America, from 1784 to 1804, his episcopal character was never impeached, nor was he for a single day disqualified for the performance of any episcopal duty: he presided in every general assembly of the preachers from the Christmas Conference of 1784 to the General Conference of 1804, inclusive; and in the Annual Conferences where he was present exercised his episcopal functions of presidency and ordination.

2. Bishop Coke's affairs came under review in General Conferences of the original unlimited and supreme order only, working under no constitution, and confessedly competent to the entire abolition of both the doctrines and the government of the Church; consequently, had such a General Conference deprived Bishop Coke, even temporarily, of his episcopal character or functions, when he was present on the ground to exercise them-which no Conference ever did -no precedent or parallel would be thereby created with regard to the prerogatives of a General Conference exercising delegated and constitutionally limited powers.

3. Bishop Coke was never more than a visitor to America. His relations to Ecumenical Methodism were unique, and have had no parallel, at the time, before, or since. Almost all, if not all, of the actions of General Conferences in his case were taken on his own initiative, and concerning questions which he himself raised, growing out of his relations to both Methodisms. Most of these questions would have been settled tacitly and by common consent in a manner to meet his approval, as many of them were by express action, had not the Bishop's imprudence hurried him into formal demands at inopportune times, when his relations were complicated with other questions before the Conference, such as the election and powers of new bishops, etc.

4. From the beginning of General Conferences in 1792, the law has been that a bishop might cease from traveling by the consent of the General Conference. Coke's circumstances were such that it was simply impossible for him to travel at large as Asbury did. His service could not be

continuous. The successive permissions given to him, therefore, to render a limited service, with which the Conference and the Connection would be content, were legally of the nature of "consent by the General Conference" for a bishop to cease from traveling at large among the people." * The action is thus of a piece with that which takes place at nearly every General Conference when our aged and worn out bishops make formal application for permission to cease from traveling. The law has never made sickness and infirmity the sole ground upon which this permission may be granted. In Coke's case, it was given on the ground of necessary foreign residence. In every case, the General Conference is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the ground.

5. Notwithstanding the frequent imprudences of Bishop Coke, and the uncertainties which attached to our episcopacy and the whole government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, until the adoption of the Constitution of 1808, the successive General Conferences, of unlimited powers, treated Bishop Coke, not with severity, but with the utmost kindness and consideration, frequently seeking to obtain or to retain his permanent services, which, with the best intentions, he was never able to give. Finally, when satisfied after repeated experiment that such continuous service could not be rendered by Bishop Coke in America, notwithstanding his willing engagements to that end, and when his standing was greatly prejudiced and complicated by the discovery of his ill-advised and most unfortunate negotiations with Dr. White, the General Conference respectfully and affectionately consented to Bishop Coke's foreign residence and service, adding an official proviso, which contemplated the contingency of his recall to episcopal duty and station in America.

With regard to slavery, on motion of Roszel and Ware, it was determined "that the first two paragraphs of the section on slavery be retained in our Discipline; and that the General Conference authorize each Annual Conference to form

*Discipline of 1792.

66

their own regulations relative to buying and selling slaves." This action was taken apparently without debate or division. Thus all that related to slaveholding among private members was struck out, and the action recorded above became paragraph 3. It was also moved from the chair," that is, by Bishop Asbury, "that there be one thousand forms of Discipline prepared for the use of the South Carolina Conference, in which the section and rule on slavery be left out," and this motion, too, was carried, as it seems, unanimously and without debate.† Dictated by the experience and prudence of Bishop Asbury, though this measure was,

Here were two codes of Discipline, put forth as law by the same ecclesiastical legislature, and intended to operate for the promotion of unity and uniformity among the same people! . In 1808 the Discipline itself

was expurgated [of both the " general rule" and the section of statutory law]; and, by special enactment, exempted from conveying the laws of the Church to a select circle of its members. Doubtless there was benevolence intended by this measure; but it presents such an anomaly in legislation, as tempts us to blush at every aspect in which it presents the legislative acumen of our fathers. Was it from this feeling, or from unwillingness to circulate this great disparaging fact of their pro-slavery affinities after all, that Dr. Bangs omits all reference to the subject in his account of the General Conference of 1808?

This dangerous and unjustifiable act of 1808 was one of the entering wedges that ultimately split the Church in twain. Thursday afternoon, May 26, 1808, adjournment without a day was reached: thus ended the Fifth and last unlimited and supreme Quadrennial General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

The term "Delegated" is chosen to mark the altered and distinct character of all subsequent General Conferences. This word indicates, not only that the members of these later bodies are elected representatives, or delegates, but that the Conference itself exercises delegated powers. It is an agent, not a principal. It is a dependent body, with derived powers. These powers are defined in a Constitution. issuing from the body that ordained the Delegated Confer+ Ibid., I. 93.

* Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 93.

Dr. L. M. Lee's Life of Jesse Lee, pp. 444, 445.

ence. Historically the fountain of authority in Episcopal Methodism is the body of traveling elders. They created the existing General Conference, ordained its Constitution, and finally admitted laymen to their seats in the body. That body of traveling elders saw fit to place (1) the doctrines, (2) the General Rules, (3) the Episcopacy, or itinerant general superintendency, according to the "plan" then existing in the Church, (4) the rights of ministers and members to formal trial and appeal, (5) the produce of funds and plants originating with and sustained by the traveling preachers, and (6) the ratio of representation in the delegated body, beyond the reach of the new General Conference. Of these six restrictive rules, one only protects an integral part of the government of the Church-the Episcopacy-which the Church had tested for a quarter of a century, from modification by the Delegated Conference. This branch of the government is best described as "executive," since here is lodged the duty of administering the "rules and regulations" enacted by the General Conference in the exercise of its constitutional powers. If sometimes it is said that the Episcopacy and the General Conference are coördinate departments of our government, it is not meant to raise the question of their relative importance, or even to stress the analogies of civil government, but only to express the fact that the Episcopacy holds a charter from the same body of elders that created the present General Conference. By law existing then and ever since, the Episcopacy is responsible to the General Conference for the execution of all statutes enacted according to its constitutionally delegated powers. Should a difference of view arise as to the construction of these powers, the appeal would lie in equity to the body of elders from whom the Episcopacy holds its charter and the General Conference its constitution. How this problem has been wrought out in the later history of the Church our next Book will show.

BOOK VI.

THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCES OF THE UNDIVIDED METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

I. THE FIRST AND SECOND DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCES, 1812 AND 1816.

II. THE THIRD DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE, AND MR. SOULE'S FIRST ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPACY, 1820.

III. THE QUADRENNIUM, 1820-1824: THE CONTRASTED GOVERNMENTS OF THE TWO EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. IV. THE FOURTH AND FIFTH DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCES, AND THE INTERVENING QUADRENNIUM, 1824-1828.

V. THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCES, 1832 AND 1836: CONCLUSION.

VI. THE EIGHTH DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE,

1840.

VII. THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1844: THE LOUISVILLE CONVENTION AND THE ORGANIZATION OF the MethODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH.

(325)