Kwm Ma IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 4,- 1.0 I.I 1.25 Ui|2£ 2.5 1^ 12.2 1^ HI 2.0 1.8 U IIIIII.6 V] <^ (^ /i ^^ -V V 'V' 7: /^ W V \ iV •N? \\ ^^^^"^ ;\ ^-b^; <^ ^5. CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical Notes / Notes techniques The institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Physical features of this copy which may alter any of the images in the reproduction are checked below. n Coloured covers/ Couvertures de couleur L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Certains difauts susceptibles de nuire it la qualit6 de la reproduction sont not6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Tl P< of fii CG or ap D Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur D Coloured plates/ Planches en couleur Th fii in! □ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcoiordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es Tight binding (may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin)/ Reliure serr6 (peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de If) marge intdrieure) D D Show through/ Transparence Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Mi in up bo fol D Additional comments/ Commentaires suppldmentaires Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques D D D Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque n Pagination incorrect/ Erreurs de pagination Pages missing/ Des pages manquent Maps missing/ Des cartes gdographiques manquent D Plates missing/ Des planches manquent D Additional comments/ Commentaires suppldmentaires 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. The last recorded frame on each micrcfiche shall contain the symbol —►(meaning CONTINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. The original copy was borrowed from, and filmed with, the kind consent of the following institution: Library of the Public Archives of Canada Maps or plates 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 images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de le condition et de la nettet6 de I'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Un des symboles suivants apparaTtra sur la der- nidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la gdn^rositd de l'6tablissement prdteur suivant : La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour dtre reproduites en un seul clich6 sont filmdes d partir de Tangle supdrieure gauche, de gauche d droite et de haut en bas, en prenant le norr bre d'images ndcessaire. Le diagramme suivani illustre la mdthode : 1 2 3 ■ 1 2 3 4 5 6 M THE 'EXPOS ITI()^^" EXPOUNDED f»EFE?fDED, ANL SlIPPLEMENTEJ). BY ITS AUTHOR, KEV. JOHN OARP.OLL, D.I), " What hax^e I now done? h there not a cause ?'•-! Samuel xvii. 2», TORONTO : METHODIST Book and Pui.LisHrxG H(^usr, 78 & 80 Kino Stuket East. 1881. il ORIGINAL TITLE OF THE NEEDED EXPOSITION; OR, The Claims and Allegations of the Canada Epis- copals calmly consideiikd, by one of the reputed " Secedeks" (JOHN CAPvKOLL). " And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me to be king over you, then come and put your trust in my sha Bangs, ■ in the ;i- ; and Metlio- orant of to true I in Eug- .isoopal applied, which terence, ed ; and t ot the ■ejudices )i'eacher equest, 815—1 States. sh niis- for its /^esleyan he Rev. Wra. Brown, the appointee of the Genesee Conference, with the minority who adhered to liim, was forced to set up wor- ship in a temporary place ; and there were two sections of Methodism in that city until the arrangement between the British and American connexions took place in 1820. Soon after, other British missionaries arrived, and took up the vacated St. Francis country and all accessible places in the eastern townships. In 181 G, the Rev. Messrs. Black and Bennett, from Nova Scotia, Vjy authority of the British Con- ference, attended the American General Coiiference, which sat in Baltimore in the month of May of that year, and met the two representatives of the Canada work, in the persons of the Rev. Messrs. Ryan and Case. The delibera- tions in the General Confeience led to such a representation to the authorities of the British Connexion as drew forth a letter of instructions from the Missionary Secretaries to their missionaries in Canada, cautioning them from trenching on the stations occupied by the appointees of the American Church, and against occupying their chapels. Now tiiis pro- ceeding is proof that these two Connexions regarded each other, reciprocally, as co-ordinsite. Nevertlieless, ujion one plea and another, by 1820, Wesleyan Methodist ministers had been stationed along the St. Lawrence from Cornwall to Prescott ; at Kingston and along the Bay of Quinte; and at length, Niagara and York received European preachers and possessed Wesleyan societies. In 1820, an interchange of Delegates took place between the British and American General Conferences, and tlie fol- lowing a^'vangement was agreed to : — Mr. Wesley's original maxim, uttered at the formation of the American Methodist Chuich, that " the Methodists ave one people in all the world," was re-alHrmed ; * and that. Lot and A braham-like, *The Rev. John Wesley, in a letter to the Rev. E. Cooper, only 16 one was to "'go to the right hand and the other to the left." Tlie British missionaries were to be witlidrawn from Upper Canada and the American hiborers from Lower Canada.* Nevertheless, there were many in Upper Canada of Methodist proclivities and name wh® lihrauk from a connec- tion with American Methodism from national prejudice and other reasons ; and either refused to unite in the societies governed from that side of the line, or agitated, more or less, for a separation from under American jurisdiction. As some measure of concession to this feeling, by the authority of the immediately preceding General Conference, the "Canada Annual Conference" was organized in 1824, which took place in H dlowell, August 25th of that year. Gradually those mosl conservative of American connec- tion united with the others in asking the American General Conference for a peacable separation, which was granted May, 1828. And it was agreed that if the Canadians organ- ized an Episcopal Church, tliat one of their bisiiops should be permitted to come over and ordain the first bishop, when elected. At the next meeting of the d ada Annual Conference, which took place in the ensuing October, in Switzer's Chapel, Earnestown, independency was assumed, and " The twenty-nine days before his death, uttered this admonition : — " See that you never give place to one thought of separating from your brethren in Europe. Lose no opportunity of declaring to all men, that the Methodists are one people in all the world, and that it is their full determination so to continue, — " Though mountains rise and oceans roll, To sever us in vain ! " * Resolution of Liverpool Conference, 1820: — "The Conference embraces this opportunity of recognizing that great principle which, it is hoped, will be prominently maintained — ' That the WesUyan Methodists are one body in every part of the world.' " 17 Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada " was organized. The particuhirs in which it differed from the parent one in the States were tlie following : There heing, as yet, only one Annual Conference, the General Conference, instead of being composed of delegates by election, should consist " of all travelling elders wh^ had travelled four full calendar years last past and had been received into full connexion.* This cut off local elders, of course, as they were not in connection with the Conference of itinerants at all. Another marked difl'erence between the Canadian and American Dihcii)line was the " Sixth Restriction " on the legislative action of the General Conference. At the Conference when the Canadian Church was organ- ized, a Committee was appointed ti> corresiiond with the Parent Connexion in England, and to inform the British Wesleyan Conference officially of the formation of such a * The literal wording of this clause cut off those travelling elders from a seat in the General Conference who had graduated to elder's orders, and even served the Connexion many yeais, it they had been forced to locate, it might be for only a year, and had not resumed their place in the Travelling Connexion early enough to make "four full years last past " before such General Conference, although they might be among the ablest and wisest ministers in the Connex- ion ; so also it might have been construed to exclude sujerannuated elders, no matter how long their services, how active soever in mind, or how desiralile their long and thorough experience might be in that legislative body ; for though they wore travelling preachers in the technical sense, as contradistinguished from " local preachers," yet in point of reality they had not travelled on a circuit. The manifest unwisdom and injustice of excluding these two classes was seen upon reliection; therefore at the hrst meeting of the General Conference, held in Belleville in 1830, all beyond the clause " travelling elders " was stricken out, so that all elders in the Travelling Connexion had a seat in the legislative body. This was two years before the Union was proposed. And when that measure was under consideration, another omission was found to do a great injustice to a large number 18 Church, which Committee, however, failed to perform the duty assigned it. In default of that, after some time, the Rev. Egorton ilyerson, the Secretary of the General Con- ference and Editor of the Guardian, opened a correspondence with the senior Missionary Secretary in London, the Kev. Kichard Watson, but there was no nearer intimacy. No less than three episcopal were elected hy the General Conference of the new Church during the five years of its existence, but from one cause and another no bishop was consecrated. The Rev. Wm. Case was elected by the General Conference as *' General Superintendent," and each succeed- ing Annual Conference elected him to occupy its Presidential Chair. II. — The Circumstances which led to the Blending of THE British and Canadian Methodist Churches to BE thought of. During the four years of the existence of the Canada Church — that is to say, from 1828 to 1832 — the members in the Canadian society greatly increased, and the work of of ministers. As soon as a preacher was received into full connexion, after his two years' probation, ho could enter on the deliberations and vote in the Annual Conference, as it was not ordination but ser- vice and experience which prepared him to take a part in its ileliber- ations. By the same analogy, when a preacher had travelled four years and was elected to elders' orders, though not yet ordained, he had the true qualification for sitting and deliberating in the General Conference. If construed otherwise, it would have been a great wrong to some of the ablest ministers of the boily, and a great loss to the body itself. If we may anticipate, tb^re were fourteen bre- thren, at least, in this condition in 1832, when the changes necessary to the legality of the Union measure were submitted to a special meeting of the General Conference. These were the following very capable men: — Alvah Adams, Cyrus R. Allison, J(jhi) S. Attwood, John Beatty, Hamilton Biggar, John C. Davidson, Ephraim Evans, Asahel Hurlburt, Richard Jones, Peter Jones (Indian), James Norris 19 prfona the le time, the »neral Con- es|)oii(lence 11, the Rev. .cy. he General rtiivs of its bishop was ;he Groneral Lch suoceed- J'residential LENDING OF iURCHES TO he Canada e members he work of 11 connexion, leliberations ttion but ser- a its (leliber- a veiled four ordained, he the General een a great a great loss urteen bre- es necessary to a special owing very S. Attwood, raim Evans, imes Norris ■i ■ vangelization among the aborigines of the country was so irodigiously extended, that the lack of funds to foHow up he oponings and to mature the missions already planted, by translations, schools, churches, ifec, was greatly felt. Appeals had beevi made to the Methodists of the United States, and very considerable sums had been kindly given ; yet the funds were inadt;quate to the work reipiired to be done. As another resource, in the spring of 1831, that distinguished Indian })reaclier, Kah-ke-ioa-qiion-a-hu, or lie v. Peter Jones, was despatched by the Canadian missionary aufchoritie.s to the ^lother Country — the pjritish Isles — to make an appeal for aid. This led the brethren in England to thiuk that they were now called to enter this field also, especially as t'ley believed that they were released from their pledge to the Gei;erai Conference to vacate the Ujjper Pi-ovinco, by the Upper Canada Methodists having })assed from under the jurisdiction of that Conference. Accordingly, in 1832, one of their Missionary Secretaries, Richard Phelps, George Poole, and William Smith. The specitic pur- Ipose for which the General Conference was convoked was to receive the necessary three-fourtha majority tor the altering the 8ec(>nil " Restriction," which prohibited the "dning away with Episcopacy," '(page IS,) EMer Case, the General Suporiiitendent, having refused to even put the motion nntil the Restriction was constitiitioually re- nioved. But before that vote was put, the composition of the Gen- eral Conference itself was deteruiiued, and the niembership of the General Conference was made to consist — by legal vote of the then undisputed mimV»ers,^of all the "travelling elders and e'dcrs I elect," This gave the brethren above nam- d a seat, and a more than three-fourths vote was rec ivtd for re uoving the Second liestriction. These changes were preserved in the MS. Journals, but there being no M. E. Discipline pub'ished later than 1829, the latest changes do I not appear therein. The reason for there being so many ciders elect I was this ; the Church, although Episcopal in name, had no bishop to ordain them, nor ever had. The " doing away " with what never existed, except on paper, was more a Hction than reality. 20 the Rev. Robert Alder, acconi})Hnie(l by Home of their colo- nial ministers, wns sent to explore the country, to see what parts of it were unsuj)plied with Methodist ministrations. Coming to York (now Toronto), where a small Weslei/an cause in an irregular way had been started, fearing strife and division if rival societies were permitted to multiply, the Missionary Board of the Canada Church, consisting of a large preponderance of laymen, invited Mr. Alder to meet them, and requested him to remain until the ensuing session of the Canada Conference, to see if some method could not be devised by which the British and Provincial Methodist bodies miglit labor in concert — a proof, by the way, that no intelligent Methodist of that day ever dreamed that there was any essential difference between the two Churches which would make the transmutation of the one form into the other occasion the loss of its identity. [Mr. Perritt labors hard, on pages 9, 10 and 11, to refute what I have said about " the lack of funds to follow up the openings and to mature the missions already planted," &c. (not as he has me saying, " lack of means to carry on the work," which is considerably different), *' was greatly felt," after all suj)plies from the United States, led "in the Spring of 1831" to the "dispatch of tliat distinguished Indian preacher, Kah-ke-wa-quon-a-by , Rev. Peter J ones, by the Canadian Mis- sionary authorities, to the Mother Country — the British Isles — to make an appeal for aid, which led the brethren in England to think that they were now called to enter this fteld also." Mr. Jones' visit to England for such a purpose is a matter of undeniable history. Mr. Perritt ignores it ; will he dare to deny it ? Of course, when it was found that Mr. Jones' begging mission was about to be made the justification for setting up rival Missionary operations,the Canada Methodist authorities endeavored to show the Wesleyan Missionary 21 Secretaries that our straits were not so groat as to warrant their intrusion u])on ground which naturally belonged to us, wliich intention would be sure to be devisive. But finding from Mr. Alder such a course of action was determined on by them, the Missionary Board in York did address the en- suing Annual Conference in Hallowell on the expediency of organized co-operation between the two bodies, as the only means of preventing unpleasant collision. Because a grant from the British Conference to our Contingent Fund, similar to that annually paid to the Irish Conference, was spoken of, therefore my opponent asserts the prospect of a Government grant was the motive which induced the Canada authorities to urge on the Union. And if he were not ignorant of the facts of history, or designedly oblivious of them, he might know that no one in Canada knew of the offer of any such grant being made to the Wesleyan authori- ties till a full year afterwards. While our delegate was in England negotiating the Union, it was disclosed V)y the Rev. John Barry, in a discussion which sprung up between him and the Rev. James Richardson, then Editor of the Guardian. No ; had that circumstance been then known, for several reasons I might assign, it would have been more likely to have quashed the Union measures alto- gether. But as to a grant from the British Contingent Fund, what was more natural or righteous than that, as they wore to become partners in the work, the British Con- nexion should incur a part of the expense ?] III. — A Detail of the Unifying Process. The Rev. Mr. Alder complied with the request above re- ferred to, and made his appearance timely at Hallowell, the seat of the Conference, in the month of August, 1832, accom- panied by the Wesleyan Missionary from the town of ing- 22 ston, which phace had retained a preacher from the British Conforence Vom tlie first, despite the arrr.ngenient of 1820 5 this was the llev. John P. Hetherington. The memorial of the Canada ISIissionary Board to the Conference was read, and after much fiiendly consultation, in which the repre- sentative of the British Conference took part, a committee of nine of tlie most eai)aLlo and experienced members of the Conference was appointed, who re[)orted Preliminary Arti- cles of U'.iion between the two Conferences, which, after some discussion on some of the details, were adopted by large majorities, and a Delegate was appointed to carry them to the British Conference the following summer of 1833. The Rev. Egerton Ryerson was the representative elected, with the Rev. James Richardson as the reserve, or substitute, in the event of Mr. Ryerson being prevented from going. These were the same, in all substantial respects, as those finally adopted (which I herewith produce), finally endorsed by the two Conferences : — Articles of Union between the British Wesleyan Methodist Conference and the Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Canada. The English Wesleyan Conference, concurring in the coramuni'^ation of the Canadian Conference, and deprecat- ing the evils which might arise from collision, and believing that the cause of religion generally, and the interests of Methodism in particular, would, under the blessing of God, be greatly ])romoted by the united exertions of the two Connexions ; considering also, that the two Bodies concur in holding the doctrines of Methodism as contained in the notes of Mr. Wesley on the New Testament, and in his four volumes of Sermons, do agree in adoption of the following Resolutions : — lli 23 I. — That such a union between the EngliHh Wesleyan and Canadian Connexions as shall piesei've inviolate the rights and privileges of the Canadian preachers and societies on the one hand, and on the other shall feecure the funds of the English Coiifereuje against any claims on the })art of the Canadian prcacliers, is highly important and desirable. 11. — That (as pro[»osed in the second and third Resolu- tions of the Canadian Conference), in order to ell'ect this object, the Discipline, Economy, and form of Church Gov- ernment in general of the Wesleyan Methodists in England be introduced into the societies in U[)per Canada, and that in particular an Annual Presidenc} e adop.'^jcl.* [Mr. P., following the example of the captiousness and special pleading which characterized nearly every part of the argument against the Union measure, nibbles at the mat- ter of bringing in those who had earned a claim to the elder- ship by long services (notwithstanding the constitutional manner in which it was effected) to deliberate and vote on the Union question, a measure which was enacted in the spirit of justice and fair play to a class of men who had " purchased to themselves a good degree," as also to the true interests of the Church. It is hard to restrain one's indigna- tion when such an uncandid quibble is employed avowedly in opposition to tyranny ! How was the mere accident o^ the imposition of a bishop's hands to confer the wisdom and right to deliberate 1] III. — That the usages of the English Conference, in refer- ence to the probation, examination, and admission of candi- dates into the itinerant ministry, be adopted. *Thi3 is understood both by the Canadian Conference and the re- presentatives from the British Conference, to refer to no other m fications in the economy of Methodism in Upper Canada tlian those which have taken place at this Conference, and that the Canadian Book oi Discipline has heretofore provided for. 24 TV. — That preachers who have travelled the usual term of prcbation and are accepted by the Canadian Conference shall be ordained by the imposition of the hands of the President, and of three or more of the senior preachers, ac- cording to the form contained in Mr. Wesley's " Sunday Morning Service of the Methodists," by which the Wesleyan missionaries in England are ordained, and which is the same as the form of ordaining Elders in the Discipline of the Canadian Conference. V. — That the English Conference shall have authority to send, from year to year, one of its own body to preside over the Canadian Conference ; but the same person shall not be appointed oftener than once in four years, unless at the re- quest of the Canadian Conference. — When the English Con- ference does not send a President from England, the Cana- dian Conference shall, on its assembling, choose one of its own members. The proposal of the Canadian Conference is understood to include, as a matter of course, that the President of the Co iference shall exercise the same functions generally as the present General Superintendent now actually exercises ; he shall not, however, have authority to appoint any preacher to any Circuit or Station contrary to the counsel and advice of a majority of the Chairmen of Districts or Presiding Elders associated with him as a Stationing Committee. VI. — That the missions among the Indian tribes and des- titute settlers which are now, or may be hereafter, estab- lished in Upper Canada, shall be regarded as missions of the English Wesleyan Missionary Society, under the follow- ing regulations : — First. —The Parent Committee in London shall determine the amount to be applied annually to the support and ex- tension of the missions ; and this sum shall be distributed 4,: ' 25 by a Committee, consisting of a President, General Superin- tendent of the Missions, the Chairmen of Districts, and seven other persons appointed by the Canadian Conference. A standing Board or Committee, consisting of an equal num- ber of preachers and laymen, shall moreover be appointed, as heretofore, at every Conference, which, during the year, shall have authority, in concurrence with the General Superintendent of Missions, to a[)ply any moneys granted by the Parent Committee, and not distributed by the Con- ference, in establishing new missions among the heathen, and otherv ^se promotiuijf the missionary work. Second. — The Methodist Missionary Society in Upper Curada shall be auxiliary to the English Wesleyan Mission- ary Society, and the money raised by it shall be paid into the funds of the Parent Society. Third. — The missionaries shall be stationed at the Canada Conference in the same way aa the other preachers ; with this proviso, however, that the General Superintendent of Missions shall be associated with the President and Chairmen of Districts in their appointment. Fourth. — All the preachers who may be sent from this country into the work in Upi)er Canada, shall be members of the Canadian Conference, and shall be placed under the same Discipline, and be entitled to the same rights and privileges as the native preachers.* Fifth. — Instead of having the Annual Stations of the missionaries sent home to the English Missionary Committee and Conference for their ** sanction," as is the case with our * The unlerstanding of this Article is, that the Canadian Confer- ence shall employ such young men in Upper Canada as they may ju(1g-» are called of God into the itinerant work ; but should not a Bufficient number be found in Upper Canada properly qualified, the British Conference will send out as many young men from England as may be requested by the Canadian Conference. 9 26 missions generally, and as the Canadian Conference have proposed, tlie English Conference shall appoint, and the Parent Committee sliall meet the expense of supporting a General Su})erintendent of Missions, who, as the Agent of the Committee, shall have the same superintendence of the Mission Stations as the Chairmen of Districts, or Presiding Elders, exercise over the circuits in their respective districts, and shall })ay the missionaries their allowance as determined by the Conference jNIissionary Committee, on the same scale as the Canadian Book of Discipline lays down for the preachers on the regular circuits ; — but who, being at the same time recognized as a member of the Canadian Confer- ence, shall be accountable to it in regard of his religious and moral conduct. This General Superintendent of Missions, representing the Parent Committee in the Canadian Confer- ence, and in the Stationing and Missionary Committees, the appointments of the missionaries at the Conference shall be tinal. VII. — That the Canadian Conference, in legislating for its owji members, or the Connexion at large, shall not at any time make any rule or introdiice any regulation which shall infringe these Articles of Agreement between the two Conferences. Signed, by order and on behalf of the Conference, Richard Trkffry, President. Edmund Grindrod, Secretary. Manchester, Aiigtist 7th, 1833. Resolved, — That the Canadian Conference cordially con- curs in the Resolutions of the British Conference, dated " Manchester, August 7th, 1833," as the basis of Union be- tween the two Conferences. Egerton Ryerson, Secretary. York, C. C, October 2nd, 1833. 27 The projected arrangement had been freely discussed in the organ of the Connexion from the time of Mr, Alder's visit to York till the Conference, and the result was a vast con- course of visitors to the seat oi' the Conference, to whom the doors were thrown open to hear the deliberations — a proceed- ing then very unusual. And 1 don't remember to have heard myself, or heard of, a single objection among the assembled laity or local preachers to the measures proposed. Ther: certainly were no petitions against them, or outside pressure of any kind. And I remember distinctly, that Mr. John Reynolds, afterwards bishop of the rival organization, seemed well enough i)leased, and said, that " if there were any things proposed which conflicted with the rights of his order or of the laity, he would have his say when those measures were laid before the Quarterly Conferences." He made no objection to the surrender ol" Episcopacij itself, but, as I shall have the means of proving hereafter by sworn testimony, he was glad that we were about to " get from undfr the heavy hand of a bishop," as he was pleased to l)hrase it. The Canada Conference was purposely a2)i)ointed to sit two months later than usual the ensuing year (1833), to give time tor the return of the Delegate from the British Confer- ence, which sat in August of that year. The proposals of the Canada Conference, as we have anti- cipated, were substantially affirmed by the British Confer- ence, and two eminent members of that body accompanied the Canada delegate on his return to the Province, to repre- sent the views of the British Conference and to till important posts in the Canadian Connexion, in the event of the Articles of Union being finally adopted by the Canada Con- ference. These ministers wei*e the Revs. George Marsden and Joseph fStiiison. 