tions ensued, and four days later the question was again resumed by motions of George, Roszel, Soule, Pickering, and Lee. On the 24th the report of the committee was substantially adopted, "almost unanimously."

The words "almost unanimously" are taken from Bangs's History. The report of the Committee did not come before the Conference again, but in a fragmentary way most of its provisions were adopted. The third Restrictive Rule was adopted as presented in the report (Journal, p. 88).

From these facts it is concluded that the Conference, in adopting the third Rule after the defeat of Cooper's resolution, purposed to commit, and did actually commit, the office of choosing presiding elders inalienably and exclusively to the Bishops under the constitution. This is the pièce de résistance of those who take that view of the case, and that there is force in the reasoning no candid person will doubt. But the argument is not as conclusive as at first blush it seems to be. There are other facts to be considered. That Cooper, when on May 16 he made his motion to elect elders by the Annual Conferences, understood this to be the force of the third Rule may be conceded, and that others in the Conference agreed with him is quite probable, but it is by no means certain that all who finally, on May 24, voted for that rule, put Cooper's construc tion on it.

During those eight days great excitement and much controversy had reigned. It is a significant fact that the man who brought forward and moved the Rule on May 24, Jesse Lee, was one of the stanchest supporters of an elective eldership-"the advocate of an elective presiding eldership from first to last, and all the time." It is also a significant fact that Ezekiel Cooper, one of the foremost men of Methodism, from whose action this argument is drawn, was not deterred by the Rule from subsequent efforts to carry an elective eldership, for we find him in the Conference of 1820 in the leadership of the movement. And it is equally significant that the rule was adopted "almost unanimously," as Bangs informs us. Are we bound to conclude that the large minority who favored an elective eldership, including such men as Bangs, Ostrander, Lee, and Hedding, had concluded to surrender their judgments and hopes, and had consented to bury them under the third

Restrictive Rule, or may we believe that they put a different construction on the Rule from the one which lay in the mind of Soule and M'Kendree? They were not only clear-minded but very conscientious men; and if we find them, after the adoption of the Rule, still persisting in their efforts to establish an elective eldership by authority of the delegated Conference, we are bound to come to the conclusion that they did not understand the Rule in that way. And this is precisely what we find to have been the case. They did not relinquish their efforts for an elective eldership, but continued them with unrelenting energy, and came within three votes of being successful in the next General Conference.

In the Conference of 1812 Laban Clark, who favored an elective eldership, brought the question up under a resolution. On the second day of the debate Nicholas Snethen "moved the following amendment:"

Provided, always, that the Bishops shall have the power to nominate them; and if the first nomination is not ratified by a majority of the Annual Conference, the Bishop shall proceed to nominate till a choice is made; and in all cases each nomination shall be determined separately, by ballot, without debate.

A

The amendment was lost: ayes, 39; nays, 43. On the after noon of the same day the vote was taken on the original motion of Laban Clark; this also was lost: ayes, 42; nays, 45. change of two votes would have carried the measure. Of the 90 men who composed that Conference of 1812, at least 44 of them had been members of the Conference of 1808, and among those 44 were the following eminent men, all of whom believed that an elective eldership was not forbidden by the third Restrictive Rule: Enoch George, Elijah Hedding, Freeborn Garrettson, Jesse Lee, Nathan Bangs, Asa Shinn, Daniel Ostrander, Laban Clark, and Stephen G. Roszel. Those men had voted on the constitution, and they were as competent to comprehend the force of the Restrictive Rules as were Joshua Soule and William M'Kendree. It is impossible to believe that such men as these would have persisted in an attempt to carry a measure which was unconstitutional, or which was even of doubtful constitutionality. Every one of the thirty-three delegates from the New York, Philadelphia, and Genesee Conferences favored the measure; and to the above list of eminent men must be added

the names of other distinguished leaders of the early Church who not only believed that an elective eldership was constitutional, but who also labored to secure it to the Church. Among these was that "chief ornament and light of our episcopacy," John Emory, who must be judged competent to handle a constitutional question; also Nicholas Snethen, who according to good authority (M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopædia, Snethen) was the author of the plan of the delegated Conference, and may therefore be supposed to understand it; also Beverly Waugh, Timothy Merritt, George Peck, Samuel Merwin, Joshua Wells, William Capers, George Pickering, Thomas Ware, William Phoebus, and Aaron Hunt. Against the united testimony of those distinguished fathers of our Church no amount of technical reasoning will avail, while dissertations on the significance of the word "plan" in the Rule must be equally inconclusive. All that is really proved by the defeat of Cooper's resolution in the Conference of 1808 is, that the Conference was not prepared to transfer the power of choosing elders from the Bishops to the Annual Conferences; for if we go beyond this, and affirm that all who voted for the third Restrictive Rule purposed to commit, and did deliberately vote to commit, by organic law, the appointment of presiding elders to the Bishops, we reflect upon the honor and slander the memory of many of the brightest names of Methodism. It will not do to say that Joshua Soule drew up the third Rule, and knew his own purpose in framing it. Those other men were his peers, and as original actors in adopting the constitution they were not bound to take their law from a fellow member. And if it be urged that M'Kendree and Soule were on the Committee of Fourteen in 1808, who drafted the Constitution, the reply is, that Cooper, Lee, and Roszel, were also on that committee.

