1

of the Supreme Lawgiver, to whom all things are given by the Father, both in heaven and earth, and who is of right "head over all things to the Church." In this conventional capacity they did institute a delegated General Conference, transferring to, and vesting in, the then created body all the powers which the convention possessed to make rules and regulations for the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church; under the paramount laws of its Supreme Lawgiver; with certain specified exceptions, embraced in six restrictive articles. How the "all power," limited specifically by the same power which conferred it, can be without limitation or restriction we cannot conceive.

We take the following positions :-The act of the General Conference of 1844, in enacting the "Plan of Separation," was wholly unconstitutional, being not only without constitutional warrant, but in violation of the constitution. The authority was not found in the powers given; but it was positively excepted in the restrictive articles. And,

First. The "all power" given in the constitution "to make rules and regulations for the government of our' Church,"—that is, for the Methodist Episcopal Church,-does not confer, and does not imply the power to divide the Church, and to erect another, and an independent Church, within the jurisdictional limits of the Methodist Episcopal Church. And the pretension that the “Plan” did not look to or authorize the erection of another Church prospectively, and upon a contingency, is inadmissible and utterly absurd. The "rule or regulation" thus enacted, could not be construed to be for the government of our Church;" but to release a large portion of the Church from its government. But we cannot think it necessary to sustain by further argument so plain a position as this. Those who take the opposite ground, do so upon the supposition that the "Plan" did not propose the erection of "another" Church; but only to divide the jurisdiction of the same Church. The constitution, however, gives the General Conference no more power to divide the Church, than to create a new one within its limits and jurisdiction. But the "Plan" does, in fact, look to, and provides for, the erection of another Church organization, with separate and independent powers of government, absolute, and without restriction; and the Louisville Convention professedly acting upon "the Plan of Separation" did withdraw from the jurisdiction and government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, creating and organizing a separate ecclesiastical organization, owing no more obedience or allegiance to the Methodist Episcopal Church, than to the "Protestant Episcopal" or the "Presbyterian Church."

Secondly. Two of the restrictive articles of the constitution are violated by the "Plan of Separation." The first is, the article which prohibits the delegated General Conference from "altering" the plan of our general itinerant superintendency. It is as follows: They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our government, so as to do away episcopacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency."-Discipline, p. 27.

We contend that the "Plan of Separation," if it does not absolutely destroy our episcopacy, does most materially alter the plan of the "general itinerant superintendency." According to the Discipline, the general superintendents have a common right to appoint the preachers to their several stations and circuits, wherever they may preside in an annual conference, and the right so to preside is common to all the bishops, and in every part of the connexion. They have also the right to decide all points of law which may arise in an annual conference, though the application of the law to the case under consideration is with the annual conference. The plan of individual visitation is left with the bishops themselves, provided that the general itinerant superintendency is preserved-that is, that no dioceses shall be created, localizing or limiting within prescribed bounds the authority, or confining the official prerogatives of the bishops to particular districts. The "Plan of Separation" authorizes the division of the Church, and the establishment of a line, beyond which the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church shall not pass, or carry their official authority; and it is maintained, that the annual conferences from which they are excluded, constitute, after the division, a part of the same Church over which they were appointed to exercise their episcopal oversight. The same Church we say; for this is contended for by the South, as part of the "Plan of Separation." The same Church, only with a separate and independent jurisdiction! If this is not an alteration of the plan of our general itinerant superintendence, we cannot conceive how it can be altered.

At the General Conference of 1820, great stress was laid upon the word "plan," in the restrictive article, by the Southern delegations. A motion coming from delegates from an opposite quarter, proposed to alter the mode of appointing the presiding-elders. Under the Discipline this had been heretofore done by the bishop who presided at the annual conference within whose district the presidingelders were to exercise their peculiar functions. It was now proposed that they should be elected by their conferences, severally. To this it was objected, and the objection was sustained by the Southern delegations with great unanimity-that it would “alter

the plan" of the general itinerant superintendency. By the "plan," was to be understood whatever related to episcopal power and prerogative, and it could not be constitutionally altered or modified by the General Conference. After long and able debate, the matter was referred to a committee, selected from both parties, who reported compromise resolutions. These resolutions provided that the bishop should nominate, and the conferences elect the presiding elders. One of the Committee, in whose judgment the Southern delegates had great confidence, declared that, in his opinion, the reported resolutions did not "touch the plan," and they were adopted by a very large majority.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Rev. Joshua Soule, who had been elected to the Episcopal office a few days before, wrote a note to the Bishops, informing them that if ordained he would not execute the rule lately adopted in regard to the mode of appointing the Presiding Elders, as he believed it to be unconstitutional. This placed the bishops in a dilemma. They considered themselves bound to execute the orders of the General Conference, and that body had elected Mr. Soule to the episcopacy, thereby placing him in their hands for ordination. And yet, it did appear improper to ordain a person to the episcopal office who had declared he would not, or could not obey the conference. There was no alternative but to lay the matter before the conference. This done, Mr. Soule formally declined ordination, and it was supposed a new election must be had. But an expedient was found by which things were restored to their former position. The conference suspended the resolutions for four years, and Mr. Soule consented to be ordained. Another suspension took place in 1824; and finally, the resolutions were repealed in 1828.

