IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 2.8 1.25 ! ilU IIIIII.6 1^ ■so ™^^ ■^ ■■)/, - 6" V W Photographic Sciences Corporation ^^ ^ % n? 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 145BC (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions histonques % Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The to tl The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thoda normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. The posi of tl film D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverturo manque I I Coloured maps/ D n n Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.u. autre que bleue oc< noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou da la distortion le long de la marge intirleure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas dt6 film^es. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes 01 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqu^es □ Pages detached/ Pages ddtach^es r~>^howthrcjgh/ L^ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Qualit^ indgale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire I I Only edition available/ D Seule Edition disponible Paries wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film4<.'s d nouveau de facon i obtenir la meilleure image possible. Orlj beg the sior othi first sion or il The shal TINI whi( Mbf diffi entli beg! righ requ met D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction inc!;qu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X V 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has beer reproduced thanks to the generosity of: IVIetropolitan Toronto Library Canadian History Department L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce & la g6n6rosit6 de: Metropolitan Toronto Library Canadian History Department The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Las images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copiee in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on th(P last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover wnen appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustraterl impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Las exemptaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film6s an commonpant par le premier p'at et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commencant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suiv&nts apparattra sur la dernidre image de chaque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — »> signifie "A SUIVRE ', le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre tiim6s d des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 A partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants iilustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 rue J i*. ca ? \A ^ THE •4.^ i^. ■2. > UNIOJJ CONSIDERED. AND THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN CANADA By the Rev. THOMAS WEBSTER. ^ 1 not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice, over :;ii; • neither let them witik with the eye, that hate me without i! cause.— Psalm XXXV. 19. i-^'" BELLEVILLE: VICTORIA CHRONICLE OFFICE* 18 4 2. 73 7^^^'^ APR ^ s mi 'l/6-J PEELIMINARY EEMARKS. The Rev. Egerlon (now Dr.) Eyerson, and ofners in connex- ion 4h him, having published and circulated much, derogatory o the teres and religious character of the mm,strv and mem- le^hiD o the Methodist Episcopal Church m Canada, and iSlaboured industriously for several years, to impress upon he uub lie mind a belief, that our Ministers are the most base amon" men: And that the "suspicions" of the Ep.scopa SSdists respecting the -union" were "groundless," and S:Seqaem proceedings " baseless and absurd :" It cer- !,Tn V cannot be considered assuming in us now to say a few words in self defence :af.3r having endured almost m sitence nine vcars of insult and injury. Although some o the Min.s- Te^soahe Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada, have sought to defame the public, and in some instances even the private character of our ministers : and have denounced them by almost has bee. written K^ any M;r.,,-..'V of the MeUiodist Episcopal Church, in defence of our conference, or of its proceedings since the "imion." , , . . , . Under some circumstrnces, ence and submission are chris- tian virtues, but noUu al) . , -rxr 1 U 1 T It mi^ht have been hoped, thai after the Wesleyans had dis- covered^he sad effects of the "union" upon the church, and the utter contempt with which the Messrs. Ryerson were treat- ed bv the British Conference : as well as the want of judgment and foresight, in the pioposing and advocating of that measure ; that thev would not still have continued to hold such bitterness against those whose only fault was, and still is, their attachment to the Church of their choice and their unwillingness to forsake her for the '^uniried mysteries" of the "union, which has proved a most disastrous "experiment." And must the Episcopal Methodists now be deprived of their Church property, and their reputation, because they would not recklessly rush with them within the circle of this vortex '? , -r • The Canada Conference in its intemperate zeal to ellect its obiect, has dared to deny to the Methodist Societies in Canada, a right claimed by all protestants, and never before denied but bv papists, viz : that of private judgment, and that too m an ad- hei^nce to that, which had already been established as /^r/rfa/ic/ ^^rcel -f ^^e chvrrli. Thev scrupled not to give up the Missions to the EngUsh Conference,'to sacrifice the independence ol tho IV. Cluii'cli,andto abolish the form of her government, with the or- ders of her ministry. But as some of the Wesleyan Ministersi have lately denied this self-evident truth, viz : that the Canada Conference resigned its independence to the English Confer- ence, at the consummation of the "union," it will be necessary to prove the fact, and we are able to do so from official authori- ty. In the Wesleyan minutes for one thousand eijiht hundred and forty-one, Page 15, it is said "the English Conference, abruptly and as we think, mu-easonably separated from us with- out our consent, and without our desire : we wevo'^obliired io take the separate and independentj^oszY/otj, we occupied previous io the union, from the time of our separation froin the Ameri- can B^'eihren in 1828." We easily infer from this extract, 1st. That the Canada Conference was a separate and " indepen- dent" body from 1828 till 1833. 2nd, That the said Canada Conference, became dependent upon the English Conference, from 1833 till 1840. And 3r(J, That after the dissolution of the union, the Canada Conference became 2ndepe?ident of the English Conference. In the Wesleyan Methodist Almanac for 1843, we find the following item : — "English Conference secedes from its union with the Cana- da Conference, and the latter commenced iXa present indv.ve^^- DENT position 1840. These quotations are sufficient to establish our position, viz : That the Canada Conference gave up " ^7.s•" independence in 1833, and became dependent upon tlie Conference in England. It may not however, be amiss to produce a third witness, " that in the mouth of two or three \vitnesses every word may be es- tablished." INIr. Egerton Ryerson admitted under oath last May, in Kingston, that the Canada Conference "gave up a por- tion of its independence," and became " measurably dependent upon the British Conference." We wonder if our opponents will impeach these witnesses. Before entering more immediately upon the subject o{ union, which has caused so much contention, division, and sorrow a- mong the Methodists in Canada, a few remarks appear requi- site. We are willing to admit that controversy between religious bodies should generally be avoided : but when a numerous and respectable body of Christians, are accused of being " Hypo- crites, Schismatics," and "disturbers" of the peace and tran- quility of the Church, as the iMinisters of the i\lethodist Episco- pal Church liave been, by several Wesleyan JMiiiisteis, we ith the or- Ministers c Canada I Coiifer- necessary il authori- L hundred inference, Ti us with- ohliged io dp7'c.vious he Jlmcri- [tract, 1st. ' indcpen- id Canada onfcrence, ?olution of lent of the Q find the the Cana- INDF.PEN- ition, viz : ndence in I England. CSS, " that Qay be es- ' oath hist e up a por- dependent opponents t of union^ sorrow a- ear requi- should be wanting in respect, not only to ourselves, and our so- cieties, but for the many thousands who have returned them- selves upon tlie assessment rolls as Episcopal JNIethodists, if we did not step forward in our own defence. We contend that as the societies were consulted, consented to and desired the establisliment of an independent Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada^ in 1828, that before that form of Church Government could have been legally or justly abol- ished, and the Church in Canada, have been made dependent upon a foreign Conference ; that the societies should have been consulted and their consent obtained. This not having been done, we contend that those wlio did not consent to the new or- der of things; but who conscienciously continued to adiiere to the discipline of 1829, and the government and usages of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, with whicli they had previously and voluntarily connected themselves, remained members of said Methodist Episcopal Church. And notwhli- standing, after the union had been consummated^ some sub- mitted to it cheerfully, and others reluctantly, yet this did not elfcct the case of those, who refused to submit to such an innova- tion upon their inalienable and heretofore acknowledged rights. Repeated and unprovoked attacks have been made upon us within the last year by certain Wesleyan Preachers, who unable to content themselves with assailing us in this country, have gone to the United States to do us wrong. Hence arises die necessity for the following pages, that the public may judge of our real position. In conclusion we would remark, that this controversy has not been saught by us; it has been forced upon ns ; ours is not an offensive, but a defensive warfare : and we are willing that a candid and discerning public should judge be- tween us and our opponents. 1 religious lerous and y " Hypo- and tran- ist Episco- listei's, we 1 i i ' -I THE UNION CONSIDERED, &c. Nine years have passed away, since the Canada Conference was persuaded by the Rev. Egerton Rycrson, to make an at- tempt at destroying the Methodist Episcopal Church m Canada. In this, however, they failed ; for a "remnant" of the Metho- dist Episcopal Cliurch, «'foreseeingthe evil" that would follow, <'hid themselves" within the walls of their own Zion, (which Mr. Ryerson, had in vain tried to demolisii,) resolving "not to meddle vntli those who are given to change.^''— Not because they were averse to the mere matter of Union with their Fathers and Brethren in England, but because, in the first place, they felt themselves called upon to resist the arbitraiy and unprece- dented stretch of power, claimed and exercised by the Confer- ence : and in the next place, they preferred (as did Mr. Wes- ley) the Episcopal mode of Church Government to anij other: and lastly, they were satisfied, (and the event has proved how far they were correct,) that the distant and dissimilar situation of the English Conference, disqualified them to judge of the circumstances and wants of the Church in Canada. The God of Israel approved the act, and thousands of blood-bought souls have, through their instrumentality, been gathered mto the fold of Christ.— Nor has any year passed, which has not shown an increase in our membership, while the mis-called ""nion which was to stretch across the Atlantic, and unite the ±.nglish and Canada Conferences together in a bond of love, has, like a rope of sand, crumbled into atoms, and exists only upon the page of history, as a monument of Mr. Ryerson 's ambitious folly, and the want of judgment and resolution on the part ot the Conference, in submitting to such a measure. It appears proper to state in this place, that the Wesleyans charge upon the M. E. Church, the sin of schism, because they would not follow them and abandon the Methodist ±.piscopal Church— a church which had been established in <-anada many years since— which had been the means in the hands ot God of their conversion, and which was highly esteemed by them ; Because they would not unite themselves to the Metno- dist Society in England, and consent to receive a President, ap- pointed from year to year, by a Conference nearly four thou- sand miles distant; Because of these things, Mr. Ryerson and his adherents denounce them as schismatics. We are willing, however, that the candid and discerning reader, should juuge between us. onference ike an al- 1 Canada, le Metho- ild follow, n, (which ng '^not to »t because sir Fathers lace, they I unprece- ic Confer- Mr. Wes- 1711/ other : •oved how r situation Ige of the The God lught souls ,{) the fold shown an I "union" le English has, like a upon the ambitious \\Q part of Wesleyans cause they Episcopal in Canada le hands of teemed by the Metho- jsident, ap- four thou- yerson and are willing, ould judge li^- •Vinal ;thcr )0nie We are accused by our opponents of creating a new Church. They say, "a set of dissatisfied Local Preachers got together, '. vear and a haif after the union took place, and formed a churcii of their own making." We deny the charge, and challenge the proof. This accusation should rest exactly where it be- longs, and that is, upon the hea 1 and shoulders of our accu- sers. Does not this charge apply most forcibly to our Wesley- an friends'? Did not the Canada Canfcrence give up its inde- pendence, into the hands of the English Conference, and sub- mit to receive a President from it] Did they not change the order of the ministry 1 Did they not introduce an entirely dif- f event fm-m of church government, with many ??.cw rules and 'regulations unknown to them before 1 In order that the reader may have a correct idea of the origin of our church in Canada, it appears proper in the first place, to prove that there has been a regularly constituted Methodist Epis liurcli in Canada, and in the second place, that the prei r 'scoj)al Church, recognized by the laws of our count Methodist Episcopal Church, although not com of the same identical individuals ; of the original n liaving died, others having been expelled, and large numl)ers having seceded from the Church, at the time of what is called the Union, in 1833. Notwithstanding that Methodism had been introduced into Quebec in 1780 by the British Troops, and the zeal and labours of Mr. Tuffey, the Commissaiy of the 14th Regiment, yet no particular Societies were formed. In 1788, Mr. George Neal, a local preacher from the United States, preached the Gospel in the District of Niagara ; and in the same year, Mr. Lyons, who was an exhorterin connex- ion, with the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, settled in Adolphustown, and held meetings among the people. Nearly two years after Mr. juyons settled in Adolphustown, several of the religiously disposed persons in that part of the country despatched a message to the Conference, held in the city of New York, October 1790, requesting them to take their case into consideration, and send them some spiritual assistance ; in consequence of which, the Conference appointed the Rev. William Losee to labour as a Missionary among them. Mr. Losee accordingly came thither and proceeded to form Socie- ties in connexion with the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. Mr. Losee not having been an ordained Minister, the New York Conference, in 1792, sent to their assistance the Rev. Da- ) 8 I M rious Dunham, and from this period the menrd)ers of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church in thin country, had the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper duly administered among them. Previous to the year 1800 only four Preachers had hcen em- l)loyed in Canada. 1 his year others were added, among whom was the Rev. Daniel Pickett. After the organization of the Genesee Conference in 1810, .ae District of Upper Canada was under its control, until IS^-l^, when a separate Conference was organized in Upper Canada, under the ruperintendence of the Bishops in the United States, the same as the Conferences in that Country. It continued thus until 1828, when it wa:; considered advisable that the Methodists in Canada should be- come a separate and independant body, in friendly relation with the American Methodists. The American General Confer- ence of IS'28 consented to the se])arat!on, in consequence of which, *' the Canada Conference, held in Ernestown the same year, adopted the following preamble and resolution : " — " Whereas the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, has been heretofore extended {)V*^r the Ministers and people in connexion with said Church in the Province of Upper Canada, by mutual agreement and hv consent of our brethren in this Province; and whereas it has been, and is, the general wish of the Ministers and Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Upper Canada, to be or- ganized into a separate and independent l3ody, in friendly rela- tion with the Methodist Episcopa! Church in the United States; and whereas the General Conference has been pleased to com- ply with our wish in this respect, and has authorized any one or more of the General Superintendents of the Methodist Episco- pal Church in the United States, with the assistance of any two or more Elders, to ordain a General Superintendent fo; the Church in Upper Canada, (whenever such superintendent siiall have been elected by the Cancda Conference,) Be it thc-efore Resolved, That it is expedient md necessary, and that the Can- ada Conference of the Methouist Episcopal Church do now or- ganize itself into an Independent Methodist Episcopal Church in Upper Canada, with a General Superintendent, to be known by the name of " The Methodist Episcopal Church in Cana- da.^^ The Conference then elected the Rev. William Case, General Superintendent j9?'o tern, who continued to fill the office up to 1833, when the union was finally consummated; and al~ though the Church in Canada had no officer consecrated toper- form ordinations as a Bishop, between the years 1828 and 1833> lie MetJi- lances of ng tliem. been eni- ng whom n of Ui{» ' Canada inference 1 tie nee of nferences en it wa:; liould bc- ition with I Confer- ucnce of the same il Chm-ch extended 1 Church ment and eas it has embers of to be or- ndly rela- 2(1 States; d to com- ny one or it Episco- f any two t fov the dentsiiall thcefore ttheCan- o now or- d Church )e known 171 Cana- am Case, the office ; and al- ted toper- md 1833, 9 vet they had a General Superintendent in the person of Elder Case who was chosen by the suflrages of the General Confer- ence to perform all the functions of a Bishop, (ordmation ex- cepted,) and therefore tne Episcopal office was sustained inde- pendent of the suiVrages of the Annual Conference during that ^'^ a"- all admit that the discipline of 1829 w^as the Constitution of tht Methodist Episcopal CUurch in Canada, we may enquire whether the Canada Conference of 1833, had power accordin.? to that discipline, to abolish both the General and Annual C re- ference?;, as they had previously existed, and to .-substitute one cal'-d merely "the Conference." In a word had they a Con- stitutional right to ^ie.9//*o// the identity and government of die Methodist Episcopal Church— attach t^>emselves to another body— under a ditlerent .mode of Ecclesiastical government— under a new Constitution— with an entirely dilTerent mode ol operation, laws and usages, and still continue to be the Metho- dist Episcopal Church in Canada ; possessing all right, title, andinterc't in the property in possession ot the Methodist Episcopal Church, previous to the "Union"] Tne idea is ab- surd. By comparing the Episcopal Discipline of 182 ) \vitli the Weslevan Discipline of 1834., it will be found that the lirst section in the former is left out of the latter altogedier. Why is diis '? If Mr. Ryprson and his brethern are what they pro- fess to be, viz : Episcopal Methodists, were they ashamed to record the glorious rise of the Methodist Episcopal Church m the United States 1 Or was it because they renounced Episco- pacy, destroyed the identity of the Cluirch, so far as their acts could go, and became dependent on tlie Wcsleyan Conlerence in England? Why did they wish to hide from the people the fact, that Mr. Wesley "preferred the Episcopal mode of Church Go- vernment to an'y other, by solemnly setting apart by the imposi- tion of Aw /'^W*, and prayer, Thomas Coke, Doctor oi Civd Law, late of Jesus College in the university of Oxtord, and 1 res- byterof the Church of England, for the Episcopal office; and having delivered to him letters of Episcopal orders, comniission- ed and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury, then General Assistant of the Methodist Society in America, for the same. Episcopal office ; he, the said Francis Ashury, being first ordain- ed Deacon and Elder ; in consequence of which the said Fran- cis Asbury was solemnly set apart for the said Episcopal office by prayer, and the imposition of the hands of the sa a Thomas Coke: other regularly ordained Ministers assisting m the sacred I I ceremony. )? Sect. 1st, pageGtli, Disciphne 1829, f'l !l 10 Before we proceed to compare the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, published in 1829 with ihe dis- cipline of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in British North America, (since changed to the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada,) published in 1834, we must notice a declaration made by the Rev. E. Ryerson in his review of the Judges opinions on the Waterloo Chapel case, which was published in the " Chris- tian Guardian," of the 13th September, 1837; he assures the Judges in the most solemn and positive manner, that no change was effected in the government of the Church, by the formation of the " Union." That the Government of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada, is the "same" as was that of the Methodist Episcopal Church. His words are, "Not because even the foi'm of the Government is changed ; foi' that is sub- stantially what it always has ieew." * * * "in the title of the Church the word ffe.y/eya/i has superceded the word Episcopal :, the word Presidency stands in the place of the word Episcopacy; the word President, has got into the place of the word Bishop ; six words — a'^d nothing but words ; for things remain unchang- ed — essentially, substantially, practicably the same." Mr. Ryerson in another paragraph of the same article says : " In the Methodist Church in Canada, there are as much as ever "divers orders" of Ministers — President, Ministers, or Preachers, though but one imposition of hands." Mr. Ryerson, however admitted, under oath, in answer to a question from his Lordship at the late Kingston Assizes, the fact that in his Church their is but one order of Ministers. The Pvlethodist Epis- copal Church recognizes Bishops, Elders and Deacons. Is there then no change 1 Mr, Ryerson in his cross-examination at the same trial ad- mitted the fact, that the Canada Conference '•^ resigned a portion of its independence to the British Conference." The Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, was a perfectly independent body. Is there no change involved here ? But why should we be surprised at the apparent ditference between his written statement and his oath in this instance when Messrs. Stinson and Richey, have shown as gieat a variation between his oath in the Belleville Chapel case, and his written statement to Lord John Russell. It is indeed painful to exhibit any professed Minister of the Gospel in this "unt^nviable" light: But the interests of the Church, and the cause of truth demand it of us ; and Mr. Ryer- son and his iiretheni, have driven us to defend ourselves, against their repeated, unreasonable, and unchristian attacks. lethodist . the dis- h North hurch in on made nions on " Chris- sures the ) change 3rmation i^esleyan at of the because t is sub- e of the isco'pal ; scopacy; Bishop ; nchang- le says : nuch as 5ters, or lyerson, from his Church St Epis- 3ns. Is trial ad- L portion 'ethodist nt body, tference iQ when ariation written • of the } of the L'. Ryer- against 11 We will now proceed to compare our discipline of 1829 with theirs of 1334<: — Of the General Conference. Question 2. Who shall compose J. ^-^ ^^f ' M^TraUmng Elders who have travelled the four years last "If and have beerr received into full connexion, past, anuiiav •„,„ ,i,p mmnosition of the General We must novv examme '^ '''^ '^^78^' where the Cana- Conference held at Hallowell, »'' ^^^^^^^^ „„''" , „„din accordance witli Was that Conference legally ^^^^'"^^^Zh^^n^Xy answer, the letter of the Discipline of IS^f J;^^^,,^ ^as? from Mr. that it was not; ""^l ''"^ ^^^J^""^ ^fore the Court in the Egerton %--«'« sworn t^ timonj, hdor^^^^,^ ^^^ Belleville Chapel Smt — (I'age ^^ « Council for the Wesleyans ^f "^ M;- f ^^^^^^^^^^^ ,t Hallowell ,ons admitted ^ovo|m your General^Cona ^^^ (,ere" It «PP-^fX,tt Sefm^ki^ in all 51.