his refusal to be ordained and made general superintendent on Wesley's sole authority, he placed the very existence of his bishopric at the will of the "body of ministers and preachers." He thus established a precedent which was shortly enacted into the organic law of the Church, where the doctrine of the power of the General Conference to make and unmake bishops, and to keep them under constant control, has stood from that day to this.

Even Dr. Coke, who was only a Wesleyan bishop, adds force, by contrast, to the doctrine above stated. His acts, as seen in a previous chapter, were repeatedly challenged, and when at length he entreated his American brethren to accept his full episcopal service, it was the vote of the General Conference of 1796 which saved him the loss of his episcopate; for nowhere except in America was he ever a bishop at all. Thus, substantially, his official position came to be the same as that of Bishop Asbury.

The idea of establishing a "Constitution" for their new Church seems never to have entered the minds of the sixty members of the Christmas Convention. There is not even a record of a formal adoption of its name. In answer to Question 3 in the brief Minutes of that session it is said:

"We will form ourselves into an Episcopal Church, under the direction of superintendents, elders, deacons, and helpers, according to the Forms of Ordination annexed to our Liturgy and the Form of Discipline set forth in these Minutes."

The name "Methodist Episcopal Church," which should have stood as the first Article in a regular written Constitution, does not occur in the Minutes at all, except upon the title page of the little volume. There is a tradition that this name was suggested by John Dickins; and it seems to have been adopted just as it has been retained-i. e., by universal

consent.

At this point a brief retrospect brings to view the following materials as having entered into the structure of the new Church established, according to the advice of Mr. Wesley, by the Christmas Conference or Convention of 1784. The itemized form in common use for Constitutions, and already

adopted in respect to the Wesleyan era, may still be followed. Thus:

ARTICLE I. ORGANIZATION.

"The United Societies of Methodists in America do now form themselves into an independent Church. This action is taken by 'the body of ministers and preachers' assembled in Conference, in the city of Baltimore, in the state of Maryland, begun on the 27th - day of December, 1784." (See Annual Minutes, Volume I, republished in 1840, page 22, ¶ 7.)

ARTICLE II. NAME.

"The name of this organization shall be The Methodist Episcopal Church in America." (See Lee's "Short History of the Methodists," page 94; also page 181, Minutes for 1785.)

ARTICLE III. FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

"This Church shall have an Episcopal form of government." (See Lee, page 96, Minutes for 1785.)

ARTICLE IV. MINISTRY.

"The ministry of this Church consists of general superintendents, elders, deacons, and assistants." (See Annual Minutes of Conference or Convention of 1784, republished, Volume I, page 22, questions 1, 2, 3, 4.)

ARTICLE V. STANDARDS OF DOCTRINE.

"The standards of doctrine of this Church are Wesley's Four Volumes of Sermons and his 'Notes on the New Testament.' (See Annual Minutes, republished, Volume I, page 21, question 21.)

ARTICLE VI. THE CONFERENCE.

""The body of ministers and preachers' of this Church, when assembled for that purpose, shall constitute, a Conference wherein the supreme governing and legislative power of the Church is vested." (See Annual Minutes of 1784, republished, page 22, paragraph 7.)

ARTICLE VII. THE EPISCOPATE.

"The episcopate of this Church is elective by, and amenable to, the Conference of 'the body of ministers and preachers.'" (Ibid.)

Whatever forms of words may be used to designate them, these five structural elements were unquestionably built into the foundation of the Methodist Episcopal Church at the first Constituting Convention, or Conference, opened in the city of Baltimore in the year 1784.

The work of the second formative Conference-namely, that of 1792—will be considered in its historic order.

To the above constituent materials laid in the foundations of this Church some authorities add the Articles of Religion and the General Rules of the United Societies. These collections of doctrinal tenets and moral precepts, compiled from the Prayer Book, or drawn up by Mr. Wesley, were sometimes printed in the Minutes of early American Conferences; but they certainly were not organic to the Methodist Episcopal Church. That Church would have been all that it was, or was intended to be, without them. In maintenance of the view here disallowed it is said that, in the opinion of the General Conference of 1808, the Articles of Religion and the General Rules must have been fundamental, since they were both included among the things which future General Conferences were forbidden to alter or do away.

