regulation of the conference was this; "It shall take two thirds of all the members of the conference, to make a new rule, or abolish an old one but a majority may alter or amend any rule.”

:

The committee was afterwards increased, by adding more preachers to it: but after all, it was found to be of no real use; for if a few of the committee were opposed to any thing that was adopted by a majority of their brethren, when the bu siness was brought before the whole of the conference, those that were dissatisfied before, would take an active part in the debates and all the arguments that had been brought forward in the committee would be taken, up again; which did not answer the end intended. It had been thought that a committee would arrange matters so as to expedite the business; but after trying it, we found that it had the contrary effect. The committee was then given up, and any preacher was at liberty to bring forward any motion; and the conference proceeded to establish or reject it, according to the above regulation either by the voice of a majority, or two thirds, as the case might require.

Óne amendment to our former plan, and to the form of discipline, was offered by Mr. J. O'Kelly,which was this: " After the bishop appoints the preachers at conference to their several circuits, if any one think himself injured by the appointment, he shall have liberty to appeal to the conference and state his objections; and if the conference approve his objections, the bishop shall appoint him to another circuit.”

This motion brought on a long debate, the arguments for and against the proposal were weighty, and handled in a masterly manner. There never had been a subject before us that so fully

called forth all the strength of the preachers. A large majority of them appeared at first to be in favour of the motion. But at last Mr. John Dickins moved to divide the question thus, 1st. Shall the bishop appoint the preachers to the circuits? 2d. Shall a preacher be allowed an appeal? After some debate the dividing the question was carried. The first question being put, it was carried without a dissenting voice. But when we came to the second question," Shall a preacher be allowed an appeal ?" there was a difficulty started, whether this was to be considered a new rule, or only an amendment of an old one. If it was a new rule, it would take two thirds of the votes to carry it. After a considerable debate

it was agreed by vote that it was only an amend. ment of an old rule. Of course after all those lengthy debates we were just where we began; and had to take up the question as it was proposed at first.

One rule for our debates was, "That each person if he choose shall have liberty to speak three times on each motion." By dividing the question, and then coming back to where we were at first, we were kept on that subject called the Appeal, for two or three days. On Monday we began the debate afresh, and continued it through the day; and at night we went to Mr. Otterbein's church, and again continued it till near bed time, when the vote was taken, and the motion was lost by a large majority.

The next morning, when the conference had assembled, we received a letter from Mr. O'Kelly, and a few other preachers, directed to the conference, informing us, that they could no longer sit. among us, because the appeal was not allowed. The conference then pitched upon a few preachers to wait upon the disaffected persons, and per

suade them to resume their seats in the conference. But all their persuasions were of little weight for they would not come. After a day or two Mr. O'Kelly had an interview with Dr. Coke, and raised many objections against the Dr. and against the conference. Waiting in town a day or two longer, he and the preachers that were particularly influenced by him, set off for Virginia, taking their saddle bags, great coats, and other bundles on their shoulders or arms, walking on foot to the place where they left their horses, which was about twelve miles from town.

I stood and looked after them as they went off, and observed to one of the preachers, that I was sorry to see the old man go off in that way, for I was persuaded he would not be quiet long; but he would try to be head of some party. The preacher then informed me, that Mr. O'Kelly denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and preached against it, by saying, that Father, Son and Holy Chost were characters, and not persons: and that these characters all belonged to Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ was the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The preacher further said, that it was his intention to have had O'Kelly tried at that conference for the false doctrines which he had been preaching; and he believed that his leaving the conference was more out of fear of being brought to trial, than on account of the appeal. But so it was, Mr. James O'Kelly never more united with the Methodists.

At that general conference we revised the form of discipline, and made several alterations. The proceedings of that conference were not published in separate minutes, but the alterations were entered at their proper places, and published in the next edition of the form of discipline, which was the eighth edition.

The title page of that edition was as follows: "The Doctrine and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, revised and approved at the general conference held at Baltimore in the State of Maryland, in November 1792 in which Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury presided."

In the bishops' address to the members of the Methodist socities in the United States, they say, “We have made some little alteration in the present edition, yet such as affect not in any degree the essentials of our doctrine and discipline. We think ourselves obliged frequently to view, and review, the whole order of our church, always aiming at perfection.

We determined at this conference to have another general conference at the end of four years, to be held in Baltimore on the first of November 1796. We also agreed that all the travelling preachers who should be in full connection at the time of holding the next general conference, should be intitled to a seat.

It was likewise determined, that the districts should be formed according to the judgment of the bishops; yet so as not to include more than twelve, nor less than three circuits in a district.

Moreover it was also said, "The bishop shall appoint the time of holding the district conferences."

In the 16th page of the Form of Discipline we gave an explanatory note of the character of a supernumerary preacher. "A supernumerary preacher is one so worn out in the itinerant service, as to be rendered incapable of preaching constantly; but at the same time is willing to do any work in the ministry, which the conference may direct, and his strength will enable him to perform."

We had also this N. B. "In case there be no bishop to travel through the districts, and exercise the Episcopal office, on the account of death, the districts shall be regulated in every respect by the district conferences and the presiding elders, till the ensuing general conference, (ordination only excepted.")

In the 4th section it is asked, Q. 1. "How is a bishop to be constituted in future?

A. By the election of the general conference, and the laying on of the hands of three bishops, or at least of one bishop and two elders.

Q. 2. "If by death, expulsion, or otherwise, there be no bishop remaining in our church, what shall we do?

A. "The general conference shall elect a bishop; the elders, or any three of them, that shall be appointed by the general conference for that purpose, shall ordain him according to our office of ordination.

Q. 4. "To whom is the bishop amenable for his conduct?

A.

"To the general conference, who have power to expel him for improper conduct, if they see it necessary."

At this conference we introduced a new rule for the trial of a bishop, which stands thus, Q. "What provision shall be made for the trial of an immoral bishop, in the intervals of the general conference?

66

A. If the bishop be guilty of immorality, three travelling elders shall call upon him, and examine him on the subject: and if the three elders verily believe that the bishop is guilty of the crime, they shall call to their aid two presiding elders from two districts in the neighbourhood of that where the crime was committed, each of which presiding elder shall bring with him two