^, ^"> *■ '%■, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4 ^.^ 1.0 I.I 11.25 6" / 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation > ^^ O ;\ 4^/^ 33 WIST MAIN STRUT WIMTIR.N.Y. MSM (716) a73-4S03 '^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Inatituta for Hiatorical MIcroraproductlon. / Inttltut Canadian da m5croraproduction. hiatoriquaa fx 5» *0 ;V Technical and Bibliographic Notoa/Notaa tochniquas at bibiiographiquaa Th to Tha Instituta haa attamptad »o obtain tha baat original copy avaiiabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographicaHy uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may aignificantly changa tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chacicad balow. QColourad covara/ Couvartura da coulaur r~n Covara damagad/ D Couvartura andommagAa Covara raatorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura raataurto at/ou palliculAa □ Covar titia miaaing/ La titra da couvartura manqua □ Colourad mapa/ Cartaa g^ographiquaa an coulaur □ Colourad inic (i.a. othar than Mua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) a n n Colourad plataa and/or illuttratlona/ Pianchaa at/ou iHuatrationa un coulaur Bound with otiiar matarial/ R9M avac d'autraa documanta Tight binding may cauaa thadowa or diatortion along intarior margin/ Laroliura sarrAa paut eauaar da I'ombra ou da la distoraion la long da la margo intAriaura Blank laavaa addad during raatoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar poaaibla. thaaa hava baan omittad from filming/ II aa pff»j c Pun cartairx^ ragaa blanchaa aiout4aa k>ra &uc.» >/«vitauration apparaiaaant dana la taxta. mala, loraqua cala Atait poaaibla. caa pagaa n'ont paa 4t4 film4aa. Additional commanta:/ Commantairaa tupplAmantairaK; L'Inatitut a microfilm* la maillaur axampiaira qu'ii iui a it* poaaibla da a* procurer. Las ditaiit da cat axampiaira qui sont paut-Atra tiniquas du point da vua bibliographiqua. qui pauvant modifiar una imaga raproduita. ou qui pauvant axigar una modification dans ia mithoda normaia da fiimaga aont indiqu4a ci-daasoua. nn Colourad pagas/ D Pagaa da coulaur Pagaa damagad/ Pagaa andommagiaa Pagaa raatorad and/01 Pagaa raataurAaa at/ou pailicuiias Pagaa diacoiourad. stainad or fonm Pagaa dicoiorias. tachatias ou piquias Pagaa datachad/ Pagaa dAtachias Showthroughy Tranaparanca Quality of prir QuaHt* inigala da I'imprassion Includas supplamantary matarii Comprand du material suppMmantaira Only adition avaiiabia/ Sauia Mition disponibia |~n Pagaa damagad/ r~l Pagaa raatorad and/or laminatad/ Pagaa diacoiourad. stainad or foxad/ Pagaa rn Pagaa datachad/ rj] Showthrough/ rn Quality of print variaa/ |~n Includas supplamantary material/ r~n Only adition avaiiabia/ Pagaa wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissuaa. etc.. hava been refilmed to enaura tha beat possible image/ Lee pegee totalement ou partiallement obecurc!a8 par un fauillet d'errata, una pelure, etc.. ont it* fiimiee * nouveau da fa^on A obtanir la mailleure imaga possible. Th po of fill Or ba th< sic oti fin ale or Th ah TH wl Ml dM ani b« rig ra< m« Thia Item ie filmed at tha reduction ratio cltackad below/ Ca document est film* au taux da riduction indlqu* ci-dassous. 10X 14X 1M 22X 2tX 30X y 12X 1IX 20X a4x 32X Th« copy fllm«d hmn hat bMn raproducMl thanks to tho gonofosity of: Douglas Library Quaan's Univarsity L'axamplaira flim* ffut raproduft griea i la g«n«rosit« ila: Douglas Library Quaan's Univarsity Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality possibia conaMaiiing tha condition and laglbility of tha original copy and In kaaping with tha fiiming contract spacif icatlona. Original copiaa in printad papar covara ara fllmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or llluatratad Impraa- sion, or tha back covar whan approprlata. AN othar original copiaa ara flimad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or llluatratad impraa- aion, and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or llluatratad imprassion. Laa imagaa auhrantaa ont At* raproduitas avac la plua grand aoin, compta tanu da la conditton at da hi nattatA da i'axampiaira film*, at an conf ormM avoc las conditions du contrat da fHmaga. Laa axamptairaa orlginaux dont la couvartura an paplar aat bnprlmAa aont filmAa an comman^nt par la pramlar ptet at an terminam aolt par la damlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta dlmprsaaion ou dlNuatration. solt par la sacond plat, aaton la cas. Toua laa autraa mamplairaa orlginaux aont fUmAa an commandant par la pramMra paga qui comporta una amprainta dimpraasion ou d'liiuatration at an tarminant par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Tha laat lacordad frama on aach microflcha shall contain tha symbol -^ (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol ▼ (moaning "END"), whichavar appliaa. Un das symbolas suhrents apparattra sur la darniira imaga da chaqua microflcha, saton la cas: la symbols -^* signifla "A 8UIVRE", la symbols ▼ signifla "FIN". (Maps, piatas, charts, ate., may Im fllmad at diffarant raductlon rathM. Thoaa too larga to ba antiraly included in ona axpoaura ara fHmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand comar, laft to right and top to bottom, as many framaa aa raquirad. Tha following diagrama illuatrata tha mathod: Laa cartaa, planchaa, tablaaux, ate, pauvant *tra fllmfe A daa taux da rAductlon diffArants. Loraqua la document aat trap grand pour Atra raproduit an un saul clichA, II aat filmA A partir da I'angki aupAriaur gaucha, da gaucha A droita, at da haut an baa, an pranant la nombra d'Imagas nAcassaira. Las diagrammas suivanta illuattwnt la mAthoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 6 ■ \.. \ \: \ ■.:«H The EDITH ////// LORNE PIERCE COLLECTION ^/CANADIANA Slueen's University at Kingston ..^- :.j I « vA ■% «^> #■ -■*;>, % •-^:. ^.. *» (■"^ K ■--.-;p..a-BVS-if^' *, T A/ «■ Uo— * 7 /c?Z/ ^ v. I ■'" , G .r --**■*" -■■Mi I ^m 3- 1^ Ik ^; ■.V yK ON TO Tri Th 5. t, th.^ REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF AN ACTION BROUGHT BY JOHN REYNOLDS*'AND OTHERS, ON THE PART OF PERSONS CALLING THEMSEtVES "THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN CANADA," AGAINST BILLA FLINT, Jun., AND OTHERS, TRUSTEES or THE WESLEYAN-METHODISt CHURCH IN BELLEVILLE, TO OBTAIN A CHAPEL IN THE POSSESSION OF THE LATTER IN THE TOWN OF BELLEVILLE ; By HARVEY FOWLERy Stenographer, Tried at the Assizes held in Kingston, October 11th, 1837, BEFORE THE HON. Mb. JUSTICE JONES. WITH BRIEF NOTES AND REMARKS BY E. RYERSON. counsel for the plantiffs, Mr. KIRKPATRICK; Mr. DOUGALL. I. COUNSEL FOR THE DEPENDANTS, The Hon. W. H. DRAPER, M.P. Sol. Gen.; Mr. MURNEY, M.P. * TORONTO: PRINTED AT THE CONFERENCE OFFICE^ J:-■:■) 131 * .^ I '■ 'f '' 'r I, s i:^ Xi s i scri dist hav less Th wit ren .per hot ena opi son c Ch hei oai for as ■^ ] ;? to —<•" % Ho ^ o 55 ADVERTISEMENT. ^ iO For the " Brief Notes and Remarks,^* the sub- scriber alone is responsible. They are altogether distinct from Mr. Fowler's Report of the Trial, and have been added for the information of those who are less familiar with the details of the question at issue. Those who wish to read the Report of the Trial without note or comment will pass over the notes and remarks at the bottom of the pages. An attentive .perusal of the evidence, and speeches of Counsel, on both sides, contained in the following Report, will enable tiie reader to form a correct and enlightened opinion of the pretensions and conduct of those per- sons who style themselves " The Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada," and of the Ministers and Mem- bers of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, and of the causes and grounds of the litigious proceedings of the former against the latter in the courts of law as well as through other agencies. I beg to invite the particular attention of the reader to the very eloquent and admirable speech of the ~^ Hon. Solicitor-General Draper. 3 E. RYERSON. ! y% e o Kingston, Nov. 1st, 1837. 3/ r^.9^ci^^ iVT|f': -', vt REPORT, &c. Twelve Jurymen having been called and sworn, — Mr. DouGALL opened the case on the part of the PlaintifTs. The jiction, he said, was brought by the Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada against certain persons claiming to represent the Wesleyau body of MethodistSj to recover the possession of certain pro- perty which had been conveyed to those Trustees for the use of the Society called the Methodist Episcopal Church, under the authority of iin Act passed in the year 1828. It would only be necessary for them to show, in tiie tirst place^ that there was a legal title in those persons through whom the Trustees claim, and, in the next place, that they were Trustees, such as the Statute requires, and capable of taking a conveyance and of holding such lands for the benefit of the Society/ of vvliich they were such Trustees. What the precise ground of the de- fence to the present action would be he was not aware : he understood,, however, that it was different from that of the case which had been recently decided, viz. the Waterloo case* But, whateyer the defence might 1)0, they would be prepared to meet it, and to rebut it by substan-t tial evidence. The Deed, when read to the Jury, as it shortly would be, would be found to be in accordance with the provisions of the Statute. Guv R. Prentiss was then called and sworn. He was present, and saw the Deed executed, and is a subscribing witness thereto. Cross-examined by Mr. Draper, the Solicitor-General. — Does not know who the Defendants to this action are ; but has understood that some of the persons named in the Deed as Trustees are now De- fendants. Charles Meniam, sworn. — Certain of those persons whose names appear in the Deed have seceded from the Methodist Episcopal Church. Knows Asa Yeomans, benjamin Ketcheson, and Gilbert Bleecker, and that they have ceased to bp members of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The Rev. John Ileynblds has been for many years the sULt tioned minister of that Church in the town of Belleville. Cross-examined by Solicitor-(xeneral.<— You say that tl^fose three persons whom you have named seceded from the M9th6dut:Epificb|>al, Church 1 — Yes. When did this happen? — In the latter'pairt of the year 1834 ; believed it was in the month of Septeml^r. Ax9. these facts within your own knowledge ?-^I was a member of thai Church %t « REPORT. the time. How did they ceise to be members, or secede, as jrou ferm it 1 — Bj calling themselves by another name ; that is, Wesleyans. Do you mean to say that this was the act of those three persons, or of the whole body of Methodists ? — It was, I believe, the act of the body. How did it take place 1 was it not in Conference? — I believe that it was. Where was that Conference held? — ^At Toronto. Now, was not that ConferencQ held in October, 1833, nearly a year prior to tiie time of the appointment of the new Trustees? — I think it probable, but cannot say positively. Have you any doubt that it was at that Conference that it took place ? — I have no doubt. Sol.-G-en. So that, in point of fact, the secession, if any, took place nearly a year previous to the appoint- ment of the Trustees ? — Yes. By whom was this act of assuming a new name treated as an act of secession ? — By the Episcopal body of Methodists. Whom do you mean wKen you speak of the Body ; do you mean the persons who profess themselves members of that Church, Of do you mean the ministers assembled in Conference ? — I mean all the members of that Church. To a question from tiie Judgt — Witness did not know of any meeting of the body at which it was declared that those persons were seceders, so as to affect their offices as Trustees under the Deed. It was generally understood among them to be the case. Sol.-Gen. You say you know that they ceased to be members of that Church in September, 1834, and that secession was an act which had continued since October, 1833, down to that time. Now, I wish to know what act took place, within your own knowledge, by which that secession was recognized by the Church to which you belonged t — Witness was not aware of any par- ticular act, nor did he ever attend a meeting at which any thing of that nature occurred. Sol.-Gen. Who was the minister in charge of the Church at Belleville in the autumn of 1833 ? — ^The Rev. John Davidson. Were you a member of the Church at that time ? — I always considered tnyself a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Sol.-Gen. I ask you. Were you under the pastoral charge of the Rev. Mr. Davidson in the fall of 1833 ? — I expect I was. When did Mr. Davidson cease to be the stationed preacher in charge of the Church at Belleville ? — ^Will not be puositive whether it was in 1834 or 1835. Did he contiime in charge until January, 1834 ? — I think he did. Up to that time were you as much a member under his chaige as you had been in tlie fall of 1833 ?— I remained in that congregation. Did you meet in class and receive your ticket from him ? — Yes. Who succeeded Mr. Davidson ? — Rev. Mr. Wilkinson. Did you continue to attend the class under him? — I believe I did once. Now, up to the 23d September, 1834, did not the pensons named as Trustees in this Deed continue in like manner as you had done?— Yes. Did not Mr. Wilkinson continue in charge of the Church after that period ?— He did. Did those persons leave his ministiyt — They continned under it. Did you continue? — I did not* Now, cUd you see those persons, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Selden, Mr. Bickforyl, «od Mr. IHme, attending that Church between the fall (a<1933 and 4e|;>tenn(ber 1834 ?— Oeilmnly ; part of the time, if not the who offic was at say. say Rey 23d The on iean s. Do of the How- report. 7 whole time. Subsequent to the fall of 1833, did not Mr. Reynolds officiate as minister under Mr. Davidson ? — ^Do not know whether he was under the dictation of Mr. Davidson or not. If he acted as minister at all) must he not have been under the minister in charge ? — Cannot say. Was he not a class-leader part of the time, or steward?-— Cannot say. When you have been present at love-feast, did you see Mr. Beynolds distributing the elements ? — Cannot recollect. Now, after the 23d of September, 1834, did they not withdraw from that Church 1 — They did. Under the pastoral charge of Mr. Davidson and of Mr. Wilkinson, what was Uie name of that Church? — ^The Wesleyan Methodist Church. (1) • ^ ^->ii ' ,;; ;!i»ii?;Xi5 Edward P. Boselly sworn. Examined by Mr. Dougall. — Are you aware who was the preacher in charge of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Belleville in September, 1834< ? — Rev. John Reynolds. Po you recollect when he was appointed 1 — Some time previous to Sep- tember, I believe. Were you at the meeting at which he received his (1) Tlie design in calling Merriam as a fvitness appears to have been to prove lliat three of llie Truelees named in the Deed, (Messrs. Yoomans, Keteheson, «Dd Bieeclcer) who are Members of the Wer' .yan Methodist Church, had seceded from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and '.h-A John Reynolds was the stationed Minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Belleville, and therefore had Authority to appoint succeKsors to the seceding Trustees. He swears that Messrs. Yeomans, Keteheson, and BleeeVer seceded from the Methodist Episcopal Church in September, 1834, by calling themselves by another name, and yet confessen that the name by which they are called was given to tlie Church in October, ISSi— eleven months before they seceded ! ! He swears that John Reynolds hus been for some years the stationed Minister in Belleville, and again swears that Mr. Davidson was the stationed Minister in Belleville, from the autumn of 1833 till 1834 or 1835 ! ! He swears that he had always been a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, that is, that he had never been a member of the Wesleyan Methodist Churoh, and yet confesses that he attended the Church, met in class, &nd even received his ticket as a member under Mr. Davidson during the whole period of his charge in Belleville, and that the four Trustees of the Episcopal party, (Measrs. Reynolds, Selden, Bickford, and Dame,) did the same as himself until September, 1834, — seven months after the publication in the Ouardian of otrtain regulations respecting Local Preachers to which they objected, and five months after the printing of the present Discipline of the Wesleysn Methodist Churoh, and twelve months, save ten days, aAer the consummation of the Union with the British Conference. Here then it is proved by the principal of the Plaintiffs* own witnesses that Messrs. Reynolds, Selden, Bickford, and Dame were members of the same Church with Messrs. Yeomans, Keteheson and fileecker, that is the Wesleyan Methodist Church, eleven months after the adoption of the present name. If then the Defendants forfeited all legal right to Trusteeship of chapel property by remaining with the church under the new name, must not the Plaintifi have done the same during the eleven months they remained in the seme cbarob 7— And according to the provision* of every Deed of the Churoh, when n nan eease* to be a Member of the Church, he eeasoe to be ■ Trustee ; and be cannot, of eoarse, become one again, any more than any other irdividual, unless ap- pointod in the manner pointed out in the Deed.— Thus are tho pretensions of the Gpisoopal party reAited by the testimony of (heir own ebtof witness, let alone the worthlaisness of his evidenoo in other rtspects from its pnlpahii salf.contrn. 4iotion. « , . >■ 9 REPORT. appointment ? — I was. Where was that meeting held ? — In the Third Concession of Sidney. Was it a Conference 1 — It .waa a Quarterly Meeting Conference. Do not recollect the day. Cannot say that any of the proceedings were reduced to writing. Do not know whether the Discipline of the Wesleyan Church had been published at that time. Believe it had not. Was not aware of what that Discipline was to contain until I had seen a copy. Think it was in the latter end of the year 1834 that I first saw it. Do not recollect whether the resolution appointing Mr. Reynolds to the charge of the Church at Belleville was in writing or not. Mr. Reynolds, however, accepted the charge. There was another preacher at the Meeting, Rev. Joseph Gatchell. Was not present at the Meeting at which the new Trustees were appointed. Believes the proceedings of that Meeting were in Mr. Reynolds' hand- writing. The Court wished to understand whether this was the way, by the Discipline, in which such appointments were to be made ? Sol.- Genl. — ^They must show that it is the way before they can proceed another step. Mr. Kirkpatrick — We submit that we are not bound to enter into this fact at all. Whoever was the stationed preacher at the time had an undoubted right to make the appointment, and we have shown that it was done by him. Mr. Kirkpatrick here read tlie provision for the appointment of Trustees. The Judge — I have understood from a former witness that Mr. Davidson was in charge at this time. (, Mr. DouGALL — Of another church, my Lord. According to the terms of the Deed, the nomination of Trustees to succeed such as cease to act, is to be made by the stationed minister in charge. This, we have shown, was done. (2) (3) What a quibbling and miaatatement ia here on the part of both the couniel for the Proieoutnrs ! Who ever hnard but of one Mothodiat Church nr Chapel in Belleville, in 1834, or even at the preaent tiine» in the chargo of which a miniater could be stationed ? Merriam had firat awnrn that Mr. Reynolds hnd been aome yeara the stationed minister in Belleville, afterwards that Mr. David- son was the stationed minister in charge of the Methodist Church in Belleville from the autur i of 1833 till 1834 or 1835; and now the counsel for the Prose" outora say, that it waa another Church ! It is true, aa Mr. Doogall states, that '* the nomination of Trustees to succeed Buoh aa cease to act, ia to be made by the ttntioned Mini$lir in charge ;" but w ho ia that Minister in fact or in law ? Is he any peraon who may prateod to be su, or who ia auarted to be so 7 Or is he a person who has been appointed according to tlM Discipline of tb« Church aa atated in the Deed ? The question then is, waa Mr. Reynolds thua appointed, aa atationed Minister in charge of tha Church in Belleville 7 That he pretenda to have been thua stationed, and that the Epiaoopal partv have thus repreaented him, la notorious ; and ao they pretend that he waa duly eleeted and ordained Biahop, but tbia does not prove either the one or the other. The Pefendtnts deny the truth of the latter of these pretem REPORT. 9 Witness cross-examine! >y the Solic:tor-General — You have lieard the evidence which wus given here thet Mr. Davidson was the minister in charge up to the fall of 1834 ? — I do not think it is correct. Was there any other minister in charge of the Church at Belleville at that time 1 Witness — ^Do you refer to the Episcopal or to the Wes- leyan Church ? Solicitor — I want to understand from you whether any other minister besides Mr. Davidson was officiating in charge of the Church at Belleville ; I believe you are quibbling with me ? Witness — You need not accuse me of that. Solicitor — From the month of October, 1833, what minister was officiating in the Methodist Church in Belleville 1 — ^Mr. Davidson. Had any other minister any authority ? — Not to my knowledge. Was there any other that interfered with him 1 — Not that I am aware of. (3.) Witness then proceeded to state, that, previous to this time, he and Mr. Bird had conver^d upon the subject of the union, together with Mr. Dame, and they had agreed to remain Episcopal Methodists, and Mr. Beynolds UAd them he would take the charge of them. Mr. Reynolds said he hoped there would be a sufficient number to make a prayer-meeting. This took place in May 1834. (4) Witness had continued up to that time under the ministiy of Mr. Davidson, and even ailerwards, when Mr. Wilkinson was sta- tioned there, occasionally attended, though not as a member of a class. Hions, and contend that Mr. DaTidaon, or aflflr him Mr. WilkiriMn. waa the stationed Minister in charge of tlie church in Belleville; yet the PlaintiflT*' counsel say, they have nothing to do to prove whether Mr. Reynolde waa appointed according to the Diaciplint or not ! ! If Reynolds was not appointed according to Discipline, it is as clear as day that he could not have been the ** stationed Minister in charge" according to the provisions of the Deed ; and therefore was no stationed Minister at all, and could not have lawfully nominated Trustees. The •• fact" then which Mr. Kirkpatrick submitted they were " not bound to enter into," lies at the very foundation of their claims; and their refusal to *' enter into ii" was clearly an admission that they could not prove it, and therefore that their pretensions were futile and unjust. And whiit is extracted from Boselly hironelf, in his cross examination, as clearly shows that Mr. Reynolds was not the stationed Minister in Belleville according to the Discipline. (3) This witness had denied the correctness of Merriam's evidence as to Mr. Davidson's being the "statinned Minister oi the Methodist Church in Belleville," and here admits that he bimself had no knowledge of any other Minister being stationed there but Mr. Davidson ! . • .:. - !• ••.,-. r _ •* (4) Here, according to the Prosecutors* own witness, is itl* origin and foundation of that " Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada" to which lAsy belong; in addition to which, it will be seen, that this very witness admiti, in the course of his cross exammation, that all the proaecutmg Truateaa, as wall aa himnlf, continued outwardly members of the Wesleyan Methodiat Church for months after this conversation, by conforming in the same manner that they had done in former years to all its disciplinary regulations, though tfiwerd/j^ he did not consider himself a member of the Church; that is, ne and the Proaecutora were not inwardly what they odtwardly professed to be. Hyjit*. rity, is defined b; Dr. Johnson, to be " appearing diirerently from the reality." It is truly lamentable to see persons under the solemnity and awAilness cf an estl:, in order te •••x pogaeMion of a Chapel, avowmg themselves to hava been hypocrites fur nearly a twelve month. 10 RS ponT. Solicitor — Did not your name appear upon the class-paper as mem- ber of a class? — Not with my consent. I never considered royeelf a member of a class under Mr. Davidson's ministration. Did you not leave Mr. Davidson to suppose that you considered yourself a member of a class by allowing your name to be on the class-paper, and by attending the meetings of the class 1 — I do not know what Mr. Davidson supposed. I expressed my views frequently upon the subjeet, though not to Mr. Davidson himself. How can you account for the fact of your attending a church of which you were not a member and never intended to be a member] — It is very customary for people to attend churches to which they do not belong. Sol.— But it is not customary for them to attend class-meetings, I believe ; now I would wish you to state whether it is any part of the Discipline that those who attend classes should profess themselves members ? — I think the rule says they must be members. And you were aware of thit> rule at the time we are speaking of? — Yes. Now, I would like to ask you, whether, in August ISJJf, you had any conversation with Mr. Wilkinson ? — I had. Just relate to us what that conversation was ? — I told him my intention not to go with the Church. Did you state that you intended to withdraw ? — Not exactly that. Did you, in point of fact, withdraw yourself from the Church of which Mr. Davidson and Mr. Wilkinson were the sta- tioned ministers ; and when did you so withdraw ? — I have already said that I never considered myself a member of the Wesleyan Church. After the Conference of 1833, in Toronto, I considered that they seceded. Yet you continued to attend the ordinances of that Church as a member ? — I attended preaching and class-meetings, and received one ticket, and on receiving it asked Mr. Albert Taylor, the local preacher, whetlier receiving the ticket would constitute me a member. Do you believe that a ticket would be given to a person who was not a member ? — I believe they have done it. Sol. — I suppose you know something about the DiacipUne. Now, could a minister do* so? — I think it is illegal. Did you not know it then just as much as you do now ? — I have studied the Discipline since more than before. Is there not a distinction between a note of admission given to a stranger and a ticket given to a member 1 -—I believe there is. Is there not usually a text of scripture upon the ticket, with the name of the Church ? — As to the name of the Church, I cannot say positively. Did you ever receive a ticket with the name o( the Church upon it? — I do not know that I ever received any ticket but one. Was that printed or written ? — It was printed. Well, now, upon your oath, was not the name of the Church printed upon that ticket ? — I cannot tell. Have you got that ticket ? — I have not. I do not know what has become of it. Was the name of the minister signed to it ? — I believe that is always the case. Now, to put all togetljer, you received a ticket from Mr. Davidson, upon which the name of the Church was printed, and to which his name was signed, and it was addressed to yourself? — Yes. When was this? — My memory does not exactly serve, but I tlnnk it was in the latter nart of 1833. Was it aAer tho Conference held in Toronto ?— Yes. I^ow, you say Mr. Reynolds wot REPORT. 11 made stationed minister; when was he appointed? — I think it waa Bometime in the latter part of August 1834. Do you recognise the Discipline of 18291 — Yes. Was it ccmipetent under that Discipline for a Quarterly Meeting Conference to make such an appointment ? — I do not know whether it is competent or not. I believe that in certain cases the Presiding Elder has the power of filling up vacancies. Was this a General or an Annual Conference 1 — It was neither. Now can either a Bishop or Presiding Elder appoint a stationed Minister except at a General or Annual Conference t — I stated that they had power to fill up vacancies I thought. "^ Who was the Presiding Elder at that meeting ? — Mr. Gatchell. Did you not know that he was a Superannuated Preacher of the Wesleyan Methodist Church 1 — I did not. Did you not know that he received an allowance as a Superannuated Minister ? — I did not of my own knowledge, I had heard that it was the case. Could he as a Superannuated Preacher be a Presiding Elder? — I cannot say. J believe they sometimes superannuate for a time on account of their health, and are aftenvards restored to their offices. Do you know whether Mr. Gatchell was ever appointed a pi-esiding Elder ? — I do not know. Did there exist a Conference, Annual or General, of the Epis- copal Methodists at that time ? — I cannot say. Do you not know that a Conference of Episcopal Methodists was formed after the time of that meeting ? — I have understood that there was a Conference held previous to that Meeting. Have you not seen Minutes of a Conference of the Church to which you profess to belong, which was held subsequently, and bearing the heading " First Conference?'* — Not to my recollection. Do you know the last witness ? — Yes. Was he a Minister ? — Not at all, he is a lay member. Have you ever seen Mr* Reynolds attending under the Ministry of Mr. Davidson, after the Conference of 1833? — I have seen him attend, but not so commonly as before. Did he attend as a member ? — I have seen him attend as a hearer ; previous to that he had l)een in the habit of preaching. Did you not yourself see him afterwards officiating as Steward at Love-feast? — I have no recollection of it. — Now with regard to Mr. Selden ? — He was a more constant attendant I believe. And Mr. Bickford, (he was your Leader I believe) and he continued under Mr. Davidson ? — Yes. And Mr. Dame ? — He was in the habit of attending, but told me that he was resolved to continue an Episcopal Methodist. After Mr. Wilkinson was appointed to the station I only attended two or three times, and cannot say whether they attended or not. Were Mr. Bickford and Mr. Dame appointed Delegates to attend a Conference in Kingston in 1834? — I believe they were. Of what Church was that Conference? — Of the Wesleyan. Was there an application made through those Delegates for the removal of Mr. Davidson from the Belleville station? — There was. Did you sign a petition to that effect? — I did. Was not that petition addressed to the Conference ? — It was. Now by what authority did you sign that petition, if yoii did not belong to that Church. Is it usual for a person not professing to be a member of a Church to take a part in proceedings of mat nature ? — I have heard of iuch thinp. I did not consider that there could be any iH' Hit OIL T. official character affixed to that petition, I believed I might sign it without ■] doing so as a member of the Church. (5) Direct examination resumed. — ^Witness knows tlie distinction between Wesleyan and Episcopal Methodists, and considered that whilst the 4 Episcopal Church was in existence, it was the one to which he belonged, ° and that no body of men had the power of transferring him to another ' without his consent. Although witness attended the Church called the < Wesleyan, while the negociations for an Union were going on and ever afterwards until their Discipline was published ; yet as soon as it was ■' published, he at once decided to remain Episcopal. Never requested that his name should be entered as a member of the Wesleyan Church. — Witness knew that Mr. Flint, before he belonged to the Church at all, was in the habit of meeting in class, but whether he received his Ticket , cannot say. Understood that Mr. Flint before he came to Belleville i belonged to the Presbyterian Church, but there being no Presbyterian - Church at Belleville placed himself under the watch care of the Methodist Church. (6) This closed the evidence on the part of the Plaintiffs. ' ' ' '" The Solicitor General then stated that he should take exception to the case as made out by the Plaintiffs, inasmuch as they had not proved, as they were bound to do, that the persons who were originally Trustees had ceased to be so, nor that those whom they claim to be Trustees in their room had been appointed in accordance with the tenor and effect of the Deed. That the Statute does not make them a corporation, but only gives them authority to use a corporate name, and it therefore rests with them to shew that the persons they have named as Trustees, and no others, are the legal Trustees. These objections being recorded — ! \ (5) It was stated in Court, that the petition here referred to was not only addressed to the Wesleyan Conference, but professed to be from the " under- signed memben of the Wesleyan Methodist Chnreh in Belleville"— signed by all the Prosecutors and carried by two of them as *' Delegates" to the Conference. (6) The discrepancies between Boselly's evidence and that of Merriam, and bis self contradictions, are ton numerous and obvious to require any particular notice in these brief notes. Yet such is the evidence upon which the Proae. eutors proposed to rest their esse. Suoh indeed, it appears, it the only kind of evidence they could procure to support it. And from this their own evidence three facts are fully established, which, it is submitted, is sufficient to secure a verdict for the Defendants from any impartial and judicioue tribunal. 1. That •U the Prosecutors were, (ts far as it is possible for any but thft Searcher of hearts to distinguish members of the church from others) ntembera of the Wealeyan Methodist Church, at least, eleven months after the consummation of the Union and adoption of the present name, by the Conference held in Toronto, October 1633. 9. That during this time not one of them was known to have objected to the Union, or to the modification of the Episcopacy ; but to the superintendenoy of Mr. Davidson, and certain regulations respeoting Local Preachers, which were concurred in by threefourths of the offioial lay mambera of the church throughout the Province moniha after the completion of the Union, and before said regulstions becsme a part of the Discipline. 