^ It members, and 17 that ^vcre not 4 j„,„ that exactly is clear then, from Mr. Kyeuon s o« . ,4 . ^ere not one-third of that Conference, '"« f ^^^'^^i ^ A U^^^^^ , ^^^ ^^^^,^ eligible to a seat, a"d consequent vo^d contr^^y ^^ ^^^^ ^.^^._ trefore have been illegal and unconstitutional. Notwithstanding that Mr. ff;;^-,»:ilttuntJ;l Con- least 16 ineligible persons were admitted ana ^^^^^.^^^ ^^^^^^ lerence in direct opposition o l^' J'«« ^^^^ that the pro- church, he puts forth an e^ortto pe— «>e . ^j^^^ ceedingsofthat Conference were perfc^^^^^^^^^^^ X^^ ^^^^ ,,y a "special session of the ^'="f™ ^'"534 of, he Annual Con- the General Superintendent, at the request 0^ ^^^^^^^ fei-ence," when the said General Conference pa ^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ing resolution -.-"Resolved, That the hrst a j „„,i question of the third section of the d^scq^lmebe^^^^^^^ the following inserted m its place ■ ; , , • „„.„ that Mr. Allison was ill, but not wheUicr he •We are informed in a note that wir. a""v attended the Conference or not. Jl ifi i • i 12 shall be composed of all the Elders, and Elders elect xvhn .... members of the Annual Conference.' " ' '"^^^ ^'^ It must be borne in mind that these " Elders elect" tvom ^n ly Deacons who had been elected to Elder's order hnf not ordained. The fact then stands thus 34^ fe, '^^ iTor ol^rZTlT^^^^^ ^^"^^^^"-' ^^^"^- Ho- well, Augubt 13 1832, which passed a vote to relinnni.}. Episcopacy, as Judge Sherwood ays: «in the face 1?^^ written constitution." ® ^^ ^"^ We hope to be able to show in the pronernhrp ihnf Pi i« fhni, ? if' " """^y "f "lo^e "Elders elect" were in then cradles ; were entitled to as muchrespect at lea.t as L . young men who had travelled but four or five year, nnd Int « uth the disciplme did not entitle them to, it would most cor to a4 Inned r"n /""'i"^ ^T'' (=''"'°"Slt "ow located) not copy W.S ffi^^^^^ the resolution to relinquish Epis- cop> was iinally determined upon, (contraiT to disdnline ind h iTr "'."^ '^''-■""S^ of hundreds of tiio membe of t o coinl C .rr""'r'" 'f '"^^'^r'endenco of the Method Epi ! See o t ' "M^r^r"' •™'^'l'"»''e"ets of the General Con- Lrence ol the Methodist Episcopal Churcli after the "union" lou-cil Au' Q,h IQM % "''™' Conlerence held in Hal- pre»ently show that the Legislative powers of the General Con cation of necessity, which proverbially l^sno law ^ wSitasfoHowI .'" X "^^^'1°;^ "'^'^t demands attention, wuicn IS as follows :-«rhe General Conference shall have full 13 who are were on- but were md 16 or J in Hol- eliiiquish 3 of the at Elders rden and 'p in the were in as those and that rivile; or altered rds of the ;he second Episcopal istical niid e Episco- mda con- members, Bishops, any other onterence But that o destroy Church — ■ 3 ere"t on i\ form of ieties to, IS, we ut- sindivid- ;s to the mans" if y ceased But that ' Preach- constitu- lo deny, v^ing act- 3 union-' vith the vith the change, with the who did mr'^.h in [ethodist s the le- 3n." to Trus- ed to be A'ise, he attach- British Jthodist 15 Eoiscopal Church in Canada, and thereby forfeited his Trust in fhrChanel property obtained for the use and benefit of » our rLrPb"o?n other words the Methodist Episcopal Church. f:it\oZ^M^^-^^^^ the Conference saw fit to give up ^:Me;TLce. become subject to ^^^ Eri^^^^^ „,enm general of the VVc^^^^^^^^^ even consulting the articles of union ^o.J0 ana ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ rler Such :C manifest little short of a papal thirst for potrare a'outrage «pot> religious liherty -d- J object L^ernbershiptotl^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^TTt "Rlorsou and his followers rely as their strong hold "n^^Sb; rf h eXofdinory acts of tL General and An- 'YSent"that this enabling clause or proviso was not placed here to enablethe Annua and ^^^^'^^^^l^Z ,\(^<\rc\\r four restrictions out oi seven, out w giv^^ i ;^ru^e an"; "Nation'.' ^atro^tci^uX'; heretofore regularly organized Methodist M.iscop Canada. The sixth and seventh - '^'^'-;,^;'^, Without r^e^rmeltit^'or ns^^^^^^^^^^ Con e-nrC-ghout the connexion Th^^^^^^^^^ be "altered" upon the joint '•;;C°"?'°'=''t'' "wi h the c— of the Annual Conference or Conferences ' ™'^ ^^^onsen of a majority of three-fourths of the Ge."era Conference Ibu notone^Jdhereaboutd^hgawayvvnhl^^^^^^^^^^^ Ul rn." canit be n.ade to appear that the Conference o^ 833 acted constitutionally in abolishing "Epistop..,. mx if it 16 Khoiild be urged that it was the intention of the framers of the Discipline of 1829, to give the General Conference (on there- commendatipn of the Annual Conference or Conferences) w?i limited power, then what follows, whv that they intended them to have power to destroy the existing form of Church Govern- meiit at pleasure— strike lorever from the discipline the f^eneral rules of the United Societies and "appropriate the produce of the book concern," to any object the Conference may see fit. Is It not as clear as the shining of the sun at noon, that these restrictions must have l)een intended for some purpose, either to guarantee to the societies that the Church should continue to be Lpiscopal in its form of government, or to practice oreat de- ception upon the people of Canada? or were they placed there without being designed to have any meaning at al],~merelv to hll up a blank page in the discipline. If Mr. Rverson's position be correct, that the proviso in the 7th restriction gave the Con- ference power without limitation, to " do away " or abolish five restrictions out of seven,— then, by placing'them in the disci- pline, lae societies were blinded, the public mind misled, and the Conference gained a fearful and despotic dominion over the Church in Canada. From a careful* examination of the restrictive powers of the General Conference, as given and explained by Dr. Bano^s in his hostory of Methodist Episcopacy, (pages 136, 137, 138 It appears, beyond all doubt, that it was tlie original intention of the framers of those restrictions, to "limit" the General Confer- ence in its powers. " It is true, however." he observe^. " with These Exceptions, the General Conference have full and ample powers to modify, alter, or change, or to make anv addi- honal rules they may deem expedient and necessary for the benefit of the community." These restrictions could not be abolished, but they might be "altered" by the General Con- ference upon the joint recommendation of all the Annual Con- lerences. But can it be thought, that the General Conference restricted its own powers by the above rules, and at the same time intended that the word "alter" should mean "abolish " and that the General Conference should have power to destroy that form of government, which Mr. Wesley "preferred" to any other, and established in the American Church ; and which the Conference itself has received? Not by any means. We find a note in Emory's defence of our Fathers, p. i\S, which confirms us in this conclusion :— "As our General Conferences were onginally constituted, they possessed the power of our whole body of Ministers. Whenever the powers of the pre<'ent delegate course i trictive Dr.] the Gei copal C which ] Genera seven, ] "Tiiey which 1 and its The firs with ■ :: I ence, al Dr. Bai ' rciruhd . not abo f as sacn limiting from n h GOVERI yond a « opinion the Chi It mi 1 ral Con ^ are pre; 't on certi ^ made ; and ac * Govern k of the r ' not coi seen by Confen , own CO ])ropert The ' 3d sect in Briti Disc ■ be com ers of the n the re- ices) win- ded them Govern - e general rod lice of see fit. hat these e, either ntinue to great cle- wed there nerely to 3 position the Con-, alish five he disci- sled, and over the 's of the Bangs in 37, 138, 3ntion of Confer- !, " with full and ny addi- »• for the . not be •al Gon- ial Con- ifcrencc le same bolish," destroy ' to any which 5. We which erences r of our present i 17 delegated general Gonference are spoken of in this work, it is of course to be understood agreeably to the principles of the res- tridive limitations. ' ' Dr. Bangs is still more clear upon tl,r Vestnctive clauses oi' the General Gonference, in his Jiistory of the IMethodist Epis- copal Church, vol. 2, p. 231, 232, 233. Speaking of a rei)ori which had been presented to restrict or limit the powers of tin- General Conference, but which was rejected by a majority of seven, he says of Bishop Asbury and some of the old preachers, "They clearly saw the necessity of adopting some })lan, by which the doctrines of the Church, its foiiini of govkr.nment, and its general rules, might be preserved from deterioration.'' The first report having been lost, a second was soon prepared with : me slight alterations, and was received by the Conler- ence, almost unanimiously. Of these restrictive rciiulations, Dr. Bangs observes, — "Call these rules, therefore, resiridlvr regulations, or a Constiiuiion of the Church, {ov we contend not about names merely: — they have ever since been* considered as sacredly binding upon all succeeding General Conferences, limiting them in all their legislative acts, and rROTiiRiTixG tiikm Irom making inroads upon the doctrines, general rules, and GOVERNMENT of the Chitrck.''^ These extracts place it be- yond all doubt, that the General Conference (in Dr. Baiigs' opinion) has no more authority to abolish the Government of the Church, than they have to abolish its Doctrines. It must be particularly remembered that althoutih the Gene- ral Conference is the Legislative body of the Church its bounds are prescribed, beyond which it cannot go: though they can u\)- on certain conditions make laws, and repeal others already made ; yet the Government l)eing once established, received and acknowledi'^ed, by iMinisters and menH)ers, that fi)rm of Government cannot be abolished without the consent as well of the membership as of the Ministry. TJie membership was not consulted at the formation of the union; and it will be seen by reference to the resolutions passed at the ITollovvoll Conference in 1832, that the Canada Conference doubted its own competency to abolish Episcopacy, and retain the Chapei property. The 4th sect, of the discipline of 1829, compared with the 3d section of the discipline of the Wesleyan Methodist churcli in British North America, published in 1834. — Disciphne of 1829, sect. 4, que.^t. 1st, — How is a Bishop to be constituted] 18 Answer ; By the election of the General Conference, and the ladng on of the hands of three Bishops, or at least of one Bishop and two Elders. i Quest. 2d, — If by death, expulsion or otherwise, there be no Bishop remaining in our Church, what shall we do I ^i^^^ver, — The General Conference shall elect a Bishop, and ilie Elders, orctnij ihrte ofihem, who shall be appointed by the General Conference for t!'at purpose, shall ordain him accord- in^i; 10 our form of ordination. ^Wcslcvan discipline of 1834-, sect. 3d quest. 1st. — How is a President to bo a})pointed or chosen ? I Answer, — The English Conference shall have authority to ' send from, year to year, one of its own body, to preside over GMU- Conference ; but the same person shall not be appointed oftencr than once in four years, unless at the request or oui Conference. When the English Conference does not send a President from England, our Conference shall on its assembling. choose by liallot, one from amongst its own numbers ; but thf game individual shall not be re-chosen President oftener than once in four years, nor continue in office longer than one yeai at a time. I Tlie Bishop is first elected by the General Conference, and secondly consecrated to the sacred office, by prayer, and impo- sition of h.inds. — See ordination service in the discipline of 1829. ch. 4<, sec. 3, from which the following is an extract: '•'Almighty God, giver of all good things, who Z*?/ % Holy Spint hast "appointed divers orders of ministers in thy church , iiiei-cifuUy behold this thy servant, now called to the work and ministry of a Bishop, and replenish him so with the truth o thy doctrine, and adorn him with innocency of life, that bot^i . In- word and deed, he may faithfully serve thee in this office.*' * The Bishop, then, is not only chosen by the General Con fercnce, but he is solemnly set apart by imposition of hands, and the prayers of this "truly impressive service." a servic* which Mr. Wesley intended should be used, when a Superin tendent should be set apart for the Methodist Church in Amer ica. The President of the Wesleyan Methodist Conference iri Canada, is "appointed" by the Wesleyan Conference in England. The Canada Conference has no choice whatever in his appointment, but is bound to receive any person the. British Conference sees tit to send them, so that the same indi- vidual is not sent oftener than once in four years : And it i* erence, and least of one :, there be no ,? L Bi:-:hop, and ointcd by the liini accorcl- it. — How is a 8 ! autliority to • preside over be appointed •eqiiest or oui s not send a ts assembling, bers ; but tht t oftener than than one year nference, and ^cr, and impo- iplineol'lS^a •act: ) hy iliy Hoh, ■ n thy church , the work ant i h the truth o life, that boti . in this oirice."' General Con tion of hands, ce." a servici* len a Superin urch in Amer Conference iu Conference iri loice whateven iny person the. the same indi* TS : And it iii 19 not eve stipulated that he should bean ordained minister • and we believe that it is an undeniable fact, that some of their Pre- sidents were unordained, anil allhoutih they had never been or- dained by imposition of hands themjielves, they proceeded to or- daiji by the imposition of tlieir hands, some of'the candidates for orders m the Canada Conference. Ts this the course that Mr Wesley desiirned the iAIelhodist Cluirch in America should pursue? Would ]\[r. Wesley have considered this practice "lollowmir the scriptures and ihe primitive Church?" If so why did he ^:et apart, ])y the imposition of his hands and praver ('other regularly ordained mh\k{er:i assisting in the sacred cere- mony') Dr. Coke to be Superintendent in America, aulhori^inn- him to set apart Francis Asbury to the same oilice, bein'rfn-.t or- dained Deacon, and then Elder, and a fferivcfrd Superintendent And be It remembered, that prior to Mr. Wesley's ordainin-'r the Doctor, he had received Priest's orders in 'the En'rli.h Church, Why was Mr. Asburv ordained Deacon, Ekler,''an(l Superintendent ? Why did not Mr. Wesley tell the American 1 reachers to ordain each oihcr? Why did he not approve of and reconmiend the conduct of the Virivinia and jYorik Caro^ ^z/i« preachers, in 1779, who appointed a committee to ordain each other, and then ordain ministers, so as to authorize them to administer the sacraments of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper ihe zeal and piety of these men were manifest to all, yet their conduct was considered disorderlv, by IMr. Asbury, Uv G',r- retson, ]\[r. Waters, and many others, both of the Preachers and ot the Societies. Why did the most inHucntial Preachers oppose this step ? Has not one i^tethodist Preacher, (if called ot (xod) being a layman, as good a ridit to ordain, or administer the ordinances as another % We ^^•i^l let Dr. Bangs decide this "Now the people thus awakened, and converted, and collec- ted 3tlier into societies, believed, both Preachers and people m tlie Divine authority of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord s Supper ; but they were, generally speaking, equally te- nacious of the sacred order of the Ministry, y^VWy helievin., that to be fully authorized to administer these ordinances, men must be set apart by prayer and the imposition of hands '' - Vmdication of Methodist Episcopacy, p. 103, 104. Again the Doctor remarks, after shewing that 'the people throughout the United States immediately after the Kevolution- ary war, were generally deprived of the sacraments of the Christian Church :— "Now, if such were the circumstances of i 20 the people, that they could not be supplied with the ordinances as things then were, and if it were right, and necessary, for them to have the sacraments, then it was certainly necessary that some suitable method should be adopted, to furnish the people with them."— lb. p. 105. At the very time of which the Doctor is writing, ilic Metho- dises in America had many truly pious and laborious preachers amono;them: yet, they were in every sense of the word % Preachers ; but if a lay-Preacher has a just right to ordain oth- ers by imposition of his hands, and administer the ordinances, and his ministrations be valid, "then, and not till then," will it 1)0 apparent that those Presidents of the Canada Conference, after the union, who were unordained, were legally authorized to ordain, by imposition of their hands. ^ Notwithstanding the material dilVerence between a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and a President of the Wes- leyan Methodist Conference, in Canada, Mr. Ryerson would have us believe, that the latter oiTicer is a regularly constituted Bishop, (the name excepted) and that the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada, is precisely the same with the INIethodist Episcopal Church, that existed in Canada in 1832. Are not the conclusions at which IMr. Rverson is capable of arriving, extremely powerful and logical? In 1S33, the Methodist Epis- copal Church in Canada, was completely independent of any other body of IMethodists in the world, in all its departments. But the Weslevan Methodi^^t Church in Canada, is as much an a')pcndage, of die British Conference, as the Province of Can- ada, is 'an appendatie of the British Empire. For the Canadian Parliam.ent has just as much choice, in the appointment ot the Governor General, as the Canada Conference has, in the choice or appointment of their President. ' To shew at one concise view, that the Wesleyan Church m Canada is not the independent Methodist Episcopal Church, which existed here in 1832, it will only be necessary to reca- pitulate the main grounds of our argument. 1st. They relinquished Episcopacy.— See the articles of Union, published in their book of Discipline. 2. They abolish the whole of three orders— Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, and substituted but one. Called " Ministers:' 3. Their '.^resent Annual Presidents, are not consecrated, or ordained to the office, but merely elected or appointed to the Presidency of the Canada Conference, from year to year, by the Enghsh Conference. (1 I ordinances essaiy, for necessary furnish the lie Metho- ? preachers c word lay ordain oth- ordi nances, Ml," will it Conference, authorized 1 Bishop of if the Wes- )rf:on would constituted ri Methodist ! INIethodist I, Are not of arriving, hodist Epis- ident of any lepartments. as much an ncc of Can- ic Canadian Lment of the in the choice in Church in pal Church, ;ary to reca- 3 articles of lops, Elders, usecrated, or )inted to the ir to year, by 21 4'. That Although the Church in Canada had no olFicer con- secrated to perform ordination as a Bishop, between the years 1828 and 1833, yet they had one (viz: Elder Case,) who was chosen by the sulTrnges of the General Conference, to perform all the functions of a Bishop, ordination excepted, and therefore, the Episcopal Office was sustained, independent of the sulVer- ages of the Jhvnuul Conference, during said period. f). That so tenacious was the Conference of ordination hy a Bishop, duly consecrated to that olhce by the imposition of hands, that they deferred the ordination of several Preachers, from year to year, after they had been duly elected to orders by the Annual Conference, till a Bishop duly consecrated could b(* had to perform it, and that too, while they had a General Super- intendent in the Person of Elder Case as abov^e stated. (i. That according to the Book of Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Bishop or General Superintendent has to be chosen by the votes of the General Conference, and this Conference uas a body distinct from, and superior in point of Authoritv, to the Annual Conference. 7 That the change made in 1833 abolished both the ^'Gcner- (il :v[\i\. Annual Co7i/*e?'e??<:e6" asthey had previously existed, and substituted one called merely "The Conference." 8. The Union formed in 1833 with the English Conference, destroyed the identity of the Church, inasmuch as previous to this, it existed and exercised its ecclesiastical functions wholly independent of any other body, but by the Union, it became in a measure blended, in both its Legislative and Executive de- partments with the Conference in England. 9. Previous to the said change, no person could fill the otfice of General Superintendent, who at the same time held member- ship in any other Conference, but since the Union, the Churcli is bound to receive one, chosen and furnished by the English Conference, who at the same time that he superintends the Church in Canada, must be a member of the English Confer- ence. 10 Previous to the Union, the Church in Canada could Leg- islate wholly independent of any other body of Methodists, but the articles of Union have restrained them from altering any rule bearing directly or indirectly on said articles, without the consent of the English Conference. A marked difference between the two disciplines continues. Sect. 6 and 7, in the discipline of 1829 have not been admitted into the new constitution or discipline of 1834. But we find I 22 on page 23 a section treating ^^o{ District Meeiins^s.''^ These District Meetings are composed of Preachers on trial, Ministers and Stewards Iroin the respective Circuits in tlio District. The recording Stewards are permitted t-^ vote on the second day, while the financial business of the Didrict is inidor considera- tion. The District Meetings determine what Preachers shall attend the yearly Conference, and who shall not attend. We will now contrast the composition of the Conference described by the discipline of 1S29, with the Wesleyan Conference des- cribed in the discipline of 1831'. Discipline of 1829, " Page 20 of the Annual Conference." "Question 3. Who shall attend the yearly Conferences? Answer. All the travelling Preachers, who are in full con- nexion, and those who are to be received into full connexion.'' Wesleyan Discipline o/'lS3'l' Page 14. "Question 2. Who shall compose the Conference, and what are the regulations and powers belonging to it 1 Answer. The Conference shall be composed of all Preach- ers who have been received into full connexion, and have been appointed by the District Meetings to atiend ; also of all Preachers who have been recommended by their District Meetings to be received into full ciMine:'ion : — Nevertheless the Conference; shall have authoi ity to locate an> of its members, by a majority of three-fourths, provided no person shall be located without one year's notice, or after he has travelled fifteen y:ar ; and the Conference shall atlbrd any assistance to any Brother : j retiring, as it may be able and judge expedient." And again pa-ic 29 : " 9. the District Meetings respectively shall have the right of fixing upon the Preachers who arc to attend the Conference ; subject, however, to die following limitations: ^ './. 1. Let not all the Preachers from any circuit ever come to Conference, except from within such a distance of the place where it is held, as will admit of their supplying their places on the Lord's day ; or except, in very special cases, a majority of two thirds of the District Meeting shall decide that all the bi-eth- ren in any circuit ought to attend. 