VW 262,.B.7/;, ¥e t Sines. a4 . ~ _ Eee rere aK. ‘ae, | METHODIST CHURCH PROPERTY CAS “s — » ‘ Sas rn 2 F * * ee. o ; * 7 ” ? aso Se -Report of the Suit of a z re ? gh ‘ oe a " a HENRY B. BASCOM, AND, OTHERS, US. GEORGE LANE, anp OTHERS, ° “HEARD BEFORE . THE HON. JUDGES NELSON AND BETTS, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, UNITED STAT FOR) THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW-YORK, MAY 17-29, 1851. * Ad . By R. SUTTON, i ee ey . LEAL ee ely SPECIAL AND CONGRESSIONAL peed ge F , ayy, te a” wa) Jo s q ‘ ; <4 Ro ee ‘ ¢. A Ve x 2 he \ : : 45\\ a wi mw New-Dork: PUBLISHED BY LANE & SCOTT, 200 MULBERRY-STREET. er JOSEPH LONGKING, PRINTER. 1851. S05 hmv raldn te _* egret Taya do si of 8 baat . < P tae “‘ges * gaa geen wove kad panain eo paint nogn SBei ke 2a haber Paget atts Gane 15 ann nearer HOTORD aa. se ee sbnaea EE 4 mien ¥ 4 4 LOLOS® "ont 2 , aia ieee X. ae z. oe a anal * A Woot * ak, i i ~ Anes M2 tom Fits wen " ees Pee Re eT OR AOE” ce CP) OPED SO AM 2G Ay: “ aasqots JANGISAYS 9S ane doae. Seve alt i me ie eo gee Waadow, | idl - fet : ot rey dio a9 Ga tod Sten ware ax Jee oy RA HORT ae wn wine ce - * * : % he ADVERTISEMENT. | eae 7 | ae Tuts Report, yube was agreed upon by both parties to the suit, is published, with their common sanction, by the » Book Agents at New-York and Richmond. , * al | ; ? : ‘ . bay . b ~Ayh ft ‘ ool « # ‘, ; UWPETM TATA ES f as me : Pai, odf ot H4Ringg dod yd sogur Hoergs enw iirtw Sioqodl otal , # a adi yd- wollomes seams tiodt diiw. fiodaddog ai pile hudadeit bas ao Y-wet ia aiaogd soak ’ ’ ‘ wf pon " of : ihe . : ‘ ' ‘. my . ¢ “d i a re s 7 fy wae ‘ ” ’ ? i ¥ &. ; j t 4 ; + ’ re ; ¥ > Ws # ne ve if P ich Wa 2 . , of Bove he std ra e 1 tits ae 4 r % i * #01) * ee" i « bi eee . Fy, ¥ ry yiay 4 | WANS Bio) a * Ay , ‘ fn : + ’ > X : ‘ 4 i - 4 my; ‘ . % . wt “ , cy a wt 2 Sos CIRCUIT COURT, UNITED STATES. FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW-YORK. THE Hon. JUDGES NELSON anp BETTS, Presrprine. HENRY B. BASCOM, and others, vs. In Equity. GEORGE LANE, and others. Counsel for Plaintiffs, Mr. D. LORD Hon. REVERDY JOHNSON, and Mr. JOHNSON, Jr. Counsel for Defendants, Hon. RUFUS CHOATE, Mr. GEORGE WOOD, and Mr. E. L. FANCHER. FIRST DAY.—Monpay, May 19, 1851. Mr. Lorp.—May ir PLease your Honours,—In opening a case of this magnitude and importance, I feel that it is incumbent on me to give a brief detail before reading the papers, in order that these papers, and the whole subject, may be more easily understood. In our ordinary controversies we need no such preliminary ; but we are now investigating the concerns of a religious denomination, and this controversy will relate to matters which are not of general information. The Court, therefore, will indulge me in the endeavour to state some of the general facts and circum- stances out of which the controversy arises, particularly with the view of having an accurate definition of the subjects which will constantly recur in the reading of _ the papers. The subject of this controversy is what is called, among gentlemen of this denomi- nation, their “‘ Book Concern.’’? This is a fund which, upon the papers, appears to amount to some $750,000. The origin and history of it seem to be this :—Upon the earliest establishment of the Methodist denomination by Mr. Wesley, he called to his aid the press in the dissemination of religious truth; and when Methodism was first introduced into this country, books were provided from England, to supply the wants of its very few adherents in regard to religious literature. Upon the independence of this country, the Methodist denomination had become measurably numerous, though not large. When it was organized as a separate Church, in addition to the means of instruction afforded by preaching, it was very obvious that a great want was to be supplied in the furnishing of religious literature to its people ; and one of their preachers organized a system of publishing books in this country, It was originally established in Philadelphia. This preacher, whose name I think 1 2 was Cooper, lent a small sum of money to the object, and invested it in books. They were sold among the denomination; and out of the profits a small capital was gradually formed, which was employed in publishing books. This came to be a matter of some magnitude; and in the year 1836 it had been removed to this city, and become an extensive establishment. It had undergone considerable vicissitudes ; but at that period it was emerging from its difficulties, and becoming a great esta- blishment. It was then destroyed by fire. It was afterward reinvigorated, as everything in this city seems to have been by the fires of that period; and from that time to the present it has gone on with great prosperity, so that it has accumulated a capital of about $750,000. The manner in which these books were circulated will perhaps be worthy of your Honours’ attention in the history and consideration of this case. It was early pro- vided that the preachers should see that their congregations were supplied with books. They took the books from the publishing establishment, and sold them: and in that way there was in fact a real, substantial, and beneficial monopoly in the fur- nishing of religious books, and all the preachers were agents in carrying it out. They v cre very faithful men—stimulated, not by the love of gain, but by the higher pu:cose of religious devotion. Of course, a fund thus constructed could not but become very considerable. Your Honours will have your attention called to the fact that it was really the result of the devotion and services of the preachers. It was not, like many charitable funds, a fund growing out of donations of wealthy men; but it was, in its main features, the earnings of this system. Its profits, after providing capital enough to carry on its business successfully, were devoted at an early period to one single purpose in two or three branches :—That purpose was, the making up of the deficiencies in the salaries of travelling preachers, and provid- ing for the supernumerary, superannuated preachers, the wives and children of preachers, and the widows and orphans of deceased preachers. The number of these appear regularly on the Minutes of the General Conference of this society. That, therefore, was the destination of the profits of this fund; for it was no object to accumulate capital for the mere purposes of accumulation. It is now necessary that I should introduce another subject—the conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church—because they become very important, vitally im- portant, to be understood in this controversy. The concerns of the Methodist Church are managed by what are called Annual and General Conferences. At the introduction of Methodism into this country, its preachers were not very numerous. Although the extent of country was great, there were in all but seven annual con- ferences. I ought, perhaps, to explain what the annual conferences are. Originally all the preachers of this denomination met every year, and disposed of that which was general in their concerns. The conferences consisted of travelling preachers, who served particular districts of country, somewhat analogous to the division of districts in our judicial system. Originally the whole of Methodism in the United States was but one conference, and consisted of but a small number of preachers. In 1784 that was the case. But it very soon became necessary to divide this con- ference. It was divided ; but, although a*division, in fact it was a multiplication also. At first ‘i.e annual conference was in fact the General Conference of the Metho- dist Church ; then the earliest formed from this were the Philadelphia and New-York Conferences. As the territory increased, these annual conferences were divided, and formed new bodies ; until in 1844, which is the period at which we shall arrive, there were something like thirty-two or thirty-three annual conferences. These annual conferences had a general oversight of the Churches; they examined the character of the preachers, the working of the system, and reports were yearly made to them 1* 3 of the deficiencies of the funds raised in the districts to supply their preachers. Every two years preachers were changed from one congregation to another. Collec- tions were taken up in these various congregations to supply the preachers. Their salaries were very small; the people, to a great extent, poor. Many of these dis- tricts could not quite pay their preachers. ‘These deficiencies were reported to the annual conferences, and supplied out of their funds. That will show your Honours what we mean when we come to speak by-and-by of the “deficiencies” of the travelling preachers. That means the deficiencies in funds supplied by poorer con- gregations to pay their own preachers ; for it is a part of the economy of this Church that the richer portions of the country should supply the wants of the poorer, and the clergy always be kept on a footing of absolute equality. Every four years these annual conferences met in a General Conference. This General Conference was the general legislative body of this Church, and all matters of general concern were there considered. They established articles of religion; they made changes in the religion and economy of the Church. Every year when they separated, they published a new book of discipline, which contained the doctrines of the Church, and that super- seded everything which had gone before, and became the law of the Church as to organization, discipline, and doctrine. This was therefore the act of the Church in the most absolute sense. This was the state of things from the organization of Methodism in this country in 1784, up to 1808. In 1808 the body had become so numerous, and its power was so absolute, that the more conservative men in the Church were a little alarmed at the extent of it ; because it will appear in its history that it was considered capable of changing the articles of religion, and it was consi- dered dangerous that such a body, which might be attended by more members from nearer, and less from more distant conferences, should have such great powers. In 1808 a change was made in the organization of the General Conference. They resolved that the General Conference should consist of delegations from each annual conference. It was, therefore, the general body of the Methodist Church, met toge- ther in the form of its ministers, but only by committees. Instead of being a meeting of the whole absolutely, it was a meeting of the whole by delegations. At that period provision was made against the absolute power which this body possessed, and there were various “ restrictive rules,”’ so called, established to limit it. Those restrictions were to this effect ; and the extent of the powers of that body, as it existed before, and, indeed, as we say, continued to exist, will appear by the character of these restrictions. Our view of the powers of that body is, that they were equally unlimited with those of previous General Conferences, except so far as these restric- tions restrained them. One of the restrictions was, that they should not change the articles of religion ; another that they should not change their hierarchy ; another, that they should not change the degree of representation. That is, supposing the delegation be one out of every eight in the annual conferences, that ratio should not be changed by the General Conference. Another was, that they should not change what were called the rules of the United Societies. The United Societies are eccle- siastical organizations of the members of the Churches, with rules which govern them in their relations with one another, with the world, and in regard to religious observances. It was provided that the General Conference should not make a change with regard to the mode of trial of members and preachers ; and the last, the sixth restrictive rule, (which is the one which will most come before your Honours’ attention,) provided that they should never apply the profits of this Book Concern to any other purpose than that of supplying the deficiencies of the travelling, and providing for the supernumerary, superannuated preachers, their wives and children, and the widows and orphans of such as were deceased. There was one provision 4 over-riding the whole—that upon the request of three-fourths of the annual confer- ences, sanctioned by a vote of the General Conference, these restrictive rules might be varied, but without this primary vote of the Church they could not be changed. That presents to your Honours the subject of the general and annual conferences ; and a great question in this case will arise upon the character and power of the General Conference, and the instruction and effect of that sixth restrictive rule. I now come to the particular controversy in this case. It is one in relation to which the excitement at this time and in this country is great. It grew out of the existence of slavery. Very early the Methodists, both on the subject of temperance and of slavery, took a ground, the highest and most exclusive ; and one of the rules of the United Societies (which are the particular, and private, and domestic organiza- tions of Churches composing the denomination) was, that no person should belong to them who bought men and women with the view of reducing them to slavery. As we suppose, that originally had reference to the slave-trade as a matter of commerce which was then carried on. But very soon it was evident that this Society viewed it in a larger aspect, and in one of the earlier conferences a rule of a very extreme character was adopted. It was at a conference which began at Baltimore in Decem- ber, 1784, which is known as the ‘“ Christmas Conference.” They adopted a rule quite exclusive on the subject of slavery, not merely as to the buying and selling of men and women, but in the most severe form and manner, compelling the manumis- sion of slaves. That threatened to become so destructive to the Society, in its attempts to penetrate the Southern and Western parts of the country, which were considered the most open fields for the operation of the Methodist principles, that at the first meeting of the conference afterwards, the very next year, the rule was suspended, and in the next book of discipline it was omitted. From time to time rules were adopted in this Church, sometimes of a more stringent, and sometimes of a more lax character, on the subject of holding slaves. The Church, North and South, always considered slavery an evil; that is, that_it would have been better if no such thing had ever existed. They, however, treated it as one of the evils among them, and conformed their religious discipline on the subject to the laws of the various States ; so that it was declared that no person should hold any office in the Church who did not manumit his slaves, when the laws of his State permitted it. If the State did not permit it, the holding of slaves was not to be a subject of official or personal reproach. ‘They provided also that their preachers should teach the members of their Churches to instruct their slaves; showing that they took the practical view of this as a thing to be dealt with as existing, and which it was not in the power of any man, or body of men, clerical or lay, by their wishes to destroy. About the year 1836, the agitation, which has been called “ abolitionism,” began in this country. In 1840, it began seriously to disturb the peace of the Methodist Church. In that year a case arose from one of the Baltimore Conferences, which gave very serious concern and alarm to the conservative members of the General Conference ; and the bishops and conference, in their action on it, gave it what I would call a “‘ go-by.””. They avoided dealing with it in its strength, and expressed conservative and soothing opinions, recommending to all the avoiding of any agitation of so destructive and distressing a question. From that time until the meeting of the General Conference in 1844, this agitation raged among the Northern and North- ‘Western conferences, and had, of course, produced a reaction at the South. In 1844, the thing became exceedingly rife, and presented itself in the General Conference of that year in a form which was decisive. And it will be one of the objects of the papers which we shall read, and the argument we shall present, to show that a state of things occurred which made necessary the separation of this Church into two parts. 5 It seems that the Baltimore Conference, which lies on a line between the North and the South, took ground with the more ultra persons in the North, There was a preacher named Harding, who, by marriage or inheritance, acquired one or two slaves which, by the laws of Maryland, he could not emancipate. This circumstance was brought very early to the attention of the General Conference of 1844, in connexion with a vast number of petitions from New-England, Western New-York, and other places, on the question of slavery. It came up in an appellate form. The Baltimore Conference had suspended this clergyman, degraded him, in fact, on account of this connexion with slavery. It was in vain urged that his connexion with the slaves was such that he could not manumit them. Hon. Reverpy Jounson.—In fact they were not his. Mr. Lorp.—The Conference determined that they would degrade him for that con- nexion, though the slaves were not his. He appealed to the General Conference, and there the question was discussed with great animation and great ability, and the sentence of degradation was confirmed. The matter, however, then took a still graver aspect. One of the bishops, a gentleman of Georgia, was in a somewhat similar position. He had one slave left him, on condition that he should liberate her and send her to Liberia, with her consent. But she would not go to Liberia, and the bishop remained her owner. She lived where she pleased, but still remained legally a slave ; and, as it was said, she might have been sold for his debts, and he made liable for her support. He also, through inheritance from a former wife, had a slave whom he could not manumit. Also upon his second marriage, his lady had some slaves which he could not manumit ; indeed they were secured to her by marriage settlement. This was his connexion with slavery. In every other respect he was blameless. Everything estimable was conceded to him. But the spirit of agitation was rife; it had been warmed up in the Conference by the debates on the Baltimore case ; and nothing would do but that this bishop should be dealt with. But it was a matter of some delicacy to deal with the bishop. Should he be tried? for there was a provision for the trial of bishops ; and if he should be tried and condemned, he would not only be degraded from the episcopacy, but expelled from the Church. They did not venture to go against this man in that way. A course was taken which, if this had not been a religious body, sincerely adherent to religious principles, (however, we may deem them mistaken,) would have been regarded as debasing. I will not characterize it otherwise than as a queer sort of proceeding. ‘They resolved to request Bishop Andrew to desist from all action as a bishop, during the existence of his connexion with slavery ; which was very much the same as if Congress, or any body that should assume to itself such an office, should say that one of your Honours venturing to take a little wine at dinner should be requested never to act as Judge until you chose to abstain. In other words, without a crime which could be tried, on a matter of mere expediency they requested this bishop to cease to be a bishop. And it was fol- lowed up by several circumstances at that Conference, unintentional I am persuaded, which gave effect to this degradation, and which are rarely to be seen in such cases. It seems that after every General Conference they republished their Discipline, Hymn Book, and some publications that were of a character to be renewed. It was put, as a question, What should become of the name of Bishop Andrew? Should it be put in the Hymn Book? The vote of the Conference was that it should; so that in every Methodist congregation there should appear to the children, while 6 turning over the leaves of the Hymn Books as their parents were singing, the name of Bishop Andrew. ‘The question would be, What is the matter with Bishop An- drew? In that way, unintentionally, this degradation was made in the most con- spicuous manner in which I think it could be. At that period there was a new election of bishops, and when other Reverend gentlemen acted in the consecration, Bishop Andrew, who was on the spot,* a man of unblemished character, against - whom no shadow of imputation rested, was excluded; at least, having been re- quested to suspend his duties, he could not with decency act. This, as your Honours may see, was the declaration of a permanent purpose, which it was very evident to the gentlemen of the Southern Conference, prevented them from prosecuting in harmony the objects which the Church had in view—as they define it—the spreading of Christian holiness over these lands ; for it was evi- dent, these principles being assented to, that this Church must be extinct in the Southern States. The gentlemen from the Southern States made a declaration to the Conference of 1844, that such would be the effect of these