The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-05-28

Methodist Episcopal Conference.
MosDAY, May H. !
Mr.. HAMBLIN addressed the Conference on
Bishop Andrews case. After a few preliminary
observations he took up the relation of the General
Conference to the whole church, which was, he
said, an important question. 1t had been though
by some that the president of Conference bore the
same legislative relation to the Conference as the
governor OF a State did TO the State Legislature
That was a great mistake. The General Confer
ence was constitutional body-iis powers assign
ed it-and the same constitution creates the office
of Episcopacy while the constitution OF the United
States provides not only for the action OF the Con-
gress but TOR that of the President. On the other
hand, the constitution Of the Methodist Church
provides only for the office OF Conference For
instance, what would be thought of the Congress
of the United States saying there might be four
Presidents instead of one, or of making out new
duties? But 1t always belonged to the Methodist
Conference to say how many Bishops thew might
have, and what their duties should be- In the case
of executive officers, their duties were Defined
and their term of Office affixed, which was not the
case with Bishop. Conference had legislative
administration and judicial supremacy. The pres-
dent of Conference would himself admit that whilst every
member OF Conference was legislator, he he Presidency
had not the power to give single vote That suprema.
OF Conference the grand advantage the proven
ton and cure OF error among them II they themselves
committed Judicial error how could be remeded but
by the force OF their judicial energy They acted
without soliciting any instruction from the chair nay,
the presidential seat might be considered gale
ry OIL disabilities, where the occupant sat looking the
scene ne miEht prove what was right or what was
wrong but he took no part in the action and by the
blessing OF God he would remain so elevated in
sense but subordinate in another As matters Of ad
mnisration he would not argue that point much for
to his brethren That Conference was in matters
OF administration, and determined all such action, as
river did in supplying to the reservoir its cOpious supply
water whence transmitted through pipes makes it,
way through every mans cistern irrigated his side board
and sent health and comfort to his chamber In that way
the conference was supremeit the fountain Of all
administrative power and authority. He would not
say the Bishop was an officer OF the general
conference, in the sense, but when
he him in that chair presiding with dignity and i'm.
paality he acted such The general conference had
marked the power Of officers beyond which they could
not step. The constitution OF the United States defines
what Congress may do and what the President may do
but that OF their Church said such thing It specified
few things which not to do; but beyond that
the vast field left OPEN Conference had full authori
ty make all rules and regulations for the Church under
They might refrain elect another Bishop until every
Of the present were dead There not single OBJ
in that resPect besides they might prescribe to every
superintendent what duties belong him. He would be the
last man in the Church to strip one member Of his prvi-
full and constitutional prerogatives. Whatever the
conference does, it may do it without resolving
to do it, or enacting law. The power of the con.
ference to suspend Bishop Andrews did not flow
from its resolution that has the power 1t had
power to make not only all its laws, but all re.
guatons to carry out its under these
srictons; beyond them competent to do any thing
not restricted by these articles (r H. then pointed ont
certain limitation to the legislative action of the United
States Congress- and alluded to its vote of ncompe-
tency to sell the public lands Suppose the Conference
resolved that it not competent suspend Bishop An
drews for the grossest immortality the question would still
remain that agreeable with the constitution Sup
the resolution or constitution. Whatever they did he
against dissolution they could not get rid Of their
free agency nor the power the constitution placed them
ton the discipline silent he would show them to the
contrary he would point them to povson which ndis
puably showed they could remove Bishep Andrews and
who would rise up against it Breads that part OF the
discipline declaring the competence of Conference to
pei Bishop for improper conduct) He of opinion
suspend himto deny it would be about foolish the
scrupes ola child who, having permission from his fa-
ther to walk ten miles, weud scrupe to stop at three be
cause number but ten was mentioned They would be
like the poor child in the ogs Of the morning they scr
about expedency and waited for argument show
that from the discipline had power of action in the
| altogether matter OF discretion with them. He would
endeavor to show that it power inherent in that
body to depose Bishop He had not applied his argu
ments to the particular OF Bishop Andrews and
happy that he under such necessity. He would
ask them was the office of Bishop high that they did
not know how to reach it, If such the case he Ia
Bishop might 60 about the country aud expel thousands
elders, and not be amenable for It, He believed firmly
o asns of %
looked to- said and the feelings OF the Bishop to be
ect knowing the high character and superior qualities
Tor his office Ry him He remembered when the
venerable Bishop McKendrick from the floor OF Confer
ence firmly opposing the flood OF radicalsm that then al
ectsd them, declared that Bishop the only officer
that could be suspended" When that power was want.
ing he should tremble for the Epscopacy No loved
more than him the ncumbsns but he would not for
their sake see broken those laws they contender Tor in
that general principle they had the right suspend
Bishops as to expediency he would leave that to others
Mr. COMFORT was Of opinion that the question was
whether the Bishop had placed himself where
cessary he should be suspended He contendod that as
Congress have power to dissolve the Union they
could have dissolution although they might have
cession. Mr. c. proceeding point out the Difficult
ties which were strewn every hand, and frame his
arguments in relation to the results Of division in the
| church, when
| A MEMBER to order. He wished to know if the
speaker was in order p debating the question of division
After interruption the PRESIDENT said he did not
| be lieve he out 81 order.
Mr.. COMFORT proceeded He was adverng to the par
ticpaton OF the Southern section of the church in the
advantages of the book concern when he again call
| ed to order by other members
The PRESIDENT, amidst good deal Of noise, again said
it the decision of the chair that Brother c. in
order
Mr.. appealed from the decision of the chair and
at the suggestion of the secretary committed his motion
| to writing.
The President, when the question was being put, said
that upon reconsideration he had reversed his decision
was not in order to debate the question OF division
the Book Concern.
Mr.. COMFORT made few other remarks, which were
not distinctly heard, and was succeeded by
Dr. SMITH, who said-After listening to the very learn.
ed speeches member from Ohio felt more
cason to regret his inability to accomplish ny thing like
it, that would command the attention Conference
II he rightly understood the question: it founded
act in the original resolution which he thought was
intended venerable proposer to surround the
question with difficulties, but present it in the mildest
form and aspect possible yet he thought the substitute
covered the whole ground to expedency which might
be properly defined, lin the language Of the member
from Ohio9 the question ptopriety He would not de
bate learned questions with him but in parlsnce
cy raised by speakers and this of propriey. ii,
puposed in what he should have to say to consider it ii