2. Let those vrho are appointed or have leave to attend set out as late and return as soon as possible." Is there not a manifest disdnction in the composition of these two Conferences. The Wesleyan Conference c^>nsists of a President furnished them by the English Confereiice, and a se- lect number of Preachers who must have " /eai-e" from their District Meetings before they are at liberty to attend. The Dis- is «! ii ■xk "k^ ." These Minister:? ict. The cond (lay, considera- ^hers shall ^nd. We ; descrihed cnce des- ifcrence." rfcrences 1 n full con- nnexion.'' , and what all Preach- have been [Preachers ^tings to be ^onierencc a majority without one • and the ■toretiringj n pn;:c 29 : ve the right onference ; er come to Dt'the place ir places on majority of X the bi-eth- attend set tion of these •--nsists of a 3, and a se- ' from their I. The Dis- 1 23 trict Meeting decides who shall go to the Conference, and who shall stay at home. If then a Preacher should unfortunately incur the displeasure of the Chairman of the District, or be like- ly to advocate measures in Conference in opposition to him, the worthy Chairman could use his influence to a consid(^rable ex- tent, to "leave any such Preacher" at home; and if the Preacher cannot influence two-thirds of the District Meeting in his favour, he cannot be allowed a seat, or a vote in the Con- ference, it matters not how long he may have travelled, or how important soever the measure may be which he i.iight wish to lay before the Conference. If any such occurrence should at anytime take place, the Preacher should have much more than double the iniluencc of the Chairman, in order to get " leave" to attend the Conference. Was the Conference of the Metho- disi Episcopal Church in Canada in 1S30, and 1831 composed in this way 1 Where 'is there an honest, and unprejudiced man, that will say that the Wesleyan Methodist Conference in Canada exact- ly resembles the Episcopal Conference of 1821), and that there is "no change" whatever, but ^'merely the name," as our op- ponents have asserted. We must pass over some of the unim- portant diderence between the disciplines of 1829, and of IS.'M', and hasten more particularly to notice the obvious distinction in the order, and appointment of the ministry, which will at once discover a very prominent and material dilTerence between the Wesleyan IMethodist Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church. The Episcopal discipline contains three separate, and distinct ordination services., The first is on page 111, which is "The Ibrm and manner of making Deacons," again page lUi, "The form and manner of ordaining Elders," and on page 128, " The form and manner of ordaining a Bishop," Wesleyan discipline page 119 speaks of "The %-m and manner of ordaining Minis- ter.-* 55 We do not insist on Episcopacy as a doctrine csseniiul to .s ni- val ion ; yet we hold it to be a scripiural usage : and we believe " divers orders" in the Ministry to be of " dii'ine ajipoinimcnt,'^^ In this we are supported by the discipline of 1829. In the ser- vice for the ordination of Deacons, we find the following :—- " Almighty God, who by ihy divine Providence hast appoint- ed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church, Page 112. In the service for the ordination of Elders, we read Almighty God, giver of all good things, who by thy Holy Spirit hast appointed 24. i ! ' i) I liver a orders of Ministers in thy Church ; " Page 117, and a- gain in the service for the ordination of a Bishop, "Almighty God, giver of all good things, who by thy Holy Spirit hast ap- pointed divers orders of Ministers in thy Church ; " Page 132. Tliis is sufticient to prove that in one instance ftHeast they have departed from that which the discipline of 1829 declares to he (divine appointment^ whether or not this is in accordance with the written constitution, a candid, and impartial public can judtje. It now becomes imperative for ns to shew that Deacons are ;i distinct order in the Methodist Episcopal Church, and not only so, but that they were a distinct order in the early estab- lishment of the Church of Christ. — An order of Ministers \\hich the Canada Conference totally abolished, by which thev have not only openly violated the discipline of 1S29, by a dar- ing and unauthorized usurpation of power, but have set aside a ])lc<.in scriptural order, an order established by the apostles them- selves, approved of by ihe Church, (Acts vi, 5, 6,) adliered to by the ancient Fathers, " preferred" by IMr. Wesley, and received Ijy the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, and in Canada. We cannot better express our views on the appointment, du- ty, and usefulness of this grade of IMinisters, than by quoting the clear and forcible remarks of th :■ champion of Methodist E[)iscopacy in the United States : \ iz. Doctor Bangs. "Vindication of Methodist Episcopacy — Chap. I." •"•IDcacons a distinct order in the Church. I. It will be admitted, I presume on all hands, that there were what were called Deacons, (servants) in the Church; and besides their being charged with distributing the alms the Church to the poor, it was their duty to })reach the word. It appears from Acts vi,. G. that they v/ere sol- emnly set apart to their ollice by prayer and imposition of hands. And though civil IMagistrates are designated by the same term in various parts of Scripture, and though those men mentioned in Acts, were especially called to administer to the poor widows, yet it is manifest that they were successt'iil Ministers of the Gospel of Christ, for it is said of Stephen, who was one of tile seven Deacons above mentioned, that he was " full of faith and power," and that he "did great wonders and miracles nmontr tlie neople." Act« vl, 8, and in the verv next chapter, we have recorded his admirable discourse which he i 1 \ 117, and a- " Almighty •rit hast ap- ' Page 132. 5t they have dares to be rdance witli public can 3eacons are h, and not early estab- )f Ministers which they ^9, by a dar- : set aside a ostles them- dliered to by md received tatesj and in mtment, dii- qiioting the Methodist igs. HAP. I." that there he Church ; g tlio alms preacli thr y' v/ere sol- mposition of a ted hy die loiigh those administer 3 successful ephen, vviio that he was venders and le very next 5 which he 25 delivered in his own defence in the presence of Iiis inveterate enemies and accusers, the Jews. Philip was also one of those tefore mentioned, that was set apart by prayer and imposition of hands by the apostles : but in Acts viii, 'i, it is said, " Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word ; verse 5, '^' Then Phillip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them," and in verse 12 we read ; " But when they believed Phillip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, diey were baptised both men and women." From these scrip- ture fiicts it is undeniably manifest, that those denominated Deacons in die Church of God, were not merely lay members, appointed for the temporal service of the Church, but they were approved Ministers of the word, successfully employed in carry- ing die iilad tidings of Salvation to the Gentile world. "That diese servants of die Church were a grade of Minis- ters inferior, in respect to oiTice, to the Ehlers, is evident from several considerations. 1st, Though all Ministers and even Christ iiimself, were called servants, on account of Uieir laidiful services in die Church, yet those were emphatic- ally so called, because, it is supposed, tliey were ^to serve. the aposdes by acting under their direction. 2d. St. Paul, 1 Tim. iv, 3, After having characterised the persons proper for Bishops, proceeds to notice die duties of die Deacons. *^' Likewise must the Deacons be crrave." "For they that have used the office of a Deacon well, ])urchase to Uicmselves atiood dcLn-ee, and great boldness in the faidi which is in Christ Jesus," from this pasage, it appears obvious, that after beiiiix proved, verse 10, as probationers in the I\rniistiy, and having been exalted to the oilice of Beacons by imjwsition of hands. and also having nscd the office of a Deacon well, iheij po hased to iheinselvea a irood decree ; tbat is, they ^vere qualified to be- come Elders in the Church. These considerations sulliciently evince the inferiority ofdie Deacons to the Eiders, and yet they were Preachers of tiie Word, and had authority to administer the'ordinance of Baptism, as appears from Acts viii, 12. ' The same order of men is recognized, and as Ministers of the word too, in die Episdes of die priinative Fathers — "Let the Deacons be blameless in his sight, as the Mnisters of God in Christ, and not of men ; not evil speakers, nor double ton^- ued; not lovers of money, but compassionate, careful, diliirent, temperate in all diings, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who was the servant of all."— Epistle of Polycarp to -T ♦ f I i i I! I 26 the Philippians. St. Ignatius, also, in his Epistle to the Ephe- sians, distinguishes between the order of Deacons and Bishops, — " Concerning my fellow servant Burraks, according to the will of God your Deacon, blessed in all things, I pray that he may remain to the honor of you and your Bishop.^^ And in his Epistle to the Magnesians, after mentioning the Bishop and Presbyters, as a higher order of Ministers, he says : — " And your Deacons, most dear to nie, being intrusted with the JMinis- try of Jesus Christ." " He introduces them in his Epistle to the Trallians, in a sim- ilar way, recognizing them as Ministers of the Gospel of Christ. " The Deacons also, as being the Ministers of die mysteries of Jesus Christ, must by all means please all, for they are not the Ministers of meat and drink, but of the Church of God. There- fore they must avoid all oflences as they would do fire." To the Philadclphians he observes; — " As concerning Pliilo, the Deacon o( CWic'iw, he still ministers unto me in the Word of God." To the Smyrneans he says: — "Ye have done well in that ye liave received Philo and Rheus, who followed me for tlie Word of God, the Deacons of Christ our God." "From these quotations, both from the Word of God, and the writings of these Fadiers, it appears evident that those denom- inated Deacons, were not mere lay-men, attending to the tem- poralities of the Church ; but they were regular ministers of the word, were set apart for that work by the laying on of the Apostle's hands, and that they administered the ordinance of Baptism, and very probably assisted in the holy Eucharist." "Let us now see whether the Methodist Episcopal Church has, in this respect, followed the Apostolic usage and custom. After having proved a young man, who thinks himself called of God to the work of die Ministry, by employing him two years as a probationer in the licncraiingMnn^ivY, he is (if no suifi- cieiit reason can be assigned to the contrary,) ordained^ Dea- con, by The laying on of the hands of the Bishop. And what arc the duties peculiar to his ofiice as a Deacon/ Ans. It ap- pertaineth to the ollicc of a Deacon to assist the Elder in Di- vine Service, and especially, when he ministcreth ihe holy Communion ; to help him in die distribution thereof, and to read and expound the Holy Scriptures ; to instruct the youth, and in the absence of the Elder to Baptise ; and furthermore, it is his otfice to seek for the sick, poor and impotent, that diey may be visited and relieved." * • Consecration Service. 27 le Ephe- Bishops, ig to the r that he And in shop and — " And le Minis- in a siin- 3f Christ, steries of e not the There- e." To ^hllo, the Word of 5 well in d me for 5 and the ! denoni- the tern- Jrs of the n of the lance of iri^^t." . Church custom, called of wo years no sulfi- / a Dca- nd what s. It ap- r in Di- ihe Iioly \ and to le youth, lermore, :hat they «t So also it is said in section 7th of the form of discipline con- cerning the duties of a travelling Deacon, that he is, 1st. To Baptise and perform the office of Matrimony in the absence of the Elder. 2. To assist the Elder in administering the Lord's Supper. 3. To do all the duties of a travelling Preacher." " Here, then, are enumerated all those duties of a Deacon, which the Holy Scriptures have autliorized him to perform. — In this part of our Ministry, therefore, we have not followed a cunningly devised fable, but the Word of the Living God : and which Vhurch is most according to Apostolic order? that which has preaching Deacons, going to and fro, sowing the seed of Eternal Life'? or that which has but one order of Min- isters, bv whatever name they may be called." We will give another extract or two on the same subject from Dr. Bangs' "Original Church of Christ," page 309 &310. " WHiat greater proof should we require that those Deacons were regular Preachers of God's Word '? yet they were not El- ders or Presbyters. They were, therefore, an inferior order in the Ministr\^ — which proves that those err ivho confine them- selves to one order onhj.^'' And again, pages 112 &- 113, — ^< Allowing the soundness of this conclusion, it will follow that ihose Churches which admit of no distinction in Ministerial order, but reduce all to a level, have departed from the APOSTOLIC MODEL, hi thcir intemperate zeal against Episco- pacy, which broke out with such violence among the indepen- dents of England in the days of the Stuarts, they seem to liave run into the opposite extreme, by introducing a pcifect parity of ministerial order, as well as jurisdiction, and thus have im- paired that beautiful symetry v.hich we behold in the oi-dei's,^ powers, and harmonious subordination of the several grades of officers in the primitive Church." We would like to be informed by what authority the Canada Conference, in their "intemperate zeal" to abolish Episcopacy and to attach themselves to the English Conference in 1833, exterminated this Scriptural order ot"the Christian Ministry.— Did the disci])line of 1829 authorise them to do so] Did the Sacred Oracles of God confer upon them this authority?— Whence then did they receive it 1 Can they plead a precedent for it even in Ro7ne herself? The Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada lias but one or- der of Ministers, and one only, Mr. Ryerson's assertion to the 41 H i IIp 28 contrary notwithstanding. Hence Judge Macaulay remarks, in his opinion on the Waterloo Chapel Case : — " It is true, the discipline of 1834, in the Ordination Service, (designedly or accidentally,) acknowledges in the same lan- guage as that of 1829, the appointment by the Holy Spirit of divers orders of Ministers in the Church of Christ. 'Still I do not find that the British Wesleyan denomination contains more than one, lii^ened unto Elders, styled Ministers — contrary to the Episcopal discipline, whicli provides for three, (exclusive of Lay-Preaclicrs,) called Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, without any designated by the general term IVTinisters. The dissentient members of the Methodist Episcopal Church may feel repug- nant to such arrangemxcnts. They may not look upon the union as a mere change of name — but as indicating a serious diviation in Church Government, and the calls to the Ministry — and m my construction of their iliscipline, 1 cannot deny them the riglit to do so on plausible grounds. The American connexion is professedly Episcopal — the British is practically Prcsbyterial, and whatever distinguishes the one from the other, would equal- ly distinguish the 'Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada ' from the « British Wesleyan Church in Canada.' " Mr. Jlyerson, however, discovering at once the gross error into which his Lordship had most unfortunately fallen, with re- gard to the ditferent orders of the JMinistry in the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada, exiiltingly exclaimed: — " In the IMethodist Church in Canada, there are as mucli as ever 'divers orders' of Ministers — President, Ministers, or Preachers — Though but one imposition of hands." — Rverson's review of the Judges' opinions. — See Christian Guardian of Sept. 13, 1S37. * What an overwhelming degree of light Mr. %er?on has cast upon the dillerent orders of 1 he Christian Ministry in a few words. A mere member of the English Conference havinji been appointed President of the Canada Conference— although never ordained "by imposition of hands," as soon as he re- ceives his appointment, enters into orders without any farther ceremony,— the mere appointment of the British Conference at once transforms a Lay-Prcachcr inio a Bishop for the space of one year ! ! ! In a word, as soon as a member of the British Conference, receives the appointment of that body, to the Pres- * At the Assizes in Kingston, in May last, Mr. Rycrson ndmitted, under oath, (m answer to a question from his Lordship) that in his Church there is but one order of Ministers. J remarks, n Service, iame lan- V Spirit of 'Still I do ;ains more •ary to the elusive of s, without lissentient eel repu ii lln . li :4 'Si 34: ion" was ratified, the property belongs to that Church. This vvc hope to prove hereafter. Mr. Kyerson remarks the "identity" of the individual under llie «^ new name is real ;" yes and so was Mr. Egerton Ryerson the same "identical" person in 1837 that he was in 1832, fmi t/ie advocate of very different principles. And so the peo- ple of the United States immediately after the Revolutionary war were the same individuals that they were before that event.' But was there not a very great d i He re n re in point of government? but not more so, than between the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Wesley an Methodist Church. What would be thought of the Lords and Commons of England, should they attempt'' to a- ])olish the Monarchial form of government, and substitute a democracy, — form a "union" with the United States, and re- ceive a " President" from Congress, to rule the British Empire ? Would their constitutional power to do so be acknowledged by Britons 1 But again suppose some of the Americans should take it into their minds to form a union with Great Britain, and a majority of the United States authorities, without consulting the people should attempt to give up their Independence, and abolish their present form of government, and adopt in its stead that of Great Britain — consent that some Noble Lord appointed by the Brit- ish Government from year to year, should be their "President, not even requiring him to be sworn into office. Would the people of the United States submit to it, and acknowledoe the act c.jnstitutional? Having pointed out some of the differences which exist be- tween the two disciplines, we now proceed in the second place, as we proposed in the beginning, to prove that the present Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, is the original Metho- dist Episcopal Church, which was constitutionally organized in 1828, and governed by the discipline of 1829 ; althou^i not composed altogether of tlie same identical individuals. We are aware, however, that this is denied by Mr. Ryerson, and the Wesley an s generally: and that they contend that when the Conference of 1833 tinally relinquished Episcopacy, and be- came connected with the Methodists in England, that they did not leave any materials behind them, by which an Annual or General Conference could be composed. And further that the "Episcopal Party" (as Mr. Ryerson is phased to call us) "kept a perfect silence, from fifteen mont/is, to two years after the ses- mm ±. This ual under 1 Ryerson 5 in 1832, ) the peo- )nary war ent. But acnt? but urch, and bought of mpt to a- ibstitute a s, and re- Empire ? [edged by ike it into majority lie people »lish their t of Great the Brit- i'resident, ould the edge the exist be- nd place, 3 present 1 Metho- anized in ough not We are and the ^hen the and be- they did nnual or ' that the s) <'kept • the ses- 35 sion of the Hallowell Conference." See Chr. Guar, of Sept. 13, 1837. Is it not astonishingly strange, that Mr. Ryerson, holding as he did at that time, and has done ever since, public situations ii: tlie church, should be ignorant of the opposition the contempla- ted union met with, on the Niagara District ? even prior to the «-Hallowell Conference." As soon as it was announced in the Guardian that a union between the English and Canadian Con- ferences was contemplated, the Local Preachers took the alarm and in thejir Conference, assembled in the Trafalgar Meeting- house, July Gth, 1832, the following resolution was adopted; which we here copy from the Journals of their Conference, which now lie l)efoix) us : " Resolved — That, as it appears from the Christian Guardian that an union between the Missionaries from Britain and our Church is contemplated, we address our Annual Conference ou the subject of our privileges as Local Preachers — and thatBrs. Picket, Gulp, and Brown, be the Committee to drai\ such ad- dress and forward it for presentation." Many members ofthc church on the Niagara district, having decidedly disapproved of the proceedings of the Hallowell Con- ference, went so laras to deny their power to form the union, without the consent of the societies, and also questioned the le- gality of the measures of the General Conference, pronouncing its acts unconstitutional and illegal, because "Elders elect" were admitted contrary to the discipline of 1829. Mr. Ryer:-on well kner/ that the Rev. D. Gulp and others opposed the union, even before the Hollowell Conference, as well as while it was pend- '.ii ing. The following resolutions which were drawn up soon after the Hollowell Conference, and forwarded to Elder Case, can speak for themselves. " To the Rev.Wm. Case, President of the late Annual Con- ference held at Hallowell, (U. C.) «• ^Jear Brother. We the undersigned, Local Preachei-s of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, beg leave to address you on the subject of the contemplated union of the Methodists of this coun- try with those of England, and respectfully to call } nir atten- tion to the same. In doing this we have concluded that the following resolutions v/ould embrace some of the most impor- |f 36 lant and material objections wherewith our minds have been, anil fctill arc, exercised againi-t it. "Res. 1st. We conceive that every man and body of men have been endowed by their Creator with certain natural una- lienable rights and privileges. And that the commission of high crimes or misdemeanors alone, can justify an invasion up- on them. " Res. 2nd. Tliat it is an acknowledged principle of all good governments, (and sometimes from necessity or policy of , , despotic ones also) that in all important matters relating to the public good, the voice of the people should in a greater or lesser degree be heard, heeded and respected. "Res. 3rd. That in the government of the Church in Apos- tolic days, this was an acknowledged principle of action in mat- jl I 1 ters of great importr-ice to the Church. See Acts xv. 22. " Res. 44h. That this principle has been adopted by the Methodist Episcopal Church, as a disciplinary rule in the same. We refer to one of the limitations, restrictions or conditions, re- ([uired of that body in its legislation, contained in Dis. Page 18th . , and 19th. j ,j "'Res. 5th. That it is a matter of extreme doubt with us, to i ! say the i^ast, whether the "Resolutions" adopted by the late General Conference, are not illegal altogether, inasmuch as we are credibly informed, that Elders elect, as well as those who were Elders in the proper sense of the word, (we mean by ordination) were admitted as members of that body, and voted ( on the " Resolutions" aforesaid, a thing we believe unprece- , , dented in the Annals of Methodistical Legislation. See Disci- 'I!'