measures being taken. They also made a protest, which will be presented and read, giving very fully their views on this subject. That protest was followed by a reply on the other side, which gave the views of the majority. That, I presume, will also be laid before the Court, and you will see whether or not there had not arisen a state of things in which, as the delegates of the South expressed it, the Church was already divided. This became apparent to some gentlemen of wisdom in that Conference ; and it was moved to appoint a committee for the purpose of determining whether there could not be a division of the Church into two bodies, so that they might go on separate from each other, in pursuit of the same objects, with the same organization, only, as a Methodist writer, an English gentleman, expressed it, ‘‘ Whereas this year it was the province of Canterbury, next year it might be the provinces of Canterbury and York.” A plan of division was presented, underwent discussion, and was adopted by alarge vote. It was in substance this :—That if the Southern conferences should find it necessary, they might organize themselves into a separate and independent Methodist Church at the South, and in that event commissioners were appointed to deal with regard to the distribution of the funds. That was made the occasion, in connexion with the constitutional scruples of some gentlemen, of the question, whe- ther they would have a right to give to the Southern body of the Church their share of the Book Concern without an alteration of the restrictive articles. A provision was made that this fund should be divided, if the sixth restrictive article was changed, and a ratio of division was provided, and commissioners were apnointed on the part of the Northern Church to act with commissioners from the Southern Church to carry this division into effect. They then separated. On the separation, the gentlemen from the Southern conferences immediately presented the subject in a general address to the Southern conferences, giving them the details of what had happened in the General Conference, and asking the Southern conferences to take up the question and say whether they found it necessary to form an independent body or not. The fifteen or sixteen Southern conferences—sixteen, I think, there were—all united in voting that it was impossible to go on with the Northern gen- tlemen in this state of things; that the only way of retaining the existence of the society in the South, was by establishing a separate organization. They elected delegates to meet at Louisville in 1845, by whom this measure should be considered in general council. ‘The Convention of 1845 adopted a plan of a Southern organiza- tion, and appointed a General Conference of the Methodist Church, South, to be held in 1846. They adopted every article of religion, every article of doctrine, * This was afterwards shown to be a misapprehension of the counsel as to this fact. 7 everything of discipline, and the organization of the Church, as held by the Northern Church. Indeed, they took the established Book of Discipline, and printed it anew, with the same mode of representation, and in every respect the two were identical, except that the General Conference, instead of being one, was now divided into two. They appointed commissioners to deal with commissioners from the Church, North, with respect to the division of the common fund. When these commissioners assembled, this state of things met them: the commissioners of the Northern Church had been overtaken by scruples as to the constitutionality of that thing, and refused to treat at all. The commissioners of the Southern Church deferred until their Conference of 1848 met, which determined, after the Mississippi style, that the Con- ference of 1844 had no power to enter into this plan, and that the Northern Church -was the only Church; and that the plan of the Southern Church, which had really been formed at the invitation of the General Conference of 1844, was null and void, and that by that very organization they had all become seceders; that is to say, these fifteen or sixteen conferences had ceased to be members of the Methodist Episcopal Church at all. They adopted an additional rule, which, I confess, always seemed to be one which nothing could sanction, that the supernumerary and super- annuated preachers, the orphans and widows of preachers, as well as travelling preachers of the Southern Church, should not partake of this fund which had been earned by their common services, and which was provided originally as a reward to those who could work no longer, for their past services. I can understand, and have often seen in these controversies, that when the connexion is broken, it would be a misappropriation of a fund, devoted to the spreading of certain religious truths, to apply it to the propagation of different principles, carried on by a different eccle- siastical organization ; but I have not, to this moment, been able to understand how the orphans and widows of the preachers, the old men and supernumeraries of that Southern Church, should be excluded from participation in a fund which they, and their fathers, and husbands, had earned. I have not been able to see how it is pos- sible that they can be shut out from it by that which has taken place, even if our friends on the other side should be right on the subject of secession. We now claim in behalf of these Southern conferences, that this fund shall be di- vided as to the beneficiaries. We also suppose it must be divided as to the trustees. But that is another question. It may remain in the hands of the same trustees and the beneficiaries in the Southern country be entitled to it; but I suppose that if we are right, your Honours will say, that the Southern Conference, under the circumstances, has an equal right with the North to appoint the trustees—the persons by whom it is to be distributed ; that not only should they be entitled to the profits of the fund, but also to a division of the capital, and to appoint the trustees to manage the capital, or that they should be appointed by your Honors or nominated by the Southern conferences. This is the whole question before us. It is a grave question, undoubtedly, in its amount and interest, reaching not only to this fund, but, so far as I can see, to the stability and title of every Methodist parsonage or preaching-house in the Southern country, because, they all being established for the benefit of the Methodist Church, if this is secession, I do not see but that the Methodist Church is exterminated alto- gether in the Southern country. If your Honours please, I will now call your attention to the Bill and the Defend- dants’ Answer. The bill is filed in the name of commissioners, who have been appointed by the Southern Church, and who are preachers entitled to be beneficiaries of this fund. One of these commissioners has died since his appointment, and we propose to ren- sie > w th 8 der the proceedings perfect in respect to this demise by substituting, by assent, the name of another gentleman who has been duly appointed his successor. The parties to the bill are “ Henry B. Bascom, a citizen of Lexington, in the State of Kentucky ; Alexander L. P. Green, a citizen of Nashville, in the State of Temessee ; Charles B. Parsons, a citizen of Louisville, in the State of Kentucky ;” —these were travelling preachers, and they were entitled to a share of this fund ; then there are “ John Kelly, a citizen of Wilson County, in the State of Tennessee ; James W. Allen, a citizen of Limestone County, in the State of Alabama.”— these are supernumerary preachers—“ and John Tevis, a citizen of Shelby County, in the State of Kentucky,”’ who was a superannuated preacher. Your Honours will see, therefore, that we have all the classes of beneficiaries, except the widows and orphans. The defendants are George Lane, Levi Scott, George Peck, and Nathan Bangs, citizens of the city of New-York, who are the persons that have in charge this “‘ Book Concern,”’ and it is due both to them and to ourselves that I should say that they have not participated in the heat to which this case has given rise, but have deemed it necessary to remain inactive, until their course shall be pointed out by the determination of this suit. Of their proceedings we cannot complain, nor can they be spoken of but with respect. In their bill “‘the Complainants state and show to your Honourable Court, that before and on the 8th day of June, 1844, there existed in the United States of America, a voluntary Association, known as the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America ; not incorporated by any legal enactment, but composed of seven bishops, four thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight preachers belonging to the travelling connexion ; and in bishops, ministers, and membership, about one million one hundred and nine thousand nie hundred and sixty,—then being in the United States, and territories of the United States, united and holden together in one organized body, by certain doctrines of faith and morals, and by certain rules of gov- ernment and discipline. “‘ That the general government of the Methodist Episcopal Church was vested in one general body, called the General Conference, and in certain subordinate bodies, called annual conferences, and in bishops, and travelling ministers and preachers ; and the great object of the said Methodist Episcopal Church was the diffusion of the principles of the Saviour of mankind—good morals, pure religion, piety, and holy- ness, among the people of the world. And the complainants allege, that the con- stitution, organization, form of government, and rules of discipline, as well as the articles of religion and doctrines of faith of the Methodist Episcopal Church, were of general knowledge and notoriety, nevertheless, for the more particular informa- tion of the Court, they refer to a printed volume, which will be produced on the trial of the cause, entitled ‘The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church.’ And the complainants allege, that differences, and disagreements having sprung up in the Church, between what was called by the Church the Northern and Southern members, upon the administration of the Church government, with refer- ence to the ownership of slaves by the ministry of the Church, of such a character, and attended with such consequences, as threatened fearfully to impair the useful- ness of the Church, as well as permanently to disturb its harmony; and became and was with the members of the Church, a question of very grave and serious im- portance, whether a separation ought not to take place by some geographical bound- ary, with necessary and proper exceptions, so as that the Methodist Episcopal Church should thereafter constitute two separate and distinct Methodist Episcopal Churches. And thereupon the complainants allege, that at a General Conference of the Church, holden, according to usage and discipline, at New-York, on the 8th day of June, 1844, the following resolutions were duly and legally, and by a majority of over three- fourths of the entire body, passed; which resolutions are herewith copied, and prayed to be taken as part of this bill, which are in the words and figures, to wit :— “¢« Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences, in General Con- ference assembled, 1. That should the annual conferences in the slave-holding States find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connexion, the following rule shall be observed with regard to the Northern boundary of such connexion: All the societies, stations, and conferences adhering to the Church in the South, by a vote of a majority of the members of said societies, stations, and conferences, shall remain under the unmolested pastoral care of the Southern Church ; and the minis- ters of the Methodist Episcopal Church shall in no wise attempt to organize churches or societies within the limits of the Church, South, nor shall they attempt to exercise any pastorial oversight therein ; it being understood that the ministry of the South reciprocally observe the same rule in relation to stations, societies, and conferences, adhering by vote of a majority, to the Methodist Episcopal Church ; provided also, that this rule shall apply only to societies, stations, and conferences, bordermg on the line of division, and not to interior charges, which shall, in all cases, be left to the care of that Church within whose territory they are situated. ««¢2. That ministers, local and travelling, of every grade and office, in the Metho- dist Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer, remain in that Church, or, without blame, attach themselves to the Church, South. «<3. Resolved, By the delegates of all the annual conferences, in General Con- ference assembled, That we recommend to all the annual conferences, at their first approaching sessions, to authorize a change of the sixth restrictive article, so that the first clause shall read thus, ‘They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to any other purpose other than for the benefit of the travelling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children, and to such other purposes as may be determined upon by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the General Conference.” ““¢4. That whenever the annual conferences, by a vote of three-fourths of all their members voting on the third resolution, shall have concurred in the recommenda- tion to alter the sixth restrictive article, the Agents at New-York and Cincinnati shall, and they are hereby authorized and directed to, deliver over to any authorized agent or appointee of the Church, South, should one be organized, all notes and book accounts against the ministers, church-members, or citizens, within its boundaries, with authority to collect the same for the sole use of the Southern Church, and that said agents also convey to aforesaid agent or appointee of the South, all the real estate, and assign to him all the property, including presses, stock, and all right and interest connected with the Printing Establishments at Charleston, Richmond, and Nashville, which now belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church. «<5. That when the Annual Conferences shall have approved the aforesaid change in the sixth restrictive article, there shall be transferred to the above Agent for the Southern Church, so much of the capital and produce of the Methodist Book Con- cern, as will, with the notes, book accounts, presses, &c., mentioned in the last resolution, bear the same proportion to the whole property of said Concern, that the travelling preachers in the Southern Church shall bear to all the travelling ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The division to be made on the basis of the number of travelling preachers in the forthcoming Minutes. «6. That the above transfer shall be in the form of annual payments of $25,000 per annum, and specifically in stock of the Book Concern, and in Southern notes and accounts due the establishment, and accruing after the first transfer mentioned above ; and until the payments are made, the Southern Church shall share in all the net profits of the Book Concern, in the proportion that the amount due them, or in arrears, bears to all the property of the Concern. “<7. That Nathan Bangs, George Peck, and James B. Finley, be, and they are hereby appointed, commissioners, to act in concert with the same number of com- missioners, appointed by the Southern organization, (should one be formed,) to estimate the amounts which will fall due to the South by the preceding rule, and to have full power to carry into effect the whole arrangements proposed with regard to the division of property, should the separation take place. And if by any means a vacancy occurs in this Board of Commissioners, the Book Committee at New- York shall fill said vacancy. «8. ‘That whenever Agents of the Southern Church are clothed with legal au- thority or corporate power, to act in the premises, the Agents at New-York are hereby authorized and directed to act in concert with said Southern Agents, so as to give the provisions of these resolutions a legally binding force. “©«9, ‘That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, conference funds, cemeteries, and of every kind, within 10 the limits of the Souther organization, shall be forever free from any claim set up on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this resolution can be of force in the premises. “10. That the Church so formed in the South shall have a common right to use all the copy-rights in possession of the Book-Concerms at New-York and Cincinnati, at the time of the settlement by the commissioners. «11. That the Book Agents at New-York be directed to make such compensa- tion to the conferences South for their dividend from the Chartered Fund, as the commissioners above provided for shall agree upon. ‘“«¢12. That the Bishops be respectfully requested to lay that part of this report requiring the action of the annual conferences, before them as soon as possible, be- ginning with the New-York Conference.’ “ And the complainants allege, that the said General Conference had full, com- petent, and lawful power and authority, to pass and adopt the said resolutions, and each and all of them, and that the same thereby became and were of binding force and validity. “« And the complainants further allege, that after the adoption of the foregoing resolutions, such proceedings were had in the several Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the slave-holding States; that a full convention thereof, by delegates, elected on the basis of the resolutions of the General Confer- ence of 1844, assembled at Louisville, in Kentucky, on the first day of May, 1845 ; and the said convention, after full and mature consideration, adopted the following resolutions, which they pray may be taken as part of this bill :— “<< Be it resolved by the delegates of the several annual conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the slave-holding States, in general convention as- sembled, That it 1s right, expedient, and necessary, to erect the annual conferences represented in this convention into a distinct ecclesiastical connexion, separate from the jurisdiction of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as at present constituted ; and accordingly we, the delegates of said annual conferences, acting under the provisional plan of separation adopted by the General Confer- ence of 1844, do solemnly declare the jurisdiction hitherto exercised over said annual conferences, by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, entirely dissolved ; and that said annual conferences shall be, and they hereby are constituted, a separate ecclesiastical connexion, under the provisional plan of sepa- ration aforesaid, and based upon the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, comprehending the doctrines and entire moral, ecclesiastical, and economical rules and regulations of said Discipline, except only in so far as verbal alterations may be necessary to a distinct organization, and to be known by the style and title of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. ““¢ Resolved, That we cannot abandon or compromise the principles of action upon which we proceed to a separate organization in the South; nevertheless, cherishing a sincere desire to maintain Christian union and fraternal intercourse with the Church, North, we shall always be ready, kindly and respectfully, to entertain, and duly and carefully consider, any proposition or plan, having for its object the union of the two great bodies in the North and South, whether such proposed union be jurisdictional or connexional.’ ‘«« And the complainants further allege, That afterwards, viz., on the second day of July, Anno Domini, 1845, a council of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church met at New-York, (which council was composed of the Northern bishops alone,) and then and there unanimously adopted the following resolutions, which they pray may be taken as part of this bill :— “© Resolved, That the plan reported by the select committee of nine, at the last General Conference, and adopted by that body, in regard to a distinct ecclesiastical connexion, should such a course be found necessary by the annual conferences in the slave-holding States, is regarded by us as of binding obligation in the premises, so far as our administration is concerned. “‘« Resolved, That, in order to ascertain fairly the desire and purpose of those societies bordering on the line of division in regard to their adherence to the Church North or South, due notice should be given of the time, place, and object of the meeting for the above purpose, at which a chairman and secretary should be ap- pointed, and the sense of all the members present be ascertained, and the same be forwarded to the bishop who may preside at the ensuing annual conferences ; or 11 forward to said presiding bishop a writen request to be recognised and have a preacher sent them, with the names of the majority appended thereto.’ “And the complainants allege, That by and in virtue of the foregoing proceed- ings, the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, as it had existed before the year 1844, became and was divided into two distinct Methodist Episcopal Churches, with distinct and independent powers and authority, composed of the se- veral annual conferences, charges, stations, and societies, lying or being situated North and South of the afore-described line of division. “« And the complainants further allege, That by force of the foregoing proceed- ings, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, became and was entitled to its propor- tion of all the property, real and personal, and all funds and effects, (said property and funds of the Methodist Episcopal Church, had been obtained and collected by voluntary contribution, in which contribution the members of the Church South con- tributed the largest portion of the same,) which, up to the time of the separation, had belonged to the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, and that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was, and is so entitled, without any change or alteration of the sixth restrictive article above mentioned ; but the complainants allege, That, if the change in the sixth restrictive article were necessary in order that the Church, South, should obtain an equitable division of the Church property, a majority of three-fourths of all the members of the several annual conferences which voted directly on the question, in view of a division of the property,"has been obtained. “And the complainants further savy, That before and on the said 8th day of June, 1844, the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States owned and possessed large amounts of property in various parts of the United States, in addition to the meeting-houses, parsonages, and other estates of that description, and that said pro- perty, real and personal, was in the hands of the agents and trustees, being in some instances corporations, but more frequently in private and unincorporated individuals : That among other descriptions and claims of property, there belonged to the said Church, what was denominated the ‘ Book Concern,’ in the city of New-York, consisting of houses, lots, machinery, printing-presses, book-bindery, books, paper, debts, cash, and other articles of property, amounting in all to about the sum of seven hundred thousand dollars, the whole of which lands and goods, property and effects, so situated, are now in the possession of the defendants, Lane and Scott, denominated hereinafter as Book Agents. “‘ And the complainants further say, That after the separation of the Methodist Episcopal Church into two distinct Churches, by virtue of the resolutions of the General Conference of 1844, and the action of the annual conferences in the South, as hereinbefore set forth, the Agents of the Book Concern at New-York, in pur- suance of the provisions and terms of said resolutions, paid to the several annual conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, their proportion of profits and income of the Book Concern, as fixed and set apart by the said agents for the year 1845. But the complainants further allege, ‘That since the year 1845, the said agents have utterly refused to pay to the said annual conferences, South, and to complainants, for and on behalf of them, their said just proportions of the profits and income of the said Book Concern, and still continue to withhold the same; to the manifest loss and injury of the said Church, South, and in plain violation of their rights. And the complainants further say, That the General Conference of the Church, South, holden at Petersburgh, Virginia, on the day of May, 1846, in pur- suance of, and in compliance with, the aforesaid resolutions of the General Confer- ence of 1844, proceeded to appoint the complainants, Bascom and Green, together with S. A. Latta, commissioners, to meet the commissioners appointed by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church of 1844, and settle and re- ceive from said commissioners the just proportion of the property and effects due the South, according to the plan of separation, which resolutions are in the words and figures following, to wit, and prayed to be taken as part of this bill :-— “<1. Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in General Conference assembled, That three commis- sioners be appointed, in accordance with the ‘* Plan of Separation,” adopted by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1844, to act in concert with the commissioners appointed by the said Methodist Episcopal Church, to esti- mate the amount due to the South, according to the aforesaid ‘‘ Plan of Separation,” 12 and to adjust and settle all matters pertaining to the division of the Church property and funds, as provided for in the said ‘ Plan of Separation,” with full powers to carry into effect the whole arrangement with regard to said division. «2. Resolved, That the Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, shall forthwith notify the commissioners and Book Agents of the Methodist Episco- pal Church, of their appointment as aforesaid, and of their readiness to adjust and settle the matters aforesaid ; and should no such settlement be effected before the session of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1848, said commissioners shall have power and authority, for and in behalf of this conference, to attend the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to settle and adjust all questions involving property or funds, which may be pending between the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. “©¢3 Resolved, That should the commissioners appointed by this General Confer- ence, after proper effort, fail to effect a settlement, as above, then, and in that case, they shall be, and they are hereby authorized to take such measures as may best secure the just and equitable claims of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to the property and funds aforesaid.’ “« And thereupon, and under the authority of said last-recited resolutions, the said Bascom, Green, and Latta were duly appointed such commissioners, and their said appointment duly certified and made known to the commissioners appointed by the said resolutions of the General Conference of 1844. And the said complainants further say, that the said Bascom, Green, and Latta, immediately after their said appointments as such commissioners as aforesaid, applied to Nathan Bangs, George Peck, and James B. Finley, commissioners appointed by the seventh resolution of the said General Conference of 1844, and the said Book Agents at New-York, to act in concert with the commissioners appointed upon the part of the South, to settle and divide the property belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church, between the Church North and the Church South, and requested them to proceed to the duty assigned them, by dividing the property, as contemplated and directed by said reso- lution ; and that they, the complainants, Bascom and Green, together with the said Latta, have repeatedly called on them since for this purpose; but the defendants have wholly failed and refused to act in the premises, and complainants have not been enabled, although they have used all honourable and fair means, to get a settle- ment with them of this unpleasant question ; nor have they been enabled to induce the said Book Agents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, nor the Church itself, nor the commissioners to pay to the Church South its proportionate share of said property and funds, as provided by said plan of separation. “The complainants further show, that since the appointment of the said Samuel A. Latta, as one of the Commissioners, by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, say on the day of February, 1849, he, the said Latta, hath resigned his office as such commissioner ; and that they, the said Bascom and Green, by virtue of and under the authority of the said General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, have appointed their co-complainant, Parsons, to fill the vacancy of said Latta. And the complainants allege, that they are mem- bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South ; that they are preachers—Kelly and Allen are supernumerary, and Tevis superannuated preachers, and belong to the travelling connexion of said Church, South, and that, as such, they have a personal interest in the real estate, personal property, debts, and funds, now holden by the Methodist Episcopal Church, through the said defendants, as agents and trustees appointed by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Com- plainants further allege, that there are about fifteen hundred preachers belonging to the travelling connexion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, each of whom has a direct and personal interest in the same right with your complainants to said property, as above described, situated and held as aforesaid ; that the great number of persons interested as aforesaid, in the recovery sought by this bill, makes it incon- venient, indeed, impossible, to bring them all before the court as complainants ; that they are citizens of other States than the State of New-York, and their interests in the property in question exceeds two thousand dollars. Pe Complainants further allege, that the defendants are members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, are preachers belonging to the travelling connexion of that Church, and that each of them has a personal interest in the said property and funds, as above described ; in addition to which, the said defendants, Lane and Scott, have 13 the custody and control, by law, and by virtue of their appointment as Agents of the Book-Concern by the Genera! Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of all the said property and effects of said Book-Concern above described. That in addi- tion to these defendants, there are nearly thirty-eight hundred preachers belonging to the travelling connexion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, each of whom has an interest in the said property in the same right, so that it will be impossible, in view of attaining a just decision of this controversy, to make all those interested, parties to this bill. ‘“‘ Complainants further allege, that the entire membership of the Methodist Epis- copal Church, South, is about four hundred and sixty thousand five hundred and fifty-three, and that the entire membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church is about six hundred and thirty-nine thousand and sixty-six; so that it will be at once seen by the Honourable Court, that it is utterly impracticable and impossible to bring all the parties in interest before the Court, in this bill, either as complainants or as defendants. “‘ And the complainants further say, that they bring this Bill by the authority and under the direction of the General and the annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and for the benefit and in behalf of the said Church, South, and the said General Conference, and for the benefit and in behalf of all the annual conferences in the said Church, South, and of themselves, and of all the preachers in the travelling connexion, and all other ministers and members of said Church, and all others having interest in the same right in its funds and property. “To the end, therefore, and forasmuch as complainants, and those they represent, are greatly aggrieved and injured by the oppressive course pursued by the Methodist Episcopal Church, in their refusal to divide the said property according to equity, and in pursuance of the Plan of Separation, so as aforesaid set forth; and that com- plainants, so as aforesaid, are without relief, except in a Court of Equity, they pray your Honourable Court that they may be allowed to prosecute this bill in their own behalf, and in behalf of all those bodies and persons so interested, belonging to the Church, South, as above set forth; and that said defendants, by suitable process directed, &c., commanding, &c., be made defendants to this bill, for themselves and those they represent, as agents, trustees, and commissioners, and that, upon oath, they make full, true, and perfect answers to each allegation in this bill con- tained, setting forth their own rights, and the rights of those under whom they now act, and have heretofore acted, to the end that this Honourable Court may be enabled to ascertain the rights of all the parties, and decree accordingly. “ And the complainants particularly pray that defendants, Lane and Scott, may be required to produce a full, particular, and just account of all the real estate, per- sonal estate, goods, debts, money, and effects of every sort or kind, now held by them, or either of them, as agent or agents, trustees, or members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States; and that the said Bangs, Peck, and Finley, be required to answer upon oath, whether they were not appointed by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church of 1844, held at New-York, commis- sioners to act upon the part of the North, with the commissioners to be appointed on the part of the South, in case of a separate and distinct ecclesiastical connexion being formed by the South, in the division of the Church property, so called; and whether the complainants, Bascom, Green, and Parsons, and the said Samuel A. Latta, as commissioners, did not call upon them for a settlement, and to arrange the distribution of the Church property according to the Plan of Separation; and if they did not refuse so to act in the settlement and division of said Church property ; and that they, all the said defendants, also be made to answer, all and singular, the allegations and matters in this bill set forth, as fully as though the same were ahah to them in the form of interrogatories, and they especially interrogated thereto.” And then a decree is prayed, which I need not read. To the bill of the plaintiffs the defendants have put in an answer. Mr. Jounson, Junior, and Mr. Fancuer, read the answer, at the request of Mr, Lorp, as follows :— “These defendants now, and at all times hereafter, saving and reserving to them- selves all, and all manner of, advantage and benefit of exception to the manifold 14 errors, uncertainties, insufficiencies, and other imperfections, in the plaintiffs’ said Bill of Complaint contained, for answer thereunto, or unto so much and such parts thereof as they are advised it is material or necessary for them to make answer— they answering, say :— Bi" “That they admit, that before and on the 8th day of June, 1844, there existed, and, as these defendants say, there still exists, in the United States of America, a voluntary association, known as ‘The Methodist Episcopal Church ;’ and, although not incorporated in one body by any legal enactment, yet the same was, and is, a duly organized evangelical Church. And these defendants further say, that although ‘The Methodist Episcopal Church’ is not a body politic and corporate at common law ; yet, under the law of pious and charitable uses, as protected and enforced in courts of equity, it has an organization, and performs functions, and exercises and discharges powers and duties, analagous to institutions strictly and legally mcorpo- rated ; and that the said Church is, in courts of equity, fully protected in the use and enjoyment of such functions, powers, and duties. And these defendants admit, that on the day above mentioned, the said Church was composed of the number of bishops stated by the plaintiffs; but these defendants say, that, according to their information and belief, the plaintiffs have not accurately stated the number of tra- velling preachers, ministers, or members belonging to the Church at that time: And the defendants further admit, that the said Church was united and holden together in one organized body, by certain doctrines of faith and morals, and by certain rules of government and discipline. ; ‘“‘ These defendants further answering, say, that, exercised within the restrictions and constitutional powers contained in its Book of Discipline, the supreme govern- ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church, comprising the authority to make rules and regulations for the Church, limited by such restrictions and constitutional powers, was, and is, vested in a delegated body called the General Conference ; and that there are within the system and polity of the Church, annual conferences, which, in some, but not in all respects, are bodies subordinate to the General Con- ference ; also quarterly conferences, bishops, presiding elders, and travelling minis- ters, in whom, and in which conferences, respectively, are vested the powers and authority specified in the Book of Discipline ; and, beyond the powers of govern- ment thus alluded to, these defendants deny the allegation of the plaintiffs’ bill, that the general government of the said Church was or is vested as therein stated. “ And these defendants admit, that the plaintiffs have partially stated the grea object of the said Methodist Episcopal Church; nevertheless, the defendants, more fully to set forth the design of the said Church, say, that it comprehends the exer- cise of its ecclesiastical government and discipline, involving the itinerancy of its bishops and ministers; the promulgation of the doctrines of the Gospel among all men; the due administration of Scriptural ordinances and the holy sacraments; the promotion of works of piety and benevolence ; the revival and spread of Scriptural holiness, and the conversion of the world to the faith and practice of Christianity. «« And these defendants admit, that the constitution, organization, form of govern- ment, and rules of discipline, as well as the articles of religion and doctrines of faith, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, were, and are, of general knowledge and notoriety ; and are contained in a printed volume, entitled, ‘The Doctrines and Dis- cipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church.’ Yet these defendants say, that such printed volume—in this answer designated the ‘ Book of Discipline’—has been, according to the forms, and in the manner therein prescribed, and at various times since the organization of the said Church, altered, amended, and revised, in sundry particulars, a full and particular relation of which would be too extended to be here set forth; but, for an accurate account thereof, these defendants crave leave to pro- duce, and refer to, a printed book, entitled ‘ Emory’s History of the Discipline ;’ also the several editions of the said Book of Discipline, published by the agents for the Methodist Book Concern, in the city of New-York. ‘And these defendants, in respect of the ‘differences and disagreements’ alleged by the plaintiffs to have ‘sprung up in the Church between what were called the Northern and Southern members, upon the administration of the Church government with reference to the ownership of slaves by the ministry of the Church,’—answer and say, that, according to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, no such differences or disagreements had sprung up in the Church between the Northern 15 and Southern members, prior to the session of the General Conference held in the city of New-York, in 1844, attended with or seriously threatening the consequences alleged by the plaintiffs. ‘‘And these defendants, according to their best knowledge, information, and belief, also deny that it ever, prior to that session of the General Conference, became, or was, a question of grave or serious importance with the members of the Church, or with any, except a few of them, whether a separation ought not to take place by geographical boundaries, or otherwise, so as that the Methodist Episcopal Church should thereafter constitute two separate and distinct Methodist Episcopal Churches ; or, that it was ‘thereupon,’ as erroneously alleged by the plaintiffs, that the resolutions which they denominate the ‘Plan of Separation,’ and which are set forth in their bill, were passed at the General Conference of 1844, held in the city of New-York; and these defendants say, that then, and always hitherto, the greater portion of the Church have not thought there was any sufficient cause for a separa- tion or division of the Church. ‘“‘ And these defendants, further answering with respect to such differences and dis- agreements, say, that during, and subsequent to, the session of the General Con- ference of 1844, those differences and disagreements principally grew out of the voluntary connexion of a bishop with slavery, and out of the proceedings of that body in reference thereto, hereafter referred to; that the rules of the Book of Disci- pline, and the uniform action of the General Conference, have always been adverse to the system of human slavery, it being regarded as a great evil; and, prior to the session of the General Conference in 1844, the whole Church, by common consent, united in proper effort for the mitigation and final removal of the evil; that the minis- ters have never been allowed to hold slaves, except in instances under the laws of the slave-holding States deemed to be cases of necessity; that the Church never made, nor has its Book of Discipline ever contained, any law respecting the holding of slaves by a bishop of the Church; that the General Conference have always re- fused to elect a slave-holder to that office; that, at the session of the General Con- ference in 1844, held in the city of New-York, it became known that the Rey. James O. Andrew, one of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, had, since his election to that office, become an owner of slaves,—of one, by bequest; of another, by inheritance; and of others, by his intermarriage with a lady in the State of Georgia who held a number of slaves in her own right, which, by the laws of the State, became the property of her husband; that, as will appear by its printed Jour- nal, (pp. 65-83,) such proceedings were had by that General Conference, upon the admitted facts contained in a statement in writing made by Bishop Andrew, and which was in due form brought before the Conference by one of its standing com- mittees called the ‘‘Committee on the Episcopacy,’’ whose duty it was to inquire into the conduct and administration of the bishops, and to make report to the Con- ference,—as that the following preamble and resolution were duly and legally adopt- ed by that Conference, to wit :— ««« Whereas the Discipline of our Church forbids the doing anything calculated to destroy our itinerant general superintendency; and whereas Bishop Andrew has be- come connected with slavery by marriage and otherwise; and this act having drawn after it circumstances which, in the estimation of the General Conference, will great- ly embarrass the exercise of his office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not in some places entirely prevent it; therefore, “¢Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he desist from the exercise of his office so long as this impediment remains.’ “ And these defendants, upon their information and belief, further say, that the adop- tion of this resolution gave offence to a minority of the members of that General Conference, and who were delegates from annual conferences in the slave-holding States; and principally, if not wholly, induced those delegates to present a formal Protest against such action of the General Conference, which was admitted to record on its Journal, and, with the report in reference thereto of the committee appointed by the General Conference for that purpose, is appended to such Journal, (pp. 186— 210,) to all which these defendants desire leave to refer; and which also induced such delegations from the annual conferences in the slave-holding States to present to said General Conference the declaration already referred to, which was read, and referred to a committee of nine, whose report thereon is the so-called ‘ Plan of Sepa- ration,’ herein mentioned ; which declaration is recorded on page 109 of the printed 16 Journal of the General Conference, and to which also the defendants crave leave to refer; and which resolution, in the case of Bishop Andrew, further induced such de- legates, (although without the authority of the General Conference, and in no man- ner sanctioned by any action of that body,) immediately after the adjournment of such General Conference of 1844,—before the happening of the contingencies men- tioned in the so-called ‘Plan of Separation,’ necessary to give the same effect, and before such delegates had departed from the city of New-York,—to address a circu- lar to their constituents and the ministers and members of the Church in the slave- holding States, therein expressing their own opinion in favour of a separation from the jurisdiction of the General Conference, and advising the annual conferences with- in those States to elect from their own bodies, severally, delegates to a convention proposed by them to be held at Louisville, Kentucky, in May following, to consider and determine the matter; all which, finally led those annual conferences, or por- tions of them, at that convention,—to withdraw and separate from the Methodist Episcopal Church ;—to renounce and declare themselves wholly absolved from its jurisdiction, government, and authority, and to institute a new and distinct ecclesias- tical organization, separate from, and independent of, the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, under the denomination of ‘The Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’—which is the same organization mentioned in said Bill of Com- plaint ; and the plaintiffs, and all those whom they, professedly, represent, are adhe- rents thereof, and are no longer attached to the Methodist Episcopal Church; and these defendants believe and submit, that these proceedings were, in no part, autho- rized by the rules of government, or the constitutional law of the Methodist Episco- pal Church, as contained in its Book of Discipline, but were in palpable hostility thereto. “These defendants, further answering, insist and submit, that the said resolution of the General Conference in the case of Bishop Andrew, instead of moving to a secession, called for due submission and respect from all the delegates to that con- ference, and all the ministers and members of the Church; and the defendants, upon their belief, say, that the same, and all the proceedings of that body leading thereto, were regular, constitutional and valid; that the voluntary connexion of Bishop An- drew with slavery was justly considered by a majority of said General Conference, and by most of the ministers and members of the Church, as ‘improper conduct ;’ and that every bishop is, by a law of the Book of Discipline, amenable to the Gene- ral Conference, who are thereby declared to ‘have power to expel him for improper conduct, if they see it necessary ;’ and that such resolution and proceedings, in the case of Bishop Andrew, were in due accordance with the good government of the Church. “ And these defendants, further answering, admit, that the resolutions set forth by the plaintiffs, commencing at folio 7 of their bill, were, at a General Conference of the Church, holden, according to usage and discipline, at New-York, passed on the 8th day of June, 1844, by a majority of over three-fourths of the entire body ; although, as these defendants state, such resolutions were, in respect of their opera- tion or effect, provisional and contingent,—were occasioned by, and based upon, the said declaration of the Southern delegates, and were intended only to meet the future emergency predicted therein, should the same arise ; and that such resolu- tions were connected with, and preceded by, the statement and preamble embodied in the report of the said committee of nine, appointed by the General Conference to consider and report on such declaration,—which report was adopted by the confer- ence, as will appear by its printed journal, (pp. 130, 137,) and which statement and preamble are to be taken, in connexion with said resolutions, as a part of said report thus adopted, and to which the defendants crave leave to refer as a part of this answer. But these defendants are advised by counsel, that the said resolutions, embodied in such report of the committee of nine, called the ‘ Plan of Separation,’ were not duly or legally passed ; and that the General Conference of 1844 had no competent, nor any valid power or authority to pass or adopt the said resolutions called the ‘Plan of Separation,’ or any or either of them, except that portion thereof comprising the recommendation to the annual conferences to change the sixth restrictive rule: and these defendants are also advised by counsel, that the last- named resolutions, when adopted, were null and void, and without any binding force or validity, except in the matter of such recommendation merely ; and these defendants therefore humbly submit these questions to this Honourable Court ; and to 17 show the extent of the constitutional power of the said General Conference in this respect, these defendants state,— “That from the ordination and election of the first bishops of the Church, in 1784, to the year 1808, the General Conference was composed of all the preachers in the connexion who had travelled four years from the time they were received by an annual conference ; but in the General Conference of 1808, on the recommendation of a majority of the annual conferences severally acting in their primary capacities, it was proposed to do away with such general assembly of ministers, and to organize a delegated General Conference, to consist of a delegated number, to be elected by the several annual conferences, according to a fixed ratio of representation ; which proposition was agreed to in said general convention of 1808, upon the condition of adopting certain articles to restrict the powers of the future delegated General Con- ferences ; whereupon a constitution for the government of the General Conference, embracing six restrictive articles, was accordingly established, defining who shall compose the General Conference, and what are the regulations and powers belonging to it; and the whole body of preachers, then assembled in general convention, adopted, by such constitution, the present plan for a delegated General Conference ; transferring to them the powers of the whole body of preachers, with the express exceptions and limitations specified in such restrictive articles ; which constitution and restrictive articles the defendants pray may be taken as a part of this answer, as if here set forth; and for the contents of the same, and for the particulars of these facts and allegations, these defendants crave leave to produce and refer to the said constitution and restrictive articles, contained in the Book of Discipline for 1808, pp- 14,15; also the subsequent editions of the ‘ Discipline ;’ also ‘ Emory’s History of the Discipline,’ pp. 111-113; also ‘ Bangs’ History of the Methodist Episcopal Church,’ vol. ul, pp. 225-234 :— “That such constitution and restrictive rules, thus adopted,—containing a general grant of all powers to make rules and regulations for the government of the Church, under the restraints and within the limitations therein embodied,—constituted the paramount law of the Church; and have always been so considered, as well by the delegated General Conferences, whose legislative action they were intended to regulate, as by the annual conferences, the bishops, ministers, and members of the Church, whose rights and privileges were secured thereby ; nor have the delegated General Conference ever had, or claimed, any power to alter or amend these restric- tive articles except in the manner therein prescribed, in conjunction with the consti- tutional majority and action of the annual conferences ; nor have any alterations thereof ever been made, except in conformity with the provisions contained therein for such alterations ; and never without such constitutional majority and assent of the several annual conferences, voting thereon in their primary capacities :— “That this constitution, embodying these restrictive articles, is still—and during the session of the General Conference of 1844, and at the time of the passage of the resolutions called the ‘Plan of Separation,’ was—the fundamental law of the Church, as will be seen on reference to the Book of Discipline, pp. 21-23, edition of 1844 ; that the General Conference is the representative body above mentioned with powers limited as aforesaid, to make rules and regulations for the government of the Church. And these defendants, as they are further advised by counsel, believe and submit, that these restrictive articles limit and restrain the exercise of the powers of the General Conference to the enactment of rules and regulations for the Church, to carry on throughout the whole work, the economy and purposes of its government, as already settled ; prohibiting any change or alteration in any part or rule of such government, so as to do away episcopacy, or destroy the plan of the itinerant general superintendency of the Church; that they prohibit the exercise of any power by the General Conference to do away the privileges of the ministers, preachers, or members, of trial by a committee, or before the society, and of an appeal ; and also prohibit the General Conference, without the consent of three- fourths of the whole body of ministers, to be expressed in their several annual confer- ences, from appropriating the produce of the Book Concern, or Chartered Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the preachers belonging to the travelling connexion of the Church, their wives, widows, and children. And the defendants, therefore, further submit to this Honourable Court, whether the said resolutions, denominated the ‘Plan of Separation,’ are not, in each and every of these particulars, inconsistent with, and subversive of, said constitutional law of the 2 18 Church, and in contravention of the limitations contained in the aforesaid restrictive articles. * And these defendants, further answering, submit, as further advised by counsel, that even had the so-called ‘Plan of Separation’ been constitutional, or valid, it mere- ly provided a prospective plan, which, without the happening of certain future con- ditions, or on the failure of which conditions, or either of them, could never have, by its express terms, and, as defendants say, was never intended to have, any forco or validity. And these defendants expressly aver that these conditions have not happened ; and they therefore further insist and submit, that the said so-called ‘ Plan of Separation’ has always been inoperative; has never had any force or validity; and is absolutely null and void. «And these defendants, further answering, say, that the so-called ‘ Plan of Sepa- ration,’ whether constitutional or not, was never ratified by the annual conferences therein named; and therefore gave the Southern annual conferences no authority to act in the premises; and hence, as the defendants submit and insist, the Southern annual conferences have, in all respects, as to the Church, South, acted on their own responsibility, without any authority from the General Conference of 1844. “ And these defendants, further answering, say, that they admit the resolutions set forth by the plaintiffs, commencing at folio 20 of their bill, were adopted at a convention of delegates from annual conferences in the slave-holding States, assem- bled at Louisville, in Kentucky, on the first day of May, 1845; but these defendants deny, that the delegates composing that convention were elected on the basis, or ac- cording to the authority, of said provisional ‘Plan of Separation,’ so called, or of any resolutions of the General Conference of 1844; and especially do these defend- ants deny, that said Louisville Convention, in adopting their said resolutions, or in any proceedings had therein, acted under the provisional ‘Plan of Separation,’ adopted by that General Conference, as is stated in one of such resolutions; but, on the contrary thereof, these defendants say, that said provisional plan did not confer any authority upon that convention to adopt their said resolutions—to organize the new ecclesiastical connexion therein mentioned—or to dismember the Methodist Epis- copal Church; and, further, that the said convention was not convened by, or in pur- suance of, any constitutional authority of that Church, or of its General Conference ; and also, that the proceedings leading to, and the transactions of, the said Louisville Convention, and which resulted in the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, were occasioned and had, by such of the ministers and members of the annual conferences in the slave-holding States, as have attached themselves to the said Church, South, upon their own responsibility, and by their own unauthorized acts, whilst they repudiate the authority of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church—they refusing, and declaring their refusal, to submit to such authority ; and that by revolutionary measures, tending to the dismemberment of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and by insubordinate proceedings, unwarranted by said ‘Plan of Separation,’ so called, or by any authority of the Methodist Episcopal Church, they did institute the said ‘Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ as an inde- pendent ecclesiastical organization, separate from the jurisdiction of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church; and did solemnly declare such juris- diction over them entirely dissolved. And, for some of the particulars of these facts and allegations, these defendants ask leave to refer to the aforesaid declaration, pre- sented on the 5th June, 1844, to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at its session in New-York, signed by fifty-one of the delegates in that con- ference from slave-holding States, and who are now attached to said Church, South; which Declaration is recorded in the Journal of said General Conference, page 109; also to the ‘ Protest in the case of Bishop Andrew,’ hereinbefore referred to, presented to said General Conference on the 6th day of said June, signed by such delegates and others, now attached to said Church, South; also to the address to their consti- tuents, the resolutions and proceedings of such delegates at their meeting in the city of New-York, on the 11th June, 1844; also to the correspondence between Bishop Soule and Bishop Andrew, involving the request of the former to the latter, that he should resume his episcopal functions, and his acceptance of that request, notwith- standing the aforesaid resolution of the General Conference of 1844, in his case; also to the proceedings of said Louisville Convention; and also to the proceedings of the body assuming to be a General Conference composed of delegates from annual conferences attached to said Church, South, held at Petersburg, Va., in May, 1846. O* at 19 4 Wherefore, these defendants insist and submit, that the ‘Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ exists as a separate ecclesiastical communion, solely by the result, and in virtue, of the acts and doings of the individual bishops, ministers, and members attached to such Church, South, proceeding in the premises upon their own respon- sibility; and that such bishops, ministers, and members, have voluntarily withdrawn themselves from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and have renounced all their rights and privileges in her communion and under her government. And these defendants deny that the annual conferences represented in said Louisville Convention, were, as is erroneously stated in the first of the resolutions of the convention set forth by the plaintiffs, constituted a separate ecclesiastical connexion under the provisional ‘ Plan of Separation,’ so called, aforesaid. “ And these defendants, further answering, admit, that at the time and place in that behalf mentioned by the plaintiffs, a council of bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, called by the plaintiffs ‘ Northern Bishops,’ met and unanimously adopted the resolutions commencing at folio 24 of the said bill; but these defendants say, that the same were, as well by the express terms thereof, as by the extent of any autho- rity possessed by such council, or bishops, limited in their application and effect to the administration of the said bishops; which administration was, at that time, inter- rupted, resisted and prevented, in the slave-holding States, by such portion of the revolutionary measures above alluded to as had then occurred, and by kindred measures of some of the present adherents of said Church, South. Moreover, these defendants further state, that said bishops were amenable to the General Conference, who have power to inquire into their admiistration, and expel them for ‘‘ improper conduct,”’ if they see it necessary ; that the said provisional Plan was an act of the General Conference, to whom said bishops were amenable ; and that the General Conference had not then declared the said provisional Plan null and void. But these defendants, with respect to those resolutions of the bishops, submit, that they can have no influence or effect whatever upon the question of the alleged division of the Church ; nor can any effect or virtue be attached to their acts or resolutions, tending to divide or dismember the Church, or to warrant, in any sense, the allegation of the plaintiffs, that by, or in virtue of, such resolutions,—in conjunction with such other proceedings as are alleged by the plaintiffs, or otherwise,—the Methodist Episcopal Church ever became divided into two distinct Methodist Episcopal Churches. And these defendants, further answering, deny, that, by or in virtue of the proceed- ings alleged in the said Bill of Complaint, or of any part thereof, or otherwise how- soever, ‘the Methodist Episcopal Church’ in the United States, as it had existed before the year 1844, or as it at any time existed, was lawfully divided into two distinct Methodist Episcopal Churches, in the manner alleged in said bill, or in any other manner whatever. And these defendants submit, that the separation and voluntary withdrawal from the Church of a portion of her bishops, ministers, and members, as herein mentioned, was an unauthorized separation from the Church. “‘ And these defendants, further answering, say, that the so-called ‘ Plan of Separation’ was wholly prospective and contingent in its provisions ; and that the General Con- ference of 1844 adopted the said provisional Plan in view of, and based the same entirely upon, the declaration of the delegates from the annual conferences in the slave-holding States hereinbefore mentioned, which alleged that certain acts of the General Conference