3. That Mr. Reynolds was in no one particular the "stationed Minister in charge of th* church in S«ii«?ili«," ucccrding tc the DissipHnei ■! ' ■nd intent of the Deed. REPORT. IS it without n between ivhilst the ! belonged, to another called the •n and ever 1 as it was uested that Church. — urch at all, I his Ticket » BeUeville 'resbyterian are of the e exception not proved, Uy Trustees Trustees in and effect of 3n, but only e rests with ees, and no led— was not only the "under- ■Bigned by all i Conference. Merriam, and ny particular ch the Proee- I only kind of own evidence it to lecure a nal. 1. That • Searcher of nbera of th« Bummation of d in Toronto, lown to have but to the •otinf Local I lay mtmbera ilotion of the ine. 3. That charge of tb» IB Deed* ^-" 4 The Solicitor General proceeded to address the Jvitj. ■■->' ," *' :^> ' May it please your Lordship : , '■"■'•■:'',■ ''^,'', ..I::' Gentlemen of the Jury f — » > ^ - ij- r From the very brief manner in which the case' has been opened by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs, — although it appears he after- wards changed his mind, and thought it necessary to go a little further — from the very short, and, I might almost say, light manner, in which the learned Coimsel treated the case, one might have supposed that it was really one which required little attention or explanation. I confess I feel very differently with regard to its importance. I look upon it as an action of the greatest interest upon which a Jury can be called to decide. It involves rights in which a large body of persons are deeply interested, and I cannot myself treat it otherwise than as a case which requires the greatest possible care and circupispection on the part of those vdth whom rests the duty of determining it. Feeling that there is a most serious responsibility attending the decision you are to give, it will be Tny duty, — even at the risk of being thought tedious, — ^to go so fully and minutely into its particulars, that you may have before you every thing which is necessary in order to do complete justice between the parties, — to arrive at the very truth and right. If you consider, with me, that your deci- sion this day will affect the religious faith and worship of all those who are Members of the Wesleyan Church in this Province and elsewhere, I am sure you will bear with me patiently while I endeavour to unfold tiie different bearings of the question, without which it will be impossible to arrive at a correct conclusion. My sole object will be to make tht ciuestion as clear and comprehensible as my humble abilities will allow me to do — to keep back nothing — leave nothing obscure that I can make plain — hut, conscious that I am advocating the truth, endeavour to lay the whole truth before you. I ask, therefore, a patient and attentive hearing : I ask an unpreju-' diced hearing, — I ask that you discharge from your minds all that you have heard out of doors respecting this matter, and endeavour to arrive at the truth from the testimony which shall be here produced. Great and important, as regards the interests of this Province, are your duties ; and it is therefore incumbent on you to exercise those functions with which the law has entrusted you in a spirit of calm and dispassionate investigation, in a spirit of candour, in a spirit of truth. I remind you of this, not because I would intimate a doubt as to the correctness with which you will discharge your duties, but beoftttibe I feel it absolutely necessary to guard against every possibility of fif^ipg into error — to pro- vide against difficulties th&t perhaps may not exist — and to anticipate objections which possibly may never be raised. Having made these preliminary observations, I will now state the grotmds on which our defence will rest. There can be no doubt that, in the year 1829 or 1829, after the se- paration from the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, all parties, both Plaintiffs and Uefendants in this action, formed one and the :% H R £ P n Ti •ame body of Christians. On the part of the Plaintiffs it is contend^d^ that they constitute that Church, and that the Defendants have seceded from them. On the part of the Defendants it is contended, that they ■till are, as unquestionably they were, that Church ; and, on the deci- sion between these two conflicting claims, depends the determination of the present question, — ^Who have the right to the Church property 1 With a view, then, to lay the whole case before you in as clear a light as possible, I propose to sketch briefly the rise and progress of Methodism in England, its establishment in the United States, and its existence in this Province ; then taking a view of the conduct of the Plaintiffs in this case, and examining the rules of Church-government, to demonstrate that the Defendants bed a right to treat the Plaintiffs as seceders from their Church. Mr. Wesley, the Father and Founder as well of the Wesleyan Church in England as of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, was a member of the Church of England. Animated by a spirit of pious devotion, which never can be thought of without the highest respect and veneration, he exerted himself to produce among those over whom he exercised his pastoral functions (for he was a Minister of the Gospel) the same feeling of piety, and to induce them to enter more deeply into the spirit of those doctrines, of which, he had reason to fear, they were only formal professors. For a length of time no one of his followers felt himself entitied to ofliciate in all the dutiet< of a Minister but those who had received regular ordination as he had done from a Bishop of the Church of England. Nor did they at first contemplate setting themselves apart from that Church, but only to lead more pious and godly lives than they had previously done — professing the same faith, believing the same doctrines, and using the same ordi- nances. As their numbers increased it became necessary that they should adopt, from time to time, for their internal government, certain distinct regulations; and those regulations were sug^c^tcd principally, if not entirely, by Mr. Wesley himself, who, until his death, was always treated and looked upon as the Father and Founder of their body. Never was his authority either doubted or denied ; but, on the contrary, every thing which was done was done under his superintendance, and with his express sanction. Though not a Bishop in name, yet he was one most emphatically in authority. By degrees, the extension of their members rendered an increase of their ministers indispensible ; and, as an inevitable consequence, the ordination of such ministers by those not holding the episcopal ofiice, as ordination could not be obtained from the hands of the Bishops of the Church of England, led to a gradual separa- tion from that establishment, and the formation of a distinct body of christians. From the time Mr. Wesley associated his friends and followers together it became necessary, as I have already said, to adopt rules and regulations for their government ; and the most prominent and leading feature in that government was the establishment of Itinerant Preachers as the superintending body of the Church. Now I wish to draw your attention more particularly to this fact, because I lay it down «s an axiom thai to these Minisieni alone was the govemmeut of the seceded mt they the deci- lation of ? With light as thodism stence in ntifTs in nonstrate ers from 1 of the hurch in Animated thout the e among e was a 5 them to , he had of time he duties 18 he had ;y at first ly to lead >rofessing I me ordi- Ihat they t, certain incipally, IS always eir bodv. contrary, nee, and t he was 1 of their ; and, as those not from the 1 sepnra- body of inds and to adopt nent and Itinerant [ wish to it down it of the REPORT. IjM Church confided, and that the Lay-members had no voice whateiFnr, either in the formation of the rules and discipline, or in the government of the Church itself. With regard to the laity, there never was and never could be, any compulsion exercised towards them to make them become members ; but when they did so, they at once put themselvea under the control and superintendance of those ministers. As to this fact, I tliink I shall be free from contmdiction ; indeed, I challenge contradiction. With this principle in view, I shall proceed to an enquiry uf great importance in the consideration of the present case. It is this: What were the views entertained by the early Methodists as to th« necessity of Episcopacy in the constitution of a Church ? or, in other words, was Episcopacy considered as a distinct and essential order by their articles of faith? Now, with regard to Episcopacy as a neoessary mode or form of Church Government, if it be a pait of the faith and doctrine of Meth- odism, it must have been a part when Methodism was founded. But, if I establish that it was not then so considerud, and further, that even the form of it was not adopted, then I shall, at least, have thrown it on the other party to show when and by what means it became a doctrine of Metho^sm, a fundamental article of faith. To establish this view, I shall cite an authority — and the best and highest authority which can b« produced — namely, that of Mr. Wesley himself, as contained in a letter Avritten by him in 1786 : — . *' As to my own judgment, I stiU believe f^the, episcopal foim, of Church government to be scriptural and apostolical." I mean, well agreeing with the practice and writings of the Aposties. But that it is prescribed in Scripture, I do not believe. This opinion, which I once zealously espoused, I have been heartily ashamed of ever since I read Bishop Stillingfleet's " Irenicon." I think he has unanswerably pi^oved, that " neither Christ nor his apostles prescribe any particular form of Church government ; and that the plea of divine right for diocesan epis-< copacy was never heard of in the Primitive Church." — (W^eafcy'* Works, vol. 13, p. 179. ■^c.^,:.^^,.,,fc:^^,-iu^^,fi,i:.^^^^^ T^- Now, a more marked and conclusive expression of opinion than this cuuld hardly be couched in the English language. No one reading it will venture to assert that Mr. Wesley treated Episcopacy as a matter of faith or doctrine. He states distinctly that it is proved that neither Christ nor his apostles prescribe any particular form of Church govern- ment ; and that the plea of divine right for diocesan episcopacy was never heard of in the Primitive Church. I allude tu this to shew that Mr. Wesley considered it matter of form only, and not matter of substance. So fhr as Scriptural provisions went, it was, in his opinion, a matter of perfect indifierence. But I will cit« to you another passage from Mr. Wesley's writings to shew that it was not on one occasion, only, that he entertained these opinions. " Concerning diocesan episcopacy, there are several questions I should J>c glad to have answered: (1.) Where is it prescribed in Scripture t 16 R B P O R T. (2.) How does it appear that the Apostles << settled it in all the Churche* they planted 1" (3.) How does it appear that they so settled it in any, as to make it of perpetual obligation 1 It is allowed, " Christ and hit* Apostles did pirt the Churches under some form of government or Other." But, (1.) Did they put all Churches under the same precise form ? If thJey did, (2.) Can we prove this to have been the very same which now remains in the Church of England ?" — Vol. XIII. p. 182. He asks these questions for the purpose of showing that Episcopacy was not an ordinance of Divine prescription. I vnW also shew, from the writings of some of the most eminent divines of the Church of England, of that or of any age, that Episcopacy, as a distinct order from that of Priests or Eiders, was not considered by them a point of faith. I will cite a name which all must venerate, a martyr who perished at the stake for the cause of religion, Archbishop Cranmer. Be it remembered, (and I am obliged to my Reverend friend for the suggestion,) that Cranmer was the writer and compiler of the Homilies of the Church of England : — << In the reign of Edward VI, about the year 154<7, a very grave and learned assembly of select divines, was called by the King's special order, ipr delmting the settlement of things according to the word of God, and t^e practice of the primitive church. It consisted of Cranmer, arch- bishop of Canterbury, the archbishop of York, and many other prelates and divines of the first distinction. The account of their proceedings, Dr. Stiflingfteet ilssures us he took himself from the authentic manu- script of Arcfabi^op Cranmer, then first published. To the questions prc^uiiided to the assembly by order of the King, those eminent divines gav;; ' ~-^ : - ' - ' " Lord King's account of the Primitive Church convinced me, many years ago, that Bishops and Presbyters are the same order, and conse- quently have tlie same right to ordain ." — Moore^s Life of Wesley , p. 327. Showing that the priests exercised the functions and authority of ' Bishops. But I have not yet done with this point. I will cite other authorities of the same nature : — ** It ought to be understood," sajrs Dr. Samuel Miller, « that among those who espouse the episcopal side there are three classes. * consistently .with the divine ^11, to frame her constitution agreeiibly REPORT. hurchei» t in any, t and hi» ment or e precise ery same p. 182. iscopacy 5w, from lurch of »ct order a point tyr who ^ranmer. I for the Homilies rave and ial order, jrod, and er, arch- rprelatea ceedings, ic manu- questions It divines ccurately mself. — »e priests not two gion." — e, many d conse- ,JB.327. lority of ite other amon^ t nor his iment to tiurch is rreeablv , -, — ^ lo her own views, to the state of society, and to the exigencies of par- ticular times. These prefer the episcopal government, and some of them believe that it was the primitive form ; but they consider it as resting on tiie ground of human expediency alone, and not of divine appointment. This is well known to have been the opinion of Archbishops Cranmer, Grindal, and Whitgift ; of Bishop Leighton, of Bishop Jewel, of Dr, Whitaker, of Bishop Reynolds, of Archbishop Tillotson, of Bishop Burnet, of Bishop Croft, of Dr. Stillingfleet, and of a long list of the most learned and pious divines of the Church of England, from the reformation down to the present day." — Emory's Defence of " Our Fathers,''^ pp. 5, 6. " I assert," says Dr. Stillingfleet, " any particular form of government agreed on by the governors of the church, consonant to the general rules of Scripture, to be by divine right ; that is, God, by his own laws, hath given men a power and liberty to determine the particular form of church government among 4hem. And hence il may appear, that though one form of government be agreeable to the word, it doth not follow that another is not, or because one is lawful, another is unlawful ; but one • form may be more agreeable to some parts, places, people and times, than others are. In which case, that form of government is to be settled which is most agreeable to the present state of a place, and is most ad^ vantageously conducive to the promoting the ends of church government in that place or nation," — Irenicum, pp. 9, 10, 2d edit. Lond, 1662. You may, perhaps, ask why I cite the opinion of members of the Church of England upon the question ; I answer that Mr. Wesley him- t^lf, upon the first institution of the Methodist body, did not contemplate an absolute separation from that church, but a practice and life in stricter conformity with what they believed its doctrines. In his and their opinion, then. Episcopacy was a form of church government to be adopted or not, as circumstances required, — ^but not essential to be believed in. To this I may add, that these opinions are quoted with approbation by Dr. Emory — ^late Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States — as expressing the views of that body also on these points. I will further read to you, as bearing on this and other points, a letter from a book published by authority of the Methodist General Conference in the United States, a work which the Pluntifis in this action must of course, admit to be of some credit. The writer of the letter was the Rev. Wm. Watters, a highly respectable and useful Methodist Minister, both before and afVer the introduction of the Episcopal form of govern-^ ment: — "My Dear Brother, '"' "That there should be those who through prejudice think the Methodists, since they have had bishops among them, are quite a differ- ent people, is not strange. But is it not strange that those who have known them from the beginning, should admit such a thought, till they have investigated the matter thoroughly ? AH must know that nameS^oi $9 REPORT. not tt. * ttiure of i/dugt. We have from the beginning had one wrnon^ - . . o has supeno»pri*l«(4 the whole work. At first this persoa »*4m adely mi>^. '>Qte(l by Mr. vVtMley, and called the general aaaistant ; at % time fvhen tli«re were none but European preachers on the continent. But why was Uie name of the general awidtant ever changed ? All that vill open their eyea may know why. The Methodists in England And. 1 America formerly did not call themselves a particular church ; but a ^ftpnus society in connexion with different churches, but mostly with tike K.^^/'^al Church. After the evolutionary war, the Episcopal clergy became very scajrce, and in far the greatest number of our societies, we had no vs^y of receiving the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper. It was this that led many of our preachers, as you well know, to take upon them the administration of the ordinances. — Mr. Rankin, who was our first general assistant, after staying the time in this country he came for, returned home. This was at a time when we had no intercourse with England, and Mr. Asbury, the only old preacher that determined (in those perilous times) to give up his parents, country, and all his natural connexions, was finally and unanimously chosen b]*^ ' the preachers (assembled in conference) our general assistant. He con- tinued such, until the year 1784, when the doctor (Coke) came over, and not only the name of the general assistant was changed to that of superin- tendent, but we formed ourselves into a separate church. This change was proposed to us by Mr. Wesley, after we had craved his advice on the subject; but could not take effect till adopted by us: which was done in a deliberate formal manner, at a conference called for that pur- pose : in which there was not one dif^^^enting voice. Every one of any ^scemment must see from Mr. Westc) 's circular letter on this occasion, as well as from every part of our mode of church government, that w^e c^nly and avowedly declared ourselves episcopalians ; though the doc- tor and Mr. Asbjury were called superintendents. After a fnw years, the name from superintendent was changed to bishop. Bui from first to hut, the business of general assistant, superintendent, or bishop, has been the same : only since we have become a distinct church, he has, with the assistance of two or three elders, ordained our ministers. His business it is to preside in our conferences, and in case of an equal division on a question, he has the casting vote; but ii? no instance whatever, has he a negative, as you are told. He has also the stationing of all the travelling preachers, under certain limitations. V* S' i t ijw wer , as it is given him by the General Ccaference, so it can m ij \. ■ J or taken from him at any time conference sees fit. But i^vl. iiie super- intends the whole work, he cannot interfere with the particular charge of any of the preachers in their stations. To see that the preachers fill their i*!~'>,es with propriety, and to understand the state of every station, OF circii. . ^bit, he may the better make the appointment of the preachers, is no ICi'L I smitl' part of his duty; but he has nothing to do with receiviii ;, k. .. 'iunr^>^ or excluding members ; this belongs wbolly to the •iationeti p.-c> aer and mentb^n," — Watttri Memoirs^ p. 103. 1 REPORT. 19 . ; or I mean also to show — and it fonub an important feature in this ease — that in forming themselves into a separate church they intended a se- paration, not from the Wesleyan Church in England, but from the Church of England, of which they iiad previously considered them- selves a branch. On this I shall adduce the authority of the Rev. Ezekiel Cooper, for some time elected by the Ucneral Conference as their Editor and Book-Agent : — "The Conference met," says Mr, Cooper, "Dec. 1784. It was unanimously agreed that circumstances made it expedient for the Methodist societies in America to become a separate body from the Church of England, of which, until then, they had been considered as me- i^:(«, They also resolved to take the titte, and to be known in f^miij Uy 'It aarae of The Methodist Episcopal Church. They made tlie episcopal office elective, — ^Mr. Asbury was unanimously elected, and l>f. «- :iie was also unanimously received, jointly with him, to be the superintendents, or bishops, of the Methodist Episcopal Church." — Cooptr on Asbury, pp. 108-109. ' These extracts I think shew pretty clearly that they contended with great consistency that the form of Episcopacy was not an essential ; — that they had always the substance, whether they had the name or not ; — and that, on the formal establishment of Episcopacy, they sepa- rated, not from the Wesleyan body, but from the Church of England. Mr. Wesley himself entertained the same opinion ; and he entertained it af\er he had seen the astonishing progress and flourishing state of the Church which he had established. Mr. Wesley lived to a very advanced age ; and you are doubtless aware that when a man arrives at the age to which he, had then attained, he must begin to feel its attendant infirmities. His mind, however, continued to retain all its usual strength and energy to the last. The letter which I am now going to read to you was written to the Rev. Ezekiel Cooper, by Mr. Wesley, only twenty-nine days before his death, and nearly six years after the estab- lishment of Methodist Episcopacy, and shows the oneness of the English and American bodies. After mentioning his advanced age, &c., he says, — '<^ Probably I should not be able to do so much, did not many of you assist me by your prayers. 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 worlds and that it is their full deterinination so to continue, — - . , I . _ " Though mountains rise, and oveana roll, -, ;:' To sever us in vain." I am now going to show you the manner in which they proceeded, when at last it was considered advisable that Episcopacy should be established as a form of Church government ; and surely my clients were entitled to the same courtesy which was exercised at that time towarda those who disapproved of the steps they were about to take. And it is important for you to consider that when this change took place — and « 20 REPORT. malerial change it must be allowed to be, — with the Conference, under the sanction of their founder, Wesley, rested the sole authority. In support of this view, I shall lay before you a letter of Mr. Wesley's, addressed to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and the Methodist Societies in North America ; and other undeniable authorities: — "Bristol, Sept. 10, 1784. " By a very uncommon train of providences, many of the provinces of North America are totally disjointed from their mother country, and erected into independent states. The English Government has no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the States of Holland. A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by the Congress, partly by the Provincial assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesiastial authority at all. In this peculiar situation, some thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice ; and, in compliance v/ith their desire, I have drawn up a little sketch. " Lord King's account of the Primitive Church convinced me, many years ago, that Bishops and Presbyters are the same order, and conse- quently have the same right to ordain. For many years, I have been importuned, from time to time, to exercise this right, by ordaining part of our Travelling Preachera. But I have still refused, not only for peace sake, but l>ecause I was determined, as little as possible, to violate the established order of the National Church to which I belonged. " But the case is widely different between England and North America. Here there are Bishops who Imve a legal jurisdiction. In America there are none, neither any parish Ministers. So that, for Home hundred miles together, there is none either to baptize or to administer the Lord's Suj»j)er. Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end ; and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order, and invade no man's riglit, by appointing and sending labourers into the vineyard. " I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asburj' to be joint Superintendents over our brethren in America ; as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey, to act as Elders among them, by baptizing and administering the Lord's Supper. " If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way, of feeding and guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embrace it. At present, I cannot see any better method than that I have taken. " It has, indeed, been proposed, to desire the English Bishops to ordain part of our Preachers for America. But to this I object, (I.) I desired the Bishop of London to ordain only one, but could not prevail. (2.) If they consent I, we know the slowness of their proceeding; but the matter admits of no delay. 3. If they would ordain them noip, they woold likewise expect to govern them. And how grievously would this entangle us? (4.) As our American brethren are now totally disentangled both from the State and from the English hierarchy, we dare not entancle them Qaain cither with the one or the othpr, ThtT REPORT. 21 are now at full liberty, simply to follow the Scriptures and the Primitive Church. And we judge it best, that they should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God hath so strangely made them free. "JOHN WESLEY." My next authority is the Rev. Dr. Bangs, who holds the following language : — " After unfolding the plan, the execution of which was intrusted to Dr. Coke by Mr. Wesley, it was unanimously agreed by those preachers present, to assemble a General Conference with all convenient despatch. This was accordingly done. The conference was opened on Christmas eve, in the city of Baltimore, in the year 1784. Although the whole number of preachers at that time amounted to eighty-one, only sixty were assembled, owing, most probably, to the shortness of the notice, and the difficulty of communicating intelligence of the contemplated arrangement, over such a vast tract of territory. In this assembly the plans for the future government of the Methodist Societies in America, were fully unfolded to the preachers ; and their general principles were received very unanimously." — Bangs' Vindication of Episcopacy, p. 91. Here two or three things strike me as very important ; first, the Con- ference had the authority to introduce Episcopacy ; and, secondly, it was competent for sixty-one members to do it, although the members of the Society did not even know that a measure of that kind was going forward. They did not think it necessary to consult the laymen, and send round to know whether they were agreed. The sixty-one members of the Con- ference claimed the authority of making this important change, without tlie concurrence of the laity at all ; — for the plain reason that it was considered only as a prudential regulalion of Church government, prin- cipally affecting the Preachers ; and not a change of any doctrine or article of faith. This view is sustained also by Dr. Emory as follows : — '• If it be objected that those proceedings took place among the preachers only ; we answer: This was, undeniably, in accordance witli the original principle on which the Methodist Societies had hccu gathered, and united by the preachers ; who determined on what prin- ciples of discipliiie ami of administration they would devote themselves Ui take charge of, to guide, and to serve those who, upon these principles^ chos6 to place themselves under their care, and especially upon what principles they could feel themselves at liberty to administer to them the ordinances." — Emory'' s Defence of " Our Fathers,'''' pp. 70, 71. This, gentlemen, is the doctrine and the authority by which that Church has been governed since its formation. They consideretl it advisable to keep up the connexion which had always existed with the English Methodii^ls, as forming themselves into a separate church would, tliey believed, have a tendency to reduce their usefulness, and lead them from the itinerant svjporiutendency, which is the main feature in Metho- dism. So it was vieweii by Mr. Wesley, and strongly viewed. He was fearful for some linic, ihat an indiscreet act might involve them in ein- 22 REPORT. barrasament. The measure was, however, adopted, the Episcopacy was formed, and afterwards we have Mr. Wesley's letter, praying that they might never separate themselves from the Wesleyan Church in England. This shows that they then formed but one church, tliough they had difterent forms of government. {See p. 19.) Now if it be necessary to prove more clearly than I have done the identity of the two churches, there are many passages with which I might weary you, but I will cite one or two only. In Dr. Coke's .Journals, (London Edition, 1790, p. 106,) may be found the following entry: "On the 9th of March,'' [1789,] "we began our conference in Georgia. Here we agreed, (as we have ever since in each of the conferences,) that Mr. Wesley's name should be inserted at the head of our Small Minutes, and also in our form of Discipline : — In the Small Minutes, as the fountain of our Episcopal office ; and in the form of Discij)line as the father of the whole work, under the divine guidance. To this all the conferences have cheerfully and unanimously agreed." Accordingly, in the published Minutes of the Melliodist Episcopal Chui'ch for 1789, and onward, I find the following: — " Qrest. 7. Who are the persons that exercise the Episcopal Office in tlie Methodist Church in Europe and America 1 .'7ns. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury." Thus they declared themselves to be separate from tlie Church of England, but acknowledged themselves still in connexion with the Wes- leyan Church in England. And there has never been an act since ex- cept ia conformity with the doctrines of Mr. Wesley. And such are the doctrines, feelings, and views, en(ertjiined with respect to the Episcopal Metliodists in the United States by the Wesleyans in England ; as will appear from the following Resolution passed at the English Conference held at Liverpool in 1820: — '• Tlie Rev. John Emory, having been introduced to the Conference as the accredited Representative in our BoJy of the General Conference of the Method'Ht Episcopal Church in the United States of America, pre^^ented a letter from that Conference, and gave an interesting and en- couraging statement of the prosjierity of the work of God in the United States ; which account the Conference received with much ratisfaction, and imanimously agreed to the following Resolution on the occasion, viz.: — " 1. That the Conference embrace with pleasure this opportunity of recognizing thnt great principle, which, it is hoped, will be permanently maintained — That the Wesleyan Methodists are one Body in every part of the Worid."— GarniVs Difrest, p. 327. It may be answered that thi« is the language of the Wesleyan Meth- oilists in England, and that it does not uflect the Episcopal body at all. 1 ; reply to this, I need only observe that the same resolutions weru «;o;nunv(l in bv the General Conference in the United States in 1824. REPORT* iB ificopacy ying that lurch in tliough done the which I Coke'a bllowing rence in of the the head :he Small e form of guidance, reed." ilpiscopal )al Office church of the Wes- since ex- 'h are the Episcopal ; as vill oiiference onfereilce onference Anjerica, g and en- !ie United liefaction, occasion, rtunity of nianently very part un Meth- >dy at all. 0119 were in 181:4. Nothing, I think, can be more clear than this, that, wherever you find an opportunity of tracing the proceedings of the Methodist bodies on either side the Atlantic, it will be found to have been the pri- mary object to assert and continue their connexion. All that has ever been done has been with a view to draw more closely the links which united them in one body ; and it is quite certain that, as far as the Wes- leyans in Canada are concerned, they have done nothing to disgrace that connexion. But not only was Episcopacy no part of faith or doctrine — ^but a prudential regidation, adopted by the preachers, and arising out of pru- dential circumstances — but the possibility of its being done away was always contemplated. I will show this first by the Discipline of 1798, which contains, among others, the following explanatory notes, inserted by Bishops Coke and Asbury : — " But why does the General Conference lodge the power of stationing the preachers in the Episcopacy 1 We answer, On account of their CiUire confidence in it. If ever, through improper conduct, it loses that confidence in any considerable degree, the General Conference will, upon evidence given, in a proportionable degree, take from it this branch of its authority. But if ever it betrays a spirit of tyranny or partiality, and this can be proved before the general Conference, the whole will be taken from it: and we pray God, that, in such case, the power may be invested in other hands." " And we verily believe, that if our episcopacy should, at any time, through tyrannical or immoral conduct, come under the severe censure of the General Conference, the members thereof would see it highly for the glory of God to preserve the present form, and only to change the » men. " We have drawn this comparison between our venerable father and the American Bishops, to show to the world that they possess not, and we may add, they aim not to possess, that power which he exercised, and had a right to exercise, as the father of the connexion : — that, on the contrary, they are perfectly dependant: that their power, their usefulness, themselves, are entirely at the mercy of the General Con- ference.'