interest in whatever affects the peace, prosperity, and happiness of our beloved country. The union of these States, the perpetuity of the bonds of our national confederation, the reciprocal confidence of the different members of the great civil compact-in a word, the well being of the community of which we are members, should never cease to lay near our hearts, and for which we should offer up our sincere and most ardent prayers to the almighty Ruler of the universe. But can we, as ministers of the gospel, and servants of a Master "whose kingdom is not of this world," promote these important objects in any way so truly and permanently as by pursuing the course just pointed out? Can we, at this eventful crisis, render a better service to our country than by laying aside all interference with relations authorized and established by the civil laws, and applying ourselves wholly and faithfully to what specially appertains to our "high and holy calling;" to teach and enforce the moral obligations of the gospel, in application to all the duties growing out of the different relations in society? By a diligent devotion to this evangelical employment, with an humble and steadfast reliance upon the aid of divine influence, the number of "believing masters" and servants may be constantly increased, the kindest sentiments and affections cultivated, domestic burdens light. ened, mutual confidence cherished, and the peace and happiness of society be promoted. While, on the other hand, if past history affords us any correct rules of judgment, there is much cause to fear that the influence of our sacred office, if employed in interference with the relation itself, and consequently with the civil institutions of the country, will rather tend to prevent than to accomplish these desirable ends.

But while we sincerely and most affectionately, and, we humbly trust, in the spirit of the gospel of Christ, recommend to you, and to all the ministers and members you represent in this body, to pursue such a course in regard to this deeply exciting subject, we think it proper to invite your attention in particular to one point intimately connected with it, and, as we conceive, of primary importance. It is in regard to the true import and application of the general rule on slavery. The different constructions to which it has been subjected, and the variety of opinions entertained upon it, together with the conflicting acts of some of the annual conferences of the north and south, seem to require that a body, having legitimate jurisdiction, should express a clear and definite opinion, as a uniform guide to those to whom the administration of the Discipline is committed.

Another subject of vital importance, as we apprehend, to the unity and peace of the church, and not unconnected with the foregoing, is the constitutional powers of the general superintendents, in their relations to the annual conferences, and in their general executive administration of the government, and the rights of annual and quarterly conferences, in their official capacities. In the prosecution of our superintending agency we have been compelled to differ in opinion from many of our brethren composing these official bodies; and this difference of opinion, connected with a conviction of our high responsibility, has, in a few cases resulted in action, which has been judged, by those specially concerned, to be high-handed, unconstitutional, tyrannical, and oppressive. In all such cases, we have given the

most unequivocal assurances, that we should, with unfeigned satis. faction, and the kindest feelings, submit the whole matter in contro. versy, with all our official acts in the premises, to the enlightened deliberation, and final judgment of this constitutional tribunal. And we cannot but indulge the hope that those who have differed from us will cordially abide the decision of such a judicatory, should it not accord with their views. We have no disposition to enter into an extensive examination of the merits of the case, which, we regret to say, has been a matter of prolonged discussion in self-created conven. tions, and in some of the religious periodicals of the day. But our object is to lay before you the simple points involved, and leave the issue to be settled as your united wisdom shall determine, requesting liberty, at proper times, if occasion should require, to correct erroneous statements, and remove improper impressions, having reference to our course of action. In presenting this subject to your consideration, it is due to a very large majority of all the annual conferences, and to the members composing them, individually, to say that the utmost harmony, and confidence, and affection exist between them and the general superintendents. The geographical bounds of the controversy are very limited.

The whole subject may be presented to you in the following simple questions :-When any business comes up for action in our annual or quarterly conferences, involving a difficulty on a question of law, so as to produce the inquiry, What is the law in the case? does the con. stitutional power to decide the question belong to the president, or the conference? Have the annual conferences a constitutional right to do any other business than what is specifically prescribed, or, by fair construction, provided for in the form of Discipline? Has the president of an annual conference, by virtue of his office, a right to decline putting a motion or resolution to vote, on business other than that thus prescribed or provided for? These questions are proposed with exclusive reference to the principle of constitutional right. The principles of courtesy and expediency are very different things.