therein referred to, especially the act in the case of Bishop Andrew, must produce a state of things in the South which would render a con- tinuance of the jurisdiction of that General Conference over those conferences, incon- sistent with the success of the ministry im the slave-holding States ; and, therefore, the General Conference, by the said Plan, made provision for the adjustment of relations between the Methodist Episcopal Church and her separating ministers and members, to meet the emergency which might arise in the event of the contingency thus predicted in such declaration, when a separation should occur by the act and deed of the annual conferences in the slave-holding States, from the necessity of the case. And these defendants are informed and believe, and therefore state, that, independent of the aforesaid proceedings of the Southern delegates, which contri- buted to such separation, the acts of the General Conference alone, and which are thus complained of, did not produce a state of things in the South which rendered a continuance of the jurisdiction aforesaid ‘inconsistent with the success of the ministry in the slave-holding States ;’ nor was the separation of the ministers and members now composing the Southern Church, occasioned solely because the annual 20 conferences in the slave-holding States found it necessary to unite in a distinet eccle- siastical connexion ; but the way for such separation was prepared, and the same was superinduced and consummated, by the revolutionary measures hereinbefore referred to, and which were begun at the seat, and nearly at the time, of the session of the said General Conference, before the predicted state of things in the South was, or possibly could be, produced by any acts of the General Conference. “ Also, that the General Conference, by said provisional Plan, proposed, in the event of the happening of the contingencies therein mentioned, regulations to be mutually observed by the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the one part, and the prospective new Church and the ministers and members thereof, on the other part, with respect to the ‘ Northern boundary’ of such new Church, which required that such Northern boundary should be fixed at the Northern extremities of those ‘ societies, stations, and conferences,’ a majority of whose members should, of their own free will and accord, vote to adhere to the said Southern Church ; the due observance of which regula- tions was, as these defendants insist and submit, a fundamental condition of said provisional plan. And these defendants, as they are informed and believe, state, that in this respect the said provisional Plan has been violated by the said Church, South, and by the said separating bishops, ministers, and members now attached thereto, more particularly in the instances following :—The said bishops, Andrew and Soule, since said Southern organization, stationed preachers in Cincinnati, within the territory of the Ohio Annual Conference ; and in Northampton county, Virginia, within the district of the Philadelphia Annual Conference ; both which annual conferences have always remained attached to the Methodist Episcopal Church; and the aforesaid body, acting as the General Conference of the Church, South, sanctioned these doings of said bishops, and also authorized the Virginia Annual Conference, which is claimed as a member of the Church, South, to send ministers into the territory of the Balti- more Annual Conference, which is still attached to the Methodist Episcopal Church. And the said Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the bishops, ministers, and members attached thereto, as thus stated, have violated and disregarded said so-called Plan. “ Also, that the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at its session held at Pittsburgh, Pa., in May, 1848,—having, as these defendants submit, and as they, according to their judgment and belief, state, full power and rightful authority so to do,—did find and declare, that the fundamental conditions of said proposed Plan, so-called, had severally failed; that the failure of either of them, separately, was sufficient to render said so-called Plan null and void; and that the practical workings of said so-called Plan were incompatible with the great constitu- tional provisions contained in said Book of Discipline ; and they, the said General Conference, did also find and declare, the whole and every part of said provisional Plan, so-called, to be null and void. And for the particulars hereof, these defend- ants desire leave to refer to the proceedings of, and reports adopted by, said General Conference of 1848; especially to its printed journal, pp. 73-85, 129, 130, and the Final Report of the Committee on the State of the Church, adopted by said Con- ference, and appended to its journal, pp. 154-164. “ Also, that the so-called ‘Plan of Separation,’ in no event authorized a division, or reorganization of the Methodist Episcopal Church into two separate Churches ; but provided regulations to be observed, on the happening of the contingencies named in the so-called Plan, should the Southern annual conferences, on their own responsibility, withdraw from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and unite in a dis- tinct confederation. “Wherefore, these defendants further insist and submit, that—instead of the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church into two distinct Churches, under and in pursuance of said so-called Plan of Separation, as is alleged by the plaintiffs—all those bishops, ministers, and members, who have attached themselves, by their own act and deed, to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, including the plaintiffs, and all those represented in or by them in said Bill of Complaint, have voluntarily withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and separated themselves from its privileges and government ; and have thereby renounced and forfeited all right and claim, at law or in equity, to any portion of the funds and property in question in this cause. “And these defendants, further answering, deny that, by force of the proceedings alleged by the plaintiffs, or otherwise, the Methodist Episcopal Church, Baie 21 became, was, or is entitled, at law or in equity, to any proportion of all, or any of, the property, real or personal, or of all or any of the funds or effects, which, up to the time of the separation, or any other time, belonged to the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the United States, or elsewhere ; and especially do these defendants deny, that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was, or is so entitled to any produce of the Book Concern or Chartered Fund, or any property or funds pertaining thereto, without any change or alteration of the sixth restrictive article above mentioned ; or that, as erroneously alleged by the plaintiffs, a majority of three-fourths of all the mem- bers of the several annual conferences which voted directly on the question in view of a division of the property, has been obtained, infavour of any alteration of that article. . ** And these defendants, with respect to the allegation of the plaintiffs, that ‘ said property and funds of the Methodist Episcopal Church had been obtained and col- lected by voluntary contribution, in which contribution the members of the Church, South, contributed the largest portion of the same,’ deny, that, so far as the allega- tion has reference to the property and funds of the Book Concern, in the city of New-York, and its appendages, the same, or the greater portion thereof, have been obtained by voluntary contribution; and the defendants say, that the same were originally obtained as is hereinafter stated ; but, in so far as the same were obtained by voluntary contributions, on the rebuilding of the Book Concern when damaged by fire, and in respect of any portion thereof contributed from the South, these defendants state, that all such contributions were made, intended, and given for the very object for which said Book Concern was then, and always had been, designed ; that, on occasion of the contributions referred to, many others largely contributed, who have since left the Church; yet that any such separatists have never had, nor presumed to make, a claim for their quota of such contributions; nor, on that account, as these defendants submit, can they, or the plaintiffs, or those whom the plaintiffs represent, have or make any claim to recall the portion of donations they have severally made by such voluntary gifts and contributions. “ And these defendants, further answering, admit, that before and on the 8th day of June, 1844, with the qualification and exception hereinafter stated, relative to the Chartered Fund and the Book Concern in the city of New-York, the Methodist Episcopal Church owned and possessed large amounts of property in various parts of the United States ; not, however, as the plaintiffs say, in addition to, but prin- cipally consisting of, meeting-houses, parsonages, and other estates of that descrip- tion. But these defendants deny, that, among other or any descriptions or claims of property, there ever belonged to said Church, in the aggregate, or to its lay mem- bership, what was and still is, denominated ‘ the Book Concern,’ in the city of New- York ; and these defendants say, that said Book Concern, with all houses, lots, machinery, printing-presses, book-bindery, books, paper, debts, cash, and other articles of property pertaining thereto, is now, and always has been, the property of the preachers belonging to the travelling connexion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and their families; but if any of such preachers do not, during life, continue in such travelling connexion and in the communion, and subject to the government, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, they forfeit, for themselves and their families, all their ownership in, and all claim upon, said Book Concern, and the produce thereof. And further, that the property of the said Book Concem, consisting as afore- said, amounts, in value, at the present time, to about the sum stated in the schedule hereto annexed, marked A, which schedule contains a general statement of all the assets and property pertaining to said Book Concern, and of the value thereof, on the first day of January, 1849, as accurately as the same could then, or can now be conveniently ascertained; and which schedule is hereby referred to, and made a part of this answer. And the defendants admit, that all said lands, property, and effects pertaining to said Book Concern, and enumerated in said schedule, are in the pos- session of the defendants, Lane and Scott, as agents for said Book Concern, who have been duly appointed as such agents by the General Conference of the Metho- dist Episcopal Church ; and the defendants state, that such agents are enabled to hold said Jands, and the buildings thereon and appurtenances, for the objects of said Book Concern and the purposes of such agency, by virtue of an act of the Legisla- ture of the State of New-York, entitled, ‘An Act relative to the Methodist Book Concern in the city of New York,’ passed April 21, 1837, which has ever since been, and still is, a valid law of the State of New-York, and of which the following is a copy, to wit :— 22 «¢An Act relative to the Methodist Book Concern, in the city of New-York, passed April 21, 1837. “¢§1. It shall be lawful for Thomas Mason and George Lane, Agents for the Methodist Book Concern, appointed by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and their successors, as such agents, to take and hold real estate, in trust for the purposes of such agency, and to demise and convey the same ; but the value of such real estate so taken and held by them shall not exceed two hun- dred thousand dollars. ««¢§ 2. The real estate heretofore conveyed to Thomas Mason and George Lane, as agents as aforesaid, shall be considered as part of the real estate to be held by them, and their successors, as such agents, in trust as aforesaid.’—Session Laws of New-York, of 1837; ch. 232, p. 220. “And these defendants, further answering, state, that the said Book Concern was originally commenced and instituted by travelling ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on their own capital, with the great design, in the first place, of circulating religious knowledge ; by whom it was surrendered to the ownership of all the travelling preachers in full connexion, and made subject to the control of all the travelling preachers in their general convention, then called the General Conference ; and it was agreed, from time to time, that the profits arising from the sale of the books should be applied to pious and charitable objects, but principally to the sup- port of travelling ministers and their families, until, in the General Conference of 1796, it was determined that the said moneys should, in future, be applied wholly to the relief of travelling preachers, including such of them as were superannuated, and the widows and orphans of such as were deceased ; one of the decisions of which General Conference in that year was, ‘the produce of the sale of our books, after the book debts are paid, and a sufficient capital is provided for carrying on the busi- ness, shall be regularly paid into the Chartered Fund ;’ and the object of said fund was for ‘ the relief of distressed travelling preachers, for the families of travelling preachers, and for the superannuated and worn-out preachers, and the widows and orphans of preachers.’ ‘That, from that time to the General Conference of 1808, no other appropriation whatever was made of the proceeds of said Book Concern, but for the benefit of travellmg preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and their fami- lies ; and that until, and in, the General Conference of that year, as is hereinbefore stated, all the travelling preachers m full connexion, who had travelled four years, be- longing to the Church, had a seat in, and were members of, the General Conference ; at which time, on the occasion of adopting the plan for a delegated General Confer- ence, with constitutional powers limited by certain restrictions, as above detailed, the said General Conference of travelling preachers established a Constitution, as already stated, specifymg who should compose, and defining the regulations and powers belonging to, such delegated General Conference, and therein and thereby providing that the General Conference should have full powers to make rules and regulations for the Church, under six specified limitations and restrictions, com- monly called the Restrictive Articles, which are fully set out in the Book of Discip- line—by means whereof, the said general convention of travelling preachers, as defendants submit they lawfully might do, committed the management of the said Book Concern to such delegated General Conference, as to agents, or trustees, under and subject to the limitation and restriction contained in the sixth of said restrictive articles, which the defendants crave leave to read and refer to as a part of this answer. “ And the defendants pray that said constitution and restrictive articles, es- pecially the .above-recited sixth restrictive article, may be taken as a part of this answer ; and that they may have leave to read and refer to said constitution and restrictive articles, and to the proceedings of said general convention of travelling preachers, as a part also of this answer. ‘«« And these defendants, further answering, say, that the recommendation of the General Conference of 1844, contained in the aforesaid resolution embodied in the so-called ‘ Plan of Separation,’ to all the annual conferences, to authorize a change of the sixth restrictive article, so that the first clause should read as in said resolution specified, has not been concurred in by the constitutional majority of the members of such annual conferences; and that such recommendation has entirely failed : that such recommendation was duly laid before all the annual conferences ; and that they all voted thereon; but, on canvassing the votes at the General Conference in 23 1848,—which body had full power to determine the number of votes by the annual conferences for altering such restrictive rule,—it was ascertained and declared, that the number of votes necessary to authorize such alteration had not been obtained ; nor have the annual conferences at any time since authorized such change of said article. “ And these defendants, for the proceedings of said General Conference, and the particulars, in respect of such votes, crave leave to refer to the journal of that con- ference, page 56, and to the Report of the Committee on the State of the Church, being document L, recorded in the Journal of Reports of said General Conference. “‘ Wherefore, these defendants, as touching the allegations and claims in the plain- tiffs’ bill, with regard to the property denominated the ‘ Book-Concern,’ and ‘ Char- tered Fund,’ and the moneys, elfects, and credits pertaining thereto, insist and sub- mit, that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is not entitled, at law or in equity, to have a division of such property made, as claimed by said bill; nor is such Church, South, thus entitled to any share or portion thereof; nor are any of the ministers, preachers, or members, attached to such Church, South, thus entitled to any portion of the same; and that they—being no longer travelling preachers belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church—could not be so entitled, without a constitutional change in the said sixth restrictive article, which would authorize such division. “ And these defendants, further answering, deny, that at the time alleged by the plaintiffs, or at any other time, the agents of the Book Concern at New-York, in pursuance of the provisions or terms of said resolutions, called by the plaintiffs the ‘Plan of Separation,’ paid to the several annual conferences of the Methodist Episco- pal Church, South, their proportion of the profits and income of the Book Concern, as fixed and set apart by the said agents for the year 1845; and, in respect of such allegation, these defendants say, that the portion of profits and income, alluded to by the plaintiffs, which said book-agents paid to such annual conferences, had accrued and been apportioned to such Southern conferences previous to ‘the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, whilst such conferences were connected with the Methodist Episcopal Church; and that such payment was made without any reference whatever to the said so-called ‘ Plan of Separation.’ And the defend- ants admit, that, since the year 1845, the said agents have refused to pay to the annual conferences, South, who have separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church, as aforesaid, anything further from the profits or income of said Book Concern—as, these defendants submit, in Justice and right, and according to their duty, said agents ought to have done. And these defendants deny, that such annual conferences, South, are legally entitled to any portion or share of such profits or income; or that the withholding thereof from them, by said agents, is in violation of their rights. “ And these defendants, further answering, admit, that the body assuming to act as the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, holden at Petersburg, Va., in May, 1846, proceeded to appoint the commissioners as stated in said bill, and for the purposes therein stated; and the defendants also admit, that the body aforesaid adopted the resolutions commencing at folio 34 of the plaintiffs’ bill; but these defendants submit and insist, that such resolutious are entirely nuga- tory in their effect upon the property and funds therein referred to, and the matters pertaining to the same. « And the defendants admit that said commissioners have made the applications to these defendants and James B. Finley, and the requests of them, in the said bill stated; and that these defendants have refused to act inthe premises; and they say, they have thus refused for the reasons and on the grounds herein set forth. “The defendants also admit, that the plaintiffs have not been enabled to induce the said book-agents—nor the Methodist Episcopal Church—nor the commissioners named by the plaintiffs—to pay to the Church, South, any portion or share of said property and funds, except as aforesaid ; but the defendants deny, that said Church, South, is lawfully entitled to any proportionate or other share of said property or funds, as provided by said ‘ Plan of Separation,’ so-called, or otherwise. r “And the defendants admit, that the plaintiffs are members of the Methodist Epis- copal Church, South, and that they are preachers belonging to the travelling con- nexion of said Church, South; but these defendants deny, that, as such, they, or any or either of them, have any personal interest in the real estate, personal pro- perty, debts or funds above-mentioned ; or in any property, debts or funds, if any, now holden by the Methodist Episcopal Church, through these defendants, or any 24 of them, as agents or trustees, appointed by the General Conference of the Metho- dist Episcopal Church, or otherwise. “And these defendants, further answering, say, that they have not sufficient knowledge or information, either to admit or deny, whether the allegations in the plaintiffs’ bill respecting the number of preachers belonging to the travelling con- nexion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the number in the member- ship of that Church,—are true or not; and the plaintiffs are, therefore, left to make such proof thereof as they may be able and advised to do; these defendants, how- ever, according to their belief, say, that such numbers have been over-stated by the plaintiffs. « And these defendants, further answering, deny, that the preachers belonging to the travelling connexion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, or any or either of them, have a direct and personal, or other legal or equitable interest, in the same right with the plaintiffs, or otherwise, in said property, situated and held as herein- before stated, or in any part or portion thereof, to any amount whatever. And the defendants utterly deny that the lay membership of the Church, South, whether in number as stated by the plaintiffs, or otherwise, are parties in interest in the subject- matter of the plaintiffs’ bill, or have, or ever had, any pecuniary interest in the said funds or property. “‘ And these defendants, further answering, admit, that these defendants are mem- bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and are preachers belonging to the travel- ling connexion of that Church, and that each of them has a personal interest in the said property and funds; but these defendants state, that such interest is the same only as is held in common by all the preachers in the travelling connexion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and depends upon the contingency of their remaining in that connexion. And these defendants admit that the defendants, Lane and Scott, have the custody and control by law, and by virtue of their appointment as agents of the Book Concer by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of all the said property and effects of the said Book Concern. ‘“* And these defendants, further answering, say, that they have no certain know- ledge thereof, but, according to their information and belief, they deny, that the plaintiffs have brought their said bill by the authority, and under the direction, of all the annual conferences and travelling preachers, or members, in said Church, South. And these defendants claim and insist upon the same benefit and advantage of this objection to the right of said plaintiffs to bring said bill, as if the same were inter- posed by plea, or demurrer, or m other proper manner. ‘“* And these defendants, George Lane and Levi Scott, further answering, say, that the schedule hereto annexed, marked A, contains a full, particular and just account of all the real estate, personal estate, goods, debts, money and effects of every sort or kind, held by them, or either of them, as agent or agents, trustees, or members, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as such account can, at the present time, be conveniently made up; and the same comprises all the assets and property per- taining to said Book Concern. ‘“‘ And these defendants, Nathan Bangs and George Peck, admit, that, by the terms of the resolutions already referred to, they, together with James B. Finley, were appointed by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of 1844, held at New-York, commissioners, for the purposes stated in such resolutions, in the event aforesaid of their becoming operative ; but say, that they have not re- ceived any other appointment or authority as commissioners, or otherwise, to act upon the part of said General Conference, or said Church, with any commissioners on the part of the South, in relation to any division, distribution, or settlement of the property herein referred to, or of any so-called ‘ Church property.’ And these defendants, Bangs and Peck, further say, that inasmuch as the said resolutions, de- nominated the ‘Plan of Separation,’ have never had any validity, and have been declared null and void, in the manner hereinbefore stated—they admit they have re- fused to act, as such commissioners under those resolutions, in any settlement or division of any property. “ And the defendants submit that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief or de- cree prayed for in said Bill of Complaint, or to any other relief or decree against these defendants, touching the matters in said bill set forth. “And these defendants, in answering, further say, that as they are advised by counsel and believe, and therefore submit, the claim of the Methodist Episcopal 25 Church, South, to a pro rata portion of the funds and property in question in this suit, is not clear, but on the contrary must be conceeded to be at least doubtful in law, and that these defendants cannot safely pay or deliver over the same to them, or their agents lawfully constituted, without their first having their rights therein and thereto established, and without the sanction and authority of a court of law; and they therefore pray, that, in any event, they may be protected from all injury in the premises ; that their rights and duties therein may be established, and all proper costs, counsel fees, commissions, and expenses of every kind, may be allowed to them under the decree of this Honourable Court. Mr. Lorp,—A replication has been filed to this answer which it is not necessary to read. Since these proceedings began, we have had to lament the death of Dr. Bascom, one of the parties to this suit. Dr. William A. Smith has been substituted in the place of Bishop Bascom. I have the consent of my friends on the other side, dated the 14th of May, and if your Honours please I move that an order be made, making this substitution as of to-day. Tue Court,—Take your order. Mr. Lorp,—If your Honours please, in introducing these proofs I may say that they are mostly, if not altogether, documents to be introduced by consent. We have on each side consented that the Book of Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, printed in 1840, which was the book in force at the time of the Conference of 1844, shall be considered in evidence. And we have printed those extracts which, on reading the book, we considered to bear upon the case, and which your Honours will find in the Book of Proofs, No.1. If the gentlemen on the other side think there is any other part that is material to the case, they can read it to the Court. We also, in regard to such historical facts as may bear on this controversy, have on each side agreed to refer to Emory’s History of the Discipline of the Church ; and further, we have marked our extracts and printed them. Mr. Cuoate,—With the right reserved to both parties of looking beyond them, I suppose ? Mr. Lorp,—Yes, sir, with the same right reserved to both parties of looking beyond them. We also refer to the printed journals of the several General Confer- ences of the Church, for the years 1840 and 1844, which were Conferences common to the two Churches, and to the journals of the Conference of 1848; all of which we have agreed to admit in evidence. The Conference of 1848 of course bore a differ- ent relation, a very different relation, to the subject, we suppose, than those of 1840 and 1844, We also refer to the manuscript journals of the several General Confer- ences of the same Church, prior to 1840, which are accessible to both solicitors at the Methodist Book Concern, in the city of New-York, which shall be held and consi- dered to be duly authenticated and verified by proof; and extracts from any part of them shall be admitted as evidence, and either party shall be at liberty to refer to and read them with the same effect as if the original had actually been produced in proof. In introducing this evidence to the Court, I shall not take the course of read- ing the book through, but I shall introduce each distinct portion as it bears upon the points of the case, as they are presented in our brief of the points of the argument. The first to which I shall refer are those in relation to the Book Concern. I shall refer your Honours to the pages, so that they may be marked as I proceed. I refer to page 30 of the Book of Proofs, No. 1, which are proofs common to both parties. 26 The Book of Proofs, No. 2, contains proceedings which we introduce in evidence to show the acts of the portion of the Church with which we are more especially connected. The stipulation in regard to the admission of that is in the preface to the book in these words :— ‘“« The plaintiffs in this cause, by their solicitor, propose and consent to the follow- ing documents and papers, and the matters therein stated, as further evidence in this action. “And the defendants, by their solicitor, consent that said documents and papers be read in evidence, to show the proceedings therein detailed of the various bodies and members thereof, and persons, as such proceedings are by those bodies, members, and persons, respectively for themselves reported. “ But the defendants, except as above, do not admit any statements of alleged matters of fact or of opinion, or any of the arguments in said documents or papers contained. “The Discipline of the ‘Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ may be referred to as containing the doctrines, and rules of government and discipline of said organiza- tion.” Turning to page 30 of Book of Proofs, No. 1, I read as follows. It is an extract from the Book of Discipline of 1840 :-— ._“ Of the Printing and Circulating of Books, and of the profits arising therefrom. “1. The principal establishment of the Book Concern shall be in the city of New- York ; and there shall be such other establishments as the General Conference may deem expedient.”’—P. 198. “28. The profits arising from the Book-Concern, after a sufficient capital to carry on the business is retained, shall be regularly applied to the support of the de- ficient travelling preachers and their families, the widows and orphans of preachers, &c. The general book-steward shall every year send forward to each annual con- ference an account of the dividend which the several annual conferences may draw that year; and each conference may draw for its proportionate part on any person who has book-money in hands, and the drafts, with the receipt of the conference thereon, shall be sent to the general book-steward, and be placed to the credit of the person who paid the same.” Pp. 207, 208. Now, if your Honours please, I turn to the history and origin of this Book Con- cern, as given in Dr. Emory’s History of the Discipline. His History I would ex- plain is in the form of annals. He gives the history of the alterations in the Disci- pline at each successive General Conference, or other authorized act of the Church. I quote from page 17 of the Book of Proofs, No. 1. ‘“* Of the printing and circulating of Books, and of the Profits arising therefrom. “1800. The form of questions and answers laid aside, and the whole section remodelled as follows :— “‘]. Ezekiel Cooper is appointed the superintendent of the Book Concer, who shall have authority to regulate the publications, and all other parts of the business, according to the state of the finances from time to time. It shall be his duty to inform the annual conferences if any of the preachers or private members of the so- ciety neglect to make due payment. He may publish any books or tracts which, at any time, may be approved of or recommended by the majority of an annual con- ference, provided such books or tracts be also approved of by the book committee, which shall be appointed by the Philadelphia Annual Conference. He may reprint any book or tract which has once been approved and published by us, when, in his judgment, the same ought to be reprinted. Let his accounts and books be examined by the Philadelphia Conference at the time of the sitting of the said conference. “2. It shall be the duty of every presiding elder, where no book-steward is ap- 27 pointed, to see that his district be fully supplied with books. He is to order such books as are wanted, and to give direction to whose care the same are to be sent; and he is to take the oversight of all our books sent into his district, and to account with the superintendent for the same. He is to have the books distributed among the several circuits in his district, and is to keep an account with each preacher who receives or sells the books; and is to receive the money, and to forward it to the superintendent. When a presiding elder is removed, he is to make a full settlement for all the books sold or remaining in his district; and is also to make a transfer to his successor of all the books and accounts left with the preachers in the district, the amount of which shall go to his credit, and pass to the debit of his successor. “3. It shall be the duty of every preacher, who has the charge of a circuit, to see that his circuit be duly supplied with books, and to take charge of all the books which are sent to him, from time to time, or which may be in his circuit; and he is to ac- count with the presiding elder for the same. When a preacher leaves his circuit, he must settle with the presiding elder for all the books he has disposed of; he is also to make out an inventory of all that are remaining unsold, which shall be collected at one place; the amount of which shall go to his credit, and be transferred to his successor, who is to take charge of the same. If the preacher who has the charge of the circuit be negligent in dispersing the books, the presiding elder shall commit the charge of the books to another. “4, The superintendent of the book business may, from time to time, supply the preachers with books in those circuits which are adjacent or convenient to Philadel- phia, and settle with them for the same: in such cases the regulations respecting the presiding elders are not to apply. “5. In all cases where books are sent to distant places, the presiding elders or preachers shall be allowed to put a small additional price on such books as will best bear it, in order to pay the expense of freight or carriage; but the addition must not be more than what is necessary to defray such expenses. ‘“«§. Every annual conference shall appoint a committee or committees to examine the accounts of the presiding elders, preachers, and book-stewards, in their respec- tive districts or circuits. Every presiding elder, minister, and preacher, shall do everything in their power to recover all debts due to the Coneern, and also all the books belonging to the Concern, which may remain in the hands of any person with- in their districts or circuits. If any preacher or member be indebted to the Book Concern, and refuse to make payment, or to come to a just settlement, let him be dealt with for a breach of trust, and such effectual measures be adopted for the recovery of such debts as shall be agreeable to the direction of the annual confer- ences respectively. “7. There shall be no drafts made upon the Book Concern till its debts are dis- charged, and a sufficient capital provided for earrying on the business; after which, the profits arising from the books shall be regularly paid to the chartered fund, and be applied, with the annual income of the funded stock, to the support of the dis- tressed travelling preachers and their families, the widows and orphans of preach- ers, &c. ‘“«8. It shall be the duty of the preacher or preachers who travel with any of the bishops, if he or they be authorized by the superintendent of the. Book Concern, to act as an agent in the settlement of accounts, collecting money, or in transacting any business belonging to the Book Concern.’’—Pp. 258-260. In 1804, while the conference consisted of all the preachers, it was altered to read in this way, —pp. 19, 20, Book of proofs, No. 1. “«1804,—7. The profits arising from the Book Concem, after a sufficient capital to carry on the business is retained, shall be regularly applied to the support of the distressed travelling preachers and their families, the widows and orphans of preach- ers, &c. The general book-steward, shall every year send forward to each annual conference an account of the dividend which the several annual conferences may draw that year; and each conference may draw for their proportionate part, on any person who has book money in hand, and the drafts, with the receipt of the eonfer- ence thereon, shall be sent to the general book-steward, and be placed to the credit of the person who paid the same. But each annual conference is authorized, at all events, to draw on the general book-steward for one hundred dollars.”—Pp. 261, 262. 28 Your Honours will observe the change to be, that the profits were not to be paid into the Chartered Fund, but to be distributed by the agencies of the annual confer- ences; and it thus remained, in substance, until the rule was adopted as it now stands in the Discipline of 1840. The next subject, extracts in relation to which I will read, is the Conferences, An- nual and General; but in that connexion I will read extracts from the Book of Discipline of 1840, beginning on page 25 of the first of the proofs, on the subject of the Holy Scriptures, the Church, and its rites and ceremonies ; for they bear upon this part of the case. The articles of religion are printed at large, and what I shall read are but extracts. “ ARTICLES OF RELIGION. “WV. The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. “The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation: so that whatso- ever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or ne- cessary to salvation.””—P. 10. “XII. Of the Church. “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.”—P. 14, “XXII. Of the Rites and Ceremonies of Churches. “Tt is not necessary that rites and ceremonies should in all places be the same, or exactly alike : for they have been always different, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and pur- posely doth openly break the rites and ceremonies of the Church to which he belongs, which are not repugnant to the word of God, and are ordained and approved by com- mon authority, ought to be rebuked openly, that others may fear to do the like, as one that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and woundeth the con- sciences of weak brethren. ‘«‘ Every particular Church may ordain, change, or abolish rites and ceremonies, so that all things may be done to edification.’””-—Pp. 18, 19. ‘XXIII. Of the Rulers of the United States of America. *« The president, the congress, the general assemblies, the governors, and the councils of state, as the delegates of the people, are the rulers of the United States of America, according to the division of power made to them by the Constitution of the United States, and by the Constitutions of their respective States. And the said States are a sovereign and independent nation, and ought not to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction.’’* ‘* Of the General Conference. “‘ Quest. 2. Who shall compose the General Conference, and what are the regu- lations and powers belonging to it * “« Ans. 1. The General Conference shall be composed of one member for every twenty-one members of each annual conference, to be appointed either by seniority or choice, at the discretion of such annual conference: yet so that such representa- tives shall have travelled at least four full calendar years from the time that they were received on trial by an annual conference, and are in full connexion at the time of holding the conference. “©2. The General Conference shall meet on the first day of May, in the year of our Lord 1812, in the city of New-York, and thenceforward on the first day of May ““* As far as it respects civil affairs, we believe it the duty of Christians, and especially all Christian ministers, to be subject to the supreme authority of the country where they may re- side, and to use all laudable means to enjoin obedience to the powers that be ; and therefore it is expected that all our preachers and people, who may be under the British, or any other government, will behave themselves as peaceable and orderly subjects.”—P. 19. 29 once in four years perpetually, in such place or places as shall be fixed on by the General Conference from time to time: but the general superintendents, with or by the advice of all the annual conferences, or if there be no general superintendent, all the annual conferences respectively, shall have power to call a General Conference, if they judge it necessary at any time. ‘©3. At all times when the General Conference is met, it shall take two-thirds of the representatives of all the annual conferences to make a quorum for transacting business. “4, One of the general superintendents shall preside in the General Conference ; but in case no general superintendent be present, the General Conference shall choose a president pro tem. «5. The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules and regula- tions for our Church, under the following limitations and restrictions, viz :—’’ The six articles that Iam going to read are known under the technical name of “ Restrictive Articles.”” I may here also observe, that the designation ‘‘ General Superintendents,”’ in what I have read, is the name given to their bishops. “1. The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our articles of reli- gion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine. “2. They shall not allow of more than one representative for every fourteen members of the annual conference, nor allow of a less number than one for every thirty : provided, nevertheless, that when there shall be in any annual conference a fraction of two-thirds the number which shall be fixed for the ratio of representation, such annual conference shall be entitled to an additional delegate for such frac- tion; and provided, also, that no conference shall be denied the privilege of two de- legates. cs 3. They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our government, so as to do away episcopacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency. “4. They shall not revoke or change the general rules of the United Societies. «« 5. 