*^ These notes show, conclusively, that the Bishops considered the General Conference to have authority to change either the men, or the office which they filled, if circumstances should render it expedient to do BO. And this authority is clearly admitted in all the successive edi- tions of the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, in the section which defines the powers of tlie General Cooferenee. It is perhaps unnecessary for me to state a fact which is po generally known, that the Methodist Societies in Upper Canat.i were first planted by Ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, and that they formed a part of that Church. The General Conference being the only body posdessing legislative powers, its concurrence was neccseary to enable mu vjuiiit-iriii;c- lu Canada nr»nrt 24 REPORT. under a separate organization. This concurrence was asked in 1824, but was withheld for four years, and consequently they were obliged still to remain, for that length of time, subject to the Conference in the United States. They continued in connexion accordingly until the year 1828, when, concurrence being obtained, a body for the first time existed in the Province which was competent to legislate upon the afiairs of the Church ; and that bo^y was composed of ministers of the Church of a particular class and character — not local preachers; — they were not included, because the leading feature of Methodism has always been itinerancy. What did they then do ? They formed a New Discipline ; which was printed, bearing dale 1829. Now, there is one important thing to be considered : — Who was it that had the power to make this New- Discipline ? — It was the ministers who possessed a certain rank in the Church — ministers of a certain standing. How did tliey acquire this rank ? — ^tliey acquired it according to the universally-received doctrines and practice of Methodism. The laity had no voice in it, and why ? — because they put themselves under the spiritual guidance of their leaders, the ministers, and looked to them for comfort and instruction in the truths of the Gospel. The ministei-s always had, from the origin of Methodism to the period *I dm speaking of, the uncontrolled authority in legislation. At the organization of Uie Church in Canada in 1828, the Conference, in framing the Disciphne, reserved to itself that au- thority, under certain restrictions. Some slight alterations were subse- quently made, which will appear in evidence ; — and when, in 1833, the change in the form of government took place, the Conference was bound to act in accordance with the Discipline as it then stood. Either the proceedings on that occasion were correct or they were not : If they were correct, and in accordance with tiie spirit, and doctrine, and discipline of Metiiodism, tiien we have not seceded. If they were not, then all that follows is, tiiat the Plaintiffs cannot recover, because there would be no Episcopal Church in existence ; — the Plaintifls having, at least for some time, acquiesced in those proceedings ; as has been clearly shown, even by their own witnesses. If, then, tliere was sufficicnl power to make the regulations contained in the Discipline of 1829, there remained the same pow^r to legislate in the same body in J833 — provided that they acted in accordance with the Discipline of 1829. If the adop- tion of tile Discipline in 1S29 waa a void act, then the Plaintiffs cannot recover ; — because it is only in the character of members of Uie Church which existed under, and was governed by, that Discipline that tiiey can claim. The distinction of that Discipline therefore destroys their case. But, if they admit it to be binding, then they must show that we departed from its letter and spirit in the proceedings of 1833 ; or else, by opposing themselves to those proceedings, they deny the authority of their Church government, and thus become seceders from it. But t am prepared to prove, and mean to prove, that the entire proceedings of the Hallowell and Toronto Conference were stricUy in accordance with the Discipline of 1829. Before I enter into the detailsof this part of the case, I would call your attention to one or two particulars — first, that the rcstrictionn ft % t t § u ' VI % ll £ P R T. 25 ^pon the po-.vere of the Conference are self-impooed j — next, that, before they were imposed, the body of ministers constituting the Conference had unrestrained ipowetf and that the provisions of the New Discipline must be considered as depriving them of power which they had, and not conferring a new power. Well, what are these restrictions 1 I will read them : — " The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules and regulations for our Church, under the following limitations and restric*' tions: viz. " 1. The General Conference 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. " 2. They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our govern- ment, so as to do away Episcopacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency. " 3. They shall not revoke or change the general rules of the United Societies. " 4. They shall not do away the privileges of our ministers or preachers of trial by a committee, and of an appeal : neither shall they do away the privileges of our members of trial before the society or by a committee, and of an appeal. " 5. They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concers, or of the Charter Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the travelling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children. "6. No new rule or regulation, or alteration of any rule or regulation now in force respecting our temporal economy, — such as the building of Meeting-houses, the order to be observed therein ; the allowance to the ministers and preachers, their widows and children ; the raising annual supplies for the propagation of the Gospel, (the Missions excepted ;) for the making up the allowances of the Preachers, &c., shall be considered as of any force or authority, until such rule, regulation, or alteration, shall have been laid before the several Quarterly Conferences throughout the whole Connexion, and shall have received the consent and advice of a majority of the members (who may be present at the time of laying said rule, regulation, or alteration before them,) of two thirds of the said Conferences. " 7. Nor shall any new rule, regulation, or alteration respecting the doctrines of our Church, the rights and privileges of our members ; such as, the receiving persons on trial and into full connexion ; the conditions on which they shall retain their membership ; the manner of bringing to trial, finding guilty, and reproving, suspending, or excluding disorderly persons from society and church privileges ; have any force or authority until laid before tlie Quarterly Conferences and approved as aforesaid : Provided nevertheless, that upon the joint recommendation oC three fourths of the Annual Conference VI iiir6e-fuurihn \nv vrciicrui nee or Conferences, then the nmjority i v/uiiicrcuuc Biiwi euiiivc tw cuici uujr 26 REPORT. of the above restrictions except the sixth and seventh, which shall not be done away or altered without the recommendation or consent of two- thirds of the Quarterly Conferences throughout the Connexion." The second restrictive clause, in connexion with the proviso^ is the part of the Discipline which bears particularly upon the present case ; and if it has any meaning it shows that the Conferences held within themselves the power of changing the form of government as they pleased. I do not know any language which would describe more fully and distinctly that they had the power of doing away with Episcopacy, if they thought fit. Then, Gentlemen, it remains to be shown, of course, that there were three-fourths of the Annual Conference in favour of changing the form of Church government ; but, before I come to this, which more properly forms the concluding part of the remarks I have to make to you, you will allow me to notice more particularly this Discipline of 1829. It states, by reading the second restriction in connexion with the proviso^ that they shall not change or alter — what ? articles of faith or doctrine ? No. — But the form of Government — without the concurrence of what ? Of the laity in their Quarterly Conferences ? No. — But without the concurrence of three-fourths of the General Conference, on recommen- dation of three -fourths of the Annual Conf^frence. If they have not written nonsense here, they mean to distinguish the one from the other, — essentials from non-essentials. I take it for granted that they wrote what they meant. And the Conference, at its session in 1833, so understood it, and therefore distinguished Epis- copacy as being a mere form or mode of government, from that which was an established rule of faith or doctrine, — because they evidently intended to make only a change in the form of government, and to 'eavft every one of the vital principles as they were before. Now, to .show you that, in the opinion of the same Conference, such a change might be macle, I will read to you another of the articles of that Dis- cipline — and this, be" it remarked, is an article of their faith : — " XXII. Of the Rites and Ceremonies of Churches. " It is not necessary that rites and ceremonies should in all places he from tlie he Episco- •y that by the intend, a he Episco- ;o convince d, because wonderful bordination ly difficulty it is quite it had done ice in 1784 gland — and len the for- d the effect tnrf, or the feet. The K in Upper England as >mmunities ge that the ceeded, is, t. To use ision verv arties who. knowledge Legislators ;t of Paci- o, by that a Leeisla- 'W Take the same rule of construction here : The Legislature, i. e. the General Gonfonnce) who imposed these restrictions, have promulgated their understanding of them by another Legislative Act. And against this, the Plaintiffs, and the party to whom they belong, have set up their views, and are acting, and have acted, in opposition to the (Jenerai Conference. They have an undoubted right to choose whether they will remain subject to the superintendency of the Conference or not ; if they decide that they will retire, they must unavoidably be denominated seceders. The new arrangements made in 1833, have rendered a General Con- ference unnecessary, by reason of the connection with the Wesleyan Church in England, as it was unnecessary and did not exist while the connection with the Methodist Church in the United States existed. But have they created a new Church by thist Would they not remain the same Church, and the same body of people, though, from existing circumstances, it was found expedient to make this alterar tion. If the adoption of the name Methodist Episcopal Church, did not create a separation, and make them a different Church from that which before existed, by v/hat authority can it be pretended that rejecting that title again, and resuming that of Wesleyan would have that effect? If a change in substance was effected, it must have arisen from one of three sources: either, First, from the change of name; Secondly, doing away with Episcopacy, or, Thirdly, the union with the Wesleyans. If it cannot be shown to have arisen from one of these three circumstances, then there was no such change. First, then, with respect to the change of name, I have already shown that the adoption of the name " Methodist Episcopal Church" had no such effect; they did not cease to be, what they were before, a Methodist body. This never has been, and. I think, I may venture to assert, never can be questioned. They were not altered by the change'of name. Does the substance depend upon the namel — Does their doctrine 1 Does religion 1 Does Scripture itself depend upon the name of the church 1 or are these not matters of substance superior to, and independent of, any change in name or form ? Must a church be known by some specific denomination 1 Is it necessary to salvation that there should be one fixed and unalterable appellation by which a body of christians should be known ? Can so absurd a proposition for an instant be maintained ? That a man should cease to be a christian because he changed his name from Episcopal Methodist to Wesleyan ! I cannot conceive that there can be any argument upon this point. If there can, when did it first arise t Were not they believers in Christianity who adopted the first change of name ? Was, not Mr. Wesley himself a sincere and true believer in every article of faith essential to solvation 1 Although he never recognized the principle of Episcopacy, yet* the Episcopal Church rose from that one which he had founded ; and the Episcopal Church in the United States still looks up to him as, under God, the father and founder of their body. They believe in that which %e believed in, and at this moment maintain the grand principles of t^e 30 REPORT. fa'.' ' Ghhitian Church approved of and maintained by him. Was he not a Christian — were not his followers Christians ? If so, by what name are they known ? Why, — ^as they have been from the day of his death — aye, from the day on which they first formed themselves into a Church until this time, as Wesleyan Methodists. Were they Christians, or did it require the name of Episcopacy to make them such ? If, then, the name ' operated no change, the name alone could not have been essential to the identity of the Church. They must admit one of these two things— either that Mr. Wesley was not the believer he is represented to be, or else that the name of Episcopacy is not essential to the existence of the Church. Either way I have them upon the horns of a dilemma. Now, I think I have shown that the faith, doctrines, essentials — the substance — was the same, w^hatever the name might be ; in the same manner as a man's name may be changed, by Act of Parliament for instance, yet no one will say that he is not the same man as before. Though his name should be changed after he had committed a criire, he would be not the less amenable to justice by reason of the change of name. It is the identity of the Church I am contending for — het lai.h, her doctrines, her belief; «md, so long as these remain unaltered, I sty they do form one and the same body of Methodists, which is identical all ovei" the worid. I shall say no more with regard to the name, but will come to the next point, as to the effect of doing away Episcopacy. But we see that Episcopacy is a mere form of Church government. To prove this we have adduced the authority of the founder of Methodism, Mr. Wesley, and also of Archbishop Cranmer, and other Bisho ;=> and Archbishops by whom the question has been strictly examined. They all concur in this, that Episcopacy has always been looked upon as a form of Church government only. Then, on what authority, I would ask, can it be contended that it is essential to the existence of Methodism ? If it be essential, then has Methodism never ex'sted, because its founder himself did not recognize it as such. And liere I have them in tliis difficulty again — Unless they are prepared to show that Mr. Wesley and his fol- lowers in England were not Methodists, then Episcopacy is not essential to Methodism. But, on the other hand, that which is tantamount to the office of Bishop does exist, and existed before the form of Episcopacy was known ; that is, in the light in which Episcopal Methodists view it them- selves. I have proved this already by the writings of the leading and most eminent men of their Church. I will now take up the third posi- tion, which requires them to show that the Union with the Methodists in England destroyed the existent Church. If they cannot establish that the Church was annihilated by the change of name, the only re- maining way is for them to show that its destruction took place by the act of union with the Wesleyans in England. Now, the very stating of this proposition is rather startling : it amounts to this, that the formation of a union with the original body of Wesleyans destroys their existence as a Methodist Church here. This forms rather too bold a proposition ; but to this they must come if they maintain that we have ceased to be a Methodist Church. ■I i i .jb II E P II T. s he not a vhat name f his death ) a Church IS, or did it , the name n essential tliese two esented to existence dilemma, litials — the the same lament for as before. I crimej he change of —her lai.h, 5red, I sty s identical )me to the ve see that >ve this we r. Wesley, .rchbishops concur in of Church can it be ? If it be Jer himsell' is difficulty ind his fol- ot essential ount to the opacy was (w it them- eading and third posi- Methodists )t establish le only re- ace by the jT stating of I formation r existence ropoeition ; ased to be I In the Conferences of 1832 and 1833 the question of a union with the Westeyans in England was discussed ; and, as a matter plainly connected with it, the question of Episcopacy was discussed also. It was at an Annual Conference, because, by the terms of the Discipline, the con- currence of three-fourths of the Annual Conference was requisite before the General Conference could have any thing to do with it. It was discussed, and the Union was decided upon by a very large majority — the numbers of those who were absent being exceedingly small ; they were not taken by surprise. I believe there was not a single member who was entitled to take part in the business of the Conference who was not either present or whose absence was not accounted for. But I do not care, for argument sake, whether any more than three-fourths of that Conference were agreed, because the minority would in that case lie bound by it just as much as if they had voted for it. Now herein it is that the Plaintiffs are seceders, even upon their own testimony. They do not impugn the authority of that Conference — ^they cannot do it ; but tliey say that the legislature passed an act which they do not choose to be bound by. By this very refusal of theirs they ceased to be members. They would not have been members of the Methodist Episcopal Church unless they were bound by the acts of the Conference of 1829, and yet they claim to have continued members of the same Church, and at the same time refuse to be bound by the acts of the Conference to which they were equally subject in 1833. Those who were qualified to com- pose the General Conference, strictly speaking, were those who had been travelling for four years, and were then admitted into full connexion. It has been urged that imposition '^C hands was necessary to constitute an Elder capable of sitting in the General Conference, and that sixteen persons who took part in the proceedings at the Conference of 1833 were not ordained. But, allowing this to have been the case, there was a sufficient number of those who were legally qualified to make the number of those who actually did concur equal to three-fourths of the whole. Consequently I do not apprehend tliat the voting of those who had no right could take away the right of those who were entitled to vote. Therefore, if I establish, that, out of the whole number of those whose right was perfectly beyond question, there were three-fourths of the whole Conference, then the law will have been complied with. Those sixteen persons were permitted to sit in the Conference with the view of making that body as large as possible upon occasion of deciding this im- portant question. And, Gentlemen, it can be shown by that which cannot very well be got out of, by the force of figures — of arithmetical calculation — that we have more than the number which the law requires. Out of thirty-four members who had the power of voting, thirty voted for the alteration which was then made. If therefore they allow us only the thirty-four whose right was unquestionable, I am willing to abide by it ; but, if tliey bring in the other sixteen, then we shall have a majority of fifty-four : — eo that, whichever way they take it, they will be ex- cluded. But, Gentlemen, this is not all — ^The act of the Hallbwell Conference was preparatory only ^ tt^e act of the Toronto Conferene* 32 R E P R t. was final. "Will it be pretended that those who had taken part in the Hallowell Conference had forgotten all about it, and did not know what was contemplated ? They say they did not intend to change. Gentle- men, — upon this I will make no remark. If I were acting irpon a general question of common property, I should feel differently circum- stanced ; but I feel that I am acting only in the spirit of my clients when I refrain from making any observations upon a representation so appa- rently evasive. It is not their wish to widen the breach, or to keep irt existence a separation between the two bodies for an hour longer than necessity compels them ; but they have a sacred duty to perform, and they would be traitors to that duty if they did not contend for that which is so clearly their right, and that of the members of that Church whose protectors they are. And I am sure I am only uttering their sentiments when I quote the language and opinions of the Wesleyan Conference, in the year 1795 : — " Brethren, be as zealous for peace and unity in your respective so- cieties as your Preachers have been in this blessed Conference. Let the majorities and minorities, on both sides, exercise the utmost forbearance towards each other; — ^let them mutually concede the one to the other, as far as possible ; and, by thus bearing each other's burdens, fulfil the law of Christ. Let all resentment be buried in eternal oblivion ; and let contention and strife be for ever banished from the borders of our Israel." The dissension is not of their seeking, — the breach is not of their making; they would desire to see strife buried, but they cannot help resisting when aggressions are made upon their rights, — ^to neglect which would be an abandonment of their duty. But they are content to discharge this duty without taking advantage of the exposed position of their adversaries. Now, Gentlemen, with reference to all the proceed- ings: if, in making this change, either with regard to Episcopacy or wth regard to the Union, it were done, as I have shown, and shall be prepared to prove, by the express authority vested in us, and in strict accordance with the principles of Methodism and the Discipline of the Church, I would ask you, how can the minority set themselves up as if they were the majority, and as if they represented the whole Church ? And yet such is their language. One of their witnesses told you that their Bishop had observed to him, he hoped there would be enough left to form a prayer-meeting. Now look at this fact. This took place after the Conference of 1833, when every person who had been present at that Conference must have been aware of what had been done. With what face, then, can it be said, that it was not until 1834 that they discovered what those proceedings were, and that they still maintained their reservation of concurring in the act of the Conference or not. And furthermore, they say that that Conference, and the whole body of Methodists who continue to acknowledge its authority, are seceders ; and that they who then withdrew from their ministry still constitute the Methodist Church in the Province. Well now, how are they conditioned with ref ard to this Church wHitsh they call a New Church, but which \ ''!i •A 4 }art in the enow what Gentle- ng upon a tly circum- ients when so nppa- to keep iri onger than rform, and that which irch whose eentiments !)onference, ipective so- ». Let the orbearance le other, as Ifil the law >n ; and let ur Israel." lot of their annot help jlect which content to position of le proceed- scopacy or id shall be id in strict line of the Ives up as le Church ? d you that enough left took place Jen present )een done. h that they' maintained ce or not, ^hole body seceders; nstitute the K>nditioned ut >vhich I REPORT. 33 ■•■& maintain to be the same unaltered Church it ever was? ts there no incon- sistency in their own statement ? The Conference which eat in Kingston in 1834> was known and acknowledged by them to be a Wetleyan Con- ference ; for they petitioned that Conference for the removal of one of the ministers superintending tjie Belleville Circuit, under the authority of the Wesleyan Church. How did they happen to do this if tliey did not recognise their Church as being in existence, and as governed by that Conference 1 And, if they do acknowledge its existence, and the author- ity of that Conference, it is a fatal and complete bar to their recovery, for it would have the effect of destroying the existence of the Methodist Episcopal Church. And this appears to have been the case without the interference of my clients ; for it is remarkable that not a single act of theirs has been shown which could be denominated subversive of the Methodist Episcopal Church, or in any way hostile to it. If Mr. Davidson, the minister in charge of the Belleville Circuit, by the pro- ceedings which he adopted, ceased to be a member of that Church, then they also ceased at the same time. You have as much evidence of the one as of the other. What he did, he did with a full knowledge and understanding of his acts, and they continued under him, and receiving the consolations of religion from him. Now, Gentlemen, it is for you to say whether, under these circumstances, the Plaintiffs are not in reality seceders ? On the one hand you have facts, and on the other the mere opinions of the witnesses. The law will not permit a deception of that nature ; it will not allow them to review their pretended right by a re- sumption of their former name. After acquiescing for a considerable length of time, in the measures adopted by the Conference, the Plaintiffs say to themselves. We will now go back and be the Church of which we before formed a part, and we shall of course get all the property. But this the law wll not permit; and it is a matter of sound sense and reason that it should not be so — because, if it w^ere otherwise, any two or three members might, upon the very same principle of reasoning, set themselves up against the authority of the legislative body, and say, We do not agree with you in the view you take of this matter ; we do not approve of your proceedings ; and therefore we will not be bound by them. Either they were bound by the acts of the Conference or they were not : If they were not bound, they were not members of the Church to which that Conference belonged ; — if they were bound, then they are seceders, because they disregarded them. But how is this question viewed by Metliodists in England and the United States ? Whom do they look upon as being the Church in this Province ? They consider the change as a change of form, and not of substance, and so it must be considered in all parts of the world. I am prepared to show that they recognized my clients, both in the United States and in England, as the Representatives of the Methodist Church in this Province, and I would like to see the Plaintiffs establisli that they were received as such. I come now. Gentlemen, to the last point. I wish to know how it can be a departure from the faith or qootrinc of Methodiam, to fona m 34 REPORT. »■ more immediate connexion with the original body founded by Wesley? I wish to be told whether the body organized by Mr, Wesley is not the original body of Methodists, and if they are. how it can be a departure or a secession from Methodism or its principles, to join with that body ? If the PlaintitFs themselves, in forming a Methodist Episcopal Churcii, have not changed ; if the Methodists in the United States have not changed or departed from any fundamental principle or doctrine of Methodism, then have my clients not changed. Have they denied any of the doctrines which were ever considered essential to salvation ? Do they not believe the same Gospel, and trust for salvation to the same Saviour, through the mercy of the same God they ever did, and worship him in the same form that has ever been used among Methodists 1 Unques- tionably they do. Then how have my clients changed? They form er Cajiada, though exercised under u difltMvnt name. Next, that the exposition of the laws, is best to In? obtained from the law-makers themselves. That the |)roceedings of the Conferences of 1832 and 1833, being regulations voluntarily adopted by themselves, they, the laity, and a minority of the meml)ers are bound thereby. And that, if they did not choose to ylelil oljcdienc*, then they are sccedeis and, ns a necessary consequence, have forfeited all right to the church property.^— Upon these principles I am prepared to rest the case. I shall now caU evidence establishing the nature of the proceedings, an.l the views and character of timsc by whom tlicy were taken ; and I will still further show you, I believe most conclusively, that the very party who set nn thin claim acted with the mnjority, and in some instances jjctually voted for the very change which they now complain 1 ■t i }f u? ■1 : .It. REPORT. 35 y Wesley? f is not the a departure that body ? tal Chiircli, have not loctrine of denied any tion ? Do the gamp id worship ? Unques- hey forai a ist Church e sece iers ; position, it st recapilu- 1, if it were number, to d sufficient en, I lay it igland, and !, was con- Episcopacy id in, but a umstances, ! Methodist ! body from n England, h only, and s members ])oint is of 1 it. Next in force in Next, that aw-niakcrs 1832 and they, the .nd that, if , and, OS n roperty.R— •ocecdingH, nken ; nn(i It the very r complain "a of, and even argued with, and endeavoured to convince, the lay members of the Church of their propriety. I have only one thing to add : My clients, being the body of which the Plaintiffs formed a part, have avoided acting rashly;- they determined to take the best advice that could be obtained ; they accordingly took the opinion of Counsel, and as I most heartily approve of, and coincide with that opinion, I will close my address to you by reading it : " York, 5th January, 1833. "Gentlemen, — ^We had the honour to receive last evening your note of this month, in vi'hich you state that the Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada desired us to give our opinion on the question, "whether the abolishing of the E])iscopal form of Church government from among them would jeopard their Church property 1" " We are not aware that there has been any adjudication exactly in point; but it has been decided, that, if a corporation hold lands by grant or prescription, and afterwards they are incorporated by another name, as, where they were Bailiffs and Burgesses before, and now are Mayor and Commonalty ; or, were Prior and Convent before, and afterwards are translated into a Dean and Chapter ; although the quality and name of their corporations are altered, yet the new body shall enjoy all the rights and property of the old. 4 Co. 87 — 3 Burr. Rep. 1836. Judging from 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 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 affected by such a change. We have the honour to be. Reverend Gentlemen, Your obedient, humble Servants, MARSHALL S. BIDWELL, JOHN ROLPH. Rev. Messrs. J. Richardson and A. Irvine." The importance of the question which is to be submitted for youi» consideration will form a sufficient apology for the length of time which I have employed in endeavouring to state it clearly ; and I shall now proceed to prove, by respectable witnesses, the truth of the positions which I have laid down. Jlnihony Crouier, sworn — Witness was an Episcopal Methodist be- fore the Union ; ever since then has been a Wesleyan, Was well acquainted with Mr. Reynolds, and used frequently to go to his house. Soon after the Hallowell Conference witness had a conversation with Mr. Reynolds, who began telling him that a change had been made in the Church at that Conference, and that they would, in future, be united to the Conference in Enidand. Witness observed, he feared some evili 96 R E P R f . m''^ h :'i i would grow out of it. Mr. Reynolds replied there could not ; thejr would not then be under the heavy hand of a bishop ; they would have a Presidency — and, unless the Union took place, they would be soon involved in difficulty. Subsequently to this time, in 1834, witness held another conversation with Mr. Reynolds, and he (Re3mold8) then stated that he disapproved of some proceedings which had taken place. Wit- ness believes it was something relating to the ordination of Local Preachers, and that, unless a reconciliation took place, he would leave the Church. But he did not intend to induce, or even advise, any one to go with him. This was at the time that Mr. Davidson was stationed at Belleville. Witness considered Mr. Reynolds at that time a member of the Wesleyan Church, and believes he occasionally officiated as minister. The Plaintiffs soon after formed themselves into a Confer- ence, at a quarterly-meeting, and called themselves Episcopals. Rey- nolds, Gatchell, and Webster were present at that Conference. Stephen Gilbert was called and sworn — Mr. Reynolds told witness that he had attended the Conference in Hallowell, in 1832, and expressed himself highly gratified with the Union. He said that they had sent a delegate to the Wesleyan Conference with proposals, and if they were accepted the Union would be consummated. One advantage to be derived from such a union, Mr. Reynolds stated to be, that the office of Bishop would be done away, and they would have a Presidency instead. Witness could not say when Mr. Reynolds withdrew ; but about a year after the first conversation he told witness that he then stood as a Wesleyan, but if things did not alter he would not remain. Cross Examined — Are you quite certain that Mr. Reynolds told you he would not remain. — I am quite sure of it. Are you not aware that as soon as Mr. Reynolds found out what the Discipline of that Church was to be, that then he ceased to have any thing to do with them 1 — I understood that the ordination of the Local Preachers was the subject of his dissatisfaction — never heard Mr. Reynolds make any objection to the abolition of Episcopacy. William Irving. Witness had a conversation with Mr. Reynolds- subsequent to the Conference in Toronto, in 1833. After Mr. Davidson took the charge of the church at Belleville, Mr. Reynolds reasoned with witness in favour of the union. William Vandervoort. Was present at the Quarterly Meeting Con- ference held in Sydney, in 1834-. There were three Local Preachers present, Reynolds, Gatchell, and Webster. Mr. Reynolds expressed himself dissatisfied with something contained in the Discipline, and ob««Tved that no Discipline he (Reynolds) had ever seen fully met his approbation, and as they were beginning anew he thought they hnd better frame a new one. Cross Examined — What was that meeting called 1 — I heard no name given to it — understood, however, that it was an Episcopal meeting. — Mr. Gatchell wan an Episcopal, and it was he who called the meeting. William Irving re-called. Witnew had a conversation with Mr. SeldeHj very soon ai'tor their sepsraticr. from the Wesleyan Chufch, 1 UilU REPORT. 37 1 not; they would have aid be soon witness held ) then stated lace. Wit- ►n of Local would leave ise, any one 'as stationed le a member officiated as a a Confer- pals. Rey- ;e. told witness id expressed y had sent a f they were itage to be the office of ncy instead, ibout a year stooil as a Ids told you aware that hat Church fi them ?--I 6 subject of •bjection to ■. Reynolds f. Davidson [U!oned with 5eting Con- 1 Preachers 1 expressed ipline. and lily met his ;t they had 'd no name meeting. — le meeting. 