present existing and established standards of doctrine." But it may be answered, that the use of the conjunction "nor" in the First Restrictive Rule shows that "the Articles of Religion" were not looked upon as being in the same category with "our present existing and established standards of doctrine;" i. e., Wesley's Four Volumes of Sermons and his "Notes on the New Testament." The "Articles" were mostly anti-Wesleyan; the "Standards" were Wesley himself.

The proviso for altering the six restrictions amends Article VI (as tabulated), by transferring to the annual conferences a part of the supreme governing and rule-making power which had heretofore resided in the General Conference.

10. If it be asked, What, then, became the power of the General Conference which was taken away from it by the six Restrictive Rules? the answer is: They have, by the proviso affixed to the said "rules," passed to the annual conferences. They thus became the partners of the General Conference to the extent indicated by the six Restrictive Rules. And the whole "body of ministers and preachers," which was the original source of the plenary power of the General Conference, by its membership in both annual and General Conferences, still holds and exercises the same plenary power which they originally acquired from John Wesley, and which, in 1784, they gave over to the General Conference. There is therefore no "new General Conference," and consequently no "new Constitution" for "a new General Conference.” *

It thus appears that Definition 2 (as at the outset of Chapter IX), which makes the Constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church to consist of Section III in the Discipline of 1808, is unhistoric. It is false alike in logic and in law. Even the Constitutional Commission, whose laborious work has been rejected by two successive General Conferences, has not succeeded in finding in "the Six Restrictive Rules" a body of minus quantities large enough to make up "a new Constitution."

*Those who desire to pursue this subject still further are referred to the decision of Judge Nelson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Church property case. It may be found in the Western Christian Advocate for 1851, page 193, column 7; or doubtless in any other Methodist Church paper of or near December 3, 1851.

CONSTITUTION ACCORDING TO DEFINITION III.

III. The third Methodist definition of the term "Constitution" has been formulated thus:

The Constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church comprises all those legal and proper acts of legislation by which the Church has come to be constituted as it now is.

The Constitutional Commission which was appointed by the General Conference of 1888, for the purpose of finding (or furnishing) a Constitution for the Church, made a report to the session of 1892 at Omaha and to the session of 1896 at Cleveland, in which the following definition occurs:

"The present Constitution of the Delegated General Conference is the document drawn up and adopted by the General Conference of 1808; but modified since that time in accordance with the specifications and restrictions of the original document (i. e., Section III of Discipline of 1808), and is now in paragraphs 55 to 64 inclusive in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church for 1888, excepting the statement as to the definite number of delegates provided for in paragraph 55, which is an act solely within the power of the General Conference, under the permission of the Second Restrictive Rule.

"Second. The organic law of the Methodist Episcopal Church includes, and is limited to, the Articles of Religion, the General Rules of the United Societies, and that which we have already defined as "The Constitution of the General Conference,' while the rules and regulations enacted by the General Conference are statutory, and form no.part of the organic law of the Church." (Journal of General Conference of 1892, pages 393, 394.)

The thought at once suggests itself: If the mere definitions of the twofold "Constitution" proposed by the Constitutional Commission occupy nearly a whole page in a law book, and are so prolific in doubts and confusions, what must the whole dual Constitution itself be? Surely the General Conference has done well thus far, in protecting itself and the Church at large from the mass of involved material, presumably ever increasing, which this Commission seeks to impose upon the Conference and the Church as a "Constitution."*

*The final form of the dual constitution proposed by the Constitutional Commission may be found in the Journal of the General Conference of 1896, pp. 339-344.

The successive changes in the ratio of representation of the annual conferences in the General Conference may be set down as amendments to Article VI of the Constitution of 1784-5, thus: Amendment IX. Ratio fixed by General Conference of 1808, not more than 1 in 5, and not less than 1 in 7.

Amendment X. Ratio changed by General Conference of 1836 to not more than 1 in 14, and not less than 1 in 30.

Amendment XI. Ratio again changed by General Conference of 1872 from not more than 1 in 30, nor less than 1 in 45.

ACTION OF GENERAL CONFERENCE UNDER CONSTITUTION AND AMENDMENTS.

Reference has been made in a previous chapter to the long contention of the Canadian Conference for its pro rata share of the property of the Book Concern, in consequence of its separation from the Parent Body in the United States. The outcome of this long controversy is an example of the ease with which even a written Constitution may be evaded under pressing exigency.

