ference. A mistake on this point has probably been the source of much erroneous reasoning, and of some consequent dissatisfaction. Did we claim any authority to enact laws to affect either life or limb, to touch the persons or to tax the property of our members, they ought, unquestionably, to be directly represented among us. But they know we do not. We certainly, then, exercise no civil legislation. As to the moral code, we are subject, equally with themselves, to one only Lord. We have no power to add to, to take from, to alter, or to modify, a single item of his statutes. Whether laymen or ministers be the authorized expounders and administrators of those laws, we can confidently rely on the good Christian sense of the great body of our brethren to judge. These well know, also, that whatever expositions of them we apply to others, the same are applied equally to ourselves; and, in some instances, with peculiar strictness. [Yet] no man is obliged to receive our doctrines merely because we believe and teach them; nor unless they have his own cordial assent. Neither is any man obliged to submit himself to what we believe to be the moral discipline of the gospel, and our duty to enforce, unless he believes it to be so also.' pp. 6, 7.

.

But it has been represented that what is said in the Report of the Divinely instituted ministry,' is asserted and claimed for the Methodist itinerant ministry exclusively. Nothing can be more false. The true gospel ministry of every denomination were clearly included, though with a particular application to our own ministry, in their proper pastoral charge, as the subject under consideration. The consistency of this view with the ground taken in relation to our local brethren, will hereafter appear. The principles of this part of the Report are simply these:

1. That the true gospel ministry is a ministry of Divine institution. 2. That their business is, not to make laws' for the church, (much less to tyrannize over it,) but humbly to obey, and faithfully to administer, those already made by our one only Lord and Lawgiver; to preach His gospel, and to administer the ordinances of His institution. And that the due performance of these holy functions is not merely their 'right,' but their duty:'-that a 'necessity' is laid upon them, by Him to whom alone they must ultimately answer for it;—and wo be unto them if they do it not.

3. That the ministry, nevertheless, have neither right nor power, to oblige or to require any man, to receive any thing as a doctrine or an ordinance of the gospel, or as its moral discipline, contrary to the convictions of his own judgment. That every man ought to search and examine for himself, and be fully persuaded in his own mind. And if, on such examination, he be persuaded that those who come to him, professedly in the name of Christ, do not bring the truc doctrines, ordinances, and moral discipline of the gospel, he not only is at liberty' not to receive or to obey them, but is bound not to do so.

4. That as the ministry, on one hand, have no right authoritatively to control others in these respects, so, on the other hand, we

deny the right of others authoritatively to control the ministry in these respects. In other words, we deny the existence of any just authority in any body of people, to oblige ministers of the gospel to preach as gospel doctrines what they do not believe to be gospel doctrines; to administer as gospel ordinances what they do not believe to be gospel ordinances; or as its moral discipline what they do not believe to be its moral discipline. And we say, that we should regard it as inconsistent with the duty which ministers owe to Him who has put them into the ministry, and to whom they must account, to permit their ministrations, in these respects, to be thus authoritatively controlled by others.' This is the sum total of what is said on this subject in the Report, and which has been made the butt of so much indecent ridicule, by those who would excite disturbance and divisions, and draw away disciples after them. Mr. Shinn, however, himself says,

'I must own, it is the settled conviction of my understanding, that a church constitution is a matter of far more importance than the subject of a lay representation; and such a constitution probably could be formed as would entirely supersede the necessity of such a measure. If a constitution, which the legislature, of itself, could not alter, should sufficiently guard the just privileges of every one, by rightly limiting the legislative authority, it would not be a matter of much consequence whether the General Conference should be composed exclusively of ministers or not. If the travelling preachers would attentively look into the subject, I am persuaded they would become convinced that such a constitution could be formed as would satisfy the people, secure the itinerancy, and maintain all the Christian privileges and prerogatives of the teachers and pastors of the flock.' Remarks, pp. 12, 13. And again;

'If nothing more was done than to establish in the constitution the principles conceded in the present Report of the General Conference, the improvement would be of very great importance, and would go very far toward restoring peace, and quieting the minds, even of the radicals themselves.' Remarks, p. 16.

These are frank admissions, and we greatly wish that he had been enabled to maintain the same good and candid spirit throughout his remarks. We wish also that he, and those whom he denominates 'radicals,' could have felt free rather to hold up prominently to the view of those who have been disturbed, those principles of very great importance,' contained in the Report, and to have urged, with all the untiring zeal of peacemakers, how 'very far' they ought to go toward restoring peace, and quieting the minds even of the radicals themselves.' This course, in our judgment, would have been much more pious and Christian, than the distracting and disorganizing one which has been pursued; and ultimately might possibly have had the effect, even to their own conviction, to establish in the constitution the principles conceded in the Report of the General Conference.'

The fact however is, that the principles contained in the Report, which Mr. Shinn considers of so great importance, were not just then 'conceded.' They were only then declared as the unquestioned principles of the church, in contradiction of the bold and repeated imputations to the contrary. That they had never been formally written out, into so many distinct articles, in the shape of a paper constitution, may be true; yet they are, nevertheless, as certain, and of as indisputable force as if they had been so

written.