As far as we have been able to ascertain the views of those who entertain opinions opposite to our own on these points, they may be summed up as follows:-They maintain that all questions of law arising out of the business of our annual or quarterly conferences are to be, of right, settled by the decision of those bodies, either primarily by resolution, or finally by an appeal from the decision of the president: "that it is the prerogative of an annual conference to decide what business they will do, and when they will do it:" that they have a constitutional right "to discuss, in their official capacity, all moral subjects:" to investigate the official acts of other annual conferences of the General Conference, and of the general superintendents, so far as to pass resolutions of disapprobation or approval on those acts. They maintain that the president of an annual conference is to be regarded in the same relation to the conferences that a chairman or speaker sustains to a civil legislative assembly: that it is his duty to preserve order in the conference, to determine questions of order subject to appeal, and put to vote all motions and resolutions, when called for according to the rules of the body: that these are the settled land-marks of his official prerogatives, as president of the

conference, beyond which he has no right to go: that although it belongs to his office, as general superintendent, to appoint the time for holding the several annual conferences, he has no discretionary autho rity to adjourn them, whatever length of time they may have continued their session, or whatever business they may think proper to transact. From these doctrines we have felt it our solemn duty to dissent. And we will not withhold from you our deliberate and abiding conviction, that if they should be sustained by the General Conference, the uniform and efficient administration of the government would be rendered impracticable.

The government of the Methodist Episcopal Church is peculiarly constructed. It is widely different from our civil organization. The General Conference is the only legislative body recognized in our ecclesiastical system, and from it originates the authority of the entire executive administration. The exclusive power to create annual conferences, and to increase or diminish their number, rests with this body. No annual conference has authority or right to make any rule of discipline for the church, either within its own bounds or elsewhere. No one has the power to elect its own president, except in a special case, pointed out, and provided for by the General Conference. Whatever may be the number of the annual conferences, they are all organized on the same plan, are all governed by the same laws, and all have identically the same rights, and powers, and privileges. These powers, and rights, and privileges are not derived from themselves, but from the body which originated them. And the book of Discipline, containing the rules of the General Conference, is the only charter of their rights, and directory of their duties, as official bodies. The general superintendents are elected by the General Conference, and responsible to it for the discharge of the duties of their office. They are constituted, by virtue of their office, president of the annual conferences, with authority to appoint the time of holding them; with a prudential provision that they shall allow each conference to sit at least one week, that the important business prescribed in the form of Discipline may not be hurried through in such a manner as to affect injuriously the interests of the church. The primary objects of their official department in the church were, as we believe, to preserve, in the most effectual manner, an itinerant ministry; to maintain a uniformity in the administration of the government and discipline in every department, and that the unity of the whole body might be preserved. But how, we would ask, can these important ends be accomplished if each annual conference possesses the rights and powers set forth in the foregoing summary? Is it to be supposed, that twentyeight constitutional judges of ecclesiastical law, and these, too, not individuals of age and experience, who have had time and means to thoroughly investigate, and analyze, and collate the system; but official bodies, many members of which are young and inexperienced, and without the opportunity or necessary helps for such researches, and without consultation with each other on the points to be decided, will settle different questions of law with such agreement as to have no material conflict between their legal decisions? Is it not greatly to be feared, that with such system of ecclesiastical jurisprudence, what might be law in Georgia might be no law in New-England?

that what might be orthodoxy in one conference might be heresy in another? Where, then, would be the identity of the law, the uniformity of its administration, or the unity and peace of the church?

A well digested system of collegiate education, under the direction and control of the General Conference, is, in our opinion, loudly called for by the present state of the church, and by our widely extended and extending influence, as a religious denomination. Such a system is of such vast importance, in connection with the general principles and designs of Methodism, as to render the policy of submitting its direction and superintendence to sectional control, to say the least, very doubtful. For many years the state of the church was such in these States as to render it impracticable to accomplish much in the cause of education, any farther than as we were associated with other bodies, or were connected with the institutions of the country. And it is not to be denied that there existed among us, to a considerable extent, even down to a recent date, strong opposition to commencing this im. portant enterprise among ourselves. But during the last twenty years the spirit of inquiry has been wakened up, and a very general interest excited on this subject; and the energies and means of our preachers and people have been employed to a very considerable extent in the promotion of such a worthy and noble object.