The sixth "Restrictive Rule" was the basis of the refusal of the General Conference to divide the property as aforesaid. But the session of 1836 adjusted the difficulty, by contracting to allow the Canadian brethren a large special discount for a certain length of time on the books thereafter to be purchased by them, thus merely straining the "rule," and doing substantial justice to the plaintiff in the case.

The next Constitutional contest of importance was the memorable struggle over the case of Bishop Andrew. The great debate in the General Conference of 1844, and especially the great speech of Dr. Hamline, has already been mentioned in its appropriate chapter. The doctrine of that historic argument may be said to have voiced the whole northern section of the Church. For many years the subordination of the episcopate to the General Conference was regarded as indisputable. Later developments, however, in substance, if not in form, reopened the well-settled question.

But another financial question arose out of the great storm. of 1844. The Church, for the division whereof the famous. "Plan of Separation" was formulated, was in fact divided by the

action of the southern conferences, and then came the second claim for a division of the property of the Book Concern.

The General Conference of 1848 declared the "Plan of Separation" null and void, as the annual conferences had nonconcurred. Resolutions were passed at this session declaring that "the General Conference has no authority to divide the Church," and falling back in the personal rights of each individual member to go or stay, regardless of Conference action. This ground was evidently taken, from the fact that the conferences on the proposed border-line of separation were by no means unanimous in favor of division.

The decision of Judge Nelson, already mentioned, held the doctrine that the General Conference had the right and power to divide the Church. The provision in "the Plan of Separation," for referring the question of division to the annual conferences, he held did not invalidate the action of the General Conference of 1844, at which the whole power of the Church was present, either personally or by representation. Hence, on the vote of the General Conference alone, regardless of the effect of the votes of northern annual conferences, Judge Nelson gave judgment for the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

Here appears a legal recognition of the plenary power of the General Conference, under the action of its organic law. In view of this, the Western Section of the Methodist Book Concern wisely settled their side of the case by arbitration, though a prior decision of the United States District Court had been made in their favor.

The next important change in the structure of the Church, as to its terms of membership, was that which was voted in the General Conference of 1864. The General Rule on Slavery was so changed as to make slaveholding a bar to membership. This action was referred to the annual conferences for ratification, as if the General Rules of the United Societies had been. a part of the organic law of the Church. Although that body of moral precepts had not been formally adopted by the Conference or Convention of 1784, they early came to be bound up along with the annual editions of the Discipline. In this way they gradually attained to a conceded authority, and by precedent only were allowed to have the force of law.

"The change in the General Rule," as the phrase commonly ran, was carried. But it can not be tabulated as an amendment to the Constitution, since it was not the Constitution, but only the "General Rule" which was amended.

Even the organic change adopted by the General Conference of 1868, sent down to the annual conferences, and ratified by the General Conference of 1872, was simply an amendment of the Second Restrictive Rule, incorporating the principle of lay representation into the General Conference, as tabulated in Article VI of the Constitution of 1784. All else relating to lay delegation is merely statutory.*

The election of Missionary Bishops by the General Conferences of 1888 and 1892 may be set down as an act amendatory to Article VII of the tabulated Constitution of 1784. The establishment of the principle of a localized episcopate for special cases is of the nature of Constitution. All else in reference to the missionary episcopate is merely statutory. Thus [[179, Section VI, of the Discipline of 1896 may be tabulated as Amendment XII to Article VII of the Constitution of 1784.

The latest recorded action of the General Conference, in which the question of Constitution is concerned, is found in the Journal of the session of 1896, page 291. Upon motion of President William F. Warren, the Conference voted to appoint a new Constitutional Commission, to consist of three bishops, six ministers, and six laymen, whose duty it should be to review the labors of the Commission of 1888, and to set forth a draft, in logical order, of the existing organic law of the Church. They are also to propose modifications of the forms under which such law at present exists. The Commission was directed to report the result of its labors in the Church papers as early as January, 1899, and to present its final report to the General Conference of 1900.

*The above remark will also cover the constitutional side of "The Woman Question." There is no sex in legal principles. The Constitution, as formulated and tabulated in Article VI, above, knows nothing of men or women as such. Everything in the history of the government of the Church in which the distinction of sex occurs is merely statutory. For example: The Disciplinary definition of the word “laymen" includes "all the members of the Church who are not members of the Annual Conferences." But, on the other hand, the partisan definition given to the word by the judiciary committee in 1892 applies the term to male members only. It is a mere question of legislation, which the General Conference may reverse or cast out at will.