! pline, Page 17th ; answers to the question who shall compose the General Conference. "Res. 6th. That setting aside the legality, or illegahty of the measure, courtesy at least required that in a matter fraught 1 1 . ijji with such mighty consequences as the contemplated " union;" j that the people or at least the Quarterly and District Confer- ences should have been consulted. We would add, " be cour- teous" is a divine command, and one of the leading principles of the Gospel itself. W^e would, when under this head further state that when a separation from the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States was contemplated, "courtesy" was so far regarded, that the Quarterly Conferences debated and decided on it by vote, previous to its fmal accomplishment by the General Conference itself. We contend that a contemplat- ed union with another body requires the same civility ; and '^^Z^^SCbSSSSBn 'S&jfj^au Lve been, y cf men Liral una- lission of iMi'ion up- le of all policy of ng to the or lesser in Apos- n in mat- oo 3d by the he same, tions, re- 'age 18th ith us, to ; the late smiich as as those mean by nd voted uiiprece- ee Disci- compose ity of the L' fraught ' union;" Confer- be cour- :)rinciples id further i^piscopal ourtesy" )ated and rnent by itemplat- !ity ; and 37 we apprehend disastrous consequences if it be not adopted, even at this late date. It should not be forgotten thai the pri- vate members and others can take their leave of us witliout ask- ing our consent; that they were "free born," and may not choose to be transfered to another body without some choice of their own in a matter of such importance as the present. " Res. 7th. The pledge re(iuired by the American General Conference of the Canadian delegate^: before, or without which they would not gront the Infant Canadian Church their share of the funds, as a heretofore branch or component part of their Church, justifies them, in our opinion, from the further ])ay- ment of said fund, except the contem|)lated union be abandoned. "Res. 8th. The probable lack of funds at the Disposal of the British Conference and the extreme dilllculty if not the utter impossibility of raising them in Upper Canada. "Res. (ith. Tiie hazard of our Church property, and of the right of solemnizing matrimony. "Res. 10th. The danger of the total suppression of the Lo- cal Conference, and at any rate the dej)rivation of ordination to our younger successors in office, and consequently of the right of solemnizing matrimony, and of administering the ordinances. "There are other reasons which might be assigned in the form of resolutions or othervvise, which, for delicate reasons, we would not enter upon at the present time. " In conclusion, we desire you to convene the General Con- ference if you think it advisable, expedient, and legal, or take such other measures as you may see proper to adopt, for the pre- servation of the Church, and the prevention of the evils herein stated and appreliended by us. " We have the honour to be Rev. and Dear Sir, your alfec- tionatc Brethren in the Gospel of our common Lord, DAVID GULP, JOHN W. BYAIM, ELIJAH A. WARREN, CALEB SW^AZEY, DAVID GRIFFEN, ARNON C. SEAVER, HENRY GILLMORE, Smithvillc, Nov. 1832." It will no doul I appear strange, that Mr. Ryerson, did not know that the societies generally refused to furnish money to bear his expcncos to England to negotiate the union, and so strongly did very many of them object to it, that they would not contribute one farthing. And Mr. Ryerson very well knows that in the meantime, the ■ s • 3S Preachers generally were exerting their utmost skill and tact to persuade the people that the " union" would be a " good mea- sure," and that the societies ought to be " silent" until they should see what would be done,^" The union might not vet be ratified," " it was better to say nothing till after Mr. Eycrson's return from England;" " it would be premature to petition the Conference against the measure, before it was known whether they would adopt it or not." And after the Conference of 1833, their language to those who expressed dis- satisfaction, was, " wait till you have seen the new discipline, you will find the change not so great as you imagine ." And after the new discipline had made its long looked for appear- ance, "they would say have patience, wait till the union has had time to work, till we have gained influence^ with our British brethren, then, all that IS wrong will be reformed." And it was thus by degrees, that they led on hundreds of the members of society, who though dissatisfied, and complaining from the commencement, had not withstood them firmly : little did they think that these blandishments were the toils of a trap set to en- snare them. This is the class of persons who were dropping otf from them, from year to year, which connected with their loss of the public confidence, caused their minutes to show a decrease for so many succeeding years. After the union they effected to retain the names of the mem- bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, (which at the time amounted to 16,039) as members of their neio born Church. At which time every possible effort was made by them, and al- most every discription of contrivance and cunnmg resorted to, in order if possible, to impress the minds of the membership with the belief, that the " Wesleyan Methodist Church in Brit- ish North America," was the old " Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada:" that they might draw them away with them ; and in this they succeeded to a great extent : large num- bers fell in with the measure ; some knowingly, and others un- advisedly. The originators of the union, being conscious of possessing a considerable amount of talent of a high order, and enjoying the brilliant prospect of large government grants, and having a share oftlie Clergy Reserves in prospective, doubtless expect- ed now to have enjoyed unparalleled success, at least in adding numbers to their Church. Mr. Ryerson considering their pros- pects so blooming;, and their trivunph over those who were oj)- exuUingly exclaii posed to the measure j )mplete (i reer, 1(1 tact fa 3od mea- ntil thev ight not after Mr. nature ta s it was after the ?ssed dis- iscipline, ." And appear- 1 has had ir British And it members from the 5 did they set to en- )pping otF their loss decrease the mem- the time Church, n, and al- sorted to, ;mbership ]\i in Brit- Episcopal ►vay with irge niim- others un- •ssessing a joying the having a ss expect- ; in adding their pros- I were op- lims (in a 39 leading editorial in the Guardian, of Oct. 23, 1833, in speaking of the Conferences at which the "union" was consumated) "If ever the God of love was present in the assembly of his ser- vants he is here ; — if ever he directed all good counsels, he di- ^ rects now ; — if ever tlie seal of heaven stamped and ratified any j negociation of its ambassadors, it is the Articles OF UNION BETWEEN THE BRITISH WeSLEYAN CONFERENCE, AND THE Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in British North America." We do not feel disposed to trifle with this awfully solemn ex- tract. It is indeed enough to cause one to shudder to think how any man could presume to say that a measure was " stamp- ed and ratified with the seal of heaven, '^'^ which w^as got up and carried through for such objects, and by such means as were resorted to in the accomplishment of the union." But from tlie character of the proceedings which marked its origin, and ca- reer, and from its speedy and disagreeable termination, we may easily infer whether or not, " the Hand of the Lord was in it" — whether " the arrangement was of God," — whether its " coun- sels were directed of Him," — and whether "the seal of Hea- ven STAMPED and ratified the negociation j" we leave the issue to determine. During the seven years of the union, £17,806 IS 11 of Mis- sionary money was expended ; besides the thousands raised and expended annually in the regular work, and the large a- mount of government money received for the Literary institution atCobourg; yet at the end of those seven years of immense expenditure, the number of their Church members was 16,351*, just 315 more than the number in the M. E. Church, prior to the union in 1833. But to return, the union was spoken against publicly, not only in the Niagara, but in the London District. The Rev. David Culp, was the most forward in opposing the measures of the Hallovvell Conference, he not only spoke against the measure in the Local Preacher's Conference, held in Trafalgar, July, 1832, but he also designed attending the Local Preacher's Con- ference for the London District, held in Wesminster, previous to the Conference of 1833. The Conference had been dis- solved just before he reached the place. Many of the Local Preachers however, being slill in the neighbourhood, they con- vened themselves together, and he explained to them more fully the nature of the union, the bad effect it would bo likely to have upon both Preachers and people, and the cause of Methodism I I H'iii * ' t '11 ^ "i 't • 40 in general; and that the Canadian Preachers, and societies would have to submit io i\\Q\diclation of the English Preachers^ or the union would soon become discord, bitter envying, and strife with all their concomitant evils. All this took place pre- vious to and between the " session" of the HoUowcIl Confer- once in August 1832, and the York Conference, in October 1833. Does this look like " perfect silence." We might stop here to enquire of Mr. Ryerson, how far those brethren were mistaken in their views of the " union.^^ The Rev. Franklin Metcalf was the bea-er of an address against the "union," to the Conference o^ 1833 ; but we believe Mr. M. did not pre- sent it, and when interrogated upon the subject, he said he had forgotten it. Now we ask in the name of candor, what more could have l)een done by those who saw the evils that would accrue from such an union ? It never was brought officially before the Quar- erly INIeeting Conferences, or the Local Preacher's Conference ; the Preachers could not, or v/ould not, consent to consult the Societies throi; j;h these official bodies ; but took upon them- selves the whole responsibility, and were determined at all haz- ards to carry their point. Before the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada was set olfby the American General Conference, as a separate and inde- pendent Church, the Quarterly Meeting Conferences in Canada were consulted ; but when an union was to be formed, the government and usages of the Church abolished, and a man from England to be placed over the Societies, which was a much more important measure, their consent was considered as of no consequence whatever ; and why was this] The reason is ob- vious ; there was a fearful ness on the part of the Preachers, that the measure would meet with the opposition which is now evi- dent it so justly merited, and that the power of the Conference to elVect it would have been officially denied. As soon as the " union " was decided upon, and the resolu- tions respecting Local Preachers introduced to the Quarterly Meeting Conferences, did not hundreds declare that they were Episcopal Methodists 1 that they never had consented to the imion, and that they never would ? and let it not be forgotten that this was the first opportunity die Societies had to express their views upon this very important matter. As soon as the Quarterly IMeeting Conference upon the Lon- don Circuit had an opportunity to act officially, they showed the most marked disapprobation of the high-handed and unconstitu- ?5 41 societies reachers^ ing, and lace pre- Confer- October light stop en were Franldin ion 55 to [ not pre - id he had uld have rue from le Quar- iference ; fisult the on them- t all haz- 1 was set md inde- i Canada ned, the d a man s a much i as of no jon is ob- hers, that now evi- )nference le resolu- ^uarterly [ley were 3d to the forgotten • express the Lon- ovved the iconstitu- tional measures resorted to by the Conference, in effecting the union — denying their power to attach the Societies of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church to the English connexion without their individual consent. The Rev. F. Metcalf, who had been ap- pointed by the Conference of 1833 to act as Chairman on the London District, appeared to think that this feeling would soon die away ; and in our presence requested the Rev. John Bailey not to go to the Goderich circuit, to which he had been appoint- ed by the Conference of 1833, but to travel upon the London circuit with the Rev. John Beaty. Mr. Bailey's reply was, « if I travel at all, I travel as an Episcopal Methodist Preach- \ er .. ." He was as good as his word, for he went out and did ' labour as an Episcopal Preacher, and Mr.Beaty as a Wesleyan Preacher. This continued nearly three months. Upon Mr. Metcalf's return to London after an absence of about three months, he found that the members of the Quarterly Meeting Conference of that circuit had not altered their minds, but stdl persisted in their opposition to the union. They contended that as all the members of the Annual Conference, with the exception of one, had left the Methodist Episcopal Church and joined the British Methodists, the official and private members on the several circuits might do the same, or remain as they were, members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada ; and as they chose to remain as they were, they appointed the Rev. James Mitchel Chairman of the Quarterly Meeting Con- ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church on th^ London cir- cuit, 18 out of 22 members voting for this measure. Nathan Jacobs was recording Steward, which office he had fdled for many years past. The Conference then proceeded to business, and having arranged the regular business of the Quarterly Con- ference, passed the following Resolutions: — THE QUARTERLY MEETING CONFERENCF. OF THE ME'^^^^ ODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF J/IE LONDOIN CI^^^ T ) THE MEMBERS OF THE SAID CHURCH THROUGHOUT 1 HE PROVINCE,— Dear Brethren: — The degrading and humiliating condition to which the recent arbitrary conduct of the Conference would bring us, has induced us to come to the following Resolutions, while assem- bled in Conference on the 25th inst. and which were carried by eighteen, with only four dissenting : — t , t u James Mitchel being called to the Chair, and Nathan Jacobs being Secretary, it was 42 iiM^ Ir -n Resolved 1. That the powers recently assumed by the Con- ference, in separating themselves from the Methodist Episcopal Church are arbitrary, and degrading to the members of said Church. Resolved 2. That we totally deny the powers of the Confer- ence to make the late change without the consent of the Mem- bers of the Church ; and that unless said pretended powers are abandoned, and the rights and wishes of the members consulted and respected, we can have little confidence in said Confer- ence, and will be under the painful necessity of discontinuing their services. Resolved 3. That until the wishes of the Members of said Methodist Episcopal Church be generally known* throughout the province, we deem it advisable to employ some of our Lo- cal Preachers, to administer the ordinances of the Gospel to us. Resolved 4. That we heartily concur in the plan of having a delegation of the Methodist Episcopal Church, for the purpose of removing from our discipline every pretended power that the Conference may have vested themselves with; and giv- ing the Members such powers in the future Government of the Church, as will prevent their being reduced to a like state of de- gradation for all time to come. Resolved 5. That John Bailey be requested to take charge of the Circuit, with power to employ what help the circumstan- ces of the Church may require. JAMES MITCHEL, Chairman, NATHAN JACOBS, Jannary 25, 1834. Sea-eta?'!/. The following extract from an article headed " London Cir- cuit," contained in the Guardian of March 5th, 1834, exhibits the light in which Mr. Ryerson himself understood these Reso- lutions : — " Several Resolutions have been passed by some official Members, purporting to be the voice of the Circuit, protesting against the Union ; impugning the Conference ; denying its au- thority ; and refusing to receive the Preachers appointed by it." From all that we can learn, this was the most prominent step taken by any of the Quarterly Meeting Conferences; but in several places throughout the province they shewed a marked dissatisfaction in the wav in which the union had been etTected : and hundreds of the private and official Members refused to ad- here to the doings of the General and Annual Conferences. the Con- Episcopal rs of said e Confer- he Mem- ovvers are consulted [ Confer- ontinuing rs of said iroughout f our Lo- ipel to us. having a ! purpose )vver that ; andgiv- ent of the ate of de- charge of cum Stan- irman, S, 'etary. don Cir- , exhibits ;se Eeso- e official protesting ig its au- idbyit." nent step ; but in I marked efTected j ed to ad- nces. % \ 43 Aft-r the above stand was made by the London Quarterly Meeting Conference, Mr. Beaty was obliged to go from Society to Society, to know who would be Wesleyans and who would not : and on many other circuits throughout the connexion, the Wesleyan Preachers were under the necessity of adopting the same method. , . ., It now became necessary for the remainmg Members ol the INIethodist Episcopal Church, to ascertain what strength re- mained in the connexion after the parricidal attempt of the Con- ferences of 1832 and 1833 at her annihilation. A meeting was called and held in the Burford Meeting-house for that purpose, and it was soon ascertained that the dissatisfaction respecting the union, was not confined to the London and Niagara Districts alone, but was more or less universal throughout the province. Some months were spent by a few of the Episcopal Preachers travelling through different parts of the province, in order to learn the views and feelings of the Societies, and making prepa- rations for re-organizing the Conference. . _^ ^ , We must now notice an important inqmry in Mr. Kyerson s reveiw of tr.. Judge's opinions. Mr. Ryerson remarks, " Novv as it is admitted upon all hands that the Episcopal party had no existence in their present position and circumstances previ- ous to 1834, and that what they have done could only have been done bv the General Conference, the inquiry arises, where and wlien did their Annual Conference meet ? Where and when did their Annual Conference call a meeting of the General Conference 1 Where and when did that General Con- ference meet according to the call of the Annual Confer- ence 1 " — Christian Guardian of August SOth, 1837. We proceed now to answ^er the first enquiry, "Where and whendid their Annual Conference meet] We remark that it met (after the union, as we presume this is what Mr. Rverson means,) in Cummers Chapeh Young ^t, on the 2^th day of June 1834, at 10 o'clock, A.M, There were present at this Conference three Elders, and one Deacon, viz. Joseph Gatchell, David Gulp, and Daniel Picket, Elders, and J. W. Byam, Deacon ; John Bailey, who had beeri appointed to the Goderich circuit by the Conference oi ISdcf, was present, and also several Local Preachers. Mr. Ryerson admits in another paragraph, "That the spirit and rulfis of the discipline in the mode of proceeding can be observed by three as well as by three hundred," The ^^ spu-'t, of the rules of dsicipline we shall prove were « strictly ob- it i m iiil I Hi ii ' 11; 1 1- ri;i i \n served" in the "composition" of the Annual and General Confei M> ! of the Episcopal party, (as he has been pleased to call us.; Two of these Elders had travelled many years, but for some time previous had exercised themselves in a local ca- pacity, and Mr. Gatchel was superanuated. They were, how- ever, all regular Elders in good standing in the Methodist Epis- copal Church in Canada, and the ordinances administered by them were acknowledged valid. These Elders did not consent to the union, and although the Rev. Joseph Gatchel received a certain sum of money from the Canada Confertice in 1833, it must be remembered that it was money to which he was en- titled as a superanuated or worn-out Preacher for past services^ and from a fund vv^hich Mr. Gatchel well knew belonged ot the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, By receiving it, therefore, he did not acknowledge the validity of the acts of the Conference, or consent to the union. The Conference knew at the time that he was decidedly opi)osed to its measures. Here then were "three" Elders who knew that the Confer- ences of 1832 and 1833 had not "observed" the "rules" of the discipline of 1829, but had admitted "ineligible persons to vote in General Conference," thereby violating a plain rule of dis- cipline ; and had abolished the government and usages of the church, with the orders of her ministry, and attempted to trans- fer the membership without their own consent to another body, thus trampling upon the rights of the societies. And having information also, that hundreds of the church were resolved, with themselves, not to submit to this infringement upon their rights, and deterrained not to yield to the imperious mandate of the Conference of 1833: They, therefore in conne:j:ion with oth- er of their brethren, summoned a Conference, to consult what was best to be done : adhering as nearly as might be to the let- ter of the discipline, and "observing" the very spirit of its rules "in the mode of proceeding." With the exception of two points the Young Street Conferences adhered to the letter as well as the "spirit" of the discipline: — 1st, the Elders had not "travel- led the four years last past," and 2d, the letter of the discipline was not observed, in the calling together of that Conference. — But we earnestly contend, that both acts were in strict accord- ance with the "spirit" of its "rules." But iiad not these "three" Elders, peculiarly situated as they were, v/ith their brethren, as much of a disciplinary right, to call a session of Conference, as had Messrs. W. & E. Ryerson, when they returned from England, in 1810 ? Indeed, the cir- son. my, wm 45 d General pleased to years, but a local ca- vere, how- odist Epis- listered by lot consent received a in 1833, le was en- i services,. donged ot eceiving it, acts of the 3nce knew Lsiircs. le Confer- les" of the ns to vote rule of dis- ages of the ;d to trans- 3ther body, nd having e resolved, upon their mandate of n with oth- (Tisult what ) to the let- of its rules 'two points, as well as lot "travel - ) discipline ference. — 'ict accord- ted as they ry right, to 1. Rverson, 3d, the cir- cumstances in which the Conference of 1833 placed the soci- ties, would have justified a much further departure from the letter, of the discipline, so long as the spirit of its rules were "observed." We might say to i\lr. Ryerson as St. Paul said to the Eomans, — "Wherein thou judgcst another, thou condemn- est thyself: for thou that judgest docst the same thiiigsj" — and underlets justifiable circumstances. But the discipline of 1829, declares thnt "the General Con- ference shall he composed of all the travelling Elders who have travelled four full Calendar years last past, and have been re- ceived into full connexion." The Episcopal Methodist Conference, held on Young Street, June 25th, 1834-, could not "observe" the letter of die discipline, because those who called the Conference had not "travelled the four full calendar years last past." All the Elders who had "travelled the four years last past," having, with Mr. Ryer- son, fled from the Methodist Episcopal church, and taken shel- ter under the wing of the British Conference. But did not the Conference held upon Young Street, adhere as closely to the spirit of the written constitution^ as did the Conferences of 1832 and 1833. In these Conferences ineligible persons were allow- ed a voice. They had travelled a fevv years, it is true, but had not received Elder's orders. The Elders who composed the Episcopal Conference upon Young Street in 1834 had not travelled for a few years past so extensively as the "Elders elect" but they were regularly or- dained Elders, "by ^ .ayer and imposition of hands." The case lies thus, ineligible persons v^-ere admitted into the councils of the General Conference of 1832 and 1833, contrary to the letter of the discipline ; to assist in demolishing the gov- ernment of the church, — adopting a new discipline and econo- my, in changing the orders of the ministry, and trampling upon the rights of the membership. Old, respected, and experienced Elders in the church, who had not for sometime, travelled very extensively ; — discovering the short-sightedness of these young "Elders elect," as well as the folly of their elder brethren ; and at the same time viewing with feelings of deep regret, the degraded situation their beloved church was placed in by the unprecedented proceedings of the Conference : the privileges of the membership invaded by an unconstitutional grasp of power, and their inalienable rights in- fringed. Under these circumstances they conscientiously re- solved to cleave to the old discipline and form of government, 46 i1 Ml 1 I 'I , [ i f! ^ 1^^ I !