mimm mm IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) i 1.0 l.i |L25 m IIM lliU.5 IIM 11 z? « I4& lllllio [.4 1.8 1.6 TjIC Sciences CoiporatioPx 23 WEJT MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 S -'\-'^-'W,'x^ " And the bramble aiid utito the trees, If in truth yo anoint me to be kinj,\ovt3r you, then come and ^ut your trust under my shadow ; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble and consume the cedars of Lebanon."— Paroiie ofJotham. " And there passed by a. wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle. "~Paru&/e ofJehoash. TORONTO: SAMUEL ROSE, METHODIST BOOK ROOM. _m KING STREET EAST. ISTg.' "T^S^Tt-"*^ — A NEEDED EXPOSITION ; OR, THE CLAIMS AND ALLEGATIONS OF THE CANADA EPISCOPALS CALMLY CONSIDERED. V- BY ONE OP THE ALLEGED "SECEDERS." (JOHN CARROLL.) " And the bramble said unto the trees, If In truth ye anoint me to be king over you, then come and put your trust under my shadow ; and il not, let fire come out of the bramble and consume the 'cedars of Lebanon."— ParabZe /Jotham. "And there passed Dy a wild beast that was In Lebanon, and trode down the ihUtle."— Parable ofJehoash. TORONTO : SAMUEL ROSE, METHODIST BOOK ROOM, 80 KING STREET EAST. r ' ot ti do on th em 1 PREFACE. When tho Canada Conference and its adherents and friends in 1833 congratulated themselves that they had pro- vided against the possibility of a divided Mothod'sm in the Upper Province by an arrangement with the British Wes- leyan Conference; including an organic union with that body, which nevertheless preserved the essential integrity of the Canadian Church, it was very disa})pointing to have another rival body, within a year or two, spring up to spread dissension and to " draw away disciples after them," on such trivial grounds of dissatisfaction as the non-continuance of local preachers' ordination and whether or not their business should be best conducted in a " District Conference " or in a circuit " Local Preachers' Meeting." None felt the sorrow and discouragement more than my- self. I had been personally attached to many of those who were induced, earlier or later, to go with that movement, among whom were such men as John Reynolds, Joshua Webster, Jabez Bullis, G. P. Selden, Mr. Bickford, and others I could name. After the line of separation was dis- tinctly drawn, I found it very sad to ride or drive past the doors which erst had been thrown open to me, and to see once happy societies sundered in twain ; and I yearned over them still ** in the bowels of Jesus Christ." It is true, the course of procedure to eflfect these changes, embracing blinu prejudices, absurd apprehensions, un- ■BBiii ^junded representations and allegations, and secret plottings and misunderstandings, cooled my sympathies, estranged my attachments, and in time reconciled me to their absence. For many years ray maxim in regard to this doubtful organization was the Scriptural one, to ** let them alone " and to have as little intercourse as possible — on the ground that if they were doing good I should not hinder tliem (and I had no doubt that there was some incidental good) ; and, if the aggregate of harm arising from the division should ex oeed the individual good, and I feared it would, I would not be accessory to it. But after some years, regarding the separate organization as an accomplished fact ; and flattering myself that under such a Superintendent as the venerable Richardson, and such an editor as the amiable Ahhs, m ich of the fierce S'^ctai ianism and overt proselytizing of the earlier stages of the movenioiit had passed away, I not only reciprocated brotherly advances, but made them myself, and interchanged denc>minational courtesies. I also dedicated my biographical history to all the Methodist bodies, inclusive of this one ; and when forced to trench on matters which could not be ignored, with regard to which we differed, I touched them as tenderly and delicately as possible — so much so, indeed, as caused some to think I was compromising the interests of stern historic truthfulness. And when I made bold to ad- dress a humble overture on the plan of unifying all the Methodist bodies, I ventured to propose as part of the new machinery that the diaconate should be restored, that a modified Presiding Eldership should be accepted, and that there should be a General Superintendency, though without ordination. So much so that some of the other contracting parties said that I had " conceded everything to the Episcopals." After organic Methodist uDion began to be generally talked of, even by men who wore traditionally conservative of things as they had been, a trustful, unsuspicious feeling sprung up in my heart ; and I allowed myself, with many others, in freedom of communication with not a few of that body whom I found ready to reciprocate those advances — albeit, I must confess at the most encouraging of times, the majority of those brethren seemed hard to inspire with any- thing like a generous spirit of candor and reciprocity on the questions whicli had torn us asunder. The stand the Episcopal section of the General Com- mittee on Methodist Unification took in their unyielding aspect on Episcopacy, as though their own was of the most hereditary and unquestionable character, although not averse myself to a General Superintendency and several other features of this system (which would have been accepted by the other parties to the engagement if the " Episcopals " had been reasonably tolerant) ; when I saw this, I say, I confess I did experience surprise at such de- mands from such a quarter ; and when negotiations were broken oflf by them on those grounds, the feeling of dis- appointment partook largely of the element of disgust. Still, I confessed none of this to those on my own side, but continued to hope against hope for many months. To many less trustful than myself it became apparent that from the time of his installation the new " bishop," Dr. Carman, would have all to come to their standard, or they could have no countenance from those who now trumpetted themselves as the Methodist Church, j^ar excellence, of the country. And innumerable oral and written utterances of the " bishop " and other mouthpieces of that body show that this is the policy to be pursued. To this there can be no objection, only in view of one i|ii consideration. They have a natural right to purnue this course, if it pleases tlieir fancy ; and they have a moral right also, if they can justify it to God and their own con- sciences. But the moral rectittide of it ceases when it has to be sustained by statements which are false, and when it places their neighbors in a false position : such as that the Canada Conference did an unwarrantable thing in their compact with the parent of all the Methodist bodies in the world, making themselves ** seceders " and leaving the present *' Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada " as the only true lineal descendant of the original Methodism of the country ! These falsifications of facts and of history being paraded to prevent a good end and to perpetuate an anomaly and an evil, I am at length persuaded to comply with a reqtiest, often preferred to me by individuals, to present the real facts of the disruption of this boastful and pragmatic section of our colonial Methodism. I am deeply sorry for the necessity of this ; and that the rather, because I am persuaded that there are many in that community who, unless they have lately and greatly changed, cannot aj)j)rove of the self-asserting course now adopted by the present leading influences of the body. To theni, and all the candid in that community, I commend this exposition. I have only given a summary view of the question at issue. I have by no means exhausted facts, arguments, and illustrations ; but have kept a lai'ge store of both one and the other. In the meantime, the prophet's determina- tion will be mine : " I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved."* Ton Mount, July 17th, 1877. * Hab. ii. i. A MEDED EXPOSITION. I. A Brief Epitome of Canadian Methodist History FROM 1790 TO 1832. Methodism was planted in Canada during the year 1790- 91, by the Rev. William Losee, who ctime from the then newly-organi;:ed Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States. His ingress was at his own instance, having been left for that year, by the Bishop, to " range at large "; but he was sent by authority the ensuing year. Several organ- ized classes crowned the labors of those two years. ° In 1792 an ordained Elder, in the person of the Eev. Darius Dunham, was sent in to superintend the whole and dispense the ordinances. The work in Canada was thenceforth a Presiding Elder's District, in connection with somn one of the Annual Conferences in the United States connected with the M. E. Church. Sometimes the Conference bore one name, and sometimes another. In 1810, the Canada work fell to the newly-organized Genesee Confere. .e, by whom it was thenceforth supplied with preachers. In 1812, the war broKe out between Great Britain and the American Republic, by which some of the preachers de- signated to Canada were prevented from coming to their stations ; likewise, some that were already in the Provinces, being American citizens, through fear, were induced to leave. The vacancies created in the Upper Province were supplied from among the local preachers by the Presiding Elder, the Rev. Henry Ryan. He also gave some oversight to the work in Lower Canada, the Presiding Elder for that ^ t M j! i i District, the Rev. Nathan Bangs, having been deterred from coming to his appointment. From this cause, the Montreal and St. Francis Circuits were left destitute, and others but partly supplied during a part of the time. The Rev. Thomas Burch, a bora subject of Britain, appointed to Quebec, think- ing that a place of less importance, Methodisiically, than Montreal, of which the absentee Presiding Elder, Mr. Bangs, was to have had the special charge, settled himself in the ' latter city, and went only occasionally to the former ; and at length he ceased going altogether. The Quebec Metho- dists felt their destitution very much, and being ignorant of the new doctrine, that Episcopacy was essential to true Methodism, ''iid regarding the Wesleyan Conference in Eng- land, not only as co-ordinate with the Methodist Episcopal Church, but viewing it as " the mother of all," applied, through the chairman of the Nova Scotia District, which stood in immediate connection with the British Conference, to send them a missionary, which request was granted ; and he arrived in Quebec, June, 1814. The larger part of the society in MoDtreal, no doubt on account of prejudices created by the war, also desired to be supplied by a preacher from .the British Conference. In answer to that request, the Rev. Richard Williams arrived in that city in 1815 — I suspect about the time Mr. Burch returned ^.o ^he States. The majority of the society siding with the British mis- eionary, under the plea that the most of the means for its erection was raised in England throughout the Wesleyan connexion, put him in possession of the chapel. The Rev. Wm. Brown, the appointee of the Genesee Conference, with the minority who adhered to him, was forced to set up wor- ship in a temporary place j and there were two sections of Methodism in that city until the arrangement between the British and American connexions took plaoe in 1820. Soon irence, ; and of the udices ■eacher quest, 15—1 IStaies. a mis- after, other Biitish missionaries arrived, and took up the vacated St. Franc's country and all accessible places in the eastern townships. In 1816, the Revs. Messrs. Black and Bennett, from Nova Scotia, by authority of the British Con- ference, attended the American General Conference, which sat in Baltimore in the month of May of that year, and met the two representatives of the (.anada work, in the persons of the Revs. Messrs. Ryan and Case. The delibera- ti'"»ns in the General Conference led to such a representation to the authorities of the British connexion as drew forth a letter of instructions from the missionary secretaries to their missionaries in Canada, cautioning them from trenching on the stations occupied by the appointees of the American Church, and against occupying th(nr chapels. Now this pro- ceeding is proof that these two Connexions regarded each other, reciprocally, as co-ordinate. Nevertheless, upon one plea and another, by 1820, "A^esleyan Methodist ministers had been stationed along the St. Iiawrence from Cornwall to Prescoic ; at Kingston and along the Bay of Quinte ; and at length, Niagara and York received Eui'opean preachers and possessed Wesleyan societies. In 1820, an interchange of Delegates took place between the British and American General Conferences, and the fol- lowing arrangement was agi-eed to : — Mr. Wesley's ori -were Inadequate to the work required to be done. As another resource, in the spring of 1851, that distinguished Indian preacher, Kah-ke-wa-quon-a-hy, or Rev. Peter Jones, was despatched by the Canadian missionary authorities to the Mother Country, — the British Isles — to make an appeal for aid. This led the brethren in England to tliink that they were now called to enter this field also, especially as they believed that they were released from their pledge to the General Conference to vacate the Upper Province by the Upper Canada Methodists having passed from under the jurisdiction of that Conference. Accordingly, in 1832, one of their Missionary Secretaries, the Rev. Robert Alder, accompanied by some of their colonial ministers, was sent to explore the country, to see what parts of it were unsupplied with Methodist ministrations. Coming Hamilton Biggar, John C, Davidson, Ephraim Evans, Asahel Hurlburt, Richard Jones, Peter Jones (Indian), James Norris, Richard Phelps, George Poole, and William Smith. The specific purpose for which the General Conference was convoked was to re- ceive the necessary threo-fourths majority for the altering the second "Restriction," which prohibited, the "doing away with Episcopacy," (page 18,) Elder Case, the General Superintendent, having refused to even put the motion until the restriction was con- stitutionally removed. But before that vote was put, the composi- tion of the General