What appears to be especially necessary at the present crisis, is a well organized system which shall give the best direction to those energies and means. It will not be at all surprising to men who have made themselves acquainted with the former and present condition of the Methodist Church, relative to the promotion of literature, that there should be, at the present time, a spirit of zeal and enterprise in operation, which, if not guided by the soundest principles of wisdom and policy, and concentrated in a general and harmonious system, may fail to accomplish the desirable and important object, and ultimately result in injurious reaction. This can hardly fail to be the case, if colleges, or other high institutions of learning, which must depend upon other means of support than the revenues arising from tuition, are multiplied beyond the available means necessary for their adequate and permanent endowment. And it is to be feared that in this respect we are not entirely free from error and danger. We scarcely need to say to this enlightened and experienced body of ministers, many of whom are familiar with the polity and fiscal concerns of literary institutions, that such of them as we haye just named cannot be considered in a safe and sound condition in regard to their efficiency and perpetuity, until they realize a revenue from permanent endowment entirely sufficient to support their faculties, leaving the fund arising from tuition to meet contingent expenses. If this is a correct rule of calculation in regard to the safety of collegiate institutions, it is very doubtful whether any of our colleges or universities can be considered permanently secure. It appears to us that the time has arrived for the General Conference to take this subject into their deliberate consideration, and adopt such measures as, in their wisdom, may the most effectually secure our colleges already in operation from liability to failure, and guard against the erection of others till suffi. cient available means are secured to place them on a firm foundation. The circumstance that there are members of the faculties or boards of VOL. XI.-July, 1840.

25

trustees of nearly, if not quite, all our colleges, present as representatives in this body, is in our opinion peculiarly favorable to such a design. We cannot too deeply impress upon your minds the importance of preserving in our own power the direction and control of the system of collegiate and theological education in the church. Perhaps a more favorable opportunity than your present session will seldom, if ever, occur, for devising and adopting a judicious and uniform course of literary and moral discipline in all the collegiate institutions under our superintendence. And we will not withhold our solemn conviction that any course of study in a Methodist college or university would be essentially defective if it did not embrace the Bible-the most ancient, the most learned, and the most important book in the world. As a Christian community, all our institutions of learning should be sanctuaries of theological science. Do we send our sons to explore the regions of science and literature merely, as did idolatrous Greece and Rome, to prepare them for the senate, the forum, or field? Do we not rather desire that they may be qualified by mental and moral improvement'to diffuse, in every circle of society in which they may move, the influence of the enlightening, peaceful, and benevolent principles of our holy religion? Do we intend them for professional life? In what profession can they be employed in a Christian country in which the Bible is not a most important text book? Are not the civil governments of Christendom based upon it? Is it not the fountain of law, and the charter of rights? When do you see the statesman, the judge, or the advocate, more clear, convincing, authoritative, or sublime, than when he appeals to its doctrines, morals, or sanctions? Do we desire our sons to practice the healing art? Would we send them forth to mingle in scenes of wretchedness and suffering without the knowledge of those divine truths taught by Him who went about doing good, and healing all manner of diseases? In a word, we cannot but believe that the doctrines, history, evidences, and morals of revelation, should be regarded as forming one of the most important departments in our system of collegiate education.

We are aware that such a feature in the course of study in our colleges would subject them to the too common objection of being theological seminaries. This objection would certainly come with more grace from the lips of infidels than from the tongues or pens of professed believers in the divine authenticity of the Christian revelation. While, in our opinion, the science of the word of God should be a paramount branch of instruction in our literary institutions, we desire not to be understood as recommending the establishment of "theological seminaries," in the common acceptation of the term; that is, for the special purpose of educating men for the work of the gospel ministry. We feel, with many enlightened Christians and able ministers, both in our own and other religious denominations, the importance of an able and efficient ministry. Nor are we unapprized of the great advantages of a thorough education to those whose business it is to preach "Christ and him crucified." But we are free to acknowledge that the policy of establishing schools of divinity for the exclusive purpose of preparing young men for the sacred office, as for a profession, is, in our opinion, to say the least, of doubtful authority