| H! ti ■•' t >i ■ \ ' i Hm Mir and stepped forward once more in a public manner, and called a Conference of their brethren, to consult what course was best to be taken in this unheard-of aiSiie of things, in order to budd up the shattered walls of the church, and protect the rights of the people. ^ , , i • i We now would ask the candid and careful observer, which "party" is entitled to the greatest share of respect? and which "party" observe, most closely the letter and spirit of the disci- pline of 1829. , ... It may r> l be improper here to enquire, how near in point of composition the Episcopal Conference which was held on Young Street, June 25, 1834, resembled the first Methodist Conference which was ever neld. The first Conference which Mr. Wesley ever held, w^as in London, June 25th, 1744.— Just ninety years to a day, previous to the Conference held upon Young Street.— At Mr. Wesley's first Conference, there were present six ordained clergymen, and a few lay-preachers, but these lay-preachers had a voice in its deliberations. At the Conference held on Young Street, there were present four regularly ordained ministers, and a few lay-preachers, whose councils were considered necessary. In the Minutes of Mr. Wesley's first Conference dated iStli of June 1744, we find the following questions and answers :— «2, 3. How far does each of us agree to submit, to the judg- ment of the majority 1 , , •. r "A. In speculative things, each one can only submit as lar as his* judgment shall be convinced; in every practical point each will submit, so far as he can without wounding his con- science "2, 4. Can a Christian submit any further than this to yaii man, or number of men, upon the earth 1 «A. It is plain he cannot; either to Bishop, convocation or general Council. And this is that principle of private judg- ment, on which all reformers proceeded ; "every man must judge for himself: because every man must give an account of him- self to God."— See Young's History of Methodism, Page 13G, and 137,— also Watson's life of Wesley, chap. 9. How widely the sentiments contained in the answers to the above questions differ from the intolerant sayings and doings of Mr. Ryerson, and some of his Wesleyan friends. In the Chr. Guardian, of the l3th Sept. 1837, Mr. Kyerson scoffs at the , very idea of any Episcopal having a "conscientious scruple ■ against the union, the relinquishment of Episcopacy, or the other cl til at it V ^^ninete Wei Hallowi agara ar tliatthe York C^ But for I confidin Butt says : — to scrap which h being v( without how m{ in the s( more ar Wen the abo> March, in the JV: nintr to ences. position, opposed he says, ring nini doubtles may be Were calculati knowlec mediate] un found with th( fact that Mr. Ry( this villi to apply Let u I 47 and called ie was best ■der to build the rights of ver, which and whicli )f the disci- ear in point vas held on 3t Methodist rence w^iich 1744.— Just )Q held upon I, there H'ere eachers, but >• vere present y-preachers, e dated 25th answers ; — to the judg-i submit as far actical point, ing his con- 11 this to yaii ' convocation private judg- m mustjudge ount ofhim- n. Page 136, iswers to the and doings of In the Chr. scoffs at the >us scruple" lacy, or the other changes involved in that measure ; assuring his readers tliat it was viewed without a scruple by the Episcopals for ^^nineteen monthSy^^ after the Hallowell Conference. We have proved in another place that the measures of the Hallowell Conference were publicly spoken against in the Ni- agara and London Districts, while the union was pending ; and tliatthe Rev. F. Metcalf, was the bearer of an address to the York Conference, containing remonstrances against the union. But for some reason he betrayed the trust reposed in him by his confiding and much injured brethren, and did not present it. But to return to Mr. Ryerson's remarks in the Guardian, he says : — "As to the ^^scruples''^ which the Episcopal party began to scrape together nineteen months after the vote took place to which his T^ordship refers, I think it may be so^tipled Sts to their being very "conscientious" their consciences having viewed it without ONE "scruple" during that long period. To determine how many suck "scruples" it would take to make one dram in the scale of "conscientious" consistency, requires I ( afess more arithmetical skill than I possess. We may judge of Mr. Ryerson's consistency, by comparing the above with the following extract from the Guardian of 26th March, 1834 : — "It is likewise known, that some individuals in the Methodist church, have been opposed from the begin- ning to the union between the British and Canadian Confer- ences. Some of them have been doubtless sincere in their op- position," &c. In this extract Mr. R. admits that some were opposed from the beginning to the union. In the previous one he says, "their consciences viewed it without one scruple du- ring nineteen months." Again Mr. R. says they have been doubtless sincere^'''' while in the previous extract he says, "it may be . trupled as to their being very "conscientious." Were it not that Mr. Ryerson has confessed his ignorance of calculating "conscientious "scruples," any person having a knowledge of the proceedings of the Episcopals before and im- mediately after the union, would be utterly astonished at his unfounded statements ; but those who were perfectly acquainted with the ever-to-be-lamented "W7Wo?i" will readily admit the fact that "conscientious scruples" is a branch of science which Mr. Ryerson is unacquainted with, and if he was ever taught this virtuous and christian principle, he has long since forgotten to apply the rules of "conscientiousness" to practice. Let U3 next look at the composition of the first General Con- f 1 ■I I 48 ference in the United States. This Conference commenced «on Christmas eve, in the city of Baltimore, in the year 17«4. ; sixty preachers were assembled."— See Bangs on Episcopacy Page 91 these were all lay-preachers with the exception of Doctor Coke, Richard Whatcoat, and Thomas \asey, and al- though Mr. Asbury had been appointed by Mr. Wesley jomt superintendent ofthe American church withDr. Coke, he "pru- dentlv withheld his consent until it was obtamed by the sullra- ges of the preachers then present, ^vho all declared m his ta- vour." — lb. p. 1)2. 1 J • ♦« 1 How far would the Your.g Street Conference have deviated from the practice ofthe first General Conference of the Metho- dist Episcopal Church in the United States, if they had at once proceeded to "elect" a Superintendent, from among the lay- preachers, and the "three" Elders present have proceeded a once to ordain the person so elected, 1st Deacon, 2d Elder, and 3d Superintendent ; such a step could have been supported by Methodistic usage, and would have been "adhering to the spir- it ofthe discipline" of 1829. But fortunately we were not so completely straitened, and, therefore, "adhered" more closely to the letter of the disciphne. , . • We now come to notice Mr. Ryerson's second inquiry— "When and where did that Annual Conference call a meeting ofthe General Conference? The answer is that the Confer- ence held on Young Street, June 183^, adjourned to meet m Belleville, February 10th, 1835, "When" it was deemed expe- dient and necessary for the Conference, having no General Su- perintendent, to call a meeting of the General Conference, acrreeably to the following clause of discipline :— """Ifthere be no General Superintendent, the Annual Con ference or Conferences respectively, shall have powerto call a General Conference, if they judge it necessary at any time. Discipline of 1829, Page 20 . This was accordingly done, and the Rev. John Reynolds, (Elder) was elected General Superintendent pro tem. 1 The Conference met again in Cummer's Chapel, Young b(. onthe 10th day of June 1835, at 3 o'clock P.M. But the eastern Preachers having mistaken the date, no Minutes of tne T Ti-i--,--- n^y.f^^ — ^^a v>r,vino- bff»" Piihlisnea. did not June or ruuruary vyuniurcin^cs iia.\iii^ > ,~"^ W j assemble on the tenth. Those Preachers who had collected to- gether, received a letter from Mr. R-ynolds, requesting them to adjourn until the 25th Inst : ther erefore, adjourned to meet again at t Honed', * iiig to adj r.M.— J Arnon C for 1835 OnFr having h. provision The sj Confercr ofthe G jiresent— i'ickett n ed Mr. I with the — Page A " Que Bishop ] " Jlns the Elde General ing to 01 Mr. ] Confere way, by Gatchell service.- Not served" Episco[^ nionslra ters, ass What CO "At the perinlei pious IT hands \ dism, I The indispe pious n wishes. 49 ommenced year 1784* ; Episcopacy of Doctor lY, and al- Vesley joint ke, he "pru- y the siitVra- id in his ta- Lve deviated the Metho- had at once )ng the lay- proceeded at d Elder, and supported by g to the spir- vvere not so more closely id inquiry- ill a meetini' t the Confer- d to meet in eemed expe- General Su Conference, Annual Con- ovver to call a it any time." m Reynolds, em. )el, Young St. M. But the linutes oftne [shed- did not d collected to esting them toj lurned to meet! n^rninattho Trafalgar Meeting-house, at the time above /nc/i- iioned) " Thursday, June 25th 1S35, Conference met accord- ing to adjournment, in the Trafalgar Meeting-house at 2 o'clock p.^M. — J. Reynolds Superintendent pro tern in the Chcir, and Arnon C. Seaver Secretary." See Journals of the Conference for 1835. On Friday the 26th, the necessity of obtaining a Bishop, and having him duly appointed — and consecrated according to the provisions of the discipline vv^as carefully discussed. The same subject was resumed on Sat\u'day 27th, and the Conference recommended the Superintendent to cull a meeting of the General Conference : which he did forthwith ; Elders pj-ej^ent — John Reynolds, David Gulp, Joseph Gatchell, Daniel Pickett and John H. Huston. The General Conference elect- ed Mr. Reynolds General Superintendent, in strict conformity with the "letter and spirit" of the fourth Sect., of the discipline. — Page 23, which is as IbllovvS ; — " Quest. 2. If by death, expulsion, or otherwise, there be no Bishop remaining in our Church, what shall we do ? '<-Ans. The General Conference shall elect a Bishop, and the Elders or any three of them, who shall be appointed l)y the General Coniercnce, for that purpose ; shall ordain him accord- ing to our form of ordinuaon." Mr. Reynolds having been duly appointed by the General Conference, was, on Sabbath the 28th, ordained in the regular vvav, by the laying on of the hands of David Gulp, Joseph Gatchell, and Daniel Pickett, according to our consecration service. — See Discipline of 1829, chap. iv. sec. 3, p. 128. Not only was the «• letter and spirit" of the discipline " ob- served" ii 'flection and consecration of IMr. Reynolds to the Episcopal uijice, but the legality of the measure is further de- monstrated by Mr. Wesley, and other regularly ordained Minis- ters, assisting in the consecration of Doctor Coke and Messrs, Whatcoat and Vasey, and theirs, again, of Mr. Asbury in 1784. " At the request of Mr. Asbury, vvhcn he was ordained a Su- perintendent, r',Ir. Otterbine, a German jMinister, who was a pious man assisted in his ordination, loy the laying on of his hands with the other Blinisters."— Young's History of Metho- dism, Page 282— 286. The laying on of Mr. Otlerbine's hands was not considered indispensable, but through courtesy, and because he " was a pious man" he was invited in compliance with Mr. Asbury 's wishes, " to assist the other Ministers" in the solemn service. D ir lU 50 Suflicient testimony has been adduced, to shew that the or- dination of Mr. Reynolds to the Superintendency of the Metho- dist Episcopal Church in Canada, was disciphnary, and Metho- distical. 13ut to establish the point more clearly, (if more clearly it can be established,) we will make another extract or two from the writings ot' Dr. Bangs. He bays, <^ that very section in our ecclesiastical economy which provides for the Episcopal ollice, and prescribes its duties and /esponsibilities, provides for the consecration of a Bishop by tho hands of the Eldership, thereby clearly recognizing the principle for which I have contended: thus we read, 'If by death, expulsion, or otherwise, there be no Bishop remaining ill our Church, 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 purpose, shall ordain him accord- inf' to our form of ordination.' This is one case of necessity, which we as a Church recognize as justifying Episcopal ordi- nation by the hands of Elders or Presbyters." — "e/7?i oriirinal Church of Christ;' Page 17f) and 180. Doctor Bangs in another place speaking of the Local Preachers, who were ordained Elders in the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, asks : " But will any man in his senses say, that because these Lo- cal Presbyters have no special oversight in the Church, they are of an inferior order ] Or that because a man is a travelling Pres- byter, he is an order superior to a Presbyter: He is superior in office but not in order." — lb. Page -iS. This is exactly to ike point. The Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada being pressed, as it most evidently was by necessity ; the "travelling Presbyters" having left it and united hemselvesto the English Conference; the "local Presbyters ■' who remained being in point of " order," equal to a travelling Elder ; they were justi- fiable upon Methodistical and Scriptural principles, in calling together the Conference — composing a General Conference — electing a Bishop, and ordaining him according to the provisions of our ecclesiastical economy. Mr. Ryerson in his review of the Judges' opinions, his notes and remarks on Mr. Fowler's report of the Belleville Chapel case— as in all his writings against the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada — labours to establish an hypotliesis which iias no foundation in truth, which is manifest from the following remarks : — He says, " The persons who call themselves « The Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada,' are a self created o 51 hat the or- he Metho- nd Metho- , (if more extract or I economy ;s its duties ^r a Bishop gnizing the )ad, 'Ifby iniaining in shop ; and ntedby the im accord- f necessity, copal ordi- n original tlie Local t Episcopal D these Lo- :h, they are elling Pres- ) is superior exactly to mada being "travelling the English 3d being in were justi- ;s, in calling )nrorence — e provisions s, his notes ille Chapel t Episcopal esis which le following selves 'The self created party which sprung up in Belleville and the neighbourhood, •about a year aff.-/ the completion of the union."— See Fowler s Report of the Urlleville Chapel Case, Page 38. After putfm- liie most {r ourableand charitable construction which it appe.u': possible ■ >lace upon the above sentence, we do not hesitate to say, tha when Mr. Ryerson penned it, he knew the flict to have been otherwise. We have sliown in our preceding remarks— 1. That the Union was viewed with suspicion by the Lo- cal Preachers' Conference, in Trafalgar, even before the Hal- lowell Conference. , • i at- 2. That the Union was publicly spoken against in tlie Niaga- ra and London Districts, between the Sessions of the Hallowell and York Conferences. ^^ .i 3. That the London Quarterly Meeting Conference, greatly censured and opposed the proceedings of the Annual and Ge- neral Conierences ; and that they declared in the strongest possible manner, as soon as Mr. Metcalf visited the London Circuit, which was a few weeks after ''the completion of the. Union,'' and that too in the Quarterly Conference, that tliey were Episcopal Methodists ; and then and there denied that the /Vnnual, or General Conference had disciplinary power to unite the Societies to the English connexion without their consent. And about half the members on the Circuit remained with the Quarterly Conference. , ^a x , 4. That upon Mr. I^.letcalfs return to London, the Quarterly Meetin^r Conference would not allow him to preside, but ap- pointed^'rilr. Mitchel for their Chairman, and passed resolutions condemnatoryof the Annual and General Conferences, and still further rccpiested Mr. John Bailey to take charge of the Circuit ; empowering him at the same time, to employ assistants. These facts were woll known to Mr. Ryerson, and animad- verted upon by him in the Guardian. _ Mr. Baily was unable to attend all the appointments, and tborefore, his brother James Baily and George Turner, Loca Preachers were called in to his assistance. Messrs. J. Mitchel and James Nixon, Local Preachers, rendered him their aid. These men had regular f npointments and met as usual the classes after Preaching. , , , ^ . i t\t 4- Tlie licv. JJaniul xioivett atttnar^u uit- -t-' ^^ ----k> _ , presided and administer sd the ordinances. East of the Grand River, and West of Toronto, (then the town of York) on the North and South side ot Lake Ontario, it 52 there were Societies which resisted in the onset, the usurped powers of what has since been called the "Canada Confer- ence." The Rev. David Culp attended the Quarterly Meet- ings — presided and administered the ordinances. The following is an extract from a series of resolutions adopt- ed at Trafalgar, March 12, 1834. (Signed) JOHN W. BYAN, Presd. ARNON C. SEAVER, Secy, 5. Resolved. — That the Societies of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, became by common consent, a free and in- dependent Church, viz : — by a ratified agreement between the General Conference of the M. E. Church in the United States, and the Annual Conference of the M. E. Church in Canada ; said Canada Conference being authorized by the petitions of the people of their cliarge, 1o apply for, and agree upon, said mea- sure, which was afterwards, at tlie Session of tiie Canada Con- ference in Earnestown, in this Province, in the year 1828, ar- ranged and fully settled, and a compact or Discipline then form- ed, that became the foundation of connexion between the Con- ference of the M. E. Church of Canada and their people. G. Resolved — That every member oftlie said M. E. Church, is equally interested in the said Discipline, in all its provisions and institutions, as no individual can be a memlierof the said Church, or any odicr, Ijut by freedom of choice j the said dis- cipline is equally a guarantee to the members as to the Preach- ers, and no alteration of institution, or change of relation, can take place in the same witiiout their consent, else their freedom is invaded and the Discipline violated. 7. Resolved — That the said Discipline has vested tlie Gene- ral Conference of the M. E. Church, with certain powers of Legislation, but such powen^ can alone extend to the making of rules, for the well-being and future good government of the Methodist E. Chuich in Canada : if they are exercised to any further extent, they are null, ijeing unauthorized. S. Resolved — Tliat the Conference, formerly of the ]\T. E. Church, now denominated the "Wesleyan Methodist Con- ference" in British North America, at their two last Sessions, by their propositions to unite the Church to a remote body, by their negociations to eilect the union in question, and by their consummation of the same, have acted without disciplinary au- tliority, inasmuch as tlie right of self-disposal, is denied tne peo- ple — a most sacred and conscie tious principle ! ^^-- usurped Conler- y Meet- ris adopt- esd. Secij. Episcopal G and in- ween the ;d States, Canada ; ons of the lid inea- ula Con- is '^!^ 'ir- len form- the Con- ile. Church, irovisions 'the said ?:aid dis- ; Preach- ition, can L' ircedoni he Gene- bowers of [lakhiff of it of the 'd to any he M. E. list Con- Sessions, body, by I by their inary au- [ tne peo- 53 9. Resolved — That the said Conference have forfeited their pastoral charge of the said M. E. Church — ahenated themselves from any right or possession in the real properties secured by law to the said Church. 10. Resolved — That we are constrained, from the principles contained in the foregoing Resolutions, to enter our protest against the late changes mado by the Annual Conference, as subversive of all right principles and as a dangerous precedent to be allowed in the Church, and that we hold ourselves, and those members who concur with us, still the legal M. E. Church in Canada. The series of resolutions from which the above are extracted, was pubHshed in the public papers at the time. That these proceedings were well known to Mr. Ryerson there can be no doubt ; yet with all these incontrovertible cir- cumstances before the Canadian public, Mr. Ryerson a Wes- levan Methodist Minister, unblusliingly and unqualifiedlv says : < that the persons who call themselves the " Methodist Episco- pal Church in Canada,' are a self-created party, which sprung up in Belleville and neighbourhood, about a year after the com- pletion of the Union." He that is able to believe it, let him believe it. To what Church we would now ask, did these Local Preach- ers and private members belong, six months after the union ; who were members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, long before, and at the time of "the completion of the union," and who resisted the measures of the Conference of 1833, from the day they received the intelligence that the union was ratified ; and who neither withdrew nor were expelled from the Metho- dist Episcopal Church in Canada ? Did they not remain mem- bers of the said IMethodist Episcopal Church in Canada? When any person voluntarily unites himself to the Methodist Church, docs he not continue to be a member of said Church until death, unless he is dropped, withdraws, or is expelled ? The Wesley an Methodist Preachers who visited the western part of the Province, after the union, did not pretend that they had power to expel those Local Preachers, and private Mem- bers who adhered to the discipline of 1829 after the acts of the Conference of 1833. They cndd not be dropped, for they had been members long in good standing in the Church, prior to the union. They were not called to trial nor expellea, nor were they read out of Society for "neglect of duties of any kind." They did not withdraw from the Church, consequently they ii i mi .