Conference itself was determined, and the mem- bership of the General. Conference was made to consist — by legal vote of the then undisputed members, — of all the " travelling eldirs and elders elect.' This gave the brethren above-named a seat, and a more than three- fourths vote was received for removing the Second Restriction. These changes were preserved in the MS. Journals, but there being no M. E. Discip' ne published later than 1829, the latest changes do not appear therein. The reason for there being so many elders elect was this : theChurch, although Episco- pal in name, had no bishop to ordain them, nor ever had. The " doing away" with what never existed, except on paper, wae more a fiction than reality. r' i 14 to York (now Toronto), where a small Wesleyan cause, in an irregular way, had been started, fearing strife and division if rival societies were jjermitted to multiply, the Missionary Board of the Canada Church, consisting of a large preponder- ance of laymen, invited Mr. Alder to meet them, and request- ed him to remain until the ensuing session of the Canada Con- ference, to see if some method could not be devised by which the British and Provincial Methodist bodies might labor in concert, — a proof, by the way, that no intelligent Methodist of that day ever dreamed that there was any essential differ- ence betweeen the two Churches which would make the transmutation of the one form into the other occasion the loss of its identity. III. A Detail of the Unifying Process. The Kev. Mr. Alder com])lied with the request above re- ferred to, and made his appearance timely at Hallowell, the seat of the Conference, in t^;e month of August, 1832, accom- panied by the Wesleyan missionary from the town of King- ston, which place had retained a preacher from the British Conference from the first, despite the arrangement of 1820 ; thi3 was the Rev. John P. Hetherington. The memorial of the Canada Missionary Board to the Conference was read, and after much friendly consultation, in which the representative of the British Confeience took part, a com- mittee of nine of the most capable and experienced mem- bers of the Conference was a})pointed, who reported Pre- liminary Articles of Union between the two Conferences, which, after some discussion on some of the details, were adopted by large majorities, and a Delegate was appointeounded guar- anteed them against any inten^rence with the rights of them- selves or the members of the Church. 5th. They knew by what had passed under their own eyes, that all the changes made had been legally and constitution- ally cflfected ; and they believed that many of the changes were for the better. 6th. As to the Episcopacy, they remembered that we had no experience of a Provincial one, and the people had little knowledge of, or care about, a bishop. The Conference had failed in all its attemps to secure one, and the ministei-s be- gan to suspect that God had purposely set us free from his ^1^ ■ ■ / .. t1',> '.'1 jurisdiction. They knew it would be a responsible and haid matter to setti'> jf v/e were shut up to Canadian expect- ants. The life .ong Episcopacy; they knew, would be an ex- pensive institution, and an Annual Presidency could perform all the functions and duties as well. 7th. But it was a very persuasive inoti\ e with most of them, that we should now be stronger in men and means for carrying on our work among the Indians. 8th. V The absence of any declared opposition from the people between the Conference of 1832 and that of 1833, but a great deal that was of the opposite charactei", during that period; influenced the final vote to a great degree. We have seen that a \ast i mber of private and ofiicial mem- bers were at the inception of the measure, and all were rather favourable than otherwise. The Presiding Elders were requested to make particular inquiry throughout their respective districts, between i:he Conference of 1832 an 1 the time of the delegates leaving in the early sjjring of 1833, relative to the state of feeling on the subject of the prospective Union, yet no report adverse was made, but rather the re- verse. Some of these letters were published in the Guardian, and no contradiction given. As the Canada Church was planted by the American Connexion, great respect was held for the opinion ci its leadinjf authorities: some of these the dele- gate took upon him to consult in Ne^'v York on his way to England, and he wrote, on the eve of sailing for Europe, as follows: — "I stayed with Dr. Fisk all night and a part of two days. He was unreserved in his communications, and is in favor of the object of our mission, as were Bro. Waugh, Dr. Bangs, Durbin, (fee. I have conversed with them all, and they seem to approve fully of the proceedings of our Conference." There was not a single petition pre- sented to the Conference of 1833 against the measure before it. / ■s. 23 A «l ■ t 'K V. The Opposition which Afterwards Arose, and the Form it Took. There was no opposition to notice until the new regula- tions affecting the private membership and local pr^-achers were submitted to the Quarterly Conferences, as they were then called, by the Presiding Elders at the first round on their several districts, during the Conference year 1833-34. The only thing affecting the private membership related to a sort of capitation tax on the members for the support of the work. It is to be found on the thirty-eighth page of the Discipline publislied in 1836, under the heading, The Duties of Superintendents. It is to the following effect : — "To see that Mr. Wesley's original rule, in regard to weekly and quarterly contributions, ))e observed in all our societies as far as possible. The ii;le was })ublislied by Mr. Wesley in the Minutes of Conference, held in London, 1782. It is as follows : " ' Q. Have the weekly and quarterly contributions been duly made in all our societies ? " ' tI. In many it has been shamefully neglected. To remedy this, "* 1. Let every Assistant (Superintendent) remind every SDciety, that this was our original rule : Every member contributes one penny weekly (unless lie is in extreme poverty) and one shilling quarterly. Explain the reason- ableness of this. "<2. Let every Leader leceive the weekly contribution from each person in his class. " ' 3. Let the Assistant (Superintendent) ask every person at changing his ticket : Can you afibrd to observe our rules 1 And receive what he is able to give.' " The Methodists of this day v/ill smile to learn that this 24 was made the occasion of bitter accusations and agitations, and cost the Connexion hundreds of mej:jibers.* The principal changes proposed r&Iated to local preachers ; and it was that order in the Church, or at least a few of them, who created the first dissatisfaction, which spread to other things, and made a sad conflagration. The changes relating to them were these: — (1) Up to the time of the Union, a local preacher, if recommended by the Quarterly Conference of his Circuit, and elected thereto by an Annual Conference, might receive deacon'8 orders at the end of four yeais after he had received a regular license as a lo:al preacher ; and in four years troni the time of his receiving deacon's orders, upon the same conditions as above, he might receive Elder's orders from the hands of the bishop ; but as a concession to the British Wesleyan usage, no per- son becomi^ig a local preacher after tlie time of the consum- mation of the Union, could be eligible to ordination. (2) * It is perhaps bnt right to say, that all following the word * ' possible " was in the form cf a foot-note in the MS. copy of the Discipline put in the hantl;^ of the printer ; but because there was R note to that note explaining the original uieanin^ and use of tiie term "Assistant," the compositor, in a mistake, set it up in the text, and the Conference stood charged with foisting a surreptitious rale into our code of laws with the design of bringing the members under a money condition of membership, and a lamentable "scare " was produced. As this epoch was made the occasion of re-enforcing the quarterly renewal of tickets, which had fallen too much into desuetude (that and the inquiry into the ability of the members to support tlie cause), it was resisted by the malcontents as a usurpation. One of the first two delegates to the American General Conference, from the new Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, finding a society ticket belonging to some member of his household, held it up an*" »^sked in a scornful tone, *' Who has been purchasing Indul- gences?" Such were some of the means by which our members were prejudiced r^gainat the Union I \ /■^. 25 Under the former economy, the licensing and annually renewinof the license of local preachers >vas relegated to a District '^^onference of all the local preachers in a Pre- siding Elder's District, of which the Presiding Elder was President ; but under the new arrangement, the same business was to be transacted in the several circuits to which they belonged, in a Local Preachers' Meeting, of which the Superintendent of the Circuit was ci.annan. If there were seven or more local preachers in a Circuit, there might be such a meeting ; if less, their matters were to be attended to in the Quarterly Meeting ; and when the Local Preachers' Meeting was not held, the Quarterly Meeting was to do it. This arrangement was far more feasible than the District Conference, which in some cases required a hun- dred miles' travel to attend it, of which most of them bitterly complained, yet, when the change was proposed, the promoters of disruption resisted it, I remember, in parti- cular, Mr. Reynolds in 1828 ridiculing the impracticability and senselessness of the arrangement, yet we have cause to believe, that his reason for leaving the Church, in 1834, arose from his dissatisfaction that the new regulations about local preacJiers had carried in the Quarterly Meetings.* (3) Another arrangement of the new Discipline (page 43), which made it the duty of the Superintendent of eacL Circuit " To make out a regular plan of appointments for * Since tho above was written, a now-printed letter of the Rev. John Reynolds' to a brother local preacher has boen put into my hands by the person to whom it was addressed, Rev. Philip J. Roblin, which implies that at the time of its date, Mr. Reynolds, by impUcation, acknowledged himself a member of the Canada Methodist Clxurch under its IVesletj in name and form, and she 7» that the new changes relating to local preachers, which had been carried by the c mstitutional majority in the Quarterly Conferences, was the cause of his^dissatisfaction ; and that if they could have been 2 26 *!>, the local preacliers and exhorters on the Circuit, with the counsel of the Quartei'ly Meeting where there is no Local Preachers' Meeting," although honorable to this class of laborers, was very distasteful to those who went away. The changes v/ith regard to their trial under accusation, trans- ferred their iinal appeal from an Annual Conference to a District Meeting, gave them an advantage in their first ex amination, before a "committee," in giving them the privilege of choosing one-half of the jury — a privilege not accorded to any other person in the Chnrch, whatever his rank or office. brought to reverse their vote, he would have remained in the Church. With these prelimiuary remarks, the letter speaks for itself :— " Belleville, June 30th, 1834. *• Dear Bro. Roblin,— In reply to yours of the 24th inst., I have to say that I feel no disposition to comply with the resolutions as laid down in the new Discipline, by which local preachers are to be govetned, my parchment or certificate from the bishop shows my standing in the Church and my right to its privileges, and therefore I see no reason why I should consent to have my name entered on a plan. " I labor under no fearful apprehension of being disowned in consequence of refusing to comply. The resolutions are unreason- able and altogther uncalled for, and many of our travelling preachers know it. " The proper course for us to take is to petition those Quarterly Conference who passed the resolutions, to rescind their former vote, and thereby do away with them altogether ; for you will observe that the preachers tell us that it was the Quarterly Conferences that made the law, and I say, if so, the Quarterly Conferences can make that law null and void if they choose to do .