Besides, if it be said that the defeat of Cooper's resolution, on 16th May, compels us to construe the third Restrictive Rule so as to protect the right of the Bishops to choose the elders, it is sufficient to reply that the adverse vote on adopting the constitution, taken immediately after, showed that the Conference would not accept such a construction, and that the friends of an elective eldership were able to defeat its adoption if that were the only interpretation which could be given to the Rule. But during the eight days tha intervened between the

adverse vote and the enacting vote they saw that their cause was in no way forestalled by the Rule, and that the question would lie with the Conference as it had always done. This view of the case is demanded by the fact that the friends of an elective eldership led in the adoption of the Rule, and also that they advocated their cause in later Conferences.

Dr. Bangs tells us that

after it was decided that the presiding elders should continue to be appointed as heretofore by the Bishops, on Wednesday, 18th, the consideration of the report was resumed, and after debate the entire report was rejected by a majority of seven votes.*

We have already quoted Bangs to the effect that the report on May 24th was adopted "almost unanimously;" on page 233 he employs the word "unanimity," in describing the vote. These terms compel the belief that but few votes were cast against the resolutions when they were adopted. We are specific and particular on this point, for the nucleus of this whole controversy of constitutionality lies just here, namely, in the construction which the men who voted for the third Rule put upon their own act. The intention of the men who voted for the Rule is the intention of the Rule. And we find, as matter of fact, that a friend of an elective eldership moved its adoption; and in a Conference where 52 out of 125 were pronounced friends of an elective eldership only a few votes were cast against it; and, indeed, there is no proof that any friend of the proposed change voted against it.

But the matter did not end with the defeat of 1812. The friends of an elective eldership resumed their efforts in 1816, and during six days, through eight sittings, the battle was fought. The aggressive leaders in this Conference were S. Merwin, N. Bangs, D. Ostrander, and J. Emory.

Surely these were not men to prosecute an unconstitutional measure. Two of them were members of the Conference of 1808, and all of them were masters in the history and law of the Church. At this Conference Enoch George, a friend of the measure, was chosen Bishop. For the resolutions proposed, see Journal, pages 135, 140. The votes were 42 for, 60 against; and 38 for, 63 against.

The battle which was lost in 1816 was resumed and won in * History, vol. ii, p. 231.

1820. On the 15th of May, T. Merritt and B. Waugh introduced the following:

Moved, that the answer "by the Bishops" in the fifth section of the Discipline be stricken out, and the following answer substituted: "By the Annual Conferences."

This was the identical resolution which Cooper proposed in 1808. It is plain that Bishop Waugh did not think that the matter had been settled. On the 17th Cooper and Emory submitted the following:

Resolved, That the Bishop, or the president of each Annual Conference, shall ascertain the number of presiding elders wanted, and shall nominate three times the number, out of which nominations the Conference shall, without debate, elect by ballot the presiding elders.

Two days later a committee was appointed, on motion of N. Bangs and Wm. Capers, to prepare a plan "that would conciliate the wishes of the brethren upon the subject." The committee was ordered, as follows: Cooper, Roszel Bangs, J. Wells, Emory, and Capers. The Journal gives the following history of the case (page 221): •

Leave was asked by the chairman of the committee, Brother Cooper, appointed yesterday to confer with the Bishops on the subject relating to the election of presiding elders, to report. Leave being given, he made the following:

The committee appointed to confer with the Bishops on a plan to conciliate the wishes of the brethren on the subject of choosing presiding elders, recommend to the Conference the adoption of the following resolutions, to be inserted in their proper place in our Discipline:

Resolved, 1, That whenever, in any Annual Conference, there shall be a vacancy or vacancies in the office of presiding elder, in consequence of his period of service of four years having expired, or the Bishop wishing to remove any presiding elder, or by death, resignation, or otherwise, the Bishop or president of the Conference, having ascertained the number wanted from any of these canses, shall nominate three times the number, out of which the Conference shall elect by ballot, without debate, the number wanted: provided, when there is more than one wanted not more than three at a time shall be nominated, nor more than one at a time elected: provided, also, that in case of any vacancy or vacancies in the office of presiding elder in the interval of any Annual Conference, the Bishop shall have authority to fill the said vacancy or vacancies until the ensuing Annual Conference. Resolved, 2, That the presiding elders be, and hereby are, made