The southern press. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-11-15

children: provided, that, upon the concurrent
Recommendation of three fourths of all the mem
bers Of the general annual conferences present
and voting majority of two-thirds of the gen
eral conferences, succeeding, shall suffice to alte
any of the above restrictions, except the frs
article.
These comprise all the limitations upon tina
body assembled by delegates.
That the general conference composed of al
the travelling preachers, and who established the
government, doctrine, and discipline of the
church, professed the power to reconstruct ano
reorgahize its government, ecclesiastical and TEN
poral, into two or more separate and distinct or
CARNATIONS, is a question about which we think
no serious doubt can well be entertained.
These travelling preachers represented the SOW
ereign power of the government, and We're re-
sponsible to no earthly tribunal for the mode
and manner of its exercise. They were entire.
" free to exercise their own sense and judgment
as to what was the best polity and organization
of the church, TO accomplish this great object
and design of the masters in whose service they
were engaged; and which were, in the language
of their own discipline " to reform the continent
and to spread scriptural holiness over these
lands" As they might have constructed any
number of separate and distinct organizations in
their first fraternal association and effort in the
fulflment of this mission, accordingly, as il
might seem to them best, so was it equally in
their power, at any subsequent period of their
labors. The power remained unchanged.
The only argument urged against this view is
the unity of the first organization of the church
in 1884, which, as supposed, evinced design
that it should be coextensive with the territorial
limits of the United States, neither more nor
less and to remain and continue united church
within these limits in the exercise of its juris.
diction, spiritual and temporal; and further, that,
if power exists in any general conference. to
break up this organization and polity Of the
church as originally designed and established, it
belongs to an extraordinary general conference
assembled especially for the purpose and not
to one assembled in the ordinary way, for the
discharge of its mere administrative duties, as
the chief legislative body of the church-and
the history, ecclesiastical judcatories, practice
and usages of the church from its origin were
ably and extensively received and examined, on
the argument, for the purpose of sustaining
these several positions. -
But, the obvious answer to them is, that the
argument overlooks the source and fountain of
the power belonging to the general conference
We must look to these, and not to the mere ex-
cuse Of power in the administration of the sa-
crament, when seeking to measure its DEPTH
and extent. Where is the limit and who has
prescribed it? .. .. ...
The travelling preachers, assembled in general
conference, embody in themselves the sovereign
power; and we have nowhere seen their consent
to any limitation or restriction till all come down
in the history of their administration to the con.
ference of 1903. ... .."
We must have some evidence that they have
parted with portion of their sovereign power
that confessedly belonged 10 them at the first Or
ganization since that period and, that they as
sembled in the subsequent conferences, subject
to the disability, before their powers can be dis
tinguished from those originally possessed. We
have not been referred to any such evidence, nor
have our own researches discovered any, nor do
we believe there are any recorded acts or decla-
rations of this body to the effect claimed. When
jurisdiction and authority, spiritual and temporal,
in each general conference from 1884 TO 1908
inclusive were the same, unlimited and unre-
strained, possessing all the power, what since
the latter period, has belonged to the general
and annual conferences combined under the new
organization This is necessarily so, as all the
power and authority possessed by the annual
conferences have been conferred upon them
from time TO time by the general conference.
The arguments that this body, previous to
lOUO, ulu HOL puSS6SS COuICltllC1 10 T6OTg-
anize and reconstruct the government and the
church, as they might think best for the great OBJ.
jec,s of its mission, goes the length Of denying
that power to the concurrent action of both the
general and annual conference since that period.
And, that there is something in this association
and system policy, differing so radically from all
Others of which we have any knowledge, that,
even the constituent and representative, although
comprising every element of power appertain-
ing TO the government, can neither change or
modify it. For the argument comes down to
this, we cannot think it necessary to pursue this
branch of the case any longer.
As il respects the power OF the general con.
ference since the notifications Of 1903, it is the
same as previously existed, subject to the six
restrictive articles; and neither Of them has any
connection with or bearing upon the question
we have been considering. They relate to the
doctrine of one Church, its representative in the
general conference, the Episcopacy, discussion
of preachers and members, the Book Concern
and charter fund.
These concern the exercise of the administra-
tive powers of the conference, and are intended
~ limitations upon them, no less coDcurred in by
the annual conferences.
The powers conferred upon the general con-
ferences are broad and unlimited, subject only
TO these checks in regulating the doctrine discip-
line, and perhaps of the Church. In all other
respects, and in anything else that concerns il,
this body shall represent the sovereign power,
the same as before.
The practice Of the general conference since
the change in 1928, confirms this view. The
connexion Of the annual Upper Canada confer
ence with the Methodist Episcopal Church, was
dissolved in 1923, and that body authorized to
erect itself into an independent ecclesiastical
The force of this precedent has been attempted
to be weakened upon the allegation, that this
differed from that Of the annual con.
ferences within the United States; and that it
Iosied upon sort of coppact between that con.
ference and this Church, and therefore, held a
different relation TO it. But on looking into the
history and discipline of the Church, this will
be found to be misrepresentation Of that rela.
ton: and that the Canada conference was brought
within its olIs in the same way as those lying
upon the frontier settlements within the United
States.
IL will be found, that as early as 1904, the