To this it is replied that the estimation in which any tenet or rule might be held by the Conference of 1808 could not affect its historic status. If it was not organic, if it was not comprised in the primary structure of the Church, no amount of respect or protection could lift it into the position of organic law.

Following the remark of Asbury concerning the character of the Christmas Assembly of 1784, Sherman, in his History of the Discipline, holds the following language:

"The Christmas Conference was a General Conference, as it embodied the entire ministry; but irregular, as it did not become a part of the economy of the Church, by assembling at stated periods in the future. It was a Convention assembled for the purpose of organizing the Church, and establishing a Constitution for the government of the body, without any expectation of its recurrence." (History of Discipline, page 27.)

The Conference of 1787 has sometimes been spoken of as a General Conference. It was ordered by Mr. Wesley as such,

and Dr. Coke came over to hold it. Wesley also ordered the election and consecration of Richard Whatcoat as general superintendent, with the view, as was supposed, of recalling Asbury to England. The refusal of the "body of ministers and preachers" to obey either of these commandments shows the completeness of the revolution that had taken place in Methodist America. Only the usual annual conference for that year was held, and Whatcoat was not made general superintendent. Mr. Wesley was still loved and honored, but his authority had been assumed by the Conference.

There was a prevailing impression in the Church that another General Assembly of "the whole body of ministers and preachers" would be held for the purpose of completing the work of organizing the Church. The convention of 1784 had only made a definite beginning, and further "organic law" was evidently required. On this subject Lee speaks, in reference to the General Conference of 1792, as follows:

"The preachers generally thought that, in all probability, there would never be another Conference of the kind at which all the preachers in the Connection might attend. It was generally thought this Conference would adopt some permanent regulations which would prevent the preachers in future from coming together. This persuasion brought out more of the preachers than otherwise would have attended." (Lee's "Short History of the Methodists," p. 177.)

This is important, as bringing out two facts: First, the Conference of 1792 was expected to amend and further perfect the Constitution of 1784; second, it is incidentally shown that it was by no means the custom for all the preachers to go to Conference. Probably the sixty out of a total of eighty-one, who attended the General Conference or Convention of 1784, was a larger proportionate attendance than usual on Conference occasions.

On this subject, after mentioning the suggestion of a council, which plan, he says, "fell dead at its birth," Sherman continues thus:

"The only other eligible plan seemed to be to call the whole body of traveling preachers together at stated intervals, to consider and settle the business of the Connection. This was the first question of the hour. To settle it, a large part of the traveling preachers had convened and united, as a means of attaining this end, in the

adoption of the General Conference, to be held quadrennially,* and to be composed of all the traveling preachers." (History of Discipline, page 30.)

On the authority of the testimony above quoted from Lee and Sherman, to which might be added that of Stevens, who speaks to the same effect, the General Conference of 1792 is commonly held to have been a sort of annex or supplement to the Convention of 1784.

Following the consensus of early opinion on this subject, the substance of the organizing acts of the Conference may properly be classed as Constitutional Amendments.

The Church established by the Convention of 1784 being an Episcopal Church, the office of bishop therein appeared to require special safeguards. Hence the presence in the Discipline of 1792 of the new section numbered IV. This section so well illustrates the sense of its own powers, as held by the Supreme Legislature of the Church, that it is here reproduced entire:

"Ques. 1. How is a bishop to be constituted in future?

"Ans. By the election of the General Conference, and the laying on of the hands of three bishops, or at least of one bishop and two elders.

“Ques. 2. If by death, expulsion, or otherwise, there be no bishop remaining in our Church, what shall we do?

"Ans. The General Conference shall elect a bishop; and the elders, or any three of them, that shall be appointed by the General Conference for that purpose, shall ordain him according to our office of ordination.

"Ques 3. What is the bishop's duty?

"Ans. 1. To preside in our conferences.

"2. To fix the appointments of the preachers for the several circuits.

"3. In the intervals of the conferences, to change, receive, or suspend preachers, as necessity may require.

"4. To travel through the Connection at large.

"5. To oversee the spiritual and temporal business of the societies.

"6. To ordain bishops, elders, and deacons.

*Although the General Conference of 1792 “determined to have another General Conference at the end of four years," as stated by Lee ("Short History," p. 181, 4), no rule was passed making the four years' term a stated period for the recurrence of the session. Like much else which has come to be the recognized and authoritative government of the Church, the quadrennial feature of its supreme legislature was, in part, a growth.