of the
bishops. Hence the mischiefness of any
act that tends 10 shake that confidence. 1t
10 doubtful whether, at TINS time. the sting
OF the unwise administration Of some bishops
has been felt sufficiently widely and sharply
to take from the episcopacv the power to
Select and apnoint the presiding elders. But
the question Is aEitating the church. and II
unwsdom in this matter continues. IL Is very
liktlv that in a short time something quite
radical and unwise may be expected. POSI-
bly, 1t might give, relief il these matters were
brought before the COMMITTEES on the epis-
copacy and if not then corrected. the gem
cral conference might make non effective
some who ara not yet superannuated,
Another important question that will come