nal says, (p. 108,) "The Superintendents presented the following-Resolved, etc."-which was amended by the Conference, and "carried." Thus have originated many measures now standing in the Discipline.

Notwithstanding these facts of history, later usage, based on a generally-accepted view of Episcopal propriety or of ecclesiastical constitution—perhaps both -is as above stated. The Bishops do not formally introduce motions or cast votes; neither do they claim that right. The influence exerted by them, in the chief Synod of the Church, is less positive and direct. Bishop McKendree defined the General Conference to be "composed of the Bishops and representatives from all the Annual Conferences." In his Life and Times, (Vol. II., pp. 364, 365,) is a statement of his views: "The representatives and the General Superintendents who compose the General Conference, do not act as separate and distinct bodies; and yet, such is their respective relations to their constituents, that they form a check on each other in order to preserve the constitutional rights and privileges of the preachers and people. In the sixth article the mode of altering or amending the Constitution is pointed out, and stands thus: 'Provided,' etc. . . . By this proviso our constituents have reserved to themselves the right of judging in constitutional cases, and effectually prohibited every infringement on their sacred rights. The Superintendents have no negative in the General Conference; but if that body should attempt to exceed the bounds of the delegated power, the Superintendents may declare the procedure unconstitutional; and if it should remain a subject of dispute between the Conference

and Superintendents, it must be referred to the Annual Conferences, as a constitutional question. In this way the General Superintendency is a safe and easy check on the delegated Conference. But the Bishops are amenable to that body for their administration; the Conference is therefore a powerful check on them, in the exercise of their powers."

This course was pursued with what were called the Suspended Resolutions of 1820, which were considered an infringement of the third Restrictive Article of the Constitution. This instance of Episcopal interposition in defense of the Constitution, was not only successful, but perhaps no single event has operated more influentially in shaping our Church-polity. And none rejoiced at its effects more, or were readier to acknowledge their happy character, than the once foremost advocates of the elective Presiding-eldership. One of the coördinate departments of the government was about to be swept away by another. Who should interpose? The Annual Conferences, as such, could not. The Church at large could not.

Joshua Soule said, in the session of 1824: "The General Conference is not the proper judge of the constitutionality of its own acts. The course of the last General Conference, in the case of the Suspended Resolutions, shows it thought thus. If the General Conference be the sole judge in such questions, then there are no bounds to its power." (Vol. II., p. 37.)

"Once more," says Bishop McKendree, "the General Superintendents serve as watchmen to guard the Annual Conferences against attacks on their constitutional rights. The delegated Conference is composed

of two parts-the representatives of the Annual Conferences, and the Bishops. These are equally supported by the preachers collectively, who have secured to themselves, in this capacity, the right of deciding on any alteration of the Constitution; therefore, that instrument cannot be altered or changed by the General Conference, unless they first obtain the consent of the Annual Conferences. Now, if the representatives should make a premature attack on the Constitution, it becomes the Superintendent's duty, arising out of his relation to the preachers collectively, to arrest the procedure, on constitutional principles, and thus, and on that ground, the subject may come before the Annual Conferences, whose right it is to judge in all constitutional cases. Were it not for this check, which brings all disputes respecting constitutional rights to a uniform and safe conclusion, the Church might be involved in difficulties of the most serious nature." (Vol. II., pp. 357, 358.) Hence such references as the following: In the General Conference of 1836 a stringent Report on Temperance was under discussion, when,

"On motion of W. Winans, Resolved that the resolution under consideration be referred to the Bishops, with the request that they give their opinion, whether it interferes with the fourth Restrictive Regulation in our Discipline." (Journal, p. 496.)

SEC. II.-OF PRESIDING ELDERS.

1. The Presiding Elder is appointed by the Bishop, and in his absence, represents his official

authority within the District, and exercises all his functions except ordaining.

"The General Superintendents," says Bishop McKendree, "are invested with full power to superintend the work at large. . . . But the work extended so rapidly, that in a few years it became impossible for the Bishop to superintend in person; therefore, Presiding Elders were introduced, as assistant superintendents; and, as the Bishops were the only responsible persons for the administration, they were to choose the Presiding Elders, who are fully authorized to superintend the work in the absence of the Bishops; therefore, the office of a Presiding Elder is not separate and distinct from that of a General Superintendent, but is inseparably connected with a part of it, and included in it. They are deputized by the Bishops, who bear the whole responsibility of the administration, as their assistants in the superintendency."

In 1792 the General Conference first drew up a section in the Discipline for the explanation of the nature and duties of this office.

2. The Presiding Elder has no authority to release a preacher from the performance of his ministerial duties. A clause in the Discipline, which seemed to imply this, was stricken out by the General Conference of 1840, as at variance with our system of itinerancy, and of injurious practical tendency. If a preacher leaves his charge, the responsibility rests upon himself

alone, and he must answer it at the Annual Conference.*

3. A Presiding Elder, in the absence of a Bishop, may, if necessary, remove a preacher from one charge to another within his District; but he cannot remove him beyond the limits of his District, neither can he fill any vacant place with a traveling preacher who has received an appointment in another District.

4. A Presiding Elder may not give a certificate to a traveling preacher who would withdraw from the Church, certifying to his acceptability and official standing up to date. The Annual Conference to whom such a person is amenable, claims the right of examination of character, when his name is called on the roll; and the Presiding Elder may not forestall its judgment. The request to withdraw should be made to the Conference, which alone can receive a member. This may be done through the Presiding Elder. If a traveling preacher, withcut this respectful formality, abandons his work and his ministry, the Presiding Elder's official duty is discharged when he has laid the facts before the Conference.

5. The license of a local preacher or exhorter,

*Journal Gen. Conf., p. 105.