«>o. Shall we make the trial ? If you and the other local preachers of your Cir- cuit think with me on this subject, please say so, and we will get up a respectful petition to lay before those Conferences as soon as possible. '* I am, dear Bro., yours in love, *'JOHN FeYNOLDS." ' 27 These new regulations, however, received the required majority of two-thirds, and passed into a law, and were published in the first issue of the new Discipline. They also must commend themselves as reasonable and just to all dispassionate and reflecting persons. The account I have given of the Conference and the ample provision made for supplying the work, we naturally would have thought augured future prosperity. So thought some of the wise.st at the time, who had not been before so sanguine of the Union measure. This will appear from the following short extract from the valedictory of the retiring Editor, Rev. James Kic/uirdson, never given to view mattera in rose-color : " The Conference closed the important, interesting, and difficult business of the Session at one o'clock this day. Notwithstanding the multifarious and highly important matters transacted, the Session has been distinguished for an unusual degree of order, peace, and unanimity in its proceedings ; and we trust the ministers go forth to their respective appointments and labors with renewed vigor, animated with the cheering prospect of an abuntiant harvest of souls the ensuing year. The net increase in the societies, during the past year, amounts to 1,138 souls. To God alone be the praise and glory ' In reference to the momentous change in our relations fc.nd economy, arising from the union effected with our transatlantic bitjthren, we would just remark, that the whole is adjusted and settled on that basis v/hich we hope may prove as durable as time, and as bene- ficial to uhe interests of true reli|^ion as the most ardent wishes of its best friends can desire. And we trust the good sense of every member of our Chuiv;h will lead him to see the propriety of cordially assisting, in the spirit of Christian love, to carry into effect as extensively and fully as possible the arrangements of the Conference in relation to the union ; and that no personal, private, or party con- siderations whatever will in the least be permitted to 28 hinder or interrupt the good understanding which now hap- pily exists between the British and Canada Conferences ; upon which, under God, the permanency and prosperity of that branch of the Church of Christ in Canada, denominated Methodist, principally depends. It becomes us to observe, that when the preliminary arrangemeni^s for effecting the union were under consideration, we were not without our fears for the results. Not in fear of a union with our British brethren, for this we have considered most desirable from the lirst, but it appeared to us that the measures pro- posed and adopted to obtain it were not advisable or expe- dient, and would ultimately fail of the desired end ; but we are now free to confess, and happy to find, that our I'ears were groundless ; and we are fully satisfied that the best arrangement and disposition of this important measure is made that the respective circumstances of the two Con- nexions would possibly permit. To this favorable result we are greatly indebted to the prudence, wisdom, and piety of those to whom the management of it has been committed by their respective Conferences. In the Rev. Mr. Marsden the Canadian Conference has found not only a respectable and judicious representative of the British Conference, and an effective President of their own, but a kind, paternal coun- seller and friend. May the choicest blessings of heaven attend him ! and prosper his way, not only to his native country and the affectionate embraces of his family and friends across the great waters, but throughout- the days of his pilgi'image, till his Divine Master shall be pleased to say, * Come up higher and enter into the joy of the Lord !' " But alas ! what was so good in the inception, was made the occasion of a great deal of harm. First, as to the interior of the Church itself, there were som3 persons (at first only a few) opposed to the union, or some of its details, but they exemplified a most tireless industry to inoculate as many as possible with their own disaffection ; and many persons were brought to think their rights had been invaded, who, but for these persistent efforts, would not have sus- :* rf 'fc 29 i pected they had been injured at all. It began with certain local preachers, some of whom had been employed under Presiding Elders, and who aspired to membership in the Conference, but they had been thought too old, or otherwise disqualified for admission into the regular ministry of the Church. The writer never heard of but one person opposed to the union, absolutely and on principle, before the Conference of 1833. This was the Rev. David Culp,* a located minister, a very worthy mm in his way, but certainly not dis- tinguished for very broad views of Church matters. He had travelled abeut twelve years in all ; and his active ministry had comprehended the whole period of the " invasion," as he would have called it, of the Upper Pro- vince by the British missionaries, at which time his mind had become very much prejudiced against British Method- ism. He had been located about eiffht vears at the time the union was effected, during which time he had shown a disposition sometimes to criticise the travelling ministers. According to Dr. Webster's history, a short time after the consummation of the union, Mr. Cnlp called meetings about the " head of the lake," near which he resided, " which were approved and attended by several of his brethren." * After much attention to the subject, first and last, I am now thoroughly persuaded that Mr. Culp was the great originator of the Episvoopal division. He was an almost bigoted Episcopalian, and he hated British Methodism with a perfect hatred, besides having during the days of his locatioa fostered a disposition to suspect and criticise the Conference. Next to him was Mr. Bailey, who was bound to be a travelling minister at any hazard ; and was apparently unscrupulous of the means. Poor weak-minded old Mr. Oatchell, he was more their dupe than anything else; and was persuaded by them to do duty as the impersonation and embodiment of the original Canada Confereuqe ! A wondrous representative truly ! 30 "On the 18th of December, 1833, a little more than two months after the York Conference, a public meeting was held in Saltfleet, at which a decided stand was taken against the terms of the union." It purj)orted to be a " meeting of the local preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church." Of this meeting IVfr. Culp was cliairman and Mr. Aaron C Seaver secretary. But the Guardian averred, from infor- mation received from parties on the spot, that the meeting was attended by but three local preachers besides their two selves, five in all, and these, when assembled, constituting a meetinof no wise provided for by the Discipline of the Church. " Another meeting was held on the 9th of January, 1834, in the old meeting-house on the Governor's Road, township of Blenheim, at which the proceedings of the Saltfleet meet- ing were discussed and sanctioned." [Webster.] It is but just in connection with the account of this meeting to place on record the following extract from the Guardian of March 19, 1834, which speaks for itself : — " CoRRECTiCN. — The followins: note from an esteemed local preacher of long and res|)ectable standing will be read with interest and satisfaction by the fi lends of the Church v/ho are acquainted with him, as it shows the unworthy measures which have been adopted to create disturbance, and that they are without the slightest sanction from such pious and intel- ligent brethren as the author of the following note — notwith- standing the unauthorized and unhallowed use which has been made of the name. The best of men in the same Church may ditfer in opinion on prudential matters ; but they will be far from making such difference of opinion a ground of schism, or of such defamatory and separating resolutions as adopted by certain local preachers (have, by their own avowal, separated themselves from the Church, and have no right to take part in its proceedings), met at the Governor's Koad referred to below. Men of candor and principle, 31 founded on intelligence, feel too much of the spirit of genuine liberty and liberality to cherish or give utterance to such sentiments of anti-Methodism and narrow-hearted intolerance." ' BuRFORD, March 0th, 1834. * Dear Brother, — Having lately heard that my name is used in many parts of the Province as sanctioning the reso- lutions passed at the Local Conference, held on the Govern- or's Road the 9th and 10th of January last, I take this method of informing the public, that I, as ch^iirman, signed the resolutions, yet protested against them m toto at the time, and disapproved of the course pursued iJy the local brethren at their meeting, and still do. I assem])led with others, expecting the ni'jeting was called for the purpose of having our grievances redressed ; but finding this not to be the case, and rather a separation intended, my mind was grieved, and had to lament that I took the chair. * I remain, yours in the bonds of Christian love, * Rev. E. Ryerson." * Abner Matthews. " One day later than the Blenheim meeting, the 10th of January, 1834, another meeting was held at Belleville, in the proceedings of which sixteen local preachers from that section of the country took part." [Webster.] Their pro- ceedings, however, seem not yet to have been so extreme as those before mentioned, and to have turned upon details affecting loCiJ preachers, and a misapprehension of the guar- antee in the Articles of Union for the continuance of the privileges of existing local preachers. Certain it is, that the principal actors in it practically declared their adhesion to the new order of things till after the ensuing Conference. They sat in the Quarterly Meetings in which the changes were dis- cussed. " On the London Circuit," says Dr. Webster, " a still more decided stand was taken than there had been at any of the places previously mentioned. Here the preachers appointed S2 at this Conference " (1833) "to that Circuit were rejected by the Quarterly Conference, held January 25th, 1834, be- cause, being an official board of the M. E. Church, they deemed they could not consistently receive as their preachers persons who were ministers of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in British North America ; and, accordingly, that the work might sufler as little as possible, the Rev. John Bailey, who had already travelled some years in the Connex- ion, was requested to supply it as far as was practicable, which he did." (So says Dr. Webster's History.) It was my intention to have passed these events over slightly, and especially out of respect for hi.; highly respecta- ble friends, to have touched upon Mr. Bailey's very ques- tionable course as little as possible ; but after the above erroneous version of the case, the interest of historic trutli- fulness compel me to enter into this matter a little more fully. First, then, with regard to Mr. Bailey himself, in confirmation of what I said relative to his position at the previous Conference, when his name was mentioned in con- nection with the report of the Committee on Examinations, the following was the minute adopted : " John Bailey was not received, his examination, as to qualifications, not being satisfactory. It wa& resolved that the Presiding Elder be allowed to employ him during the year, should the work re- quire it." Thus was he practically discontinued. But sub- sequently some who sympathized with his wounded feelings and those of his family, pleaded for and obtained a recon sideration of his case, with the understanding that if his name were left on the Minutes as a probationer, with an ap- pointment attached, he would, of his own free-will, decline coming forward at the end of the year. With that view, the following minute was made : — '* Brother John Bailey's case was reconsidered, and he was continued on trial ! " His ' > i / 33 * ^ name was set down for Goderich, which had been connected with liOndon, where his family resided, with the und. i-stand- ing that he and Mr. lieatty would travel the whole ground in conjunction. Now, there was nothing wrong in all this, if he had not thus assumed a trust which he deliberately be- trayed. He was a man of fifty years of age, more or less ; he had been both at the Conference where the union was proposed, and the one where it was ratified, and ought to have known whether he approved of the ])roceedings or not. There was no blame to him if he did disapprove, if, like an honest man, he had said so at the time, and not have allowed himself to receive work from a seceding Conference ! But what did he do ? He went back to London, and did his utmost to alienate the people before Mr. Beatty, the newly appoint- ed preacher in charge, his old friend, should have time to get on the Circuit and get acquainted, thus causing l.dm infinite vexation and perplexity. Mr. Bailey succeeded in doing this by working on the feai-s and prejudices of good Mr, Mitchell and others who were more influential than himself. All this time he held the position of a preacher in connection with the Conference. By an incidental business note in the Guardian of December 25th, 1833, we learn his paper was duly mailed to the London Post Office, with all the regulari- ty of those of the other Circuit preachers. Secondly, as to the Quarterly Meeting which called out Mr. Bailey, it was not the regular Quarterly Meeting of the Circuit, for that was appointed to meet "November 30 and December 1," according to the Presiding Elder's printed plan in the Guardian^ and this one was held so late as January 25, 1834. Nor was it a legal one, for it was presided over by a local preacher and not by the proper officer. It may, for aught we know, have comprised a majority of the official members on the London Circuit, but it was not a legal Quarterly 2* 34 Meeting for all that. ThiiH, for nearly four montli -, had Mr. B. held the poHition of a Wesleyan preacher, and employed the injBuence the position gave him to divide a people he wa« expected to keep together. Dr. Webster resumes : " Following out the plan proposed by the London Quarterly Meeting a general convention was called, in order to ascertain what the state of feeling really was in the different sections of the Province." " The Con- vention met at Trafalgar, on the 10th of March, 1834, and continued sitting till the 1 2th. Though the attendance was not large, sixteen preachers only being present, the different sections of the work were pretty well repre.Heiited." Then follow the resolutions they passed. This meeting was pre- sided over by John W. Byam, who had travelled nearly two years, but had been discontinued for disciplinary reasons, about sixteen years before ; he had, however, for several years regained a respectable standing as a local preacher. Of Mr. Seaver, who acted as secro ary, we know nothing beyond this, that he wjis a local preacher. Here is the Guardian^ s account of this meeting following closely upon the time of its being held : " The business, we learn from a person present, began with seven persons. The number, when our informant lelt, on the second day, had been increased to sixteen. Six ':\ these sixteen we know have sought to be employed in f 'i-? l/ravelling Connexion, but were not called out for want of requisite qualifications, or other hindrances ; and three of them, we learn, were licensed to preach at the last local Conference." There were no travelling preachers there, unless Messrs. Gatchel and Bailey were present.* These are all the meetings we know of hav- ing been held of a similar kind before the Wesleyan Confer- ence of 1834. * I now doubt either's having been there. \ 11''! 