1 with Mr. k U 1 I he (Mi-. S.) said to witness, " I suppose you think we have taken a pretty rapid step," by which witness understood him to mean the sepa* ration — " but you must come to the conclusion that we had no sinister motives in view. We did not do it for the sake of honour, for we were sure we would get none ; we did not do it for the sake of the church property, for that we had already lost." — ^To a question from Mr. Dougall, witness believed that it was shortly after the publication of the Discipline that tlie separation took place, and that it was in consequence of their dissatisfaction with something contained therein. Walter Ross sworn. Witness was present at the meeting held in 1834 for the purpose of forming a Missionary Society. Mr. Reynolds was present at that meeting, and remarked that it would be necessary to give the Society a new name, as there was no longer an Episcopal Church existing in Canada. (7) It had previously been'called the Meth- odist Episcopal Missionary Society. Witness was also present at the first meeting held after Mr. Wilkinson arrived in Belleville. Mr. Rey- nolds then said, the time is not far distant when I shall no longer be a member of the Wesleyan Church. He added, also, I will not solicit any one to go with me ^ neither did he wish tc be understood that he then withdrew. Mr. Selden expressed no dissatisfaction with the Union, but said it would be an excellent thing for the Missionary cause, because they had become almost destitute of money. This took place after the Conference in Toronto. Witness knows Mr. Harris: he was a lay- member, and continued to be a Wesleyan from the time of the Union. Mr. Bickford was a class-leader in the Wesleyan Church under Mr. Davidson, and also under Mr. Wilkinson. Witness has seen Mr. Reynolds officiate in the Wesleyan Church as local preacher and as steward. Has seen him administer the Sacrament. Mr. Selden was class-leader in the Wesleyan Church. Considered that there was no other in existence. &'{r. Dame acted as assistant class-leader. Dr. Walton acted as stewicd, and Robert Bird, also, acted aa class-leader, under Mr. Wilkinioii. It was at a Leaders' Meeting, which it is cus- tomary to hold every month, that Mr. Reynolds declared he would not (7) In the Christian Guardian of the 19lh of February, 1834 — nearly fioe months after the Union, ond nearly two months after the publication of the fjocul Preachers* regulations — there is a cnmmunication to the Ediior, siftned *' John Reynolds," who gives an account of the meeting of the Wesleyan Mis- sionary Society in Belleville, (speakers, " Rev'ds J. Ryerson, Norris, Case, and Slinson"), and officers, "John Reynolds, Secretory, B. Flint, Treasurer, Messrs. P. O. Selden, J. Bickford, \V. Ross. A. Yeomans, B. Ketcheson, and Dr. Walton." Were not Messrs. Reynolds, Selden, Bickford and Walton as much members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church at that time as Messrs. Flint, Ross, Yeomans and Ketcheson ? Or is it likely that they would have been ap- pointed Managers of the Wesleyan Missionary Society if they had withdrawn from the Conference under whose direction that Society was organised 7 In what Itght then does their attempt to prove that they were never membera of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, appear T In What light must their eflbrta to get witnestea to swear that there has always been a Methodist EpiiooptI Church, appear in the eyea of integrity, morality, and truth 7 ' ^ ' u R IS P R T. ■ 'i-^' ,:i' '■*-n" ■ much longer be a member of the Wesleyan Church. The DiscfpUne* jdad then been published, and was in circulation. Cross-Examined. Do you mean to say that these persons continued to be members of the Wesleyan Church after the Discipline was put into their hands? Yes. It was not at the time Mr. Eeynolds resigned his office as steward that he left the Church. Dr. Walton first resigned, and, after that, Mr. Reynolds and others. From the time of the Union up to this time there haid been nothing said about the existence of any dSssatiafaction. The alteration with regard to the local preachers could have been made as well before the Conference at which the Union was agreed on as after. Mr. Boselly was member of a class up to the time of the Conference in Kingston, and remained in the Church afterwards. James Jamieaon. — ^Witness is a Wesleyan Methodist. Belonged to the class of which Mr. Selden was leader. Mr. Merriani belonged to the same class, and they received their tickets from Mr. Selden after the Conference in Toronto in 1833. (8) Cross- Examined. Never heard Mr. Selden express himself dis- satisfied. Rev. John C. Davidson, called and sworn. — Witness had been a member of the Methodist Church about fourteen years. Was a member before they had an independent Conference in Canada. Was appointed to take the charge of the Church in Belleville at the Conference held in Toronto in 1833. The Conference of this country was formerly subordinate to that of the United States. The first independent Con- ference in Canada was in 1828. The Union with the British Wesley- ans was consummated at the Conference in Toronto in 1833, in pm- suance of the resolution passed at the Hallowcll Conference in the pre- ceding year. The proceedings of the Hallovvell Conference were pub- lished in the official organ of the Chmch, the Christian Guardian. Upon receiving his appointment to Belleville, witness proceeded at once to lake charge of his station. Messrs. Reynolds, Selden, Bickford, and Dauie (8) Here concludei) the evidence of six laymen on the part ofthe DofendantH, or Wesleyan MethodiHt Church; and linwdiffflrnnl Ir it in frankneBu, cnnRigtcncy and harmony, from that adduced on llic part of the Plaintiffs, or Episcopal p?rty- In the Wesleyan witnesses, there i§ no qiiihtiling, — no evasion — no selfcuntra- diction — no contradiction of each other. By their toatiniony, it ia proved, I. That both Merrium and Boselly were memlicrs of the Wesleyan Methodist Church until after the Conference held in Kingston, in 1834; 3. Thatev«ry one of the Episcopal Trusteca, both old and new, were members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church up to August, 1834— seven months after the rogulationa res- pecting Local Preachers were published in the Ouardian, and five month* after the present Discipline was printed; 3. 'I'hr.t Reynolds himself a(/t)oca/«d not only (he relinquishment of Episcopacy, but the union with the British Confer- once, aAer both the Halloweli and Toronto Conferences; 4. That not one of the whole party was ever hoard to express a "conscientious scrnple" on ihe quention of Epiacopaof , or the union with the Briiiah Connexion ; 5. That the persona who call themselvM "The Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada," are a sair!!!p!9tiC!! of ths Unlsit. '% 1 REPORT. 39 )ns continued (line was put lolds resigned first resigned^ of the Union itence of any eachers could le Union was ip to the time afterwards. Belonged to 'longed to the ien after the himself dis- had been a as a member i^as appointed iference held vas formerly endent Con- tish Wesley- 333, in pur- e in the pre- ^e were pub- rdian. Upon ■ once to take 1, and Dame B Dofcndanls, >. I'oniiiBlcncy >i8copalp7rty- 10 selfcuntra. !• proved, i. ■n MethoriiBt 'bat every one the WeHleyan Ifulations res- months arier idvocated not ritish Confor- it not one of opie" on »}m ; 5. That thr> Canada," are irhood, about yvete members at that time, and witness knew also that they were {trustees. Had the same evidence of their being members that he ever had of any person in the Province. The same reasons which exist to prove the membership of any individual at present existed with reference to them. Witness continued having the charge pf the Church in Belle- ville until the Conference in Kingston in 1834. Up to this time neither of those parties had ceased to attend or to be members of the Wesleyan Methodist Church. They were as much members as he himself was. The modification of Episcopacy as it now stands took place at the time the Union was consummated, that is, in October 1S33, and the name of the Church was officially altered at the same time, and no person who had occasion i give or receive a class-ticket could be ignorant of the fact. He (Mr. Da* Idson) never gave a ticket that was not headed with the name of the Church. Witness never heard from any of the parties any objection to the modification of Episcopacy. Witness considered himself a minister of the same Church that he was a minister of at first. He always understood that the Methodists in England, in the United States, and in Canada considered themselves as formiiig one general body ef Methodists. It would be impossible that any point of Methodism could l)e given up or destroyed by uniting with the Wesleyans in Eng- land, because the doctrine is precisely the same. The Discipline of the Wesleyan Church, after the Union, was printed and published before he left Belleville. That Discipline contains no substantial difference from vvhat was adopted in the Conference of 1832 and 1833 ; and he thinks it had been distributed in Belleville before he left. It was the desire of the ministers that it should be disseminated. Cross Examined, Did Mr. Bickford ever remonstrate with you upon the change ? I have no recollection that he ever did. — Did you ever give a class-ticket to Mr. Reynolds? I think I did, but cannot say posi- tively. — I think you stated the doctrines were in substance the same in both churches ; now do not the Wesleyan Methodists acknowledge themselves to be members of the Church of England ? Such were Mr. Wesley's instructions ; but they have gradually glided into a separation from that Church. — Now is it not the case, that a special act of disunion look place in the United States ? The Methodist Church in Canada, in 1828, was considered in every essential like that in England,- -they identified us as a portion of the same church, holding as we do the same doctrines. The act of the Conference, declaring the union, was only carrying into effect more closely the already existing views and opinions, ^Now have all the articles of the union been duly kept ? As far as I have been informed they have been. All the rights and privileges of Canadian Preachers have been duly att nded to. — Has not a great deal of dissatisfaction arisen from the proceedings with reference to Local Preachers T Dissatisfaction is said to have arisen from the Conference holding back what the Local Preachera considered their right with regard to ordination — together with some other regulations regarding the pennyr a-week and shilling-a-quailer. Their duties in these respects, however, were quite voluntary, there was no compulsion. — When you say ths 40 REPORT* tv li^ PlaintiffB conformed to the Wesleyan Church, do you beKeve they did so with a full knowledge of what the Discipline was to be ? I think they had every opportunity to know, if tliey used the means of informa* ticn within their reach. Was present at the Conference in 1833, — was a young member of Conference at that time, and the peculiar reasons for the change did not come within his own observation ; he knew, how- ever, that no alteration had been made in any point of faith or doctrine^ Rev. Henry Wilkinson called and sworn. — Counsel: On what occasion did Mr. Reynolds withdraw from the Wesleyan Church 1 At a meeting of Class-leaders in July, 1834, Mr. Reynolds rose and re- marked that he had been many years a Methodist ; that he designed ta continue one, but as he intended also to act in a candid and open man- ner, he would then state that he might not continue long to be a member of the Wesleyan Church. But he would not induce any ojie to go with him. It was in the early part of September, 1834, that he finally with- drew. A few days aftervsards, on returning frori a country appointment on a Sabbath evening, witness learned that six of Mr. Bird's class had withdra\^'n. Mr. Harris withdrev on the following Tuesday night. Mt. Bickford on withdrawing addressed the meeting to this eflect : " It is no hasty step. I have made up my mind upon mature reflection." — The principal point on which they expressed themselves dissatisfied was with the resolutions concerning Local Reachers. Witness thought that from 800 to 1000 had seceded altogether in the Province, and others had since joined them who had never belonged to the Wesleyan Church. — Has made this estimate of the number which have seceded from the Wesleyan Church, during the first two years after the union, from the Minutes of the Methodist Episcopal party, and from other sources. — Witness knows Mr. Gatchell ; he was a Superannuated Preacher, and in 1834 received an allowance as such. The witness handed in the fol- lowing extracts from the Records of the Leaders and Trustees' Meeting, held in Belleville : — " Belleville, 2l8t July, 1834. " Leaders' Meeting at Mr. Bickford's. " Brethren present : — Rev. Henry Wilkinson, Rev. John Reynolds, James Bickford, Billa Flint, Jr., Aaron Dame, William Ross, Walter Ross, Jonas Cannifl", Albert Taylor, P. G. Selden, J. P. Morden, Asa Yeomans, Robert Bird, B. Walton. "By request of Br. P. G. Selden, I make this minute with my own hand, that at the close of a protracted discussion, in which the brethren could not agree, I remarked, that I recognised the classes, just as left by Mr. Davidson when he left the station at the close of the Conference year. Henry Wilkinson. "Br. B. Walton made known that lie now resigns his stewardship. live in peace, and use our influence to "It was agreetl to try and efleot the same in the classes. " Resolved^ — That we, in the presence of Almighty God, eolemnljr ■ VOVIVO i\ * turn wc will endteavouf fully to lay aside and bury all past Affi- it R E p R r. Ill ieve they did yel I think J of infonna- 1833, — was ir reasons for knew, how- i or doctrine. On what hiirch 1 At rose and re- ; designed to 1 open man- ie a member le to go with finally with- appointment I's class had • night. Mt. ect : « It is ^flection." — satisfied was thought that d others had 1 Church. — led from the on, from the r sources. — cher, and in d in the fol- es' Meeting, /y, 1834. n Reynolds, loss, Walter [orden, Asa ith my own he brethren just as left Conference .KINSON. wardship, ifluence to li solemnly ii past dim- ■ ;■% culties that have agitated us during the year past; and that we will, as leaders, use our influence to do away all unpleasant feeling in the classes, «nd, on every occasion, strenuously strive to protect each other's charac* ter, and love as brethren. ^9) (Truly extracted.) . ,. Henrt Wilkinson, Minister, Trustee Meeting, Belleville, Sept. 19th, 1834. •< At a meeting of the remaining Trustees of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Belleville, heldthib day at the house of Asa Yeomains ; the following pei^ons were chosen (according to the form of Discipline) as Trustees of the church property, namely, Billa Flint, Jr., John P. Morden, William Ross, and Tonas Canniff, in the stead of Joh|i Reynolds, P. G. Selden, Jamc Bickford, and Aaron Dame, who have ceased to be Trustees, by withdrawing as members from the Wesleyaij Methodist Church. . , ^(Signed) Henry Wilkinson, Minister, In charge of the Belleville SH^Uon. (Signed) Benjamin Ketcheson, Asa Yeomans. (Gilbert Bleecker, not present.) Henrt Wilkinson, JtfiwM^er." (Truly Extracted.) The Rev. E. Ryerson sworn. (10) — Solicitor General : Your are, I believe, a Minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church 1 I am. — Sol, How long have you been a member of the Conference of that Church t (9) The Rev. Mr. Davidson oonfirms the statement of precedinur witnesses, lliat ail the prosecutors were members of the W«tl«yanMethodiBt Church duringr the year he had char|;e of the Church in Detleville. The Rev. Mr. Wilkinson finds them members; states the time and circumstances of their withdrawal from the Church ; and delivers to the Court extnicts from the ofTicial records of the Leadem' Meeting, from which it appears that all the prosecutint; Triulees but one (Harris) were not only members of the Church on the 21at of July, 1834, but were official members, and were /ictually present claiming^ and exercising^ their privileges as such in the Leaders' Meeting. Yet these parties bring witnesses into Court to try and prove that they were never members of the Wesleyan- Methodist 'Church at alii Mr. WilkirMton's testimony concludes the evidence on the part of the Wes- leyan- Methodist Church in regard to the views and relation of the prosecutors to Episcopacy, the Union, and the Church, and tlieir actual secession from it in September, 1834, — eleven monihs after the Toronto Conference. The evi. dence of the subsequent witnesses relates to the proceedings of the Confereocos in 1823, 1832, and 1633, to Episcopacy, and other geaeral .questions. (10) The following evidence was intended to furnish a cireumstantial and full necouni of the proceedings of the several Conference* in Canada at which changes in the Discipline have b«en made, and a minute history of the Vnian. ■ U will be'seen that the Rev. Messrs. Ca$e, Oreen, am) J. Ryerton concur in it as substantially correct. Nearly all the questions put by the Solicitor- GS«ner%l were written out at full length before the trial; andlaehtve lb* evideiu;» (« ceported as nearly verbatim at poasible. M R S P O K T. IV ^^ M'l % 1 was reoeived a» a preacher on trial in 1825, and into full connexicw with the Conference in 1827. Countel — ^Were yoa present at the Conference held in Emestowv, September, 1828 ? I was.— And at that held in Hallowell, in 1832 1 I was. — Aod at that held in Toronto, October, 1833 ? I was. Counsel — Have you filled official situations in any of the Conferences to which you refer, and do you now hold any official situation in your Conference! I was Secretary of the General Conferences held in Belleville 1830, in York 1831, in Hallowell 1832, and in Toronto 1833. i was also Secretary of the Annual Conference held in Toronto 1833, and I fill that situation in the Conference at the present time. C<»«n«e/— What was the name of your church previous to 1828 ? The Methodist Episcopal Church in America. Counwl — ^You were formerly connected with the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States : when did you separate from that Church 1 In 1828. Counsel — ^For what reasons did you separate from that Church ? In order to remove the jealousies which were excited in the minds of many persons in'authority, and others in this Province, against a foreign ecclesiastical connexion ; to meet the general feelingo and wishes of the members and friends of our church ; and to obtain greater facilities for diffusing religious knowledge and principles among the inhabitants of this Province. Counsel — By what authority did you organize yourselves into a dis- tinct and independent Church 1 By the authority of the American General Conference. Counsel — What name did you assume on your separation from the American Methodist Church 1 The Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada. Counsel — Could you -not have assumed any other title for your Church 1 Certainly we could. The title of the church was a subject of discussion in the Conference. I, as an individual member, opposed the introduction of the term " Episcopal" at all into the title of the Church ; but as a large majority of the Conference were of a different opinion, I and those who took the same view of the subject, of course, acquiesced in and supported the will of the majority. Counsel. — I presume you would not have been less the Church you really were if you had adopted another name ] Undoubtedly not. Court 'el. — Were you considered a different Church after that separa- tion ? By no means ; so far from it, that the Bishops of the American Metliodist Church have ordained our Ministers since the act cf separa- tion the same as before, when requested to do so. When the act of separation took place. Bishop Hedding, who had presided, rose and obiierved, that he no longer possessed any jurisdiction over us. By the vote of the Conference he was requested to preside, which he accordingly did until the close of the session. Two years afterwards he attended our Conference held in this town, and ordained several of our Ministers. ^AAer your separation from the Aniericttu Church, and il '■it REPORT^ M ill connexic»B \ EmestowB, in 1832? I 3. Conferences ation in your nces held in oronto 1833. oronto 1833, e. us to 1828? ist Episcopal hat Church 1 hurch ? In he minds of inst a foreign vishes of the p facilities for ihabitants of es into a dis- le American tion from the 1 Church in itle for your vas a subjeet iber, opposed ! title of the )f a different t, of course, Church you Uy not. that separa- te American ct cf separa- 3n the act of id, rose and us. By the ! accordingly he attended ur Ministers. "II L _ - J ^iiurvii, anu 4^- adoption of the new name, did not you and your members consider yourselves the same Church that you always had been? Of couree we did ; I never heard a hint of the reverse. Counsel. — Did your Conference ii' ' '28 make any alteration in the articles of faith and rules of your Church ? It did in several particulars. Counsel. — ^What were those alterations ? One was the expunjpng of the twenty-third article of faith relating to the Government of the United States, and the substitution of one recognizing the established Govern- ment of this Province. Another was, the establishment and organiza- tioh of a General or Legislative Conference in this Province. Before 1828 we sent delegates to the American General Conference, and were subject to the rules made by that body. It was then determined to establish such a Conference for the government of the Church in Canada, but diiiTerent in its composition and powers (torn the General Conference in the United States. It was resolved, that our General Conference should be composed cf all the travelling Elders, who had travelled the four years immediately preceding and been received into full Connexion ; so that it weiS not a delegated body like the General Conference in the United States, which was composed of one for every fourteen members of the Annual Conferences, elected by the suffrages of all the members. It was also determined, that the powers of our Gen^ eral Conference should be more limited than those of the Conference in the United States. By the American Discipline, the General Confer- enc8, with the recommendation of the several Annual Conferences, had unlimited power of legislation, without any check on the part of the lay- members of the Church. It was provided that our General Ccmference could not establish any new rules or regulations or alter existing ones respecting the building of churches, the order to be observed in them, the salaries of preachers, and the manner of raising them, the privileges of the members of the Church, such as the condition of receiving and con- tinuing memliers in the Church, the mode of trial and exclusion from it, and the doctrines (11) of the Church, without the concurrence of three- fourths of the Quarterly Meeting Conferences throughout the whole Connexion. These restrictions were self-imposed by our Conference, without any application whatever from the lay-members of the Church, and furnish the only instance in Europe or America pf legislative power being vested in the laity of the Methodist Church. It was likewise (11) I have recently learned, thnt the last American General ConfArenee held in Cincinnati, May 1836, has imposed an additional reatriction upon itt powers, hy which it ia prohibited, under any circumstances whatever, to ehango the doelrine$ of the Church. This fact (the certainty of which may b« aaciartained hy comparing^ the last edition of the American Methodist Discipline with former ones) proves to demonstration, that in the judgment of that body, in Csnfereuoa aasembled, it had power, previous to 1836, to change evin the dwtrtMM of the Church, and therefore the Episcopacy, even •naoung it, (ae Judge Maeaulay seemed to aaaume it,) to be a dnetritu. We believu there cad be no higher authority on this point than the American Methodist Church. By that authority then it is decided, that, up to May 1836, the General Conference had power, according to tho written nonstilution, to ebangt the ^ctftMsof the Church as weii as to aiier and make ruiet anu reguJatioae. ■• •- K?'' u RirORT. ligreed, that a Committee of five should be elected by ballot to counsel find advise with the Bishop or Superintendent in the appointment of Presiding Elders or Chairmen of Districts. With these modifications, tind several others of minor importance, it was agreed to adopt the Doctrines and Discipline of the American Methodist Church. Counsel. — ^Were any objections made as to the power which your Conference exercised in adopting a new title and Discipline for your Church in 1828? I never heard of any. Counsel. — ^Did the American Bishop who was present seem to ques- tion the authority of your Conference to adopt a new name and Di«|- cipline for the Church ? Not at all. Counsel. — You said you were present at the Hallowell Conference in 1832 : how happened the subject of the Union with the British Con- ference to be brought before your body at that Meeting? At the Conference of 1828, a Committee of three was « appointed to corres- pond with the British Conference in order to establish a friendly union and intercourse between the two Connexions." But nothing further was done until 1831, when, — perceiving the ill effects likely to arise from the establishment of different bodies of Methodists in this Province, —I prepared a long letter on the subject, which I showed to several of our ministers for their approval, and addressed to the late Rev. Richard Watson, whe was at that time Secretary of the Wesleyan Missionary Society in London. In 1832, the Wesleyan Missionary Committee in London sent out the Rev. Mr. Alder as their representative and agent, with a view to the appointment of Missionaries among the British emi- grants in various parts of this Province. Mr. Alder had communica- tions from the Committee in London to our Missionary Board in To- ronto, which he delivered, communicating to the Board at thf same time the objects of his mission. Our Board admitted our inabiliv/ to supply the religious wants of the country, but stated at length to Mr. Alder, and in writing to the Committee in London, the evils likely to arise from the existence of two bodies of Methodists in this Province — its infringement of the hitherto universally-acknowledged principle that the Wesleyan Methodists were one body throughout the worid — and the desirableness of uniting the means and energies of the two Connexions to promote the religious improvement of the aboriginal tribes and new settlements of the country. The Board invited Mr. Alder to remain and attend the Con- ference, which was to be held in about six weeks from that time. Mr. Alder consented to attend the Conference. In the meantime, being Editor of the Christian Guardian, I immediately adverted, in the columns of the Guardian, to what had taken place between Mr. Alder and the Missionary Board, and stated that the subject would be brought under the consideration of the ensuing Conference, and remarked upon the leading principles which appeared to be involved in the propoised arrangement. On account of this announcement, moi% than usual in- terest appeared to be felt amongst our ministers and people in the pro- ceedings of the Conference, all the members of which attended, according to the requirements of the Discipline, with the exception of two or three. m I ■11' ft E P n T. 45 t to counsel ointment of odifications, adopt the ivhich your ine for your em to quefi- e and Di<(- tnference in Iritish Con- ? At the d to corres- endly union ling further :ely to arise s Province, ) several of 5v. Richard Missionar)' >mmittee in and agent, British emi- ommunica- >ard in To- same time / to supply Alder, and se from the ifringement Wesleyan isirableness romote the lents of the I the Con- ime. Mr. ime, being d, in the Mr. Alder be brought rked upon proposed I usual in- n the pro- according > or three. who, either by letter or verbal communication, assigned the afflictive causes of their absence. Counsel. — Will you state the proceedings of your Conference in Hallowell in respect to the then proposed Union with the British Con- ference ? The President of the Board of Missions, on the first day of the Session, presented to the Conference the Correspondence which had taken place between the Board and the Wesleyan Missionary Committee in London. The Correspondence was read, and referred to a Committee of nine, chosen by ballot. The Committee thus appointed took the whole subject of the correspondence into consideration, and, on the fourth day, reported certain resolutions to the Conference. As there were many lay members of the Church from various parts of the Pro- vince in Hallowell at the time, and the Conference desiring that every thing done on the subject of the then proposed Union should be as public as possible, admitted, contrary to its usages, all persons who chose to attend, below the bar, as a part of the Chapel assigned to them was called. The Resolutions were fully discussed and adopted. The third Resolution, respecting the relinquishment of Episcopacy, was adopted last in order. The President having expressed a doubt as to the power of the Annual Conference to adopt a resolution to relinquish Episcopacy in the form presented, the third Resolution was passed in the form of a recommendatioA to the General Conference. Witness handed in to the Court the following extracts from the Journals of the Conference; — « Hallowell, .August 8M, 1832, " (in the forenoon.) " Certain documents containing communications between the Wes- leyan Missionary Committee in London and our Board of Missions at York, were presented by the President of the Board and read." {.Afternoon ^] '• Resolved — That a Committee of nine be appointed by ballot, to take into consideration the documents received from the Missionary Board in York, and report on the same. " The following persons were chosen : — ^John Ryerson ; James Richardson; Wyatt Chamberlain; F. Metcalf; E. Ryerson; P. Smith ; W. Ryerson ; T. Madden j W. Brown. l^ugusi 11' <, forenoon.'} " The Committee to whom were i-eferred certain documents from the Board of Missions at York, presented their report. " Report was read, and preamble taken up. " Adjourned until 2 o'clock, P. M. *' 2 o'clock, P. M, " Conference met. W. Case in the chair. " After singing and prayer, the Preamble of the Report from the Com- mittee on certain documents received from the Board at Yoric, wat 9|j^iri read and taken yp. Is REPORT* ** Preamble adopted. Ist Resolution adopted. 2d do. do. 3d do. do. 4tli do. do. 5th do. do. 6th do. do. 7th do. do. 8th do. do. 9tli do. do. lOtli do. do. 11th do. do. 12th do. do. " That this Conference concurring with the Board of Missions on the inexpediency of establishing two distinct Methodist Connexions in Upper Canada, and deprecating the evils which might arise from colli- sion, and believing that the cause of religion generally, and the interests of Methodism in particular, would, by the blessing of God, be greatly promoted by the united exertions of the two Connexions ; it is re- solved-^ " 1. That a Union betwixt the English and Canada Conferences, duly securing the rights and privileges of the Societies in this Province, is an object highly important and desirable. " 2. That, in onler to accomplish this object, the discipline and eco- nomy of the Wesleyan Methodists in England be introduced into the Societies in this Province, as far as circumstances and prudence will render advisable. " 3. That Episcopacy be relinquished (unless it will jeopard our Church property, or as Eoon as it can be legally secured,) and super- seded by an Annual Presidency. " 4. That the usages of the English Conference be adopted in the admission of Candidates into the Itinerant Ministry among us. ** 5. That ordination be administered among us after the same form as that in which Missionaries are set apart to the office of the ministry in the English Conference. " 6. That the English Conference shall have authority to appoint, as often as they sec fit, a President from their own body in England, to preside over this Conference ; provided the same person shall not be eligi- ble of\ener than once in four years, unless desired by this Conference. " 7. That when the English Conference does not appoint a President as aforesaid, one shall be elected by this Conference from among its own members. " 8. That the Missions which now are or may be hereafter established by this Conference, be considered Missions of the Wesleyan Missionary Society, under the loliowing regulations: — The Wesleyan Missionary Committee in London shall appropriate the amount necessary to carrj on the Missions; but this amount shall be applied to the support of the several Mission stations, hy a Committee of seven or nine persons, (one of whom shall be the President of the Conference,) members of and appointed by this Conference. The Methodist Missionar}' Society in Canada shall be auxiliary to the Wesleyan Missionary Society, and the funds raised be transmitted to the Treasurer of the Parent Society and appropriated as aforesaid. The Missionaries shrill be appointed by the Canada Conference, subject to the Conference of the Wesleyan Mis- sionary Committee. " 9. That, in pursuance of the arrangements above proposed, it is Ajnderstood that all Missionaries sent by the Wesleyan Committee into Vpper Canada shall be meqabere of this ConlerenWi A e P R t. Vi 3d do. do. ). do. 9tli lions on the nexions in from colli- de interests be greatly ; it is re- onferences, s Province, ne and eco- ced into the adence will jeopard our and super- :)pted in the i. s same form the ministry 3 appoint, as England, to I not be eligi- onference. a President n among its tr established 1 Missionary I Missionary sary to carrj jpport of the •ersons, (ono nbers of and y Society in ety, and the Society »ne An- ; nual Conference. Counsel. — What was the difference then between your Annual and General Conference I The Annual Conference was composed of all travelling preachers who had travelled two years and had been received into full connexion ; the General Conference was composed of all trat^- elling preachers who had travelled four years, and been ordained elders, and received into full connexion with the Conference. H B t> R T. a The Judge. — Had you a Bishop at this time 1 No, my Lord; we never had a Bishop in Canada : The Amencan General Conference authorised us to elect a Bishop, and one or more Bishops in the United States to ordain him, in case we should think proper to elect one. We did elect one in 1828, and another in 1831, but they both declined the office ; so that we chose annually, from 1828 to 1832, a Superintendent pro tempore. The Judge, — Had you no authority to ordain a Bishop then 1 No, my Lord, we only had power to elect one. [Witness here read the Besolutions o( the American General Conference, held in Pittsburgh, Pa., May 1828, relative to the election of a Bishop by the Conference in Canada and the ordaining of him by Bishops in the United States, pro- vided he should not be allowed to exercise any ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the United States. Counsel. — Were any persons admitted to vote in your General Con- ference in Hallowell, who were not eligible to a seat in that body by your printed Discipline of 1829 1 There were. Counsel. — Under what circumstances and by what authority ware they thus admitted ? They had travelled four years, been received into full connexion, and were elected to elders' orders, but had not been or- dained on account of our not having a Bishop to ordain them, and not having modified our Discipline so as to administer ordination in any other way. It was thought unjust to exclude them from a privilege to which they would have been entitled had there lieen any Bishop in the Province. The General Conference therefore altered the rule relating to the composition of the Conference, and ordained that it should bo composed of all travelling elders and elders elect who had travelled four 3'ear3 and been received into full connexion. Witness delivered to the Court Hie following extracts from the Journals of the General Conference : " Special Session of the General Conference, called by the General Superintendent, at the request of the Annual Conference, Hallowell, August 13, 1832. " Conference met at 6 o'clock, A. M. 1 William Case, 2 Thos. Whitehead, 3 Thomas Madden, 4 Peter Jones, Ist. 5 W't Chamberlain, G Jas. Wilson, 7 Saml. Bel ton, 8 Wm. Brown, 9 Joseph Gatchell, 10 George Ferguson. 11 David Yeomans, 12 Ezra Healy, Names of Members : 13 Phil. Smith. 