sirable? What right can we have to power, without a title? In those governments, the origin of which is lost in tradition, it is usual to presume that the title did exist; but we know that it never did exist in the case of travelling preachers. The continuance of the power proves nothing, unless it proves that it was assumed: the right, it certainly cannot prove. There is a common sense among mankind upon these matters. Where power is not made to descend by heirship, or succession, it has almost uniformly been referred to the people; and their right to originate it for their common benefit, has been avowed. This is the origin of all republicanism, in church and state. The people are the source and centre of power, and all grants and titles run in the name of the people. The travelling preachers were not the heirs, nor the successors of any ministerial body of men. By taking no title from the people, they could obtain none; for nobody else would give it. Even now, if the Methodist people were to meet by their representatives, and confirm and ratify to them, all their present power, such an act could have no retrospective view. The powers heretofore exercised, would remain as assumed powers; that is, without title or right. For the distinction here between right and title, cannot obtain. The latter cannot be obtained as an act of equity. It has not been lost, or forcibly, or fraudulently taken away: it never existed.

The General Conference have set the will of the people at defiance; they will not acknowledge that they have any rights, and, of course, that they have any to grant to travelling preachers. But the Methodist people have protested against their right to assume certain powers. And in this they will be borne out by the great body of their countrymen, who do not believe in itinerant infallibility. And we feel confident, that those who investigate the case, will be of the opinion, that we have not erred in regard to time,that we have not been too hasty. The power exercised by the travelling preachers, they must see, is unlimited in its nature, and can receive no check, but from without. While there were men remaining, able and willing to bear their testimony, the crisis ought to have been improved. The act is done; it is done in self-defence. The General Conference made it necessary, as an act of self-preservation to the lovers of religious liberty, and the lovers of Methodist doctrine. We, the members of the church, have spoken. It is the first time such a voice has been heard from

its members; it is not the voice of anger, nor of retaliation. It is a calm, dispassionate voice, which, although travelling preachers never expected to hear, they may greatly profit by. Our advice we know has been long lost upon them. But we ask the public to give us credit when we say, that we bave been actuated according to the maxim, "Aristotle loves Plato; but he loves truth better than Plato."

0.

An Address to the Friends of the Principles of Representation in Church Government.

Respected fellow-laborers, and well-wishers to the cause of representation,-You will doubtless hear of my having accepted of the ministerial charge of the Associated church in Baltimore, until the meeting of our contemplated conference. It is known to those best acquainted with me, that I have been swift to write, and slow to act in behalf of the cause of representation. To write I have never needed a prompter; to act, I have required almost imperious circumstances to urge me on. As a leading writer, in the order of time, could I have also gone before in action, without waking up suspicion that I was "taking too much upon me? As a writer, I could address myself to the understandings of my readers, and to posterity. For seven years I have employed my pen upon this great and inter- . esting subject, as a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Twice, in that space of time, have the General Conference met; twice have I been its humble petitioner, asking, as an elder in the church, some part, by my representative, of the authoritative control of the General Conference, and twice has my right to the thing asked for, been in effect denied and rejected. But, in the last instance, the General Conference have spoken a language I never remember to have heard from that body before. "Divinely instituted ministry-divinely authorised expounders-does rest upon us with the force of a moral obligation-not to permit our ministration-to be authoritatively controlled by others;" and, of course, by me, as I am one of the others, in the address of the General Conference of 1828. This was new to me, as the official language of the exclusive body of

men who have "full powers to make rules and regulations for our church." "Others, that is the local preachers and the laity, can have no authority to control the "ministrations" of travelling preachers in these respects," nor any respect, out of the General Conference. All the authority to control is in the "full powers."

But what are we to understand by, "the force of a moral obligation?" Can the phrase be used without any reference to conscience? Would the meaning have been different, if the General Conference had said in so many words to the petitioners: We cannot in conscience permit you, by your representatives, to have seats in the General Conference. So I understood it before I left Pittsburg; so I understand it still. But I neither wrote nor acted accordingly, I merely told my friends on the banks of the Ohio, that this address would prevent me from ever putting my hand to another petition. The task of answering the address would have been undertaken by a more able hand than mine, had not affliction prevented. But so vastly important was the construction which I put upon the address, I thought it best to wait to hear what would be the impression upon the minds of our friends in general. To me the address meant in effect (I could put no other construction upon it) the General Conference is under moral obligation, that is, conscience-bound, to do what is plainly implied in the well known words, "Being lords over God's heritage."

