The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules and regulations for our Church, under the following limitations and restrictions, namely.

"The written constitution, according to my conception,* is found in what are called, in our Discipline, the Restrictive Rules." But this is a mistake. On several occasions in the history of the Church, especially in the great constitutional debates of 1868, it was found that this was not only a partial view of the matter, but also a thoroughly false view. The opinion presented by Dr. S. M. Merrill (now Bishop Merrill), and ably argued by him and others in the debates on Lay Delegation in 1868, and supported at that time by the final action of that General Conference, is the best law on this subject. Dr. Merrill held, that the written constitution of the Church included those sections of the Discipline (Part II, Chapter I) which relate to the several styles of Conferences and define their functions. The constitution of the General Conference is that portion of that chapter which refers to the General Conference, and under which the first delegated General Conference was organized; the constitution of the Annual Conference is that portion of the same chapter which relates to the Annual Conference, and so on. Dr. Merrill said:

The Quarterly Conference cannot change its own constitution; the Annual Conference cannot change its own constitution; and no more can the General Conference change its own constitution. The General Conference may change the constitution of the Annual Conference because it is subordinate, and likewise of the Quarterly Conference because it is subordinate; and likewise the same power that made the General Conference may change the constitution of that body.

As this is a matter of great importance we make some quotations from Dr. Merrill's speech:

It is wonderful that, in this second century of American Methodism, there should be disagreement among us as to what part of our Discipline contains the constitution of the Church. But it is so, I have been no little surprised, here and elsewhere, to hear men of learning and ability advance the opinion, as though it were settled and established beyond question, that the only constitutional provisions in the Discipline are found in the six articles known as the Restrictive Rules. This I regard as

*Speech of John M'Clintock in General Conference of 1868.

a grand mistake, and one that is so fundamentally wrong that it ought at once to be corrected.

His argument to show that the entire section relating to the General Conference had constitutional authority was as follows:

If we have authority by a majority vote to alter this first answer, relating to membership in the General Conference, we have equal right to change the second answer-and we have been asked to do that thing-the one which tells us when the General Conference shall meet; and having this right we may stereotype the action of this Conference by refusing to have another session for fifty or a hundred years. We may, by a simple majority vote, ordain that the next session of the General Conference shall be held in 1972 instead of 1872. Does any one pretend that we have a right to do this in the face of the express provision of the constitution, which says: "The General Conference shall meet in the city of New York on the first day of May, in the year of our Lord 1812, and thenceforward on the first day of May once in four years perpetually?" But according to the assumption under consideration we may do this, and by a mere majority vote.

Again, if we can change the first and second answers to this question, we can also change the third, which provides that it shall at all times require two thirds of all the members elected to form a quorum. Is it possible that any legislative body working under a written constitution given to it by a superior authority can claim any such right as this-right to change its quorum, which has been established for it by a power above itself? Was ever such a thing heard of before?

But this is not all. If this body has the power to make the changes mentioned, it may also change the fourth answer, which tells us that a Bishop shall preside over the General Conference. If this assumption is true, we may at any time by a mere majority vote displace you, sir, Mr. President, and displace any and all these Bishops, so far as the presidency of the General Conference is concerned, and put a man from our own body into the chair to preside. Now, are we prepared to claim any such power as this? I trust not, sir; but it is clearly our right to do so if the assumption is correct that we may change any part of this section except the restrictions.

But still further, I call your attention to another fact of no little importance in this connection. It is that this provision for altering the Restrictive Rules is itself outside of the Restrictive Rules. It is not of the nature of a restriction. It is connected with the restrictions, I grant, and its provisions relate to them, and only to them, but it is outside of them; and if we have the power to change by a majority vote all outside of the Restrictive Rules, then we have the power to change this provision for change. And if we have the right to do this, these restrictions are not worth the paper on which they are written. The moment

we claim the right to change the provision for change we put the whole list of restrictions under the power of the majority, and they may do what they please.*

In harmony with the principles of Bishop Merrill's speech, lay delegation was incorporated in our Church system by the constitutional two thirds and three fourths votes. It may be claimed, therefore, that this question of what constitutes the written constitution of the Church was settled in the General Conference of 1868.

The unwritten constitution, lex non scripta, embraces those facts, obligations, and customs which are implied in the written law, and have been recognized in the history of the Church as involved in the original compact, and essential to the integrity of the system. That our episcopacy, for example, is not a third order in the ministry, jure divino, is a part of this unwritten law, for this is implied in its history and in its dependence upon the Church; but, on the other hand, it is equally a part of the unwritten constitution that the General Conference shall, by sufficiently frequent elections, maintain an efficient episcopacy in the Church, though this duty is not specifically enjoined upon them in the organic law.