14 F. Metcalf, 15 Wm. H. Williams, 16 John Ryerson, 17 Wm. Ryeriion, 18 David Wright, 19 Wm. Griffis, 20 Sol. Waldron, 21 Robt. Corson, 22 Jos. Messmore, 23 R. Hcyland, 24- Edmund Sloney, 25 G6o, Bissel, 26 Jas. Richardson, 27 Egn. Ryerson, 28 John Black, 29 Anson Green, 30 Danl. McMullen, 31 Andrew Prindel, 32 Ezra Adams, 33 Alexr. Irvine, 34 King Barton. -'S « K ^r li-yW''^ 'V-: ■,'*!; ""^ " n £ P R Tk 49 ■'■i'Hi ' then ? No, lere read the Pittsburgh, onference in States, pro- jurisdiction ieneral Con- hat body by thority were eceived into not been or- lem, and not ition in any privilege to iishop in the rule relating it should bo ravelled four k^ered to the Conference : the General , Hallowell, IBCl, lardson, erson, tck, (reen, ;Mullen, Prindel, aniB, vine, ton. **Egerton Ryerson was chosen Secretary. . j « Proceeded to elect a General Superintendent pro tempore. The 3v. William Case was duly elected. " Resolved, — That the first answer to the second question of the third section of the Discipline be expunged, and the following inserted in its place : ' The General Conference shall be composed of all the Elders and Elders elect who are members of the Annual Conference.' Names of Elders Elect: 1 3 4 5 John C. Davidson, Geo. Poole, Richard Jones, John S. Atwood, James Norris, 7 Peter Jones, 2nd. 13 Richard Phelps, 8 Matthew Whiting, 14 HaiAilton Biggar, 15 Ephm. Evans, 16 Charles Wood, 17 Thomas Bevitt. 9 William Smith, 10 John Beatty, 11 Asahel Hurlburt, 6 Cyrus R. Allison,* 12 Alvah Adams, " Adjourned until 9 o'c. A. M. " Conference met at 9, A. M. Singing, and prayer by the President. " Resolved — ^That this Conference, on the recommendation of three - foiulhs of the Annual Conference, having in view the prospect of a union witli our British Brethren, agree to sanction the third Resolution of the Report of the Committee of the Annual Conference; which is as follows : — ' That Episcopacy be relinquished, (unless it will jeopard our church property or as soon as it can be secured,) and superseded by an Annual Presidency,' — in connexion with the 10th Resolution of the said Report which. says, ' That none of the foregoing resolutions shall be considered of any force whatever, until they shall have been acceded to on the part of the Wesleyan Missionary Committee and the British Conference, and the arrangement referred to in them shall have been completed by the two connexions.' — Adopted l)y three-fourths of the members. — Adjourned sine die. William Case, Prest.^ Egerton Ryerson, Secy* « Hallowell, Mg. 13th.. 1832." (Tnily Extracted.) Kingston, 11th Oct., 1937. * Egerton Rverson. Counsel — Did the votes of those persons who we^^ admitted into the General Conference, afl'ecl the decision of the question 1 I do not think they did, unless they rendered it somewhat lese unanimous than it would have otherwise been. Eight of them were, to the best of my recollec- tion, opposed to the then contemplated union, although I cannot say whether so large a proportion of them was opposed to the relinquishment of Episcopacy. Several who opposed the union were in favour of an Annual Presidency. Mr. Richardson, who was the Secretary oi' tht * Mr. AlliMn wm ill. do ft £ tain t* m "I \d Annual Conference) ^poke ag&instthe union, but in favour of aboHshfnf EpiBCopooy. But they were not admitted with a view to secute the adoption of the measure, but simply to have as full an expremion a» possible of the views of ail the Preachers. Coun«ei>— Were the votea of your ^Annual and Genml Conferences (for they appear in fact to have been substantially one and the same body under different names,) pretty unanimous 1 More than tiiree' fourths were in favour of superseding Episcopacy by an Annual Pres- idency. Counsel — Was any objection made as to the power of your Confer- ence to do vvhat it did in respect to the union with the British Confer- ence 1 I never heard of the expression or existence of such a doubt. Counsel — Did those members who constituted the minority on the question of Episcopacy and the union, show any disposition to persevere in their opposition after the disposition of those questions by the voice of so large a majority of their bretliren ? By no means. Far otherwise. The discussion was conducted in the most friendly manner, such as is usual on any merely precedential question ; and, after the close of the pro- ceedings on those questions, some of the leading speakers in the minority expressed their intention to acquiesce in and support the views of the majority. Not a single memlier left or seceded from the Conference on account of those proceedings, or showed a disposition to do so. Counsel. — Were you not appointed by the Hallowell Conference to represent the interests of your Church on the subject of the Union in England ? I was. Counsel.— Were you aware that, in the interval between the sessioni* of your Conference Jn Hallowell, 1832, and in Toronto, 1833, there was any opposition on the part of any considerable portion of the mem- bers of your Church to the object of your mission to England ? I was not. I employed every means in my power to ascertain the views ami feelings of our members and friends on the subject. Immediately after the Hallowell Conference I published the proposed Articles of Union in the Christian Guardian, [August 29, 1832,] and requested the Pre- siding Elders on the different Districts to inform me of the state of feelina; among our people within the bounds of their respective charges, as it would lie a guide to me in my negotiations. A short time before I left the Province for England in March 1833, 1 received letters from two of the Chairmen on the subject. I also conversed with the other tw(» Chairmen. From these sources I learned that the Union was, with verj' few individual exceptions, universally approved of by the members of our Church. The only point on which I could learn that any appre- hension existed was, in relation to the appointment of Preachers to their Circuits and Stations. As the Superintendent or President had the power of sUitioning all the Preachers, fears were entertained in ?omp instances that a President sent out from England might appoint English Preachers to the best Stations, and send the Canadian Preachers into the interior. I provided against the possibility jf an event of this kind, by getting the consent of the British ConfereniJe to limit the power of the REPORT. 61 or abolishfnf to secure tlie npremion a? Conferences nd the same than fliree' Annual Pres-' your Confer-' ilish Confer-* 1 a doubt, lority on the to persevere the voice of erwiee. The h as is usual 5 of the pro- the minority k^iews of the onference on so. onference to le Union in the sessioni^ 1833, there 'f the mem- ^nd ? I was e views and fdiately after of Union in ted the Pre- ite of feelirifl; fiargei"', on it before I Jeff rem two of other tw(» ?, with verj' menibers oi Hny appre- Jers to their nt had thi- ed in Fomo int English en» into the lis kind, hy wer of the President, that whilst he exercised the same functions geneni\y aa the General Superintendent had heretofore exercised, he should not station the Preachers contrary to the consent of a majority of the Chairmen of Dii^irtcts associated with him as a StatioEung Committee. -.'"'>; Counsel — I think you said you were at the Toronto Conference, held in October, 1833 : will you state to the Court and to the Jury, the pro- ceedings of that Conference on the subject of the union ? I arrived in Toronto, from England, a few days before the ijieeting of the Conference, in company with the Rev. Mr. Marsden, who had been sent out as the Representative of the British Conference, and the Rev. Mr. Stinson, Representative of the Wesleyan Missionary Committee, whom I intro- ' of Elders by the Conference, and their ordination by the Bishop, ■j. sted by two or more of the Elders present, and returned the book to K>kpatrick. iVie Sol,- General wished to ask the witness whether the Methodists in England were members of the Church of England ? Witness heard the Bev. Dr. Bunting, President of the British Conference last year, state in the Conference, that as a body the Methodists were as distinct from the Church of 1*!naptAn/1 aa anv ntho- iwlim/iiia <1onAminnKnm in I %«.IK.%'.«K7 .«%'..^ REPORT. England ; that they had their own chapels, and rules, and wdinance^ and ordination, and were therefore a distinct and independent Church. ^ Mr. Kirkpatrick. — But are not many members of the Methodist Society members of the Church of England ? They are ; for separation Iroin the Church is not a condition of membership in the Methodist Society. But, as a body, their whole system of government and operations is as distinct from the Episcopal Church in England as it is in America. The Methodist Itinerancy is incompatible with the constitution of the Church of England. The Methodists in Eng- land are not in general what are termed Dissenters^ for they do not as a body object to an establishment in the abstract ; but they are J^on- Conformists, and occupy a similar position in regard to the Church with the Non-Conformists in the reign of Charles the Second. (16) (16) Such as Richard Baxter, Bates, Howe, Joseph Allen, and others. The late Rev. Richard Watson thus describes the relation of the I^ethodists in England to the Church: "Separation from the Church, at a later period of Mr. Wealey's life, was certainly anticipated. That must be allowed ; but an enlightened churchman ought to think, that Mr. Wesley's conduct was still worthy of praise ; for when a partial separation was in reality foreseen as probable, it had no sanction from him, and he appeared determined so to employ itis influence to his last breath, that if separation did ensue, it should assume the mildest form possible, and be deprived of all hostility. His example, the spirit of his writings and his advices, all tended to this ; and the fact is, that, thouf^b Methodism now stands in a different relption to the establi^thmcnt than in the days of Mr. Wesley, dissent has never been formally professed by that body, and for obvious reasons, The first is, that the separation of the greater part of the Society from the Church, did not in any great degree, result from the prin. ciples assumed by the professed dissenters, and which are usually made promi. inent in their discussions on the subject of establishments; the second is, that a considerable number of Methodists actually continue in the communion of the Church of England to this day; and the third, that to leave that communion is not, in any sense, a condition of membership with us." — " I may venture to say, that there is a warmer regard towards the Church among the body of the Methodists now, than there was in the days of Mr. Wesley ; although there were then more Methodists than at present who professed to be of httr com- munion. We have no respect at all to her exclusive claims of divine right, or her three orders of Ministers; and yet we have no objection to her Episco. pacy, when scripturally understood, and her services. We smile at the claims she sometimes assumes to be the exclusive instructress of the people, in a country where the statute law has given them a right to be taught by whom they please, and as explicitly protects dissent ns conformity ; nut we rejoice that she has great influence with the mass of the population, whenever that infin., ence ia used for the promotion of true religion and good morals. We wish her prosperity and perpetuity, as we wish all other Christian Churches; and the more so, as we recognise in her * the mother of us all,' and can never contero- . plate without the deepest admiration her noble army of confessors and martyrs, and the illustrious train of her divines, whose writings have been, and conlinub to be, the light of Christendom. If Churchmen think this feeling of any impor- tance, let them reciprocate it ; and though the formal union of which some of them have ipoken is vitionary, a still stronger bond of friendship might bo •stabtished ; and each might thus become more formidable against the errors and evils of thu Imoa."— Life of Wetley, pp. '442, 343, Am. Ed. Th« vittwa of Mr. WesUy and of the British Conference in regard to a Na. (ipDa! ChurQh itielfare thus ttated in the Minutes gf ih« Cohferencq for 1747 ^ a~1 u RSPORT* , "Rev. Wm. Case. — Is a Minister of the Wesleyan-^lethodibt Church. Cqnimenced his ininiBterial labours in Canada in 1805. Has held several offices: has been Secretary of the Conference^ General Super- intendent of the Church, President of the Conference, and Superintendent of Missions. Had noticed very minutely tlie statements made by the last witness, Eev. £. Ryerson, and believed tliem to be substantially correct. At the Hallowell Conference witness was requested to put to the vote the resolution for superseding Episcopacy, but declined doing so until the Conference, at his suggestion) agreed to put the resolution in the shape of a recommendation to the General Conference. Witness was opposed to the proposed modification of the Epiacup^' office, for fear that it might jeopard the Church property, and for fear that i; would introduce changes which would be found inconvenient to the Church generally. Such were the fears which witness then entertained ; but he had since found that they were groundless. He had never any doubt as to the authority of the Conference to supersede Episcopacy ; for he considered that the Discipline of the Church provided for such a change. Whatever constitutional course the Conference might take, it was always considered to be binding upon the minority ; and they were not only under an obligation to submit, but it was incumbent upon them to assist m carrying into effect the measures so agreed upon. Witness was present at the American General Conference at Cincinnati in 1836 : , was recognized as a Representative of the Methodist Connexion in Canada, and transacted business as such. Was aware that there were |)ersons there belonging to the Episcopals, and that they applied to be recognized as Representatives of a Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, and were rejected. Witness had a conversation with the Bishops, and other leading Ministers in the United States, as to the power of the General Conference to do away Episcopacy. Never heard a negative opinion expressed upon tliat question. From the fact that the British Methodists never adopted Episcopacy, and that the Ameri- cans did, we infer that it was never considered otherwise than as a rule of church government, (17) The government of the Church, since the " Qt'est. What inttance or ground is there in the New Testament for a Nati-nal Ctinrch? •• Ana. We know of none at all ; we apprehend it to be a merely political iMtituiion."— /A.|>. 138. (17) In addition to iho quotations from Mr. Wesley, made by the Snlteilor Oeneral, pp, 15, IG, the followiiiflr views of Episcopacy and church government generally ore formally rooorded by Mr. Wesley and his Preachers, in the Minutes of Conference for 1747 : " Q. If the [episcopal] plan were essential to a Christian Church, what must become of all foreign reformed Churches? "A. It would follow ihey are no part of the Church of Christ: a consequence full of ahockingr absurdity. " Q. In whst Bgn was the divine rijrht of episcopacy first asserted in England ? ■' A. About the middle of Queen Elisabeth's reigfn : till then all the Bishopa and Clergy in England continually allowed and joined in llie minjslrationi of Ihssa who wer? not episcopaily ordained, . ;; oxi lai ftfiPOAT* 59 Church, ae held Super- nlepdent J by the itantially put to ;d doing Bsolution Witness ffice, for i; would ; Church [led ; but iny doubt r ; for he 1 change. IB always not only 1 to assist ness was in 1836: texion in lere were lied to be hurch in with the as to the ver heard fact that e Ameri- as a rule since the nent for a y political le Snlieitor ovornment Itrs, in the whot must aniiequence EnKlBn<) ? he Bishop* itrttioni of not oC union, Mmalns virtually the saiAe as before. The power which was ther posaeflBod by the Bishop is lodged in the President, with this restriction only, that he cannot station the Pi«achen without the con- currence of the Stationing Coutmittee. Rev. Prison Green, — Is a Minister of the Wesleyan Church, of die same time and standing as Kev. £. Ryerson. Was appointed to the Augusta District at the Hallowell Conference, in 1832. Had never heard any objections raised as to the power of the Conference to make the change until the year 1834, although the question had been agitated before the meeting of the HallOwell Conference, in 1832. After that Conference, witness conversed with the different members of his Church upon the terms of the union which had been there proposed, and they met with very general approbation. This fact witness communicated to Mr. E. Ryerson at the time, before he proceeded to England. As far as his knowledge extends, the Local Preachers? resolutions were con- curred in by three- fourths of the official lay-members of the Church, in all parts of the Province. Witness had good reason to believe thai this was the case. They received the approbation, at all events, of three fourths of the lay-members of the Church, or else they would never " Q. Must there not be accidental variations in the government of various Churches? "A. There must in the nature of things. As God variously dispenses his gifts of nature, providence, and grace, both the offices themselves, and the officers in eacii, ought to be Varibd from time to time. «i a Why is it, that there is no determinate plan of church-government appointed in Scripture 7 " A. VViihout doubt, because the wisdom of iGSod had regard to that necessary variety. '* Q. Was there any thought of uniformity in the governmbnt of all Churches, until the time of Constantino ? " A. It is certain there was not, nor would thore have been then, had men consulted the word of Gud only *• — (Wataon'* Life of Wesley, p. 138, Am. Ed.) Who can read the foregoing extracts, and heliove, fur ono moment, that Mr. Wesley evor intended Episcopacy to be an integral or «n"varied" part of the Methodist Church in Anserica ; or that episaopal " ofiicers" •' ought" not to be " varied ?" In what exact accordance with these views in regard to Episcopacy — Episcopal ordination — changing of Episcopal •' ofRcors" — ire the sentiments of the venerable Bishop Medding and Dr. Luckey, of the United States, inserted in a note on page 54, and which are stated to be the views of every Methodist writer, and of the American Methodist Church generally, on these subjects. How astonished would Mr. Wesley and the Fathers of American Methodism have been, at an accredited prediction, that the period was not remote when It would he even asserted and maintained, that Mefhodist Episcopal *' nfficera," and Melhodiat Episcopal " offices," not only " ought' not, but could not be lawfully " varied," without destroying Methodist identity, and annihilating its right to church property !' ! If, then, Methodist Episcopal •• officers" and •' offices" wore intended to be " varied from time to time," who was to bo the Judgo of the expediency of that variation f Who was to have the power to make it ? With whom— and with whom alone— has the power been mvested from the beginning 7 With whom alone did the Discipline lodge all the legislative power on these points that ever existed in the Methodist Church 7 And could any other bodies in the Church be lawfully consulted in such matters of legislation besides that body which the Dis. cipline or •• Written Constitution" has constituted the Legislature of the Church 7 ■'** 60 A fi P R T« liave been a part of the diacipline. The principal difficulty which aros« subsequently was, he believed, in relation to the rules respecting Local Preachers. Witness concurs in the statements of the Rev. £. Ryerson, as far as his knowledge extends. Rev. John Ryerson was, and had been for many years a minister of the Methodist Church in Canada. Was appointed one of the delegates of his Conference to the General Conference of the American Methodist £piscopal Church held in Pittsburgh, State of Pennsylvania, in May 1828. \v as authorised by the Conference he represented to apply to the American General Conference to be organized into an independent Church in Canada. The American Conference acceded to the appli- cation; and no doubt was expressed, to his knowlerl'^, from any quarter as to the authority under which the Church in C. tda was thus organized into a separate and independent body ; indeed the authority of the General C mferewje in all matters of legislation was not questioned. Witness stated, the General Conference in the United States has always been regarded as the only body in the Church possessing legislative authority, and that any persons refusing to acquiesce in the act8 of the General Conference have always been considered as seceders from the Church. That, both in England and Ireland, the acts of their respective Conferences had been maintained and confirmed by the courts of law. Witness referred to the doings of the Irish Conference, which gave rise to the Clonite division — and in England to Dr. Warren's case, &c. Witness deposed still further — that, when they became a separate and independent Church in Canada in 1828, they assumed the Episcopal form of Church government, at least in name, although in reality they never had had an Episcopacy in Canada since the organization of the Church in 1828 ; but they were not obliged to assume that form of government ; the Conference could have assumed any other with equal facility. That the entire power of legislation for the Church in 1828 existed in the Conference ; that it wa»then that the General or Legisla- tive Conference was established, and the several restrictions upon the let^islative power of tlie Conference and the power of Quarterly Meetings to legislate on matters affecting the financial interests of the Church, resulted from the spontaneous acts and feelings of the Conference itself. Witness stated — that, within the last year or two, he had conferred with the Agents of the American General Conference on matters arising out of their former relation to the American Methodist Church, and that the Church of which he was a minister was considered by the American General Conference and their Agents as the identical Church which was formerly in connexion with them. Witness said, that he had heard Mr. Green's statement as to the cause of the secession of tlie Plaintiffs and their party, and that he agreed with him as far as he had been able to make observations in his own extensive travels in the Province. That he was present at the Conferences held in Hallowell in 1632, and in Toronto ISiSS ; and that he could corroborate the accounts given of the proceedings of those Conferences by Mr. Egerton Ryerson, Mr. Case, and Mr. Green. l\f_n^-,ijM- .(*« REPORT. 61 I Local yeraon, lister of elegatea ethodist in May ipply to pendent B appli- om any vas thus hority of jstioned. s always gislative l8of the from the jepective 3 of law. gave rise laee, &c. arate and Episcopal ility they >n of the form of ith equal I in 1828 r Legisla- upon the Meetings Church, ice itself, rred with rising out 1 that the American ch which tad heard Plaintiffs teen ahle E*rovince. 832, and given of •Bon, Mr. Cross-examined by Mr. Kirkpalrick. — Were not certain Resolutions respecting Local Preachers, Sic., entrusted to you to be laid before the Quarterly Meeting in Belleville? Yes, they were. Counsel. — ^Did you not propose those Resolutions to the Quarterly Meeting without giving them any previous notice? Mr, R. — I read the Resolutions to the first Quarterly M^beting I attended after *the Toronto Conference ; and, as some of the members — especially Mr, Reynolds — complained that they had not had time to examine tlie Re- solutions, I consented to their being laid over for three months, that the members of the meeting might well consider them ; and I requested Mr. Davidson, the Superintendent of the Station, to give Mr. Reynolds a copy of them. Counsel. — ^Did you not refuse to put the Resolutions to the Quarterly Meeting ? Mr. R. — No, I did not : Before the second Quarterly Meet- ing at Belleville came, I learned, from the Editor of the Guardian, who was appointed to publish the Discipline, that the Resolutions had re- ceived the sanction of a majority of two-thirds of all the Quarterly Meetings. I stated this to the Quarterly Meeting at Belleville, and therefore the Resolutions were not put as a matter of course, as they at that time were apart of the Discipline — they having received the "con- sent of two-thinis of the Quarterly Meetings throughout the whole Connexion." (18) To a question from the Sol. General — Witness does not think a Quarterly Meeting the place to station Preachers, and tliat a Supercn- nuated Preacher has not nor never had authority in the Methodist Church to station Preachers. Mr. Kirkpatrick, — Suppose every official member had left the Church, do you not suppose that a Superannuated Preacher would in that cas^ have been authorised to act? Mr. R. — He might be authorised to act as an individual, or as Joseph Gatchell ; but his actions would not be the doings of the Church, — ^the Methodist Church could not remain in one man. . .' * s '-^y^^.^-' (18) The correctness of the views and statements respecting the Local Preachers' regulations, thus given by Mr. Oreen, as well as Mr. J. Ryerson, is illustrated by an editorial article in the Chriatian Guardian, which was pub- lished while these regulations were under the consideration of the Quarterly Meetings : " The regulations respecting Local Preachers' tneetings, in con- nexion with Travelling Preachers' district meetings, so tar from having been adopted finally by the Conference, have been recommended by the Conference to be laid before the official members of every circuit throughout the whole con- nexion ; and they were never rtcomnunded or mentioned in England— 'formed no part of the Articles of Union— und may be approved or not by the Quarterly Conference without in the slightest degree affecting the Union. And that these regulationa are calculated to he beneficial to the Local as well as Travelling Preachers, is obvious from the fact of their having been approved of by nearly every Local Preacher, and adopted by the Quarterly Conferences on all the cirettita from which we have heard, except one. We witnessed this ii^ regard to YorJI;, where we believe there is as much intelligence and knowledge of rights, as in any other part of the Provioce." — Ouardian, Dee. 35, 1833. ,.-vvv<^ -i R fi t> O R T« Here the Defence closed, and the PlaintifiB then called Jfcdhan Parks. Witness is a member of the^Methodist Episcopft! Church, and had been so more than eleven years ; and during all that time had been a member of no other Church. After the Conference of 1833, refused to hold any connexion with the Wesleyan Church. Was then an exnorter ; his class resided in the Fourth Concession of Sidney. They had manifested a spirit of inquiry as to what the Conference were about, and what object they had in view ; in answer, they were told, " O, it is all for the glory of God." Witness replied, it was just such an an- swer as he might have expected — ^like the answer which Saul made unto Samuel, when asked " What meaneth the lowing of oxen and Uie bleating of sheep in mine cars?" Cross-examined. — The officers of the Wesleyan Church" came' to witness and wished to change the heading of his class-paper. Under- stood that they were acting under the authority of Conference: refused to alter the paper, and told them that he would not join their Church. Counsel. — You as an individual refused to recognize what had been done by the Conference ? I told them I did not consider myself a member of their Church. — Did you not make use of these words, " I will withdraw from your Church?" No, I said I would withdraw — that is, from the building. This was in 1834, — Was there any other Meth- odist Church, besides the Wesleyan, between the time of the Toronto Conference and the fall of 1834 ? I considered that there was. — Then you must have considered that your class of lay members made a Church : Do you mean to say that you were acting under the authority of a Church and that you were licensed as anexhorter? Yes. — Are nttthe licenses required to be renewed annually? Yes. — Who was it thai renewed yours ? Mine was renewed in September, 1834. Never had a license previous to 1832 ; never received one from John Ryerson. (19) Thoiideus Lewis. — Had been a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada for twenty-five years. Knew soiUething about the proceeJings of the Conference, but they did not meet his views. Con- sidered the proceedings illegal. Did not believe that any body of jieople had the jwwer to abolish the Church, or to transi'er its members to another. The Episcopal Church is still in existence, and they have held a Con- ference every year sinc-e the time of the separation. The Church is regularly organised, and their ministers are licensed by the Quarter- Sessions to solemnise matrimony. (I'J) Whether Parh has ever been a member of the Wesleyan-Methodiit Church or not ia of no impo'tanee; it he« already been proved beyond all po^ible doubt that all the Plaintiff* in the action were members of the Charch •Ten six months after the publication of the present Discipline. There were, howerer, witneMes iHid official records in Court to prove that Parks himself was, to all intents snd purpoNos, a member of the Wesloyon-Methodist Churoh for many months after the Union — that he was aotually licensed as an Exhorler by tha Rer. John Ryerson, who was Chairman of the District, and presided in the Quarterly Meeting, September, 1834. But as bis evidence was meroly eollattral, such a refutation, we were informed, was inadmiisibie. C( <'( REPORT. 63 ilpiBCopAi g all that erence of h. Was f Sidney, nee were vere told, ch an an- a.ul made n and the 'came' to Under- ',: refused lurch. ; had been myself a i^ords, " I raw — that ;her Meth- le Toronto as. — Then '8 made a 3 authority ITes. — Are ^howas it it. Never aRyerson. • Episcopal ; about the ws. Con- y of people to another, eld a Con- Church e Quarter IS n-Methoditt I boyond all the Charch There were, urks hiiDMlf jdist Churoh an Exhorter ; presided in wos merely Croaa-examined. — Witness was a Local Preacher in 1833. Counsel. — One of those who complain bo much of regulation respect- ing Local Preachers. As you say the Conference acted illegally and separated themselves from you, when and in what manner did they cease to be a part of the Church ? I considered that they ceased to be a part when they agreed to the proposal of the English Conference and I'eceived Mr. Marsden as their President and adopted the new name. Do you consider the adoption of the new name a matter of substance sufficient to alter the Church ? I should not consider the name itself a matter of much consequence. Counsel. — I would like to know whether it is a part of the faith or doctrine of Methodism that you should have an Episcopal form of Gov- ernment 1 I never thought that it was ; I considered it a form only. — Are the doctrines professed by Methodists in England different from those of Canada or the United States ? I never considered that there was any difference in the doctrines held by the three Churches. Counsel. — Then I would like to know how a Church can be changed, and yet remain the same t I consider that they made such a change that they were no longer the same. — Do you think they ceased to be members of the Methodist Church 1 I do not say that they are not Methodists, but I say they are not Episcopal Methodists, because they ceased to adhere to the Discipline of 1829. — Had you any Bishop before Mr. Reynolds 1 No. — Were you a Church, then, before he was or- dained ? Yes ; our ministers received ordination from the American Bishop. (20) The Conference at Yonge Street, 1834, was composed of Local Preachere, with the exception of the Rev. Joseph Gatchell. Rev, John Bailey presided. — Could a Local Preacher, according to the Dis- cipline, preside at a Conference ? It was done through necessity. John Bailey, sworn. — Witness was a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1834. Counsel Did anything transpire with relation to the proceedings of the Toronto Conference by which the feelings and views of the Epis- copals were testified 1 . After the act declaring the Union they were unanimously voted down. At a Quarterly Conference held in the town of London, at which Mr. Metcalf intended to preside, the question was asked him whether he appeared as Presiding Elder of the Methodist Episcopal Church or of the British Wesleyan? he answered, of the British Wesleyan. Ho was then requested to leave the Chair, and the Meeting proceeded to transact business as a Methodist Episcopal Conference. Witness was a delegate to the Cincinnati Conference, and (UO) The ImI ordination perFormed by an American Biihop waa at th« Conferenoe held in Kingiton, 18S0. No Anierioan Bishop hac ordained anf Preacher for the Epinenpil party sine* their eeoemion fVom the Wesleyan- Mathodiet Cliurch, or in any way oountonnnoeii their proeeedingp. Lewin himself haa actuilly been licensed as n Local Preacher of tm Wesleyaii.Matha. dtmi ChuroJi bv tiie Bev. John Byerson since the Union. 