>-i M 54. must have remained members of the Church of which they were members before the union. In many parts of the Province, as soon as the Wesleyan Preachers reached their Circuits, after the Conference of 1833, they made out new class-papers, in the name of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in British North America. They never asked the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, if they would wish to become members of the Wesleyan Society ; but ' placed their names upon the class-papers, thus made out, h without their knowledge or consent. And as soon as was con- venient, they handed or sent to the persons thus smuggled into the new born Church, a ticket with the wortls " Weslevan Methodist Church" printed upon it. Many ofthc people refus- ed to submit to this clandestine "mode of procedure," and in public and private, declared that they w^ere not Wesleyan Meth- odists and never would be. "Oh yes," the Preachers would say, "you are a member of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, your name is on the class-pa- per, and I handed or sent you a Ticket ; did you not observe Wesleyan Methodist Church printed upon the top of the ticket? by receiving that ticket, attending my Preaching, stopping once or twice in Class-meeting, and going to Love-feast the other day, you have become a member of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in British North America." The member replies, " I never gave you, nor any one else, leave to put my name upon the W^esleyan Class-paper ; I am an Episcopal Methodist, and always intend to be such ; I had no idea that going once or twice to Class-meeting, attending a Love-feast, or taking into my hand a ticket, with Wesleyan Methodist Church printed on it, would initiate me, without my consent, into the Wesleyan Methodist Church." Scores, whose names w^ere placed upon the Wesleyan JNIethodist Class- papers in this way, because they would not continue to attend the Preaching of the Wesleyan Ministers, their Class-meetings, and their Love-feast, were afterwards publicly read out of the Wesleyan Methodist Church ; although they had never united themselves to such a Church. We have heard of recruiting sergeants <^^slipping^^ a piece of money into a man's hand, or into his pocket, and sometimes throwing it upon the brim of his hat, and then declaring him an enlisted soldier, because he had received the bounty. The poor fellow expostulates, but all in vain : he is hurried off — a regularly enlisted soldier. But it was not till after the union, '^~ "> * lich they ^Veslevan ■ of 1833, IVesIeyan ey never j1), ifthev ciety ; but lade out, was con- r^led into VVeslevan >ple refus- ," and in ran Meth- lember of I class-pa- 3t observe he ticket? ping once the other Methodist one else, per ; I am z\i ; I had ttending a Wesleyan ithout my Scores, hst Class- j to attend -meetings, ad out of lad never " a piece sometimes iring him fity. The rried off — the union, 00 that we were taught by Wesleyan Methodist Ministers to enlist an army of Methodist soldiers, by placing their names upon a class-paper, without their knowledge, and contrary to their wish- es, or by "^slipping^^ into their hands, or sending to them a tick- et headed "Wesle^ n Methodist Church." Hundreds of the soldiers thus enlisted, proved rather refractory ; and as there was no military discipline by which these Reverend Ofticers could coerce them to obedience, they were expelled the army. We now stop to enquire, whether the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada was preserved from annihilation, by the Lo- cal Preachers and members, who maintained their attachment to her, hrmly adhering to the discipline of 1829, and never voluntarily uniting themselves with the Wesleyan IVIethodist Church in Canada. We will allow the "XIII article of our religion" to decide the question. OF THE CHURCH. "The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sa- craments duly administered according to Christ's ordinances, in all those things that are of necessity, requisite to the same." This settles it beyond a doubt ; that if there were but one single ^'congregation of faithful men^^ having a regularly or- dained and "faithful" minister to preach the pure word of God to them, who hd not consent to the destruction of the Govern- ment of the church, nor acknowledge the new "Constitution ;" but who "conscientiouslv" adhered to the discipline of 1829 ; the identity of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada would have been preserved, and its existence demonstrated. But, after the union, there were not merely one or two, bnt many "congregations of faithful men" and women, who re- mained members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Cana- "The people were undouhtcdly the first in authority ; for the Apostles showed by their ovvti example, that nothing of mo- ment was to be carried on, or determined without the consent of the assembly, and such a method of proceeding was both prudent and necessary, in those critical times. It was, therefore, the assembly of the people, which chose tiieir own rulers and teachers, or received them by a free and authoritative consent, when recommended by others. The same people rejected or confirmed, by their suffrages, the laws that were proposed by their rulers to the assembly." — Mo- sheim's Ec. his. vol. 1, p. 87. The following sentence will show, that the Canada Confer- ence has departed from Apostolic practice, by becoming depen- dant upon the Englisii Conference. He adds : " The Churches, in those ancient times, were entirely inde- pendent ; none of them subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each one governed by its own rulers, and its own laws. For, though the churches founded by the Apostles, had this particu- lar difference shown them, that they were consulted in dilli- cult and doubtful cases, yet, they had no judicial authority, no sort of supremacy over the others, nor the least right to enact I ^M. ' into thesr iiem mein- knovvledg- >t therefore da became id Niagara y not sub- itically the zed in Ca- he Chapel leim's Ec- bers in the ,ver which f Christ, in Church. — Conference sdent : we d and suc- mething to says !— y ; for the ng of mo- le consent was both hich chose a free and lers. The s, the laws y."— Mo- da Confer- ling depen- tirely inde- iiction, but iws. For, lis particii- ted in dilli- ithority, no ht to enact 1^ 57 laws for them. Nothing, on the contrary, is more evident, than the perfect equahty that reigned among the primitive churches." — lb. page 92. Who could have thought, in 1828, that the Ministers who compose what is called the Canada Conference, would, in less than six years, assume a prerogative not even claimed by the Apostles \ But such is the case. Mr. RyersoH and his friends have laboured exceedingly hanl to impress upon the public mind, and more particularly upon the minds of the Judges, a belief that no regard was had to the Welshes of the societies in the United States, wnen the Metho- dist Episcopal Church was organized — that they knew nothing of the matter, till all was over, and that then, they were bound to submit to the act« of the Conference. But is tliis t!ie truth ? had not the societies, as well as the preachers, repeatedly and in the most earnest manner, solicited Mr. Wesley to organize :hem into a separate church? What says Mr. Wesley him- self, upon this point; speaking of the destitute situation of the American people, as it regarded the sacraments of the Christian Church, he remarks r — "In this peculiar situation, some thoii- sands of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice ; and in compliance with their desire, I have drawn up a little sketch," &c. &c. It was in compliance with the request of some thousands of the inhal)itants of the United States, that Mr. Wesley drew up this sketch. The p'-eachers did not num- ber "some thousands," therefore, it must have been in compli- ance with the wishes of people, as well as preachers, that Mr. Wesley consented to ordain Dr. Coke, Richard Whatcoat, and Thomas Vasey, and send them to America to assist tlieir breth- ren in the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and ordain their Ministers. (See Bangs' history of M. E. C. vol. 1, pages 153 — 155. We must now allow the Doctor himself to be a witness on this subject; he says : — "To all this, it may be said, that th. peo- ple were not consulted ; but their wishes were already known. They had been expressed over and over again ; and that their voice was in exact accordance with the proceeding of the Con- ference, is demonstrated from numerous testimonies." — lb. p. 165. The societies in Canada were consulted before twey V\"cre organized into a separate and independent church. But when Mr. Rverson's celebrated "union" scheme was carried into ef- f t f^ll 58 11 m f feet, the Canada conference, at his suggestion, arro^«/ec/ /o themsdves a power, never before claimed or exercised by any- body of Protestant Ministers. And then they have the assu- rance to tell the public, that the Conference had competent ecclesiastical authority to make the changes, which were made — but that no change was made, even in the ''form of Church Government, for that is the same as it always has been." — That although they have ''relinquished Episcopacy'''^ — still "Episcopacy is retained in the Church ;" — that although they have "but one order of ministers," "they have as much as ever divei'se orders of Ministers;" — that "we had to abolish the Epis- copal form of church Government, in order to form the union with our British brethren, and give up our name, like a female at the time of her marriage ; is unchanged," and " ?? but still the "form of government we are Episcopal Methodists still." In- deed, they would fain have the people believe, that since 1829, there has been neither "variableness nor shadow of turning" on the part of the Canada Conference. The person who can believe such tilings, must be well established in the doctrines taught by the "Christian Guardian" with regard to the matter, — howe"Pr contradictory and unreasonable they may happen to be. These remarks are not designed to apply in general to our brethren in the United States. They have, with a few indi- vidual exceptions, taken neutral ground. Those Preachers who have visited us and have been made acquainted with our real situation, and the stand which was made by our church in 1833 against the revolutionary measures of the Conference have invariably given to us "the riglit hand of fellowship." They have sympathized with us i.a our day of adversity and trial, and they have rejoiced to see those clouds of darkness vanish away, before the rays of the sun of Righteousness. The mem- bers of our cliurch have been very generally received when they have taken with them proper letters of recommendation, on their removal to the United States. We have heard, how- ever, that one of our Local Preachers was rejected some where about Watertown ; through the influence of a certain Presiding Elder, who was a decided friend to the changes made by Mr. Ryerson and his friends, and a decided enemy to us, for main- taining tlie Episcopal form of church Government, (for that is the head and front of our offence,) but who has since been ex- pelled by the Black River Conference for immoral conduct. — The Rev. Carroll Sutherland, who had been received as a pro- 59 gated to by any tie assu- mpetent re made Church 3en. ?5 '"—Still igh tliey 1 as ever lie Epis- le union female ernment ." In- le 1829, turning" who can loctrines ; matter, happen i\ to our evv indi- lers who our real lurch in ice have ' They ind trial, s vanish le mem- ed when mdation, d, how- le where J'residing by Mr. or main- r that is been ex- nduct. — IS a pro- bationer into our Conference, and was ordained Deacon and Elder by Bishop Reynolds, was received by the Genesee Con- ference upon the recommendation of our Conference, and his ordination thereby acknowledged valid. One reason, no doubt, why some of our American brethren have acted so cooly towards us is, because of the dilliculties crea- ted in their Church a few years since by the "Reformers."* Ma- ny of the leading men among them having been Local Preach- ers, and the "Christian Cxuardian " having constantly repre- sented those who adhered to the discipline of 1829, as "a few dissatisfied Local Preachers," these Brethren have allowed themselves to associate the Episcopal Methodists in Canada with those who have caused them so much trouble,— and with- out stopping to inquire whether we followed in their footsteps, or were in any way guilty of the things laid to our charge,— or oven hearing us in our own defence,— they have allowed their minds to be prejudiced against us. But do we deserve this? Have we not struggled hard to maintain the same form of Church Government, for which they contended '? and which was so ablv defended from the attacks of the " Reformers " by the Pittsburgh General Conference of 1828 ? But it is very evident that the Canada Conference followed very closely in the steps of the " Reformers : " they abolished Episcopacy—chang- ed the established order of things, and elected the President of their Conference annually ; or rather, they agreed to receive him from the Enolish Conference, which, however, they do not do at present. The remarks of Dr. Bangs respecting the " Re- formers, will apply with equal force to tlie Canada Conference. His words are, ""it is much easier to shake, and uproot estab- lished institutions than it is to raise up and render permanent a new order of things— a truth which should teach all revolution- ists the necessity of rnution and moderation in their measures. —History M. E. C. Vol. 3, page 431. " Our own Church organization and plans of procedure have been made to appear more excellent from contrastmg them with those substituted by the seceding party ; and so far as success may be relied on as a test of the goodness and beneficial tenden- cy 'of any system of operations, we have no temptation to for- sake ' the old paths' for the purpose of following in the track of those who have opened the untrodden way of reform, (in * Persons who separated from the M. E. Church in the United States some few years since j they are now called Protestant Methodists. if m other words union,) «or to be shaken by the strong < protest ' they have entered against our peculiar organization and man- ner of conducting our afl^iirs." — lb. page 439. Not having had a periodical at our control, through which we might have met the assaults of our opponents, and answered and refuted their attacks so repeatedly made upon us, our Breth- ren on the other side of the St. Lawrence may have supposed that the sayings of the Wesleyans were unanswerable, and their unautliorized proceedings disciplinary. But if tlie Episcopal Methodists in tlic United States, will examine the principal ar- guments urged against us by Mr. Ryerson, the Guardian and Its supporters, they will find that they consist principally in hard names and scurrilous remarks,— (such as we would dislain to stoop to ;) such, for instance, as " Self created Episcopalians,'" ''Schismatics'" ^'Hypocriies,'' ''Pscudo Ei'icopalians,'' '^Reck- less Parti zan%''> ''Unprincipled Demagogues,''^ and "Jlsses clothed uith Lion's shins,'" with many equally uncharitable re- marks. Is not this a pitiable, and childish warfare ? (to say no worse of it.) ^ Did our opponents suppose that scowling, sneer- 'jng, and calling ill names, would ever awe those who would not consent to follow the Conference in their crusade against the established usages and government of the Church, under which she had been, and still is, so highly favored of Heaven, and to which wo conscientiously adhered ? If so, they have mistaken the men. Or were those Rev. Gentlemen driven to this last lesort for the want of better ai'guments 1 The grievous sm which is laid to our charge is, that we would not consent to tne union,~a measure which has proved a ctcrse to the cause oi Methodism in Canada, and has ended in the most bitter rail- mgs between the parties. Who will say that we have simicd against God because we have refused to submit to such a meas- ure ? or that we are "Schismatics," because we would not leave "the old jiaths "to " travel the untrodden ways of" the union ? Wdl our Episcopal Brethren condemn us for following in their own steps? Is it an act of righteousness in them to resist an innovation upon their long established usages and form of Church Government ? And does it become sin in us to do tiie same^ things ? Or because, in this instance, the Conference is tlie innovator, does that change the character of the transac- tion ? Or does a mere vote of Conference transform an unholy act mto a holy one 1 If so, then the Conference can "bring fl. clean, out of an unclean thing," Let us see how the case stands, and what gimilarity exista be- 61 g * protest ' and man- . which we answered our Bretli- 3 supposed 3, and their Episcopal •incipal ar- irdian and illy in hard dis'laln to id ^'Jlsscs a ri table re- (to say no iiig^ sneer- v\\o would do against ch, under ' Heaven, :hey have . driven to le grievous consent to the cause jitter rail- ve sinned h a meas- l not leave he union ? ig in their resist an I form of to do tile ference is transac- m unholy in "•brin^ exista be- tween our position and that c^'our Episcopal Brethren in the United States, at the time of the " Reform " agitation. The Episcopal Methodists in Can- ada adhered to the Episcopal form of Church Government which was pre- ferred by Mr. Wesley, and regularly established in America. The Annu- al and General Conferences abolish- ed Episcopacy, and made other or- In the United States the Annual and General Conferences adhered to the Episcopal form of Church Gov- ernment which was preferred by Mr. Wesley, and regularly established in America, wliilc some Local Preach- ers and others, who called themselves "Reformers," abolished Episcopacy, made several radical changes, and or- ganized themselves into a dillerent Church. Those calling themselves '•' Refor- mers " in the United States, seceded I'rom the Methodisi, Episcopal Church because they organized themselves into a Church under a different form of Church Government. ganic changes, attempting, at the same time, to transfer the Societies en masse to the British connexion. Those calling themselves 'Wesley- an Methodists in Canada, seceded from the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, because they organized themselves into a Church under a different form of Church Govern- ment. We will now submit one simple question for the considera- tion of our Episcopal Brethren :— Should a parent pursue a par- ticular path liimself, and pointing it out to his children, request them " to walk therein : " when these cliildren pursue the steps their fatlier trod, should he then frown upon them for ibllowing not only hi.i example but his precepts, would he be considered a consistent man 1 Fathers and Brethren, we have adhered to that, to which you have adhered, and taui>kt «.? to love. We have resisted inno- vation upon that, upon which you resisted it, and advised us topreserve ; and if we have done wrong, we have erred in our attachment to "the old paths." We would record ]Mr. Egcrton Ryerson's testimony in favor of Methodist Episcopacy, if we thought it would have any weight with the public ; but from his want of judgment in Church matters, as well as his propensity to change his opinions whenever he thinks honor or emolument, is witliin "a stone's cast," v/e presume it will have but little weight witli a discern- ing public. If, however, any of our readers should wish to know what he appears to have thought upon this subject in 1832, they may consult the Christian Guardian of January 15, 1832. He asks, "CVm any person object to Methodist Episco- pacy who has any respect for the appointment and advice of Mr. Wesky, or the standard works, of the English connexion, or the opinions of the leading Preachers in the British connex- ion ? " We will make no comment upon this extract, but leave the public to judge of the consistency of Mr. Ryerson and those MM IB" t 1 ■I \ ■ : I Si 1 m who acted with him, and to form their own estimate of the high « respect which they have paid to the appointment and advice of Mr. Wesley. ^^ The Wesleyans appear to think that they have gained a signal victory over us, because the Judges have decided against us in the Belleville Chapel Case, and have refused to hear the late Waterloo Chapel Suit argued in the Queen's Bench, and con- secpiently deprived our Trustees of a new trial. It is said that the Council for the Defendants informed the JuJges that there were "no new facts difl'eringfrom those adduced in the Belle- ville Chapel Case. — If he did so, he has done just what he ought not to have done ; because there were new facts. In the first place the Plaintills did not clearly prove the deed. Secondly, the record of their Trustees was not legally estab- lished. Thirdly, it was proved by one of thePlaintilT's own witnesses that the Waterloo Chapel ground had been deeded more than twenty years ago to the same body of Episcopal Methodists, who were then in possession of it. And fourthly, it was clearly shown, by several worthy and respectable witnesses, that the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada did not cease to exist in 1833. That many of the Ministers and Members of the said Church never consented to the union, or in any way connected themselves with the Wes- leyan Methodist Church in Britisih North America ; but remain- ed what they always had been, members of the Methodist Epis- copal Church. It will dou])tlcss be recollected, that in 1837, there was a suit for the same Chapel. The Jury returned a verdict for the Epis- copals. The Wesleyans then appealed to the Judges, and a majority of them having confirmed the verdict of the Jury, the Episcopal Methodist Trustees retained the Chapel. Some time after this, another action was brought by the Epis- copal Methodist Trustees to recover the Belleville Chapel. — The Jury rendered them a verdict also, — and again the Wes- leyans appealed to the Judges. One of the former Judges hav- ing retired, and three new ones having been ap'iointed, the ver- dict of the Jury was set aside, which leaves it open for a new- action. The Wesleyans encouraged by this circumstance, prosecuted John Gross, and others, trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, for the Waterloo Chapel, which suit was tried at the Kingston Assizes upon the 25th of May, 1842 ^ the Honorable I of the high and advice ned a signal gainst us in ;ar the late I, and con- is said that s that there the Belle- st what he ■ facts, /e the deed, gaily estab- n witnesses I more than Methodists, worthy and CI lurch in any of the 3 n sen ted to th the Wes- butremain- lodist Epis- 3 was a suit Dr the Epis- Iges, and a e Jury, the )y the Epis- Chapel. — n the Wes- Fiidges hav- ed, the ver- II for a new prosecuted t Episcopal ried at the Honorable 63 Judge Macaulay, presided. And although he declared that he had not "changed" his "opinion" since 1837, at which time he and Judge Sherwood decided that this same property belong- ed to us : he requested the Jury 'Ho find a verdict of one shil- ling for the Plaintiffs,'' giving as a reason for such a charcre, that a "final decision could not be obtained in the Queen's Bench ;" and that "if the defendants siiould get a verdict, there might be a suit, every time the Court would sit :" his Lordship, therefore, advised "« verdict for the Plaintiffs,'" not because "It was theirs by the law of the land," but to prevent vexaiims litigation. For our own part we expected no other decision from the present Judges than that which has been given ; havino- decided against the trustees of our Church in the Belleville cha1)el case they will not now decide otherwise, it matters not what evl- denr may be adduced, since they do not choose to hear the case argued. If any of our trustees expect their case to get an impartial hearing, they must appeal to the Governor and Coun- cil. That the Methodist Episcopal Church was legally organized in Canada, none can deny: this being the case, tlien, % must still have an existence, or it must in some way have been des- troyed. If destroyed, it can have no existence ; if not destroy- ed, It IS still in being. Let us now inquire, whether the Con- stitution ot this church can be demolished, the laws and usages changed, a new Constitution drawn up and received, embracfncr awidelydiilerent system of Government, and that Church re- main the same, identicaJly the same, as it was before the Epis- copacy was changed for an annual Presidency. No man who has compared the two disciplines, viz. the discipline of 1829 with that of lS3-i, can come to such a conclusion. If the Wesleyan Methodist Church in ':;anada, is not what the Meth- odist Episcopal Church was in 1829, they can have no claim to the property deeded in good faith to the Methodist Episcopal Church. It has been clearly and fully proved, in the precedincr pages, that the Canada Conference chanired the governme:U. as well as the usages of the church, at the time of the "union''— they, therefore, orgaized a T\ew church, with a new name- new laws— new iisages— and agreed to receive a preacher from the English Conference to rule over them ; they cannot, ^lerefore, claim to be Episcopal Methodists any more than the English Methodists, for their usages and form of Church Gov- ernment, are the same as those of the English Methodists.