28 There was some little inquiry and discussion on some of the details, but the Articles as a whole, upon the urgent re- commendation of the Rev. James Richardson, were unani- mously adopted by a rising vote, the venerable Thomas Whitehead alone demurring ; yet he did it in such a way as to create a laugh, and to leave the impression that he intended it as a joke, for the venerable Superintendent, Rtv. Wm. Case, juonounced the vote "unanimous," and no one more cordially co-operated than Mr. Whitehead himself. One aged man, who had stickled very much for the con- tinuance of Episcopacy, did not vote, but withdrew rather than spoil the unanimity of the vote. I had all along thought that Mr. Gatchel did not from the iirst intend to concur, but I am now thoroughly convinced that at that time, and for many months after, he had no intention of placing himself in opposition, much less of creating a rival party ; and my reasons for it are these : he made no dis- claimer, — he entered no protest, — nor did he forbid the con- tinuance of his name on the journals and in the minutes, but laboured during the next Conference year in holding special services, &c., raising collections for the Superan- nuated Ministers' Fund, which he credited against his own claim, and received the balance from the Stewards of Con- ference (as much as any other claimant). But my strongest reason is a fact brought to my knowledge only within a few days : he and the now very aged Rev. Robert Corson were fellow-lodgers during the Conference of 1833. Here is Mr. Corson's testimony, which has been in i)riri now about thirty-five years and never contradicted, and Mr Cor- son is still living,* to be questioned if any one is curious. Mr. Corson said iu a letter to the Rev. C. R. Allison, who made use of it in a printed discussion, in 1842 : — "He" (Mr. * Mr. Corsou was living when the fint edition was issued, but is siuce deceased. i I 29 peran- is own Con- angest lin a lorson Here now Coi- rious. who Gatchel) " said to me, * that, although he felt opposed to the Union in some degree, yet he should go with the Confer- ence.'" When the measure was finally carried, Mr. Marsden as- sumed the Presidental Chair, Rev. Wni. Case having vacated it, and conducted the routine business of that session ; but, much to the regret of ministers and meuibers, he returned to his duties in England at its close. Mr. Stinson remained in the country, and became the " Superintendent of Mis- sions," according to one of the provisions of the Sixth Article of Union, a position which involved duties all the year round. [Mr. Perritt, on page 31, makes an objection to the legality of the Conference which finally afiirmed the Union measure, with all the changes involved therein, which at first sight seems to be legally formidable, albeit it stood a search- ing process at civil law. He says that, notwithstanding the unanimity with which the question was carried, it was the *' Annual (conference," and not the " General Conference," to whom the final ratification of the Union was submitted and who carried it. But he conceals from his readers (and l»erhap3 from himself) that all the changes had been passed by the technical General Conference more than a year be- fore, which bound the Conference in honor to afiirm them now they had been accepted by the British Conference. Secondly, according to the Discipline of 1832, the Annual Conference necessarily included the General Conference ; tor " all the elders and elders elect" which made up the General Conference, were also members of the Annual Conference. Thirdly, all who oted on the Union nieasiire in 1833 had served the time required to make them elders, and, of course, members of the General Confer- ence. But the truth is, the General Conference, as such, 30 in contradistinction to the Annual Conference, had passed out of existence by its own deliberate, constitutional vote more than a year before.*] Just here I may present — IV. — CONSIDERATrONS WHICH PrKVAILKIJ WITH THK MEM- BERS OF Conference to Concur in this Union. 1st. As tlioroughly informed in Methodist views, they were entirely persuaded of the co-ordinate character of the two bodies as demonsti-ated by the recijirocal recognition of each other by the British and American Connexions from their earliest history. 2nd. Their love of the English Connexion as British, they all being British sui)jects themselves ; no less than twenty- one out of the sixty being of the British Isles by birth, and largely by education : more than a dozen of them had been brought to God by that form of Methodism which they were now accepting. 3rd. They were aware that a larger proportion of the mem- bers of the Church were Old Counti-ymen with Old Country sympathies, and that hundreds on hundreds of these had been converted by the instrumentality of Old Counlry Methodism, who .were delighted at the thought of being re- united to their s])iritual relatives by a closer tie than of late years. 4th. They saw that the Articles of Union propounded guaranteed them against any interference with the rights of themselves or the members of the Church, 5th. They knew, by what had passed under their own eyes, that all the changes made had been legally and constitution- * Since writing tho above, I havo read over once more the "Opinion" of Chief Justice Eobinson, in which he twi(!e calls the Oinferenee of 1833, which tinally affirmed Uv Union measure, a "ticneral Con- ference," showing that the sworn testimony brought before him proved tliat all tlie proceedings had been perfectly regular. 31 ally effected ; and they believed that many of the changes were for tlie better. 6th. jVs to the E})iscopacy, they remembered that we had no experience of a Provincial one, and the j)eople had little knowledge of, or care about, a bishop. The Conference had failed in all its attempts to secure one, and the ministers be- gan to suspect that God had purposely set us free from his jurisdiction. They knew it would be a responsible and hard matter to settle if we were shut up to Canadian expectants. The life-long Episcopacy, they knew, would be anex{)ensive institu^^ion, and an Annual Presidency could perform all the functions and duties as well. 7th. But it was a very persuasive motive with most of them, that we should now be stronger in men and means for carrying on our work among the Indians. 8th. The ahsence. of any declared ojipos'dlon from the peo- ple between the Conference o/ 18.32 and that o/1833,* but a * My reviewer impeaches my veracity for making the statement I have in the lines which, in this edition, I have put in italics ; and enumerates several meetings held in the western part of the country in opposition to the Union, prospective and accomplished. It may have been that there was something of that kind. As I was down on the Ottawa, I knew not of them. 1 am certain that no ac- count of them, or reference to them, appeared in the Guardian, and no remonstrance or petition of an adverse character came before either the Conference of 1832 or 18.3.3. True, Mr. Perritt ascribes their non-appearance to llev. Wm. Case'a (the President) fiilure to present them to the Conference, and the refusal of the Editor of the Guardian to admit them in its columns. The action ascribed to Elder Case is hard to believe ; for he was opposed to the Union at the time of its inception, calling another to the chair at an early hour of the Halloweli Conference, and going on the floor in order to join the debate against it ; and as to the refusal of the Guardian's columns, it would be strange indeed if any thing of that kind was done, at least during the years I83'2-33, while the Union \ 32 great deal that was of the opposite character, during that period, influenced the final vote to a great degree. We have seen that a vast number of private and otUcial members were at the inception of the measure, and all were rather favour- able than otherwise. The Presiding Elders were requested to make pa''icular inquiry throughout their r(.'Sj)ective dis- tricts, between the Conference of 1832 and the time of the Delegate's leaving in tho early spring of 1833, relative to the state of feeling on tho subject of the pros{)ective Union, yet no report adverse was made, but rather the reverse. Some ofthe.se letters were published iu the Guardian, and no contradiction given. As the Canada Church was planted by the American Connexion, great respect was held for the Oj)inion of its leading authorities : some of these the Dele- gate took upon him to consult in New York pn his way to England, and he wrote, on the eve of sailing for Europe, as followa : — " I stayed with Dr. Fisk all night and a part of two days. He was unreserved in his communications, and is in favor of the object of our mission, fvs were Bro. Waugh, Dr. Bangs, Durbin, &c. I have conversed with was pending, the Kev. Jarnea Richardson being the Editor, who at first wasj in nowise enthusiastic about tho Union. At any rate, these niovenieuta ould not have been of much account. At the time of writing tbe above, I ha'i overlooked tho paragraph which Mr. Perritt professes to quote from the Guardian, in which the Editor adcnowledged that he rcfitxed to admit some communica- tion agamst the Union measure. Although it is iu marks of quota- tion, he does not tell us from what volume and number of the Guar- dian ho extracted it, or from what other source he obtained it, and therefore I cannot say whether it is real or fictitious (I would hope he is not capable of inventing it); but, in all truth, I have not the least recollection of seeing it before. It may have some foundation, for editors of ten exercise their discretionary power to exclude. They have several times exercised it ou me. But it does not aflfect the c^uestion much. 33 them all, and they seem to approve fully of the proceofHngs of our Conference." Thei'e was not a single petition pre- stmted to the Conference of 1833 against the measure be- fore it. [Mr. Perritt's statements in hiw "Vindication," on pages 13 and 14, will render it necessary for me to append an- other paragraph or two to this section of my tract in the present edition. S[)eaking as though all ho was about to allege took place before the Union was finally consum- mated in 1833, he says : — " Not only was there strong opposition to the proposed Union, because of the changes made in the government of the Church, but there was very general and widespread dis- satisfaction from another cause. It was well known that the Union involved the surrender of what was called the voluntary principle for the support and spread of religious institutions — a principle to which the Methodists were warmly attached, and on which they entirely relied for }"pport. " By the proposed Union the Canada Conference was re- (pured not only to renounce this cherished principle, but positively adopt and defend * tJiat principle oj" the parent body which maintains that it is the duty of civil governments to employ their influence, and a portion of their resources, /or the support of tlie Christian religion.' That this produced agitation and intense excitement throughout the whole Church, no one will dare deny. This fact is established be- yond controversy by the testimony of Revs. Ephraim Evans, James Richrrdson, and William Case, given before a select committee appointed by the Commons House of Assembly in 1836. And in face of all this Dr. Carroll never heard of any one who opposed the Union until the year 1833-34 ! " 2* 84 What a mixturo of truth and falsehood is th'^'io here, for the pnr[)ose of making out a case ! There wa8 not on(! word .said, pro or con., while the proposals for Union were under discus.sion, in the Conferc^nce of 183'j, about (lovern- nient grants for religious puiposes and of the " voluntary j)rinc'ipl(^," for the good and sutticient reason that neither the Conference nor the genei'al puhlio knew anything (jf any offer of Government aid to the liritish iSlissionary Committee for missi(mary pur])oses in Upper (.anada at that time. As 1 have already said, the lirst inkling of it came out incidentally, a year after, while Kgerton llyerson was in England nf'gotiating the Union, during a newspai»er discussion which s}>rang u[) between the Rev. John Barry, Wesleyan Missionary, and the Editor of the Owtrdian, Mi'. Richardson. And though Mr. R. was personally a pro- nounced " voluntary," he seemed to think we were ho little concerned in the matter, that he made no effort to stay the consummation of the Union in the Conference of 1833, but called for a *' unanimous vote." And I am quite sure that the fact of the grant made to the Committee was not known to the public oJficiaUij till during the Conference year 1834-35. It was while laboring on the Matilda Cir- cuit, during that year, that I observed that it had l)ecome a 8uV>ject of newspaper discussion, which turned on the point whether the Home Government or the Provincial Legis- lature should have the control of the Casual and Territorial Revenue Fund, from which the grant was paid. But I am quite free to admit that it was made a ground of objection to the Canada Conference tUencp.forth for several years on the part of one class of politicians and of those who wished to foment Connexional discontent for ulterior objects. It was alleged that though the grant was made to repiesenta- tives of the British Missionary Committee, who were hold- • 35 ing for all the money to carry on thn Missions (what was raised in Canada being barely anxilinry to tiieir fnnd), yet, i\H it wan laid out in Canada, and their rnissicm iries theni- HPlves were, for the time being at least, members of the (Janada (conference, it was alleged that the Canada Connex- ion was litdirectly, at least, the recipient. When the Canada (Jonference was charged with receiving the grant, it passed resolutions dipclaiming •* any interest in Covorn- nient grants, none having been olftn-ed to or received by it." Farther, it was urged no preacher's salary was atlected by the grant ; for he had a claim on tlie London Com- mittee for his allowance irrespective of the sources from which the money came. Besides, the representatives of the jjondon Committee undertook to show that a sum equal to that received from Covernment was expended on the Indian Missions ybr schools and chnrches, l»eyond what was paid for the support of the missionaries. But even if it had come more directhj, where was the suj'render of principle in doing so, which would justify a separation from the Church ? There never had been any avowal of political dissent in Methodism ; a Church and State man could be a member of the United Society as well as a dissenter — indeed, the most of its adherents were of the former class. Nor did the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States, from which we received our first ))reachers, formally avow the principle of extreme voluntaryism. To this day, she is free to receive and apply anything disposable for education and Indian Missions from public sources. But it may be said, that the Canada Church, after its organization in 1S28, be- came committed on pi'inciple, under all circumstances, to a refusal of all Government aid. On which I have to say that while preparing my history, I carefully searched the journals of Conference and the files of the Guardian for in- 36 formation on thissuUJoct, and found nothing wliich amounted to thooroticil ** volunt iiyism," oxcB[)t ono utterance made by the Rev. Jamos RicliardHou, in the above-mentioned discussion with Mr. Birry, which was [xu'sonal to himself. I know very well that because of tlie previous oi)j)osition of (Jonference to the unjust and unconstitutional manner in which (rovernnient funds had Veen applied, it was thouj2;ht wc liad made such a decl.iration. And this seeming inconsistency was the cause of a loss of confidence of some for a time; and it was that projudico, along with local preacher discontent, and not any great care for Episcopacy, which gave the dis- ruptionists the amount of influence they had. But all this trouble sprang up full two years after the Union. The ob- jection which was felt to the Church on this ground might be urged as an excuse for leaving it, but it can never be legitimately argued against the identity and integrity of the main body, or to justify the claim of the disruptive one to being the true, original M. E. Church of Canada.] V. — The Opposition which Afterwards Arose, and the Form it Took. There was no opposition to notice until the new regula- tions aTecting the private membership and local preachers .were submitted to the Quarterly Conferences, as they were then called, by the Presiding Elders at the first round on their several districts, during the Conference year 1833-34. The only thing affecting the private membership related to a sort of capitation tax on the members for the support of the work. It is to be found on the thirty-eighth page of the Discipline published in 1836, under the heading, The Duties of Superintendents. It is to the following effect : — " To see that Mr. Wesley's original rule, in regard to weekly and quarterly contributions, be observed in all our 37 societies as far as possible. The rule 'as published by Mr. Wesley iu the ^Finutes of Conference, hold in London, 1782. It is as follows : '** (j>. Have the weekly and quarterly contributions been duly made in all our societies ? '* ' J. In inany it has been shamefully neglected. To rem- edy this, " * 1. Lot every Assistant (Superintendent) remind every society, that this was our original rule : Every member contril>utes one penny weekly (unless he is iu extreme poverty) and one shilling quarterly. Explain the reason- ableness of this, " * 2. Let every leader receive the weekly contribution from each j)erson in his class. " * 3. Let the Assistant (Superintendent) ask every per- son at changing his ticket : " Can you aftbrd to observe our rules ]" and receive what he is able to give.' " The Methodists of this day will smile to learn that this was made the occasion of bitter accusations and agitations and cost the Connexion hundreds of members.* [Mr. P. spurns the idea of the promoters of the division availing themselves of a prejudice so mean and paltry as an outcry against the weekly and quarterly contributions. * It is perhaps but right to say, that all following the word " possible " was in the form of a foot-note in the MS. copy of the Discipline put in the hands of the printer ; but because there was a note to that note explaining the original meaning and use of the term "Assistant,'' tho compositor, in a mistake, set it up in the text, and the Conference stood charged with foisting a surreptitious rule into our code of laws with the design of bringing the members under a money condition of membership, and a lamentable "scare" was produced. As this epoch was made the occasion of re-enforcing the qua'terly renewal of tickets, which had fallen too much into desuetude (that and the inquiry into the ability of the members to 38 Thinking that I might have over-estimated this obstacle, I wrote to several senior ministers, who would bo likely to know, and their answers will be found in tlie Supj>lonient.] The principal changes proposed related to local ])rertchers ; and it was that order in the Church, or at least a few of them, who created the first dissatisfaction, which si)read to other things, and made a sad conflagration. The changes relating to them were these : — (1) Up to the time of th(j Union, a local preacher, if recommended by the Quarterly Conference of his Circuit, and elected thereto by an Annual Conference, might receive deacon's orders at the end of four years ai'ter he had received a regular license as a local preacher ; and in four years from the time of his receiving deacon's ordeis, upon the same conditions as above, he might receive elder's orders from the hands of the )>inhop ; but as a concession to the British Wesleyan usage, no per- son becomitig a local p^'eacher after the time of the consutuma- tion of the Unioii, could be eligible to ordination. (2) Under the former economy, the licensing and annually renewing the license of local preachers was relegated to a District Conference of all the local preachers in a Presiding Elder's District, of which the Presiding Elder was President ; but under the new arrangement, the same business was to be transacted in th-s several Circuits to which they belonged, in a Local Preacher's INIeeting, of which the Superintendent of support the cause), it was resisted by the nialcoutcnts as a usurpation. One pf the first two Delegates to the American General Conference, from the new Methodist Episcopal Church iu Canada, finding a society ticket belonging to some member of his bousehold, held it up and asked in a scornful tone, " Who has been purchasing Indul- {/ences ? " Such were some of the means by which our members were prejudiced against the Union ! [Mr. P. asks for the " name '' of this Delegate : James Pcwley was the name, and the late Rev. C R. Allison was my authority for the anecdote.] .\ if'i; I 39 the Circuit was chairman. If there were seven or more local pnnxchers in a Circuit, there might be such a meeting; if less, their matters were to be attended to in the Quarterly greeting ; and when the Local Preachers' Meeting was not held, the Quarterly Meeting was to do it. Tiiis arrange- ment was far more feasible than the District Conference, which in some cases required a hundred miles' travel to at- tend it, of which most of them Ijitterly com[)lained, yet, when the change was proposed, the pi'omoters of disruption resisted it. I remember, in particular, Mr. Reynolds in 182S ridiculing the impracticability and senselessness of the arrangement, yet we have cau.se to believe, that his rea- .son for leaving the Church, in 1834, arose from his dis- satisfaction that the new regulations about local pi-eachers had carried in the Quarterly Meetings.* (3) Another arrangement of the new Discipline (page 43), which made it the duty of the Su])erintendent of ej^ch Circuit " to make * Since the above was written, a now-printed letter of the liev. John Reynolds to a brother local preacher has been put into my hands by the person to whom it was addressed, Rev. Philip J. Roblin, which implied that at the time of its date, Mr. Reynolds, by implication, acknowledged himself a member of the Canada Methodist Church under its JFesJeijan name and form, and shows that the new changes relating to local preachers, which had been carried by the constitutional majority in the Quarterly Conferencps, was the cause ot Ids dissatisfaction ; and that if they couM have been brought to reverse their vote, he would have remained in the Church. With these prelinunary remarks, the letter speaks for itself : — " Hkllfaiixk, Tune .30th, 1834. "Dear Bro. Roulin, — In reply to yours of the 24th inst., I have to say that I feel no disposition to comply with the resolutions, as laid down in the new Discipline, by which local preachers are to be governed. My parchment or certificate from the bishop shows my standing in the Church and my right to its privileges, and therefore I see no reason why I should consent to have my name entered on a plan. _Ji 40 out a regular plan of appointments for the local preachers and exhorters on the Circuit, with the counsel ot the Quarterly Meeting where there is no Locul Preachers' Meeting," although honorable to this class of laborers, was very distasteful to those who went away. The changes with regard to their trial under accusation, transferred their linal appeal from an Annual Conference to a District Meeting, gave them an advantage in their first examination before a " committee," in giving them the privilege of choos- ing one-half of the jury — a privilege not accorded to any other person in the (Jhurch, whatever his rank or othce. These new regulations, howevei", received the required majority of two-thirds, and passed into a law, and were pub- lished in the first issue of the new ^looipline. They also must commend themselves as reasonable and just to all dis- passionate and reflecting persons.* '* I labor under no fearful apprehension of being disowned in con- sequence of refusing to comply. The resolutions are unreasonable and altogether uncalled for, and many of our travelling preachers know it. " Tiie proper course for us to take is to petition those Quarterly Conferences who passed the resolutions to rescind their former vote, and thereby do away with them altogether ; for you will obperve that the preachers tell us that it was the Quarterly Conferences that m<»de the law, and I say, if so, the Quarterly Conferences can make that law null and void if they choose to do so. [Shall we make the trial? If you and the other local preachars of your Circuit think with me on this subject, please say so, and we will get up a respectful petition to lay before those Conferences as soon as possible. *' I am, dearBro., yours in love, "John Reynolds." * A year or two ago I received a letter from a gentleman, still living, which, while it contains ether matters, holds this language — (I do not use his name in full, because the letter was headed ",Confidential, " but I have no doubt but he will conseat to its dis- closure if the interests of truth require it) : 41 The account I have given of the Conference and the ample provision made for supplying the work, we naturally would have thought augured future prosperity. So thought some of the wisest at the time, who had not been V>efore so sauguino of the Union measure. This will a|)pear from the following short extract from the valedictory of the retiring Editor, Rev, James Richardson, never given to view matters in rose-color : "The question may be asked, ' Was the Union with the British Conference the immediate cause of the secession?' 1 think not. The real cause was the irithdraival of [the chalice] of ordinntinn from the. Incnl prcacherfi of (he Connexion. When this matter was submitted to the Quarterly fleeting Conference of the Vonf^'e Street Circuit, 1 was a local preacher and voted against their ordination, believing, as I did, that the ordination vow was inconsistent with worldly pursuits. Certainly there was no Methodist Episcopal Chuvch in Canada from Octohtv, 1833, until June, 1835. Hence there is a missing link betwten the original M. E. Church anl this spurious M. f]. Church, which can never be recovered, because it has no ex- istence and never had. My dear Carroll, I need not renund you that the withdrawal of the privilege of ordination from the local . preachers was not an Article of the Union, nor the act (al division. He was an aniiost l)i<;oted Episcopalian, and he hated Hiitisli Methodism with a perfect hatred, besides having during the days of liis loeation fostered a disposition to suspect and 44 ister, a very worthy man in his way, but certainly not dis tinguished for very broad views in Church matters. He had travelled about twelve years in all ; and his active ministry had comprehended the whole period of the " invasion," as he would have called it, of the Upper Pro- vince by the British missionaries, at which time his mind had become very much prejudiced against British Method- ism. He had been located about eight years at the time the Union was effected, during which space he had shown a disposition sometimes to criticise the travelling min- isters. According to Dr. Webster's history, a short time after the consummation of the Union, Mr, Culp called meetings about the " head of the hike," near which he resided, " which were approvtui and attended by several of his brethren." " On the ISth of December, 1833, a little more than two months after the York Conference, a public meet- ing was held at Saltfleet, at wiiich a decided stand was taken against the terms of the Union." It purported to be a " meeting of the local preachers of the Methodist E})isco- pal Church." Of this meeting Mr. Cul[) was chairman and Mr. Aaron C. Seaver secietarv. But the Guardian averred, from information received from parties on the spot, that the meeting was attended by but three local preachers be- sides their two selves, five in all, and these, when assembled, constituting a meeting no wise provided for by the Disci- pline of the Church. w criticise the Confeicnco. Next to him was Mr. Bailey, wlio was bound to be a travelling iniuister at any hazard ; and waa a])parently un- scrupulous of the means. Poor weak-mindeil ohl Mr. Gakhelf, he was more their dupe than anything else ; and was persuaded by them to do duty as the inipi.Tsonation and embodiment of the original Canada Conference ! A wondrous representative truly ! 45 " Another meeting was held on the 9th of January, 1834, in the old meeting-house on the Governor's Road, township of Blenheim, at which the proceedings of tlie Saltlleet meet- ing were discussed and sanctioned." [Webster.] It is but just in connection with the account of this meeting to place on record the following extract from the Guardian of March 19, 1832, which si)euks for itself: — " Correction.