64 REPORT. fcf. was received as all delegates are usually received. (21) They were not seeking the loaves and fishes. Cross-examined. — It was witness's desire to be admitted a member of the Travelling Connexion at Toronto in 1833. They had agreed to the Union before he received his appointment to a station ; but he did not on that account consider himself a member of the Wesleyan Church. Counsel. — I wish to know how it was that the Quarterly Conference had the power to interfere with the acts of the General Conference ? (21) I havo been inrormed that Mr, Bailey was aaked the day after the trial, how he could state that the EpiscopaU vere recognized by the American General Conference 7 He replied that he jiad nut said so ; hn was not asked that question; he was only asked whether he was received na a delegate; he knew ihey were not acknowledged aa a Methodist Church, and lie should have said so if iio had been nskod the question. The fact is, Mr. Bailey and the other dolegalo from the Episcopal party were pern)itted to addroos the American General Conference in support of the petition of which thoy were bearers. Thus far they were recel ed as "delegatea usually are;" but they were not admitted as members of the Conference, aa were the Rev. Messrs. Caae and Lord from the Conference of the Wesleyan-Methodist Church ; and their application to be recognized as a body was rejected, as stated by Mr. Caae in his evidence, page 58. Mr. Case's evidence is further corroborated by the fact, that a resolution was proposed by a member to admit Mr. Bailey and his colleague to a seat in the Conference, and was at once rejected; so that Mr. Bailey and his colleague were not even admitted to sit among the members, but sal below the bar among the spectators during the whole of their attendance at the Conference. Mr. Bailey says that they did not seek for " loaves and fishes." Whether Mr. Bailey was entertained upon "loaves and fishes" in Cincinnati, or whether he is a lever of them or not, 1 um not able to say; but I perceive that in the petition which he presented and advocated at the American Con. ferenco, application is made for *^ tuma of money" as well as for other CDuntf. nance and assistance. However, it is nothing new that gropes are sour as soon as they aio known to be out of reach. The following statomont, received while these slieets are passing through the press, is from a principal member nT the Committee of the American General Conference, to whom the petition of the psoudo-Epiacopals wns referred, con- tains uti additional testimony to the light in which that party are viewed by the Mcthodifit Episcopal Church in the United States. Mr. Griffith was the only member of the Commitlee referred to with whom I could meet during a recent tour in the United States, otherwise I could, doubtless, have obtained the con- curring testimony of the other members of that Commitlee. " Baltimore, November 33, 1837. " Rbv. E RvKRSo.v. " Dkar Brother, — I would hereby stale in reply to your request, tliat I was a memb<;r of the Committee of the General Conference of 1836, held in Cincinnatti, Ohio, who examined tbo memorial and other documenla presented by the Gentlemen representing the party, calling themselves the Methodist E. Church ill Canada; and that the Committee, of which the Rev. D. Oitbhdkr, of New York, was Chairman, reported adversely to the prayer of the Memorialists, rrhev tpplicd to be recognised as the Methodist E. Church in Canada) and that the Report of the Committee was adopted by a majority of more than two-thirda of the members of said General Conference. With affectionate esteem. Yours, ALFRED GRIFFITH. " N. B, Indeed I Jo not reooliaot that there were more than two dissentinr voieea. A.G." i; E P R T. 65 'hey were nember of eed to the did not on ■ch. onference nference ? it the trial, American I not asked slogate; he hoiild have d the other American re bearers. r were not , Case and and their Vr. Case in ly the fact, ey and his so that Mr. Bmliere, but tendance at and fishes." Cincinnati, I perceive rican Con. icr cDunte- iUi as sooi) lirough the in General erred, con. wed by the as the only ng a recent ed the con. I, 1837. lest, tiiat I 36, held in presented thodist E. TENDKR, of morialistfl, ) and that two-thirds FITH. ditsentinff ■ G." They had an undoubted right to express their sentiments upon the subject. Counsel — Are not the acts of the Conference binding on all Uie morabers of the Church 1 I have known instances of their being petitioned against in the United States. Counsel. — But does not the very fact of their having been petitioned against show that they were considered binding upon the members of till) church ? i do not know that there have been any instances in this country, except in relation to the Union. Albert Taylor. — Witness was a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and had never assented to the change, and never become a member of the Wesley an Church. Althop^vh they had been assured that no new measures were to be introduced, and the Presiding Elder told them if such were to be tlie case, that is, if new regulations were to he introduced, he would be the first to hold up both his hands against It. Witness was a Local Preacher of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1833. after the Toronto Conference, Cross-Examined by Mr. Murney. Got liis licence from the Rev, John Ryerson. Preached in the Third Concession of Sidney, and was received as a Methodist Episcopal Preacher. Continued to preach to January, 1834<. Never received any authority from the Toronto Con- ference. Was not preaching in opposition to that Conference, nor under its sanction. Was in the habit of attending the ordinances of the Wes- leyan Church. The Wesleyans voted witness a licence in IBS*, but he never acted under it; got a renewal of his license from the Methodist Episcopals. The Presiding Elder told him to remain quietly untd the Discipline should come out ; he did so. Counsel — What was it you found fault vvithi The abolition of Episcopacy was one thing. Counsel — Did you not know that Episoopacy had been abolished before you saw the Discipline ? Of course I -,vas aware of it. There were other thingi? I found fault with. Witness continued to attend that Church and the Leaders' Meeting, and received the Sacrament, but was never a Wesleyan. The Judge asked if the Counsel for the Defendants wished to iddress the Jury again ? The Solicitor General replied, that he did not think it worth while to say any thing in reply to such evidence. Mr. KiRKPATRiCK, Counsel for the Plaintiffs, tlien addressed the Jury. (lentlemcn of the Jury, — At this hour of the night, after so much time has been taken up by the evidence, and particularly after tlie very eloquent address which Tou have heard from the learned Counsel on the defence, i\ would be improfMjr for me to detain you with a lengthy speech. The case is a very simple and plain one indeed. The sole question is whether the Trustees ought to recover in this action. All the facta are now before. tlio Court, and upon those facta is the rsuff to, !x; diecitled, :^r4 nstt wpor* 66 REPORT. I i: the doctrines laid down by the learned Counsel in his long and ingenioiw harangue. If you would believe him, he would have you give a ver- dict contrary to the law of the land : but, I trust, he has laboured alto- gether in vain. However, I will not follow him through the whole of his address, but will merely allude to a few of the most important fea- tures it contained. I was very glad to hear him acknowledge that the main body of the church should be considered as all, for the after part of his speech would lead you to suppose that they were to be overlooked altogether, and only the leaders be regarded in the making of laws and ordinances to bind the congregation. What security or stability would there be in such a case. Whenever a few of the leading Ministers chose to transfer the body of the church to any other denomination, and incorporate them therewith, what was there to prevent them from doing so. There would be no check upon them. It has been urged on the part of the Defendants, that several of the Plaintiffs ceased to be mem- bers of the Episcopal Church. If they did so, it was with a view, as the witnesses stated to you this day, of first ascertaining whether any thing essential would be proposed to be changed before they declared their assent or dissent ; and this is now made use of as an argument against them. It has been shown that some o( them never took any ])art in the proceedings of the Wesleyan Church at all, and as soon as the Discipline was published, they found it impossible to concur. (22) (2?) Those statements arc very extraordinary. The re^rulations reipeclingr loctti preachers, were published iu the Christian Guardian of the Ist of January 1634, and nil the nriterial alterntions in the Discipline were published in the Guardian during tlio months of December 1833, and January 1834; the entire Discipline was advertized for sale in March 1834 ; and nut one of the PlaintiflH seceded from the churtih i nlil the September following — nearly, if not quite, six mnriha after,"ard.-). Ft has also been ^iiown that everyone of the Plaintiffs " took a pnrl in 11; ; proceedings of the Wesleyan Church," eleven nronths after the union. It mubt have also been mortifying indeed to Mi, Kirkpatrick to be (he vehicle of such (rash about "a few leading ministers transferring the body of the Church to any other denomination ;" when the union between the British and Canadian Conferences is based upon the fact, that ihey constitute one Church, and ought thprefuro to combine their e.Tertinns under one management where ever it is prnclicftbie, as is alenrly set forth in the preamble of the articles of Union. But that wiii^h IVfr. Kirkpiirick supposes sj absurd and awful, has actually been dono — as the Solicitor General has shown by imdubitable authorities — by even "a few loading n>inisie.a'' in the United States in 1784, when 60 ministers of 81 nifit, anu separated the " body of the Ciiurch" or Societies f^rom the Church of England, and established an entirely new form of Government. Is not the lamo power ..vbich cat» -organize one church into twi cliurches, competent (o unite two churches into me? But no such power in assumed to exibt in ihn* Conference; the utiion was nothing more than connecting more intimately the branch wilii the Parent stock, from whence it opriing. The most sensible of the PlainlifT's wiinesces— .Mr. T. Lewis— proves all that we could det.ire on this point, namely, that the doctrinea of the Methodists in America and in England " aro the $ame," and that Epiacopney is a "form only," and that the " ««/n«" of llie Church ia " not a matter of much consequence." Aaothar fact ia not loss remarlubls. It is known that political feeling has dona t* iiiuol), in many insdnccs, to promote this episcopal sohiam, as religioua REPORT. 6-7 )niou8 I VCf- lalto- lole of \i fea- lat the grpart looked vs and would misters )n, and :\ doing on the 3 niem- iew, as tier any leclared •gument )ok any n as the r. (22) especiing January led in Iho he entire PlaintiffH quite, six ffs " look after the ic veliicle e Churcli Canadian nd ouglit ever it is ion. But ally been —by even nislcrB of le Churcli Is not the npotent lo ibt in Iho* lately ttio sensible of ire on thiN n England tiamt " feeling hoN IS religious 1 think, Gentlemen, in thiB case, ^ere - 'ill be but little for you to try ; it is altogether a question of law. A great exertion has been made to excite the public mind upon the case, and I will read to you an article published in the Christian GwKrdian : — feeling. The persons who exclaim against the Conference, profess to advocate on all occasions and to the widest extent, the government of major iths~-\n civil affairs, the majority of the people, — in religious affairs, the majority of the church. Well, hnw does their conduct in these matters illustrate their consist, ency and the genuineness of their profession 7 A majority of nine-tenths of the church and the Conference support the union and the annual presidency, which these professedly majority government men resist ! These men, most of whom are zealous advocates of the annual election of members of parliament, Govern- ors, Magistrates, &,q,, are at war to the jury box, and almost to the knife, against the annaal election of a Governor or President for the Church! Again, in regard to the regulations respecting local preachers, the Conference proceed- edjaccording to the broadest principles of popular government; it resolved that they should not become a law of the church, unless iliey were sanctioned by a majority of three fourths of the official lay-members of the Church. Yet these very regulations, thus adopted, are, as a) pears by the preponderating evidence of witnesses on bo h sides — the principal cause and object of relentless opposi- tion by the men who acknowledge .ne legitimacy of no government which is not established upon the majority principle. However, the term rnajoriiy, in the mouths of some persons, by a convenient figure of speech, means themselves, nnd is equally theirs, ami they the church or the nation, whether they are or. sociated with nine tenths of a community, or whether thoy are one of three in Mr. John ReynoldV " prayer-meeting" in Belleville, or one of a dozen in a conventional meeting at Mr. John Doel'ti in Toronto. The excellency of the regulations respecting local prea-ibers is, I believe, ac- knowledged by every unprejudiced member of the Churcli who has carefully ex- amined them. The ub^oluio necessity of some i.igulations of the kind has long been felt and observed by many local preachers and lay.incm) ers, as well as those on whom devolved the management of the work. Tlicy are adapted lo secure unity, efficacy and brotherly understanding in regard to the whole work of edification in the Church. At the same time when these salutary regulations were recommended by the Conference to the consideration and concurrence of the several quarlerly meetings throughout the Province, the Preachers imposed many additional duties and ntiligrations upon themselves, about which nothing haa been snid, but which will be found, on examination, to be uf the most com- prehensive and important character. But men who have been unwillingly deluded or tempted inlo the notion, that they arc called only to rule, and not it all to he ruled ; that ihey are called to be local preachers, and to the exercise of ministerial functions, when they •' not even know the ten commandnionts, much less know to *' prench the worJ , that they ore called to be tri: veiling pre ii^hers, when they Imd as 'vpII not be local preachers ; — men uf this conceit and spirit, ever since the days of Church organ, izttioii by the Apostles, have risen up, from time to lime, against the appointed and necessary authorities, and the wisest measures, for the edification of the church and conversion of the world. And as it ^^-.isior to glide down the stream than lo advance against it, so a perverse or misguided man niny o - much harm, whoso name would have otherwise been undistinguished in the cro i ; but whose works though dune in secroi hore, would have appeared in the day of the revelu. lion of nil things, "to glory, and honour, and eternal lifu." It is, however, ' m»ltcr of congratululiou and thankfulness, that in this era of change and agitation, an few comparatively ha/e missed their way in the present eventful crisis of our church's history, and that the groat body of the people, with their ministers, are keeping the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace, and abounding in their own proper work of faith and labuur of love. ^ ikttvnt. <( More than a year ago, the leadtrd of the party calling themselves the Methodist l':n!.?,;i'»pal Church in Canada, entered an action of eject- ment against U;^ 1 it/Slees of the WeRleyan-M ithodist Chapel in Belle- ville, the trial o. w^sich was expected to have taken place at the same time as the Waterloo Chapel case. Considerable expense was incunv^d by the Defendants in preparing their defence, and when the time acrKt^d, the party put off the trial for a year. It is now, we understand, tbeir intention to bring it on at the Kingston Assizes, which are held il.)^ week, and in order to harrass fh ? Wesleyan Church as much as pos'ibie, they have brought another suit, to be tried at the same time, at Niaj^aru ! When the principle involved could as well be settled by oue case, 'tis course can only be attributed to a litigious and bHr' r spirit oi pnrty, or to a do igii to divide the witnesses on teijo'T of tlu VVesleyan CliurcU, by requiring tliem to defend two suits at the same time." Now, (^oittlemen, I would ask you, which party has shovn the litigiiuis sri.it , It v>'f s thought, ihU the decision in one case woiid ^ettle all, biit diey -i'hvw a fleterniination to contest the claim as /ongrip they possibly can. Is? it very Uprd rase that the Plaintifls should seek for their right. (23) When yois c>. ,;jo lo rv tVct upon the circumstances, Gen- tlemen, you wil' Snd ti.f.. *he Ctsapel in Belleville was built by the money raised i>y ilkose ven r.ersons (24) who are now called the origi»a- torp of the cou "st, ami tfuit merely because they demand their rights.i»- Whoever chode to join lliemselves to thv^ Wesleyan Church, were per- fectly at liberty io do so, but they had no .-ight.to take the propoitv with theui. but 1 d.:»re say you have remarked that the Weslcyans took good care to look well .?fter the loaves and fishes. (25) Gentlemen, I \.tll not detain you any longer ; it will be your duty to b»^ g"i:ded by the charge of the Court, and I am convinced the verdict (23) h is one thing for a man to seel, for lita right, it is snother thing for iiiin to invQU ihf rights of others. (34) I was present a few days ago, when tlio Subscription Bonks of the Bellovilltf Caapel were exumined, in order lo ascertain what proportion of'the (^ohscriplio'is towards the erection of the ChApel, had been paid by Ihe Episco. pa! party, w'hen it appeared that a few pounds more or less than one third of the paid subbcriptions had been paid Uy the party, who have instructed I heir Coun"'' to represont the Chapel as having been built with the money riisod hy them '.- The Chapel was also hui t subject, as the Deod specifies, to the *' Itules and Dis^- cipline " hic.li might from time lo time he adopted by the General or Annual Confere'ico;"— by that very Conference which Mr. Reynolds attended in Hal. lowell, and the proceedings of which, after its meetings in Htllnwell 1832, and Toronto, 1833, he strongly advocated, — especially as they would relieve the people " from the heavy hand of a Bishop" and the proceedings of which he cciiiinued to advocate until he thought himbelf neglected by certain P-cach- ers, as I can slate on good authority. (25) This mean and mercenary imputation against the VVeslayan "' Church presents a sorry cnnlrast to the noble and chriatian sentmi which the Solicitor General's ni.'i: m abounds. But in sach c; Kirkpatrick was rather to be pi' J nn blamed ; for the cauaa h to advocate lives and moves nf detraction. '• :nL*iil , ith ^.. Mr. jployed It ita being in the atmospt'-vn -::' 'ttA kind " vnm ■ H E P n T. m ^selves ' ejeet- Belle- s same awriv«;d, ,os->ible, ise, <''is invty, or [JhurcU, )vvn the r as they geek for es, Gen- [t by the ; origiwi- rights.*"^ vere per- 3ity with ook good duty to verdict igfor liim of Jl\\9 ion of the le Episco- ird of the r Coun"-' them '.' and Dis^- Annual cd in IlaU ell 1832, 'J relieve of which n P-cach- .'. crtfiat , llh ... Mr. iplojred I it kind or must be in favour of the Plaintiffs in Hi ^s case. The other party have declared their intention to take the caje to the Court of C^aneery. — They have taken all tlie wealth of the Church with them, and they ate now endeavouring to harrass the Plaintiffs, and prevent them from obtain- ing justice. But, Gentlemen, the s jurce of justice is too pure to be contaminated by them, and I am satisfied that my clients will eventually have justice done them. . i^ His Lordship, the Judge, before summing up the evidence observed I the jury, that he regretted exceedingly that the Counsel for the parties would not agree to a special verdict, in order that the case might be put in such a shape as would enable the unsuccessful party to appeal to the highest tribunal for a decision, which would finally settle the important q. estion at issue in this cause, and prevent all future litigation between the Methodists upon the same point. (26) As this could not be done, they would be comi)eUed to take tlie matter into their consideration, and deal with it according to the best of their judgment. The action!' is brought by a number of persons, under an Act conferring corporate pow- ers for the purpose of holding lands in trust for the benefit of a reli^ous body. I know nothing respecting the question more than what has ap- peared in this case. I have never read the opinion of the Judges of the King's Bench on the case which was tried last year. I understand the question discussed was whether tlie Methodist body had a right to abol- ish Episcopacy, and upon that depended the determination •f the ques- tion, as to who were seceders. That one of the Judge3 was of opinion, that they still remained the same church. Two of them, however, were of opinion that they had no right to make the change, (27) and that, therefore, the property belonged to the body calling themselves Episcopals. If the opinions of the Court had been unanimous, the probability is, it would have been acquiesced in. The question for you to decide in the present case is, whether it h still the same church it was when the Deed was given — or whether they have made that essential alteration which will prevent the Wesleyans from holding the lands in question. There has br on a great deal of evidence given. That on the part of the Plaintiffs is to show that they continue still to be Episcopal Metho- (Jif5i8 — that by the act of the Conference of Hallowcll, in 1832, con- firmed by that of Toronto, in 1833, the Wesleyans seceded from that church, on. I forfeited their claim to the land. On the oilier hand, it is contended tliat the change was a rlinnge of name, and not of substance ; only an alteration in the Discipjlnt , and no change in matters of faith or (26) The Coon-^ tor ihe Plaiiiiif*' refirseri to consent to n special verdict, aneordiiig to th^ ^udge'a reoommendau-:!. subject to the decision of the Judges of the Court o; King's Rene!'. (97) His Iiordsht|i is a little miatnknn on this pr.int. Judge Mncaulaj inljr ohjected to the right of the "onference to make the ohangro. Judge Sherwood adiTM :?d the right, but objected to the manner in which tli'7 change had been made. l^m "iv',.. 70' R I P O R T. doctrine ; and that those who say they will not obey the Coaferenoe are the secedem ; becauae under the ConBtitution of thie Methodist Church, Travelling Preachers have the right to legislate fbr the whole commu- nity, and that all the members are bound to obey such rules as ^y make. They ;;ontend, therefore, that the PIain,iifl8, by refusing % obey the rules r2 tbeOonference, have seceded, and ceased to be members of the church into which the original church has meiged, and that, there- foT'j, they have lost all title to the lands. (His Lordship proceeded to read his notes of the evidence on both aides, making such remarks as appeared applicable.) The question for your decision may be briefly tttated thus : — ^i ! If you consider that the Conference at Hallowell (whose proceedings •were confirmed and finally ratified at Toronto, in October, 1833,) had authority to make the change which they did make, that of abolishing the name of Episcopacy, and that their niles and reg*jlations are the laws of the Conference, by which all the Methodists are bound, the Plaintiffs in this action are seceders from the Church, rnd can never recover. If, on the other hand, this Conference exceedea its authority; and liad no right to abolish Episcopacy, or having the right did not legally abolish it, the Defendants are seceders, and the Trustees, Defendants, ceased to be Episcopal Methodists, and the Baintiffs are entitled to recover. (28) (2S) On the fallowing morniog the Jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiffh, when the Counftel for the Defendant;, appealed lo the Court of Kln|*a Bench, upon the grounds of exception placed upon record by the Solicitor General be- fore he eutered npon the defence. The verdict of the Jury waa anticipated, from the oniniona which had been expresskd by aome of them previuua to thn trial, and from other circuuistanceR ; and therefore it waa the object of the Counsel for the Defendants to take the requisite precautions for future proceed- ingA, and to plnce upon the records of the Court such evidence as would enable the Judges fii!ly to understand the merits of the case and decide accordingly. From inaiierR small and trivial in themselves, how often do restlesx nnd litigious men disturb the peace of oammunitiea— impede the progress of religion, and sacrii{f <»;,>«./.. i 't^ ;'.;,•» i:^--^''-j,p ;:rv^ :>'■'■ »;'jiS;v,\.l ji•!^tfi:•i^i ■^-f '■,::" -:■; ::i*':..*Ui> ■V": '■'■■ 'Ml' 'J.*!,-j! jW -^ renoe are • Church, commu- as ^ey gib obey ambers of at, there- i on l:K)th - iU.-, "T"'"' 1 ' ' 7^." '•-"" ' j--mv^«:;*. M, ■• .,.' ,'f:, .,; ;; '';{"' *.. IM 'f-X?: 'it ■ f ;K«t,-i,;J; : ERRATUM. ',;, ,;-u':.:V..v ^■' Page 24, 9th line from the bottom, for "distinction" res^d destruction* ^■fr ;«i,rv.-*;v-Ui :^^i.^^ .,.,^: ^^^;. ■.^,_ ■■>- '■• ,'\ ■*.••% D *nadi the the the J I be b< by ]\ on th qfth sionc im und I the i histot the I one i Chur in tli( in ^} Jlsbui (liffere tions ' and n thing Chun I fa publisl held ii 27, 2S for thi papers Genen of our APPEH^DIX. EXPLANATORY REMARKS. During the progress of the foregoing pages through the press, I have wnde a tour of 1500 miles in the United States, in order to collect all the Books and Information I could obtain relative to tlie organization of the American Methodist Church, the cliaracter of its Episcopacy, and the powers of the General Conference. I have succeeded in obtaining by way of loan (for they were not to be boT'ght) copies of the Prayer-Book and Liturgy, drawn up and printed by Mr. Wesley, and recommended by him to the American Societies on their organization as a Church, and entitled " The Sunday Service of the Methodists in the United States of America, with other occa- sional Services ;" the Minutes of the American Conference, held in 178^ " composins; '> Form of Discipline for the Ministers, Preachers, and ' ''er Membr of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America ;" the iv utes of several Conferences, throwing light upon the early history of American Methodist polity ; " History of the Methodists in the UniU ' States, by Jesse Lee, Chaplain to Congress," who was one of the iran)er8 of the Constitution of the American Methodist Church, and wl' states very minutely every alteration that was made in tlie Discipline iid Government of the Church from 1766 to 1809; " The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, with Explanatory Jyotes by Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury^^ 1798, quoted at length by the learned Solicitor General, p. 23 ; •lifferent editions of the American Discipline, showing important altera- tions which have been made by the General Conference ; such volume? and numbers of tlie American Methodist Magazine, as contain arir thing of importance relative to the organization and government of the Church. 1 faileil in my endeavours to obtain an original copy of the Pamphlet, published by the Rev. John Dickei -, at the request of the Conferwice held in Philadelphia in 1792, and quoted by the Solicitor General, page* 27, 23 — though I called upon Mr. Dickens' grand children in Baltimore for that purpose, and they made every search among the books and papers of their venerable grand-father for it. But as the Solicitor General's quotations are taken from the late Bishop Emory's Deduce of our Fathers, pages 65, 66, there «;an be n« doubt of Uieir con-octnessi. u n e i» A r« [Jppen^s* m 1^1 it I succeeded in procuring copies of " Cooper on Asbury^^ and a la'e History of the American Methodist Church, (which has already passed through two or three editions,) by James Young, A.M.; but they were accidentally mislaid by a friend in New- York. I regret this the more, because there is an Appendix to Mr, Cooper's Discourse on the Life and Character of Bishop Asbury, expressing at length the same views of Church Government which are avowed by the late Bishop Emory in his Defence of our Fathers, page 7. But this deficiency is, to a great extent supplied by an original Letter from the venerable Mr. Cooper, (which will be inserted in a subsequent page,) and from the fact that the correctness of the quotations from his Book made by the Solicitor General, p. 19, will not be questioned, as they are also taken from Bishop Emory's Defence of our Fathers, p. 71. The absence of Mr. Young's History is to be regretted, on account of its containing an eiabovate chapter on Ordination, in which he maintains, with other Methodistic writers, that imposition of hands is not essential, and that ordination amongst the Methodists in England and in America, rests upon the same grounds. However, other facts, and the testimonies of the only two Representatives of the American Methodist Church to the British Conference — Drs. Emory and Fisk — will, I think, place this point beyond dispute. Furthermore, I have personally waited upon, and procured in writing the views of, the only four Preachers in America, or in the world, who were itinerant Ministers in the United States in 1784 — the period o(thc organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. With this preliminary explanation, I proceed to lay the result of ni.y inquiries before the public, in order to facilitate the investigations of the Court, and to furnish to Methodist antiquarians some curious information respecting the ecclesiastical polity of Wesleyan-Methodism. 1 beg, however, in the first place, to premise four things: 1. I assume that the evidence contained in the foregoing pages, whilst it proves that the pseudo-Episcopals possess not one single attribute or quality of the original Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, except the assumption of the name, and are denied to be that Church by the Methodist Epis- copal Church in the United Slates, proves also that the Wesleyan Conference, in its mode of proceeding, has observed the letter of its Discijjline — reducing the question at issue to the simple point, whether the Conference had constitutional power to adopt the measures it did adopt. 2. That it is difficult to find direct testimonies of the original fraraers of the Methodist Discipline on points which have never before Ijeen agitated in the Church ; it is only by accidental occurrences, and references in the few Bodes which, as yet, have been written on the subject of Methodist Church polity, and the recollections of patriarchal Ministers, that we can learn the views and intentions of the Fathers of Methodism in reference to its episcopacy and government. 3. The original Books and Letters ([uoted in the subsequent pages will bo placed in the hands of the Defendants' Counsel, at the service of their Lordships. 4. Every thing that I have read or heard, without a single ten^x* ^^ppendix."] REPORT. 75 1 a Ib'e passed sy were e more, the Life le views Imory in a great Cooper, fact tlmt Solicitor en from e of Mr. ining an ith other and that icOf rests nonies of •ch to the )lace this in writing: orld, who iod o( the iult of nu' 3ns of the formation 1 beg, siiine that s that the ty of the >sumption jdist Epi?- Wesleyaii tter of its t, whether iuxes it did he original ever hefort- •encee, and tten on the patriarchal Fathers of t. 3. The ges will be ice of their out a single exception or variation, has tended to illustrate and confirm the views of the government and economy of Methodism set forth in the elaborate opinion of the Hon. C/nef Justice Robinson ; — so much so, that thb conductors of the American Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review informed me that they had selected the opinion of our Chief Justice for insertion in a forthcoming number of that periodical, as the most eloquent and able essay on the ecclesiastical polity of Methodism, and its connexion with Civil Law, that they had ever read. E. RYERSON. December 15, 1837. I. Conference of Ministers the Legislative body in the Methodist Church^ Strictly speaking, there is no Legislation in the Methodist Church. No body in it arrogates the power to make laws of moral or civil force. The Church is a voluntary association, and the utmost extent to which any thing like legislation obtains in it, is the adoption of prudential regulations, not contrary to the word of God, for the guidance of those who voluntarily join the church, and voluntarily remain in it. It is only therefore in an accommodated and very hmited sense, that the term legislative is employed to distinguish any body in the Methodist Church. Holding as the Methodist Church does, that though ecclesiastical as well as civil government is divine, yet the form and organization of it is left to tiuman appointment and control, the power of legislation in this modified sense, has been, from the beginning, invested solely in the Conference of Minister,'. An infringement upon this principle was considered by Mr. Weslcv as striking "a blow at the very root of Methodism." — (Works Vol, XIII., p. 115.) The Sol. General, p. 21, has quoted the authority' of Bishop Emory to show that "this was, undeniably, in accordance with the original principle on which Methodist Societies had been gathered and united by the preachere." It will be sufficient to add the testimonies of the Rev. Thomas Ware — a member of the American General Conference in 1784 — the Editors of the American Methodist Magazine, — and of the Rev. Dr. Bangs. " That our ecclesiastical polity and discipline (says Mr. Ware, in his account of the organization of the Church) would not be formed upon the model of our civil institutions, or of other churches, did not escape us ; but we did believe, and so did our people too, that it was expedient to frame them as we did, in order to keep the itinerant system in operaiion ; and in this we thought with the father of itinerancy. We denied not the right of any people to choose their own pastors, or to have a representative polity if they would. But should our societies deem it expedient so to do, they would take on themselves a high responsibility, for they would destroy the itinerant fystem.'" 7« tCEPORT. [Jipptndis* m " We believe," (say the Editors of the Methodist Magazine, in a note) '' we believe, moreover, that no instance can be adduced, either from the Holy Scriptures, or from all primitive anti«[uity, of any such thing as a representative church polity." — {The Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Reviewy Vol. XIV. 1832, p. 99.) *' It has been objected to us, (says Dr. Bangs) that we are not Scrip- tural, because our Conferences are entirely composed of ecclesiastics, by which the laity are excluded from any share in the government of the church. The laity are not excluded from any share in the adminis- tration of the government, as we shall notice presently more fully, although they are, it is acknowledged, excluded from any immediate share in the legislative acts of the church. But whatever may be pleaded from the usages of other churches, in favor of associating lay members with the body of elders in making rules of discipline for the Government of the chui"ch, it is cer^in, I think, tliat no precedent for this practice can be found in the Holy Scriptures. The inferior branches of the church were executive bodies, whose duty it was to carry into execution the laws enacted by those to whom the right of making them belonged. In this respect, therefore, we think we are justified from Scripture authority." — (Vindication of Methodist Episcopacy p. p, 142, 143.) II. Church Government. In pages 15, 16, and 17, the Sol. General has adduced the au- thorities of Mr. Wesley, distinguished prelates and divines of the Church of England, and the late Bishop Emory, of the M. E. Church, to prove that no particular form of Church Government is held by the Methodists to have been prescribed in the Scriptures, but that " any particular form of government, agreed on by the governors of the church, consonant to the general rules of Scripture, is by divine right." In note 17, on page» 58, 59, I have shown that the same views are deliberately and solemnly recorded by Mr. Wesley and his Preachers in their Minutes of Con- ference. "Our views are, (say the Editors of the American Mfethodist Magazine,) that as no specific form of church government is prescribed in Scripture, as of exclusive divine right or obligation, in settling the government of any church, that form ought to be adopted which, allow- ing for the difference of times and circumstances, is most congenial with apostoiicaJ practice, and best calculated to promote the cause of Christ. On these principles the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized, and continues iU4 organization, with the concurrent sanction of preachers and people." (Vol. XIV. 1832, p. 99.)