We quote, on this point, from the speech of Dr. D. Curry on the occasion referred to above, when Bishop Merrill addressed the General Conference:

I agree with Brother Merrill's interpretation of the constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church. But there is more in this matter that has yet been brought before us. Behind the

words and between the lines of a constitution there is always a deeper meaning and a broader reach of sense than is found in the letter itself. The written constitution is broader, deeper, and more solid than that which is expressed, and that is precisely the point which I wish to press in this case. There is nowhere found in the Book of Discipline the declaration that you shall not change the name of our Church, and I do not believe that you will hold that this body has power to do so. There is nothing in that constitution which forbids our striking out our name and taking any other name we please, but I do not suppose, therefore, we have power to do it. There are certain things that lie back of our corporate life, and those things are the very power which gave us our existence. The constituency of the General Conference existed before the General Conference had any being, which constituency exists yet, and that is the presbytery or body of * Daily Christian Advocate, 1868, p. 98.

elders in the Methodist Episcopal Church, in which, according to our theory of government, inheres all our governmental powers.*

We now proceed to another part of our subject, namely, the interpretation of the constitution. And here we meet the two parties of strict and liberal constructionists that are found in all governments: the party that leans to centralization and the increase of executive prerogative, and the party that leans to diffused power and local self-government. These two parties have manifested themselves throughout the entire history of the Church. They were face to face in 1820 when Joshua Soule declined the episcopacy because of the vote of the Conference for an elective presiding eldership; again in 1844 when the Southern preachers supported Bishop Andrew against the vote of suspension; again in 1868, though in a somewhat different form, over the lay delegation question; and again in 1876 on an elective eldership. The last conflict of these two tendencies, and in some respects the most significant in the history of the Church, was in the General Conference of 1884 at Philadelphia.

There are five fundamental features in every Church organization, (a) the polity, (b) the creed, (c) the conditions of membership, (d) the rights and privileges of the ministry and members, and (e) the governing authority. In the Methodist Episcopal Church these are all defined in the section of the Discipline on "The General Conference," but chiefly in the Restrictive Rules of that section. The government of the Church is committed to the General Conference, subject to the limitations of its constitution. The composition and constituency of the General Conference are prescribed in the second Restrictive Rule. The polity of the Church is the episcopal polity, which fact, together with our peculiar style of episcopacy, is set forth in the third Restrictive Rule. The first Rule prescribes the creed; the fourth Rule protects "the General Rules," which define the moral discipline and conditions of membership in the Church; the fifth and sixth Rules protect the rights and privileges of the ministry and laity.

Before attempting the interpretation of these Rules, we must consider the question of the powers of the General Conference in its relations to the Church, under the terms of the

Daily Christian Advocate, 1868, p. 102.

constitution. Over this question the battle was fought in the Conferences of 1844 and 1848.

In obedience to the demands of the Southern preachers for a separation from the Church the General Conference of 1844 adopted the famous "Plan of Separation," by which they consented to the removal from the Methodist Episcopal Church of all the societies, stations, and Conferences adhering to the Church in the South by a vote of a majority of the members of said societies, stations, and Conferences, . . . provided also, that this rule shall apply only to societies, stations, and Conferences bordering on the line of division, and not to interior charges, which shall in all cases be left to the care of that Church within whose territory they are situated.*

The ministers, local and traveling, were at liberty to make choice between the two Churches, and the consent of the Annual Conferences was asked for a division of the property. By this high-handed procedure the General Conference rent the Church in sunder, in flagrant violation of that broad principle of law that a delegated body, established to promote the prosperity of the Church, has no authority to destroy it, and also of that part of the constitution which guarantees the privileges of the Church, with the right of trial and appeal, to all its members. The General Conference of 1848 reversed, so far as was practicable, the action of its predecessor in this matter, and declared the Plan of Separation "null and void." After a long and very able debate the Conference adopted the following resolutions :

1. There exists no power in the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church to pass any act which, either directly or indirectly, effectuates, authorizes, or sanctions a division in said Church.

2. It is the right of every member of the Methodist Episcopal Church to remain in said Church unless guilty of a violation of its rules; and there exists no power in the ministry, either individually or collectively, to deprive any member of said right.†

The remaining resolutions declared the action of the Conference of 1844, in separating members from the Church without trial and without their consent, to be unconstitutional and therefore void.

The following extract from the speech of Dr. D. Curry, + Ibid., p. 73.

*General Conference Journal, p. 135.