— The following note from an esteemed local preacher of long and respectable standing will be read with interest and satisfaction by the friends of the Church who are acquainted with Jiim, as it shows the unworthy measures which have been ado])ted to create disturbance, and that they are without the slightest sanction from such pious and intelligent brethren as the author of the following note — notwithstanding the unauthorized and unhallowed use which has been made of the name. The best of men in tlie same Church may dilfer in opinion on prudential mat- ters ; but they will be far from making such difference of opinion a ground of schism, or of such defauuitory and sep- arating resolutions as adopted by certain local preachers (have, by their own avowal, separated them.selves from the Church, and have no right to take })art in its proceedings,) met at the Governor's Koad referred to Ijelow. Men of candor and principle, founded on intelligence, feel too much of the s})irit of genuine liberty and liberality to cherish or give utterance to such sentiments of anti-Methodism and narrow-hearted intolerance." ' BuRFORD, March 9th, 183'4. ' Dear Brother, — Having lately heard that my name is used in many parts of the Province as sanctioning the reso- lutiors passed at the Local Conference, held on the Gover- nor's Road the 9th and 10th of Januarv la.st, 1 take this method of informing the public, that I, as chairman, signed the resolutions, yet protested against them in toto at the time, and disapi>roved of the course pursued by the local brethren at their meeting, and still do. I assembled with others, expecting the meeting was called for the purpose of 46 having our grievances redressed ; but finding this not to be the case, and rather a separation intended, my mind was grieved, and had to himent that I took the chair. * I remain, yours in the bonds of Chi'istian love, ' Kev. E. Ryerson.' ' Abner Matthews. *' One day later than the Blenheim meeting, the lOth ol" January, 1834, another meeting was held at Belleville, in the proceedings of which sixteen local preachers from that section of the countiy took part." [Webster.] Their pro ceedings, however, seem not yet to have been so extreme as those before mentioned, and to have turned upon details affecting local preachers, and a misapprehension of the guarantee in the Articles of Union for the continuance of the privilege of existing local preachers. Certain it is, that the principal actors in it jjractically declared their ad- hesion to the new order of things till after the ensuing Conference. They sat in the Quarterly Meetings in which the changes were discussed. " On the London Circuit," says Dr. Webster, " a still more decided stand was taken than there had been at any of the places ju'eviously mentioned. Here the preachers appointed at this Conference" (1833) " to that Circuit were rejected by the Quarterly Conference, held January 2r)tli, 1834, be- cause, being an official board of the M. E. Church, they deemed they could not consistently receive as their })reachers persons who were ministers of the Wesleyan Mechodist Church in British North America ; and, accordingly, that the work might suffer as little as possible, the Rev. John Bailey, who had already travelled some years in the Con- nexion, was requested to supply it as far as was practicable, which he did." (So sa)'s Dr. Webster's Histoiy.) It was my intention to have passed these events over 47 slightly, and especially out of respect for his highly respect- able friends, to have touched upon Mr, Bailey's very ques tionable course as little as possible ; but after the aljove erroueotis version of the case, the interest of historic truth- fulness coiu[)els me to enter into this matter a little more fully. First, then, with regard to Mr. J3ailey himself, in couHruuition of what [ said relative to his position at the previous Conference, when his name was mentioned in con- nection with the report of the Committee on Examinations, the following was the minute adopted : '* John Bailey was not received, his examination, as to qualifications, not being satisfactory. It was resolved that the Presiding Elder be allowed to employ him during the year, should the work re- tjuire it." Thus was he practically discontinued. But sub Hequently some who synq)athized with his wounded feelings and those of his family, pleaded for and obtained a recon- sideration of his case, with the understanding that if his name was left on the Minutes as a probationer, with an ap- pointment attached, he would, of his own free-will, decline coming forward at the end of the year. With that view, the following Minute was made : — '* Brother John Bailey's case was reconsidered, and he was continued on irial ! " His name was set down for Godez'ich, which had been connected Willi London, where his family resided, with the understand- ing that he and Mr. Beatty wouh' travel the whole ground in conjunction. Now, there was nothing wrong in all this, if he hud not thus assumed a trust which he deliberately be- trayed. Pie was a man of tift} years of age, more or less ; lie had been both at the Conference where the Union was pro})Osed, and the one where it was ratified > and ought to have known whether he ai)proved of the proceedings or not. There was no blame to him, if he did disapprove, if, like an lioiHist man, he had said so at the time, and not have allowed 48 himself to receive work from a seceding Conference ! But what ilid he do ? He wont back to London, and did his utmost to alienate the pnopio before ^Ir. Beatty, the newly- appointed preacher in charge, his old friend, shoidd have time to got on the Circuit and get ac([uaint(Hl, thus causing infinite vexation and peri)lexity. Mr. Bailey succeeded in doing thi^j by working on the fears and pj-ejudices of good Mr. Mitchell and others who were more inlluential than himself. All tliis time he held the position of a preacher in connection with the Conference. By an incidental business note ill the Gwtrdiaa of December 25lh, 1833, we learn his paper was duly maihnl to the London Post Office, with all the regularity of those of the other Circuit preachers. Se- condly, as to the Quarterly Meeting which called out Mr. Bailey, it was not the regular Quarterly iMeeting of the Circuit, for that was appointed to meet " November 30 and December 1," according to the Presiding Elder's printed plan in the Guardian, and this one was held so late as Jan- uary 25, 1834. Nor was it a legal one, for it was presided over by a local j)reacher and not by the proper officer. It may, for aught we know, have comprised a majority of the official members on the London Circuit, but it was not a legal Quarterly Meeting for all that. Thus, for nearly four months, had ]Mr. B. held the i)osition of a Wesleyan preacher and en)ployed the intluence the position gave him to divide a people he was expected to keej) together. Dr. Webster re.sumes: " Following out the plan proposed by the London Quarterly JNIeeting, a general convention was called in order to ascertain what the state of feeling really was in the diiierent sections of tlie Province." " The Con- vention met at Trafalgar on the 10th of March, 1834, and continued sitting till the 12th. Though the attendance was not large^ sixteen preachers only being present, the different 49 sections of the work were pretty well represented." Then follow the resolutions they passed. This meeting was pre- sided over by John W. Byani, who had travelled nearly two years, but had been discontinued for disciplinary reasons, about sixteen years before ; he had, however, for several years regained a respectable standing as a local preacher. Of Mr. Seaver, who acted as secretary, we know nothing beyond this, that he was a local preacher. Here is the GitardimCs account of this meeting, following closely upon the time of its being held : ** The business, we learn from a person present, began with seven persons. The number, when our informant left, on the second day, had been increased to sixteen. Six of these sixteen we know have sought to be employed in the travelling Connexion, but were not called out for want of requisite qual ill cations, or other hindrances ; and three of them, we le. .;n, were liccnied to preach at the last local Conference." There were no travelling preachers there, unless Messrs. Gatchell and Bailey were present.* These are all *^>e meetings Ave know of hav- ing been held of a similar kinu ^efore the Wesleyan Confer- ence of 1834. Occurrences relating to the Connexion (which I will not now go into, but which I stand ready to enter upon when any unwarranted use is about to be made of themt) ex- traneous to the Union, or incidentally growing out of it, of a disturbing character, having transjnred about the middle of the Conference year 1833-34, were laid hold of to strengthen the opposition, and so far increased its adherents, that by the time this ecclesiastical year was ended, or at least by the close ol September, 1834, tl.ere was some sort * I HOW doubt either'a having been there. + The " unwarranted use " has been made, and I have given the true facts of the case on an earlier page of this edition. ffO of an organization claiming to l>o tlio Motliodist Episcopal Clmrcli in Canada, the chalhMige of wliicii 1 will thoroughly examine further on ; but 1 will proceed at [)resent to inves- tigate their VI. Objections to the Identity of the VVerleyan ]\Ietiiodist Church in Canada with the Original Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada. These objfctions have been variously entertained and put fiu'ward : thus thoy have been implied and acted on when courage to announce them was wanting — orally state ', either by individuals in conversation, or in public discourses of various kinds — j)rinted and published in various ways — and finally, prosecuted in courts of law. The challenges seriatim : — 1. AhoUsIiiiig Epiacopacij. (1.) According to this, there is no Methodist Church in England, South Afiica, or Australia, because they are not Episcopal. That is the fair logical eduction, and it is amazingly modest and charitable ! [Mr. P. thiidcs it unfair that 1 have drawn this conclusion; but if Episcopacy is not vital to Methodism, why did they take the stand that we had '■'^stroyed the integrity and identity of the Church by doir with Episco]iacy 1 Do they not make their ex' -dd Epi(-co|)acy the ground of their claim to be tht -, origin d Methodist Church of the Pro- vince 1] (2.) If this objection is valid, there would have been no Methodist Church at all in the United States, if its founders, in 1784, had not adopted the Episco])al form ; and that once adapted, Episcopacy could not have been done away without destroying the ChTa'ch's identity ! Now let us hear what some of its actual founders had to say on that subject. In 1837, the Rev. Egerton Ryerson addressed the following 51 note to every one of the surviving founders of the M. E. Church ill the United States : — " Ri:v. AND Dear Sik, —As you are one of tlie two or three ministers wlio couiineneed their labors, as itinerant Metliodist ja-eacliers, liefore the organization of the Metho- dist Episcopal (Jhurch in America, J beg periuission (in con- sequ(uico of a ease wliich is at issue in th(! courts of hiw in Upper Canada, affecting the right of pro})erty hehl by the Weshiyan Methodist Churcli in t'lat prov.'i'ce) to jtro))ose a few questions relative to the organization of your Church and the powers of your General Conference. " 1. In organizing your Church, had your General Confer- ence })Ovver to adojtt any other nnnie for your Church than that which it adopt( d ? ** 2. Had your General Conference jjower to adopt what form of Church government it pleased ] " 3. Had your General Conference j)Ower, after the adop- tion of Episcopacy, to dispense with the cereniony of ordina- tion in the a})pointment to the E])iscoi)al oflice ? " 4. Has it always be(^n your understanding, that the General Conference had the power to make the Ej)iscopal office j)eriodically elective, or to abolish it altogethei-, if it judged it expedient to do so 1 " I will feel greatly ol>liged to be favored with your views in reply to the foregoing questions, and what has been the understanding of your Connexion from the beginning respecting the points of ecclesiastical government involved in them. " Yours very respecttuUy, " Egerton Ryerson." REV. EZEKIEL COOPERS REPLY. " Philadelphia, Nov. 20th, 1837. "Rev. and Dear Shi, — Yours of this day T have looked over, containing sundry questions, to which you request an answer. Time, indisposition, and other circumstances pre- clude me from so full an answer as you wish to receive, and 6S a8 I would be willing, under other circumstances, to give most cheerfully, I briefly answer them, viz. : — ** I. When our Church was organized, the General Con- ference had power, and a right, to adopt any other name than that which they did adopt, for the style and name of the Church, had they seen proper to do so. The Confer- ence was under no necessity, but, from mature deliberation, it was voluntarily resolved to choose the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Had they been disposed, they could have taken the nan" of the Evangelical Church, which some of the preachers would have approved of ; or they might have called themselves Wesleyan Church, the lieformed Church, or any other name, had they chosen it in preference. " II. The Conference had power to adopt any form of Church government it pleased, or might have chosen ; but it was the voluntary choice to adopt the Episcopal form of government — modified as we have it, subject to amendments or improvements, from time to time, as exigencies miglit require, and circumstances call for, in the judgment of the Conference. The Episcopacy was always amenable to the General Conference, with power to suspend or even expel ohe bishop, or bishops, for causes sufficient in the judg- ment of the Conference — which may be seen by collating the several editions of the Discipline from the first to the last.* " III. After the adoption of Episcopacy, the General Conference had power to change or dispense with the cere- mony of Episcopal ordination in the appointment to the * Mr. P. thinks there is no parallel between the option of the origi- nal Methodist body in the States, in 1784, to choose either Presby- terianism, or Episcopacy, and the power of the Canada Conference, in 1832, to do away with Episcopacy ; but the true point is this, Is Episcopacy so essential to a Mzthodist Church, that it could not be done away without destroying the identity of the Church, although there were constitutional provisos for it, and all the constitutional provisos were met ? The highest civil courts in the country decided that the Conference had the power, and that it exercised it in the right way. 53 Episcopal office, if it appeared proper and necessary to do so. Stillingfleet in his * Ii'eiiicnni,' nm\ otliej- Ei)iscoj)al digni- taries of the Church of Enghind, have admitted that the power of ordination is inherent in the Ehlers of the Chuicli, or Presbytery ; but in certain canons, made by the ecclesi- astical councils, the power was restrained, for the better order and regulation in government. And our Ciiurch holds the same opinion; therefore, if by expulsion, death, or other- wise, we should be without a bishop, the CJeneral Conference is to elect one, and ap))oint three or more Elders; to ordain him to the Episcopal office ; so that the power of ordination is, in the Elders, under i-estraint — but the Conference can take off that restraint if necessary ; then the Elders have the power of ordination, and are authorized to onlain even a bishop. Surely, then, by an apj)ointment to the Episcopal office, if an Elder, with the restraint taken off, he can ex- ercise the power of ordination without the ceremony of re- ordaining him, and j)erhaps, as iti the case above stated, by Elders only, with the restraint taken off. If the restraint is taken off, and the ceremony is dispensed with in one case, surely it can be in another, and the ordination in the one case would be fully as valid as in the other ; therefore the ceremony can be disj tensed with, and the Conference has power to do it in the case of Elders ordaining bishops. " IV. In my opinion, the Gi-ncival Conference had, and has, the power to make the Episcopal office pei-iodically elec- tive, and if necessary for the good of the Church, to abolish it, — provided the requirements of the Dif-cipline for making alterations he complied with ; or, if the restiiotions be re- nioved, which there in power to do, and though difficult, yet not impossible to accomplish ; then any and eveiy alter- ation may be made, which exigencies or circumstances may call for, and wisdom may direct. N^ote. — If Elders can be occasionally elected or appointed to exercise Episcopal func- tions in ordaining a bishop, and then cease and never exer- cise them an} more, then why not occasionally or periodically elect or appoint to the Episcopal office for a term of time, and then to cease or even be abolished, and ordinations be performed by the ^]lder8 appointed thereto, ms in the case of ordaining bishops ? I am now considering the poivera of the 54 General (Jonference in crtsos of necessity, under existing cir- cumstiuices of exigency tliut might possil)ly occur, to make the thing necessaiy for the gooil of the Uliurch. It is not necessary, nor good, nor pi-oper, always to do what is in our power to do ; but it is (jood to hav(! power to ei', and good to ut the mode, torn), organization, ttc, is human, as to the construction and managenu-nt, order and regulation, and may, by human authority, be varied to suit dittVrent coun- tri« 3, times, circumstances, necet-sities, &c. ; and also JUiiy, by human authority, be chang(;(l, iniprovtid, and altered for the general good, according to the various occasions and necessities.* " As to tlie Divine rigid of an uninterrupted Episcopal Prelacy from the A[)Ostles down to thi; pi-esent time, it cannot be proved nor supported. In the Apostolic times, the terms bisho|», * Kler, overseer, and presbyter, were inter- changeably applied to the same men and otHce. (See Acts XX., 17 and 28.) The same men called elders in one, are called overseers in the other vtn-se. St. Jerome informs us that in the Apostolic Church at Alexandria, the elders or presbyters, from the Apostolic time, used to choose and * "As to my own judgment," says Wesley, "I still believe the /']j)'i.rayer in our public services, and gave us a ceremony for our baptismal services, yet the General Conferenco laid aside the prayer-book, and it is not used in one of our churches in the United States, and altered also the form for baptism in a way we thought more suitable for such service. ** Third questioii, -' Had your General Conference the power, aftf^r the adoption of the Episcopacy, to di.spense with the ceremony of ordination in the appointment to the Episcopal otiice ? ' I am contident they had; and had they thought it necessary, would have done it " Fou)'th question, — * Has it always been your under standing that the General Conference had the power to make the Episcopal oflEioe periodically elective, or to abolish it altog'ther, if they judged it expedient to do so 1 ' Before the year 1808, thu General Conference had the power to make any alterations in the Discipline or government of our Church they thought expedient ; but since the year 1808 they are restricted from maKing any alterations in our present system without the recommendation of thvee-fourths of the Annual Conferences. "Yours, ike, vei'y respectfully, " Thomas Morrell. " Written with my own hand, and within four days of being ninety years of age." " I fully agree with the above statement by the Rev. T. Morrell in all things save that of his supposing the name of 57 tlie Church being recoramended by Mr. Wesley. Tlie name, Methodist Fi[»iscoj)al Churcli, was recommended, to the })eHt of my rticoll.'ctlon, by John Dii^lcens, as I have stat-'d in the Methodist Qaarterli/ Revieio, pul)lished l»y (jur book-si^eiit, tor Jan., 18."i2, page 98. 1 also agree lullv with Bisliop Hedding, in his li'ttrr dated Lansingbiirgh, N. Y., Oct. 12, 1837, and addressed to llev. E. Ryer.son. '• Thomas Ware, " I am in the seventy-ninth year of ujy age, and fifty-sixth o{ my ministry. " Saletn, Nev) Jersey^ 10th Nov., 1837. •*P.S. — Mr. Morrell not being a*: ile C- fere nee at which the Church was organized, a< .ounts for liis mis- take about Mr. Wesley's recommenu.ng the name of tlie Church." "I couimei.ced travelling as a Methodist itinerant preacher in the year 1777, and have had knowledge of the general usage and mode of proceeding in sai I community to this day, and fully concur in th-i ideas of Morrell and Ware in their ab )ve s'atements, with the exception Brother Ware make4 to an iten\ in Brother Monell's statement, and con- cur with Bishoj> lledding's letter to Brother liyerson, dated LiiisinL">iu-gh, Oct. 12, 1837. Nelsox Reed, " Aj^ed eighty-four years, '' naJtiniore, Nov, 22nr, on the question you })ropose. '* Question. * Has the General Conference power, under any circumstances wlmtevei-, by and with the advice of all thii Annual (Jonfernnces, to render the Episcopal office periodically elective, and to dispense with the ceremony of ordination in the appointment thereto? '• " Answer. ' In niy o[)inion the General Conference un- doubtedly has this right. — This is evident from the fact that the Disci{»line i)rovides i'ov tiie possibility of their doing so — as it is explicitly enumerated ;;mong the things which the General Conference shall not do without the recounntuula- tiou of the Annual Conferences, ])lainly implying that it via// do it with such recommendation.' " Add to t'.iis, there is an example of an acknowledgment of a Superintendent without ordination as such. la the General Minutes of 178G or '7, or near that time, the ques- tion is asked — ' Who exercise the Episcopal office ? ' An.s. ' Joha Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury.' — This is according to the best of my recollection. This shows that it was not the intention, in adopting the Episcopal mode of government, to insist on consecration as essential to on«' exeicising the E[)iscopi\l office. Besides, it is known that our entire def-: nee of our Church oiganization, according to ■oceeds on the ipp •U< 1' same ffrouml Yours, most aliectionately, (Si une cl) " Saml. Luckey, " Kev. Egerton Ryerson. r)9 " N. B. — The opinion of yonr CMiiet Justice is an admir- able document ; tlie best I think T ov(U' saw, sliowing the connection of law -vith eceiosiaHtioal mattcsr.s. S. L." " From the Rkv. P^lijah Hedding, D.D., the second senior Bishop of the }[ethodist Epi scoped Church in the United 'States. (Copy.) " Lansingburou, KY., Oct. I2th, 1837. " Dear Brotiieii, — I have just arrived at home, and found your letter, i aui sorry I did not receive it early enough to render the aid you wished. The Genesee Conference did not close till the 3()th ulfc. I suppose the law case is de- cided ; therefore, auythini^ I can write will be of no use. I would have tried to get to Kingston, had I known the re- quest at the Genesee Conference. " It is clear from tin; Proviso, added to the Restrictions laid on the delegated General Conference, (hat by and with the supposed ' Recommendation,^ said Co!if(u-ence may alter the plan, so as t > make the E[)iscopul oHice periotlically elective, and also, so as to dispense with the ceremony of ordination in the a])pointment. " I believe our Church never supposed the ceieniony of ordination was necessary to Kpisc)[»acy; that is, that it could not in any possible circumstances be dispensed with. — nor that it was absolutelv necessary that one man should liold the Episcopal office for life. One evidence of this I tind in the Miu\ites of our Confei-ence for the year 1789, — four years after our Chui-ch was organized. There it is asked, ' Who aiv the j^ersons that exercise the Episcopal office in the Methodist Church in Europe and America 1' Alls. 'John Wesleij, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury.' — Bound Minutes, Vol. 1, j). 7G. From this it appears those fathers considered Mr. Wesley in the Episcopal office, though he had never been admitted to it by the ceremony of ordi- nation. " I shall be glad to know how the law case is decided. Please write me or send me a paper containing it. 60 and her parents, your " My best respects to brother, &c. " Dear Brother, affectionately yonrs, (Signed) " Elijah Hedding. "Rev. Egerton Ryerson." Mr. Ryerson continues : — "After examining the Disci- pline" (the Canadian Disci()line), " and mature reflection, these gentlemen expressed their concurrence in the views of Bishop Hedding, at the bottom of his letter, as follows : — '■ I hereby certify that 1 fully concur with Bishop Hedding in the above opinion. (Signed) "J. B. Stratton.* " JS'ew York, Nov. lUh, 1837. " \Vc concur in the opinion of Bishop Hedding expressed above. " Thomas Mason, *' George Lane, " Agents of tho General Conlerenee for the Publication of Books for the M. E. Church." (Signed) Mr. Ryerson furtlier continues : — " I also addressed a letter on this subjf'ct to the Rev. Dr. Fisk, President of the Wesleyan University, and late reprts-ntarive of the Metho- dist Episcopal Church in the United States, to the British Connexion. Tiie following are copies of my queries and the answers : — '• 200 Mulberry Street, *' New York, Nov. 17 th, 1837. " Rev. and Dear Sir, — A. question of law is at issue in Upper Canada which involves the Chapel Property held by the Wesleyan Methodist Church in that Province, The principid points in the case * on which there are any doubts' relate to tlie views of the Methodist Episcopal Church re- * Mr. Stratton had been elected biahop of the Canada Church in 1831, but declined the office. Gl specting Episcopacy — tho imposition of hands in the conse- cration of bishops — and the power of the (ienerai Conference to modify the Episcopal office. [ have been favort?(l by Bishop Heddiiig, Dr. Luckey, and other.i witli an (explicit statement of tlieir views on these points, and will fuel greatly obliged to you to be favoured with your views> and what you believe to be the views of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in reply to the following queries : " 1st. Is Episcopacy held by you to be a doctrine or mat- ter of faith, or a form or rule of Church government as ex- pedient or not according to times, places and circum- stances % " 2nd. Has the General Conference power, under any cir- cumstances whatever, by and with the advice of all the Annual Conferences, to rend(;r the E[)iscopal office periodi- cally elective, and to dispense with the ceremony ot ordina- tion in the appointment thereto ] " And as you wert) present at the British Conference in 1836, as the representative of the AFethodist E|»iscopal Church in America, I would beg to })ropose a third query : ** 3rd. Do you consider the ordinations performed under the direction of th':^ British Conference to be Scriptural and Methodistical % " Earnestly soliciting your earliest answers to the forego- ing queries, " I am, yours very respectfully, "Egerton Ryerson. '•The Rev. Wilbur Fisk, D.D., " President of the WesUijan University. " IMS. — I had intended to visit Middletown University ; but as I am unexpectedly required to go to Philadelphia, and cainiot get home by Saturday, the 25th iust., without proceeding directly from this to Albany, &c., I must deny myself that pleasure. Please address me, Kini>;ston, Upper Canada. " E. R." 02 . DR. FISK's reply. " Rev. Egerton Ryerson. •'My Dear Sir, — Your frtvor of lute thite is before nie ; making some iiK]uiries lespectin^ the constitution of tlio Methodist Episcopal Church. " The tirHt was in rfference to the Epi.scopal form of government. ** I, as an indivichial, believe, and this is also the general opinion of our Churcli, that Ej)iscopacy is not * a doctrine or matter of faith ' — it is not essential to the existence of a Gospel Church, but is founded on expediency, and may be desirable and proper in some circumstances of the Church, and not in others. " You next inquire as to the power of the General Confer- ence to modify or change our Episcopacy. " On this subject our Discipline is ex[)licit, tluit ' upon the concuii'ent recommendation of ihree-fourths ot all the members of the several Annual Conferences who shall be present and vote on such nicommeudation, then a majority of two-thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall suffice ' to ' change or alter any part or rule of our govern- ment, so as to do away Episcoj»acy and destroy the plan of our itinerant General Superint(!nd(nicy.' Of course, with the above described majority the General Conference might make the E[)iscoi)al oliice eh.etive, and, if they chose, dis- pense with ordination for the bi-shop or sui)erintendent. " I was a dolegat * from th(i Methodist Episcopal Church to the Wesleyan Conference in England, in 1836. At that Conference I was present at the ordination of those admitted to orders, and, by request, participated in the cnemony. I considereil the ordination, as then and there performed, valid ; and the ministers thus consecrated, as duly authorizt-d ministers of (yhrist. '* With kind regards to yourself, personally, and the best vour Churcli, I am, as evei', yours. (( prosperity ot your Churcli, I In friendship and gospel bonds, " W. FiSK. Wesleyan University, Middletown, Ct,, Nov. 20th, 1837. fi3 of dis- 1 mod, •izcd K. ■137." But why am T arguini,' this point 1 Did not the original Ciinada Discipline — the very Discipline, if they have not chaiicfed it, by which oui* accusers profess to be governed — provide for the " doing away " with the Episcopacy (if in- deed we had any Episcopacy fo do aiOfi'j), uh \ have already shown ? Our oj)ponents will say, '* The provisions were the)'0, but you did not fulfil the conditions." Let us see. Here is the sworn testimony of the Secretary of the General Conference bcjfore a Court of Law : — " The witness delivered to the Court the following ex- tracts from the Journals of the General Conference : — " Special Session of the Genei'al Coiiferonce, called by the General Superintendent, at the reipiest of the Annual Con- ference, Ilallowell, Aut^ust iUth, 1832. ** Conference met at six o'clock .i.m. '•Names of members: — William Case, Tlios. Whitehead, Ti'.ouias JMadden, Peter Jones, 1st, Wyat Chamberlain, Jas. Wilson, Sanniel Belton, William Brown, Joseph Gatcliell, dcjorge Fei'gns'in, D.ivid Yeomans, Ezra Healey, Phil. Smitli, F. Metcalf, William IT. Williams, John Eyerson, William Ryerson, David Wiiglu, William Griliis, Solomon Waldron, J vobert Corson, Jos. Me^;smore, K. Heyland, Edmond Stoney, (Jt'orge Bissel, James Richardson, ICgerton Ilyer^on, John Black, Anson Green, Daniel iMsMullen, Andrew Prindel, Kzra Adams, Alexander Irvine, King Barton — 34. " Egerton Byerson was chosen Secretary. " Proceeded to elect a General Superintendent j)ro tempore. Tlie Rev. Wni. Case was duly elected. " Resolved, — That the first answer to the second question of the third section of the Discipline be expunged, and the i'ollowing inserted in its place : ' The (Jeneral Conference shall be composed of all the Elders and Elders elect who are members of the Annual Conference.' " Names of Elders elect : — John C. Davidson, Geo. Poole, Richard Jones, .John S. Atwood, James Norris, Cyrus R. K' G4 Allison,* Pctor JdneH, 2n(l, Maitlunv Wiiiting, William Smith, .T(»lin Bcatty, Asahcl llurlhuit, Avail Adams, llichanl Phelps, Hamilton Bii;i,'iir, Ephraim Evaus, Cljuiles W()0(l,t Thomas Bevittt— 17. '* Adjomned until nine o'clock a.m. " Conference met at nine a.m. Singing, and prayer by the Presid(!nt. ^^ Resolved, — That this Conference, on the recommendation of three-fourths of the Annual Conference, having in view the prospect of a union with our Biitish brethren, ngree to sanction the third resolution of the Report of the Commit- tee of the Annual Conference, which is as follows : ** 'That Episcopacy be n linquished (unless it will jeopard our Churoli |)roporty, or as soon as it can l»e secured), and superseded by an Annual Presidency,' — in connection with the 10th Resolution of the said Re))ort, which says, 'That none of the foregoing resolutions shall be considered of any force whatever until they shall have been acceded to on the j)art of the Wesleyan Missionary Committee and the Biitish Conference, and the arrangement referred to in them shall * Mr. Allison was ill. t The claims of Messrs. Wood and Bevitt to be monibors of tlie General Conference, even on the terms now established, has been dis- puted : they had, first and last, travelled more than four years— Mr. Wood was certainly an ordained deacon when he re-entered the work, three years before. When the Secretary of the General Confer- ence was questioned on the subject many years after, he could recol lect notbing about the terms on whicli they were allowed a seat in the General Conference, if indeed they were allowed ; and the Jour- nals of tliat Conference, having never been printed, were not to be I'ound — were lying, jjossibly, in some lawyer's otiice. If allowed to vote without a legitimate claim, it would have no appreciable effect on the issue : they were only two &.g&mst fifty-one. Their being in the list in the Chapel Property Case may have been a clerical error, which is my opinion. — J. C. 60 have beeri completed by the two Connexions.