— Dr. Bangs, in his Vindica- tion of Methodist Episcopacy, (Chap. IV, headed "^^ rw particular form Of Church Government prescribed in Scripture y"**) expresses the same sentiments. The same views have also been maintained by the Editor 'n the official organ of the Methodist Church in Canada, long before the Union. See Chridian Guardian Vol. I. June 26, 1830; nor do I know an exception 9. Dr. Bangs in liis Vindicatioii of Methodist Episcopacy, page 35, &.C., maintains the same views, as does every Methodist writer with whom I have any acquaintance. IV. Ordination. '• Ordination, the act of conferring holy ordera, or of initiating a person into the ministry of the Gosfjel, by prayer, and with or without the laying on of hands." — ( 1Vaison''s Biblical Dictionary, Art. Ordi- nation, Edited by the late Bishop Emory and the Rev. Dr. Bangs.) Dr. Bangs, in his vindication of Methodist Episcopacy, pp. 33 — ^67, and the late Dr. Emory in his Defence of Our Fathers, pp. 18, 19, repM- •ent the entire form and ceremonies of church government, as well as the ceremony of imposition of hands, as a matter of choice, but not of Divine prescription, or essential to ordination. The ceremony of laying on of hands, as well as prayer, is used in the Wesleyan Methodiit Church in Canada in " initiating persons into the minisiry of the Gospel^" but not in the appointment of a President or General Superio- tendent. — ^The Rev. Dr. PhoBbus— a member of the American General ConfiN«ncc in 1784, and preeent at the organization of ^e Churehr-r quotee in illustration and confirmation of his viewa the following eentip i 93 R B p o R T. l^jipmdis, mollis of Archbishop Cranmer, author of the Homilies of the Ghu>^1i of England: — « Cranmer^ Archbishop of Canierbury. — In the New Testament, h» that is appointed to be a bishop or piiest needeth no consecration by the Scripture ; for election or appointing thereto is sufficient." — (" Essay on the Doctrine and Order of the Evangelical Church in America^ as constituted at Baltimore in 1784<, under the patronage of John Weslev, A. M.y Thomas Coke, LL. D.," 8ic. p. 95. " The mere act of ordination by the imposition of hands was some- times oinitted" [in the Apostolic age.] " The superstitious and punc- tilious particularity witli which mete imposition of hands has been ob- served, argues a great want of the s«bstantial integral parts of ordina- tioi among tho^e who so warmly contend for this rite, and lay so much stress upon it." — (American Methodist Magazine, for Jany. 1837, rof. XIX. p. 16. '• It is reniarkable, that in this commission," [to the Apostle?, Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20] "pireaching the word and administering the sacraments jire the most prominent and impoitant duties of the Christian Ministry. The power of ordaining others is not mentioned ; and we infer only that it is included Iwcause the Minister's office is to continue to the end of the world. We must therefore infer that all who liave a right to preach and administer the sacraments, liave a right to take a part in ordaining ; because it is absurd to suppose that the fonner functions, containing Uie burden oi the commission, should belong to a lower grade of clerg}', while the latter, which is included by way of inference, is reserved for a higiier order. Those who possess the most disliiiguished powers con- veyed by tlie commission, must possess the whole." — lb. p. 15. " The ordination of the Methodist Episcopal Church is founded on the principle that the body of elders have the authority of ordaining vested in them, and consequently their ordination may properly enougli be denominated presbyterinl . With our Presbyterian brethren we have IiUle or no controversy on this point, as we and they mutually acknow- ledge the validity of each other's Ministry, and the efficacy of each other's ordinances." — lb. p. I. With regard to ordinatior. iu the English connection, a few remarks may be made, an some doubt ha.^ I.een expressed respecting its validity. Mr. Wesley made provision, in " The Deed of Declaration" for the per- petuation of the doctrines and itinerant system of Methodism in England ; but in regard to the administration of the ordinances, and by consequence the pre-requihite ordination of the Preachers, he left his Pieachors to do a« he had done — to follow the openings of Providence, m indicated by the demands and intej-eats of the work. Acting upon this principle, " Mr. Wesley, (say* the Rev. William Mylea) had hitherto ordained Ministers only tor America and Scotland, but from tliis period, [1787, four yearn befor^ his death] being assisted by other Presbyters of the (Mmrch of England, he net ai)irt a certain number of Preacheri for the Jlpfmdix.] n B p R T. IV as •aered office by the imposition of his hands hxiA prayer, without sending. ikem out of England} strongly advising them at the same time, that according to his example they should continue united with. the Estab- lished Church, so far as the blessed work in which they were engaged vwtld permit.''^— {Myles' « Chronological History of the People celled Methodists^''^ p. 133. See also Wesley's Life by Dr. Coke and Mr. Moore, p. 500.) , ; i,, ....j,»,..'. i , >,>-<■» »J4 iH< . |t is therefore obvious, 1. That there were ordained Ministers in tho English Connexion at the time of Mr. Wesley's death. 2. That tb« Preachers in connexion with him were invested with equal power with himself, after his decease, to consult the interests of the work committed to their charge. 3. That bis own example authorised the ordination of Ministers for England as well as for Scotland, when, in their judgment,, it was absolutely necessar)'. Nor did the Confereuce depart from the principle laid down by Mr. Wesley, or exceed his example. After Mr. Wesley's death, " The uneasiness respecting the ordinances (says Mr. Myles) increased throughout tlie connexion. Mr. Wesley having been used to administer the Lord's Supper to tlie Societies in his annual visits, the loss of this privilege was an additional inducement to those wlto c.oittended for a more liberal plan." (Chronological History, Sfc. p. 167.) Yet the Conference, at its first session after Mr. Wesley'tJ death, refused to allow the administration of the Sacraments to any of tlie Societies in England except to those in London ; and, with a view to prevent promiscuous and irregular ordinations, ordered that " No Ordi- nation shall take place in the Metiiodist connexion without the consent of the Conference previously obtained.'* (lb. p. 163, and Minutes for 1792, Vol. L pp. 259, 260.) In 1793, it was found that a number of the Societies could be no longer retained in connexion with the Confer- ence, unless they were allowed the Ordinances. The Conference there- fore, yielded to the appeals and demands of about 100 Societies. But in order to prevent further uneasiness, and restore ond preserve unity in the connexion, the administration of the ordinances was allowed and provided for generally in 1795. The Conference, however, desirous of infringing as little as possible upon the supposed prerogatives of tlia Established Church, resolved, in accordance with thu above quoted sen- timents of Archbishop Cranmer, to ordain the preachers by election and appointment, with prayer, without the imposition of hands. That this mode of ordination is held to l)e valid by A.nericnn Metho- dists, may l)e considered as sufficientiy established ly the foregoing quo- tations. But to put it beyond possible doubt, I will udd, 1. Th« English PreBchers, held to be ordained in Englancl, ore received a» ordained Preachers by the American Metiiodist Connexion, as stated by the late Bishop Emory, Defence of Our Fathers, p. 78. 2. This view of ordination stated by Mr. Watson, in his Life of Wesley, is quoted with appn>bation in the Jlmerican Methodist Magazine, Vol. XIH. 1831, pp. 400, 406. ^rt. " fVaison's Lift of Wesley:^ 3. The validity of ordination by U»e English Conference is expressty declared by tbt •0 R X P R T. [Ji/ftmlift, Bev. Dr. Fisk— Bepresentative of the Methodist Episcopal Church irt ilmerica to the British Conference in 1836 — as will be seen in a subse- quent page. Nor am { awane of the least shadow of opposing testimo- Dj that can in any degree weaken the force of this body of evidence. -^ I'kcse authorities prove, I think, most clearty that Uie form of ordina^ tion is held by the Methodists to be non-essential, and that one ordina- tion is considered sufficient to authorise a Minister to perCnrm any and every duty and function of the ministerial office. ■A /i.-*>.5 *T.t', V. The title of Bishop — How introduced. The Rev. Jesse Lee, gives the following account of this transaction : — " In the Discipline" [published by Di . Coke and Mr. Asbury, in 1787] " there were thirty-one sections, and sixty-three questions, with answers to them all. The third question in the second section, and the answer, read thus : — ' Q. Is there any other business to be done in Conference ? A. The electing and ordaining of Bishops, Elders and Deacons.' " This was the first time that our Superintendents ever gave them- selves the title of Bishops in the Minutes. They chyngv^d the title themselves without fHe consent of the Conference ; and at the next Conference they asked the Preachers if the word Bishop might stand in the Minutes ; seeing that it was a Scripture name, and the meaning of the word Bishop, was the same with that of Superintendent. Some of the preachers opposed the alteration, and wished to retain the former title ; but a majority of the preachers agreed to let the word Bishop remain." " From that time the name of Bishop has been in common use auiong us, both in conversation and in writing." — (History of the Metfiodisis in the United States, pp. 128, 129.) * ; If the American General Conference could, in 1787, substitute tlu; word Bishop for Mr. Wesley's own wcrd. Superintendent, surely the Canadian General Conference could, in 1833, fubntitule the word President for that of Bishop. VI. Ordination and clerical office of Deacon: As exceptions have l)een taken to the omission of the ordination and office of deacon, as an order in the ministri/, the following quotations from the last January number of the Jlmerican Methodist Magazine and Quarterhj Review, (the official organ of the Methotlist Episcopal Church in America) will show that the Conference has «tted neither unscrip.arally nor unadvisedly, but in {lerfcti ucmrdance with the 22nd Article of Faith, as quoted by the Solicitor General, in page 26, in omitting the ordination of deacon as an office of the ders^y, and retaining Ae name and duties of a Preacher. " The deacons made mention of in the New Testament were not a distinct order of clergy ; nor did they. as deacons, belong to the clergy at all. That the deacons are not nn or- der df clergy at all, in evident from the original institution of their aftcM,. sAppendix^} US t>oat. SI, aa well as the Scripture statements of* tlieir qualifications." [Acts vi. 1 — 6.] " Stewards and Class-leaders in the Methodist Episcopal Churchy Peacons in the Baptist, Elders in the Presbyterian Church, and Church Wardens in the Protestant Episcopal Church, perform substantially tlw duties, and occupy the station which deacons filled in the Apostolical chnrcU. The office of deacons in the Roman Catholic, the Church of England, and the Protestant Episcopal Churches, has very little in com- mon with the college of deacons appointed by the Apostles. The samzy to soTne degree, may be said of the deacons in the Methodist Episcopal Church, Nevertheless no special injui^y can arise merely from modern deacons being confined to the ministry of the word, when the ministry of tables is not neglected. When the original offi.ce is filled, though under a different name, all is well enough. The only difficulty is, the claiming for modem deacons to be a distinct order of clergy^ and by this means creating technical or artificial distinctions in the ministry, and thus form- ing a theory which ^ to say the least, contributes very little toward the promotion of true religion." — {Vol. XIX. 1S37, pp. 5 — 8. M VII. Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. Having disposed of several preliminary and miscellaneous questions, I now proceed to consider the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, and afterwards, those questions involved in the present discussion which arise out of that organization. In order to understand the subject of the organization of the American Methodist Church, let it be simply and carefully — but of necessity briefly — considered. 1 . After the independence of the American States was acknowledged, the American Societies were deditute of the ordi- nances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 2. They wrote to Mr. Wesley on the subject of the ordinances ; — not upon the subject of a chtirch organization — a subject probably on x/hich, at that time, they had never entertained a thought. That no application had been made, or expectation entertained relative to the onganization of a church, is obvious from the accounts given of it, and the manner of its announce- ment to the Societies. (See Lee's History, pp. 95, 107, and Emory's Defence of Our Fathers, pp. 71, 72.) 3. In reply to the applications from America, Mr. Wesley did three things. (1) He appointed a Gen- eral Superintendent over the American Societies. This was nothing new ; for there had been " one from the beginning who superintendetl the whole work," says the Bev, W^ilbam Watters, (the first Ameriian employed in the intinerant work) as quoted by the Soi icitor Gi^neral, p. 13. (2) Mr. Wesley, in the second place, authorised the present Superintendent to ordain other Ministers in order to provide the Societies io America with the administraUon of tlie ordinances. This was new $ but it waa what the American Societies had applied for. (3) In ih« third place, Mr. Wesley conceived tlie plan of forming the American Societies into a church. This, however, he did not appoint, nor did h» require them to take such a 9tep, All that he reqiyred ^VM^ that th*f REPORT. [Jlppendix. ■hould preaeh the doetrkicis, keep up the itinerant system, and observe the general rulss of Methodism, leaving them in other respects, as he states to them on the occasion, "at firil liberty simply to follow, the Scriptures and the Primitive Church." (The whole letter i« quoted by the Solicitor General, pp. 20, 21.) There is not one word in that letter aliout any plan of church government, or even the formation of a church. Mr. Wesley printed »n abridgment of the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England, with forms of ordination, which now lies before me, and in the preface of which, dated Bristol, September 9, 1784', he says, — "I recommend to our Societies in America." In this Pfjiyer-Book no plan of church government is laid down, but simply a form oi Public Service, Articles of faith, and forms of ordination, in order to provide for the administrauon of the ordinances ; all of which, how ever, he did no more thin " recommend'^ to the Societies in America. Tliat the American Connexion viewed the Prayer-Book, with all its foims, as not imposed upon, but as ^\vc\\>\y recommended to them,' and therefore at their option to use, to alter, or to lay it aside, is obvious from be fac* that tiie Conference altered the Baptismal service, and in 1789, aid aside the Liturgy altogether, (Lee's History, p. 107.) thereby fui • nish"" practical proof that it could have laid aside the printed formd of prayei in the ordination services, and agreed to use extt mporaneous prayer on such occasions as well as in the regular Sabbath Services, had it thought it advisable to do so. Such then were the circumstances under which the American General Conference of 17S4, commonly called the " Christmas Conference^'' — assembled.* In the minutes of this Conference, forming the constitution and discipline of the Church, there are eighiy-one questions with an- swers. The first relates to the manner in which the preachers ought to improve their time during the sittings of Confi^rence. The second and lliird (juestions and answers relate to the organization of the Church, and are as follows : " Q. *2. Wiiat can be done in order to the future Union of the Metho- tlisti? 1 " A. During the life of t!ie Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge our- t^elves his Sons in the (J;)8pel, ready in Malterrf belonging to Churcii- Govemment, to obey his Commands. Aiul wc do engage after his Death, to do every Thing that we judge consistent with the Cause of Religion in ^.flmericn and the political Interests of the^e States, to preserve and [troinote our Union with tlie Methodists in Europe. "Q. 3. As tho Ecdesiasticrd as well as Civil Affairs of tliose United States have passed through a very c( nsidornble Change by i!ie Revolu- tion, what Plan of Chujch-Government shall we hereafter pursue ? "A. We will form ourselvr- into an Episcopal Church under the Direction oi Superintendents, Elders, DcRCons and Helpers, according to the Forms of Ordination annexed to our Liturgy, and the Form of Discipline set forth in these minutes." * TiiA mannnr \-\ whiuti it wni aaNinbloc) if Rlatod by Dr. Bang*, an quoted bv llie Sui Otneinl on pa^e 31. *Sfipendw.'l ft K p It 1*. A\\ch. On these proceedings let two things of vital iniportfthce in the present discussion, be remarked. 1. That there was no aeptcration' from Mr. Wesley, but a preliminary resolution and engagement to *^ preserve ani pronwfe their Union with the Methodists in Europe," both before atid after Mr. Wesley's death. 2. That the question « what plan of Church Government shall we hereafter pursue ;" shows that, according to Mr. Wesley's Letter to them, they felt themselves « at full liberty " to pursue any plan they pleased which was net inconsistent with " the Scriptures and the Primitive Church.'- Mr. Wesley's known partiality to the Episcopal forai of Government, with the forms of Ordination recom- mended by him, would doubtless have its influence with the American Preachers, yet it is equally clear that they were left to the exercise of their own judgment in the matter. In respect to the adoption of the name of the Church, the following statement by the Rev, Thomas Ware — an active party in the proceeding — ^proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Conference exercised the same discretionary power in selecting the name of the Church, as it did in adopting the plan of its government : ■ V ' ;; « : f " After Mr. Wesley's letter, appointing Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury joint superintendents over the Methodists in America, had been read, analyzed and cordially approved by the conference, a question arose what name we should take. I thought to myself, I was content that we should call ourselves vhe Methodist Church, and so whispered to a bro- ther that sat near me. But one proposed, I think it was John Dickins, that we should call ourselves the Methodist Episcopal Church. Mr. Dickins was, in the estimation of his brethren, a man of sterling sense and sterling piety ; and there wore few men on the conference floor heard with greater deference than he. The most of the preachers had been brought up in what was called the Church of England ; and all being agreed that the plan of general superintendency was a species of Episcopacy, the motion was carried, without, I think, a dissenting voice. There was not, to the best of my recollection, the least agitation on this question. Had the conference indulged the least suspicion that the name they were about to take, would in the least degree cross the views or feelings of Mr. Wesley, it would have been abandoned ; for the name of Wesley was inexpressibly dear to the Christmas Conference, and to none more so than to Asbury and Coke." — (American Methodist .Ma. I^azine, \S32, Vol. XIV. p. 98.) , ^, . VIII. The Standards of Methodist Doctrines the same in Europe and Jlmc'ica, = .- '■''"-f -if ■■'•■' i'' "',^ In the first restriction upon the powers of the General Conference, mention is made in the American and Canadian disciplines of " estab- lished standards of doctrine ;" but wo must have recourse to the early registers of the church to ascertain officially and specifically what those " established standa ds of doctrine" are. By tjonsulting the Minutes of the American Conferences for 1773, 1781, and 1783, we find Mr. i' u R X P ft ¥. {JppHikf. "We^^B four volumes of Sermons, his Jit<^es on the Jfew testament^ andtfiie large Minutea of the En^iah Conference, are recognised and iavowed as the ** established standards of doctrine and dsciplhie.'' (Lee'« /Tufory, />p. 46, 75, 85.) The same standards of doctrine aM recognised in the Articles of Union between the British and Canadian Conferences ; therefore tfie standanls oif doctrine among the Methodists are ^e same verbatim et literatim throughout the world. "In doctrine, and moral discipline, and ultimate object,'* (say the Editors of the American Methodist Magazine) " Wealeyan Methodism is one, through- out the worid."— " PreviouGly to Mr. Wesley's death," (says the same Periodical) " he performed two great official acfT which constitute the ground work of the present maturity and stability of European Wee- leyan Methodis'^ The first of these was a digest of the most impor- tant rules in the ecenomy of primitive Methodism." " This digest com- mences with the year 1744, when the first Conference was held, and is continued down to 1789, when the last revision of it took place, about two years before Mr. Wesley's death. It is this work which, in the British connection, is denominated ' The Large Minutes' and consti- tutes the official settled summary of their fundamental plan of discipline." Those who shal' examine it, and compare it with our present discipline, and especially with the Minutes published soon after the General Conference of 1784, will find that this same primitive Wesleyan standanl, which constitutes the basis of European Methodist discipline, hag, from the foundation of our church, allowing for^the peculiarities of its organization and for local, circumstances, been that of the American Methodists als( And as it continues to be the acknowledged and established test of genuine Wesleyan discipline in the venerable stock from which we derived our origin, so may the primitive code drawn from it, and incorporated into our own system, continue to be the land-mark by which we may be guided in any measures which may remain to be adopted, or to be consummated, for the unity and the perpetuity of Methodiem in America."— (Vol. XIV. 1832, pp. 228, 229.) IX. Powers of the General Conference, Tlie General Conference adopted the articles of faith and the whole government and discipline of the Church, and, therefore, as the only legislative body in the Church, had the power to alter or do away with any and every part of the' Discipline, except in as far as it restricted it» own powers of legislation. Such were the views of the framers of the Discipline, and such are the views of the American Methodists at th« present day. In an unpublished letter from Dr. Coke to the Rev. Thomas Morrell, dated May 13th, 1791, (the original of which liei before me,) the Doctor assigns the following as the seventh reason for the establishment of quadrennial General (Jonferences : — " They will be an encouragement to the judicious, to mature every part of ovr economy, and to propose such improvements as the imperfecfione of all human institutions, and the increase of oui- great work may require." jippendix.] K E p R T. The Biflhopf), in their Addr»>38 to the American Societies in 1792, observe — " We think ourselves obliged frequently to view, and review, the whole order of our Church, dways aiming at perfection." (Lee\<} History, p. 181.) «It was eight years ^ .^s Mr. Lee) from the Christmas Conference, where we became a regular Church, to this General Conference. [1792.] T which time our form of Discipline had been changed* and altered iu o many particulars, that we thought at this Conference to take under consideration the greater part of the form of Discipline, and either abolish, establish, or change the rules, so that we might all approve of, or be reconciled to, whatever might be found in the Discipline." — History, pp. 192, 193. Here there is not the slightest intimation, but there appears to be the fullest consciousness, that the General Conference had power to " alter or abolish" any part of the " form of discipline" it pleased. But on this point we have more ample and conclusive evidence, in addition to that adduced by the Sol. General in pages 23, 25, 26, 27. The Editors of the American Methodist Magazine, in reply to objections which had l)een urged, that the General Conference had " buckled the restrictive belt too tightly" in requiring the recommendation of all the Annual Conferences in order to make certain alterations desired, emphatically ask, — « Ought a delegated General Conference, at least without the consent of all the Annual Conferences, to have been left in possession •if power not only to destroy the plan of the itinerant general superin- tendency, so as to do away with Episcopacy, and dissolve our very Episcopal organization^ but also to revoke or change the geiie'.-al rules of our Societies, to do away the privileges of our ministers, preachers, and membtTs, in regard to trials and appeals; and to alter, or even revoke, our articles of religion, and lo establish new standards of doc- trine, not only different from, but even contrary to our present standards?" ( Vol. XIII, 1831, p. 231.) In a subsequent volume of the Magazine, the Editors, in answer to the same complaint, oo •■ rve in nearly the same words, — " Ought a delegated General Confc-i-nce to have been left in possession of power, without the consent, t'^ »ay the least, of all the Annual Conferences, to dissolve our very organization, to revoke or change the general rules of our societies, to do awaj- the privileges of * An objection has heon made to the proceedings of the Canadian Conference iieid in 1832, and 1833, because the records or minuter, which contained the alterations in the Discipline agreed to by the Preachers, were net published ; llie following published facts, relative to the proceedings ot the American General Conference of 1792, and 1804, contain a sufficient answer to an objection of that kind: " At that General Conference (1792) we revised (says Mr. Lee) the form of discipline, and made several alterations. The proceedings of that Con. ference were not published in separate Minutes, but the alterations wore entered at their proper places, and published in the next edition of d *» form oiT discipliro. which was the eighth edition." (Hiiiory, p. 180.) *' We had no Minutes of our tieneral Conference published in a pamphlet this year (1804), although rt had been done at the preceding General Conferences ; [1796, and 1.800] " but the alterations and additions which were made to onr rules, were put into th« chap- ters, sections, and paragraphs, where they belonfeod in the Foiiu of Discipline." —Lee's Hietory, p. 298. H «!•' RBVORT. [J^^tMdia;, our ministers and membeirs in regard to trials and appeals, and to alter or eren revoke our tiiltcles of reli^on, and to establish nev/ standards of doctrine different from and cr'^^r^'y to our existing standards I Most assuredly, we think, not." " L. Jeed, for ourselves we candidly confess, if any change in regard to these must be made, we would prefer, v r tcr than to loosen thani, to see them made immoveable like the great principles established in Mr. Wesley's Deed of Declaration, the bene- ficial operation of which has been practically proved for now nearlv half a century." (Vol. XIV. 1832, p. 233.) Let it also be remarked, that the Editors who expressed these views* of the amazing powers of the Greneral Conference, in connexion with the consent of all the Annual Conferences, in successive volumes of the official or^an of the American Methodist Church, were Messrs. Emory and Waugh, the former of whom was educated for the Bar, and both of whom have since been elected Bishops by the General Conference. And that the General Conference entertained the same views of its powers with Bishops Emorj^ and Waugh, is unquestionable from the circumstance of its haying at the very next session after the articles from which the above extracts have been made appeared in its official Periodical, imposed an additional restriction upon it^ , legislative powers, by which the articles of fa'iih and standards of doctrine cannot now be revoked or changed by the General or Annual Conferences, or by both together. (See American Magazine, Vol. XIII. p. 235; also compare the "JPromW added to the ^^Restrictions'- upon the powers of the General Conference as printed in the edition of the American Discipline oi 1825, pp. 21, 22, and that of 1836, p. 22— both of which now li. \:ck>!ri me.) It may seem su[** iluo'i.-f for me to add another word upon this ques- tion of General Conleirnco power, but as it has been so egregiously and painfully mistaken, I desire, as far as possible, to set it finally at rest. However, before I adduce the testimonies with which the present section will be concluded, I beg to make a few remarks upon the control which the early General Conferences did actually exercii-c over the Episcopal office, and the life continuance of the same individual in that office. In regard to the latter, I have quoted the sentiments of Mr. Wesley, (p. 59) recorded in the minutes of his own Conference, that " as God variously dispenses his gifts of nature, providence, and grace, botli the ofjices themselves, and the officers in each, ought to be varied from time to time.'''' That the early General Conferences did not regard the appointment to the Episcopal office, as necessarily for life, or inva- riable, is, I think, evident from the following facts: 1. In 1787, "Mr. Wesley directed (says Mr. Lee) that Richard Whatcoat should be or- dained a joint Superintendent with Mr. Asbury. When this business was brought before the Conference, most of the Preachere objected, and would not consent to it. The reasons against it were, 1. That he was not qualified to take charge of the connexion. 2. That they were apprehensive that if Mr. Whatcoat was ordained, Mr. Wesley would likely recall Mr. Jlsbury, and he would return to England.''^ (History, Appendix.'] REPORT. I>. 126.) 2. Mr. Lee states that at the Conference of 1800, Mr, Asbu; y proposed to " resign his office as Superintendent of the Metlio- dist connexion, and take tiis seat in the Conference on a level with the Elders,''^ but was induced to withdraw his resignation by the formal and earnest entreaties of the Conference. (Lee's History, p. 265.) 3. In 1808, the General Conference adopted the following resolution: — *' Dr. Coke, at the request of the British Conferenc and ) y the consent of our General Conterence, resides in Europe : he . not to exercise tlie office of Superintendent among us, in t/r- United Sttucs, until he be re- called by the General Conference, or by dl \nnn. 'Conferences respectively^'^ (Lee's History, p. 351.) Li addition to the authorities adduced b 'hr pages 23, 27, in proof of the power of tl the Episcopal office itself, it may be remarkt and duties of the Episcopal office were confern General Conference in 1784, as may be seen by uc printed Minutes, p. 11, and therefore could be altered, revoked, or abolished at its pleasure. Tlie Conference did not even determine how a " Bishop should be con- .stituted in future," until 1792 — eight years after the formation of the I'hurch. (Lee's History, p. 182) By referring to Lee's History, pages, 178, 179, 234, 266, 298, 351, practical proof will be found that the (ienernl Conferences of 1792, 1796, 1800, 1804, and 1808, consulted upon, and modified the powers and duties of the Episcopacy, as it judged expedient, without the shadow of an apprehension, that there was any thing connected with the Episcopal office beyond its control. TOR General, Co rence over 'ipecific powers lefined by the Tcsliinonici of the leading Methodist Ministers in tJie United States and of the only sirviving Framers of the Constitution of the Me t'; IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I ■tt l&i 1 2.2 HI Z US ILSi mil Fhobgraphic Sciences Corporatton 4 // ./> ^ ^ ^ ■im "' '..■■"' ' . Kiil^^u^ < 6" » 33 WW MAIN ITRHt WIUTM.N.V. I4SM (7U)I73-4S03 ^4^ m REPORT. l^ppentlix. in the United States. After examining the Discipline, and mature re- flection, those gentlemen expressed their concurrence in the views of Bishop Hedding at the bottom of his letter, as follows : — ** I hereby certify that I fully concur with Bishop Hedding in the above opinion. a- (Signed) " J. B. Stratton. •• Neu>.Y$rk, Nov. 16, 1837." " We concur in the opinion of Bishop Hedding, expressed above. (Signed) " Thomas Mason, <* George Lane, . , " AgenlH of the General ConfLneiice for the Publication '■ of Books for the M. E. ChuiGh." I also addressed a letter on this subject to the Rev. Dr. Fisk, Pre- sident of the Wesleyan University, and late Representative of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, to the British Con- nexion. The following are copies of my queries and the answers : — ff . « 200 Mulberry-Street, « New-York, Nov. 11 th, 1837. " Rev. and Dear Sir, — A question of law is at issue in Upper Canada which involves tlie Chapel Property held by the Wesleyan Methodist Church in that Province. The principal points in the case ' on which there are any doubts' relate to tlie views of the Methodist Episcopal Church respecting Episcopacy — the imposition of hands in the consecration of bishops — and the powers of the General Conference to modify the Episcopal office. I have been favoured by bishop Hedding, Dr. Luckey and others with an explicit statement of their views on these points, and will feel greatly obliged to you to be favoured with your views, and what you believe to be the views of the Methotlist Episcopal Church, in reply 1o the following queries : " 1st. Is Episcopacy held by you to be a doctrine or matter of faith, or a form or rule of church government as expedient or not according t(» times, places and circumstances ? '• 2. Has the General Conference power, under any circumstances whatever, by and with the advice of all the annual Conferences, to vender the Episcopal office periodically elective, and to dispense with the ceremony of ordination in the appointment thereto? " And as you were present at the British Conference in 1836, as the Representative of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, I would Iwg to propose a third query. " 3. Do you consider the ordinations performed under the direction jf the British Conference to be Scriptural antl Methodistical ? « Eaniestly soliciting your eariiest answers to the foregoing queries, \' " J, ' . *< I am Yours, very respectfully, .