36 % If t \ Occurrouces relating to the Connexion (which I w!ll not low go into, but which I stimd ready to enter -ipon, when my unwarranted use is about to be made of them) ex- traneous to the Union, or incidentally growing out of it, of a disturbing character having transpired about the middle of the Conference year 1833-34, were laid hold of to strengthen the opposition, and so far increased its adherents, that by the time this ecclesiastical year was ended, or at least by the close of September, 1834, there was some sort of an organization claiming to be the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, the challenge of which I will thoroughly examine further on ; but I will proceed at present to in- vestigate their VI. Objections to the Identity op the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada with the Original Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada. These objections have been variously entertained and put forward : thus they have boen implied and acted on when courage to announce them was wanting — orally stated, either by individuals in conversation, or in public discourses of various kinds — printed and published in various ways — and finally, prosecuted in courts of law. The challenges seriatim : — ^ 1. Abolishing Episcopacy. (1.) According to this, there is no Methodist Church in England, South Africa, or Australia because they are not Episcopal. That is the fair logical eduction, and it is amazingly modest and charitable ! (2.) If this objection is valid, there would have been no Methodist Church at all in the United States, if its founders in 1784, had not adopted the Episcopal form; and that once adopted , Episcopacy could not have been done away withe*, destroying the Church's identity I Now let us hear what 36 some of its actual founders had to say on that subject : — Ii 1837, the Rev. Egerton Ryerson addressed the following nob to every one of the Hiirviviv g foitnders of the M. E. Churcl in the United States : — " Rev, and Deaa Sir, — As you are one of the two or three ministers who commenced their labors, as itinerani Methodist preachers, before the organization of the Method- ist Episcopal Church in America, I beg permission (in con- sequence of a case which is at issue in the courts cf law in Upper Canada, aJSecting the right of property held by the Wesleyan Methodist Church in that Province) to propose a few questions relative to the organization of your Church and the powers o'' your General Conference. "1. In organizing your Church, had your General Con- ference power to adopt any other name for your Church than that which it adopted 1 " 2 Had your General Conference power to adopt what form of Church government it pleased 1 " 3. Had your General Conference power, after the adop- tion of Episcopacy, to dispense with the ceremony of ordina- tion in the appointment to the Episcopal office 1 " 4. Has it always been your understanding, that the General Conference had the power to make the Episcopal office periodically elective, or to abolish it altogether, if it judged it expedient to do so 1 ** I will feel greatly obliged to be favored with your views in reply to the foregoing questions, and what has been the understanding of your Connexion from the beginning respecting the poi?its of ecclesiastical government involved in them. " Yours very respectfully, " Egertov Ryerson." REV. EZEKIEL COOPER's REPLY. " Philadelphia, Nov. 20th, 1837. "Rev. and Dear Sir, — Yours of this day I have looked over, containing sundry questions, to which you request an answer. Time, indisposition, and other cucumstances pre* /' 37 * elude me from so full an answer as you wish to receive, and as I would be willing, under other cii cumstances, to give most cheerfully, I briefly answer them, viz. : — " I. When our Church was organized, the General Confer- ence had power, and a right, to adopt any other name than that which they did adopt, for the style and name of the Church, had they seen proper to do so. The Conference was under no necessity, but, from mature deliberation, it was voluntarily resolved to choose the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Had they been disposed, they could have taken the name of the Evangelical Church, which some of the preachers would have approved of ; or they might have called themselves Weshyan Church, the Reformed Church, or any other name, had they chosen it in preference. "II. The Conference had power to adopt any form of Church government it pleased, or might have chosen ; but it was the voluntary choice to adopt the Episcopal form cf government — modified as we haA^e it, subject to amendments or improvements, from time to time, as exigencies might require, and circumstances call for, in the judgment of the Confer- ence. The Episcopacy was always amenable to the General Conference, with power to suspend or even expel the bishop, or bishops, for causes sufficient in the judgment of che Confer- ence : — which may be seen by collating the several editions of the Discipline from the first to the last. " III. After the adoption of Episcopacy, the General Conference had power to change or dispense with the cere- mony of Episcopal ordination in the appointment to the Episco[)al office, if it appeared proper and necessary to do so. Stillingfleet in his " Irenicum," and other Episcopal digni- taries of the Church of England, have admitted that the power of ordination is inherent in the Elders of the Church, or Presbytery ; but in certain canons, made by the ecclesi- astical councils, the power was restrained, for the better order and regulation in government. And our Church holds the same opinion ; therefore, if by expulsion, deatii, or other- wise, we should be without a bishop, the General Conference is to elect one, and appoint three or more Elders to ordain him to the Epis"opal office ; so that the power of ordina- 38 tion is, in the Elders, under restraint — but the Conference can take off that restraint if necessary ; then the Elders have the power of ordination, and are authorized to ordain even a bishop. Surely, then, by an appointment to the ^ ' Episcopal office, if an Elder, with the restraint taken off, he can exercise the power of ordinaticxi without the ceremony -^ of re-ordaining him, and perhaps, as in the case above stated, by Elders only, with the restraint taken off. If the restraint _ is taken off, and the ceremony is dispensed with in one case, surely ic can be in another, and the ordination in the one case would be fully as valid as in the other ; therefore the ceremony can be dispensed with, and the Conference has power to do it in the case of Elders ordaining bishops. " IV. In my opinion, the General Conference had, and has, the power to make the Episcopal office periodically elec- tive, and, if necessary for the good of the Church, to a})olish it, — provided the recpiirements of the Discipline for making - alterations be complied with ; oi, if the restrictions be removed, which there is jjower to do, and though difficult, yet not imi)ossible to accomplish ; then any and eve^y alter- ation may be made, which exigencies or circumstances may call for, and wisdom may direct. N^ote. — If Elders can be occasionally elected or appointed to exercise Episcopal func- tions in ordaining a bishop, and then cease and never exer- cise- them any more, then why not occasionally or periodically elect or appoint to the Episcopal office for a term of time, and then to cease or even be abolished, and ordinations be performed by the Elders appointed thereto, as in the case of ordaining bishops I am now considering the jwivers of the General Conference in cases of necessity, under existing cir- cumstances of exigency that ii\ight possibly occur, to make the thing necessary for the good of the Church. It is not * necessary, nor good, nor proper, always to do what is in our power t'"- do ; but it is good to have paver to do that which may possibly, or piobably, become necessary, proper, and good to do. " I hold that government is of Divine right ; but I do not hold that any paiticular or special mode, form, or organiza- tion, is of Divine right. Government originates with, and ^ I t i / S9 pe s e e { i emanates from God, and is of Divine authority and sanc- tion ; but the mode, form, organization, &c., is human, as to the construction and management, order and regulation, and may, by human authority, be varied to suit different coun- tries, times, circumstances, necessities, &c. ; and also may, by human authority, be changed, improved, and altered for the general good, according to the various occasions and necessities.* " As to the Divine right of an uninterrupted Episcopal Prelacy from the Apostles down to the present time, it cannot be proved nor supported. In the Apostolic times, the terms bishoj), elder, overseer, and presbyter, were interchangeably applied to the same men and office. (See Acts XX., 17 and 28.) The same men called elders in one, are called overseers in the other verse. St. Jerome informs us that in the Apostolic Church at Alexandria, the elders or presbyters, from the Apostolic time, used to choose and ordain, or set apart, their own bishop or patriarch. In the annals of the Church at Alexandria, written by one of their patriarchs, the same is stated and confirmed. We have numerous authorities : See Lord King on the subject — " Presbyters and bishops the same." The immortal Hooker admits the validity of the ordination of the Reformed Church, on the Continent, by presbyters, under the necessity of the case. Archbishou Crann.ci- went fu. 'r :, in his answer to King Edward's questions, and said, that the necessity of the case would make ordination, instituted by a * "As to my own judgment," says Wesley, " I still believe the Espiscopal form of Church government to be Scriptural and apostolical — I nipan well agreeing with practice and writings of the Apostles. But that it is prescribed in Scripture, I do not believe. This opinion, which I oncf zealously expressed, I have been heartily ashamed of ever since I read Bishop Stillingflejt's ' Irenicum.' I think he has un- answerably proved, that neitlicr Christ nor his Apostles prescribed any particular form of Church government." We.-ley's Works, vol. 13, p. 139 : *' Lord King's Act, of the Prmitive Church, convinced me many years ago, tliat bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain." Moor's Life of Wesley, p. 327. 40 kinsf and laity, in a supposed case, both valid and a duty, and that such things had been done. (See Stillingfleet's " Irenicum.") Archbishop Usher advised King Charles I., in the dispute with Parliament, to admit the Church of Eng- land to become a Presbyterial Episcopacy; the king con- sented, but was too late. "I have extended further ban I intended — must now close. I could write a volume had I time and strength. " Yours respectfully, etc., " EzEKiEL Cooper. "N.B. — I commenced my itinerancy in the Methodist Episcopal Chui ; ID. 178^:, though not. printed in the Minutes till 178t I was twenty-one years old when 1 began to travel, and am now seventy-four years of age, and in the fifty-fourth year of my ministry. REPLIES OF THE REV. THOMAS MORRELL, REV. THOMAS WARE, AND r.EV. NELSON REED. <.|: " State of New Jersey. Elizabethtown^ liov. ISth, 1837. " Rev. Egerton Ryerson, " Sir, — Your favor of yesterday was received, wherein you request me to answer some questions relative to the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the powers of the General Conference, — I give the answers with pleasure : — ...,..,... *• Eii-st, you inquire, * Had your General Conference the power to adopt any other name for your Church than that which is adopted ] ' I answer, certainly it had ; we called it by its present name, as Mr. Wesley recommended it, and as we conceived it an appropriate term, according with having a Superintej^dent, who was raised to that office by a vote of the General Conference, and could have designated it by any other name if we could have found one more appro- priate. " Second question, — * Had your General Conference power to adopt what kind of Church government it pleased 1 ' Most assuredly it had ; for though Mr. Wesley recommended it in us to use a form of prayer, in oiir public services, and gave us a ceremony for our baptismal services, yet the General Conference laid aside the prayer-book, and it is not used in one of our chin-chea in the United States, and altered also the form for baptism in a way we thoiigiit more suitable for such service. " Third question, — * Had your General Conference the power, after the adoption of the Ep'scoi)acy, to dispense \/ith the ceremony of ordination in the appointment to the Episcopal office f I am confident they had ; and had they thought it necessary, would have done it. " Fourth question, — * Has il always been your under- standing that the General Conference had the power to make the Episcopal office periodically elective, or to abolish it altogether, if they judged it expedient to do so ] ' Before the year 1808, the General Conference had the power to make any alterations in the Discipline or government of our Church they thought expedient ; but since the year 1808, they are restricted from making any alterations in our present system without the recommendation of thi'ee-fourths of the Annual Conference. ' ^ -' . , ; , v. -,„^ ,: -^^^ 'M">'i>.i^ " Yours, (fee, very respectfully, " Thomas MoR»'ELL. ** Written wifch my own hand, and within four days of being ninety years of age." .-.*.- ^.'■ j'/Z'^r-. /':^i,\-r,-:jA " I fully agree with the above statement by the Rev. T. Morrell ir. all things save that of his su|)posing the name of the Chur jh being recommended by Mr. Wesley. The name, Methodist Episcopal Church, was recommended, to the best of my recollection, by John Dickens, as I have stated in the Methodist Quarterli/ Review, published oy our book-agent, for Jan., 1832, page 98. I also agree fully with Bishop Hedding, in his letter dated Lansingburgh, N. Y., Oct. 12,. 1837, and addressed to Rev E. Ryerson. j.^.a "Thomas Ware. 'F ** I am in the seventy-ninth year of my age, and fifty-sixth of my ministry. ''Salem, New Jersey, 20th Nov., 1837. 