* — Adopted by three-fourths of the member.s. Adjoin ned sine die. •* William (!asi:, Prest. " lOcJLUToN Kykksox, See//. '' Hallowell, Aug. 13^//.,lb3J. (Truly JOxtracted.) ''Egerton Ryerson." *' Kingston, Wlh Oct., 1837. " Counsel — Did the votes of those persons who were ad- mitted into the (leneral Conference atfeot the decision of the question ? I do not think they did, unless they rendered it somewhat less unanimous than it would have otiierwise been. Eight of them were, to the best of my recollection, opposed to the then contemplated Union, although I cannot say whether so large a proportion of them was opposed to relinquishment of Episcopacy. Several who op()osed the Union were in favor of an Annual Presidency. Mr. Richard- son, who was the Secretary of the Annual Conference, s))oke against the Union, but in favor of abolishing Episcopacy. But they were not admitted with a view to secure the adop- tion of the measure, but simply to have as full an expression as possible of the views of all the preachers. " Counsel — Were the votes of your Annual and General Conferences (for they appear in fact to have been substan- tially one and the same body under different names) pretty unanimous % — -More than three-fourths were in favor of superseding Episcopacy by an Annual Presidency. '"'■ Counsel — Was any objection made as to the power of your Conference to do what it did in respect to the Union with the British Conference % — I never heard of the expres- sion or existence of such a doubt. " Counsel — Did those members who constituted a minority on the question of Ej)iscopacy and the Union, show any dis- position to persevere in their opp «ition after the disposition of those questions by the voice of so large a majority of their brethren? — By .lo means. Far otherwise. The discussion was conducted in the most friendly manner, such as is usual on any merely precedential question; and, after the closeof the 66 proceedings on those questions, some of the k.ading speakers in the minority expresHod their intention toacqiiiescf in and support the views of the majority. Nut a siagle member left or seceded from tlie Conference on accoujit of those proceed- ings, or showed a disposition to do so. " Coiiusel — Woru you not appointed by the HalK)well Conference to represent the iul(;rests of your Chui'ch on the subject of the Union in Enghiud ] — f was. " Counsel — Were you aware tliat, in the interval between the sessions of your Conference in ITallowell, 1832, and in Toronto, 183.3, there was any opposition on the part of any considerable portion of the memliors of your Church to tlio object of your mission in England 1 — I was not. I emphn'ed every means in my ])Ower to ascertain the views and feelings of our members and friends on the 8ul)ject. Immediately aft'r the Hallowell Conference I jniblished the prc^posed Articles of Union in ihe CJtristian Guardian [August 29th, 1832], and requested the Presi'ling Elderson the different dis- tricts to inform me of the state of feeling among our people within the bounds of tlieir respective charges, as it would be a guide to me in my negotiations. A short time before I left the Province for England, in March, 1833, I received letters from two of the chairmen on the subject. 1 also conversed with the other two cliairmen. From these sources I learned that the Union was, with very few individual exceptions, universally a[)proved of by the members of our ChiU'cii. The only point on which I could learn that any apprehension ex- isted was in relation b) the appointment of preachers to their circuits and stations. As the Su[)erintendent or President had the power of stationing all the preachers, fears were entertained in some instances that a President sent out from England might appoint English preaclnus to the best sta- tions, and send the Canadian preachers into the interior, I provided against the possibility of hu event of this kind by getting the consent of the British Conference to limit the power of the President, that whilst he exercised the same functions generally as the General Superintendent had here- tofore exercised, he should not station the preachers contrary to the consent of a majority of the Chairmen of Districts associated with him as a Stationing Committee. by 67 tiers evsen parallel pages on the same sheet, and on the morning of the meeting were put into the hands of each preacher, that he might carefully examine them and compare the one with the other. After the Conference was organized in tlie usu d Wiiy, hy calling over the names of all the members, ;ind a])pointii]g a Secre- tary, and some other j)reliminary business had heen disposed of, the subject of the Union was taken up, the proceedings of the Conference on which 1 cannot better state than in the words of the Journals, or ofiicial records. Witness read the following, which he delivered in to the Court : [Extracts from the Journals of the Annual Conference, held in Toronto, Oct. 2nd, 1833.] "The question of Union with the Bi'itish Conference was taken up. The Rev. (reorge Marsden addressed the Confer- ence on the subject of his mission, giving an account of what had taken [ilace in England on the question of the Union, the delibei'ate and careful manner in which it had been ex- amined and conHird. " A committee to revise the Discipline was appointed, consisting of the President, Secretary, Editor, Chairmen of Districts, W. Case, W. Ryerson, D. Wright, E. Healy, and E. Evans. " Monday, October 7th. " Conference met at eight o'clock a.m. Singing and prayer. " The Report of the Committee on the Discipline wps pre- sented and taken up item by item, and agreed to in view of its adoption by the General Conference. For Report, see Letter I., No. 7. 69 1 1th. ig antl hp8 pre- Hew ot )rt, see " It was moved and resolved, That the President be re- quested to call a special session of the General Conference, to take into consideration some points of discipline. " Tiie President accordingly called a special session of the General Conference, to be held forthwith. [The above resolutions were, to the best of my knowledge and belief, adopted unanimously.] (Truly extracted.) " Egerton Ryerson. ''Kingston, Oct. Wth, 1837. " Witness then handed in the following : [Extracts from the Journals of the General Conference, held in Toronto, October 7th, 1833.] " Special session of the General Conference, called by the President at the request of the Annual Conference, Oct. 7th, 1833, at York. " NAMES OF MEMBERS. [The same as were present at Hallowell, mentioned on page 48, and are therefore omitted here, though they were given into the Court.*] " Egerton Ryerson was chosen Secretary. "The Report of the Committee of the Annual Conference on the Discipline was maturely considered, and adoi)tednew. con" See Letter E., No. 8. [Although this sworn testimony of the Secretary of the General Conference, that a " kipecial meeting of the Gen- eral Conference " was duly called in October, 1833, at York, which affirmed all the changes in due form in my first edition, Mr. Perritt has the hardihood to say, that it * Of those nientioued on page 48, as coustitutiug the members of the general Conference, J. GatchcU and K. Barton were absent at tlie session in Hallowell. Mr. Gatchell was present, however, at Toronto. 70 was the Annual and not tlic; General Conterence which carried the nieasun^ in 1833 ! Ft)r the moineut 1 liad for- gotten tliis whilo dealing with l)is quibblo. Let the reader not forget this point.] 2. 27ie ChurcJis haviny Clianged h.er Name loas Another Reason given why she had lust her Ideidxtij. This is a Irivolons objection. On the hanie principle, a lady who.sc niinic is changed from her niaidtn one to that of her husband l)y a legal marriage, ceases to be the same per- son she was under her former name ; and forfeits all the property to a })er.son who unwariantably assumes her maiden nnme, after she is known by Imr husband's name ! As well might a noble steamboat, which has undergone some change in her ownership and relations, has been retitted, and has had the name on her stern somewhat modified, be run oft* the route, and her monied earuing.s claimed by a tiny craft which had been built out of a few spars and si)linters once belonging to hei outworks and rigging, since these changes wei'e legitimately nuide, receive her original name and claim to be the same identical steamship ! Or as well might an incorporated college which bore a particular name, because it had come into a new affiliation, and had some words in its original designation changed, although all the changes have been made according to the constitution or charter, and according to law, be robbed of all its rights and endow- ments by an upstart school got up by a dissatisfied usher and some refractory students, after all the changes have been legally made and ratifietl. Or as well might a discontented clerk in a commercial establishment, upon the original house taking a new partner, however regularly, and carrying on the original business, with the name of the firm somewhat modified, set uj) business for himself under the old name, appropriating the trade-mark of the legal establishment, try 71 to secure all tlie origiiml custoin(!rs, and oven claim the pro- jierty of the concern — a course ot procedure which all would pi'onounce unjust and absurd. This very objection was anticij>ated and provided for before any change was made. The Conf«.'rence of 1832 ordered the consultation of .Uessrs. JJidivrU and Ralph, an eminent legal firm of that day, on the legal uHect of changing the name of the Church. And early in the next civil year, months before the delegate left for England, the editor and the minister in charge of York Station waited on the legal gentlemen referred to with categorical questions pre))ared by the Conference, which are implied in the answer they received, which I herewith give, and which speaks for itself : — " York, 5^/^ January, 1833. " Gentlemen, — W(^ had the honor to receive last even- ing your note of this month, in which you state that the C'Onference of the iNletliotJist Episcopal Church in Canai.a desin d us to give our opinion on the question, ' Whether tlu^ abolishing of the Episcopal form of Church government from among them would jeopard their Church property.' " We are not aware that there has been any adjudication exactly in ))oint; but it has been decided that, if a corpora- tion hold lands by gviint or prescription, and afterwards they are again incorporated by another name, as where they were bailifl's and buigesses before and now are Mayor and commonalty, or were prior and convent before, and after- wards are translated into a dean and chaj)ter, although the qualitv and name of their corporations an; altered, yet the new body shall enjoy all the rights and property of the old. 4 Co. 87 — 3 Bvirr., Kep. 18iJG. — Judging fiom the analogy of this case, as well as from other considerations, we are of opinion that, if Episcopacy should be abolished in your Church, and some other form of Church government should be established in the manner mentioned in your book of r« 72 Discipline, the rights and interests of the Conference in any Church property, whether they were legal or only equitable rights and interests, would not be impaired or aflected by such a change. '* We have the honor to be, reverend gentlemen, ** Your obedient, humble servants, ** Marshall S. Bidwell. "John Rolph. " Rev. Messrs. J. Richardson and A. Irvine." There was a [)ostscript to this letter which I did not give, because unneccessary, and because I wished to make my argument as concise as possible. I give it now, with all Mr. P. endeavors to make out of it : — " 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 which ])roperty has been given to the Conference, or to Tiustees lor their use, on the express condition that their interest 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 n\)on these terms, or upon other special or peculiar conditions ; as the rights of the Conference in such instances, if there be any, must depend on the particular circumstances of each other. /CI- TV '* Marshall S. Bidwell. (Signed) ,, j^^^ j^^^p^ „ " It will be seen," says Mr. Perritt, " by the observing reader, that this postscript touches the very jioint for which we are contending — that the property was ' given to the Con- ference or to Trustees for their use on the express condition that their interest should continue only while the Episcopal form of Church government was retained.' Can any one doubt that this was the * express condition ' on which all Church pro])erty was given previous to 1843 ? The form of deed as given in the Discipline of 1829 puts this beyond •3 serving which le Con- ndition iscopal ny one lich all orm of eyond any possible doubt. It conveys the ' tract or parcel of land, with the building or buildings erected, or to be erected thereon, and all the appurtenances and privileges thereof, to them the said Trustees and their successors in the said trust forever, for the site of a Church, meeting-house, and bury- ing <;round for the use of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada.' {See Discipline 1829, page 123.)" If all the property deeded to the Church, while bearing the name of the M. E. Church, came under the " express condition," then why did not the prosecutors in the six several chapel suits recover ] In an ordinary deed, there was no express condition that their ** interest only should continue while the Episcopal form of Church government was retained. Tlie j)roperty was given for " the use of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church m Canada," it is true ; but then, the constitution of that Church provided for *' doing away " with the Episcopal feature. If a bequest expressed such a condition, then perhaps, after the Union, that particular bit of property would have been forfeited, ii the heirs had challenged it, though I never heard of such a case, unless, indeed, the case was defended on the princi pie laid down by Bishop Hedding, who maintained that all the essential elements of Methodist Episcopacy were re- tained in the new Discipline, and that the changes made did not necessarily require a cJtange of 7iaine ; and that we might have still been called the Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada. [See Methodist Chapel Property Case. But a forfeiture such as that above stated, if it had occurred, would not have affected the great total of conuexional property. Because such a deed of gift would not have been in discipli nary form.] The soundness of Messrs. Bid well and Rolph's legal 74 opinion waH confirmed, as well as the constitutional regu- larity of the proceedings in the Union measure, by the issue of no less than six several suits which tlio self-created Episcopal s instituted to possess themselves of property belonging to the original Metiiodist Church of the Province of Upper Canada, which were as follows : — 1st The cha))el in the Jersey Settlement, Gore District. 2nd. The Rock chapel, Core District. 3rd. Lundy's Lane chapel, Niagara District. 4th. The Belleville chapel, Victoria District. 5th. The Waterloo chapel, Midland District. 6th. The Chapel ground in Bytown. Further, that the preservation of an original name is in nowise indispensable to the solidarity and identity of a Church, and its claims are implied in several authoritative statements which have been produced, especially that of the Rev. Ezekiel Cooper. Examples in illustration and confirmation of this position might be furnished from other lands and times. Not to go back too far, or beyond our own country, many such ex- amples might be produced from the Presbyterian churches of this land, in which I do not pretend to claim more than sub- stantial correctness. Several of the older Presbyterian churches, such as Prescott, Brockville, Perth, York, »fcc., at the first, 1 believe, stood in connection with the Synod of Ulster, in Ireland. Next, they appear in connection with the Church of Scotland, which involved some change of name, as well as administration, yet their identity was not destroyed, or their rights impaired. The same v/as true, after the changes brought about by the Union of the «' Canada " and " United " Presbyterian Churches. The same holds good with this united body after its Union with the residuary Church of the Province, and all attempts to 70 provent the property going into the new organization have failed. The Union of the first " Canadian Wesleyan Metho- dist Church " with the " New Connexion," and the combina- tion of these two names in one, did not destroy the identity and claims of the former. The last and largest unifying Methodist measure, because done constitutionally, has with- stood all appeals to the law to prevent the })roperty of any one of the sections from going into the united body, though now under a new name. The last objection to the Union measure, and the changes involved in that measure, were — 3. The body which previously elected one of its ow7i mem- bers to preside over the deliberations of the Conference and to siiperiiitend the Connexion, afterwards received a President from the British Conference, who possessed the administrative authority also. Even so ! The General Conference, both of the United States and Canada Churches, had power to change the mode of appointing their presiding and superintending officers into any form, and to conlide the office to what hands they liked. A General Superintendent from England, or who resided principally or wholly in England, did not destroy the iden- tity, autonomy, or even independence of tlie Methodist Epis- copal Church in the United States, and by consequence did not destroy that of the Canada Church. Observe the follow- ing reading of the American Minutes in 1789 : " Question 7. Who are the persons who exercise the Episcopal office in the Methodist Church in Europe and America 1 Answer. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury." The intelligent reader does not require to be told that Wesley resided wholly in England, and Coke principally, yet they belonged to both Connexions. The Articles of the first Union did not em})ower the British Conference to appoint the same person 76 to be President oftener than " once in four years ;" or in the event of failing to do it, as they did in 1840, the Canada Conference had i>ower to elect one of ita own members to that office. For seven years this Conference elected its own President and administered its own affairs without any change in the name or the essential organization of the Church. The immediate, original mother of the Canada Church re- ceived the delegates of that Church each succeeding four years, at its General Conference, not only without hesitancy, but with cordiality, as the lineal descendant of the Church it at first planted, and as co-ordinate with itself, on the principle that none of its changes of name or administration had destroyed its identity or impaired its true Methodistic va- lidity. The above line of alignment might be greatly expanded, illustrated, and fortified, but my object has only been to give an epitome of the case throughout, as being thus more likely to be read and understood than if it had been more extend- edly amplified. I have, therefore, reserved plenty of materials for strengthening any part of thid fortress that may be as- sailed. And here I might stop. For what is the fair inference from the facts and argu- ments I have adduced 1 If Mr. Wesley and all sound and sensible Methodists believe that no exact form of Church government is laid down in the Scriptures ; if he and they believe that eldei's and bishops are but one and the same order, and may ordain indiflferently, yea, that there are other modes of ordination than by imposition of hands- - that any one particular name is not essential to the exist- ence of a true Methodist Church, and that its essence con- sists in something more vital — that a Presbyterial Wesleyan Church in Europe and a Presbyterially Episcopal one in 77 America are co-ordinate, and that all the changes involved in the translation of the Canada Church, through a brief period of independency, from an immediate connection with the latter to an immediate connc^etion with the former, were constitutionally made, and that one must be the original and true Methodist Church of the Province — and finally, that, therefore, any ecclesiastical body claiming that position must be a pretence and a /rand, T might rest the case here ; but I fear our would-be rivals are so pertinacious that I shall be forced to advance one step further, and — VJI. Examine the Claims of the Redoubtable Chal- lengers. In order to eliminate the real truth from what some have made a tangled, heterogeneous mass, I will api)ly several tests in the form of questions, and honestly inquire what answers contemporaneous history affords. One of the first questions that should be asked is the following : — Who originated the body now claiming to be the true Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada 1 In answer, I am justified in saying : — One located elder — one who was once a travelling preacher, but who had been out of the Connexion twenty-two or twenty-three years — (some say expelled) — two that had been on trial two or three years, but were never received into full connexion — one who had attained deacon's orders as a travelling preacher, but had been located twenty years at the time of the Union in 1833 — one superannuated preacher — one who lo- cated to escape notification of location for inefl^iciency, after the Union was effected — and a few local preachers, one or two of whom had been hired by a Presiding Elder to travel on circuits for short periods — some exhorters — and a few dissatisfied officials and private members, and an augmenta- tion in succeeding months and years of other adherents, fl 78 not dissimilar to those who went to David in the cave of Adulhnn, as recorded in Samuel, chapter xxii. and verse 2nd, which see. What was the order and the dates of their respective ad- hesions to this enterprise 1 If we allow Dr. Webster's (their own historian) version of the successive opposition movements aj^ainst the Union measure that transformed the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada into the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada, and his dates as I have given them on a former page, then (1) the Rev. David Gulp, once a travelling Elder, who had located eight years V)efore the Union was consummated, was about the first who evinced overt hostility to that measure. Yet there is no evidence that his opposition at the first went any further than dissatisfaction with the prosi)ect that no one becoming a local preacher after 1833 would receive ordi- nation. The next in order, and probably greater in mischievous- neas, was Mr. John Bailey, to whom I have already referred, who was given, and took an appointment from the Wesleyan Methodist Conference after the Union was consummated in 1833. Tiiis was done, as I have shown in another place, to save his own and family's feelings ; and he betrayed the trust voluntarily assumed by him. Let us hear this gentle- man's admission, on oath, under cross-examination, during the progress of the Belleville Chapel Property trial : — " It was witness's desire to be admitted a member of the travel- ing Connexion at Toronto in 1833, They agreed to the Union before he received his appointment to a station."* • Belleville Chapel Property case. [Mr. P. is horrified that I should say anything to the disparagement of so good and venerable a man as Father Bailey. I say nothing against him in the ordinary relations of life ; but nothing can overthrow what I have said of his treason to the Conference.] 70 One of the earliost who co-opomtecl with Mr. (^iilp was Daniel Pickalt,^ a man who had earned no right to be listened to with respect in stich a juncture. He had been received on trial foi- tlie ministry in I MOO, and had been for some years considered reliabh' afj a ]>.ro may bo no dispute about it, 1 herewith give the Report in extenso «» they presented it : — • * The claim that wliat lie leccivcil as sa'aiy wa.s due liefore the Union, I believe to be a pure invention. And tlie statement that he in no sense continued a member after 183.'^, is also apociyphal ; l)ut if the Episcopals could succeed in securing Fauher Gatchell throughout, as '"One vswalluw dors not make a sunnner," so one person cannot make a Church or a Conference. But I know whereof I alTirm, and testify that vJikh I have seen. 84 " General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 14, 1836. *' The Committee to whom was referred the adilress of sundry persons in Upijer Can-ida, claiming.,' to V)e the M. E. Cliurch in that Province, beg leave to report— " That tiiey have had an iiiterview with the individuals appointed by those })ersons, and who were the bearers or the address, and have availed themselves of such other sources of information as were within their reach. And they tind that in June, 1835, certain [)ersons to the number of five, only one of whom was a travelling preacher, tlie others being local Ehlers, met and resolved themselves into what they called a General Conference, and elected one of their number to the office of a bishop, and the remaining four pro- ceeded to ordain and set liim apart for that office, and imme- diatt iy held an Annual Conference, from the Minutes of which it appears that they then numbered twenty-one sta- tioned or travelling preachers, twenty local preachers, and 1,243 members of society. It appears there have been addi- tions since, both of preachers and members. In view of all the circumstances, as far as your committee has been able to ascertain and understand them, they are unanimously of opinion the case requires no interference of this General Conference. " All of w^hich is respectfully submitted. " D. Ostrandee, Chairman. "Cincinnati, May 14th, 1836." I think enough has been said to show that Joseph Gatchell et al. had no ground in Methodist or general law to set up the claims they did ; nay, that their claims were prepos- terous in the extreme. These persons had a natural right to organize a Church to their taste ; or, to state it more pro- perly, to take the responsibility of opposing and thwarting a perfectly legitimate and well-intentioned measure. But their proceedings were of a kind for which there was no pro vision in the Discipline of the Methodist Church. It is true 85 of the Discipline i)rovicled, that *' If by death, expulsion, or otherwise, there be no bishop remaining in our Church," then "the General Conference shall elect a bishop; and the Elders, or any three of them, who shall be appointed by the General Conf(n'enco for that piu-pose, shall ordain him ac- cording to our form of ordination." But the General Con" ference of yore, by constitutional provision, was merged in the then existing Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Church and certainly did not exist in the five men described, only one of whom would have been competent to vote in that General Conference, if it had continued; besides, that Gene- ral Conference, l)y a unanimous vote, had agreed to " do away with Episcopacy," — to do away with it even in theory. Farthei*, the conditions to which the clause above quoted re- fer did not, and could not, exist. There had never been a bishoj) to (fie, be expelled, or " otherwise " be disposed of. Although they might have had a natural right to create what they called an Episcopacy, they had no legal Method- istic right to do any such thing. No wonder, therefore, that one American Methodist editor should have pronounced the proceedings " little less than a solemn farce." [In the arrangement made between the Canada Delegates and the American General Conference, in 1828, the latter consented that, whenever the Canada Church chose to elect a bishop, one of Iheir bishops should be permitted to ordain him. Were the organizers of the present M. E. Church of Canada so confident of the legitimacy of their proceedings as to a])ply for the fulfiment of their pledge 1 And would the American bishops have consecrated Mr. Reynolds if applied tol Have any the temerity to answer these questions in the affirmative^ And does not the absence of this link in the chain in\ alidate the claim they set up ?] Then, also, viewing It on general religious grounds, was 86 there anything to justify iti Hero is a branch of Methodism wliich at first intends to adopt the Presbyterio- Episcopal form of Church government ; but they have never succeeded in securing an Episcopos. In the meantitue, the oldest, or parent branch of Methodism, having entered on tlio same ground in the prosecutions of missionary openings, as Church government is a secondary matter in Methodism, it lias been thought best that these two branches should combine for the evangelization of the country, each one giving up some pe- culiarity, adopting some feature of administrative economy from the other, all of which changes were made constitution- ally. Was it kind and Christian-like in a very small minority to try to force their views on the majority ? or to rend the peace and unity of an otherwise ])rosperous Church because their views could not be met? Did they not justly lay themselves open to the sus[)icion that their op[)osition was founded in one or more of the following causes — one or two in some, and all in others — namely, prejiidice, bigotry, vanity, ambition, want of humility, and lovo of ascendency and no- toriety ? If I am forced at last to speak out, I must say I have never changed the opinion I had then, that their stand was unwarranted and wrong — Oh, it was enough to make angels weep to witness the strife and evil-speaking which were resorted to to rend happy societies aj)art. The manner of prosecuting these devisive objects, and the reasons for their success, are honestly put, and expressed in the most temperate language and kindest spirit, in my Biographical History, which I here reproduce, as I choose to treat this matter in the judicial, rather than in the contro- versial, manner : — " At first their accessions were mostly from the old body, for a disruptive ^\)iv\t is not usually the spirit of revival. They drew on the Wesleyan Church in various ways and for many years. First, there were the 87 I the sed in u my )Ose to Dntro- nostly ly the ch in ■e the flisaffected local preachers and their immediate friends. . . . These local preachers showed tho most untiring industry. They visited nearly every local preacher in the land, and tried to shako his adherence to the (Jon Terence. Wherever they heard of a dissatisfied or susceptible class-leader, they visited him, and tried to secure the adhesion of him and his class to th(;ir measures. They did the same with individual members of the Church. The most unfounded stories were put in circulation against the Conference and individual ministers, adapted very much to weaken the influence of both one and the other. These, because of the political [)rejudice8 awakened l)y causes already descril)ed,* were very lai-gely beUeved, and caused the members of the Conference, in many cases, to tread a thorny path ; and this rather in- creased than diminished for many years. The Ki[)iscopal brethren a}>[)ealed to the sympathy of the so-called reform- ing politicians of the day, and leceived it largely. Tliis to them was a great so\irce of gain and support. Then, no doubt, as they smw everything depended upon it, their preachers labored hard, despite all jnivations. They went into neighborhoods where the Wesleyans had no services, and raised up classes. Many a Wesleyan brother was per- suaded to take the leadership of such a class ; many a local preacher was lured over with the prospect of obtaining a circuit ! " Every line of the above is true ; and this method was pursued with effect for full ten years after the disruption. Their misrepresentations relative to their claims of being the orginal Church of the land, long years after, confuted and inveigled many a quiet, uninformed country society, and divided or totally alienated them. A tithe of such proceed- * Reference is here made to some matters which for a time procured the Wesleyan Confereroe the ill-will of the Reform party. rmrn 88 inga could not be particnlarizftd. I sadly roinomHer Edwarda- burg, the Manning Settlement, the Dulson neighborliood, and many others. But the most embarvassing aspect of this whole niattei" is, that this people, who were directly refiised n^cognition by the American General Conference in 183G* and in 184-1, after years of endeavor to leaven a certain class of American Methodist ministers with their ideas and with sympathy for them; and upon their advice, in 1856, applied to that body for a " friendlij recognition," and going early, before our delegates had arrived, it was carried in the sense of a quasi acknowledgment. If they had worn their honors meekly, although anomalous, it might not be worthy of remark, but the use they make of it in this country, I am quite sure, is anything but what the most considerable of the American ministers intended and expected at the time. This I saw from the indignation and regret expressed to me by the two Drs. Peck and Dr. Hibbard at the General Conference in Philadelphia, in 1864 ; but when a committee was struck to examine the matter, there being a portion of their friends upon that committee thoroughly schooled in the mode o^ proceeding, when I, as the senior representative, commenced to make a statement of the facts of the case, I was imme- diately called to order by the Rev. Mr. Blades, their special friend and advocate, on the ground that I was " making an attack on a Church with which they held fraternal relations." It was in vain I pleaded that " that was the very point to be examined ; namely, whether it was intended to give them such a recognition as endorsed the regularity of their origin and standing ; and if so, was it correct and proper I " But Mr. Blades having effectually retarded any progress in the * Rev. John Ryerson has totally ignored their sending Messrs, Bailey and Powley in 1836, 89 rliood, btei' is, ion by . 