«? ,. ., v « Egcrton Rtersok. " The Rev. Wilbur Fisk, D. D., • President of the Wesleyan University. Jippendite.'] R s p a T. 69 « P. S. — I had intsncjed to visit Middletown University ; but as I am anexpectedly required to go to Philadelphia, and cannot get home by Saturday the 25th inst., without proceetUng directly from this to Albany, Sec., I must deny myself that pleasure. Please address me, Kingston, £' Upper Canada. , , E. R." Dr. Fisk's Replt. . ■,. , j " Rev. Egerton Ryerson, "My Dear Sir, — Your favour of late date is before me ; making some inquiries respecting the constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church. " The first was in reference to the Episcopal form of government. " I, as an individual, believe, and this is also the general opinion of our Church, that Episcopacy is not " a dDCtrine 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 enquire as to the power of the General Conference to modify or change our Episcopacy. " On this subject our Discipline is explicit, that '• upon the concurrent recommendation of three-fourths of all the members of the several Annual Conferences who shall be present and vote on such recommendation, then a majority of two-thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall suffice" to " change or alter any part or rule of our government, so as to do away Episcopacy and destroy the plan of our itinerant General Super-» Intendency." Of course with the above described majority the General Conference might make the Episcopal office elective, and, if they cho&e, dispense with ordination for the Bishop or Superintendent. ■' I was a delegate from the Methodist Episcopal Church to the We^- leyan Conference in England, in 1836. At Aat Conference I was present at the ordiaation of those, admitted to orders, and by request participated in the ceremony. I considered the ordination, as then and there performed, valid ; and the Ministers thus consecrated, as duly au-« thorized Ministers of Christ. " With kind regards to yourself, personally, and the best wishes for ilie prosperity of your Ciuirch, I am, as ever, yours, ^ , "In Friendship and Gospel Bonds, «W. FiSK. «' WetUyan Vniversily, Middletown, Ct., Nov. 20, 1887." I likewise waited upon, and proposed queries to the only ministers now living who were in the ministry in 1784 — ^the Revds. Ezekiel Cooper, Thomas Morrellj Thomas Wartf and jYelson Reed — four of the finest specimens of matured piety and undecayed mental vigour in old age that I ever beheld. It was to Mr. Cooper tliat Mr. Wesley addressed the memorable letter, quoted by the Sol. General in page 19. Of Mr. Cooper, the late Bishop Emory says — " No man among us pron babiy, has ever more studiouslv an! thoroughly acquainte'^ himself witl^ R E p o R r . l<4ppeniiix. every tiling relating to Metliodism, and its origin and history, and espe- cially to the origin and history of Methodist Episcopacj/f than Mr. Coo- per. It will probably be admitted too, that few, if any, among us are mpre capable of investigating such subjects ; or have had a more ample opportunity of searching into them critically and closely." {Defence of our Fathers, p. 51.) The very high standing of Mr. MoRRELLmay be inferred from the Defence of our Fathers, pp. 82, 83, 84. In the Ame- rican Methodist Magazine, Vol. XIII. 1831, p. 101, also Vol. XIV. 1832, p. 100, the Editors speak of Mr. Ware as " one of the oldest Ameri- can itinerant Ministers now living" — " who was himself a member of the General Conference of 1784, at the time of the organization of the Church, and personally acquainted with the facts," and quote his opinions as of great weight and importance. Mr. Reed was ordained Elder at the Conference of 1784, seems to have been a principal member of the most imjSortant standing committees appointed by the early Conferences, and was a member of the committee appointed by the General Conference in 1808, to frame the constitution of the delegated General Conference, as he stated to me personally. (See Lee's Histoiy, pages 94, 151, 157.) The following are copies of the notes I addressed separately to Mr. Cooper and Mr. Morrell. The copy addressed to Mr. Morrell was dated " Elizabethtown, N. J., Nov'r 17," and that to Mr. Cooper, "Philadelphia, Nov. 20, 1837.' »» **Rev. and Dear Sir, — As you are one of the two or three Minis- ter who commenced their labours, as itinerant Methodist Preachers, before the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, I beg permission (in consequence of a case which is at issue in the Courts of Law in Upper Canada, aflecting the right of property held by the Wesleyan Methodist Church in that Province.) to propose a few questions relative to the organization of your Church, and the poweitt your General Conference. " 1. lu organizing your Church, had your General Conference power to adopt any other name for your Church than that whicli it adopted ? "2. Had your General Conference power to adopt what form of church government it pleased ? " 3. Had your General Conference power, after the adoption of Epis- copacy, to dispense with ihv ceremony of ordination in the appointment to the Episcopal office ? " 4. Has it always been your understanding that the General Confer- ence had the power to make the Episcopal office periodically elective^ or to abolish it altogether, if it judged it expedient to do so? " I will feel greatly obliged to be favoured 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, ver}' respectfully, • . « Egerton Ryersox." ^ippendug..} ikseoRT. 91 eipe- Coo. &K »» if- - >- Rbv. Ezekikl Cooper's Reply. ' . ^v> ! '"' . , ,. '-. ..V, " Philadelphia^ Nov. 20, 1837,, " Rev. and Dear Sir, — Yours of this day I have looked over, containing sundry questions, to which you request an answer. Time, indi^oaition, and other circumstances, preclude me from bo full an answer as you wish to receive, and as I would be willing, under other circumstances, to give most cheerfully. I briefly answer them, viz. : — " I. When our Church was organized, the General Conference had power, and a right, to adopt any other name than that which they did adopt, for tlie style and title, or name of the Church, had the Confer- ence seen proper so to do. The Conference was under no necessity, but, from mature deliberation, it was voluntarily resolved, to choose the name of the " Metkodiat Episcopal Church.''^ Had they been dis- posed, they could have. taken the name of the Evangelical Churchy which some of the Preachers would have approved of; or they might have called themselves the Wesleyan Church, Tlie Reformed Church, or any other name, had tliey chosen it in preference. ** II. The Conference had power to adopt any form of Church govern- ment it pleased or might have chosen ; but it was the voluntary choice to adopt the Episcopal Form of Crovernment — modified as we have it, subject to amendments or improvements, from time to time, as exigencies might require, and circumstances call for, in the judgment of the Con- ference. The Episcopacy was always amenable to the General Con- ference, which had power to suspend or even expel the bishop, or bishops, for cause sufficient in the judgment of the Conference ; — ^which may be seen by collating the various editions of the Discipline, from the fiiist to the last. " III. After the adoption of Episcopacy, the General Conference had povDcr to change, or dispense witii the ceremony of Episcopal ordination in tlie appointment to the Episcopal office, if it had appeared proper and necessai'y so to do. Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum, and other episcopal dignitaries of the Church of England, have admitted that the power of oi^ination is inherent in die Elders of the Church, or Presbytery ; but, by certain canons, made by the ecclesiastical councils, the power was restrained, for the better order and regulation in government. And our Church holds the same opinion : therefore, if, by expulsion, death, or otherwise, we should be without a Bishop, the General Conference is to elect one, and appoint three or more Elders to ordain him to the Epis- copal office ; so that the power of ordination is in the Elders, under restraint, — but the Confei-ence, by appointment, can take off that restraint when necessary ; then, the Elders have the power of ordination, and are authorized to ordain even a Bishop. Surely, then, by an appointment to the Episcopal office, if an Elder, with the restraint taken off, he can exercise the power of ordination without the ceremony of reordaining him, and, perhaps, as in the case above stated, by Elders only, with the restraint taken off. If the restraint be tfeken off, and. the ceremony is dispensed with in one case, surely it can be in the other, 52 R fi F R T. l<^jiy»endix. and the ordination in the one case would be fully as valid as in the other ; therefore, the ceremony may be dispensed with, and the Confer- ence has power to do it — in the case of Elders ordaining Bishops. "IV. In my opinion, the General Conference had, and has, the potoet- to make the Episcopal office periodically elective, and, if neces- sary for the good of the Church, to abolish it, — provided tlie requirements of the Discipline for making alterations be complied with ; or, if the restrictions be removed, which there \b power to do, and though difficult, yet not impossible to accomplish ; then any and every alteration may be made, which exigencies or circumstances may call for, and wisdom may direct. J^ote, — If Elders can be occasionally elected or appointed to exercise Episcopal functions in ordaining a Bishop, and then cease and never exercise them any more, then why not occasionally or jteriodically elect or appoint to the Episcopal office for a term of time, and then to cease, or even be abolished, and ordinations be performed by the Elders appointed thereto, as in the case of ordaining Bishops. I am now considering the powers of the General Conference, in cases of necessity, under existing circumstances of exigency that might possibly occur, to make the thing necessary for the good of the Church. It is not jiecessary, nor good, nor proper, always to do what is in our power to do ; but it is good to have power to do that which may possibly, or probably, become necessary, proper, and good to do. " I hold that government is of Divine right ; but I do not hold that any particular or special mode, form, or organization, is of Divine right. Government originates with, and emanates from God, and is of Divine authority and sanction ; but the mode, form, organization, &c. is humany as to the construction and management, order and regulation, and may^ by human authority, be varied to suit different countries, times, circum- stances, necessities, &c. ; and also may, by human authority, be changed, improved, and altered for the general good, according to the various occasions and necessities. " As to the Divine right of an uninterrvpted Episcopal Prelacy from the Apostles down to the present time, it cannot be pioved nor supported. In the Apostolic times, the terms Bishop, Elder, Overseer, and Pres- byter, were interchangably applied to the same men and office. (See Acts XX, 17 and 28.) The same men called Elders in one, are called Overseers in the other verse. St. Jerome informs us that in the Apostolic Church at Alexandria, the Elders or Presbyters, from the Apostles^ time, used to choose and ordain, or set apart, their own Bishop or Patriarch. In the Annals of the Church at Alejfandria, written by one of their Patriarchs, the same is stated and confirmed. We have numerouf* authorities : — See Lord King on the subject — " Presbyters and Bishops the same." The immortal Hooker admits the validity of the ordination of the Reformed Church, on the Continent, by Presbyters, under the necessity of the case. Archbishop Cranmer went further, in his answer to King Edward's questions, and said, thai the necessity of the case would make ordination, instituted by a King and laity, in a supposed case, both valid and a duty, and that such things had been done. (See in the 'onfer- I) the neces- inentB if the fficult, aay be ^8dom tointed cease ly or time, led by I am ses of Msibly is not wer to >ly, or *^ppendix.] RE POUT. 98 Stillingfleet's Irenicum.) Archbishop Usher advised King Charles I., in the dispute with Parliament, to admit the Church of England to become a Presbyterial Episcopacy ; the King consented, but was too late. " I have extended farther than I intended — must now close. I could write a volume, had I time and strength. " Yours respectfully, &c. "Ez'k. Cooper. " N, B. I commenced my itinerancy in the Methodist E. Churcli A. D. 1784, though not printed in the Minutes till 1785. I was twenty-one yeara old when I began to travel ; and now am seventy-four years of age, and in the fifty-fourth of my ministry. E.G." Replies of the Rev. Thomas Morrell, Rev. Thomas Ware, anJ Rev. Nelson Reed. ♦• Stale of New Jersey, Elhabethtown, Nov. 18th, 1837. " Rev. Egerton Ryerson, " Sir, — ^Your favour of yesterday was received, wherein you request me to answer some questions relative to the organization of the Metho- dist Episcopal Church, and the powers of the General Conference, — I give the answers with pleasure, — " First, you enquire, " Had your General Conference the power to adopt any other name for your Church than that which it adopted 1" r answer, certainly it had ; we called it by its present name, as Mr. Wesley recommended it, and as we conceived it an appropriate term, according with ha ring a Superintendent, who was raised to that office by a vote of the General Conference, and could have designated it by any other name if we could have found one more appropriate. " Second Question, — " Had your General Conference power to adopt wiiat form of church government it pleased 1" Most assuredly it had ; for though Mr. Wesley recommended us to use a form of prayer, in our Public Ser\'ices, and gave us a ceremony for our Baptismal Services, yet the General Conference laid aside the Prayer-Book, and it is not used in one of our churches in the United States, and altered also the form for Baptism, in a way we thought more suitable for such Service. " Third Question, — " Had your General Conference the power, after the adoption of Episcopacy, to dispense with the ceremony of ordination in the appointment to the Episcopal office?" I am confident they had ; and had they thought it necessary would have done it. , . h " Fourth Question, — " Has it always been your understanding that the General Conference had the power to make the Episcopal office periodi- cally elective, or to abolish it altogether, if they judged it expedient to do 80 1" Before the year 1808, the General Conference had the power to make any alterations in the Discipline or government of our church they thought expedient; but since the year 1808, Uiey arc restricted from 94 REPORT. [^Appendix. making any alterations in our present system without tlie recommenda- tion of three-fourths of the Annual Conference. " Yours, &c., very respectfully, ' -; ^ • . ;. r : • - - 'r "Thomas MoR [SELL, " Wtition Willi my own Imiui, and within four days of being Ninety ytaia of Aye." " I fully agree with the above statement by the Rev. T. Morrell in all tilings save that of his supposing the name of the church being recommend- ed by Mr. Wesley. The name, Methodist Episcopal Church, was recom- mended, to the best of my recollection, by John Dickens, as I have stated in the Methodist Quarterly Review, published by our Book-Agent, for Jan. 1832, page 98.* I also agree fully with Bishop Hedding, in his letter dated Lansingburgh, N. Y., Oct. 12, 1837, and addressed to Rev. E. Ryert^on. Thomas Ware. "I am in the Seventy ninth year of my Age, and Fifty-sixth of my Ministry. ''Salem, N. Jersey, 20ili Nov., \m7. " P. S. — Mr. Morrell not being at the Confei'ence at which the church was organised, accounts for his mistake about Mr. Wesley's recommend- ing the name of .the church." :■■■- I " T commenced travelling as a Methodist Itinerant Preacher in the year 1777, and have had knowledge of the general usage and mode of proceeding in said community to this day, and fully concur in the ideas of Measi's. Morrell and Ware in their above statements, with the excep- tion brother Wai-c makes to an item in brother Morrell's statement, and concur with Bishop Hedding's letter to Brother Ryerson, dated Lansing- buT]gh, Oct. 12, 1837. Nelson Reed. " Aged Eighty- four Years. " Baltimore, Nov. 22, 1837." To conclude — we have then the letter of the discipline of the Church — ll\e facts of its early history — the repeated declarations of its official periodicals — the unanimous testimony of its surviving founders and most competent ministers — that the entire organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, and consequently in Canada, is at tlie disposal of the Annual and General Conferences. X. On Preachera being Members of, and filing official siinal ions in, Ihe British ami American Connexions at the same lime. A doubt has been expressed as to the competency, accoriling to the Discipline, of a member of the British Conference to preside over the Canadian, or American Methodist Church. Should not the foregoing? cojisiderations be sufficient to remove such a doubt, probably facts will. From 1784 to 1808, Dr. Coke was acknowledged, and his name ap- peared in the discipline and the minutes as a Bishop or General Superin- * Tills statement rofarred to by Mr. Ware i« qMOtqd in pug* 75. jjppendix.'] REPORT. »5 and tendenit of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, and besides attending in his official capacity the annual Conferences, we find him pre- siding in the American General Conference in 1784), '5, '6, '7, '8, '9, 1792, 1796, 1800, and 1804 ; yet was he Secretary of the British Conference in 1791, '92, '93, '94, '95, '96, '99. 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1806, and 1807; and, in 1797 and 1805, he was Pre^dent of the British Conference ; and, in 1794, '95, '96, '99, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, and 1806, he was President of the Irish Conference. In 1801 and 1802 Dr. C(*e'8 name also appears in the Minutes of the British Conference as " Supeintendent of Foreign Missions ;^^ and, in 1805, his name appears on the British Minutes not only as President of the Conference, but as follows : — " The Rev. Dr. Coke is General )Superintendent of the Irish, Welch, West-India, Nova-Scotia, and Newfoundland Missions.''^ Yet during the whole of this period Dr. Coke was an acknowleilged, and, part of the time, active Superintend- ent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. It has been heretofore shown that the organization of the American Methodist Church was no separation from the British Connexion. These facts show the Mefhodistic constitutionality and propriety of the same individual being a member of and filling the highest official situa- tions in both Connexions at the same time. I will now give a few extracts* from the mutual Addresses of the British and American Conferences, which place the double relation, as well as character, of Dr. Coke in a very striking and interesting light, and forcibly and affectingly illustrate the views of both Connexions, for a period of more than thirty years, on the essential oneness, and church-identity of Metho- dism throughout the worid. From the British to the American General Conference, 1796. " With real pleasure we embrace the present opportunity, by means of our highly respected brother, the Rev. Dr. Coke, of greeting you i S;? name of our common Lord, and of convincing you, that we still remen'- l)er you in love, and have your peace and prosperity greatly at heart." " We see an absolute necessity of strictly adhering to our first princi- ples, by firmly maintaining our original doctrines, and that plan of disci- pline which we have so long proved to be the very sinews of our body. Herein, we doubt not, you are like-minded with us. We conpidei you as a branch from the same root from which we sprung, and of which we can never think but with inexpressible gratitude. " You will rejoice to hear of our unanimity and increase. The more so, as on the death of our venerable father, Mr. Wesley, the contrary was feared by our friends, and wished for by our enemies. Glory be to God, * Those oxlraots nrc nil taken from iho printer) Minntfis of i\\e British Con- ference, as it in its iif^nj^o to publitin in its own Minnies all nddresFes from, ns well 08 to, riilior bodies. Tlie American General Ccnforonce has not formally printed its Minutes since 1784, except in 1796 and 1800; and its written records, up to 1828, were burned in the general conflai^ratinn of tho Bouk and Printing Eftablisliment of the Methodist Episcopal Church in February 183G. ■\ 'J 96 R B P R T. [jlppendix. we nevdr were more united U each other, nor were our labours, in gen- eral, more owned by the Head of the Church." ** May we still remember, that, whatever difTerences may mark otJter denominations, ire are eminently one hodyy actuated by one spirit, having one faith, one Lord, one baptism." — British Minutes^ Vol. I. pp. 356, 357. From the British to the American Conference, August, 1797. <' As we are informed by Dr. Coke, that your General Conference is to be held on the 10th of next May, we embrace the present opportunity, while assembled in Conference, to express to you the unabated esteem and affection we bear towards you." " There is one particular, which we wish especially to lay before you. We are perfectly acquainted with the solemn engagements which Dr. Coke entered into with you, at your last Greneral Conference. And yet we are satisfied, that the work of God, and the good of the Church, con- sidered at large, call for his continuance in Europe. The West India Missions have flourished under his superintendence, beyond our most sanguine expectations. Above eleven thousand have been added to the Church of God, among the poor Negroes, in that part of the world. But there is no person at present to fill his place, and raise the necessary supplies. We, indeed, help him in a degree ; but are satisfied that the work of God, in those islands, would receive essential injur}*, on his secession from it. In Ireland, also, his assistarce is peculiarly wanted. Military law has been established in that kingdom; but, through the Doctor's influence with the Government, protections have been obtained for the Preachers in every necessary case ; and, by this means, the brethren in that kingdom have been enabled to proceed on the Itinerant Plan, no one making them afraid." ***** " These reasons, beloved brethren, we think strongly call upon you not to insist, at present, on the Doctor's fulfilling his engagements. We have left it to his discretion, either to send or deliver this letter to you. But if he vii^t you at your General Conference, we' earnestly desire his returtt, believing it will be for the glory of God. And if, at any future time, we have cause to think that the scale is turned in your favour, we shall not object to his devoting the remnant of his life to the work of God among our American brethren." — Britih Minutes^ Vol. II. pp. 31, 32. From the American to the British Conference^ Baltimoref May, 1800. " By Dr. Coke we have received your friendly and affectionate Address, and cordially rejoice with you in the prosperity of the Redeem- er's kingdom, through your instrumentality, in the accession of so many thousands of souls to the Society in Europe. " We have considered, with the greatest attention, the request you have made for the Doctor's return to Europe ; and after revolving the subject in our minds, and spending part of two days in debating thereon, we still feel an ardent desire for his continuance in America, arising from the critical state of Bishop Asbury's health, the extension of our ndix. gen- I JipptitdixJl R E P B T. W work, our affection for, and approbation of, the Doctor, and hit probable usefulness, provided he continue with us. We wish to detain him, as we greatly need his services. But the statement you have laid before us in your Address, of the success of the West-India Mission under his superintendence, the arduous attempt to carry the Gospel among the jiative Irish, requiring his influence and support, and the earnest request you have added to this representation, — < Believing it to be for the glory of God,' — ^have turned the scale at present in your favour. We have, therefore, in compliance with your request, lerd the Doctor to you for a season ; to return to us as soon as he conveniently can : but, at farthest, by the meeting of our next General Conference. ** It affords us gteat pleasure to hear that the Divine presence has been 80 eminentiy \n^ you at the last Conference ; and, of consequence, that it was conducted with tranquillity and peace. The Spirit of our Jesus, is a spirit of union, is a spirit of love. Aided by the same grace, we are endeavouring to follow your pious example, in keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace ; and entreat you, our elder and esteemed bretiuen, to accept our grateful thanks for the earnest request you have made to the God of love, that a large portion of the same Spirit may rest on us, which hath blessed you with peace and con- cord. << We have some great and glorious revivals in different parts of the United States, and a pleasing, growing prospect is before us. Our hearts are united to each other, to our brethren in Europe, and to all that love tiie Lord Jesus in sincerity. Wishing you peace and pros- perity, an increase of number, and an increase of grace, we remain, with respect and esteem, with love and veneration, your Brethren in Christ Jesus." — British Minutes, To/. //.jap. 197, 198, From tAe British to the American Conference, August, 1803. " Your kind Address from the General Conference, held at Baltimore, in May, 1800. to the British Conference, was affectionately received by us ; believing, that though we are i?.T distant in point of local sitiution, we are one in Christ our living Head, being subjects of the riches of Divine Grace, engaged in propagating the same ministry of reconcilia- tion, and mutually zealous to promote the glory of God, in seeking the salvationof immortal souls." i? *' Respecting our much esteemed friend and brother, Dr. Coke, he is now preparing to leave Europe, in order to attend your General Confer- ence, and we devoutiy pray the Father of mercies to preserve him in safety, and that much of the Divine Presence may be among you. — Considering the state of our several Missions, and various other very forcible reasons that might be mentioned, we hope you will not think us unreasonable, in earnestly and unanimously requiring his return after your Conference. We do most senmbly feel what you say concerning I ■n-i 98 REPORT. {Appendix. our dear friend and brother, Mr. Asbuiy, and, for your sakea, we anxiously desi'e his preservation among you, which we pray you raay long enjoy." — British Minutes, Vol. ii. pp. 198, 199. From the Ammcanio the British Conference, Baltimore, May, 1804. "Your very kind and afl'eutionate Address, from your Manchester Conference, dated August 5, 1803, was presented to us by our mutual friend and brother. Dr. Coke. We always have received, and hope we ever shall receive such Adtlresses from our European brethren, with tihe most cordial sentiments of Christian friendship : for it is our ardent wish that the European and American Metliodists may improve and strengthen the bonds of Christian Union, and, as far as possible, reciprocally build each other up in the great and glorious work, in which they are both so arduously employed." "With respect to our much esteemed friend, and beloved brother, Dr. Coke, he arrived among us last autumn, and was received by us with the sincerest sentiments of respect and affection. Since he came into tiiese States, he has travelled about three thousand miles, visiting our principal Societies, and preaching to crowded assemblies of our citizens. His time, we trust, has been profitably and acceptably spent among us, and we hope agreeably to himself. Your request for his return was taken into our most serious and solemn consideration ; and, afler a full and deliberate examination of the reasons which you assigned in favour of his return, we have concluded that there is a probability of his being more eminently useful at present, in the way you point out, than for us to retaun him, especially as our beloved brother Asbury now enjoys better health than he did some years ago ; and as we believe, with the assistance he can receive from our esteemed brother Whatcoat, the work of superintending the Church and Societies, can be accomplished in the absence of Dr. Coke. We therefore have consented to the Doc- tor's return to Europe, upon the express condition that he will return to us at any time, when three of our Annual Conferences shall call him, or at farthest, that he shall return to our next General Conference. " And now, dear brethren, we commend you to our common Lord, and to the Word of his Grace, hoping that you and we shall ever remain in the Unity of the Spirit, and bonds of Christian and Ministerial affec- tion, until we meet together around the throne of God." — British Min- utes, Vol. ii. pp. 24f3, 244. From, the American to the British Conference, May, 1820. " With a sincere and earnest desire to establish and preserve the most perfbct harmony and peace with you, our elder Brethren, we have adopted measures for oi>3ning such friendly intercourse as will, we devoutly pray, tend to the accomplishment of this desirable end. I* -•■/fTW ndix. 8, we may 1804. ^fppendix.'l REPORT. «9 " Situated so remotely iVoni each other, mid under diflerent forms of civil government, it is believed that no mode of «orrespondence will so effectually unite the European and American Methodists as an inter- change of Delegates from our respective Conferences. " The bearer, the Rev. John Emory, has been appointed our Dele- gate to your Body, and will be able to give you a more particular ac- count of the work under our charge, and especially of our commence- ment and progress in the Missionary Cause, .,' , ,,< , " Most earnestly praying that the Methodists may be identified in their doctrine, experience, and practice in every part of tlie world, and that the Father of Lights may pour upon you, and upon us, the Spirit of Grace, and preserve us in the unity of the faith, and in the fellowship and peace of his Son Jesus Christ, we remain, Rev. and dear Brethren, most affectionately yours in the Gospel of our common Lord." — British Minutes, Vol. v. p. 169, 170. we From the British to the American Conference, August, 1820. " We enclose to your care the Resolutions* passed by the Conference, after the Letters addressed to us by the American General Conference, and delivered by the Rev. John Emory, had been read and considered." " From the statements made by Mr. Emory as to the progress of the v^^ork of God in the United States, we have received the greatest satis- faction. We offered our united thanksgiving to God, that the doctrines of primitive Methodism, the preaching of which God has so eminently owned in the salvation of men, and the edification of believers, are not only continued among you in their purity, but have been so widely ex- tended by your great and persevering efforts, and that the same holy discipline, in all its essential parts, continues whenever you form Socie- ties, to guard and confirm the work which God has made to prosper in your hands." " The Resolutions on the disputes in the Canadas, were adopted after a calm and patient consideration of the case, in which we were greatly assisted by Mr. Emory. We hope that they will lead to a full adjust- ment of those disputes, and that the affection which exists between the two Connexions generally, will extend itself to the Brethren and Soci- qVi^s in the Canadas. This is the disposition which we shall earnestly inculcate upon those under our care in those Provinces j and we have full confidence that the same care will be taken by you to extinguish every feeling contrary to love, among those over whom you have control and influence." — British Minutes, Vol. v. pp. 170, 171. * The following is the first of the Resolutions referred to : — "That the Conference embrace with pleasure this opportunity or recognizing (hat great principle, which, it is hoped, will be permanently maintained, — ^That llie Wealeyan Methodists are ono l>ody in every part of the world." — BritUh Jlfint((e«, Vol. V. p. 155. . , .,,» 100 R £ t> R T. [. ^ipendix. "^ From {he British to the American Conference^ August, 1823. << The time has arrived which calls us, in pursuance of a hisolution unanimously passed in the Conference of 1820, held in Liverpool, to commission a deputation from our body to attend your ensuing General Conference, to convey to you the sentiments of our fraternal regard and afiectionate attachment, and to reciprocate that kind and friendly office; which, on your part, was performed by the visit of one of your esteemed Ministers, the Rev. John Emort. " The increased interest in your spiritual welfare, which the establish- ment of this mode of direct and official communication between the two great bodies of Methodists has naturally excited in us, and recipro- cally, we believe, in you, is to us the first proof of its beneficial tenden- cy, aiid a cheering indication of its future advantages. For why should the ocean entirely sever the branches of the same family ; or distance of place, and distinct scenes of labour, wholly prevent that interchange of the sympathies of a spiritual relationship, which cannot but be felt by those who, under God, owe their origin to the labours of the same Apostolic man, — ^who bear testimony to the same great truths before the world, — and whose effisrts to spread the savour of the knowledge of Christ, on our part through the British Empire, and on yours through the population of those rising States, which have derived their language, their science, and their protestantism from the same common source, Almighty God has deigned so ubundantly to bless?' — British Minutes, Vol. V. p. 542. ' From the American to the British Conference, May, 1824. ** In reciprocating the kind and aifectionate sentiments contained in your message to us, sent by those whom you had chosen to be the Representatives of your Connexion, we feel an indescribable pleasure. Many are the associations that press upon us, and the emotions that aflect us, in this pleasant interchange of affectionate regards. We look to England as the birth-place of that man, who, under the guidance of Almightt God, was the founder of a great and flourishing Church. — It was there the infant Societies were nourished, and it was thence the word of God was sounded forth even unto us. After we had flourished for some time under your fostering care, a mysterious Providence led to a separation of our Societies in this country from the parent connexion. But the scion that was plant'id here has been watered and blessed of God, and although, probably, still inferior in solidity and strength, yet, in the number and extent of its branches, it vies with the parent-stock." "We are, vvitli you, dear Bretliren, endeavouring to maintain the purity of our doctrines, and are not conscious that we have suffered any of them to l)e adulterated in our hands. As they are the doctrines which have proved to so many, both in Europe and America, the power I ndix. Jippmdix.l nK P ORT. 101 of God unto salvation, we deem them to be the Gospel of God our Saviour ; and while he owns them we will never give them up. With you too, we prize and practically vindicate the general rules of the Con- nexion, and the primitive institutions and usages of Methodism. We are also following you, though at a humble distance, in your Missionary exertions," — British Minutes, Vol. v. pp. 544, 545. From the American to the British Conference, April, 1827. *- We rejoice exceedingly in the assurance that the Methodists, as a people, whether in Europe or America, are of one heart, and one mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel, and labouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 1; . ^ ' -^?\! " Our British brethren are peculiarly endeared to us, in view of that great and blessed revival of evangelical religion which has already ex- tended its influence to the four quarters of the eartli, and to the islands of the sea ; especially when we consider ourselves, and hundreds of thou- sands upon this Continent, as the fruits of tlos revival." — British Minutes, Vol. VI. p. 306. From the British to the American Conference, Augiisi, 1827. " For your letter of April 4tli, duly received, and presented to the Preachers assembled in our Conference, we beg to express our sincere and affectionate acknowledgments. Widely as we are separated from each other in local situation, we are still the same in doctrine, spirit, and purpose ; and, by the sacred ties of pastoral charity, are bound togsther as parts of one extended whole." — British Minutes, Vol. VI. p. 308. From the American to the British Conference, May 1828. <on us w'*