42 " P.S. — Mr. Morrell not being at the Conference at which the Church was organized, accounts for his mistake about Mr. Wesley's recommending the name of the Church." " I commenced travelling as a Methodist itinerant preacher in the year 1777, and have had knowledge of the general usage and mode of proceeding in said community to this day, and fully concur in the ideas of Messrs. Morrell and Ware in their above statements, with the exception Brother Ware makes to an item in Brother Morrell's statement, and concur with Bishop Hedding's letter to Brother Ryerson, dated Lansingburgh, Oct. 12, 1837. "Nelson Reed. " Aged eighty-fou - years. ''Baltimore, I^ov. 2'27id,lS37:' The opinions of leading ministers in the M. E. Church in the United States, and the constitution and practice of the Church, were in accordance with the above statements down to 1837. Letters were addressed by the Rev, Egerton Ryerson to leading ministers of the American Church, whose names are given below : the answors which they returned speak for themselves : — " From the Rev. Samuel Luckey, D.D., elected hy the Ameri- can General Conference, Editor of the Official Periodi cats and Books published for the Methodist Ejnscopal Church in the United States. (Copy.) " Perry, Genesee Co., N. Y.^Sej). 29th, 1837. *' Dear Sir, — I am at this place attending the Genesee Conference. Your letter came to hand yesterday, via New York. I have counselled with several of the preachers who v.'ere at the Pittsburg General Conference, in company with the bishop, who has been in all the General Conferences for thirty or forty years past. By their counsel I am sustained in the opinion I here ofier, on the question you propose. " Question. ' Has the General Conference power, under any circumstances whatever, by and with the advice of all the Annual Conferences, to render the Episcopal office 43 perloJically elective, and to dispense with the ceremony of ordination in the appointment thereto !' ^'Answer. 'In my opinion the General Conference un- doubtedly has this right. — ^This is evident from the fact that the Discipline provides for the possibility of their doing so — as it is explicitly enumerated among the tilings which the General Conference shall not do without the recommenda- tion of the Ann\ial Conferences, plainly implying that it inay do it with such recommendation.' " Add to this, there is an example of an acknowledgement of a superintendent without ordination as such. In the General Minutes ol" 1786 or '7, or near that time, the ques- tion is asked — * Who exercise the Episcopal office V " Ans. * John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury.' — This is according to the best of my recollection. This shows that it was not in the intention, in adopting the Episcopal mode of government, to insist on consecration as essential to one exercising the Episcopal office. Besides, it is known that our entire defence of our Church organization, according to our most approved writers on that subject, proceeds on the same ground. " Yours, most affectionately, (Signed) "Saml. Luckey. " Rev. Egerton Ryerson. " N. B. — The opinion of your Chief Justice is an admir- able document ; the best I think I ever saw, showing the connection of law witli ecclesiastical matters. S. L." " From the Rev. Elijah Heddino, D.D., the second senior bishop of the Methodist Epi8C02)al Church in tlte United States. (Copy.) ** Lansingburgh, N. Y., Oct. \2th, 1837. *' Dear Brother, — I have just arrived at home, and found your letter. I am sorry T did not receive it early enough to render the aid j'^ou wished. The Genesee Conference did not close till the 30th ult. I suppose the law case is de- cided ; therefore, anything I can write will be of no use. I would have tried to get to Kingston, had I known the re- quest at the Genesee Conference. 44 i I ji';! ' " It is clear from the Proviso, added to the Restrictions laid on the delegated General Conference, that by and with the supposed " Recommendation" said Conference jnay alter the plan, so as to make the Episcopal office periodically elective, and also, so as to dispense with the ceremony of ordination in the ap})ointment. " I believe our Church never supposed the ceremony of ordination was necessary to Episcopacy; that is, that it could not in any possible circumstances be dispensed with, — nor that it was absolutely necessary that one man should hold the Episcopal office for life. One evidence of this I find in the Minutes of our Conference for the year 1789, — four years after our Church was organized. There it is asked, * Who are the persons that exercise the Episcopal office in the Methodist Church in Europe and America ? Ans. Jol n Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury.' — Bound Minutes, Vol. 1, p. 76. From this it apj)ears those fathers considered Mr. Wesley in the Episcopal office, though he had never been admitted to it by the ceremony of ordi- nation. " I shall be glad to know how the law case is decided. Please write me or send me a paper containing it. " My best respects to and her parents, your brothers, &c. "Dear Brother, alSectionately yours, (Signed) " Elijah Hedding. Rev. Egerton Ryerson." Mr. Ryerson continues : — " After examining the Disci- pline " (the Canadian Discipline), *' and mature reflection, these gentlemen expressed their concurrence in the views of Bishop Hedding, at the bottom of his letter, as follows : — " I hereby certify that I fully concur with Bishop Hedding in the above opinion. (Signed) "J. B. Stratton.* ''New York, Nov. Uth, 1837." * Mr Sfcratton had been elected bishop of the Cauada Church ia 1831, but declined the office, jiil Jill 46 " We concur in the opinion of Bishop Hedding expressed above. " Thomas Mason, ♦* George Lane, (Signed) " Agents of the General Conference for the publication of books for th3 M. E. Churcli." Mr. Ryerson further continues : — " I also addressed a letter on this subject to the Rev, Dr. B^isk, President of the Wesleyan University, and late representative of the Metho- dist Episcopal Church in the United States, to the British Connexion. The following are copies of my queries and the answers : — " 200 Mulberry Street, " New York, Nov. \7th, 1837. " Rev. and Dear Sir, — A question of law is at issue in Upper Canada which involves the Chapel Property held by the Wesleyan Methodist Church in that Province. The principal points in the case ' on which there are any doubts' relate to the views of the Methodist Episcopal Church re- specting Episcopacy — the imposition of Imnds in the conse- cration of bishops — and the powers of the General Confer- ence to modify the Episcopal office. I have been favored by Bishop Hedding, Dr. Luckey, and others with an explicit statement of their v^ews on these points, and will feel greatly obliged to you to be favored with your views, and what you believe to be the views of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in reply to the following queries : " 1st. Is Episcopacy held by you to be a doctrine or matter of failh, or a form or rule of Church government as expedient or not according to times, places and circum- stances ? " 2nd. Has the General Conference power, under any cir- cumstances whatever, by and with the advice of all the Annual Conferences, to render the Episcopal oflice periodi- cally elective, and to dispense with the ceremony of ordina- tion in the appoi-itment thereto ] " And as you were present at the British Conference in 46 1836, as the representative of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, I would bej; to propose a third query. * 3rd. Do you consider the ordinations i)erfbrnied under the direction of the British Conference to be Scriptural ana Methjdistical ? " Earnestly soliciting your earliest answers to the foregoing queries, ''* I am, yours very respectfully, •' Egerton Ryekson. " The Rev. Wilbur Fisk, D.D., ** President of the Wesley an University. " P.S. — I had intended to visit Middletown University ; but as I am unexpectedly required to go to Philadelphia, and cannot get home by Saturday, the 25th inst., without proceeding directly from this to Albany, &c., I must deny myself that pleasure. Please address me, Kingston, Upper Canada. E. R." DR. FISK S REPLY. " Rev. Eqerton Ryerson, *' My Dear Sir, — Your favor of late date is before me ; making some inquiries respecting the constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church. ** The first was in reference to the Episcopal form of government. " I, as an individual, believe, and this is also the general opinion of our Church, that Episcopacy is not ' a doctrine or matter of faith ' — it is not essential to the existence of a Gospel Church, but is founded on expediency, and may be desirable and proper in some circumstances of the Church, and not in others. " You next inquire as to the power of the General Con- ference to modify or change our Episcopacy. •* On this subject our Discipline is explicit, that ' upon the concurrent recommendation of three-fourths of all the members of the several Annual Conferences who shall be present and vote on such recommendation, then a majority of two-thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall 47 Ipiscopal queiy. nder tLe iral and aregoing KSON. versity ; delpliia. without st deny , Upper . R. •re me ; of the brm of general :rine or 3e of a nay be Jhurch, il Con- ' upon all the lall be ajority : shall suffice ' to * change or alter any part or rule of our govern ment, so as to do away Episcopacy and destroy the plan of our itinerant General Superin tendency.' Of course, with the above-described majority the General Conference might make the Episcopal office elective, and, if they chose, dis- pense with ordination for the bishop or superintendent. " I was a delegate from the Methodist Episcopal Church to the Wesleyan Conference in England, in 1836. At that Conference I was present at the ordination of those admitted to orders, and by request, particijjated in the ceremony. I considered the ordination, as then and there performed, valid ; and the ministers thus consecrated, as duly authorizecl ministers of Christ. " With kind regards to yourself, personally, and the best wishes for the prosperity of your Church, I am, as ever, yours, " In friendship and Gospel bonds, " W. FisK. " Wesleyan University, Middletovm, Ct, Nov. 20, 1837." But why am I arguing this point % Did not the original Canada Discipline, the very Discipline, if the}' have not changed it, by which our accusers profess to be governed provide for the " doing away " with the Episcopacy (if in- deed we had any Episcopacy to do away), as I have already shown] Our opponents will say, "The provisions were there, but you did not fulfil the conditions." Let us see. Here is the sworn testimony of the Secretary of the General Conference befope a Court of Law : — " The witness delivered to the Court the following ex- tracts from the Journals of the General Conference : — " Special Session of the General Conference, called by th General Superintendent, at the request of the Annual Confer- ence, Hallo well, August L3th, 1832. " Conference met at six o'clock a.m. " Names of members : — William Case, Thos. Whitehead, Thomas Madden, Peter Jones, 1st; Wyat Chamberlain, Jas. i ; il 48 Wilson, Sanmel Belton, William Brown, Joseph Gatchci, Geoi-c^e Ferguson, David Yeomans, Ezra Healey, Phil. Smith, F. Metcalf, William II. WilliamH, John Kyerson, William Ryerson, David Wright, William Griffis, Solomon Waldro!i, Robert Corson ,Joh. Messmore, R. Heyland, Edmond Stoney, George Rissel, tFames Richardson, Egerton Ryerson, John Black, Anson Green, Daniel McMuUen, Andrew Prindel, Ezra Adams, Alexander Irvine, King Barton — 34. " Egerton Ryerson was chosen Secretary. ** Proceeded to elect a General Superintendent pro tenv- pore. The Rev. William Case was duly elected. '* liesolved, — That the first answer to the second question of the third section of* the Discipline be expunged, and the following inserted in its place : * The General Conference shall be composed of all the Elders and Elders elect who are members of the Annual Conference.' " Names of Elders elect : — John C. Davidson, Geo. Poole, Richard Jones, John S. Atvvood, James Norris, Cyrus J Allison,* Peter Jones, 2!id, Matthew Whiting, Willi Smith, John Beatty, Asahel Hurl hurt, Alvah Adams, Richaia Phelps, Hamilton Biggar, Ephraim Evans, Charles Wood,t Thomas Bevittf— 17. " Adjourned until nine o'clock a.m. " Conference met at nine a.m. Singing, and prayer by the President. • Mr. Allison was ill. t The claims of Messrs. Wood and Bevitt to be members of the General Conference, even on tlu; terms now established, has been disputed : they had, first and last, travelled more than four years — Mr. Wood was certainly an ordained deacon when he re-entered the work, three years before. When the Secretary of the Grtieral Con- ference was questioned on the sul)ject many years after, he could re- collect nothing about the terms on which they were allowed Ji seat in the General Conference, if indeed they wtre allowed ; and the Jour- nals of that Conference, having never been printed, were not to be found — were lying, possibly, in some lawyer's office. If allowed to vote without a legitimate claim, it would have no appreciable effect on the issue : they were only two a,gaJin^t fifty 'me. Their being in the list may have been a clerical error which is my opinion. — Compiler. 49 << Renolved, — That this Conferenca, on the recommonrlation of three-tburtha of the Annual Conferoncp, having in view the prospect of a union with our British brethren, agree to Hanction the third resolution of the Report of the Commit- tee of the Annual Confe.