1844, leiican thy for it body )re our a quasi noekly, rk, but sure, is mericau IS I saw the two [ence in uck to i'iends node o^ menced imnie- special ving an ations." lit to be them r origin But s in the Messrs, inquiry, the committee adjourned ; and at a subsequent session of the Conference, the committee itself was discharged. [Mr. P.'s endeavor to give some other view of the matter mentioned in the above paragraph, I leave to have all the weight it can carry — 1 re-athrm every line I have written.] If this s})urious section of Methodism had been quiet and allowed bygones to pass^ and shown a disposition to deal in the spirit of candor and concession with the exigencies of general Methodism at the present hour, as a great fact con- frontiug us for solution, I think my past course should cause me to be believed when I say, I should be the last to revive old issues ; but when we find an extemporized Methodist Episcopacy flaunted in our faces, and we ourselves tolerant- ly treated as erring " seceders" it is a little tough that we have to fraternize and tacitly endorse these pretenders in the largest court of Methodism on the continent. My own final opinion now is, that if the American Gene- ral Conference cannot induce their proteges to conduct themselves with decency ; if we must listen to the diatribes of Bishop Carman in this country, and then meet him and endorse him by our representatives there; if we hold frater- nal relations with that great division of Methodism at all, then I say, we had better forego the honor altogether. If these circumstances continue, I deliberately give it as my HUMBLE OPINION, THAT WE SHALL CONSULT OUR DIGNITY BEST BY SENDING NO DELEGATES TO THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE Methodist Episcopal Church. [Two of our Canada organs demurred at the utterances in the last two paragraphs, upon which I almost immediately sent the following to the Christian Guardian, which was ad- mitted to its columns. I insert it here as the best further exposition of my meaning and position : 90 ** OVERDRAWN. " It is usually considered undignified in the author of any publication in book form to reply to any strictures upon the book, unless in a second issue of the work ; and I signified my purpose in the notification I gave of a forthcoming tractate on a vexed question * not to be drawn into any newspaper controversy.' And now that my * Exposition ' has been launched, I do not intend to depart from that pur- pose In replying to any strictures on the argument it em- bodies, — which, by the way, so far, has not been challenged, — but I may forestall a good deal of the declamation which is being poured forth anent a mere adjunct, or conclusion, by saying, more is made of It than was mea>t. " The advice with which I concluded may have been un- fortunately worded, but (1) I did not presume to speak for more than myself, or more than to give ' my own humble opinion; ' (2) I did not mean that as a threat to the great Methodist Church of the United States ; for no action of ours would be likely to affect them much, one way or the other ; much less did I mean to counsel such a course as an exhibition of displeasure ; nor even to prevent the Episco- pals being treated in a friendly manner ; (3) but I did feel then, and I feel now, that if our own and the Episcopals' claims to legitimacy and regularity must be ))laced in com- petition and rivalry before that venerable body, by both appearing there, and each claiming precedency of the other, to the disgrace of Canada and Canadian Methodism, it would be best for our own quie -, peace of mind, and ' dignity,' if you like, to abstain from appearing on that theatre altogether. And that the rather, because we re- ceive no reciprocal advantage ; for while we designate every year scores and hundreds of members, leaving for the United States, to the Methodist Episcopal Church of that 91 land, as the one with which we fratornizo, we, in return, are not likely to have many designated to hh while a Church in Canada receives fraternal recognition by them, rejoicing in the same name and exhil)iting an outward form of Church order like thoir own. Yoh, and while their officials are practically giving prioiity to theiu. In a late ' Itinerai-y ' of the Bishop of the Canada INI. E. Church, he com})lacontly mentions Bishop Foster's inviting him to preside during part of the deliberations of the late Detroit Conference.* Is it likely that the American Episcopos would invite tl.e President of one of our Annual Conferences to occupy the chair in his own place 1 — or even the venerable President of our General Conference himself 1 We nuist see it done be- fore we can believe that he would. Now the editors are made to know what I meant, they can say exactly what they deem required." As further evidence of the weight which the verv name of a Bishop carries with our Ei)isco])al brethren in the United States, I clip the following communication, made to that pa})er, from the Canada Christian Advocate : — " BISHOP CARMAN. " The West Wisconsin Conference was in session last week. The brethren had a fine time, and just in the midst of the work a little man, looking care-worn, dropped in their midst. He said he was * })assing to and fro in the earth,* but now returning from Manitoba. It was quickly learned * I wrote the above from niemory of the article in which it had place ; since it was written I have turned to tlie statement in ((uestion, and find tliat the words referred to are literally the following, which I give, lest I should be guilty of any measure of misrepresentation : — "Bishop Foster was presiding; gave the writer a hearty welcome ; favoured him with attendance in cabinet, and intimated a willingness that he should preside in business of Couference." IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) V. // / 'i.< ^^ 1.0 I.I ^ IIIIIM 2.0 1.8 11.25 11.4 ill! 1.6 V] n ^' /: V /A i I- \ i 92 N ' that he was Bishop Carman, of the Canada M. E. Church. They soon found that he was a live Bishop, full of fire and accompanied with the Holy Ghost ; though small in stature, yet powerful in work. Happy is that Church who has such a man to lead them. He preached on Sabbath at 2 p.m. with great i)ower and acceptability. Tiie leading })oints of his sermon were ably planted. His visit and sermon will not be soon forgotten. The ministers of the West became deeply interested in him, and also in the Church he so Christly represents. May the Lord ever give success to him and the loyal M. E. Church of Canada ! *' Preacher. " Wis., Oct. 10th, 1877."] [To all that my reviewer has said in the section entitled " Things that Ought to be Known," I devote only a very few lines. As far as that section touches the general ques- tion, I have in one way or another amply considered those points ', and as to the particular matters referred to, I have no connection with them ; and several of his direct •inquiries I do not understand, for the simple reason that I know not the cases to which he refers. I was not the author of the letter signed " One Who Knows," — I usually write over my own name ; I know nothing of the " farmer " and the " minister " referred to, or what connection it has with our controversy ; and as to the severe language uttered at Montreal, I am not its defender.] Conclusion. I have now finished a very unwelcome task. I have written merely because our Canada Episcopals trumpet a position which, if successfully vindicate-Jl, places the oldest and largest Methodist body of the Dominion before the world in the light of a " secession," instead of the identical original Methodist Church of Canada ; but I think I have 93 Church, fire and stature, bas such t 2 p.m. )oints ol" uon will i became h he so a to him CHER. entitled y a very ral ques- Bd those I, I have nquirie.s ; not the le letter my own iuister " oversy ; am not I have impet a e oldest ore the dentical I have shown irrefragably, that the true history of the Church planted by Losee, Dunham, and Case is found in the pre- sent Methodist Church of Canada. I do not say that those bearing other forms and names are not essentially Metho- distic. Nay, I believe they are so much so that if no im- proper use of bygones is made by them, we may profitably hold the most intimate fraternal relations with them, and labour for, at least, federal relations, if we cannot have an organic Union. Henceforth, so far as I am concerned, the questions I have discussed shall be relegated to history. Praying that true Methodist teaching, experience, zeal, and success may characterize all that bear the generic name of Methodist, I write myself " the friend of all, the enemy of none." ^^ I wish to say to all distinctly, that there is no one responsible for any opinions or principles put forth in the above tract, or in any of my works; for, while my able chal- lenger comes forth clad in the mail of no less than three, if not four, Conferential resolutions, I appear alone with simple sling and stone, iinauthenticated — no Conferential invitation or resolution of thanks having ever been passed as it respects any of the works which I have written, intended to serve the interests of Methodism ; so that any one who, while he " holds with the hare, would like to run with the hounds,'' if challenged with anything I have said, which he doe aot like to avow, ho can set it down to " Father Carroll's crot- chets." THE END. W' APPENDIX. Answers to Cektain Inquiries Addressed to Several Ministers Concerning the Objections to the Rule Relative to Weekly and Quarterly Contkibu- tions. I give them in the order in which their letters arrived. The Rev. Mr. Young writes as follows : — "Trenton, Nov. 12th, 1880. " Dear Brother Carroll, — " In answer to your question, I can say that I have a dis- tinct recollection of the use made by the promoters of the Episcopal Secession in 1835-6-7 of the 'penny a week and shilling a quarter;' and with the poor, as well as with the narrow-minded, it was very successful. More than this, a few years ago one of their old preachers told me that their success in the free use of the objection to our * penny a week and shilling a quarter ' had contracted the views of their people, and that they were now paying the penalty in re- ceiving a more limited support than the Wesleyan Min- isters got. " I think full justice has never been done to the argu- ment drawn from the following facts .- — *' I. When we were separated from the U. S. A. in 1828, the General Conference agreed that when the Canadian Church should elect a bishop, one of their bishops should ordain or consecrate him. " II. When they elected Reynolds, they knew their posi- tion so well that they never even asked for a Methodist bishop to ordain him. Their being the old body was an after-thought. 96 was an *' III. This is further established by what I have been told is the numbering of their first Minutes of Confer- ence.* " I am not anxious to have this controversy perpetuated for ever, but I would like to see the important facts and arguments fairly stated, and then the future historian would not be led astray by false statements. *' Wishing you great happiness in your old age, " I remain, as ever, yours, "W. Young." The rev. and venerable Richard Jones, who was an active participant in the doings of the Conference from 1828 to 1836-7, answers luy inquiries in these words: — "As for the schismatics to deny that they at the beginning made any capital of the regulation concerning the penny a week and the shilling a quarter, is only of a piece with the rest of their false statements. I have a distinct recollection of the trouble they gave me on the Hallow ell Circuit in 1835." He then tells a very ludicrous story, illustrative of the ques- tion of the contril)utions, giving the names of the actors in the same, but it miglit seem trifling to recite it. He says, how- ever, ** You have advanced nothing but what is true." The Rev. Dr. Evans replies as follows — I leave his letter to speak for or against me, as it may be interpreted : — " London, Nov. 16th, 1880. "Dear Buother Carroll, — " In reply, I can simply say that at an early period after the organization of the M. E. Church to which you refer, the clause in the Discipline to which you also refer was used by some of the heated separatists to create an impression that the Wesleyan Church was aboui to levy taxes on the members, instead of relying, as formerly, on voluntary con- * Father Young must mean their Missionary Reports : these Min- utes are simply for the year. Their first, however, is for 1835. 96 tributions. Whether the efibrt to unsettle our people in that way was generally made, or whether it succeeded to any great extent, I am unable to say. " It is a pity that those old controversies should be stirred again. " Yours truly, " Ephm. Evans." The Rev. Lewis Warner's testimonv is as follows : — "Dear Dr. Carroll, — " I have no doubt but that the introduction of Mr. Wes- ley's original rule relating to the one penny a week and a shilling a quarter into the Discipline, at the time of our Union with the British Conference, drove away from our Church hundreds of members. The Episcopal ministers made that a kind of text wherever they went, and frightened our people. " Lewis Warner.'' I might get a similar testimony from every aged minister conversant with the time of division, but I forbear. Opinion of the Hon. Chief Justice Robinson on the Waterloo Chapel Case. Doe, on the demise of the Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the Township of Kingston, vs. Thomas Bell. The question which stands for our decision in this case is one interesting in its nature, and of much consequence, I apprehend, to numerous congregations of Christians, affect- ing, in no small degree, their peace and v/elfare. This Ac- tion ot Ejectment is brought at the instance of certain in- dividuals who claim to be the Trustees holding the legal estate in a small piece of ground, with a meeting-house built theieon, which wae used for some years as a place of wor- ship, by a congregation of Methodists calling themselves members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada. A 97 pie in led to jtirred .N3. . Wes- ; and a of our jm our inisterB rhtened NER.'' ninister ON THE oiscopal iell. case is lence, I tiflfect- bis Ac- tain in- e legal le built )f wor- selves ,da. A dispute has recently arisen respecting tlie occupalion of this property, in consequence of a chant^e brought about in the government and discipline of the Methodist Society in this Province, in which clmnge all its members it ap])eara do not concur. The defendant was some time ago ph\ced in charge of the meeting-house by certain other individuals who claim to bo the Trustees invested with the legal estate in this property, and who deny that the persons suing in the corporate name used in this action liave any legal interest in the premises. He holds under the last mentioned Trus- tees, and sets up their title as his defence. The question arises upon the following facts : — In 1828 a statute was passed in this Province (8 Geo. IV, chap. 2), in which it is i*ecited that religious societies of various denominations of Christians had found difficulty in securing the title of land requisite for the site of a church, meeting-house, or chapel, or burying-ground, for want of a corporate capacity to take and hold the same in perpetual succession ; and for remedy it is enacted " that whenever any religious congregation or Society of Methodists, &c. (enumerating also in the statute many other denominations of Christians), shall have occasion to take a conveyance of land for any of the uses aforesaid, it shall be lawful for them to appoint Trustees, to whom and their successors, to be appointed in such manner as shall be specified in the deed, the land requisite for all or any of the purjjoses afore- said may be conveyed ; and such Trustees, and their suc- Cf'ssors in })erpetual succession, by the name expressed in such deed, shall be capable of taking, holding, and possess- ing such land, and of maintaining any action for the protec- tion thereof and of their right thereto." The statute provides that more than '"ive acres of land shall nob be so held in trust for any one congregation, and ■ ->'M*>^»y j ( ^ '« ' i ii p' ^ iK ' ^l *il 9^*i '* » ' ^ * i f K' ^i»a»imai .tfMtM 98 that the Trustees shall, within twelve months after the ex- ecution of the deed, cause it to be enregistered in the County Register. Upon these two hitter provisions, however, no question arises in this case. On the 9th of August, 1832, a deed of bargain and sale was executed, which was registered on tlie 6th of July fol- lowing, and in which, after setting forth particularly the provisions of this statute, it is recited that a religious Cou- gregation or Society of Methodists had occasion to take a deed of a tract of land in the township of Kingston, for the site of a church and burying-ground, and had appointed nine persons to be Trustees for holding the same, according to the Act ; and by this deed one Daniel Ferris, tiie grantor, for a consideration of three pounds acknowledged to be ptid, grants, bargains, and sells to the nine persons named as Trus- tees — viz , John Grass, James Powley, Barnabas Wartman, Gilbert Purdy, Lambert Vanalstine, Joseph Orser, Micajah Purdy, Francis Lattimore, and Hobert Abernethy — nd to their successors to be appointed in the manner specified in the deed, all that parcel of land, tfcc, &c., being one acre of ground in the township of Kingston, on which a stone church is standing, with all the estate, (tc, &c. " To have and to hold the said tract, tkc, to them the said Trustees, and their successors in the said trust forever, for the site of a church and burying-ground for the use of the mem- bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, according to the Rules ami Discipline which now are, or hereafter may be., adopted by the General or Annual Conference of ike said Church in Canada ; in trush and confidence that the said Trustees for the time being shall at all times hereafter permit any Methodist Episcopal Minister or Preacher, or Minister or Preachers (he or they being a mem.ber or members of the 99 Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, and duly authorised as such by the said General or Annual Conference), to preach and perform religious service in the said house and burying-ground, according to the Rules and Discipline of the said Church : — And in further trust and confidence that they, the said Trustees for the time being, may at their dis- cretion, by and with the consent and advice of the Preacher in charge, permit the regular IVlinister and Preacher of any other Protestaut denomination of Christians to preach and perform public religious service in the said house, when it shall not be required for the use of the Ministers o"^' Preachers of the said Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada." The deed then proceeds thus : — " And it is hereby de- clared to be the true intent of this deed that the full num- ber of the Trustees of the said trust shall continue to be nine ; and that whenever any one or more of the said above- named Trustees, or of their successors in the said trust, shall die, or cease to be a member or members of the said Methodist Church in Canada, according to the Rules and Discipline of the said Church, the vacant place or places of the Trustee or Trustees so dying, or ceasivig to be a member or members of the said Church shall be filled with a successor or successors, being a member or members of the said Church, of the age of twenty-one years, to be nominated and appointed as fol- lows — to wit : by the stationed Minister or Preacher in the cliarge of the said Church for the time being, within whose station or circuit the said i^arcei or tract of land shall be, and thereupon appointed by the surviving Trustee or Trus- tees of the said trust, if they think proper to appoint the person or pei'sons so nominated (in case Che votes of Trus- tees shall be equal, the stationed minister to have a casting vote); and if it shall happen at any time that there shall be f , • ■ "i-*^ ii »iM m i tfi mm i ii fiit am«mM m mm f 100 no surviving Trustee of the said trust, then it shall be law- ful for the stationed Minister or Preacher who shall have the chai'ge of that station or circuit for the time being to nominate, and th(i Quarterly Conference of that circuit or station, if they ai)j)rove the person or persons so nominated, to appoint the requisite number of Trustees of the said trust by a major vote of the members of the said Conference then present. And in case of an equal division of their votes, the Chairman of the Conference shall h.ive a casting vote in such appointment ; and the person or persons so nominated and appointed Trustee or Truscces in either of the said modes of nomination and appointment shall be the legal suc- cessor or successors of the said above-named Trustees, and shall have in perpetual succession the same capacities, powers, rights and duties as are given to the said above- named Trustees, in and by this deed and the statute afore- said." Much of what I have extracted from the deed does not bear directly upon this question ; but in tracing the legal estate the terms of the trust declared in the deed are so material, as they aflect the succession to the trust, or in other words, to the estate, that it is best to give them at length, in order that everything may come under view that can properly influence the decision. It appears that the Methodists in this Province being at at first almost exclusively emigrants from the revolted colo- nies, or from the United States after their independence, or the descendants from such emigrants, did not for many years attempt to set up a Church of their own, and had no connection with any Methodibt Society in Europe ; but they enjoyed the ministrations of their religion under ministers who received their ordination in the United States, and who accounted themselves and were accounted members of the ! law- have .ng to uit or aated. I trust 3 then es, the ote in inated e said al 8UC- i8, and icities, above- at'ore- oes not |e legal are so or in Ihem at VST that leing at 3d colo- ^nce, or many I had no |iit they inisters Ind who of the 101 Methodist Episcopal Church in America, or, in other words, of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States They regarded themselves at that time as belonging to that body, being amenable to no other, and having no other means but through them of regulating their Church, enforc- ing discipline, and obtaining preachers. There being some jealousy probably 01* a connection, though purely ecclesiastical, with a foreign body, it was pro- posed in 1328 that they should separate themselves; and the Methodist Society in Canada petitioned to be allowed to separate, which was an acknowledgment of their actual re- lation or connection. The General Conference in the United States allowed it , and they simply sepai'ated in that year without any condition or qualification, and erected them- selves into an independent Church, contemplating, it would seem, at that time no change in regard to Episcopacy, but being under no stipulation in that respect with the Church from which they had separated. In the following year (1829) the General Conference in this Province published what they cal'cd " The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada,^' addressed to the members of that Chu/ch, and au- thenticated by the signatures of the President and Secretary. This appears to be a solemn and formal declaration by the governing power in the Society — 1st. 01 the origin of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 2nd. Of their Articles of Faith. 3rd. Oi the government and discipline of the Church, in- cluding an exposition of the cou3titution and powers of the General and Annual Conferences — of the election and con- secration of Bishops — of the election of Presiding Elders — the election, ordination, and duties of travelling Elders and of Deacons — the receiving of travelling Preachers, and their m www I— MiMMMMinM^w: 102 duty, and the duties of those who have charge of circuits — a code of practical instruc+^^ions and rules for the govern- ment and assistance of their preachers — provision for the trial and expulsion of imnio'il ministers — and directions concerning their local preacheij. 4th. Directions concerning baptism ; the administering the Lord's Supper, and the performance of public worship. 5th. The nature, design, and rules of ihe united societies, their class-meetings, and band societies. 6th. Rules and advice for the government of their mem- bers, and provisions for excluding from their societies im- moral and disorderly persons (these extend to the lay inembers). 7th. The forms or services of the Church to be used in administering the sacrament, in baptism, in solemnizing matrimony, in the burial of the dead, and in ordaining bishops, elders, and deacons. 