They are bound in conscience to govern local preachers and the laity, without permitting themselves to be authoritatively controlled by them. Now, that the opinion of the friends of representation, in different parts of the continent is known, I find it is, in substance, in accordance with my first impressions, and serves to confirm them. But in thus avowing, according to my understanding of the address of the General Conference, the consciences of its members are enlisted on the side of an absolute, uncontrollable government in their own hands. Do I not slander? Do I not speak evil of these ministers? Not intentionally. But I am determined to act now by this avowal of “a moral obligation" on the part of the General Conference, for they do not make it individually, nor is its effects to die with them. The minds and consciences of all over whom the itinerant preachers can have any forming control, will be formed upon the principles avowed in the address. The men who feel the force of a moral obligation, not to permit

their ministrations to be authoritatively controlled by others, will use all the means in their power to transfuse this force of a moral obligation into the breasts of others. And when others are thus conscience bound not to be represented, and so gain authority to control, the system of uncontrollable power, and of non-resistance and passive obedience, will be consummated. And is this "a consummation devoutly to be wished?" Not by me; but devoutly to be deprecated. But it cannot be opposed, it cannot be resisted, it cannot be delayed by argument, by petition, or by any means short of an independent Methodist church organization. The time is now come for me to act, I don't mean to say, for I don't know, that it is so come to others.

I may say that I have paused, that I have delayed for six months, and have not written or acted in reference to the address of the General Conference, to see the more clearly how circumstances would direct me, for as one of the first writers in this controversy, and feeling the consequent responsibility, I thought I had a right to consult circumstances more particularly than some others. And in deep humility, I do take leave to think, that I have been providentially protected and guided, and that I am now providentially directed to become a member and minister of the associated churches. If I should die to-morrow, it would not alter this persuasion of my mind, if these churches remain while I live, few and feeble, or if I live to see them come to nothing, it will not alter this persuasion. As an individual, I must act now, or unsay, in effect, all I have said. The General Conference, in my judgment, have taken new ground, and higher ground than ever. The day of eternity will shew that I have labored intentionally, and used all the means in my power to prevent them from taking this ground; but they have entered upon it with a firm and fearless step. My moral obligation, my conscience must now be put in requisition. Moral obligation has been put in the foreground, it must be met there, if met at all, by its like. Conscience must be opposed to conscience. It now rests upon me with the force of a moral obligation, not to permit myself to be authoritatively controlled by any man, or set of men, "in these respects" or in any religious respect, who tell me to my face, that they will not, cannot in conscience, permit their ministrations to be authoritatively controlled by others (other christians, and christian ministers in their fellowship.)

I set out in this new fellowship, under the force of a moral obligation, never to take, nor to hold, nor to exercise any power without being subject to have my ministrations authoritatively controlled by my brother christians, and brother ministers. As they have the authority, I hope they will not attempt to use force or violence. No, I trust, that in a church, where all will be as the Lord's freemen, I shall not be compelled in my ministrations to act against authority; that my conscience will not be put to this test. And I am sure there was nothing in our petition, like force or violence, or any indication of it, sufficient to call forth the consciences of the members of the General Conference in array against it. I cannot induce my mind to think, that authoritative control was used as synonymous with forcible or violent control.

It must be well known, that I have taken no counsel of my fears, that I have deserted no brother in the day of trouble. And to hasten the present crisis, I had no wish, no ambition. I have never even been in a straight betwixt the two. But the crisis I always forsaw must come, if the principle of representation continued to be resisted. There will, I have no doubt, be other and greater secessions; for, notwithstanding all the church censures and punishments that have been brought to bear upon us, for the violence that was charged upon us, we have been too tame to engage popular feeling. I have studied carefully the successful examples by which men draw away disciples after them, on purpose to know how to avoid them. I knew the materials I had to do with, and I wrote to enlighten them, certainly the slowest of all modes of increasing the number of proselytes to a popular cause.

Your object, you have avowed it a thousand times, is principles, not men. And yet how easy will it be for you to forget to caution yourselves to beware of the counsels of men whose principles differ from yours. The "moral obligation" of the General Conference, is the great point which must hereafter guide itinerant preachers; and it ought to guide us also. Authoritative, that is, legal control, you cannot have unless you have it in General Conference by your representatives. And you now know, those who occupy the seats in that body, are under a moral obligation never to let you set with them. Knowing this, of what account are soft words or hard words, the promises or threatenings, the smiles or the frowns of one, or of one hundred itinerant