a system of government which vests its supremacy in six thousand men, with one which vests it in one man, will not be very discriminating in any of his premises or conclusions. There is more plausibility in the charge of antirepublicanism. We have no desire, and shall make no effort, to prove that our Church government is republican. That form of government is best which most easily and effectually accomplishes the ends of government. The ends of civil and ecclesiastical government differ in many respects. Besides, there is no definite standard of republicanism. Its modifications are as numerous as are republican communities. The ground which we assume distinctly and fearlessly is, that any test that will convict our Church government of antirepublicanism will reduce our civil government to the same predicament, and likewise those Churches which claim to be pre-eminently republican. The Rev. Dr. Smyth, of Charleston, S. C., in his work on "Ecclesiastical Republicanism," written for the purpose of proving the Presbyterian Church republican, and exalting it over others in this respect, applies the following principles to the Methodist Episcopal Church, affirming that they are not found in its government and Discipline:

"Now, among the principles which are fundamental to the very existence of a republic we find these:

"1. The equality of all its members, implying that the laws are made equally by all, acting through their representatives, and that none are elevated to any station in which they can legislate independently of the people."

Let us examine this before we proceed farther. If by the members of the republic and the people be meant all that are subject to its authority, our civil government is not republican. The population of the United States come under the distinction of the ruling portion, and the mere subject portion. Not that this distinction is often made in terms, but it exists in fact. The ruling portion, in other words, the political voters, are about one eighth of the whole population. The right of participating in the government, in any way, is denied to privates and non-commissioned officers in the army, to unnaturalized foreigners, to all males under twenty-one years of age, to slaves, and a large number of free blacks and Indians. Tried by this rule, the Protestant Methodist Church is antirepublican. Its ruling power is restricted to ministers and white male members over twenty-one years of age. The Presbyterian Church falls under the same condemnation. Its ruling power is in the hands of its elders, presbyters, or bishops alone. If, on the other hand, he means by the terms members and people the ruling portion of the people, the sovereign people, Methodism abides the test. The sovereign portion of the people of Methodism are upon an

equality. The laws are made equally by all acting through their representatives, and none are elevated to any station in which they can act independently of the people.

The second principle which this author lays down is as follows:

"The sovereign power of the people, as the source of all authority, their intervention in public affairs, their election of all officers; the consequent responsibility of all officers to them for the discharge of their duty and the management of all funds; and the knowledge and control, through their representatives, of all expenditures."

Here again the whole effect will depend upon the sense of the word people. It has a variety of meanings. It frequently signifies, 1. The entire mass of the population; 2. The subjects of government as distinguished from rulers; 3. That portion of the population of our country in which the sovereignty resides, as when we say the people are sovereign, the people rule, the sovereign people, meaning thereby the four millions who rule, not only themselves, but also the thirty-two millions. Thus the terms people and rulers become synonyms. Now, if by the people be meant the entire mass of the population, our civil polity is again condemned. The prerogatives stated are wielded by a very small portion of the people, about one eighth. And not less are all Church governments condemned. But if by the people are meant the ruling, the sovereign portion, Methodism comes forth from the ordeal unhurt. Her presbyters are her people in this sense, corresponding with the sovereign. people, or presbyters, of the state.

The charges of aristocracy and oligarchy are susceptible of being disposed of in a similar way. Those who make them rarely attempt to prove them. Generally, they have a very indistinct perception of the meaning of the terms they employ. Dr. Smyth makes some remarkable statements. He says of our civil government: "Practically, it is a republican aristocracy, the government being conducted by a part of the people." Again: "It may therefore be denominated as truly an aristocracy as a democracy." Again, speaking of the Jewish system, he says: "And this was in no respect a monarchical, but an aristocratical, that is, a republican form." He also admits that the aristocratical element exists in his own Church, and justifies it. We can prove that the state and also sister Churches are aristocratical, by any argument by which it can be proved that our ecclesiastical system is aristocratical. Indeed, if, as Dr. Smyth says, to be aristocratical is to be republican, we need not be much alarmed at either the accusations or the arguments of our opponents.

But does not our system deny the right of self-government? That it does is gravely alleged. This is assumed by the memorial

from Philadelphia, addressed to the late General Conference. To resolve this question, all that is necessary is to ascertain the meaning of the terms employed. If by the right of self-government be meant the right of communities to be governed by their own laws and officers, exclusive of any foreign jurisdiction, our Church is self-governed. What other jurisdiction than its own does it acknowledge? If we mean by a self-governed community one in which the sovereign power is vested in many of the citizens, and the sovereigns are themselves subject to the laws they enact, and amenable to the tribunals they create, in opposition to one in which the sovereignty is held and wielded by an absolute monarch or a despotic aristocracy, acknowledging no subjection to the laws of the realm they govern, then is our Church self-governed. The supreme power is vested in thousands, and subordinate administrative power in tens of thousands, and the rulers and the ruled are alike subject to the law. There is no way of proving that our Church is not self-governed which does not involve the consequence that the State is not self-governed. The principle relied upon for this purpose is thus stated by a writer on lay delegation: "All the members of a state should have an equal voice in making the laws of a state, and all the members of a Church should have an equal right in making the laws of a Church."