8th. The temporal economy of the Society, including un- der this head directions for fixing the boundaries of the Annual Conference ; the building of churches, and the order to be observed therein ; directions respecting the eligibility of persons to be Trustees for their churches, houses, or schools, and respecting the security of their preaching houses and the premises belonging thereto (by which is meant se- curing the tenure of them in an effectual and convenient manner). For this latter purpose the plan or form of a deed of settlement for vesting their several meeting-houses and burying-grounds in trustees, and providing for a succession of trustees, is set down at full length in this Book of Disci- pline, with a direction that such form shall be adhered to in all possible cases. This form agrees, verbatim, with the deed given in evidence in this action, which shows that this deed taken in 1832 was taken in exact conformity to a draft of a deed that had been presented by the Conference. • 103 9. The nmnageraent of the pecuniary affairs of the Society, viz., the raising and appropriating f', ncis for the support of their ministers and preachers, and for other objects. I have been thus particuhir in enumerating the contents of this " Book of Doctrine and Discipline," though many parts of it may not serve to throw light on this question, in order to show, in the first place, that from its nature and objects it is evidently of the highest authority among the members of this religious community, and that no opinion can safely be formed on any question affecting their doctrine, government, discipline, or tem))oral economy, without mi- nutely ei "oining it throughout. At present I will only notice the i .w passages iii this Manual of the Methodist Epi&- copal Church which bear prominently upon the question before ns, and which were cited and relied upon by both parties in the argument, though the inferences they would deduce from them are exactly opposite. Ill the first section, the origin of the Methodist Episcopal Church is thus set forth : — " The preachers and mt-mbers of our society in general, being convinced that there was a great deficiency of vital religion in the Church of England in America, and being in many places destitute of the Christian sacraments, as several of the clergy had forsaken their churches, requested the late Rev. John Wesley to take such measures, in his wisdom and prudence, as would afibrd them suitable relief in their distress. " In consequence of this, our venerable friend, who, under God, had been the father of the great revival of religion now extending over the earth, by the means of the Methodists, determined to ordain ministers for America, and for this purpose, in the year 1784, sent over thi-ee regularly ordained clergy ; but inefe.riing the Episcopal mode of Church govern- ment to any other, he solemnly set apart, by the imposition . ^..^ I ii-jmiiiiiniMtiiwiiiri 104 of his hands, and prayer, one of them viz., Thomas Coke, Doctor of Civil Law, late of Jesus' College, in the Univer.siry of Oxford, and a Presbyter of the Church of England — for the Episcopal olHce, and having delivered to him letters of Episcopal orders, commissioned and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury, then general assistant of the Metliodist Society in America, for the same Episco[)al office ; lie the said Francis Asbury being first ordained deacon and elder. In consequence of which tlio said Francis Asbury was solemnly set apart for the said Episcopal office by prayer and the imposition of the hands of the said Thomas Coke, other regularly ordained ministers assisting in tlu; sacred ceremony. At which time the General Conftrence held at Baltimore did unanimously receive the said Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury as their Bishops, being fully satisfied of the validity of their Episcopal ordination." This is the account given by the Metliodist Church in Canada of the introdution of E[)iscopacy into the Methodist Connexion in America. Then n'^:'t we learn, from this Book of Discipline, that in the Methodist Episcoj)al Church in Canada there was a General Conference com|)osed of all the travelling elders who had travelled four years last past, and had been re- ceived into full Connexion. The elders were elected by a majority of the Annual Conference, and were ordained by the bishop with the assistance of some elders — they were in full orders of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and could ad- minister ba})tism and the Lord's Supper, perform the office of Matrimony, and all parts of divine worship. Whenever the General Conference met (composed, as be- fore stated, of such fdders as had travelled four years, and had been received into full Connexion), two-thirds of its members were necessary to form a quorum for transacting business. 105 id by !i by the ;n full lid ad- 3 office as be- rs, and of its sac ting One of the General Superintendents was to preside ; or if none were present, tlien a president for the time being was to bo chosen by the Conference. The first General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Cdua la was appointed by this Book of Discipline to be held on the last Wednesday in August, 1830, and thenceforward it was to meet once in four years, at such times and in such places as should be fixed on by the General Conference from time to time. But the General Superin- tendent, with the advice of the Annual Conference or Con- ferences, or, if there be no General Superintendent, the Annual Conference or Conferences respectively had power to call a General Conference, if they should judge it neces- sary, at any time. The General Conference had so far an overruling power in the Church that they could elect the bishop, and could re- prove, suspend, or expel him if thoy found cause for it ; and to the Conference he was expressly made amenable for his conduct. Of this Conference it is further to be observ ,d, that it was in no part composed of lay members ; and that no power over it, or appeal from it, is given by tiiis constitu tion to any authority in the Society, or to the whole Society collectively — 1 mean there is none express!) given. The only control provided is by setting down in this Book of Discipline certain restrictions upon their power. From whence the authority of the Conference arose, indeed, was not shown at the trial ; there was no evidence of a compact, among the members of the Society. For all that appears in evidence, they nssunird, :is the supremo go 'erning [)Ower of the Church, to procluim by this public ition of their " Discipline," to all who eho.se to unite with them, that these were the terms on which they If V 106 could partake of the ministrations of religion under their dispensation ; and the restrictions, so far as I see, were limitations voluntarily set by themselves to their own power, and by which (having thus formally declared them) they would afterwards be bound. This assumption of power by the Conference, without affecting to derive it from any general compact with the body, including the lay members, but rather leaving the latter to adhere or to renounce the Society as they might determine, does, as I understand it, comport with the principles of the VVesleyan Methodist sys- tem from its foundation. We are next to consider what are the })0wers of tliis General Conference, as we find them declared in the Book of Discipline. They are thus set forth : — " The General Conference shall have full power to make rules and regulations for ou Church under the tollowhtg limitations and restrictions : — " 1st. They shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion, nor establish any new standards, or rules of doctrine, contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine. " 2nd. They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our Government, so as to do away with Episcopacy, or de- stroy the plan of our Itinerant General Superintendency." Then follow restrictions 3, 4, b, 6, and 7, which relate to matters not affecting the question before us, and chietly temporal concerns ; and the 7th or last restriction con- cludes thus : — " Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recommendation of three-fourths of tlie Annual Conference or Conferences, then the majority of thive-fouiths of the General Conference shall suffice to alter any of the above restrictions except the sixth and seventh, which shall not be done away or altered without the recommendation or con- 107 sent of two-thirds of the Quarterly Conferences throughout the Connexion." The sixtli restriction above referred to relates to matters of temporal economy only, such as build- ing of meeting-liouses, the allowance to ministers, (fee, &c. The sevc^nth restriction relates (among other things) to the doctrines of the Church, and it ])rovides '* that no new rale, regulation, or alteration respecting the doctrines of the Church shall have any force or authority until laid before Quarterly Conferences throughout the Connexion, and ap- proved of by a majority of the members of two-thirds of the said Conferences." Thus it will be seen that, in 1828, the Methodist Society in this Province, separated from the Episcopal Methodists in the United States, and formed an independent Church of their own ; — that in 1829 their Conference published a book of their Doctrines and Discipline, the only account of their constitution which we have heard of; and that in August 1830, when their first General Conference met, it assembled and acted under this constitution ; and the Society appears to have rested on this footing till August, 1832, there being no bishop of the Church during that time, although there was a provision in the Constitution for electing and ordain- ing one. A Superintendent, who had not been ordained Bishop, performed such functions as the Constitution pro- vided for during the absence of the bishop, but there was actually no bishop of the Church, and the bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church had no authority or control over the Society in Canada. In 1832 th ; idea of uniting themselves to the Wesieyan Methodist Society in England seems first to have been en- tertained in this religious community ; at least the first manifestation of that intention spoken of at the trial of the cause was in that year. At the Annual Conference in 108 August, 1832, a union with the British Wesleyan Method- ists was openly proposed and discussed. Whether the first suggestion of such a union originated in the Society here, or whether they were invited to it by the Society in Enghmd, we are not aware; but it seems that Mr. Alder, a re})resen- tative from the British Wesleyan Conference, was then in Canada and stated to the Conference, or to the members of it, that su3h a union could not take ])lace so long as the So- ciety in Canada retained Episcopacy as a part of their Con- stitution or Church Government, because Wesley, the founder of Methodism, had never sanctioned it in England; it formed no part of the system of the Society there. In con- sequence of this declaration it was proposed, in the Annual Conference at Hallowell, in August, 1832, that the Church, or Society in this Province should relinquish ^Episcopacy ; and upon discussi'»n and deliberation, the Annual Confer- ence at ti)at meeting passed a resolution " recomuiondiug the General Conference to pass the third resolution of the report of the committee (of that Conference) on the pro- posed union, which reads as follows : — ' That Episcopacy be relinquished, (unleas it will jeopardize oicr Church properly, or as soon as it can be legally secured,) and superseded by an annual Presidency.'" And the Annual Coni'yrence further recommended their chairman to call a General Conference, on the Monday following, which was done. This recom- mendation to relinquish Episcopacy was voted for by three- fourths of the members of the Annual Conference. In pursuance of the resolution of the Annual Conference a special meeting of the General Conference was called and assembled at Hallowell, on the 13th August, 1832, (a few days after the deed before us was executed.) An Eider of the Cnurch wa.s elected by the Conft-rfnce their President for the time ; and the General Conference at this meeting came to the following resolution : — 109 Irence U and few ler of lideut 3tiug " Besolved, that this Confereuce, on the recommendation of three-fourths of the Annual Conference, having in pros- pect a union with our British brethren, agree to sanction the third Resolution of the Report of the Committee of the Annual Conference, which is as follows, to wit : — That Episcopacy be relinquished, (unless it jeopardize our Church property, or as soon as it oan be legally secured,) and super- seded by an Annual Presidency, — in connection with the tenth Resolution of said Report which says that none of the foregoing resolutions shall 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 Con- ference, and the arrangemt^nts referred to in them shall have been completed by the two Connexions." This resolution was carried by tlie votes of three-fourths of the members of the General Conference, and by the unanimous vote of the members present. Other resolutions were in like manner passed, providing for the performance of those duties which had before been discharged, or rather appointed to be discharged, by a bisho|). Instead of electing a bishop by the General Conference, a President was to be named annually by the Conference in England, or in default of their naming one, the Canadian Conference was to choose one from among its own members. All these arrangements were provisional, and depended on the Wesleyan Conference in England ac- ceding to the Union. They did accede to it, in August, 1833 ; and the act of concurrence of the British Conference being received 'x Canada, and the resolutions adopted at Hallowell having been published, in the meantime, in a news- paper in this province printed under the direction of the Methodist body, the whole arrangement received the final confirmation of a General Conference at Toronto, in October 1833. no As respects the regularity of the proceedings in the Con- ferences at Hallowell : It appears that the Annual Confer- ence met at the place appointed by themselves at their pre- vious sitting, as their *' Diacipline " provides — the time of their ^»ssemblii.g. according to the " Book of Discipline," was to be appointi^d by the bishop ; but as there Wi.s then no bishop of the Cluuch in Upper Canada, I infer tliat the time of the meeting was appointed by the General Su})eriii- tendent. I recollect no objection being urged on this score in the argument last term. The Annual Conference by the Constitution was to con- sist of all travelling preachers who were in full Connexion, and those who were to be received into full Connexion. It is proved that upon this occasion it did consist of travelling preachers who had travelled two years and who had been re- ceived into full Connexion ; and of these the requisite pro- portion, or three-fourths, voted for the change. Then, as to the General Conference. It appears to have been a special session called, by the Suj)erintendent or Chair- man of the Annual Conference with the advice of the An- nual Conference; and the "Discipline" declares that a special meeting of the General Conteience may be called " at any time^ According to the " Discipline " the General Conference should have consisted of all the travellinsf elders who had travelled four full years last past, and had been received into full Connexion j and two-thirds of the mem- bers of the General Conference were necessary to make a quorum for transacting business. Upon this occasion, there having been no bishop in the province for some time by whom elders could be ordained, the General Conference pro- ceeded, in the lirst place, to make a rule which they assumed to be within their power, admitting Preachers in full Con- nexion, wlio had travelled four years, to be members of the Conference although they were not ordained elders, Ill There were many such preacliers who, if they had been ordained, would have been entitled to be admitted members of the Conference ; and as they were prevented, by circum- stances, from obtaining ordination, the Conference made this rule in order to admit them. The change admitted those only who would have been elders if there had been a bishop to ordain them. In fact, according to the " Discipline," preachers who had travelled two years were eligible to the order of elders. Notice had been previously given that preacliers who had travel ledyb?^r years would be admitted members at the (General Confer- ence. At the Conference the elders, who were before mem- bers, made a rule accordingly, i)revious to the discussion of the proposed union ; and upon this rule these additional members were admitted. But the vote for the union was not carried in consequence of this addition — the result with- out them would have been the same. The only effect was to make the Conference more numerous, and of a more po[>ular character. In all, furty-one members were asseru- bled, of whom fourteen were preachers not in elders' orders. Whether these were reckoned, or omitted, the resolu- tion still received the concurrence of three-fourths of the Body. It seems not to have been proved at the trial whether no- tice was, or was not given to the members of the Annual Conference, before this meeting at liallowell, (which seems to have been an ordinary meeting,) of an intention to pro- pose the changes which were there resolved upon ; nor does it appear in the notes of the trial what proportion of the members of the General Conference, being elders, did in fact attend the Conference, or of those who could be admitted under the new rule ; nor does it appear whether all were apprised of the meeting, and of changes intended to be pro- ■VIMMM"'!!*''*^*'*!''*^^**^ im- 112 posed there, so that they might have attended if they desired.* I shall notice, by-and-bv any questions of irregularity that seem to arise upon these proceedings. At present I state merely the facts as I tind them in the notes of the evidence. At the General Conference, held at Toronto, in October, 1833, when the union with the British Wesleyan Confer- ence and the attendant regulations were confirmed, and after the assent of the Society in England had been raide known, sevei'al members of the Britivsh Wesleyan Conference were present ; and after the vote of ratification was taken, but not before, they were requested to take seats. Upon the change being made in 1833, in pursuance of the Resolutions of the Annual and General Conferences, the name assumed by this religious community was " The Wes- leyan Methodist Church in Canada." Afterwards the General Conference, at Toronto, substituted for this the name of " The Wesleyan Methodist Church in British North America" and, in 1834, the name was again changed to *' The Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada," which name the Society now bears. In 1834 a new Book of Doctrines and Discipline was published by order of the Conference. In this the Articles of Religion are retained, word for word, unchanged ; but in the tjOvernment of the Church or Society there arc many t I' * The notice in the Ouardian of the extraordinary character of the business of this Conference had brouglit together a full meeting of all the preachers of the Connexion, both eiders and otheiwise, and the announcement of the several meetings of both one Conference and the other, were made in the hearing of all concerned, of which I myself was a witness, and could attest it, if it were disputed, by many other living witnesses. — Editor. again no was rticies but in many of the g of all ind the iiul the self was r living 113 points of diffeivnco which I have thought it necessary to note, as tht^y should all receive consideration in detornrining upon the extent and consequences of the change that has taken place in the Society. Under th'} new " Discipline " there is but one Conference, which is an Anniial Conference. Under the Jirst '* Discipline " The General Conference was composed of all the travelling elders who had travelled the four last years, and had been received into full Con- nexion. According to the second, or new ** Discipline," the Con- ference is to be coaiposed of all ])reaohcrs who have been re- ceived into full Connexion, and have been apj)ointed by the District Meeting to attend ; also of all prrachers who have been recommended by their District Meetings to be received into full Connexion.* According to the first : one of the General Superintend- ents shall preside in the General Conference, or, if none be present the Conference shall choose a President pro tem- pore. According to the second : the President ap^jointed by the British Coaference, or when none is thus a[)pointed, one chosen by ballot shall preside in the Conference. By the first, the General Conference is restrained from changing, or altering any part or rule of Govoruinent so as to do away with Episcopacy, or destroy the plan of the it- inerant general superintendency. By the second, the Conference shall not change or alter, *But, according to the new " Discipline," no preacher could be taken into, or recommended for reception into full Connexion until he had travelled four years — the same length of time that it took to become eligible to elder's orders and a seat in the General Conference by the old "Discipline."— ^rft7or. m ■inWfWIiM 114 ii tl or make any regulationf; that will interfere with or infringe the articles and jilan of union between this and the IJritish Conference; i^roposed in August, 1832, and agreed to by the British Conference in Aiigust, 1833. By the first, the restriction as to Pipiscopacy may be altered by threc-foiirtlis of the Ueneral C-onfcicmco ; on the recommendation of three fourths of the Annual Confer- ence, By the second, the article respecting the Union, which stands here in the place of the other, (i. o. the restriction), shall not be done away or altered without the recommenda- tion or consent of th\l. On the one side, two ministei's of the VVesKyan Method- ist Church in Canada, as it is now styled, were examined. These had been eiders or ordained ministers of the Church before the change, and wero members of the General Con- ference when the change was made, a\id took part, it ap- pears, in the proceedings. Leside relating the facts in the order in which they oc- curred, they gave it as their opinion that the change was such as the General Conference, on the recommendation of the Annual Conference, had a right, by the Constitution of the Society, to make, and that the proceedings adopted by them were in exact accordance with the Constitution. They declared that the relinquishing of Episcopacy, and uniting themselves to the British Wesleyan Society were measures unconnected with doctrine, and affected only the Govern- ment of the Church ; that the doctrines were the same now as before ; that the same Society continued with the same Conference and the same members ; and that the same churohes that were used by the Methodist Society before continue still to be used, the same doctrines being i)reached in them, and the same persons in Connexion with the So- ciety ; that in short, the original Methodist Society re- mains, though under another name, and changed in the pai ticular of Episcopacy ; that the lay members of tl>e Church never had a voice with regard to matters of Doc- trine, Government, or Discipline, and that they are not affected by the change which has been made. m 118 On the other side, a member of the former Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada was examined as a witness. At the time of the change he was merely a local preacher and was never ordained as an elder. By the Constitution of the Church he was a layman, having no voice in the General or Annual Conference. He declared that he did not assent to the Union in 1833 ; that in his opinion the Methodist Episcopal Church was not merged in consequence of the change, but existed, and had a right to exist as be- fore, retaining as members those who adhered to her, and who were dissenting from the chnnge • that after the change a General Conference of the Methouist Episcopal Church was held in the Home District in 1833, conforming as near- ly to the "Discipline" of 1829 as they could, concerning the state in which they were left ; that they have a bishop whom they elected in General Conference in 1834, but who is not ordained or consecrated, being only appointed as General Superintendents were formerly. They have held, he says, General and Annual Conferences since, and Quarterly Con- ferences, going as near what the " Discipline" requires as they could ; that two of the General Conference elders remained with them after the change, and two travelling preachers, and in the exigency they acted as if by some unforseen casu- alty all the elders and preachers who had joined the British Society had died or left the country, and they admitted to the Conference the preachers that remained. On the other side, however, it was denied that the two persons spoken of as elders were actually elders, or that, conformably to Methodist "Discipline" any such Conferences could exist and be holden as this witness spoke of. Whatever may be the merits of the change then, it is clear that it has given rise to a schism in the Methodist So- ciety. It has split into two parties, each maintaining that ethodist witness. Dreacher ititution 3 in the ,t he did lion the jequence t as be- her, and 3 change Church as near- ning the 3[> whom iio is not 1 General le says, y Con- as they emained eachers, en casu- British litted to the two or that, erences jn, it IS dist So- g that 119 the other has seceded from the religious community which existed under the Methodist " Discipline " of 1829 ; and acting under these conflicting pretensions they have become involved in litigation concerning the possession of the church and burying-ground in the Township of Kingston. The disunion extended to the nine trustees who took the legal estate under the deed from Ferris ; and the conduct of some among them seems to have been rather equivocal, and undecided, so that it is diflicult to say whit is conclusively established respecting them upon the evidence. Micajah Purdy, Vanalstine, Abernethy. «nd Orser con- tinued members of the Society after it had relinquished Epis- copacy and united itself to the British Wesleyaus ; or rather they went with the Conference and with that portion of the Society which approved of the change; Littimore, I believe, did the same, though this is doubtfully stated ; Gilbert Purdy, and Wartman also assented to the change, and con- tinued to act with thoso members of the Society who adopted it ; but in order to avoid a disagreeable contest about the Trust, they wiclidrew formally from the So- ciety that they might be, thereby, discharged from the Trust, and they immediately afterwards rejoined the Society, that is, the Church as now governed \inder tlie new " Discipline." Powley, it seems, continued with the Cliurch under the new " Discipline " for some months, and then requested permission to withdraw frjora the Connexion, which was granted to him ; Grass was in communion with the Church as governed after the Union for some time ; but afterwards, in 1834, omitting to conform to its regulations was ad- monished, upon which he renounced the Church, said he was no longer a member, and his name was taken off the list. Indeed Powley and Grass, it seems probable, never approved of the change though they seem to have con- formed outwardly for a time. 120 a On the 10th of January, 1835, Grass and Powley, calling themselves " Surviving Trustees," executed a writing stating that " Wartman, Gilbeit Purdy, Vanalstine, Orser, Micajah Purdy, Lattiiuore, and Abernethy, Jiad ceased to ha members of the Methodist Eplsjopcd Church in Canada, by uniting with and becoinin-; members of the VVesleyan Methodist Church in British North America, and had, thereby, forfeited all their capacities, powers, kc, as trustees (for the premises now in question,) and that according to the * Discipline ' of the Metiiodist E{)iscopal Church, and the deed for the cluirch and ground, &c., they appointed seven other persons, named in the writing, t ) be Trustees of the Methodisf^^ Epis- copal Ciiurch in the Township of Kingston, instead of the above-named i)er.sons," This appointment is stated to be on the nomination of Thaddeus Lewis, ^^ preacher in charge of the Circuit," the same person who was examined as a wit- ness, and who statt;d that he dissented from the change, and thatj in his opinion, the Methodist Episcopal Church still existed as a separate body in Upper Canada. On the 14th March, 1835, four new Trustees were nomin- ated by the stationed preacher, under the new "Discipline," and appointed to fill up the vacancies made by ** Powley, Wartman, Gilbert Purdy, and Grass ceasing to be members of the Church." The first appointment (of the seven Trustees) was made it will be perceived, on the part of the members of the Methodist Society who refused to accede to the Union, and who profess to be still governed under the new " Discipline" of 1829 ; the latter ap])ointment was made by the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada as governed under the new (< Discipline" of 1834. Bell, the defendant in this act some time in the of the church , was put into possession autumn of 1835, to take ctre, 121 of it and keep the keys ; possession was given to him by five of the original trustees, granttxl in the deed, viz : Vanalstine, jNIicajah Purdy, Oiser, Latlimoie, and Aber- nethy ; and the attempt to eject him by this action is made by, or at least under the sanction of Grass and Powley, two of the original Trustees, grantees of the Deed, and the seven new Trustees a})j)ointed in .1 muary 1835, on behalf of those calling themselves the Methodise Episco])al Cliurch in Canada. Upon this case being proved at the trial in Kingston, and the Defendant's counsel declining to assent to a special case, the learned Judge, before whom the case waa tried, gave no opinion upon the legal elFi'ct of the evidence, but directed the Jury to find for the plaintiffs, leaving the defendant to move against the verdict, in term, upon the law and evidence. A rule was granted last term u[)on motion of the defendant, to show cause whv tl'e verdict should not be set aside, as being contrary to law and evidence ; and the case having been fully argued on the return of the rule, it re- mains for us to determine whether the verdict which liaa been rendered for the ])laintifi's can be sustained. The deed, under which the plaintitf^s make title, conveys the land to nine persons hij name, to hold to them and their successors by the corporate name of " the