*ence, which is as follows : — " That Episcopacy be relinquished, (unless it will jeopard our Church property, or as soon as it can be secured,) and 8U[)er8eded by an Annual Presidency,' — in connection '•vith the 1 0th Resolution of the said Re[)ort, which says, ' Tliat none of the foregoing resolutions shall be considered of any force whatever, until they shall have been acceded to on the part of the Wesleyan Missionary Committee a»id the British Conference, and the arrangement referred to in them shall have been completed by the two Connexions.' — Adopted by three-fourths of the members. Adjourned sine die. " William Case, Preat. " .OERTON Ryehson, Secy. '' Hallowell, Aug. 13tli, 1832. (Truly Extracted,) " EOERTON RyERSON." "Kingston, 11th Oct., 1837. " Counsel — Did the votes of those persons who were ad- mitted' into the General Conference affect the decision of the question 1 T do not think they did, unless they rendered it somwhat less unanimous than it would have otherwise been. Eight of them were, to the best of my recollection, opposed to the then contemplated union, although I cannot say whether so large a proportion of them was opposed to the relinquishment of Episcopacy. Several who opposed the union were in favor of an Annual Presidency. Mr. Richard- son, who was the Secretary of the Annual Conference, spoke against the union, but in fixvor of abolishing Episcopacy. But they were not admitted with a view to secure the adop- tion of the measure, but simply to have as full an expression as possible of the views of all the preachers. " Counsel — Were the votes of your Annual and General Conferences (for they appear in fact to have been substan- tially one and the same body under different names,) pretty k tl unanimuuH ? More than three-fourths were in favor of sii})er8eding Episcopacy by an Annual Presidency. " Counsel — Was any oT)jection m^de as to the power of your Conference to do what it did in iespect to the union with the British Conference ] I never heard of the expres- sion or existence of such a doubt. "Courisel — Did those members who constituted the minority on the question of Episcopacy and tlie union, show any dis- position to persevere in their opposition after the disposition of those questions by the voice o 'so large a majority of their brethren I 13y no means. Far otherwise. 1 he discussion was conducted in the most friendly manner, such as is usual on any meiely precedential question ; and, after the close of the proceedings on those questions, some of the leading speakers in the minority expressed their intention to acquiesce in and sup^ >rt the views of the majority. Not a single member left or seceded from the Conference on account of those proceed- ings, or showed a disposition to do so. " Counsel — Were you not appointed by the Hallowell Conference to represent the interests of your Cluuch on tho subject of the Unio^i . '. England 1 I was. " Counsel — Were yoa aware that, in the interval between tbe sessions of your Conference in Hallowell, 18J^2, and in Toiunto, 1833, there was any opposition on the part of any considerable portion of the members of your Chuich to the object oi your mission to England 1 I was not. I employed every means in my power to a.^certain the views and feelings of our members and friends on the subject. Immediately after the Hallowell (Conference 1 published the proposed Articles of Union in the Christian Guardian [August 29th, 1832], and request the Presiding Elders on +he ditl'erent dis- tricts to inform me of the state of I'eeling among our people within the bounds of their respective charges, as it would be a guide to me in my regotiationf:. A short time before I left the Province for England :ii March, 1833, I received letters from two of the chairmen on the subiect. 1 also conversed with the other two chairmen. From these sources I ieprned that the union was, with very few ind3^ idupj exceptions, i liversally approved of by the members of our Church. The only point y of )th, (lis- )ple be tlly on which I could learn that any apprehension existed was in relation to the appointment of preachers to their circuits and stations. As the Superintendent or President had the power of stationing all the preachers, fears were entertained in some instances that a President sent out from England might appoint English preachers to the best stations, and send the Canadian [)reachers into the interior. I provided against the possibility of an event of this kind, by getting the consent of the British Conference to limit the power of the Presitient, that whilst he exercised the same functions generally as the General Superintendent had heretofore ex- ercised, he should not station the preachers contrary to the consent of a majority of the Chairmen of Districts associated with him as a Stationing Committee. ^^ Counsel — I think you said j,.u were at the Toronto Confer- ence, held in October, 1833 : will you state to the Court and to the Jury, the proceedings of that Conference on the subject of tlie union '] I arrived in Tororito, from England, a few days before the meeting of the Conference, in company with tlie Rev. Mr. Marsden, who had been sent out as the represen- tative of the British (^onferenre, and the Rev. Mr. Stinson, representative of the Wesleyan Missionary Committee, \ horn 1 introduced to the Conference. Before the meeting of tlie Conference, the resolutions of the Halloweli Confer- ence, and the resolutions agreed to by the British Confer- ence, were printed on parallel pages on the same sheet, and on the morning of the meeting, were put into the hands of each preacher, that he might carefully examine them and compare the one with the other. After the Conference was organized in the usual way, by calling over the names of all the members, and appointing a Secretary, ai 1 son^ other preliminary business had been dis[)Osed of, the subject of the Ui? ion was taken ••^>. the proceedings of the Conference on which I cannot better state than in the words of the Jour- nals, or otf cial records. AVitness read the following, which he delivered in to the Court : - [Extracts from the Journals of the Annual Conference, held Toronto, Oct. 2nd, 1833.] " The question of union with the British Conference wa.s '4^;«U. :.;; 62 1 '• I W taken up. The Rev. George Marsden addressed the Confer- ence on the object of his mission, giving an account of what had taken place in England on the question of the union, the deliberate and careful manner in which it had been examined and considered, the unanimous and deep interest which the English preachers felt in it- Egerton Ryerscn presented and read the report of his mission to England. — See Letter I., ITo. 4. " Conference proceeded to examine the articles agreed to by the British Conference seriatim. — Adjourned. " Conference met at two o'clock p.m. Singing and prayer. " The consideration of the Articles of Union was resumed. The legal opinion of Messrs. Rolph^and Bidwell, as to the effect which relinquishing Episcopacy might have upon the titles to Church property, was read. See Letter I., No, 5. — After several hours' careful investigation, it was moved by E Ryerson, seconded by J. G. Davidson, and unanimously resolved, " That this Conference cordially concurs in the adoption of the Resolutions agreed to by the British Conference, dated Manchester, August 7th, 1833, as the basis of union between the two Conferences. (Truly" extracted.) ",^ " Egerton Ryerson. '' Kingston, Oct. \\th,W67:' " Witness proceeded : During the forenoon of the day following, a Committee was appointed to revise the Discipline and report thereon. Five days afterwards, on the 7th of the same month, that committee reported the various modifica- tions which constitute the difference between the Discipline of 1829 and 1834. The report was carefully considered and fidopted, when it was proj)osed and agveed to, to call a meet- ing of th« General Conference, to coiitirm what had been done by the Annual Conference, in respect to the Discipline and the union. Witness handed into the Court the following: — ■ ^::''^':y''.:,^S:^i'' \'^'''-\ ir^'f- [Extracts from the Journals of the Annual Conference, held ^ ■ ■. Toronto, Oct.. 1833.] ■ -V^v i *' October 3rd. " A committee to revise the Discipline was appointed, con- sisting of the President, Secretary, Editor, Chairmen of Dis- tricts, W. Case, W. Ryerson, D. Wright, E. Healey, and E. Evans. ^* Monday, October 7th. " Conference met at eight o'clock a.m. Singing and prayer. " The Report of the Committee on the Discipline was pre- sented and taken up item by item, and agreed to in view of its adoption by the General Conference. For Report, see Letter L, No. 7. " It was moved and resolved. That the President be re- quested to call a special session of the General Conference, to take into consideration some points of discipline. " The President accordingly called a special session of the General Conference, to be held forthwith. [The above resolutions were, to the best of my knowledge and belief, adopted unanimously.] (Truly extrMcted.) " Egerton Ryerson. "Kingston, Oct. 11th, 1837. '' Wi<. ess then handed in the followin;'- [Extracts from the Journals of the General ( iilerencc held in Toronto, October 7tL, 1833.] " Special session of the General Conference, call- ' by the President at the request of the Amiual Conference, 'ot. 7th, 1833, at York. " NAMES OF MEMBERS. [The same as were present at Hallowell, ment' on p;ige 48, and are therefore omitted here, though tht ; were given into the Court.*] * Of those mentioned on page 48 as constituting the members of the General C )nference, J. Gatchell and K. Barton were absent at the session in Hallowell. Mr. Gatchell was present, however, at Toronto. *-.«^. i i i S4 (< Egerton Ryerson was chosen Secretary. " The Report of the Committee of the Annual Conference on the Discipline was maturely considered and adopted, r,em. con. See Letter E., No. 8. 2. The Churches Jmving Cfumged her Name was Another Reason given why she had lost her Identity. This is a frivolous, objection. On the same principle, a lady whose name is changed from her maiden one to that of her husband by a legal marriage, ceases to be the same person she was under her former name ; and forfeits all the property to a person who unwarrantably assumes her maiden name, after she is known by her husband's name ! As we^ might a noble steamboat, which has undergone some change in her ownership and relations, has been refitted, and ha^ h id the name on her stern somewhat modified, i>e run off the route, and her monied earnings claimed by a tiny craft, which has been built out of a few spars and splinters once belonging to her outworks and rigging, since these changes were legitimately made, receive hor original name and claim to be the same identical steamshi[> ! Or as well might an incorporated college which bore a particular name, because it has come into a new affiliation, and has some words in its original designation changed, although all the changes have been made according to the constitution or charter, and according to law, be robbed of all its rights and endow- ments by an upstart school got up by a dissatified usher and some refractory students, after all tlie changes have been legally made and ratified. This very objection was anticipated and provided for before any change was made. The Conference of 1832 ordered the consultation of Messrs. Bid well and Rolph, an eminent legal firm of that day, on the legal etiect of changing the name of the Church. And early in the next civil year. 55 months before the delegate left for England, the editor and the minister in charge of York Station waited on the legal gentleman referred to with the categorical questions prepared by the Conference, which ire implied in the answer they received, which I herewith give, and which speaks for itself : — " York, bth January, 1833. " Gentlemen, — We had the honor to receive last even- ing your note of this month, in which you state that the Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada desired us to give our opinion on the question, * Whether the abolishing of the Episcopal form of Church government from among them would jeopard their Church property.' " We are not iware that there has been any adjudication exactly in point ; but io has been decided that, if a corpo- ration hold lands by grant or prescription, and afterwards they are again incorporated by another name, as wl.vere they were l»ailiffs and burgesses before and now are Mayor and commonalty, or were prior and convent before, and afterwards are translated into a dean and chapter, although the quality and name of their corporations are altered, yet the new body shall enjoy all the rights and })roperty of the old. 4 Co. 87 — 3 Burr., Rep. 1866. — Judging from the analogy of this case, as well as from otiier considerations, we are of opinion that, if Episcopacy should be abolished in your Church, and some other form of Church government should be established 'n the manner mentioned in your book of discipline, the rights and interests of the Conference in any Church property, whether they were legal or only equitable rights and interests, would not be impaired or afiected by such a change. " We have the honor to be, reverend gentlemen, '* Your obedient, humble servants, " Marshal S. Bidwell. " "JohnRolph. - "Revs. Messrs. J. Richakdson and A. Irvine." '/(i^iiiw ■ 56 The soundness of Messrs. Bidwell and Rolph's legal opinion was confirmed, as well as the consti<>utional regu- larity of all the proceedings in the union measure, by the issue of no less than six several suits which the self-created Episcopals instituted to possess themselves of property belonging to the original Methodist Church of the Province of Upi^er Canada, which were as follows : — 1st. The chapel in the Jersey Settlement, Gore District. 2nd. The Rock chapel. Gore District. 3rd. Lundy's Lane cha])el, Niagara District. \/;;k,*. v/*? 4th. The Belleville chapel, Victoria District. ■ i;v^i n\^I 5th. The Waterloo chapel, Midland District. ^ ^ ^^; ? 6th. The chajjel ground in Bytown. Further, that the preservation of an original name is in no wise indispensable to the solidarity and identity of a Church, and its claims are implied in several authoritative statements which have been produced, especially that of the Rev. Ezekiel Cooper. Examples in illustration and confirmation of this position might be furnished from other lands and times. Not to go back too far, or beyond our own country, many such ex- amples might be produced from the Presbyterian churches of this land, in which I do not pretend to claim more than sub- stantial correctness. Several of the older Presbyterian churches", such as Prescott, Brockville, Pertli, Y"ork, &c., at the first, I believe, stood in connection with the Synod of Ulster, in Ireland. Next, they appear in connection with the Church of Scotland, which involved some change of name, as well as administration, yet their ideqiity was not destroyed, or their rignts impaired. The same was true, after the changes brought about by the union of the " Canada " and " United " Presbyterian Churches. The same holds good with this united body after its union with 57 the residuary Church of the Province, and all attempts to prevent the property going into tlie new organization have failed. The union of the first *' Canadian Wesleyan Metho- dist Church" with the "New Connexion," and the conibina- tion of these two names in one, did not destroy the identity and claims of the former. The last and largest unifying Methodist measure, because done constitutionally, lias with- stood all ap[)eals to the law to prevent the pro})erty of any one of the sections from going into the united body, though now under a new name. The last objection to the union measure, and the changes involved in that measure, was — >^j*v ; '' ^^? rl'^ 3. Tlie body which previoasl// elected one of its own mem- bers to preside over the deliberations of the Conference and to superintend the Connexion, afterwards received a President from the British Conference, who possessed tlie administ/rative authority also. :;.