On this subject there seems to be an erroneous idea in the minds of some, which ought to be corrected. It seems to be supposed by them, that constitutional principles cannot be established without the formalities of a 'convention,' and of written articles. This we think a mistake. The constitution of England is as certain, as well understood, and as settled, as the constitution of the United States;-yet it has never been thus written, nor was it framed by any convention particularly called for the purpose. It grew up with the growth and circumstances of the people, till it attained that definite and certain form which it has long possessed. We do not now speak either of its merits or of its demerits. Yet it can hardly surprise us, after the astonishing perversion of our former language, if, in consequence of the illustration here introduced, we shall be charged with having 'officially declared to the church and to the world' that the British constitution ought to be introduced into our civil government. But we notify all such commentators, in anticipation, that we speak here simply of the fact, that a constitution may become established without being thus written; and that the lex non scripta, the unwritten or common law, may be as binding, and as fixed, as the lex scripta, the written, or statute law. The same remark is applicable to the law of nations. If disputes occasionally occur among jurists and statesmen, respecting unwritten laws and constitutions, so do they also respecting written laws and constitutions; and even among divines, and theological jurists, respecting the written laws of God. To this very day, the constitution of the United States is neither better understood, nor more clearly established, than that of England. At almost every session of the national legislature, contentions arise respecting it; and under every succeeding administration, the great lines of demarkation between the powers and rights of the general and state governments, and the powers and rights of the different state governments respectively, are constant matter of disputation; et adhuc sub judice lis est. Even previously to the revolutionary war, the complaint among the colonists was, not that the rights of British subjects were uncertain, but that these rights were denied to them as colonists, by the mother country. They refused to be taxed, without being represented in the body by which the taxes were imposed; not only because this was a principle unjust in itself, but because it was also a violation of the British

constitution, to the benefit of which, as British subjects, they claimed to be entitled.

Mr. Shinn says, farther;

'If the church had a good constitution, there would be no occasion for a General Conference to meet oftener than once in seven years. Look at the new editions of the Discipline; and how exceedingly small do we find the business to be, that has been done by any one General Conference since the year 1808. And why need eighty or one hundred men travel hundreds of miles every four years, to look at the Discipline three or four weeks, and then to go their way, and leave it as it was before.' Remarks, p. 12.

In this he pays both us and our Discipline a high compliment, and we hope a just and merited one. It proves, according to his own showing too, what we have before said, that a seat in the General Conference is really of much less importance than seems to have been considered, and that our principles and rules, under the existing system, have attained a very high degree of clearness, and of fixedness, as well as of actual excellence. He seems, in truth, almost prepared to grant, that if these principles were settled in a constitution which the legislature' of itself could not alter, it would not be a matter of much consequence whether the General Conference should be composed exclusively of ministers or not. Now, in our opinion, they are morally so settled, as we shall hereafter endeavour to show. We agree too, that it is high time that the reproach of perpetual change, which other adversaries have so often thrown in our face, should be wiped away. And we wish that Mr. Shinn, and others, could have seen their way clear to aid us, in perfecting what he considered an improvement' of 'such very great importance,' that, if established, it would go very far toward restoring peace, and quieting the minds even of the radicals themselves.' If, in this spirit, and with this view, he had had the candour, at the General Conference, to mention the exceptionable construction which he thought might be given to some passages in the Report, we are certain that he would have been calmly and candidly listened to. And having been ourself a part of the committee, and concerned in preparing the Report, we know that we should have taken sincere pleasure in contributing our best exertions, to free it from any supposed ambiguity; and especially to guard it against the possible liability to any such monstrous interpretations, as have been perversely forced upon it. Such a course too, particularly toward one who was unconscious of having ever indicated toward Mr. Shinn any other disposition than that of personal courtesy, would have been esteemed as far more kind than that of moving and voting for the Report, as if he approved it, and afterward attacking it with the most unjust and unfounded censures. If Mr. Shinn had thought proper to pursue this, as we think, more excellent way, he might doubtless have contributed much toward counteracting the influence of unreasonable agitators, and quieting existing

agitations, instead of lending himself to the less blessed office of perpetuating them, if not of increasing them tenfold. And we cannot but think that it would also have had a happier influence on his own mind.

We apprehend, however, that Mr. Shinn greatly overrates the efficacy of ecclesiastical constitutions, in guarding against strife, and against the infractions of supposed rights, and as a preventive of the necessity of frequent meetings of the 'legislature.' The history even of civil constitutions, or of treaties, will not bear out his views. It is evident, moreover, were a written constitution' even once fixed, or so supposed to be, that in our fancied 'march of mind' and of reform, in this age of improvement,' in which we so greatly outstrip our fathers,' (or think we do,) continual amendments would be demanded, and continual corrections of alleged breaches of it. To whose ultimate arbitrament and decision should these things be referred, but to conventions similar to those which might have been called for settling a 'constitution.' If referred any where else, on the principles assumed, the nominal settlement of such a 'constitution' would be a mere farce. And if so referred, is it not obvious that the necessity for frequent meetings of the legislature,' and of 'legislative' conventions, would not only be as great as at present, but much greater; especially if the growing extent and numbers of our religious community be considered, and the consequently growing calls for such meetings, if legislative power be once admitted to have place among us. In such a community, dissatisfied spirits, and restless innovators and 'reformers,' would never be wanting. And whenever such should wish to produce agitation in the societies, or to bring themselves into more prominent posts, nothing more would be necessary than to start the question of some amendment of the constitution, or the prevention or correction of some alleged or apprehended breach of it.

Nothing is more calculated to disturb the tranquillity of any community, than the frequent agitation of constitutional questions. It is scarcely practicable, either, to make any arrangement for their decision, against which serious objections may not lie. And after all, the decisions which would probably be made, could not effect the object of securing the constitutional equilibrium; for as soon as the assemblies by which they had been made should be dispersed, the same or similar things might again occur, or be alleged, though, perhaps, under new names and forms, and in an infinite variety of modes and shapes, in an endless series. And whether occasional or periodical appeals to the community, for these purposes, should be proposed, and whether at longer or shorter intervals, the same or equal objections would still lie.-If the periods for revising the constitution, whether occasional or periodical, were at short intervals, the measures to be reviewed would necessarily have been of recent date, and the reviewers, and 'reformers,' would, of course, be under the