Conference. Its action on the subject, as embodied in ¶ 240 of the Discipline, must be regarded, therefore, not as law, but as the advice or opinion of those who voted for it. While in that view entitled perhaps to consideration, we confess to a strong preference for the deeper wisdom of Wesley and our general rule on this subject. The discretion it allows is within the limits of morality. But this leaves a field of Christian liberty, under a law which is ever an appeal to conscience and a help to the formation of moral character. Excessive indulgence in an allowable amusement, like gluttony, may become an imprudence, scandalize the Church, and so subject one to discipline; as also might be the case were one to take legitimate diversions in improper places. For instance, a Christian could hardly justify habitual resort to saloons for drinking water or the stopping in gambling dens to wait for trains.

99

We trust that sufficient reasons have been given for letting the anomalons action of 1872 pass into " innocuous desuetude,' and the great original law of Wesley come once more into commanding position and influence. In that event the Church will be saved at once from the humiliation of a supposed law, bad in form and defective in substance, and from the losses it causes her by driving young people of character and culture into other communions.

Neicam L. Sibley

SECOND PAPER.

THE object of this article is to present in briefest form some reflections concerning the amusement regulations enacted by the General Conference of 1872, in their relation to the fundamental law of our Church. We make no attempt to discuss the character of the amusements particularly prohibited. It is proper, however, that we should guard against a false inference. No one can justly conclude from anything here written, or left unwritten, that we regard the end sought by the regulations in question otherwise than most important. The Church certainly has sufficient cause for seeking to guard against the 19-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. XII.

inroads of frivolity and worldliness. But how best to correct existing evils, or most effectually to prevent them, is a momentous question, to answer which would require extended and discriminating discussion. Upon this we do not now enter.

Our present question is purely legal. Are the special regulations touching amusements, in ¶ 240 of our Discipline, constitutional? Did the General Conference of 1872, in making these regulations, act within the limits of its constituted authority? As to this, it deserves to be noted:

1. The General Rules define the condition of membership in our Church, so far as moral and religious requirements are concerned. They are the statement of these conditions. Evidence of this appears at the beginning of every paragraph: "There is only one condition previously required,” etc.; "It is expected of all who continue in these societies," etc. The beginning of the last paragraph is of marked significance: "These are the General Rules of our societies; all which we are taught of God to observe, even in his written word, which is the only rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our faith and practice." This is intended, doubtless, to attach to these rules the weight of Scripture authority. It is also calculated and intended to prevent any narrowing or broadening of these rules by interpretation so as not to leave them in conformity with Scripture teaching. The General Rules thus profess to require no more and no less than God requires "in his written word." The ethical conditions of membership in our Church, as stated in these rules, recognize the same necessity for the exercise of Christian liberty, of good judgment, and of developed and refined conscientiousness that is recognized by the Scriptures. While the General Rules particularize at many points, and specifically prohibit things absolutely and universally wrong, with regard to things the moral quality of which is variable, according to circumstances or methods, they do not particularize, but include all such things under the guidance of a general principle. For example, profanity, drunkenness, and quite a number of other things are particularly forbidden. But the one general rule with regard to amusements is that which forbids "the taking such diversions as cannot be used in the name of the Lord Jesus." Other examples might be given, but the above is sufficient and the one most pertinent to our purpose.

It was of this section of our Discipline that Coke and Asbury said, "The present section forms perhaps one of the completest systems of Christian ethics or morals, for its size, which ever was published by an uninspired writer."*

2. The fourth restrictive rule declares that "the General Conference shall not revoke nor change the General Rules of the United Societies." It is said, in ¶ 67, that "the General Conference shall have full power to make rules and regulations for our Church under the following limitations and restrictions." And one of the limitations is that just cited. This appears quite like a denial of any right to the General Conference to change the conditions of membership in our Church.' If it is not that, what is it?