« t-^.^: .--■..,;.;«, .,...,:.,■-. ,-.;;,;! '-.t^-- ■,.,, .v j.vr-*''.. Even so ! The General Confeience, both of the United States and Canada Churches, had i)ower to change the mode of appointing their presiding and superintending officers into any form, and to contide the office to what hands they liked. A General Superintendent from England, or who resided prin- cipally or wholly in England, did not destroy the identity, autonomy, or even indej)endence of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, and by consequence did not destroy that of the Canada Church. Observe the following reading of the American Minutes in 1789: "Question 7. Who are the persons who exercise the Episcopal office in the Methodist Church in Europe and America? Answer. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury." The intelli'^ent reader does not require to be told that Wesley resided wholly in England, and Coke principally, yet they belonged to both Connexions. The articles of the first union did not 3* *.-,«-. ! 1 empowei' the British Conference to appoint the same person to be President ol'tenor tlian "once in four years"; or in tlie event of failing to do it, as they did in 1840, tlie Canada Conference had power to elect one of its own mcnil)ers to that otiice. For seven years this Conference elected its own President and administered its own affairs without any change in the name or the essential organization of the Church. • The immediate, original mother of the Canada Church re- ceived the delegates of that Church each succeeding four years, at its General Conference, not only without hesitancy, but with cordiality, as the lineal descendant of the Church it at first planted, and as co-ordinate with itself, on the principle that none of its changes of name or administration had de- stroyed its identity or impaired its true Methodistic validity. The above line of argument might be greatly exi)anded, illustrated, and fortified, but my object has only been to give an epitome of tlie case tliroughout, as being thus more likely to be read and understood than if it had been more extend- edly amplified. I have, therefore, reserved plenty of materials for strengthening" any part of this fortress that may be assailed. And here I might stop. '"'" " '" ^"'*' "'-' For what is the fair inference from the facts and argu- ments I have adduced 1 If Mr. Wesley and all sound and sensible Methodists believe that no exact form of Church government is laid down in the Scriptures ; if he and they believe that eldeis and bishops are but one and the same order, and may ordain indifi'erently, yea, that there are other modes of ordination than by imposition of hands — that any one particular name is not essential to the exist- ence of a true Methodist Church, and that its essence con- sists in something more vital — that a Presbyterial Wesleyan Church in Europe and a Presbyterial ly Episcopal one in %• %■ It at . ticiple J id de- id ity. ■ nded, • D give likc4y tend- 'Y of that argu- [ and lurch they same e are ids — - exist- con- ^ leyan Lie in ,■:".;>: ■-"/' .-. » 59 America are co ordinate^* — and that all the changes involved in the translation of the Caiiiida (Jliurch, through a brief period of independency, from an laimediate connection with the latter to an immediate connection with the former, were constitutionally made, and that one must be the original and true Methodist Church of the Province; and finally, that, therefore, any ecclesiastical body claiming that position must be a pretence and a fraud. And here I might rest the case, but I fear our would-be rivals are so pertinacious that I shall be forced to advance one step further, and — VII. Examine the Claims of thj-: Redoubtable Chal- , lengers. In order to eliminate the real truth from what some have made a tangled, heterogenous nuiss, 1 will ap[)ly several tests in the form of questions, and honestly inquire what answers contem[)oraneous history aftbrds. One of the first questions that should be asked is e year 1817-18 and at least a good pai-t of 1818-1 U, hilt before tlie ordination lost his status as a preacher. After some time ho regained his standing as a local preacher, and so far earned the contidenco of the cir- cuit on which he lived as to be recommended to the Confer- ence for orders as .a local deacon, which he received at Salt- lleet in 1825. Farther than this he had not gone when he took part in the earlier Conferences of the new organization. If the accuracy of this statement is challenged, I will give paiticulars which I now pass over. I have said that one had located to escape notifica tion for location ; this was John //. Huston, who, after being a long time under a Presiding Elder, without being able to secure lecommendation by a circuit, was received on trial in 1827, but had to travel three years, instead of two, before he received daacon^s orders. Three years after, when the union was consummated, he received ministerial orders at the hand.i of the new English President, the Hev. George Marsden, in 1833; but his chairman, the Rev. James Richardson, finding it hard to procure him a circuit because of inelhciency, moved, **That Brother Huston receive notice of location," which would have gone into effect in a year from that time ; upon which he was led to ask for a location at once, which was voted without delav. His dis- satisfaction of mind pre})ured him for co-operating with the dissatisfied ones ; and in 1835 we find him among the four consecrators of the new bishops and ranking among the founders of a Church ! The remaining two Elders who went to make up the five who constituted the first General Conference which elected a bishop were Messrs. John Reynolds and Joseph Gatchell. For certain reasons, though he gave in his adhesion later than any of the rest, I will present the case of Mr. Reynolds 63 lirst. It is (juite important to consider it carefully, as* this waH the j^cutlonijin chosen to be tlnnr lirst bishoji, ou whom all their claims to Episcopacy, antl all the traditional heir- ships of the Churcli, hin<;ed. Mr. ReipwUh was received on trial in 1808, and travelh^d between three and four years, at which time he had to dis- continue for >ant of health, and before he received Klder's orders. But these he received as a local jrreacher, according to the usage which then obtained, at the first session of the Canada Annual Conference, in 182i ; but he never returned to memt)ership in the Conft;reiice, and was a local preacher at the time the union was consumnnited ; and we have seen, and shall further piove, reniain(!d in the Church after the union, filling various oilices, till July, 1834 ; " but it was not till the early part of September lie finally witlnlrew;"* so that in uniting to reconstruct a Church, which had gone out of existence, constitutionally, so far as it respected the original name, he was making himself, to all intents and pui'poses, a seceder. It must be plain to any one who has studied the qiusstion in the slightest degree, that neither of the four peisons already mentioned, 3Iessr8. Cidp, Pickett, JIuson, and Reynolds, \vA. name ap- ])ears as a sztperannuate preacher, and for the last time. He had been received on trial in 1810 — travelled three years, and located ii* 1813 — he remained located eleven years, that is, till 1824, when he united with the travelling Connexion again, and labored as an effective preachei until 1830, — six years, — when he superannuated — the change of the constitution in 1831 gave him a seat in all tiie General Conferences wnich followed. He was known to be somewhat opposed to the Union measuie, and when the final vote was put in 1834, he withdrdrew from the Genei-al Conference room to avoid voting either way, but told his fellow-lodger. Rev. K. Corson, that he did not intend to dismember him- self from the Conference. He continued to labor in protract- ed meetings through the ConfereTice year 1833-34, if nc; 1834 35 idso ; but the former year he received his super- annuated allow^ance from Conference funds, and is dulv charged with it in printed Minutes of 1834, one year after the ratification of the union. He was not at the Wesleyan Conference in Hamilton, which commenced June 10th, 1835, and is not mentioned in any form, neither " located," " with- drawn," or "expelled." But about that very time, — June 5th, 1835, — while the second Conference after the union was being held, he and the four local Elders already named, "met and resolved themseb'es into what they called a Gene- ral Conference, and elected one of their number to ti^e office of a bishop." This is stated in the Journals of the American General Conference in Cincinnati, to which they iiad applied for .'ecognition, dated May 14th, 1836, and affirmed by the 66 Canada Episcopals themselves, by tlieir publisliing it in the Minutes of their Annual Conference for 1836, which met in "Belleville, June 21st" of that year. That there may be no dispute about it I herewith give the Report in extenso as they presented it : — " General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal "Church, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 14, 1836. " The conimittee to whom was referred the address of sundry persons in Upper Canada, claiming to be the M. E. Church in that Province, beg leave to report — " That they have had an interview wi:h the individuals appointed by those persons, and who were the beaiers of the address, and have availed themselves of such other sources of information as were within their reach. And they find that in June, 1835, certain jiersons to the number of live, only one of whom was a travelling preacher, the others being local Elders, met and resolved thembelves into what they called a General Conference, and elected one of their number to the office of a bishop, and the remaining four pro- ceeded to ordain and set him apart for that office, and imme- diately held an Annual Conference, from the INlinutes of which it appears that they then numbeied twenty-one sta- tioned or travelling preachers, twenty local ])ieachers, and 1,243 members of society. It appears there have been addi- tions siuco, both of preachers and members. In view of all the ciicumstances, as far as your connnittee has been able to ascertain and understand them, they are unanimously of opinion the case requires no interference of this General Con- ference. All of which is respectfully submitted. " D. Ostrander, Chairvian. "Cincinnati, May 14th, 1836." I think enough has been said to show that Joseph Gatchell et al. had no ground in Methodist or general law to set up the claims they did ; nay, that their claims were prep(»s- 66 terous in the extreme. These persons haJ a natural right to organize a Church to their taste; or, to state it more properly, to take the responsibility of opposing and thwarting a per- fectly legitimate and well-intentioned measure. But their proceedings were of a kind for which there was no provision in the Discipline of the Methodist Church. It is true the Discipline provided, that " If by death, expulsion, or other- wise, there be no bishop lemaining in our Church," then " the General Conference shall elect a bishop ; and the Elders, or any three of them, who shall be appointed by the General Conference for that purjjose, shall ordain him according to our form of ordination." But the General Conference of yore, by constitutional provision, was merged in the then existing Conference of the "VVesloyan Methodist Church, and certainly did not exist in the five men described, only one of whom would have been competent to vote in that General Conference, if it had continued ; besides, that General Confer- ence, by a unanimous vote, had agreed to '' do away with Episcopacy," — to do away with it even in theory. Farther, the conditions to which the clause above (pioted refer did not, and could not, exist. There had never been a bishop to die, be expelled, or "otherwise" be disposed of. Although they might have had a natural right to create what they called an ICpiscopacy, they had no legal Methodistic right to do any such thing. No wonder, therefore, that one American Methodist editor should have pronounced the proceedings *' little less than a solemn fa,rce." Then, also, viewing it on general religious grounds, was thei'e anything to justify it \ Here is a branch of Methodism which at first intends to adopt the Presbyterio-Episcopal form of Church g»jvernment ; but they have never succeeded in securing an Episcopos. In the meantime, the oldest, or parent branch of Methodism, having entered on the same 67 ground in the prosecutions of missionary openings, as Church government is a secondary matter in Methodism, it has been thought best that these two branches should combine for the evangelization of the country, each one giving up some pe- culiarity, adopting some feature of administrative economy from the other, all of which changes were made constitution- ally. Was it kind and Christian-like in a very small minority to try to force their views on the majority ? or to rend the peace an<:l unity of an otherwise prosperous Church because their views could not be mot 1 Did they not justly lay themselves open to the suspicion that their opposition was founded in one or more of the following causes — one or two in some, and all in others — namely, prejudice, bigotry, vanity, ambition, want of humility, and