Such were the opinions of Bishop Soule, and the Southern delegates, with respect to the plan of the general itinerant superintendency, in 1820. But times and circumstances change, and mén change with times and circumstances. In 1820 it was, in the view of Bishop Soule and the Southern members of the General Conference,—some, and the most influential of whom were also members of the conference of 1844,-essential to the plan of "our general itinerant superintendency," that even the power to select and appoint presiding elders should remain in the episcopacy, absolute and entire. Now, they tell us, it is no violation of the same "plan" to divide the field of episcopal oversight into two parts, still constituting only one Church, but to exclude the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church from nearly one half the annual conferences. Such is the logic of the books under review.

The second restrictive article to which we have referred, as being violated by the "Plan of Separation," is in these words:-"They shall not do away the privileges of our ministers or preachers of trial by a committee, and of an appeal: neither shall they do away the privileges of our members of trial before the society, or by a committee, and of an appeal."-Discipline, p. 28.

The "Plan of Separation" wholly disregards the prohibitions in this article of the constitution. It allows indeed to members on the border a right of choice as to church relation; and to ministers of every grade the utmost latitude in this respect. But to interior charges nothing is allowed. The line of division once fixed and settled, every member of the Methodist Episcopal Church whose location places him in one of these interior charges, constituting the great body of the membership in the slaveholding States and Territories, is utterly cut off and separated from the Church relation which he had sought from choice, and into which he had been received under a positive provision of the constitution that he should not be expelled therefrom, without trial, and the right of appeal; and under disciplinary regulations, which secured to him a trial by his peers, and the right of appeal to the quarterly conference of his circuit or station. It was of no consequence whether he did or did not prefer a connexion with the Southern organization. He was transferred, like a Russian serf, with the soil. The language of the "Plan of Separation" is explicit and imperative in respect to interior charges within the bounds of the Church South. "The ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church shall in no wise attempt to organize Churches or societies within the limits of the Church South, nor shall they attempt to exercise any pastoral oversight therein." Thus those who declined to enter the "Church South" were cut off from all the privileges they had heretofore enjoyed as Methodists. "The interior charges," the "Plan" says, "shall in all cases be left to the care of that Church within whose territory they are situated." There could not, surely, be a more palpable violation of the constitutional restriction than the "Plan of Separation" perpetrated.

At the General Conference of 1848, numerous petitions and memorials were sent up from districts within the bounds of the separating conferences, earnestly beseeching the conference to revoke the sentence of excommunication against the petitioners. They had never forfeited their rights as members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and had not abandoned them by joining the Church South; although they had belonged to interior charges, now within the territory of the said Church. They were, by the "Plan of Separation," deprived of the ministry which they preferred; and the

benefit of the institutions of the Church of their choice; and had suffered great persecution for refusing to adhere to the new organization. The memoralists amounted in number to nearly three thousand souls. The conference did all they could for their relief. They declared the "Plan of Separation" null and void, and thereby took off the restriction upon the ministers of the Church in regard to oversight" and the organizing Churches and societies within the territory of the Church South.

But the constitutional right of the General Conference to divide the Church is attempted to be sustained by precedent. The Canada Conference was authorized to erect itself into a separate and independent Church by the General Conference of 1828. To this it would be sufficient to reply, that two wrongs cannot make a right. The assumption of a constitutional power by the conference in one instance, if the assumption was unwarranted, does not create the power, or justify its exercise. But there is really no parity, nor even much resemblance in the cases. The Canada Conference never was strictly and legally a component part of "The Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States;" for the reason that it was not in the United States at all. It was, in fact, a Mission Conference, although allowed to send delegates to the General Conference from the very necessity of the case. The Methodist Episcopal Church could have no legal right to the houses of worship, cemeteries, or parsonages of the Church in Canada; and if the Canada Conference had seceded without the consent or approbation of the General Conference, they would have carried with them, without any conventional agreement of parties, the legal right to such property. But a secession from the Church by any annual conference in the United States would not legally take with it any property of this kind. The representatives of the Canada Conference stated, in 1828, that they laboured under great and growing disabilities and embarrassments from their connexion with, and subordination to, a foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and the General Conference released them. This is all: but how does this justify a division of the Church in the United States, and how does it affect the constitutional restrictions, which so plainly forbid such exercise of power? But ought not the Southern Church to be cautious how they urge this fanciful precedent? The "property question" is yet unsettled; and if this precedent is worth anything, it may have an important bearing against the Southern claim. We are aware that the Church South were, at first, mis-led by the "historian of the Church,” and asserted upon his authority that the Canada Conference received ten thousand dollars for their interest in the Book Concern and the · FOURTH SERIES, VOL. III.—27