I'l'ustees of the Methodist Episcjrpal Church in the Township of Kingston," This ejectment is brought upon a demise made by " the Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal (Jliurch in the Township of King bio n." It is a])parently the Trustees using the cor- porate name in a suit to gain possession of the Trust pro- perty, and this the Provincial Statute clearly allows. In an ejectment we are to enquire where the legal title resides ; and from the deed shown it must reside in this corporation unless they have conveyed away the estate, t ■ .Mmmtitmsmm»»Mi'»t 122 which is not pretended ; so that in the plaintiffs' case no opening seeuis left for a question, since the right of Ferris to make the deed is admitted on all hands. If, indeed, it were shown that at the time of the demise laid, there were, in fact, no trustees to represent the Trust, and to compose the corporation, that would be fatal to the plaintiff's recovery, on the same principle as proof of the death of the lessor of the plaintiff at the time of the demise laid in an ordinary action ; because it would show the title to have been residing somewhere else. Whether it would revert to the doner, in this case, it is not necessary to enquire. It is not denied that there are still Trustees entitled to use this corporate name ; and whoever they may be, they must be entitled to the possession of this property. We see two sets of persons coming forward, each saying, " We are the Trustees holding the legal title to this estate : the others who pretend to be Trustees have nothing to do with it." The one party aflirm that they are the body of ''Trustees for the Episcopal Gliurch in the Township of Kingston,'^ in- cluding i.i theii number some of the original Trustees who were grantees in the deed of trust, and others who have been legally appointed to succeed certain of the original Trustees who had ceased to he members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, and appointed as the deed di- rects, (being members of the Church) upon the nomination of the stationed minister, or preacher in charge of the Church fv. the time being, within whose station or circuit this land is, and approved of by the remaining Trustees The other party affirm that the)/ are the body of Trustees who are legally seized of the estate, including in their number some of the original Trustees in the deed of 123 tinist, and others nominated by the stationed minister or l)reacher in charge of the said church for the time being, within whose station or circuit this hind is, and appointed by the x'emaining Trustees to fill up vacancies, which arose, they say, in this way : — The grantees in the deed, under the corporate name of the E[>iscopal Ouirch in the Township of Kingston, were to hold this land, in trust for the site and burying-g)'ound *' for the use of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, according to the rules and Discipline which at that time were, or which might thereafter be adopted by the General or Annual Conference of the said Churchin Canada." When this deed was given the Method- ist Church in Canada existed (they allege) as an indepen- dent religious community, amenable to none other, and governed according to a written Constitution which they show, and which provided for the government and discipline of the Church. By that Constitution no voice is given to the laity in the matters of government and discipline ; but the supreme con- trol and the whole legislstive power rested in the General Conference of their clergy, by which Conference, (they say) certain changes were made in the system of their Church Government and Discipline in 1832, a short time after this deed was taken ; and that, after these changes, certain of the Trustees named in the deed refused to adhere to the Church so altered in its Covernment and discipline, and nave not partaken of its ministrations : That, as the changes were within the power of the Conference to make, the whole Society was bound by them ; that the same religious body continued to exist, though altered in its form ; that the Trustees who would not subscribe to the change, but re- nounced their connection with the Church, (as they had a right to do) ceased to be members of the Church, and that 124 successors were thereupon appointed in the manner pro- vided by the deed and allowed by the statute. On the part of those who rejected the change, it is replied that the Conference have pretended to abolish an essential, fundamental princi[)le of their Society ; that this was beyond their power ; that they have erected for themselves a new church, and not merely altered the one which before existed ; that Ihey are the seceders, while the others remain as they were, members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, and have supplied the vacancies occasioned by their secession, as the trust deed points out, or as near aa the statt; -. f things permitted. Thus each lays claim to represent that legal title which would warrant the demise in this ejectment. The court has not been moved at any stage of the cause before the trial, to stay the proceedings on the ground that the persons suing in the corporate name have no right to use it, nor any interest in t: . estate, and that the right to use it resides in others who are not assenting to the action ; but the question, who are seized of the legal estate ] comes directly before us in this way. This action is brought at the instance of those who re- jected the change made in 1832 ; the defendant is in pos- session under those of the original grantees who acquiesce in the change, and adhere to the Church, as they say, under its new form of government, and he defends by setting up their title. If they or any of them had the legal estate in July, 1835, (the time of the demise laid) then the defendant was not a trespasser, and was entitled to a verdict. We are called upon, therefore, to decide whether the seven original grantees, whose places in the trust the plaintiffs have assumed to be vacant, did really c&asQ to bs t 125 members of the Episcopal Methodist Church in Canada, ftc- cording to the proper construction nf the trust deed, when they joined tliemselves to, or continued members of a body of Methodists who relinquislied Episcopacy as a quality of their Church, and united tliumselves to the British Wes- leyan Society? And this brings up three questions ; 1st. Could this be done Viy tliose wlio attempted to do it] 2nd. Did they do it effectually, that is regularly 1 3rd. After it was done, did there exist a Methodist Epis- copal Church in Canada, capable of being governed under the " Discipline" of 1829 ? or was that body of M^ahodists transformed into the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Canada, and so transformed that it carried with it its oiiginal rights, being sufficiently identical in substance with the former Methodist Episcopal Church 1 It is to bo regretted that such a contest has arisen ; the question it involves affect numerous bodies of Christians, and its agitation must be unfavourable to their tranquility, and while it lasts must, in some degn e, impair the useful- ness of their exertions in tiie cause of religion. Similar diiEiculties have sprung up occasionally in the Province and disturbed the harmony of other religious communities. As we have unfortunately nothing but this Court of Common Law Jurisdiction, and are without the aid of a Court of Equity, which can control trusts, direct their ])roper execu- tion, and restrain actions when they are brought for pur- poses contrary to the intentions of the trust ; such cases as the present are in this Province peculiary embarrassing. I doubt whether the question before us can receive its solution quite satisfactorily by the judgment of a Common Law Court ; and it would, therefore, have been well,. perhaps, if the parties concerned had sought relief from their ditiOlcuhies iu 8ome equitable legislative measuro. 126 And yet I do not know that a conclusive and convenient remedy could be obtained in that manner. That the T egis- lature should api)ly themselves to investigate the merits of particular cases, with a view to provide for each by a separate act, could hardly be ex})ected ; and the attempt to prevent such contest- by any general measure I apprehend would be difficult. If it should be the efl\?ct of any such general measure to uphold a minoritj', and especially an inconsider- able minority, against the j)revailing opinions and wishes of the greater number, the very desirable object of securing ])eace and harmony might fail to be attained ; and to estab- lish it on the other hand, as a general principle, that the will of the majority of a congregation or Church should in all such cases govern, might tend to the sanctioning, in some instances, of manifest injustice and oppression, and would besides lead to great evils of another kind. The best rem- edy, perhaps, in such cases is to resort to the jurisdiction of a Chancellor, who can direct enquiries, make decrees ac- cording to the equity of the case, and restrain the Trustees from employing legal rem( 'ies to the perversion of the trust; and who has besides, the power, when it is necessary, of re- ferring to the judgment of a Court of Law any strictly legal question which it may be necessary for him to decide. The late case of the Attornev General vs. Pearson, 3 Merrivale, 409-418, shows how a Court of E^piity interposes its jurisdiction in such contests. Fortunately they have not been very numerous in England, either in Law or Equity ; and in most of the cases which have come before a Court of Equity, it will be found that they are treated as subjects of litigation, embarrassing in their n^'ture, and very difficult to be dealt with in a satisfactory manner. Generally, as in this case, the question borders upon a religious contro- versy, in which the judgment of a Court will hardly be re- 127 Lvenient B T egis- lerits of separate pi'event should be general jonsicler- /islies of securing to estaV)- that the hould in , in some id would lest rein- liction of r;rees ac- Trnstces he trust; y, of re- strictly 3 decide, arson, 3 ter})Oses ey have Law or before a eated as md very enerally, s contro- ly be re- garded as conoluaive authority ; and it arises in consequence of voluntary associations of persons formed npou ]>rinciple8 and for purposes of which the law has not taken cognizance, and has therefore made no ])rovision for their reguhition. In Foley vs. Wontner, (2 Jac. S: Walker 247,) a case of this description, the Lord CMmnceUor exj)ressed his sense of didiculty in striking liinguage : "I am almost afraid," he Siiid, *' that 1 am doing wliat may subvert the [teaco of many religious societies in showing the infirmities of the law on tliis subject." But althougli we are compelled in this case to entertain consid(n'ation of matters rather foreign to the usual subjects of judical decision, the question itself, in whom is the estate vested ? is strictly a legal question, and it is raised for a pur- pose strictly legal. We are not here euqiiiring who are the cestuis que, but who are the Trusters according to the legal construction and effects of the provisions in a deed, suj)ported by a pub- lic statute? The opinion I have formed is in favor of the Defendant. T should not have been quite free from doubt in coming to that conclusion if my brothers had agreed with me; but as I believe they both differ from me, though on different grounds,^ I cmu by no means have that confidence in my judgment which I should desire to feel in a case of such a nature, and where the decision may apply so extensively. If I am wrong it is fortunate that the opposite opinions of my brothers will prevail. They have been formed, I know, after laborious investigation. * On the second liearing of the case in Term there were five Judges, instead of three, and three out of the five gave a decision in favor of the Defendant ; that is, sided with the Conferen'je, or the Wesleyan Methodist Church. — Editor. n If 128 We mu«t consider this question in t-wo aspects : Ist. We must look at the authority whii'h the Conf(»rcnco had to make so essential a charif^e as was made in 18.'52, and the ellbcts of that change upon the previous existing so- ci'c-ty. 2nd. We n)ust consider- liow this change and its conse- quences have oj)erated \\]n)n tlie h;gal estate assured hy tlio deed before us, allowing to the provisiotis of the deed their proper cilect. To enable ourst4vos to form an opinion upon ceitain points of the case, it has been necessary to look minutely into some matters which had before, in my own instance at least, not attracted more than a p issing interest ; but inde- pendently of the necessity for this research, the trouble has been in several respects, well repaid, The rise and exjjansion of Methodist Societies; the as- tonishing zeal, ]ierseverence, and single-minded devotion to the cause which actuated their remarkable Founder ; the absolute control which JNIr. Wesley required, and exercised in the minutest particulars throughout the whole Connexion, widely dispersed as its members were, and with control he retained to the end of an unusually long life ; the exclusive- ness with winch that infliuMice was confined to S})iritual objects ; the iidelity with which the Methodist Connexion in general still conforms to the course he marked out for them ; the provision made l)y the IMethodist ** Discipline " for maintaining a constant and active control over all their members, cannot pass in review before the mind without exciting a deep int(?rest. Tt has been necessary to trace the history and proceedings of Methodist Societies, in order to be able to appreciate the relation jetween the governing body, and the people. A Methodist Society is a purely voluntary association. It ig iML 129 not, like a civil corporation, a creature of the Iaw, and we cannot, therefore, expect to be able to apply preciae princi- ples, and authorities of law, in settling the dissensions that may spring up among them ; neither can we say here, as in the case of religious establishments connected with the State, that the relations between the ditferent orders in the Church, or between the clergy and their Hocks, and the con- sequent rights, and powers, and duties of each have their origin in legal sanctions, or have beeu regulated by positive laws, and are, therefore, capable of being brought satisfac- torily to the test of legal authority and precedent. When the conduct or acts of these voluntary associations, or of the members composing them, bring them within the opera- tion of those general rules, which regulate matters between man and man, the law makes no difference against them, or in their favor, and a decision may in general be rested on some definite and ascertained principles, but when a contest has sprung up among them, in consequence of arrangements among themselves, purely internal, and relating to their peculiar government, as a religious community, we must look into their past history and present state, in order that we may be able to place a just construction upon their iii- tentions, and to estimate the effect of their arrangements. We must know the origin and history of their Conference, for instance, and the deference which in practice has been paid to their rules, and decisions, before we can judge whether the definitions given of their powers in the printed " Discipline " may safely receive a construction according to the strict letter, or whether it must not be taken with some qualification which is not expressly stated. And so, also, before we can form an opinion as to the con- sequences of a Methodist Episcopal Church relinquishing Episcopacy, w» must consider how Episcopacy came to be 6* ' 130 introduced, on what footinc; it wap received, wud whether it 18 right to regard it as so bound up with faith and conscience among that portion of the Methr list Connexion which re- ceived it, tliat the relinquishing ,o is like taking away a vital part, and must necessarily leave the body no longer existing. From the information which I have been aV)le to acquire, respecting Methodism, 1 am under the following :m})res- sions : Mr. Wesley, its founder, was never otherwise than a member of the Church of Pjugiand, ot which he was an ordained Clergyman in Priest's orders. He never accounted hinjself the founder of a new sect, nor would admit that he was a dissenter. He conformed to the ordinances of the Church, and assented to all her doctrines, ditfeiing only in this respect that he insisted more earnestly upon the neces- sity of inculcating some particular articles of her faith, and labored more strenuously to give theui a practical apj)lica- tion. As his great object was to produce a greater fervor of devotion, and a more perfect spiritual-mindedness, he ad- dressed himself unreservedly and without exception to all who would give him their attention. He lid not make conformity to the doctrines of the Church of England a condition upon which his services were to be imparted ; and he annexed no new doctrines of his own. His followers in- cluded Church of England men, Presbyterians, and dissen- ters of various denominations, and it seemed to be in no degree his object, or desire, that they should look upon themselves as a distinct sect ; on the contraiy, he dis- couraged to the utmost, during an active ministry of half a century, everything that manifested such a tendency. At first he availed himself only of the services of such cler^'ymen of the Church of England as would unite with him in the duties to which he devoted himself. Among 131 ether it iscitmce liich re- away a longer loqnire, inipres- ise than was an counted that he : of the only in 16 neces- ith, and apj)lica- ervor of , he ad- to all make »land a id ; and wers in- dissen- in no upon he dis- half a of such te with Among thoso his lirotlier waw most distinguished. For a time no irregularity marked his couso, ho always ex[)ieHsed an anxiety to avoid ovi^n the appearance of it. He preaclied only in parisli chui'ches, so long as no obstacle was presented to his admissitin there ; and when he preached at fir.st in other places, and even in the fields, he justified it on the ground of necessity. It was not witho much reluctance that ho first administered the Sacrament la any other place than one of the Eslal)lished Churches; he continually urged his followers to attend divine service, and receive the kSacra- ment in their prcper churches whenever it was possible, and he forebore himself to preach on the Sabbath during the hours of divine service when the churches were open. He evinced a strong repugnance on the first occasion of a layman proj)osing to preach to the people, and would have put down the attempt at the time if he could. To what is called lay-administ(ning hr constantly and firmly opposed himself, not thinking it right or justifiable, in any point of view, that persons not in holy orders should dispence the Sacraments, or perform any of the oflices of tiie Church, such as Baptism, and the solemnization of Matrimony ; and consequently until a very short time before his death, al- though the lay preachers were numerous, and became moat efficient assistants in the work which he was engaged in, their duties were confined to preaching, and to their bearing their part in enforcing that intei'nal discipline and economy which he established as a bond of union among the mem- bers of his Society. His followers received the Sacraments of the Church at the hands of the regular clergy. What- ever might be the inevitable tendency of some of his measures, his avowed desire was not to separate them fiom that Church, but to make them more pious members of it. 132 The relation between him and his people was, from these circumstances, simple and intelligible ; and the energy of his character occasioned it to be felt, and submitted to, so long as he remained among them. He managed the con- cerns of his Societies as he pleased, and exacted implicit conformity. He was not inviting proselytes to peculiar doctrines, and held out, therefore, no particular privileges, and suffered no participation in his authority, on the part of the people whom he was serving, nor, in truth, by any one, except as he might choose to invite him to the assistance, when he prescribed him his duty, and his place, and laid down rules for his conduct, in the minutest particulars. When the first Conference assembled, he called it to- gether, and convened whom he chose for the purpose of ad- vising with til em, and with their aid he laid down rules for the government of the Society. These conferences after- wards, by his arrangement and appointment, met periodi- cally, and became a prominent feature in the system, but they took their rise only in his will ; the laity were to no extent, and for no purpose admitted to them ; they arose from no compact with his followers; they were not set up as a protection between the laity and the authority ; they were merely called by himself to assist him in laying down rules for the government of the Methodist people, and to these rules th«y must conform, or be no longer members. A stricter superintendence has, perhaps, never been devised, nor been more directly and absolutely enforced. The Conference from time to time reviewed the doctrines of the Society, and for all that I can see, in matters of government and discipline, while Mr. Wesley was at its head, it was absolute and supreme. Lay preachers, when they had proved their qualifications, were received by him, and their stations and duties were 133 n these Brgy of d to, so he con- implicit peculiar Lvileges, I part oi my one, ^stance, md laid ars. d it to- ;e of ad- rules for Bs after- periodi- tem, but jre to no ley arose set up as ey were vn rules to these 3ers. A devised, octrines Eitters of s at its dcations, lies were assigned to them. As Methodism extended itself, these commenced their labors (of preaching merely) throughout the kingdom, and afterwards in Ireland, the West Indies, and the American Colonies on the continent. Before the American Revolution several preachers had found their way to the colonies, and congregations were formed there ; but there, as in England, they resorted for Baptism, and the Sacrament of the Lold's Supper to the ministers of their re- spective Churches ; that is, to ordained clergymen. In the Southern States particularly, there were many missionaries of the Church of England ; and before the war commenced these, and the clergy of other Churches, Presbyterians, Baptists, &c., supplied those offices of religion which could not be obtained from the Methodist lay preachers; for, these last not being in orders of any Church, their flocks formed no distinct religious denomination. They regarded themselves, and were accounted by Wesley, as all members of one Methodist Connexion, of which he was the head, and which throughout his life he declared to be in p;^rfect com- munion with the Church of England, of which Church he ,wa8 a presbyter. So far Episcopacy gave rise to no ques- tion among the members of this Society, or with its Founder ; because, like the other members of the Church of England, they had it as part of their Church Government. Wesley, indeed, did not seeem to be strongly impressed in favor of the sacred origin of Episcopacy ; he regarded the " Preacher " as importing the same thing with Evangelist ; the " Bishop" or pastor, he seemed (in the latter part of his life at least) to rank with the " Presbyter." But, as the Episcopal Methodist " Discipline " explains to us, from the war in America, and its consequences, a diffi- culty arose there on account of the want of ordained clergy- men. Those belonging to the Church of England had been 184 compelled to leave the country ; the Methodist preachers even who had gone from England had returned thither, with only one or two exceptions I believe ; and there was no member of the Society who could dispense the sacra- ments. Mr. Wesley was api)lied to in this exigency. He would rather, if ho could, have supplied tbe want, by ])ro- curing ordination, from a bishop in England, of persons willing and qualified to engage in the ministry ; but the Methodists had gradually, and principally by the conduct of othei's which Mr. Wesley lamented, but could not always restrain, separated themselves, in appearance at least, more and more from the Church. There were also political difli- culties in the way, and he did not succeed in procuring ordination as he desired. He seemed at last, with re luctance, to have brought himself to the opinion that as a Presbyter, he could himself give ordination ; that the same reason of respect lor, and conformity to the National (Jhurch which had prevented his exercising such an authority in England, did not apply as regarded America, now become a foreign coantry; and justifying the course partly on the ground of his office as a Presbyter, and partly on the neces- sity of the case, he joined with two other ordained Presby- ters of the Church of England who were members of his Society, in conferring ordination upon two lay preachers who were to accompany Dr. Coke to America. He then ordained Dr. Coke who, like himself, was a Presbyter oi the Church of England, to be a Superintendent. Dr. Coke, arriving in America, assumed, with the sanction of the Co'ifeienco at Baltimore, the name and office of Bis- hop, perhaps with the ])revious approbation of Mr. Wesley ; and with the assistance of two Presbyters of Mr. Wtsley's oriscopacy in the first instance, I think the American Society made a change of a more questionable character ; that is, a greater innovation. They introduced a new element, if any particular importance is to be at- tached to the name of Bishop, and yet it has been shown that the step was taken to have dissolved the pre-existing Society, or that it afiected their property, or threw them into any confusion. Then, although they agreed to adopt it, I do not know how I can say it was irrevocably fixed upon them. If Wes- ley, while he lived, had repented, (as there is some reason to think he did) of the measure, and advised them to relin- quish this new feature, or if he had sent out a new regula- tion, or had advised that the oflice of Bishop sh-uld be dis- continued, and that they should have instead an annual President sent out by him ; and if the General Conference had conformed to his wish, I cannot determine that the Church or Society might not have been so modified in its 142 I government, without destroying it. Nor can I say that what Mr. Wesley could have done while living could not have been done in any manner, by any authority in the Society after his death. On the whole, lOpiscopacy, by the Constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church, seems to be treated as a mere regulation of Church Government. It does not rest, that I can see, on any divine authority. Considering how, and when, and under what circumstances it originated, and the reasons of convenience assigned for its introduction, it does not appear that it rested on any other footing, than as a measure of Church Government. It is expressly made subordinate to the General Confer- ence. They could a])point, and could remove the bishop for cause and what is more material than all to the ])resent question, and indeed puts an end, in my mind, to all ques- tion on this point, is, that by the written constitution, the General Conference has, as it seems to me, authority to do away with Episcopacy. But before I proceed directly to this main consideration, I will reca[)itulat(i, that Episcope "'"■ seems to have been grafted upon Methodism in the Unii*>a States only, a country foreign to us, and it was introduced in consequence of circumstances which seem to have been thought by Wesley to render it expedient, under the altered condition of things produced by that country becoming in- dependent of the Parent State. While Metliodism was in its infancy here, it arose naturally from circumstances, that it should be, as it was, connected with the Methodist Church in the United States, which happened to be Episcopal. It was natural, as time advanced, and the body here be- came large and respectable, that they should separate them selves from foreign Connexion, and should Jprovide, as they U3 arose was, tates, could, for a mode of existence more in character with their relation as British subjects. Tliey mnrely separated at first, and assumed to exist here as an independent community preserving the same forms as when they composeil a part of the great Methodist Connex- ion in the United States. But tliougli they retained Episcopacy as a part of their Constitution of Church (Joveriiment, they reti ined the pro- vision for it only ; they had no bishop, they ordaiiied none, and they existed for several years in this state, having no actual bishoi), foreign, or of their own. It was natural too, I think, that they should afterwards turn themselves as they did, to the design of a union with the original stock of Methodism in England — but they were told that before they could form a part of that body, they must dispense with Episcopacy. They did so, and by a proceeding, such as it appears to me their Constitution admitted. In fact Episcopacy was abolished here, it seems, as it was introduced in 1784 at Baltimore, namely by adoption, or as- sent of the General Conference, without any participation of the laity in the act, and such is the genius of Methodism. The constitution of the Society, as printed in 1829, shows it in a remarkable degree in every point. In that respect they had followed the system of Wesley. Tiiey seem never to have derived, nor to have professed to derive authority from the laity, but to have admitted as lay members of their body such as were willing to be bound by their rules. In determining them, according to their rules, that thence- forward the office of Bishop should cease, and in providing for the same functions being discharged by a President, I cannot say on any ground that would satisfy myself that the Conference transcended their authority. The articles of U4 their Church, aa I have already remarked, made no allusion to bishops, nor to the source