love of ascendency and no- toriety 1 If I am foiced at last to speak out, I must say I have never changed the opinion I had then, that their stand was unwarranted and wicked — oh, it was enough to make angels weep to witness the strife and evil-speaking which were resorted to to rend happy societies apart. The manner of prosecuting these devisive objects, and the reasons for their success, are honestly put, and expressed in the most temperate language and kindest spirit in my biographical history, which I here re[)roduce, as I choose to treat this matter in the judicial, rather than in the contro- versial, manner : — " At hrst their accessions were mostly from the old body, for a disruptive spirit is not us lally the spirit of revival. They drew on the Wesleyan Church in various ways and for many years. First, there were the disaffected local preachers and their immediate friends These local preachers showed the most untiring industry. They visited nearly every local preacher in the land, and tried to shake his adherence to the Conference. Wherever they heard of a dissatiaiiei or susceptible class-leader, they « ' «iu4u.. 1 68 i^ Visited him, and tried to secure the adhesion of him and his class to their measures. They did the same with individual members of the Church. The most unfounded stories were put in circulation against the Conference and individual ministers, adapted very much to weaken the influence of both one and the other. These, because of the political prejudices awakened by causes already described,* were very largely believed, and caused the members of the Conference, in many cases, to tread a thorny path ; and this rather in- creased than diminished for many years. The Episcopal brethren a})pealed to the sympathy of the so-called reform- ing politicians of the day, and leceived it largely. This to them was a great source of gain and support. Then, no doubt, as they saw everything depended upon it, their preachers labored hard, despite all privations. They went into neighborhoods where the Wesleyans had no services, and raised u}) classes. Many a Wesleyan brother was per- suaded to take the leadership of such a class ; many a local preacher was lured over with the prospect of obtaining a circuit ! " Every line of the above is true, and this method was pursued with effect for full ten years after the disruption. Their misrepresentations relative to their claims of being the original Church of the land, long years after, confused and inveigled many a quiet, uninformed country society, and divided or totally alienated them. A tithe of such proceed- ings could not be particularized. I sadly remember Edwards- burgh, the Marniing Settlement, the Dalson neighborhood, &,i\\ji niany otners. But the most embarrassing aspect of this whole matter is, that this people, who were directly refused recognition by * Reference ia here made to some matters which for a time pro- cured the Wesleyan Coufereuce the ill-will of the Reform party. i V 69 t V ro- the American General Conference in 1836 and in 1844, after years of endeavor to leaven a certain class of American Methodist ministers with their ideas and with sympathy for them ; and upon their advice, in 1856, applied to that body for a ^^ friendly recognition," and going early, before our delegates had arrived, it was carried in the sense of a quasi acknowledgment. If they had worn their honors meekly, although anomalous, it might not be worthy of remark, but the use they make of it in this country, I am quite sure, is anything but what the most considei-able of the American ministers intended and expected at the time. This I saw from the indignation and regret expressed to me by the two Drs. Peck and Dr. Hibbard at the General Conference in Philadelphia, in 1864 ; but when a committee was struck to examine the matter, there being a portion of their friends upon that committee thoroughly schooled in the mode of pro- ceeding, when I, as the senior representative, commenced to make a statement of the facts of the case, I was immediately called to order by the Rev. Mr. Blades, their special friend and advocate, on the ground that I was " making an attack on a Church with which they held fraternal relations." It was in vain I plead that " that was the very point to be ex- amined ; namely, whether it \\^as intended to give them such a recognition as endorsed the regularity of their origin and standing ; and if so, was it correct and proper ? " But Mr. Blades having effectually retarded any progress in the inquiry, the committee adjourned, and at a subsequent secession of the Conference, the committee itself was dis- charged. If this spurious section of Methodism had been quiet and allowed by-gones to pass, and shown a disposition to deal in the spirit of candor and concession with the exigencies of general Methodism at the present hour, as a great fact con- •*. MiS'- ■ i . «' 4 ' ",•««*., ^-..i«il: 70 i! i!i fronting us for solution, I think my j)a8t course should cause me to be believed when I say, I should be the last to revive old issues ; but when we find a pseudo-Methodist Episco- pacy flaunted in our faces, and we ourselves tolerantly treated as erring " secec/ers," it is a little tough that we have to frater- nize and tacitly endorse these pretenders in the largest court of Methodism on the continent. My own final opinion now is, that if the American Gene- ral Conference cannot induce their 2)7^otege8 to conduct themselves with decency ; if we must listen to the diatribes of " Bishop " Carman in this country, and then meet him and endorse him by our representatives there, if we hold fraternal relations with that great division of Metho- dism at all, then I say, we had better /orego the horior alto- gether. If these circumstances continue, I deliberately GIVE IT AS MY HUMBLE OPINION, THAT WE SHALL CONSULT OUK DIGNITY BEST BY SENDING NO DELEGATES TO THE GENE- RAL Conference op the Methodist Episcopal Church. \ the end. WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR, For Sale at the Methodist Book-Room, King Street, Toronto. Case and his Cotemporaries. In five vols $4 90 The Stripling Preacher o 60 The School of the Prophets i 00 Methodist Baptism o 25 Past and Present o 75 .^^S* The latter work out of print, but will be re- published at an early day. ANALYTICAL INDEX. \ Prbfacb : Page One rival forestalled, another arisen- Lorh of persoral frlendsliip— Un- reasonable grounds alienatinif iii Maxim of non-coniplicity — Courtesies reciprocated and extended iv Trustfulness ensuing v Unyieldingness on Kpincopacy~Ho]n- disajipointed by Bishop Carn)an'fl course — How far natural and moral right will justify, and whin tliey will not V Sorry for the necessity laid upon me- Materials not exhausted vi A Needed Exposition 7 I. A Brief Epitomb of Canadian Mrthodist IIistort kuom 1790 to 1832: SumiTiary of events from 1700 to 1810— Ditto from 1812 to 1820, including the war and its necessities, advent of missionaries, discussions, and tempor- ary txpcdients.. 7 British and Anierica7i Conferences— Interchange of Delegates, and arrange- ment of 1820— Unity of Methodism re-altirmed— Wesley's letter to Cooper (note) — Resolution of Liverpool Conference (note) 9 Want of compliance with some and of cordial conijtiiance on the part of others— The concession of an Annual Conference in 1824— All ready for a separation from the States by 18i;8— Or^ianization of Canada Church in October, 1828, in Earnestown- Dissimilarities between the old and new Churches— The " Sixth Restriction "-Committee to correspond with the Connexion in England— Non-fulfilment of its duty partly supplied by the editor— Three is'piscoTioi elected, but none consecrated 10 Note detailing the successive changes in the Ciaims to membership in the General Conference, with the reasonableness of the modifications n II. TiiK Circumstances wrncn led to tub Blkndino ok tjik British and Canadian Methodist Ciii'hches to br thought ok : Appeal to England for aid to iirosecute the work of Indian evangelization led the British Connexion to think itself required in the colony, as it thought itself released from the arran>;ement of 1820 by the withdrawal of American Church's jurisdiction 12 Visit to Canada of a Missionary Secretary, and his invitation by the Canada Missionary Board to attend the next Annual Conference, in 1832 ]3 III. A Detail of thb Unifying Process : Rev. Mr. Alder's visit— Conversations -Committee— Preliminary Articles — Delegate and reserve— The whole matter before the Connexion from the early summer of 1832 until October, 1833- Atfimiation of the British Conference — Return of the delegate, accompanied V)y the Rev. Messrs. Marsden and Stinson— Unanimous approval by the Canada Conference — Cases of Whitehead and Gatchell 14 IV. CONBIDERATIONS WHICH PREVAILED WITH THE MEMBERS OF CONFERENCE TO TO CONCUK IN THE UNION : 1. Substantial oneness of the two bodies. 2. Love of the British Connexion, for various reasons. 3. The numbers of Old Countrymen in the Church. 4. No rights surrendered. 6. Saw that the whole had been legally brought about. 6. Their relation to Episcopacy. 7. Need of li.en and money. 8. Absence of opposition, and ajiproval of leading American ministers 21, 22 V. Thk Opposition which Afterwards Arose, and ihe Form it Took: No opposition till the new regulations relating to members and local preachers were put and carried in the (Quarterly Meetings durinsr the year 1833-34 28 «L.ft«.^ , il I M I || I jii I. ! * li \ 72 Page A certain note's eiij^rossment in the text of Discipline accounted for— The changes with rofjard to [^ocal Preachers— Circuit Mcetlntjs— I'lan 24 Letter of the Uuv. John Reynolds (note) 2(5 Itecrived tl»e suffrage of the required majority — Hopes inspired— Editor's valedictory 27 What intended for good made decision of harm i!8 Mr. Culp oilginator (text and ntjte) 29 Mcetini; at "saltfleet -Governor's Road 30 Belleville meeting— Stand at London 31 The fncts with regard to Mr. Bailey 82 Convention at Trafalgar, Ouan/ian'a account 34 Untoward events incidentally arising 35 VI, Or?kctioxs to tub Idrntity op thk WRStiRYAjr Methodist Chcrch in Canada with the ORiji-sAb Methodist Episcjpal Chirch in Canada; Variously put forth 35 1. Abolishing Episcopacy — Unchurches all other Methodist bodies 35 Letter of inquiry from Rev. E. R>erson —Reply of Rev. E. Cooper, showing that Epi-copacy not necessary to the Church, and that it might be modi fled, or done away 36 Wesley's opinion {infra) 39 Replies of the Revs. Thos. Morell and Thos. Ware to the same effect 40 Origin of the name -M. E. Church 41 Opinions of leading ministers in that Church in accordance with the above— RfV. Dr. Luckey's letter 42 Do. from Rev. Dr. Hedding, senior bishop— Mr. Stratton's confirmation. , 43, 44 Two Book Agents' ditto- Letter from Rev. E. Ryerson to Rev. Dr. Fisk.. .. 46 President Fisk's rei)ly favoring the views of the others 46 Provisions of the Canada Discipline 47 Sworn testimony of the Secretary of the General Conference— Note on the eaxe of Messrs. Wood and Bevitt , , 48 Secretary's sworn testimony continued 49, 60, 51, 62, 53 2. Objection : Change of the Church's Name— This objection anticipated by the Conference 54 Messrs. Bidwull and Kidph's legal opinion 55 Sustained by the Civil Courts during the six suits for the recovery of the Church property 56 8. Objection : President from England 67 Wesley and Coke's foreign relations and residence— Summing up of the argument 58 VIL Claims of the Redoubtablb Challengers ; Tests for eliminating the truth— Who originated the challenging body ?. . . . 69 The order and dates of their respective adhesions — Dr. Webster's version — Rev. D. Culp-Mr. John Bailey -D. PiCKctt 60 J.W. Byam -J. H. VI uston— Messrs. R and G. — Case of Mr.Reynolds — Neither he nor Culp, nor Pickett, nor Huston, "Travelling Elders " to consti- tute a General Conference — Rev. H. Wilkin.son's testimony in Court {infra) — Rev. J. Gatchell having gone witli the Union measure, kc. — His history 62, 63 Episcopals' own statement as "to the time of their first Generci Confer- ence—Report of Committee and deliverance of the Cinclnnai General Conference, 1836 65 The provisions of tlie Canada Discipline did not provide for theli; action — No Episcopos had ever existed in Canada Methodism 66 The manner of prosecuting the devlsive objects 67 Truth and sadness of the above — Matters held in abeyance (ii/ca) -The history of the appeals to the American General Conferen le, and the shape the matters finally took 68 If the Episcopals were not pertinacious and boastful, it might be allowed to pass- -The present awkwardness of the case -The author'i opinion of the course to be piirmio-I if the present anomaly cannot be mitigated . . 70 r- . ^- ^ Page r-The 24 -20 Editor's .... 27 28 29 30 31 '62 34 35 ?CH IN iDA; 85 35 modi- 36 39 40 41 ovo— 42 1 . 43, 44 k . . . , 46 46 47 1 the 48 51, 62, 53 64 65 f the 56 67 ' the 58 \ ■a 1 ""ii ■■ r '■-T . 9 , I * ' -> r', - ^ J ' > r:' • .V »• ^ 1 . ^^^-^ ' ■. •J' . fl' - . . •^I:^:, •K. ; .\ * t t- / <.»u .i-- !¥ •^ ' 4 Wi^Cifc.^^ sis ^r o R Y OF METHODISM IN CANADA OR, "CASE AND HIS GOTEMPORARIES." BY BEV. JOHN CAKROLl,, D.D. A complete set of the five volumes of Cask and His CoTEMPOR ARIES can now be obtained at the Book Room at the low price of $4 90 for the whole work, or $1 for a single volume. The fifth volume extends from the reconstruction pf the Union, in 1849, to the iiicoi ition of the Lower Canada IHstrict and the Hudson Bay 'inritory Missions with the Canada Conference, closing with the death of the Rev. Wm. Case in 1855. The five volumes embrace a veiy minute and the only complete History of Methodism in the ''two Canadas " during the first sixty-five years of its' existence, and portray all the itinerant labourers and very many of the lay CO operat rs, to the number of nearly 1,300 in all. The books are writ^^ i in Dr. Carroll's , easy, racy, graphic style. The fifth volum furnished with an extensive Alpha reticai. Index to the wuole five volumes, whicli makes it now very easy for reference to the multitudinous matters the volumes contain. , Usual discount to ministers and the trade. Agents wanted to sell these and other bboks, to whom a liberal discount will be made. Rev. SAMUEL ROSE, Publisher-, 80 KI.MG STREET EAST. TORONTO. ;?*v.