— I 64 ill J i\ t: j Mr. Rycrson has not yet attempted to prove, that the Confer- ence had power to anni/iilute the old form of Church Govern- ment ; but merely to make m\ alter aiion in the name of the church, and its olficcrs ; he says, "things remain unchanged ;" and although he admits in one place that Episcopacy was abolished, he declares in another, that Episcopacy has been retained'm the church ; that there arc but six words ofdilfer- ence between the Methodist Ej)iscopal Church as it existed in 1829, and the ^V'csleyan Methodist Church in Canada, as it exis- ted in 1837 ; and that the change is only in words, "for things" ho says, "remain unchanged." Is it not strange that the Judges should listen to such sophistry, and self-contradiction 1 Now, if the government of the church has been destroyed, and anew form of government adopted, unless it can be made to appear that the Conference had disciplinary authority for such an act, tliey have transcended the bounds of their authority, and instead of legislating for the Church, they revolutionized it. We do not deny (liat the General Conference, had power to legislate for the M. E. Church, under certain limitations and restrictions, but that they had authority to abolish these restrictions, and or- ganize themselves into a new Church, under a new name, and a new government, and attach themselves to another body of Christians, and silll continue to be the '^samc, idcniicalhj the mme,^^ as tliey were before, is a monstrous absurdity, which never can be maintained, or palmed upon any person, who will carefully compare the disciplines, or acquaint himself with the history of jMethodism in England and America. Mr. Ryerson contends that the " Methodists are one body throughout Vie world." If so, why the present rupture be- tween the English and the Canada Conferences'? Those who were so closely united are now at least iwo bodies for the far famed " union," has been most unccrimoniously dissolved. The truth is that this, like almost every thing else that Mr. Ryerson has said or written, is partly true, and partly false. The IN'Iethodists throughout the world are one in dorfrinc, — but not in Church Government or usag.;S. As several of the Canada Conlbrence Preachers t.ave sworn that persons became members of the Wesleyan Church, and consented to the " union," by receiving a printed ticket headed Wesleyan Methodist Church, for the information of those who are not acquainted with Methodist usages, we will here state the manner of receiving persons into the Methodist Societi es. At the close of the public services, or of Class-meet- Confcr- Govern- B of the nged ;" cy was Las been )f diirer- :isted in i itexis- things" li Judges Now, d a new 3 appear an act, I instead We do legislate Tictions, and or- me, and body of alli/ Ihe ', which jn, who ;elf with le body til re be- ose who rthe fai' issolved. ;hat jMr. ly false, 'if, — but e sworn ch, and t headed )f those ive will [ethodist 3s-meet- ing the Minister asks ifthcrc are any who would wi^^h to be- come members of the Church ; if so to rise up. In Class- mectmg the Class is then asked if there are any objections to the person so olfenng, if no objections are n.ade, the person i< received s.x-months on trial ; during n-hich time he or she i. at liberty to leave the Church without assigninir anv reason • nrifhiswalk IS contrary to the rules of the Church, his namt' can be dropped from die Class-paper without trial or giviiw anv reaso.i: but if lie is satisfied with the Cliurch and the Church with hini, at the end of six-monllis he is received into full mem- bership ; and is entitled to all the privileges of the Church. it IS customary to hokl a quarterlv meeting evcrv three montiis The temporal business of//-. Circuit si attendJd to on Saturday ; on Sunday morning a Love-feast is held ; at thi< means of grace bread and water are passed round, in token of triendship ; and each person has the liberty, if he feels disponed to do so, ot relatmghis i-eligious experience. The Preacher who has the charge of the Circuit, sometime r.revious gives or semN 10 each member a ticket with a text of Scripture printed on it • none but members in good standing recievc such tickets- per- sons who are pious, or who wish to attend these mcetinnVfre- (juently recieve a written note of admission ; none but mcn.ber^ (according to Discipline) receive printed tickets. There ^vere several places in the Province where the people knew nothin.. ol the nature of die '^ union," or the cirect it would have u])Oii the Church for som.e months after it was completed; thev had heard that something was said about a union at the Hallmvell Conference, but it never was fully explained; and when ob- jected to by ttiose who had gadiered a faint idea of the momen- tous changes involved in it, the Preachers would assure them that no particular change had been, or would be made. V^ soon Oxter the York Conference as possible, the new Weslevau 1 reachers hastened to make out new class papers, upon whic'i they placed the names of the members of the Methodist Epis- copal Church without their own consent, and handed or -enl thejii printed tickets headed "Weslevan Methodist Church-' and this too, to persons who had never joined their ?26Z/,'-wr/'/,- Chiirch, or in any way connected themselves with it ; verv many ot whom were almost entirely i-norant of ihc greal; oi"- ganic changes made by that Conference, and who were dis- satisfied as soon as diey became acquainted w^ith their nature • and although hundreds refused to concur in the *- union" or even to countenance it, as soon as they understood its bearin^r^ E ) ! Um ! 1 i i i i 66 upon the Church— because mens' minds were so paralyzed by the unlieard-of assumptions of the Conference, that they did not inunediatcly, in some places, recover the shock they had Hustained ; so as to see clearly what course duty directed them to jiersue— did this destroy their mem)■/, thatthe M. E. Church contuiies to live -fot- withstamhng the learlul stab, which she had received from someoflnoseoiwnom she was the spiritual parent, and who had been nursed in her bosom, and dandled on her la,) Stephen Koy, an old Class-Leader, never consented to the nmon ; he jad the charge of a class who remained firmlv at- tached to the Tm. E. Church ; they were never expelled \r' not consenting to Mr. Ryerson's ne^v measures ; thev were not read out ol society for neglect of duty ; they did not withdraw : Uiey, tl.erelo/e, remained as before, Episcopal IMcthodist^.— Elder Gulp pro-ched and duly administered the sacraments • and who will dare to say that he consented to, or identified himself with the union in any way ; he has not been expe n he was not read out of society for neglect of dulv ; he has no withdrawn ; he therefore remained what he had been for many yeai^ before, and still is, a Minister of the Methodist E])iscopal Church in Canada. Had every other Individ n niember^of the Church in Canada, fallc./in lote wiU t^^ P'^fi;'rf f''""''^ -^^^ -'^ ^^-^v with h m U) t J English Methodists this one single Minisfer, andone shv e rongregation, would have preserved the identity of the Met}^- dis Ei^scopa Church, fbrit comes up to the description of the Msible Church of Christ, given in the XIII article of our reli^ gion, which IS as follows:— '■' OF THE CHUECH." "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of fliithful men, m w nch the pure word of God is preacired, and he ordinance, in " Dis- craments duly administered according to Christ's uiuina clphnnnsiV^^r"'^^ ' "' "^"''^^ '''''' ^^^-•' Alhough tJiis is sufficient to establish our identity as the ori- ginal i\l. E. Church, we do not rest our identit.^ nnon one min uicr and one congregation, but upon several ministers and hun^ Ureas ofw.embers. I i I lifl: 'lU 68 It has already been stated, that the Conference doubted its disciplinary power to aboUsh Episcopacy, and retain the chapel property ; which is proof positive that the framers of the "res- trictions" and "limitations" imposed upon the powers of the Gcjieral Conference, never designed that Episcopacy should be ^^ahohshcd]''^ and the Canada Conference must have so under- stood it in 1S2S and 1832. This will farther aj)pear from the (Mi-cumstance tliat Pvlessrs. Bidwcil and Rolph vv'cre consulted upon this very point: and, strange as it may appear to the can- did reader, I\lr. Ryerson has carefully concealed from public view, the Postrcript that accompanied their opinion, as w^ell as a note bearing date five days later, all of wliich have been kindly furnished Bishop Reynolds, by Marshall S. Bidwell, Es((. The circumstance of publishing part of these documents, and suppressing the rest, is another specimen of Sir. Ryerson's plan of manceuvreing, and idling the truth, and sparing the indh, just as it may happen to suit his design. A system that requires such tact to uphold it, must rest upon fearful quicksands, and tremble at investi^./'on. The documents referred to are as follows. (Copy.) Gentlemen^ YorvK, 5th Januar}', 1S33. We had the honor to receive last evening, your note of the third of this month, in which you state that the Con- ference of the IMelhodist Episcopal Church in Canada, desired us to give our opinion on the ([uestion, "whether the abolishing of the Episcopal form of Church Govermnent from among them, would jeopard their Church Property." We are not aware tlnit there has been any adjudication ex- actly in point, but it has been decided that il'a Corporation held lands by grant, or prescription, and nfterwai'ds they are again incorporated by another name, as when tliey v.ere bailiils and tk. or Ldrgesses before, and row are jMayor and Commonalti were prior and convent before, and afterwards, translated into a Deun and Chapter, although the quality and name of their corporations are altered, yet fhe new body shall enjoy all the rights and property of ihe old. 4 Co. 87, 3, Ban. Rep. 1S()(). Judging from die analogy of this case, as well as from other cxjnsiderations, we are of opinion that if Episcopacy should be abolished in your Church, anc' some other lorm of Churcli Government should be cstablisned in the manner mentioned 69 oubted itg lie chapel 'the "res- 'ers of the should be h'o under- [• iVoin tlie consulted D the can- om public [IS well as iiave been . Bid well, ocuiaents, Ryerson's arin;:r the A system on fearful ning, your ttlie Con- Ja, desired abolishing om among cation ex- ration held are ajiain jail ill's and lion a It}', or slated into lie of their joy all the iep. 1S()(). from other ' should be 3f Churcli mentioned in your book of Discipline, the rights and interests of the Con- ference in any Church property, whether they were legal, or only equitable rights and interests, would not be impaired or allected by such a change. We have the honor to be, Reverend Gentlemen, Your obedient humble Servts. (Signed,) Marshall S. Bidwell. " John Rolph. To Revd. Messrs. James Richardson and Irvine. P. S. — Since the foregoing was written, it has occurred to us, that there might be cases (although we are not aware of any) in whicli property has been given to the Conference, or to Trustees for their use, on the express condition that their in- terest should continue only while the Episcopal form of Church Government was retained. It will be understood of course that we have not intended to express our opinion respecting property held either upon these terms, or upon any other spe- cial or peculiar conditions : as the rights of the Conference, in such instances, if there be any, must depend on the particu- lar cii amstances of each case. (Signed) IMarshall S. Bidwell. « John Rolph. (COFY.) York, 10th January. lSo3. Reverend Gcnllcmen, We have the honor to enclose our opinio. ^ in answer to the question contained in your note of the third of this month. We trust that the Conference will perceive that it is our pro- fessional opinion merely on the legal ellect upon their Church Property Vvliich will follow from the contemplated change, as we are anxious it should be undcrsfoood by ikem ihat we do not ■intend io express any Judgment, direetly or indirectly, on the policy or propriety of such an i?}iportant step. We return the book of Discipline which you left with us. W^e have the hojior to be Reverend Gentlemen, Respectfully, your faithful servts. (Signed) Marshall S. Bidwell. " John Rolph. Rev, Messrs. Richardson and Irvine. I HUi a Mia 70 These gleamed Gentlemen knew of no "adjudication exactly in point;" indeed, such a circumstance was unknown in Law* and they merely judged from the " analogy of corporate bodies" such, for mstance, as "where bailiffs and burgesses" existed be- lore, and were afterwards incorporated by another name, "as Mayor and commonalty, where there was prior and convent before, and were afterwards translated into Dean and Chapter." This was as near, no doubt, as they could come to the '^potnt,''^ but it is far from being a parallel case. It is not at all likely that these learned gentlemen had been informed that tiie discipline hat; been already violated, by the acts of the Hallowell Conference, in admitting ineligible" persons to a seat and voio in that General Conference ; such, however was the case. But again they say, "if Episcopacy should be abolished and some odier form of Church Government should be estab- lished m the manner mentioned in the discipline, that the rights anci interests of the Conference would not be " impaired" or effected by such a change :" mark, "if Episcopacy should be abolished" "in the manner mentioned in the discipline" ; but does the discipline povide for its abolition, or for any form of government other than the Episcopal form ? It does not. Did the discipline authorize the Conference to give up its indepen- dence to another body of ministers 1 It did not. Where, or how did the discipline provide for giving up the IVlissions to the English I\lethodists, and attaching the societies to that con- nexion? It cannot be shewn. There is no truth more evident, than that the Canada Conference, in 1832 and 1833, exceeded the bounds of its authority, violated the discipline of 1829, forfeited the confidence of the Societies, and created a new Church : it was, therefore, optional \\[{\\ the societies to follow them into the untrodden, rough, and +horney paths of the"wmo?i," or to travel on in the old smooth arid pleasam ones 01 their own highly favoured and beloved Church. We will low lay before our readers, the Hon. Judge Macau- lay s opinion of the Waterloo Chapel Case, in 1837, (an opin- ion, which it will be recollected, his Lordship informed the Jury on the late trial at Kingston, that Z'c had not changed,) which will confirm the principle for which we have contended, VIZ. That the Canada Conference seceded from the Methodist rimrnt^^^ ^liuFch in 1833, and that the present Methodist E. Ltiurr... m v,anaua, is the original Methodist Episcopal Church* organized in 1828. >n exactly ^ in Law, e bodies" xisted be- lame, "as convent 'hapter." me to the is not at 'nied that 'is of the to a seat was the abolished be estab- the rights )aii-ed or hoiild be e" ; but ' form of ot. Did indepen- here, or ns to the hat con- th more d 1833, ■ipline of M-eated a cieties to paths of pleasant Macau- an opin- •med the hanged,) ntended, [ethodist lodist E. Churchj Opinion of the Hon. Jnilge Macaulay, on the Waterloo Chapel Case, Doe ck Dem. The Trustees of the \ One Acre of Land and a Stone MetS Episcopal Church fcr the Church in the 3d Concession of he TmvnVhiDofKino-ston, y Township of Kn.gston. LcabC— Township 01 l^^no^wn, ( ^^^^^^__^^^^^^ ^^^ Possession, ad- Thomas Bell. J mitted. The Plaintiils made title in a corporate name, under the Pro- vincial Statute, 9 Geo. IV. c. 2, by which it was, (amongst oth- er things,) enacted, that whenever any rehgious Congregation or Society of Methodists should have occasion lo take a convey- ance of land for any of the uses therein-before recited, (namely, for the site of a Church, Meeting-house, Chapel, or Lurymg- m'ound,)-it should be lawful for ihem to appoint TrvsUcs, to whom, and their successors to be appointed in such manner as should be specified in the Deed, the land requisite for all or any of the purposes aforesaid might be conveyed,— and such 1 rus- tees, and their successors in perpetual succession by the name expressed in such Deed, should be capable of taking, holding, and possessing such land, and of commencing and maintaining any action or actions in law or in equity for the protection there- of and of their right thereto-the Trust not exceedmg hve acres for any one Congregation, and the Deed to be registered withm twelve months. It also provides that conveyances previous y made for the like purposes should (being registered) be equally valid. . .• 1 ■ t , .*• The Plaintiffs claimed the premises m question by virtue o\ an Indenture bearing date the 9th day of August^, 1S3-., and made between Daniel Ferris of the one part and john Grass James Powley, Barnabas Wartman, Gilbert Purdy, Lambert Vanalsfme, Joseph Orser, JNIicajah Purdy, Francis Lattimoro senior, and Robert Abernethy of the other part, wherebv, alter reciting the above statute and that a religious Congregation or Society of Methodists had occasian to take such a deed ot a tract of land situate in the Township of Kingston, for the site ot •a Church and Burying-ground, and had appointed Trustees by the name of "the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the Township of Kingston," the said Ferris in consideration of £3, gave, granted, sold, assigned, released, coiweyed, and confirmed unto the said Trustees by the name aforesaid, and their successors to be appointed in the manner there-mafter spe- I I \ ' u. ^ fl ]'■ ■!'. V 72 ^iiied, a tract of lane' situate in thp ^i: i Ta. u- . rr containing one acre, anj tedn mo e particnlf l''' f^'^^''""' To have and to hoM the same TthT^^fi ^'^'''"'''''''=- orecled or to be erected thoTeon; tl e tid t:^? '" "^"^'j'*^ successors in the said Trust forever for 'he Zo'fTrf "'f Kules and UisciphrXch tt ? / '""^"' ='"='=°'-'""g to the -iopted by tl,e'Ge„rra or aL nTr'''V''''''"''''^';'"'s''' ""^ Church in Canada'in tn st nn, . ^"f'""^", «f '"'e said Trustees for tlie time be n In" u """^f ^.""^° '''"' tl'e said "-.it any Methodist EpSl Citta "''p'™? "'"■*^^"«'' l"-^--- or Preachers, lie or t lev bSi: n ^tl 7 ^''""'^ 'f' "■■ Ministers IVIethodist 4isco;a Au fi^cSr "'• * «""^«- of.he •■'S such by the said GcneiS or Ann n X "f ^"^^' """'™^'^'' and perform Eeligious Service f n tt ^?"5=''«"<=«. «« Preach ground, accordingtX ru e nn 1 ,V 'r^ "?f <= »"'' J^"™'" It was tlien declared I at eV 1 iuSr oTf ' ' '° "i'^ ^,''"^''- Trust should continue to be ^^en aTdC"^'"^ » '"''' more of the Trustees tlierein named o .1 "''<'"''™'- '"'J" ««<; or said trust should die, or cea e to be ' Z f " '"'^'^''O'-' i" the said Methodist Epis^opaTSunch in V. l"' "'' "'"",''"'' °''"'« n.les and discipli ,e oTti e » J Chmrb H ' """""^'"^ '» ">« places of the Trustee or Trustee, so dlt' ™'''"' P'"'" °^ member or members of the said rh.lr^^^ T, f^^^''^ to be a ■Successor or Successors bei^.n M f' '''?:''' ""^ ""'^J ^th a C.,^,a„dtobe-;^-|-SS^ ni tno^^!!!;Lr.Kdt?^^^ tf l£"..> |>»a .ood sttch'^f ;r --"^^ =t Tol^Stio^ri:':^; conveyance oper to Z ft'he'sH.'r'" '''''^'''' ''"'^ "'"' "'« This closed thlJ Platntiff'tcat " "' ' ^■^''*''""^ '^™^'- -me ^HhSj^;::;:',^;^:,;" r--™; -"" "- assent of been appointed acco 2"';. , '"''' '"'"'' "'"""'"'•^ «'''" ''a'l originaf [,artie w rhtUaH^rr™"^ ''5 ''"" "/-""« °''"'« andconslxiuently that he wns^n.? '"'"''"■•- °'^*'"' Church, turned out in tl i^s £ ectacnJ vv^, m''''""'"' "i'^' ""' ''^'''« '» '^' .1.0 instance of thosfS 'd ;'' e ."ill''''" "^''''''S'" at U.urch (and were therefore no on::? Trustes? in ? •"'" •■on w.th others irregularly nominatf I TSL^ I^IS," Kingston, cribed : — buildings and tlieir L Church, Members ing to the might be the said the said ifter per- Ministers I's of the lithorised 3 Preach Burial- Church, the said ly one or s in the 's of the : to the lace or to be a I with a the said r there- id good red ac- society lat the rust. — sent of ho had of the [lurch, 3 to be ght at of the ijunc- 5 W\\h i 73 them in lieu of those under whom the Defendant held posses- sion, and who they contended were not legally seized of the property as such Trustees. It appeared therefore that two sets of persons claimed to be Trustees and entitled to the possession, or to use the corporate name in which this action is brought to recover or defend it. E^ idencu was in the first place given by the Defendant to sup- port the right of those under whom he held. It appeared tiiat the Methddist Church spoken of in the Deed, emanated from, and was formerly in connexion with the Methodist Episcopal Chu-' in the United States ; but that with the assent of the Paront Lstablishmcnt it was in the year 1828 separated and formed into an Itidei)endent Body, called the INIethodist Episcopal Church in Canada. That in 1829, the Conference of Preachers belonging to such Church framed a Discipline en- titled, 'Uhe Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episco- pal Church in Canada," such being the name adopted. In 1833, a union took place between the said Church and the British VVesleyan connexion in England, attended with a change of name in the first place to that of " the Weslcyan IMethodist Church in British North America," and afterwards "the Wesley- an Methodist Church in Canada," and in lS34ahe Conference appointed under the discipline of 1829, framed another discipline adapted to the altered state of things. With a view to the union it was resolved by three-fourths of the members present at the Year- ly Conference held at Hallowell, in 1832, that this Conference sliould recommend to the General Conference to pass the 3d Kesolution of the Committee on the proposed union, which reads as follows :—" That Episcopacy be relinquished, (unless It will jeopard our Church property, or as soon as it can be legally secured,) and superseded by an Annual Presidency, and that this Conference recommended the Chairman to call a Gen- eral Conference on IMonday, A. IM. at 6 o'clock." The Chair- man called a General Conference Meeting accordingly ; and the following extract shews the course pursued bv them. " A special Session of the General Conference was called and held at Hallowell on the 1 , of August 1832— voted that a super- intendant pro. tern. l)o elected— William Case was duly elec- ted. — Ptesolved, that this Conference on the recommendation of three-fourths of the Annual Conference, having m view the prospect of an union with our British Bretlu'en, agree to sanc- tion the 3d Resolution of the Report of the Committee of the Annual Conference, which is as follows :— < That Episcopacy \ i I J 14, iff .