This condemns all existing governments, civil and ecclesiastical. Fully applied, it would inaugurate in Church and State a condition of hopeless anarchy. It would invest every man, woman, and child, black or white, native or foreign, savage or civilized, with all the attributes of sovereignty. It would sanction follies far beyond the worst vagaries of women's rights conventions.

Certain modifications of this principle are pertinaciously urged. We are told that to govern without the consent of the governed is unjust. But no one in the Methodist Episcopal Church is governed without his consent. Every member joins it voluntarily, and may withdraw from it whenever he becomes dissatisfied with its institutions, its doctrines, its measures, its members, or anything pertaining to it. Should it be said that our people are governed without their consent because their wills are not directly consulted as to whether the government should remain as it is or be changed, we answer, If this be true the majority of the citizens of our Republic are governed without their consent. When are our females consulted upon questions of civil government? What power have they over the laws to which they are subject? The same may be said not only of all males during their minority, but also of the entire army, and all engaged in the naval service of the United States,

excepting the commissioned officers. All are governed without their consent except the privileged fraction legally entitled to a political vote. There is this difference in favor of our Church: the subjects of the State are born under this subjection, and can escape from it only by expatriation; whereas the members of the Church become such voluntarily, and remain such no longer than they choose, and can throw off its jurisdiction without changing their residence, or their business, or any of the relations of citizenship.

It is also objected that ours is not a "government emanating from the governed." Those employing this maxim rarely give any clue to their understanding of it, or illustrate in the least degree its application as an argument against our polity. In this they seem to act with more sagacity than candor. The only process by which it can be made to condemn our system will be found to be still more condemnatory of our civil government. When did the mere subject portion of the Republic confer power upon the sovereign portion? The latter assumed it in the beginning, and have held it ever since. The sovereign portion of the people of Methodism have conferred upon the subject portion prerogatives by virtue of which none can graduate into the sovereignty without their formal consent, but the sovereigns of the state have done no such thing. The only way in which the governing persons in the state derive their power from the governed is this: the representative rulers derive their authority to perform particular acts of government for themselves and the body of the sovereigns, from the latter, who consent to be subject to the laws they have made by proxy. With this exception, so much in our favor, the parallel between the state and our ecclesiastical system is perfect.

Some who use this maxim as an argument for change, tacitly assume (they too are cautious to assert) that none can be justly governed except they have had a part in making the laws to which they are subject, or have given to them their formal authoritative consent; that by the governed the maxim intends all the governed. The absurdity of this view is manifest. It places the scepter in the hands of every new-born babe, as well as those of every other age and description.

The most plausible design and effect of the application of this maxim to the Methodist Episcopal Church, as an objection and an instrument of reform, is that the sovereignty should be held by the laity; and the ministry should possess no power but what is delegated to them by the laity. In this way every layman becoming a minister would be disfranchised. He would surrender all claim to sovereignty, and become a mere subject, exercising just so much

power as the laity would endow him with as their agent. This would realize the highest philosophy of some of our reformers.

This maxim is intelligible and valuable as the protest of a community, capable of originating and sustaining a government for itself, against being held in subjection by a foreign power, or being ruled by those who refuse subjection to the laws they make and administer; but as an objection to the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church it is utterly unintelligible and worthless.

We must also institute a distinct inquiry respecting the right of representation. Our reformers assert that is not recognized by our system so far as the laity are concerned. This ground is taken by the memorial from Philadelphia. But this rests upon the further assumption, that a particular mode of constituting representatives is essential to the fact of representation. It presupposes that none can be represented unless they have a direct agency in the appointment of their representatives. This may be shown to be untenable by numerous facts, one of which must suffice for the present. The basis of representation in our civil government is the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, with all the Indians that are taxed, and three fifths of all the slaves. To ascertain the number of the people, the census is required to be taken every ten years. Thus we see that the whole community, young and old, male and female, white and colored, with the exception of the Indians not taxed, and two fifths of all the slaves, are professedly represented in our national legislature. To say that none can be represented but those who vote in the elections for representatives is, in effect, to say that a majority of the people of this Republic are not represented in its government, and to convict its Constitution of absurdity.

The arguments of our opponents upon this question are often based upon the supposition that it is essential to representation, that the representative be chosen by the particular class of the community to which he belongs, to represent that class alone. Upon this ground it has been demanded, with an air of triumph, "How can ministers represent laymen?" The absurdities flowing from this assumption are numerous and amusing. We should be tempted to entertain our readers with some of them had we sufficient space; but we must forego amusement at this time. To the question, "How can ministers represent laymen?" we answer, Just as easily as laymen can represent ministers. What is the hinderance? Ministers come from the laity, and are constantly mingling with them. They have as good an opportunity of knowing their wants as parents have of knowing the wants of their children. They do not.