In South Carolina. 487 



spoiled it altogether for the use intended. The references of my 

 brother were full enough, and to the point, if he had only meant to 

 prove that a bishop is amenable to the General Conference, and that 

 the General Conference has full power to put him out of office. But 

 to reduce a bishop to a mere General Conference officer it was nec- 

 essary to prove that that body had a right to displace him at will, 

 with or without some crime alleged. And for this his authorities 

 were lacking. No authority of Mr. Asbury, Dr. Coke, Mr. Dickens, 

 or anybody else — before this case of Bishop Andrew caused it to be 

 asserted on this floor — can be adduced for any such doctrine. If a 

 bishop is no more than an officer of the General Conference, where- 

 fore is he consecrated? Shall we be told also that elders and dea- 

 cons are only officers of the Annual Conferences? What would be 

 thought of a bishop by election, who, without consecration, should 

 assume the functions of the episcopacy as if he had been ordained? 

 Who could consent to such a usurpation? A bishop an officer of 

 the General Conference only! And is it in such a capacity that he 

 ordains and stations the preachers at the Annual Conferences? An 

 officer of the General Conference only! Then were it both untrue 

 and blasphemous to invest him with the office, with those holy 

 words of the consecration service, "Receive the Holy Ghost for the 

 office and work of a bishop in the Church of God, now committed 

 to thee by the imposition of our hands, in the name of the Father, 

 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But we are assured that 

 a bishop must be considered as no more than an officer of the Gen- 

 eral Conference, or else we shall incur the imputation of Puseyisni. 

 And in a desperate effort to fulfill our purposes on Bishop Andrew, 

 shall we strip the Church of every thing sacred, and reduce it to the 

 level of a mere human association? Is there no position for the 

 Church above that of a Free-mason's lodge, unless we hoist it on 

 the stilts of the High-church conceit, to the pitch of Puseyism? 



Much has been said in this debate about the constitution as au- 

 thorizing the measure which brethren propose to take with respect 

 to Bishop Andrew, and I must beg to call attention to what appears 

 to me the true ground with respect to that question. I am opposed 

 to this measure in every aspect of it, and for many reasons, but its 

 unconstitutionality forms, to my mind, its chief objection. 



But what is the constitution? and how should we interpret it? 



It is either the supreme disciplinary law of the whole Church, or 

 it is that law of the Church by which the governing power is lim- 

 ited. In the first sense, it is the embodiment of those principles 