from whence ministers are to derive their authority. The prayers used in ordination, do, indeed, speak ol the ordaining difl'erent orders of ministers in the Church, as an a])i)ointment of Divine Providence ; but the same form, if I mistake not, is used in England in the Society, where they have but ministers and lay preachers. The Conference under the constitution of 1829, which ii advanced and appealed to in argument on both sides, haVii power to make rules and regulations for their Church. The first restriction I think does not apply to this case. The second and seventh, which I have cited at length in stating the case, show, that the power of the Conference was assumed to be very extensive, or such restrictions would have been needless, and the chrcks of Annual and Quarterly Conferences would not have been provided. The whole reading of the seventh restriction shows the meaning to be that tlie second restriction may be done away with the con- sent of the Annual Conference, and I conceive that to have been intended. If it were not for the express exceptions of the sixth and seventh restrictions, it might seem to have been intended that the i)ower of altering shotdd extend to the seventh section, and to that only, in the conclusion of which excep- tion this proviso appears ; but it is quite clear from the excep- tion of those two restrictions (the sixth and seventh) that to those it does not extend, while to all others, including the second, we cannot deny that it does. Then, aa to the argu- ment ui'ged upon us, that the words ^^sujffice to alter " do not give permission to annul or go past the restriction alto- ether, I see nothing in it Jihat I could satisfactorily rest upon, for that restriction is made to protect two point*, 14.5 no allusion tei's are to ination, do, )f rainistera Providence ; England in a and lay Id, which ii I sides, havvi hurch, to this case, at length in nference was :tions would ud Quarterly The whole leaning to be ith the con- tliat to have [he sixth and jen intended the seventh Iwhich excep- >m the excep- snth) that to Lciuding the to the argu- ilter " do not triction alto- [actorily rest two point*, Episcopacy and Itinerancy, the latter, I imagine, being of much more vital importance to Mttlicdism in tlio eyes of its followers tlian the former ; I mean than the name and ex- press office of bishop, for tlie functions of bishop are pro. vided for in the new constitution, as they are in the Society in Kugland. Now, when the Conference, under a power to alter this restriction, maintains part of it in force, (Itinerancy) and annuls the other part, they do, strictly s})eaking, alter the restriction rather than abolish it, and so they are within the letter. But 1 should, at any rate, feel it unsafe to hang a decision upon such a distinction as that, because I am per- suaded that the word ** altar" as there used, was meant to extend to the doing away tlie restriction, or in other words to alter the footing on which things were placed by that re- striction. The first General Contbrence was to be held in 1830, as declared in the printed '"Discipline" of 1829. It is not denied that it did then assemble, with all the rights and powers ascribed to it by the " iJiscipline," and with the general acquiescence of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; and the fair presumi)tion is that it diti ; and the rules of the Society, as contained in this " Discipline," are directed, by it, to be read once a year in every congregation, and once a quarter in every ^- ociety, so that whatever the constitu- tion, as printed in 1829, does authorise and require, must be taken to be very well known to the Society at large, and to be binding upon them, for any thing that has been shown to the contrary. With respect to the other changes which the new ar- rangement has effected in the Society, I have enumerated them all, or all that are material ; and there is none of them 7 id 146 of which I can say that it was not competent to the govern- ing power of the Church to make it. The most material are those which provide for the dis- charge of the duties which before w ere incumbent upon the bishop. If they could relinquish the i)articular office of bishop, then such provisions were necessary ; and they are closely similar to those observed in the Parent Society in England. Then, as to the union with the British Society, I see nothing in it bejond an arrangement of Church Govern- ment interesting to the ruling i)o\ver of the Church, Ijut not directly affecting the laity. I conceive the body always to have been Wesleyan Methodists ; for surely the accepting a regulation for their government at the hands of Wesley himself, while they retained his doctrine and discipline, could not make them aliens to the Parent Society. The union makes the conformity perfect which before prevailed in the main. It rendered unneccessary a General Conference here ; and that, therefore, is dropped, while a Conference is retained, composed like the Annnal Conference under the former " Discipline," which is to meet yearly, and which, with the President who supplies the ])l;'ce of the Bishop, has the powers, and is to discharge the duties of the former General and Annual Conferences, except in certain points in which changes have been made. It is on these grounds my opinion that the change which was made in the government of this Society in 1832, could be accomplished by those who attemi)ted it. And upon the second point I cannot say that they did not make the change effectually, that is regularly. They seem to me to have proceeded as the " Discipline " points out. No exception appears from the Judge's notes i:ii 147 1 govern- the cUs- Lipon the office of they are ociety in by, I see Govern- i, but not ly always accepting )f Wesley liscipline, Bty. The prevailed liere ; and retained, le former , with the », has the ;r General in which ige which 532, could upon the lie change iscipline " ge'b notes to have been urged at the trial, except that the i^ower of the Conference to relinquish or to abolish Episcopacy by any proceeding was absolutely denied ; and the argviment last term turned upon that point. The Annual Conference seems to have met at a time and place properly a})j)ointed. With respect to CoT-porations whose proceedings are un- der strict legal control, it has been repeatedly held that no special business can be taken up, such as the removal of an officer, etc., unless all have been summoned for the special purpose who have a right to attend. If it had been ob- jected at the trial that this principle had not been observed by the Conference, it might have been held necessary for the other ]>arty to show that it was ; but no objection on that score seems to have been urged, and for all that appears there may have been no pretence for it ; the measure was resisted on a broader ground. However, I am not prepared to say that such an objection could have been fatal in the absence of any proof of intended concealment or surprise. Much would depend on the practice commonly pursued in this voluntary association. The regulation is one of Church Government in a Society in which the laity have never participated in acts of legislation or control, and none who are affected by the proceedings of the meeting, or who might have shared in those proceedings have com})lained, so far as is shown to us, that it was irregularly convened. With respect to the General Conference, its legislative and administrative })0wers are so extensive that it is highly proper that notice of any special meeting, and of the object of it, should bo given to each member. I do not tind it stated that notice was not given ; and, if such an objection had oeen urged, it might possibly have been shown that it was given ; though the short time between the call and the meeting seems hardly to have admitted of it, unless the 148 eMers, being previously made acquainted with the proposi- tion, had voluntarily assembled in expectation of it. If there was ground for objecting on this score, the objection should have been raised, and then the facts would have been known to us. I see nothing on this subject in the notes of the evidence. It seems not to be desired by the Methodist Regulations that all the elders should in general attend the Conference, from the inconvenience which it would occasion if all were absent from their congregations ; but this call was for a purpose so special and important that all should have had it in their power to attend, if they pleased. It is to be observed, however, that many months after this, and after the Resolutions had been published, and the whole matter had become well known throughout the Con- nexion, the next General Conference, held October, 1833, which I infer from the evidence was assembled in the ordi- nary manner, confirmed the same Resolutions, and com- pleted the arrangement. Nothing is shown that impeaclies the regularity of pro- ceeding, whatever the facts may have been ; and if an ob- jection of this kind were supported by the facts proved, or by the want of proof on the other side after an objection taken, it would still require to be well considered, whether — upon an objection raised in this action, and after this Ifvpse of time, not by any person immediately affected by what was done then, and not by any person who complains (hat his right to attend was rendered nugatory by want of notice — we ought not to say ^^ fieri non debnil, ss'i factum vaiet,*' rather than to break up a system of government which has been now for some time acqui(\sced in, and acted upon among many thousands of persons, and in many dis- tricts, and numerous congregations. As the case stands, and upon the facts before us, I cou- 149 roposi- it. If jection e been ates of thodist mcl the ccasion his call should IS after and the he Con- r, 1833, he ordi- id com- of pro- an ob- oved, or ejection whether ter this cted by H plains want of fiictum rnment 1 acted any dis- K J, I con- ceive the acta of the Conference cannot be impeached upon a suggestion made by ourselves of a possible irregularity. Moreovei", if the proceedings for relinquishing Fipiscopacy were wholly void on any such ground, then Episcopacy has not been effectually relinquished, and a new Chu"ch has not been created ; and what consequences should fi)llow the ineffectual attem])t might open another question. The last point of the case is that to which legal princi])les can be more clearlv applied. Admitting that it was competent to the governing body in this Methodist Society to relinquisli Episcopacy, and that they have done so, and have united the Society to the "Wes- leyan Methodists in England in such a manner as to make the arj'aiigement binding, then this question presents itself: — Did there exist after this change a Methodist E[)iscopal Church in C!anada, ca])able of being governed under the " Discipline " of 1829? or was not that body of Methodists transformed into the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada, and so transformed that it carried with it its original rights, ])articularly the right of property in its meeting houses, burying-grounds, kc, being sufficiently identical in substance with the Methodist E{)iscopal Church in Canada to have a continued existence, though in an altered form ? so that a member of the Methodist FJpisoopal Church, unless he refused to conform, would become as of course a member of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada ? And this opens the consideration, " how the change and its consequences have operated upon the h gal estate assured by the deed before us, allowing to the pro- visions of the deed their pioper effect." it aj)pears to me perfectly clear, tliat if tue cliange made in the Government of the Society was made by a competent authority, and in a proper manner, the Church or Society 7* 150 could not be dissolved or destroyed by it. It would be the same religious community under another name, and under other government ; and those who dissented, and attempted, in opposition to tlie constitution, to keej) up the old order of things, would cease to belong to the Society. The change, to be sure, was such as rendered part of the former name, viz., the term " Episcopal" inapplicable, and therefore the name was also changed ; but you may have the substance in different forms, under different names ; and sufficient may be left of the former substance to preserve the identity. We have instances of these changes of name in the cases of individuals, ot divisions of territory, of cor- porate bodies, kc, but it is clearly not correct to say that because the name is different, therefore, what was formerly known by that name no longer remains, and can no longer preserve the relation which had existed between it and any other object. It seems absurd to cite authority for any thing so evi- dent. An illustration of the principle, however, may be drawn from what is admitted to be law in the intercourse among nations, (Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis, book 2, ch, 16, 1 a 16,) when the form of government has been changed. In the case 21 Ed. 4, pi. 59 referred to in Yiner's Ab. Corporation E., it is stated, "The King may incorporate a town by one name, and after by another name ; and then they shall use their name according to their second incor- poration, and yet they shall continue the possession they had before by another name." The Mayor of Carlisle vs. Blamire, 8 E. R. 487, is a similar case, and such instances are common. Indeed, the maxim of law is " nomina muta- hiliaf resautem immohiles sunt." 6 Co. 66. If the original name had been adopted from some quality 151 Id be the nd under t tempted, old order xrt of the 3able, and may have inies ; and preserve s of name i-y, of cor- 3 say that ,s formerly no longer it and any ing so evi- iY, may be intercourse book 2, ch. has been miner's Ab. corporate a and then cond incor- ession they Carlisle vs. h instances )tiina mutOr 3me quality or peculiarity of the Society merely formal, and compara- tively insignificant, the relinquishing such form and chang- ing the name in consequence would clearly not have sunk the existence of the body. Then, in point of logal effect, the compai'ativc importance of the change must bo imma- terial, so long as it is a change which can legally be made. It is true that Episco[)acy was an important characteristic of the Church ; but, ^lowever important, still if the govern- ing })Ower of the Church had authority to relinquish it, and to provide otherwise for the duties which the Bishop had discharged, then their doing this could not dissolve th.e So- ciety. That would involve a direct contradiction ; it would be to say at the same moment that the change could be made, and could not be made. When it is once granted that it could be made, it must follow that the Society in which it is made, must be bound by it ; and the members who refuse to conform must for this, as well as for non- conformity on any other ground, be held to set themselves against the Society ; and if by refusing to accede they so decidedly abandon the Society that we must say they have ceased to be members, we must say so in such a case as well as in any other. Doubtless the consciences of individuals are not to bo forced, and they have the option to withdraw; but indi- vidual members cannot, under cover of the old name, set up an imaginary body, when the substance is gone ; and be- cause they choose to say they will continue to exist as a So- ciety under the old name, claim on that ground to have the property which had been held by the Society before their name was changed. But the Plaintifi's rely on the eflect of the [irovisiona contained in the deed, f have already set these out, and 1 need not repeat them. Though a Court of Law, we must 152 look attentively at the declaration of trust in this case, not for the purpose of seeing whether the Trustees are doing right, or attempting to do wrung, that would he a question which should engage the investigation of a Court of Kquity, but for the purpose of deciding who arc the ])r^rsons that now hold the legal ^-state. We know that nine persons took the estate under the trust deed. Jt is ura;ed bv the Plaintiffs that seven of these (all except Grass and Powley) have ceated to hold any in- terest in the preniiscis. If that be true, then the iJefendant can set up no legal title under thmn to the j)OsseHsion ; and he j)retcnds to set up no other. The deed says, " Tf any of the grantees cease to be membors of th,e Methodixt Episcopal Church in Canada, according to the linles and Discipline of the said Church, then they shall ceasn to ba Trustees, and successors sliall be appointed." The Statute, I ihink, con- firms and renders et}eciu;d this ])rovi.iion ; and we must see that it shall prevail according to the intention ul the deed. It is not pretended that all these ;^even Trustees have indi- vidually withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church, as und<'r ordinary circun)stances any member might do, but it is contended that the same eifect has been produced by their going with the Conference aftei' the change. If the change left, no Episcopal Church lemaining, (which indeed the plaintiffs do not seem to contend, but rather the contrary) tlien nobody could be a member of that Church in July, 18.S5, and so there could bo no Trustees, and these plaintiffs, consequently, could have no right to recover pos- session. But they say, after what took place in 1833, there was left the Episcopal Church still lemaining, though with- out regulai- Conferences, of which Church the seven Trustees ceased to be members. Here again the argument for the plaintiffs fail, I think. 3e, not doing icstion '>inity, ,8 that ier the )f those iny in- teudant n ; and [■ any of l)iscopo,l pline of jes, and nk, con- luist see he deed, ive indi- Cliurch, do, but need by (which tlier the Church \(\ these vev pos- 33, there gh with- 'rnistees 1 think, 153 in attaching all the importance to the term " Episcopal," We must look at the reason of the thing, at the circum- stances and intention of the trust. We must construe it as near to the intention of the maker as may bo. (!a. Ohy. 125 Com. Digt. 4 W. 13. In an ordinary case of a bequest or donation to Trustees for the ii.se of a congregation of a particular sect, if a por- tion of that congregation, no matter how large a portion, abandon the distinguishing doctrines of thoir sect, tlie Trus- tees are not to hold the church, or other proj»erty for their use, but for the use of those for whom the gift was intended, however small a minority ; and the Chancellor will see that the trust is carried into execution accordingly, and will re- strain the Trustees from bringing actions of ejectment, (though tliey have the legal title) to dispossess those who are entitled to the use of it. — Doe ex dem Dupleix et al, vs. Roe, 1 Anstruther 86,2G6. Foley vs. Wontner, 2 Jac : and Walker 247. But we must be careful not to confound things : here is no evidence of a donation by Ferris, the grantor, as an endowment of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; nothing from which we can infer that he was moved by a pi-eference for that particular form of Methodism. If a notice of that kind had entered into the grant, or sale, then a Court of Equity, at least, would say, " You shall iiot pervert the gift, against the intention of the giver." All we know here is, that for a consideration of £3, Ferris conveys an acre of land, in the Township of Kingston, the Methodist Society then existing there, giving to the Society its appropriate name. We have no good ground for saying that he intended anything more than to sell the acre of land, and to give a doed in such form as the persons interested wished to take ; and if, in- stead of selling, he gave it to them in that spirit, the effect 154 would be the same, unless it a[»j)earey proper conveyances. In the Methodist " Discipline" of 1829, rules are laid down for tliis ; and it is expressly " directed that no jjeison shall l)e elegible as a Trustee of any of our houses, churches, or schools wJio is not a regular member of our Church." Then under the same head of their " Temi)ora1 Economy," they prescribe, in 1821), the very form of conveyance, ver- bathn, which was used in making this deed in 18.'32. Who can fail then to see that the form of this declaration of trust was devised by the governing })0wer in that Society, in order to carry out the principle of this short rule, and that it was to suit the pnr{)0se and intentions of the Society, and not any wish of the grantor that these words were used 1 It is a maxim in equity that a trust shall be deemed according to the intentAon of the party, though the words may import a different consti'uction — Com. Digt. Chancery, 4 W. 13. The clear intention here was for the use of the existing Methodist Church or Society under whatever changes it might be made to undergo, by the inherent authority of those to whom its government was committed. The words in the deed, "/or the use of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, accordi.ig to the Rules and Discipline which now are, or hereafter may 6e, terms of the Dhition enjoy s other- l, were •hat im- iference nure of inces. are laid ) peison li\irche8, "Jhurch." lonomy," ,nce, ver- claration Society, ule, and Society, vds were e deemed le words Chancery, 5e of the whatever inherent mmitted, }ers of the :ig to the r may be, 155 adopted by the General and Annual Conference of the said Church hi Canada" speak i)lrtinly, I iliink, that the inten- tion was HO to sctth' this i)roi)erty as that the use of it shoukl accompany tlie Methodist K])iscoi>iil Churcli in Canada through all tlie modifications it miglit undergo ; and, if 1 am right in thus viewing it, then it wouUl be a singular construction to hoM, that because a change was legally made wliich occasioned the term " Episcopal " to be disused, the Society, though it still existed, must lose its pro})erty. The Trustees who are alleged to have left the Society may truly say, " We are not now members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, because there is no longer a Church under that name ; but we are members of the religious Society for whoso use that deed was given ; and although they have adopted a change in their govern- ment which makes them no longer Episcopal, yet the Church or Society exists in another name, because they could regularly make that change." When trusts affect the public good, it is said they shall be liberally expounded for the public benelit and convenience, — 2 Vernon, 432. Now if because the Church is no longer E[)isco})al, the Society who took this conveyance must, under a literal construction of the trust, contrary to the evident intent, lose the possession of the church and burying- ground, so it is probable they must or may lose the pos- sesssion of every church which has been conveyed to their use; and the same literal construction of the rest of the deed would reserve these for the use of preachers belonging only to a denomination which it appears to me no longer exists as a Society in this Province, according to the effect of the only constitution under wliich it is shown they could be gover ned. 156 It ia for the public •^ood to prevent this confusion, by go- ing all vpasouable lengths in supporting the acts of this constituted body, if they comply with the forms of their constitution, and do not tiespass upon conscience. For the reasons which I have given I think it consistent with the deed to hold the seven grantees in question to be still Trustees. And 1 must further observe, that if the plainliffs were admitted to have right on their side in con- tending that these seven have ceased to bo Trustees because they acquiesced in the proceedings of the C'onference, and have submitted to the new order of things, (and nothing more than this is shown) I am not sure but we should have to hold by the same rule that there are no Trustees at all ; and, consetpiently, no one entitled to hold possession ia that capacity, for as I understand the evidence, if is positively sworn that the other two, Grass and Powley, conformed for a time, outwardly at least, and remained in the Society for many months after the change. If that were so, we can draw no distinction between them and the others, according to the length of time for which they respectively conformed ; for the legal estate would not leave them and return to them when they chiinged their course. On the whole, upon the best judgment I have been able to form, the defendant was entitled to a verdict at the trial. If I had felt entire confidence in coming to this conclusion, I might have contented myself with stating my opinion at much less length. But the points are so various, and turn upon circumstances with which Courts of Law are so little familiar, that I have thought it due to both sides of the question to explain the grounds on which my opinion is founded. )n, by go- bs of this 8 of tlieir consistent tion to be lat if the tie in con- es because rence, and id nothing lould have ,ees at all ; ion in that positively formed for Society for 80, we can , according lonformed ; rn to them been able it the trial, conclusion, opinion at 8, and turn we so little iidea of the opinion is TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAOK. I. New Title Page 1 IT. Original Title Page 2 III. Preface TO THE First Edition 5 IV. Preface to the Second Edition 10 I. A Brief Epitome of Canadian Methodist, History FROM 1790 to 1832 : Summary of events from 1790 to 1810 — Ditto from 1812 to 1820, including the war and its necessities, advent of British Missionaries, dissensions, and temporary expedients 13 British and American Conferences — Interchange of Dele- gates, and arrangements of 1820 — Unity of Methodism re-affirmed — Wesley's letters to Cooper (note) — Tieao- lutions of Liverpool Conference (note) 15 Want of compliance on the part of some, and a total re- fusal on the part of others — The expedient of a Canada Annual Conference in 1824 — Preparednees for separation by 1828 — Organization of a Canada Church in that year — Points of diflference between the old and new Churches — The "Sixth Restriction" — Com- mittee to correspond with the English Connexion — Non-fulfilment, partly supplied by the Editor — Three Episcopoi elected, but none consecrated — Note detail- ing the process by which claims to membership in the General Conference were finally settled 16 II. The Circumstances which led to the Blknding of the British and Canadian Churches to be thought of : Appeal to England for aid to prosecute the Indian work, gave the British Connexion an excuse for interfering, as it claimed to be released from the Convention of 1820, by the Canada Church's passing from under American jurisdiction. [Answers to Mr. Perritt's Cavils] 18 III. A Detail of the Unifying Process : Mr. Alder's visit — Conversations — Committee — Prelim- inary Articles — Delegate and Reserve — The whole matter before the Connexion from the Conference of 158 l-AOE. 18:^2 until Octr)l)fr, 1S;13— AlUrm.ition of the Tlritish (jDiiforenci! — IJutiirn of tlio dclciratt', uc!C')n»i»iiii< il liy tliu 1! -v. Mi"^.sr.4 Marsd. 11 ainl Stiiisoii — IJnaiiiiiiDua a]»pr(»vui l)y tlio C'aiiaila ('niifcroiict* — Cases of Wliito- lit-ail and («atidit;ll — [Mr. I'oiritt'a (dtjeuiiouH set aside] Cliict 1{ ibiiison's "oi)iiiioii " [iidtf] 21 IV. CONSIDKUATIONS WHICH I'llKVAII.KM WITH TIIK .MK.MIJIOU.S OK (,'(».Ni'Knr,N('K TO Co.nci;k :n tuk Union : 1. Substantial ontnt'S?! of the two budios. 2. Lovo for the I'litish (.'miiiexiou. 3. Niiiiiber.s of O d Couiitrv- nirii ill the Cliuroli. 4. No ri;4hta surrendiTcd, 5. Convietion tliat all had been leifally and reL'ulaily done. 0. Tlieir relation to l:][)iscoit;iey. 7. ^(etd of men .md ine.ins. 8. Ab.-.iiice of opji'jaition and ap- pro val of lending Anieiieaii udidsters. [A note an- sweriau' Mi'- JViri^fw impeachment, o'. e.J [Further aiissvc- to Mr. I'erritt's supra.. .'50 to 36 V, Tini Ol'POSITION \VHI(.'I1 Al'TKUWAnDS AUOSE, AND TllK Fou.M IT Took : No oppfxition lid the new regulations relating to members and b»oal i reaclierd Mere put and carried id the QLi»r- terly Jklectiigs during th J year iSIjIi-.'M .30 A certai'i nults eu_'r"Sbnik,ut ia tiu! text of Diwiuplino necouiited for — [Appeal to vitneasta against ATr. Perritt'b siic'i]— Tiie changes with re.;aid to L e:il Pr-iieliers — Uncuit Alee tin. s — Plan 11 Original letter of Ue\'. John lloyaoldd (anto) 39 'rcji'imony of a YotJgo Si'cet ]j ea! Preacher (note) 40 SutiVagcH of majoii y — llopts in;:piied Ediior IJichaid- soa's vahdictory 41 Am intended g'Kxl made occasion of harm 43 Mr. Cu'p, ori.;inatar of the division [naora and infra) 43 Me.-tingat S;dtll-et .'. 44 Meeti'g at Govern ^r's Uoad, A. Matthews 45 I'roeeedinga at Delleville — Loudon 4(5 Facts with regard to I\Ir. Bailey 47 Conventiou at Trafalgar 48 Untoward cventd whicli arose incidentally .. 4!) YI. OjJJKrTioN TO THE Identity oi-' tiiI'; \Vk.sm;vax Mhtiiodist (JllL'l!(TI IN Ca:.ADA with OjtIlilNAL MKl'ilOUXST I'^l'IS- COPAL CiiUHCii IN Canada 50 1. AhoUshmg Epicn/mcf/ : Uuchurciies all other Methodist l>odies — [Pressing ■ 'erritt's argument to its loi^ioal conclusion] — N<> Church in the 8tat' s, if not Episcopal — Mr. Eyciv^ou's researches in the Stales— He V. ]"] Cooper's {^^iiprd and intrn.) 51 Repliioof Revs. Messrs. Morrell, Waro and Rjcd 55 Opiuioua of leading ministers of i\l, E. Church — Dr. I 159 3G 3() I'AOE. ish Olid ito- ,ae] 21 i;iis for trv- 5. ■Illy 1 oi iip- II II- llicr ;o t(» Tllli hers )li!io i>Ir. L c.:il ... 11 ... o9 41.) 41 4:i 44 45 4(5 47 48 41) )i)rsT 50 liit'.s I the ts ill 51 55 l-Dr. TAOK. I.ukiy, Biahop IIcacliny tlio .C' in its ol" Law in nix. aoveral .suits 73 3. Objection Gfouiuhd on thf. EiKjU^k I'rcnidcnt, Casrs of lyealci/ and Coke 75 VII. KxA.MiNK Tin: Claims oI'thi; RKuouisrAitLK Ch.m.m'inckk.s 77 Tcbt^ to elimiiialo t'le triitii — Wiio originated the present M. E. C. of CaiKula? 77 In tlie ord( r and date of adhesiuii — C'h1[), I'Miloy, Pickett -[Teiritfa outcry, and what he niikuis of it] 7S to 80 J. Tluston'a Case 80 Keynold.s .ind (^alcbell's Ciise 81 ;ie iS\valli