\ if be relinquished, (unless it jeopard our Church Property, or as soon as it can be legally secured,) and superseded by an An- nual Presidency, in -connexion with the 10th Resolution of the f5aid Report, which says, that none of the foregoing Resolutions should be considered as of any force whatever until they shall have been acceded to on the part of the Wesleyan Missionary Committee of the British Coniere.ice and the arrangements re- ferred to in them shall have been completed by the two con- nexions.' The above Resolution was cairied by a majority of three-fourths of the General Conference. — Signed William, Case, President of the General Conference." It also appeared, that, between the separation of the M. E. Church in Canada from the Mother Church in 1828, and the period of this Union with the British Connexion, no Bishop had been nominated or ordained, and consequently that no ordina- tions of Ministers had taken place in the Church, unless by American Bishops; but that, according to the Discipline in that behalf, there were a number of subordinate Ministers entitled to become Members of th'; General Conference, and that at the Special Session in 1832 all such were, by a vote of the Gene- ral Conference, admitted to the same, and allowed to partici- pate in the procee(hngs touching the projected Union and vote thereon. This measure was adopted as being an act of justice towards those who would otherwise have been excluded, and towards the Church whose interests were so materially involv- ed. It also appeared that the General Conference assembled, as of course, once in four years only, but that the Yearly Con- ference might convene a Special Meeting if deemed expedient, and that the Meeting at Hallow^ell was of the latter kind and not one of those provided for by fixed appointment in the Dis- cipline. It was not clearly proved that all those Elders who regularly belonged to the General Conference were present. It was thought they were. But the Meeting took place suddenly, and there was no lime to summon any that were not actually pre- sent at Hallowell. — All those qualilied for Elders' orders were not present nor warned, such only as were at Hallowell attend- ing the Yearly Conference were called upon. But of the mem- bers composing such General Conference more than three fourths of the whole and of each class, i. e. of Elders regularly belong- ing to the Conference, and of those introduced as above ex- plained, concurred in tlie Resolution which then passed the Board- )erty, or as by an An- ution of the Resolutions they shall Missionary jements re- e two con- majority of I William, ftheM.E. 28, and the Bishop had t no ordina- , unless by )line in that •s entitled to that at the )f the Gene- d to partici- on and vote ct of justice eluded, and [illy involv- assenibled, f early Con- II expedient, 3r kind and ; in the Dis- ho regularly nt. It was ddenly, and ctually pre- orders were well attend- of the mem- :hree fourths irly belong- 5 above ex- passed the m It also appeared that the relinquishment of Episcopacy wa^ an indispensible preliminary to the connexion with the British Conference, as Wesley had not meditated it in England — and the protocol was submitted with a pledge of compliance in this respect— and in the 2nd article of tlie Union, the Discipline, economy, and form of Church Government in general, of the Wesleyan Methodists in England, were agreed to be introduced into the Societies in Upper Canada, and in particular an An- nual Presidency was adopted. In an explanatory note it was declared to be understood on both sides, that the provisions of that article referred to no other modifications in the economy of Methodism in Upper Canada, than those wJiich took place at that Conference, and that the Canadian J3ook of Discipline had theretofore provided for. There was a good deal of evidence received with a view tt* shew how far the Trustees named in the Deed had or had not acquiesced in the arrangement, 3 E. 215. but as their assent or dissent could not govern the main questions — namely the eilbct of that 3 M. Sc S. -188. proceeding upon the right of property in the cestuis que trusts, and how far those approvino" of the Union had or had not ceased to be members of the Church mentione. stituted with tiiat view, the defendant should succeed, for a decided mnjurity of dicm side wiUi l!ie (li.feiice ; — but if it is competent to the minority to prove that such per.sons have ceased to be Trustees, ulterior considerations must be entertained. In the event of death or secession, any one remaining Trustee would possess the estate widiout regard to the regularity of succeeding appointments, but unlike ordina- ry Trusts the legal interest is transmissa- ble to successors when vacancies occur, See the Statute and the Deed provides that the Trust 9 . Kvnaston. S East 54-3. 8 T. Pt. 35(). <> " 268, 732. Hardw. 151. 5 Bur. 2fi8l. 6D. &R. 593. iB. &C.42(). 7 " im. 7 « 311-. IM. &R.43k 3 T. R. 189. 2 East 70. 12 « 22-8. 13 « 385,367. 4 B.&C. 800-37-42 7D. &R. 267. 2 Smith 20. 6B.&C.456. 4 Bur. 2260. " 2521. Trustees ; lue-trusts : ;ht depend le Confer- ig, if con- villuii the ri become 3 two Gc- 3\vell and 1833, for )t regular 3 the Dis- requis^ite have ac- apprized al olTice, al repre- d the ad- e discus- 'ntion, as rht not to mtive re- previous )pacy.— i ^^■heth- ny steps 1} rel in- stitute a d by tJie 3 will of nd more s belong attracts C. 511. ntion to esleyan I Amer- fects of Seep 111-11(5 <' 128 79 jracl'-^al differences^ but to glean informatioii 3 Mcr. 412-15 a- c ' p ry to the construction of doubtful rules of Church Government. With like objects other Christian Churches, Episcopal and Presbyterian, should he glanced at— not to agitate theological discussions, nor to indulge a polemic ^pii-it _but to collect rays converging to the subject under con- sideration. The merits of diiTering systems in themselves are not involved, and their constituent parts are only important to exhibit their distinguishing features. 1. I would m the first place premise that where tlie Disci- pline of 1829 speaks of "Our Church," I understand a Trotes- tant sect, consisting of members Ecclesiastical and Lay, with certain known rites and doc- Discipline, see ti-ines,— deeming the sacraments of Baptism p. 11, Art. 13. and the Lord's Supper of Holy institution, and a duly ordained Ministry important in the administration, although lot made an ex- press article of faith. 2. That by Episcopacy I take to be meant, a settled form of church jzovernmont under a superintending clergy divided into a plurafity of orders, and derived from scriptural authority, which I find expressly acknowledged in tliose parts of the Discipline that prescribe the ordi- lb. nation services for Deacons, Elders, and Bish- ops I think the term is used in an extended sense, not res- trained merelv to the Head of President of the Conference, but indicatino- divers clerical orders appointed for the Christian Church, of which a Bishop is the Principal. Not a system devised merely l)v man's imagination as judicious or expedi- ent but sincerclv believed to be deduced from sacred authority. Were it obscure on this subject a perusal of the life of the emi- nent and pious AVeslev and a reference to the eai'ly rise and procrress of Methodism until the establishment of Episcopacy, and'the promulgation of the first Discipline in the American Church, would illustrate its meaning according to this inter- pretation. 3. It appears to me too, that the name used in the Disci- pline of 1829 denotes two things ; first, tha^ the Chnrch »s Episcopal, and secondly, that it is seated in Canada. 1 think that the words "in Canada" at the end had a two-fold ob- iect,— first to form part of the name drawn from the locality, and secondly, to qualify what went before— the whole import- 1 I J ! i' Ml! \\:v 80 ingthat it was not only a Methodist Episcopal Church but hat Church ,n Canada as distinct from 'the main body , ,he I rued States. The nan>e " Methodist Episcopal Ch^rin Canada" does not merely designate an isolated society of chris- tians but such a society as a portion of a more extensKe ,Z mun,ty of Metho,list Episcopalians, and the word Tn he deed" OS. b„dy,> though both oriiuatin^wim^h^t^i,;^^^^^^^ Text''' T!:r™ 'f'^T "'"' '""'^^^^' '"'-^'--^' "-^t «"" c«n- ucxion. Itistruclhoy lianisoni^e in doctrine, and a-ree in many pomts ol discipline, ia other rcs„cets they t • -imf.h h,storv of both slujuld be 'traced in tluAbtent Le^ f tl e &; JoU ^vesley, and other records of itcthodism, to comnrob™, fully the benrmgsof the p.esent controversy. <"'"'V^^^>^"d \Vbat iolUnvs will display some internal differences, notim- maena, so faras Ih.scase de-.nds upon substantial' d^inc- tions between the two conmuniitics. Tlio brief account of the origin of the Methodist Episcopal Discinline nf r ' " "''' ''«fe'i'"«ng "f the discipline shews IS^q' 5 ;r: ^;^::'y";y "''•■^ "'g'-»fted upon' that Soeie- Ib.J, p. 0. ,y, ants ue See II- Io.f„ ,""''■■""'"'='"'•='''«"■« ardswlien the super- ftlc;ie';W srin^^rtiv^ *"^ placed the ife . ley and from Wes odilru t.dT/^'al^S '^iX:: Z Am Hon" Hi^ '? ■=' '7 """■'"""" «'" ^'-'^ ^-'l' - Br^^;:s>e S^j;!^nS.'^ratdSs^ Dtscphne, p. 5. to consist of Bisl,o;,s, Elders and BeZZ', , '■'"""Sh all which orders Mr. Asburv /-1,;J tTit^ir "'^ ^^^""^ 'ay Preach.) wast tt a i .5i«w ' 81 /hurcli, but 30(ly in the Church in ety of chris- nsive corn- in the deed Discipline, lodist Epir> w the larg- stingiii«he(l 3t one con- id agi'ee in y ', and the or the Rev. omprehend 3.''j notim- J^l distinc- ■ Episcopal line shews that Socie- iglit in his tution was in its true he sacred Icfrcient in rison with It-'y's part zious fra- iti laid the thesuper- l the key- 's perfect- (radii^tinc- brcthren. lion as a Ministry, Deacons, bury (his America In England he did not pursue a similar course, nor did he at- tempt to convert his adherents there into a separate cliurch apart from the national establishment. He was a Presbyter or iield Priest's orders in that church, ard was sincerely attached to its ordinances. He superintended the British societies in person while he lived, and at his death the government devolv- ed uponi the yearly Conferences by virtue of )iis formal Dcchira- tion enrolled in Chancery, executed m ITS-t, shortly liefore his ordination of Coke to the oiTice of Superintendent in Amciica, or to the "Episcopal ollice" as it is termed in the discipline. The authority of the English yearly Conference did not result from any innate right or attribute of the Preachers, nor had it existed previous to the Declaration, further than Mr. Weeiey had been pleased to divide his power with them. History in- forms us that the first meeting was convened by liim of his own accord in I7i4 to advise upon the affairs of the societies, and explains how the Preachers gradually gained influence throu;j!i the increase of numbers and the "Tvules of future practice" from time to time adopted, and to which all conformed as bind- ing regulations. The American Conferences were formed un- der INIr. Wesley's Assistants, and became clothed with power much in the same way. Previous to the Year 1781, the English Conference was not supposed to possess in a collective capacity, and in relation to the Cliurch property, any defined character cognizable in law. .Much real estate (including Chapels, &.C..) had been conveyed to Trustees, to permit jNIr. Wesley and such others, as he should appoint, at all tixnes during his life to enjoy the use thereof, to preach and expound God's holy word — and after his death, k) permit such persons as should be appointed at the yearly Con- ference of the people called ^lethouists ; to enjoy the premises for the purpose aforesaid — and it was in order to give legal iden- tity to such Conference, that the declaration was executed. He inserted the names of 100 Preachers, and declared that lliey and their Successors, (therein provided for,) should constitute the Body, meant to be designated in the Deeds of Trust, when they spoke of the Conference of the People called Methodists. It was thus, that the English Conference first received its y?m^/ corporate or collective character, and was perpetuated ; and In whatever light Mr. Wesley's organization of a Church in America may be regarded, his arrangements for the future man- agement of the Society in England hav'3 been respected, ^nd it is said, have been allowed and maintained in Chancery,— F I V. M This " DedaraHon^^ should ba examined, for under it the So- ciety has been governed ever since his death. It shews that he dictated terms to the Conference in the capacity of Founder, and that with the Deeds of Trust it has, in relation to the Trust Estates, always operated like a law or Charter, obligatory upon ihem and all the members, and so the Discipline and "^^ecdof Trust in the case before is. — JMr. Wesley's Declaration'*?!^ year- ly recognized and forms a guide in its leading provisions, as doubtless the Minutes of the Conferences will testify. It will, however, be found upon inspection that this important docu- ment is silent on the subject of ordination, and the sacred Min- istrations. They arc not provided for as was meditated and in- tended in the American Church — and tlic omission was no doubt designed. Herein the two as claiming to be Churches difler nuiteriallv in their organization. It is well known that manv followers of the Father of Meth- odism on both sides of the Atlantic, were JNfembers of the Es- tablished Churcii, and received the Sacraments from the regu- lar clergy, and not Irom their own Preachers, unless in holy or- ders. Also, that in England he macl(^ no elTortto sun])ress the practice, or to dispense with the necessity. See his Letter of and that he only adopted another plan to- 10th Sept'r. 17S1, wards x'Vmcrica, owing to the peculiar exi- inlMoore's Life. gcncies of the occasion as set forth in his letter to Mr. Asbuiy and the American i>rethren, when he ordained Coke and others to different offices m the Ministry. The separation from the National Churrh in England was gradual and not completed until after his lieath. Lndeed up to diis day (there is good reason to believe) the P,[etf - odist Clergy m England are not required to administer the S:\- craments, nor are the laity obliged to ciccept thereof iVom tlicm in their own houses of Worship, unless both i)arties are willin,^' — it is left to voluntary choice, and any re- Ward's INIinature luctance on either side warrants forberr- of Methodism, ance. It is said that in Ireland a serious London, 1829, estrangement and division, ensued upon the p. 22-3 and()6-7. Conference sanctioning the distrihution of the Lord's Supper in their ov/n meeting- houses and by their own Preachers, although only extended to such as should be willingly disposed to receive the same, it be- ing considered an innovation upon the principles of primative Methodism. If so, such circumstances evince the delicacy of the ohange proposed here : and suggest the conscientious hesi- tation that may be felt by i\ in concurring in wha* they n a matter of spiritual conceri It has been contended, tha mode of appointing Lay Preo valentto ordination; yet the cipline preserves a marked tween Lay Preachers and i ordained to the ministry b] hands under the Superintei ed by JMr. Wesley to the E in America, and tlie succc In the present disciplin Methodist Episcopal Chun is not unlike the Moravi others in which, tho' Episc is deemed necessary, no e^ or pre-eminent authority Bishop, being governed by he presides, and to which, c tical Forum, /ic is person althouo-k the office itself \ Now the society in this P Episcopal Church, and pi was already an organized rs Ministers who received wl tliority they possessed from iient part of that church tha by a Conlbrence of such Pn was prepared lor the churcl; independent attitude it couli <^he Conferences in Upper (. in their church than belongc ierences in the United SJtate altiiough they might ly And since their printcu Dig the cue which must have k the prerogatives of the two i this case in effect include^ t General Conference could ai whole connexion, and redu without alVecting the right of the lav members. It mipht I 5 3 Adams' Reli- gious World dis- play p. 301. m i that may be felt by the present adherents to Episcopacy, icurring in wha* they may deem objectionable relaxation in tter of spiritual concern. las been contended, that Mr. Wesley's See p. 59, 62-3 iofappointing Lay Preachers was equi- Actsxiii.3. >t to ordination; yet the Episcopal Dis- " vi. f>. le preserves a marked distinction be- ^^ xiv. 23. 1 Lay Preachers and those solemnly 1 Timothy, iv. 14. lied to the ministry by imposition of 2 <' i. (i. 5 under the Superintendents dedicat- Galatians, i. 1-11. jMr. Wesley to the Episcopal office Deuteroiiomy, 34-. nerica, and the succeeding ]3ishops. the present discipline and distribution of power, the odist Episcopal Church in America •t unlike the Moravians and some s in which, tho' Episcopal ordination 'mcd necessary, no elevation of rank •e-eminent authority is allowed the >p, being governed by Synods or Conferences, at which esides, and to which, as an Ecclesias- Forum, /ic is personally amenai.Ie, 2 Alkyns ()58. u. 4SS. sociat.ons acting under written articles, the . . 1 • fl Ml r'H^ ^^■^^^''' '^'^"^^^^^^ ^'^ ^o"»J still more ricria ^md inflexible. I infer, therefore, from analogy to adiud^d cases respecting corporations and voluntary societies, that "ih^ fieneral undehned powers of internal management, allowed to administrative bodies over religious associations, should not be decnied more comprehensive than mav bo fairlv considered jjicidental and necessary to the government and well beincr of the same. And 1 do not think the General Conference caii be sustained to the extent advocated on grounds of the last kind — Vet a more extensive discretion than ordinary might have been conlen-ed by the members of the Church through the tacit adop- t.on of the Disciphne, and in this document the right claimed is supposed to be embodied. If so, it must be contained in the enaonng clause, tor the restriction and proviso, however thev Tiiny help to explain its meaning, do not, of themselves, super- I r. o, ,^ ^'''^^">' ^^""S «ff"-mative. Then, does the I yo. ^^4^-47 clause itself give, or do the restriction and pro- hM\ac\jr ''''? ^?'^ .^'; '^ ^^'^^ explanation which sup- lia!d.,^U0-4-l-6. ports the rights asserted? I believe it is a rule . uo. l4 Q7- ■'^" ' ^^''^'^ ^^'^ ^^'^"^^ view tlie proviso is taken I txon. K. 6lD. into account, and for like reasons other portions of the Discipline and c-oHntcral c'r^ cumstanccs demand attention. ■ -^ • " -^^^i ^^i 2 B. W. 259. Hob. 170. Cro. Car. 83. delegated y suicidal i integral Confer- ible, not latter to- preside. fitary as- cles, the lore rigid adjudged that the lowed to Id not be nsidered being of 3 can be kind. — Lve been 'At adop- limed is i in the /er they , super- oes tile ind pro- ch sup- s a rule ns may out ac- nonces- itations lestion- ppHca- he en- e solu- i talven other al cir- 89 In my humble opinion there was nothing in the affirmative clause calling for the first and second restrictions ; to such extent, I think the rules of law already restrained it, and had no others been imposed, it is not probable the proviso would have followed. It equally applies to several other restrictions some of which might in progress of time be found to want mod- ification or amendment: even those words in the second ("any part or rule of government ") might afterwards be thought to re- (juire alteration, without weakening or allecting the prohibition respecting Episcopacy. At best it does not seem to contemplate the total recision of those restrictions ; in terms it only speaks of their alteration, and distinguishes between doing away and altering. Most lih- erally taken it would not do more than sanction their repeal ; and if revoked, the character of restraint would be entirely lost; they would not remain altered restrictions; and, at all events, no new or allirmative Law could result from their exclusion. The power of the General Conference would consequently depend upon the enabling clause, explained by the restriction and proviso, but in connexion with the rest of the Discipline and the tenets of the Church. The members of the yearly Conference, in the United States, which compoj^ed the first Discipline in the Methodist Episco- pal Church, not being professional men, and doubting the legal eflectofthe empowering clause, may, to some necessary re- straints, have added others that the law would have raised, and the proviso may have been extended to the whole inadvertantly, or in the belief that no future Conference would be more dis- posed than themselvc-!, to disturb die settled order of the Church. The word "suflice," in this proviso, is a little remarkable, as importing a conceived previous authority in the whole, to do whatever it contemplated. Taking into view the whole Discipline, and not treating it as delusive, in many grave particulars, but attributing to those who penned it and to those who adopted it, religious sincerity in the premises, I cannot collect that the real spirit and intention of the general enabling clause sanctioned the relinquishment of Episcopacy, as comprehended in the rules and regulations for the Church, thereby authorized to be made. It does not ap- pear to me to constitute properly a rule or regulation for the Church, but a radical change in a constituent portion of the Church itself, and incompatibie with the principles upon which the Society originally acquired the character of a Church, not i- I li #i#>' t 1 < 5 f Wl cfnly in the system of government, but in the appointments and functions of its ministry. > rx. . V nn The admission of divers orders to be or- Disciphne 23, , . ■ i -n- u wu -^ •*• ii i • 111 1 ir 10Q darned by Jiishops with imposition ot hands in ' > '" • the language set forth in the eloquent and im- pressive prayers for the ordination services — the general siiper- intendency of consecrated Bishops, and the scope of the disci- plinary provisions throughout appear to me to forbid the in- ference. I gather from thence that Episcopacy may be es- teemed by many members of that Church upon two grounds : — First, as a judicious plan of mere church gov^ernment, and Se- condly, as of scriptural appointment, and peculiarly important in relation to the sacred ministrations : and I cannot say that those who adhe ■ to such a system have not a legal right to be secured in the ^.'-^' ^ ^Vj^^"^ PhotoOTaphic Scmces Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ,-\ (V <^ 2, 273, lifrlous worship, or the teaching of such lb. 41 1-2-4-13. particular doctrines as the founder has thought nost conformable to the princi])Ies of the christian re- ligion, I do not apprehend that it is in the power of in•—<- J- i;vin r;, nion in SUoUvcU ..v. Hondrick son -s, Decmv 27, il,rcrieb.-atecl Quaker case involving a consulera^i,... of ti.e dm- n 1 t'vveen the Orthodox Quaker, and the Hirks.tes.-He Iv^ «; are notto interfere with their church government any S^n Willi their modes of faith and wordup. We are to vp^oect their Institutions and sustam them. ' Tdow 16 Lord Eklon says « The Court may take not.ce of religious opinions as facts, pointing out the ownership ofp.o- P"J'llw'VloLs P.-l J. S. W. 24.8.-3 Mer. 419.-7 Sergt. & kavvi; 4.66.-Field vs. Field calle.l the Purchase Case ^fe'lI^-Ts^'t'pon the clause respecting the desertion orremovkoFany ofthe Trustees which occu,. m th,s Deed aLot^nd conteiiplates the event that "the Trustees m.ght r Ln-^e or become of any other religion (by providmK [P; ■'62. ^nsfthatvvhen and as often as any of the Trustees should die, : di t r feakt the said congregation, and ^^^^ become of any other religion or persuasion ^^;^^^J^«'^;^\^°" ^^^^ to, and different from the said congregation, the U^ suiv ing or other Trustees &c., within days aftei such dcatli, or A^"L &c., appoint others" &c.) I must observe that if ^h; queTtion c^mes before the court in the execution of a Trus whether a Trustee has been properly removed, and that pom depend upon the qviestion whether the Trustee has changed W^reU ioT and becUe of another different fi-m the rel^ion of the rest of the Society, it must be ex necesttatc c, *e court to ennuire, what was the religion and worship of the bociety trom S he is said to have seceded, not for the Purpo^e ofammad- verting upon it, but in order to ascertain whether or not the charge is substantiated, &c. „„~„-nv 3M.&S.4.88. Where several Pf so^^ ff^f ^ ^"f "^ Davis ) for Brewing Ale, and entered into a Deed b; vs. ( which it was agreed that the conduct of the busi- Hawkins. ^ness should be confided to two pe'-s«n^J\"g °^ trade carried on in their names; should be Trustees and bring actions &c.;that a Committee should be appmnkdmthpmerto mak,. rules, orders, and By-Laws, subject to ^^fj^^^^^^^l maiority of the proprietors at a gcneiai i...,.^~!!.b7 hnlHpn ral meeting of the members of the Company should be holden every quarter.-Also that the Directors, for the time being, Pi .shoMi migM have made a ditlbrencc. 15 Vez. Ur. 88-234,— S V. & B. 151-8—4 B. & C. 79^- S"^' ■''.' i\R.575. G46. ■^uon confined to the subject r,^ renders of secondary impo: • '^\ ovver delegated to tlie Briti-ii . ^^'- touching the Presidenc , Were it necessary to express an opinion on that head, I am d's-^ posed to think it was not in the discretion of thn General Coa- ference to subject the office to another Jurisdiction, so as >-* place the right of electing the Head of the Churcli whicli t - longed to themselves by the terms of the Discipline, in ti.o hands of another Body with which the Church had not enjoy..-..' any previous inter-communion or immediate connexion. A as little would it seem justifiable in the same Conference merge its own existence in a new yearly Conference difierem constituted. 13 East 368. 3 Bur. 1831. 4 « 2524.. 2 Inst. 597. In addition to the foregoing, we intended giving the opinion . . Judge Sherwood, on the same case ; but the paper containivi,; it having been mislayed or lost, we are unable to do so. Publisher's Note .—Notwithstanding the care taken issue this work free of mistakes, several t}T)ographical errM-'s have escaped our notice.— Page 52, 7th line, for John '?'. Byan, read John W. Bynm.^Vw. 22, Slsl line, should re... *} said (, tmcnt oi, tutloii of )nsent ot' tilted ai II, and !. knew ti;* ppointti 'ihers^ i' C. 79(,'- ibject '7i' inipo- c Britisi) sidcnc " , am d's ■ al Coa- 30 as ',' i hicli I - in tiM- enjoyt.-inion uf ntaini' u iken 1 errt'r's 4^ -lid read