Of the restrictive rules in general it may be said that they are designed to protect rights and prerogatives in various directions. Thus, to avoid too much detail, beginning with the third restrictive rule, we find there a safeguard thrown around our episcopal form of government and "the plan of our itinerant general superintendency." The General Conference is not permitted to encroach in the slightest degree in this direction. The restrictive rule has always been construed rigidly, but not too rigidly. The only way in which any change can be brought about in our long-standing method of episcopal government is that prescribed for changing the constitution of the Church. What part the General Conference may have in this every reader is aware. The fifth restrictive rule protects both inisters and lay members in their right to duly appointed trial and appeal. The application and enforcement of the law of our Church is here properly guarded. The fourth restrictive rule, immediately preceding and thus emphasizing its significance, calls attention to, and guards, the law under which members must be tried. It is designed to protect the members of our Church against any change by the General Conference affecting the conditions of their church membership. These conditions may be lawfully changed, but not by the General Conference alone-not even by the vote of two thirds of the General Conference standing alone. Is anyone prepared to say that such a safeguard thrown around membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church is anything less than wise and

*Sherman's History of the Discipline, p. 113.

just? Shall it be held lawful for the General Conference, if it thinks best, to change the conditions of church membership every four years?

3. The General Conference of 1872, by enacting the amusement clause in 240, did change the conditions of church membership, and thus did what was equivalent to changing the General Rules. It may be said that these regulations were made in accordance with the spirit of the General Rules, and that there is no change that is essential. But this is not the

case, for the regulations particularize at a point where the General Rules refrain from particularizing. They pronounce against certain forms of amusement a sweeping and undiscriminating judgment that is not in harmony, but rather in contrast, with both the spirit and method of the General Rules. They practically demand an ignoring, or slurring over, of genuine moral distinctions-a thing never wise or safe. They stand, therefore, in contrast with the General Rules in respect to the proper education of conscience. They leave no room for the administrators of Discipline to exercise discrimination with regard to matters which, whatever else may be said about them, cannot be wisely handled without discrimination. In short, both ministers and lay members find themselves confronting a new order, a changed condition of church membership, since the establishment of these regulations.

It will doubtless be held by some that the General Conference at the point in question acted not as a legislative, but as a judicial, body, and that these regulations must stand as a judicial interpretation of the fundamental law. Yet, it is sufficient to remark, in reply, that judicial bodies never interpret laws abstractly, but always with reference to a particular case. And the interpretation, while it may carry great weight in construing the law in similar particular cases, never attains to the authority of law itself. The General Conference did not, and could not, act in its judicial capacity, for the reason just suggested. Acting as it did, as a legislative body, it overlooked at this point the significance of the fourth restrictive rule.

Ensign Mr Chesney.

EDITORIAL DEPARTMENTS.

NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS.

HEGEL felt that religion was thought; Schleiermacher thought religion was feeling; but religion has both thought and feeling, the feeling being the proper and natural product of the thought under the illumination and quickening of the Holy Spirit.

PRECIPITATE action, a disregard of fundamental law by unconstitutional methods of procedure, and the election of any but the best and most suitable men to high office-these are the gravest perils besetting the approaching General Conference.

A LONG-STANDING rule in the office of this Review is that no paper which is a review of a book can be published among the contributed articles. A rule agreed upon in all publishing offices is that no manuscript intended for publication should ever be rolled, but should be folded flat.

In the death of Bishop Atticus G. Haygood, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, bereavement is not limited to the communion in which he was so eminent and powerful. It is hardly too much to say that all mankind have lost a wise and useful friend, for he loved and labored for man as man. His helpful sympathies knew no boundaries less than the whole human race. Especially the Christian people of the United States, from Hatteras to the Golden Gate, from the Thousand Islands to Florida Keys, may well mourn under a sense of loss.

CHRIST is the interpreter of God; the New Testament interprets Christ; the initial and immediate, and also the consummate, task of theology is to interpret the New Testament. All churches and creed-holders perceive that theology is to be more and more biblical. Exegesis is both the primary and the postgraduate teacher of theology. Exegetical theology parentally precedes systematic theology. The transfers of Professor Warfield, formerly of Allegheny, now of Princeton, and of Professor Stevens,