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. “*6. They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book-Concem, nor of the Char- ter Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the travelling, supernumerary, superannuated and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children. Provided, nevertheless, 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 alter any of the above restrictions, excepting the first article: and also, whenever such alteration or alterations shall have been first recommended by two-thirds of the General Conference, so soon as three-fourths of the members of all the annual conferences shall have concurred as aforesaid, such alteration or alte- rations shall take effect.””—Pp. 21-24. “ Of the Annual Conferences. ‘* Quest. 3. Who shall attend the yearly conferences ? “ Ans. All the travelling preachers who are in full connexion, and those who are to be received into full connexion.’’—P. 24. “‘ Of the Allowance to the Ministers and Preachers, and to their Wives, Widows, and Children. “1. The annual allowance of the married travelling, supernumerary, and super- annuated preachers, and the bishops, shall be two hundred dollars, and their travel- ling expenses. “2. The annual allowance of the unmarried travelling, supernumerary, and super- annuated preachers, and bishops, shall be one hundred dollars, and their travelling expenses. ‘3, Each child of a travelling preacher or bishop shall be allowed sixteen dollars 30 annually, to the age of seven years, and twenty-four dollars annually from the age of seven to fourteen years; and those preachers whose wives are dead shall be allowed for each child annually a sum sufficient to pay the board of such child or children during the above term of years: Nevertheless, this rule shall not apply to the children of preachers whose families are provided for by other means in their circuits respectively. f ‘4. The annual allowance of the widows of travelling, superannuated, worn-out, and supernumerary preachers, and the bishops, shall be one hundred dollars. “5. The orphans of travelling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, and the bishops, shall be allowed by the annual conferences the same sums respectively which are allowed to the children of living preachers. And on the death of a preacher leaving a child or children without so much of worldly goods as should be necessary to his, her, or their support, the annual conference of which he was a member shall raise, in such a manner as may be deemed best, a yearly sum for the subsistence and education of such orphan child or children, until he, she, or they, shall have arrived at fourteen years of age. The amount of which yearly sum shall be fixed by a committee of the conference at each session in advance.”’— Pp. 181, 182. Now, if your Honours please, I propose to read historical documents, to show how this power of the General Conferences has taken its shape from time to time ; so that it may be seen what has been done, how it has arisen, and how it has grown up. Iam about to read an extract from Emory’s History of the Discipline. By “ Discipline ” is meant the book of that designation containing the articles of religion and everything relating to this Church. “Tn our civil governments the statutes are scattered through the several volumes of laws, which have been published from time to time, and therefore these are all preserved, But, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Discipline, as revised at each General Conference, being in itself complete, supplants all that had gone before it, and the previous editions are cast aside, as of no further use. Thus it has con- tinued, until now nearly sixty years have elapsed since the organization of the Church, and the Discipline has undergone about twenty distinct revisions.””—P. 3. For the present I pass over the questions which relate to slavery, as I propose to read all those parts which relate to that subject together, and distinct from other questions. I proceed, therefore, to page 3 of the first of the proofs :— *'The close of the year 1784 constituted a new and most important epoch in Ame- rican Methodism. The independence of the United States having been confirmed by the peace of 1783, the authority of England over them, both civil and ecclesiasti- eal, came to anend. ‘The connexion with the Church of England being thus provi- dentially dissolved, Mr. Wesley, who had always resisted a separation from it, took measures, on the application of the American societies, to organize them into a Church. In explanation of his views and wishes, he addressed to the brethren in America the following letter :— ““ so without a grave abuse of the trust reposed in them. Hence, again.» 2:22 13; a meetmg of the commissioners at an early day, is neces- sary to 32% @ this prelimmary question, which it appears to us can be conclusively settled in no other way. « 255 of the new office he would relieve himself of all embarrassments? Why might they not have done him the honour, in advanee, of supposing that in becoming a bishop he would prefer to stand on the general rule, instead of sheltering himself under a narrow dispensation? Why might they not have presumed on the part of a bishop, as discri- minated from the narrower and humbler labours of the travelling preacher, that for the sake of holding such an office as that, for the sake of being a successor of the Asburys and the Wesleys ; for the sake of being a successor of those older, and better, and more famous men; for the sake of the privilege under Almighty God of bearing the glad tidings, the venerable presence and admonitions, and authoritative instructions, and satisfying consolations of this Church everywhere, from North to South, and from East to West, from Britain to Gaul, from Marseilles to Rome, from Rome to Antioch, from Antioch to Jerusalem,—that for the sake of these, he would be only too glad, I will not say to forego the luxury of slaveholding, for that might involve a sarcasm, which I do net mean, but, to’break away from such an impediment as slave- holding, that he would choose rather-to proceed instantly to place himself where he might soonest and most effectually rid himself of all participation m what would make him objectionable to any portion of his flock ; and that if he should prefer the other alternative, to continue to hold slaves, he should see no hardship in allowing the mitre to pass te another brow? Can any man, on this question of interpretation, stand here and tell me, that this Methodist Episcopal Church in 1800 and 1816 might not, on that exact discrimination, have said, ‘“‘ The travelling preacher needs a dis- pensation, and shall have it; but the bishop will never ask for it, and shall not have it.” On that ground alone, I say, there might be a necessity for this distinction. But there is one other reason connected with this office—and when I state it I shall leave this branch of the argument—and that is, that the life and duties of a bishop differ altogether, and in so great a degree from those of the travelling preacher, as really to afford a necessity for a different standard and example. I suppose that to the usefulness of a local or travelling preacher in the South, slaveholding con- stitutes no objection. It probably affords no drawback at all. On the other hand, this Court knows perfectly well, this whole Church and this country know perfectly well, that to the utility,of a bishop, slaveholding constitutes an objection of the gravest and most practical, not to say decisive, character. This Court knows per- fectly well that over large tracts and fields of his episcopal journey, such a bishop is but half a bishop. Your Honours know perfectly well that the itinerant superinten- dency of the bishop is fundamental in the practical polity of Methodism. Methodism may give up almost everything, but it cannot give up that. Methodism may give up this tenet or that tenet, and become more Calvinistic or less Arminian. But she would cease to have a particle of Wesleyanism upon her front, in her life, in her services, and in her name, if she did not.retain a superintendent episcopacy, who can carry the presence and counsels of that Church to the most extreme locality, however remote, however sectionalized by extremity of local opinion,—who can carry them everywhere, and be everywhere unblamed and unreproved of all men. That is of the very essence of Methodism. When this is dispensed with, .everything is dis- pensed with. Instead of stopping to prove this, as I could prove it, I will content myself by referring your Honours to the address of the bishops in 1844. You will there see that I do not exaggerate the importance of this ornament of Methodism. It is of the essence of practical Methodism that the bishop may go, and shall go—he shall go on foot if necessary, he shall go barefooted if necessary, he-shall take sack- cloth, he shall take the cross, he shall not go figuratively by staying home and sending another ; but the theory of the system, the demands of the system, the ad- ministration of the system, what it}has achieved for the world, depend upon this :— 256 that the bishop shall go and be required to go everywhere personally, from time to time, from one extremity of his circuit to another. What then more inevitable than that this General Conference of the whole Church, that recognised from the begin- ning the right of the South to its proportion, and more than its proportion, should have settled it asa rule, that he from the South who would aspire to it, must bring a virtue that would approve itself to more than one side of the line—a virtue that did not need the apology of birth-place and residence—a virtue that should come directly as it were of Divine perfection and character, that should be winged, created, clothed to be welcome everywhere, by whatsoever things are lovely, by whatsoever things _are honest, by whatsoever things are of good report in the sight of all men. ‘That became perfectly indispensable. Therefore, to tell, Northern members of such a Church as this that they ought to elect, that they are required as Methodists to elect a slaveholder to the office of bishop, or that, finding him to become such, they must still continue him there, is to tell them they must cease to be Methodists, to be Wesleyan Methodists, must dismiss themselves of an itinerant episcopacy ; in other words, a change of discipline, a change of faith. While they had a recorded general rule that slaveholders should not bear office in that Church, and while they yielded with the sensibilities and common-sense of men to the necessities that required a particular exception, they never dreamed of an exception for an hour in the case of abishop. I submit that the action in the case of Bishop Andrew, shows that the sense of the Conference of 1844 was that such an exception had never been dreamed of. Then I submit that the great North was right, and the great South was wrong, that day, on the question of mere innovation. I say we did not mnovate on the South in the slightest degree. Bishop Andrew was not tried, was not sentenced, was not removed, was not suspended from his office ; advice was given him, and in giving that advice we kept entirely within the practice of the Church, as settled upon the record of the Church. Suppose this were doubtful. In the name of common-sense and reason, was a structure like this, reared as this was, built for the offices for which this was built—should a structure like this have been demolished ; first, on a doubt on the meaning of our act ; and, secondly, on a doubt of the meaning of one of the articles in the creed? The future historian of that Conference will, I think, say that the mi- nority were in the fault in this business. I feel bound to go as far as to say that from what I have seen in the evidence, prodigious abilities were in that minority. I have seen some proofs of it from their pens. It contained men of the highest char- acter for patriotism, and all the qualities we love,—all that we would take back to our embrace if we might. But I feel bound to hold them responsible for that day’s work to a certain and just extent. I must say, that although there may be undercur- rents of which we cannot judge, for we are here in a court of law and on the proofs, I believe if that minority had not, among themselves, under the exasperation of the vote in Bishop Andrew’s case, resolved on this act, and had not thereupon thrown themselves into it with a passionate energy, if they had not thereupon prepared a circular, to which I may or may not have time to call the attention of the Court, to the South, not merely predicting but initiating that result, if they had not then gone home and delivered themselves over to that easy and yet so responsible a trade—so easy to such abilities, and yet so responsible for such a use of them—the manufacture of public opinion,—that opinion under which the annual conferences of the South convened, and the Louisville Convention assembled, and did the work,—I believe, before God, the Church would have stood fair as the moon, with all her banners to- day as in the day of her birth. Some locai excitement there might have been here and there. There always is. And it is the very use of reason to deal with 257 such local excitement. To what purpose these endowments of mind, and this force of character, but to struggle with such agitations as these! All our American war- fare is nothing but a war of sense and nonsense—nothing else, in the world. Some local excitement there probably would have been; but if fifty of these gentlemen— twenty-five, ten, five—had remembered that they were patriots as well as Methodists, and Methodists as well as patriots—if they had remembered that this Church was origin- ally created in 1784 for the nation of America—that it was designed by its founders that through and by an original unity, not merely embracing that territory, but expand- ing to the universal territory of the New World, through that organism Methodism was to work out its mission and enjoy its life—that the chief among its agents is the” agency of itinerancy, and prominent in its itinerancy is the office of bishop, whereby a bishop may travel from shore to shore, and be everywhere a father among his chil- dren, a presence and power equally beloved and authoritative—if they ‘could only have remembered that, in addition to all that was demanded of it as a Church, it was one of those beautiful strumentalities—how rare and indispensable !—by which the larger union outside, which embosoms it, was to be kept together—if they could have gone back under these influences, and spoken their fervent feelings and weighty speech to the reason of the South, that Church, Troja nunc stares, would have stood this day. Such is my confident belief. I have been looking over the proceedings of the Southern annual conferences as put in evidence in the case. I was about referring to some beautiful passages from the proceedings of the conferences in Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, and—the far- ther the better—Texas, which still breathe a longing, lingering love of the union, and which manifest the most strong and reiterated expression that they will not separate if they can by possibility avoid it ; thus showing that they could not tear themselves from the warm precincts of the cheerful day. ‘They waited for the assembling of the wise men of the Convention of Louisville, and waited for nothing but to hope they would consider that there should be no necessity for separation. The journals of our Conference of 1848 show you that nearer 3,000 than 2,000 have come back, and asked permission to be taken again into the old fold of their fathers’ and mothers’ baptism. I say such Methodists as these might have been kept; and heavy, heavy is the responsibility which will allow such delicious and priceless affections as these to run to waste, and water but the desert. Still heavier is the responsibility of him who puts out that Promethean fire which no hand may rekindle. Now, what was done? Did the minority of the South anywhere put on the record of that Conference of 1844 their opinion, that what we had done ought to dissolve the Church in matter of conscience and political ethics? Nothing like it; but they put on the records merely a declaration that what had been done must produce a certain state of things at the South, which would render their continuance in the Church impracticable. It isa very striking fact that they did not place on the records a deliberate declaration of their own opinion, that what the General Conference had done in matter of law and matter of conscience, made it proper and fit for them to dissolve the union of the Church. They told the General Conference that in conse- quence of its action a certain state of things would be produced at the South—that the laity of the South would be aroused, and that when they went home, if they found it impossible to rule the roused Methodism of the South, they would have to choose between ties to them and ties to us. Thereupon the General Conference said, that if such a casus as that should arise, they would do nothing to throw any impediment in the way. I have made inquiry, and I am satisfied that no member of that Conference —certainly, not a great majority of them—had any more idea that they were voting for a division of the Church, than that they were voting for a division of the State. 17 258 But they verily believed that their ready manifestation of a willingness to help their Southern friends—if when they got home they found such an excited state of feeling, would help to maintain the connexion—that this would operate in some measure as oil on the troubled waters, and thus anticipate, and prevent in some measure, the catastrophe which had arisen. They adopted what has been called the Plan of Sepa- ration, not as a measure of division but as a preventative. Ido not think this quite relieved the minority from all responsibleness in that behalf. It was still their duty to have endeavoured to prevent a state of feeling which in the Conference they undoubtedly seemed to fear, and for their opinion we had great respect. Their counsels guided. I admire their abilities, and appreciate their patriotism, and love them well enough, with all my heart, to wish them back again in the same Church with my clients, and I do not know that I could breathe them a better wish. As to the act itself, if I may not call it, in the language of Mr. Burke, “the fond election of evil,’ was it not, in the language of the same great man, ‘the unforced choice of evil?” I escape with great pleasure from matter connected but remotely with the merits of the case, and come to those immediate merits. The case actually stated in the bill is very simple and very clear. The learned counsel who opened, states or intimates in his argument another case totally distinct from that stated in the bill, as I understand it, which creates some confusion in my own mind. Before I raise the real question which I wish to present to the Court, I would seck for myself a clear idea of the equity on which the plaintiffs claim. Look- ing, then, to the bill, the case put is exactly that a body of persons and of annual conferences, heretofore members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, have, by their own act or concurrence, and volition, under a certain Plan of Separation, separated themselves from that Church, and formed themselves into another totally distinct and independent Church. The case stated in the bill, in other words, is, that the Metho- dist Episcopal Church has been divided in twain by a geographical line, and that they have attached themselves voluntarily to the Church on the Southern side of the line, and that this has taken place under such circumstances that they still remain entitled to their share of the original fund. This case thus stated in our general way is a perfectly intelligible one. It is a case of voluntary separation. It raises the mere question of the effect of such separation on the rights of the separatists to the original common property. But your Honours will, perhaps, have observed that, in the course of his argument, my learned brother perpetually kept introducing another case, not stated in this bill, and not before the Court, to derive from that case some aid to the one stated and argued. He said there were widows and orphans who were to lose their rights on the doctrines of this defence, without any act of their own, and there- upon he pressed us to know if we would put such a class of non-combatants as these to the scalping-knife and the tomahawk, whatever we might be inclined to do with the great body of the plaintiffs whom we have to encounter. In regard to that, I have to say, in the first place, that no case is before this Court but that of voluntary separatists, or those whom other volunteers have separated from the Church. If there are widows and orphans on the Southern side of this line, who have not volun- tarily separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church, or who have not been carried away from that Church by the acts of other persons, themselves volunteers, with whom they are ecclesiastically connected, then the defence which we make to the plaintiffs’ bill excepts such a case—and no such case is stated in this bill, or prepared in argument for the consideration of this Court. This bill is for voluntary separatists, not for those who have not participated in the act of separation; and therefore the defence we here make has no application to the class of people for whose title to the sympathies, not to say the justice, of this Court, my learned brother seemed desirous 17* 259 to borrow some kind of advantage. I hardly know that I need say anything as to that limited and anomalous description of persons further than this. If the Court will look into the journals of the General Conference of 1848, to the action of that Conference upon petitions of thousands from the South who have sought to return to the body of the Church, they will see that the doctrine which we have there declared on record is, that everybody who has not withdrawn, or who has not been expelled, is still a member of this Church. Therefore, if it be true of these widows and orphans, or any of them, that they have not acted at all, they still re- main, for aught I know, within the pale of the Church; and we should be but too happy, so far as they are concerned, to apply the fund to them. But their case is not stated on the record, it is not presented in the bill, it is not argued substantially by counsel. To their case our defence has no application whatever. I object, there- fore, to my learned friend drawing to his banner, and bringing to his aid such a description of parties as these. He will give us leave to say, that it is hardly fair, although it is very skilful warfare in him to do so, to come to us at the head of some 500,000 Southern combatants, less or more ; and when we turn round to fire upon them, to say, “Take care; you will kill some widow or some orphan, and these widows and orphans are no combatants, no marks for you.’’ Our answer to that is, that with that class of parties we have no encounter, and if his clients would avail themselves of the immunities of orphans, they had better begin by clothing them- selves with the innocence of orphans. It is with the voluntary separatists of the bill alone that we deal. Turning then to the case, as it is exactly stated, and taking it under its most for- midable aspect, that is to say, of an income for these beneficiaries, which is, perhaps, the most formidable and most plausible aspect in which the learned counsel presents the case,—and by preachers, I mean the limited description of preachers to whom the fund is directed,—our answer is, that they have no claim, because they have lost by their own act the one fundamental and indispensable qualification of continu- ing membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church. To maintain this, we shall submit, that the acts of the plaintiffs worked a simple secession from the Church, without lawful authority, terminating their own membership, and yet leaving the identity of the Church altogether unaffected. If so, we say, it can scarcely be denied that they have lost the right in losing the qualification. To open our gene- ral answer to the bill a little more broadly, if we should suppose that the plaintiffs had succeeded in establishing the position that they left the Church and terminated membership, which was the qualification under which they held the title, by lawful authority, leaving the original Church, in fact, in its associated identity, still we ~ submit that they have not carried with them a particle of right to any portion of this fund, principal or interest ; because, on such secession and termination of membership as this, it is a universal proposition of law, as we understand it, that the seceder takes nothing, unless at the time of secession, or before, or afterwards, the act is at- tended and qualified by a grant of property from a body competent to make such a grant. In this case we say, that even if the plaintiffs have left the Church under the sanction of competent ecclesiastical authority, they have no such grant of autho- rity : 1st. Because the General Conference had no power to make it; 2d. Because it did not assume the power to make it, if it had it ; and 3dly. Because both the Gene- ral and annual conferences together, could not take it away from the uses to which it was originally devoted ; the travelling supernumerary and superannuated preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church remaining members in it. It will be convenient for me however, instead of now adverting to the fund, to ad- vance at once to the proposition that the plaintiffs’ act in leaving the Church was a 260 simple, bold, and unauthorized act of secession, unauthorized by any ecclesiastical authority whatever ; and, therefore, according to the universal law, as we apprehend it, the right of property terminated by the act of secession. We say, then, in the first place, that the proceedings of the plaintiffs were a simple, unauthorized secession, and that they leave the identity of the old Church entirely unaffected. I suppose it will be hardly controverted on the part of the plaintiffs, certainly it is entirely and perfectly clear, that independently of the proceedings of the General Conference of 1844, the act of the plaintiffs, and of everybody who participated in the proceedings of the Louisville Convention, would be a simple and unauthorized secession from the Methodist Church. Prima facie, I mean to say, that unless they shall be qualified by the action of the General Conference, called the Plan of Separation, the proceedings of the plaintiffs, and those with whom they are associated and act, work a simple and mere secession from the Church. If your Honours will glance at the resolutions of that Louisville Convention, as they are stated in the plaintiffs’ bill, p. 6, fol. 20, you will find that they in terms declare, and then proceed to achieve a separation from the Methodist Episcopal Church. 'They in terms proceed to renounce the jurisdiction of the General Conference in all its terms, and in all its forms, and to impede the organism through which that jurisdic- tion could be exerted. They then proceed to constitute the portion of the Church which acts in and through them into a separate and distinct ecclesiastical association and organization, for whose government, and faith, and discipline, and indefinite ex- istence, they go on to make complete and independent provisions. Now, of course, the effect of all this—unqualified, as I have said, by the act of the General Confer- ence, to the influence of which I shall have occasion to proceed in a moment—is se- cession and nothing else. In its effect, it is exactly as if, mstead of five hundred thousand persons, five persons had turned from Methodism to Presbyterianism or Congregationalism, and had gone off by themselves from the body. I take it to be al- together too clear to discuss, that the number of those who go, their continuing Methodism, their simultaneous organization of themselves into a Methodist Episco- pal Church, the farewell words of kindness with which they take their leave, and the protestations which we find scattered over the proceedings of the Louisville Con- vention, to the effect that they do not intend to separate or secede, do not control the matter in the slightest degree. Actions, here as elsewhere, overrule words ; and no protestations, and no declaration of the purity of their course can possibly ex- tricate their case from the influence of a conclusive presumption of law, prima facie, unless they can qualify it and transform it by resorting to the Plan of Separation. “They have deserted the Church in the boldest possible form and most intense ex- tent. I may perhaps anticipate, though not in the immediate course of my intended discussion at this time, so far as to say, that I understand it to be perfectly clear, according to the doctrine universally accepted on this subject, that a simple secession, such as this would be but for the vote and plan of the General Conference, is per- fectly futile to claim the property asserted in this bill, however that property may be holden,—whether it belonged to the society in the aggregate, or was held by certain of its members in trust as a charitable use for certain other members. I understand it to be universally holden by the jurisprudence of all civilization, that such a secession as this would be, upon that hypothesis, secession unauthorized by ecclesiastical property, and forfeits the title as a matter of course. Indeed, I sup- pose it is just as clear—it is one of the points which we have presented to the Court this morning on our brief—that, even if the secession were completely autho- rized by competent ecclesiastical authority, but leaving the old organism in its local identity, it works the very same consequences on the title. I suppose it entirely true 261 that if a religious association, incorporated or unincorporated, holds a fund by any title belonging to the society in the aggregate, or held by a part in trust for the rest, and thereupon a secession takes place by their consent, the seceder carries no inte- rest in the fund. I understand that to be universally true of all incorporated or un- incorporated associations. This is a common case, and we have referred the Court to many cases of it. In New-England, if a portion of a city or town is set off into a separate town, it does not carry with it any portion of the funds of the old corpora- tion without a special agreement to that effect. There was a strong illustration of it in a case reported in the 16th of Massachusetts Reports, where the old county of Berkshire was divided into three counties, and the legislature, inadvertently at the time of making the act of division, perhaps, forgot to provide for a division of the corporate property, and the very next legislature undertook to correct the mistake. In that case it was holden to be unconstitutional, as there was no provision made for a division of property in the act authorizing the division of the county. So that I understand it to be a universal proposition, that upon a secession, authorized or un- authorized, as the general rule, the seceder carries no property in the fund which before belonged to the whole association, unless his act be attended and disarmed of its consequences by an accompanymg grant of a share of the property by the competent authority. Not, however, to anticipate, but to confine myself for the present merely to the act of secession, to qualify the prima facie influence of this secession, and the consequences of that act, the plaintiffs have, of course, the burden of proof; and to encounter it, they invoke the vote of the General Conference, called the Plan of Separation. ‘That Plan, as well as I can, with all the attention [ have been able to give it, understand it, the plaintiffs assert divided the Church in two, and by some operation or other, that I am not quite confident to this hour I dis- tinctly understand, even without the assent of the annual conferences, it enabled them to depart, and yet to carry with them a portion of the original common fund. Upon this a great many questions arise; but the first to which I wish to call the attention of your Honours is, whether or not this act of the General Conference is not a mere nullity in the contemplation of ecclesiastical law, in so far as it was an act assuming to divide the Church under which, of course, the plaintiffs take no right. My first proposition is, that it is an entire and perfect nullity, for want of authority in the body called the General Conference to divide the Church according to the Methodist ecclesiastical polity. This, then, raises two general questions,—1l. What is the nature of the act? and 2. What are the powers of the body that did this act ? It is to be observed, in the first place, with regard to the nature of the act, that in in order to avail the plaintiffs in the slightest degree, it must be held to be an act whereby the General Conference divides the Church into two—everybody agrees it must do that,—and whereby it divides the Church in two, but wholly destroys the old association, and produces two new ones in its place. I have already indicated, and I shall by-and-by have occasion to submit more at length, that if the act does not go to this extent—if it goes no further than a mere setting off a part from the whole, leaving the identity of the original whole unaffected, and does not at the same time accompany it by a grant of any portion of the estate—then it does not avail the plaintiffs. Therefore, I submit, though in the bill they confine themselves to the mere allegation, that this act has divided the Church in two, without advancing so far as to say whether it has destroyed the original Church and made two new ones, in order to avail themselves of the act in the slightest degree, they must go that extent. Therefore, they must establish the two constituents of the Ovidian meta- 262 morphosis, not merely the forma mutata, but also the novum corpus, or their case fails. If, however, it does not go so far as the destruction of the old Church, and the production of two new ones, it is at least a division of the Church; and it is in that aspect of the act that I desire for a moment to consider it, and then to inquire whether or not this Conference had the constitutional competence to do such an act. It is, then, a division of the Church; it is so urged in terms, and is unquestion- ably so in every view of the case. To avail the plaintiffs, however, it must be made out in matter of fact that it is a division of the Church; that it divided an existing Church theretofore one, established to be one, organized completely, and covering jurisdictionally and spiritually, secundum subjectam materiam, a certain territory, into two Churches, separated by one geographical line running directly through the origi- nal territory, and each Church totally distinct, and totally independent. That is the nature of the act. It is not a mere dismission of a single member from the Church in malam partem, or in bonam partem. It is not the excommunication of a party ; not the dismissal of a party with letters of recommendation; it is not the calling in of a missionary on a lying-out frontier, ascertained to be too far distant for the prose- cution of his enterprise of benevolence; nor is it, as was the case between this Church and Canada, the dissolving of a treaty, or the terminating of a compact be- tween two Churches theretofore existing legally independent, but united by a tempo- rary tie. On the other hand, it is a division of an existing substance into two. It is, ecclesiastically and in fact, precisely such an act as it would be politically, if the general government were to-morrow to assume to divide the United States by Mason’s and Dixon’s line prolonged from sea to sea, and proceed to establish two indepen- dent nations on the different sides of the line, and then to go on indicating a plan for dividing the buildings, the ships, the arsenals, and the flag equally between us. May that omen at least be averted! It isa division, and nothing less nor more than a division of the Methodist Episcopal Church. I ask the Court, before I proceed to inquire into the powers of this body constitu- tionally to do such an act, to pause for a moment in the still further contemplation of the act itself. This is a division of a Church which had existed in 1844, called the Methodist Episcopal Church. It was one Church. At that time it had been one sometime longer than these States in this Union had been one under the constitu- tion of the general government. Methodism, as I have read in these proceedings, had its birth and baptism in an upper chamber somewhere in the city of New-York, in 1766. Thence it spread and grew, embarrassed somewhat by the troubles that preceded the breaking out of the revolutionary war, and still more by the revolution- ary war itself, until at last, in 1784, its hymns were sung, and its fervid oratory spoken, in the pine woods and upon the river banks, in some seven States, and in the hearing of some 14,000 or 15,000 members. That was in 1784. Still, down to that time, it recognised a certain British tie. Its founder and its ruler was Wesley, who was an Englishman to the last day of his life. Its preachers were, I believe, all of them, down to that time, of British ordination. Its sacraments were denied to it through the agency of its own service, and could be enjoyed only by leaving the Methodist meeting, and seeking for them within the walls of an Episcopal Church by the English law, to which Wesley all his life, certainly as late as that period, con- tinued to adhere. In 1784, sympathetic with the new American national life, Me- thodism, the Methodism of the United States, the collective general will of American Methodism, expressed by the preachers and by the laity, assembled in an extraordi- nary Convention, for that was the true character of it, expressly on that subject, con- vened under a letter from Wesley recommending that proceeding, decided to form 263 itself into one Church—one independent and indivisible by the terms of its creation. The Court will see that it was expected to be a Church in and for these United States, that it was expected from its origin to grow with their growth, and to expand with their area, to breathe over their gigantic frame its spiritual culture, to contri- bute to their amelioration, to consolidate their unity, and to attend their various for- tunes through the corporate, and associate, and connected life of both. I pray your Honours’ attention, in this immediate connexion, to the letter under which the Con- ference was called by which the Church was formed. And it is very striking to remark how the Church, in its very origin, had a national character and a national tie, and might very well expect to survive and perform a series of national service as long as there was a Church to work or a nation to serve. On pp. 3 and 4 of Proofs No. 1, Wesley, in his letter, says— “ By a very uncommon train of providences many of the provinces of North Ame- rica are totally disjoined from the British empire, and erected into independent States. The English government has no authority over them, either civil or eccle- siastical, any more than over the States of Holland. A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by the congress, partly by the State assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation some thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice, and in compliance with their desire I have drawn up a little sketch,” &c. Your Honours will observe the exigency. In consequence of the independence of a new nation, Mr. Wesley advised the establishment of a Church for that nation. He says that thousands of its inhabitants solicited his advice, and he proceeds to re- commend the creation of a new Church for the new independence. He constitutes Coke and Asbury joint superintendents over the American brethren. By turning to pp. 5, 6 and 7, your Honours will observe that it is certain citizens of the United States, who, under this letter, they having undoubtedly formed part of the thousands who solicited his advice, proceed, in contemplation of the same crisis—the erection of a new nation to independence—to found a Church for it. I beg leave to read a passage from page 5 :— “To carry into effect the proposed organization, a General Conference of preachers was called, to meet in Baltimore at Christmas, 1784. Sixty, out of the eighty-three preachers then in the travelling connexion, attended at the appointed time. ‘At this conference,’ say the annual minutes for 1785, ‘it was unanimously agreed, that cir- cumstances made it convenient for us to become a separate body, under the denomi- nation of the Methodist Episcopal Church.’ ”’ Turning from that, I ask attention to some of the questions in the Discipline of 1784, page 6 :— *¢ Quest. 2. What can be done in order to the future union of the Methodists? “Ans. During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his sons in the Gospel, ready, in matters belonging to Church government, to obey his commands. And we do engage, after his death, to do everything that we judge con- sistent with the cause of religion in America, and the political interests of these States, to preserve and promote our union with the Methodists in Europe. “ Quest. 3. As the ecclesiastical as well as civil affairs of these United States have passed through a very considerable change by the revolution, what plan of Church government shall we hereafter pursue ? t ‘“‘ Ans. We will form ourselves into an episcopal Church, under the direction of superintendents, elders, deacons, and helpers, according to the forms of ordination annexed to our liturgy, and the Form of Discipline set forth in these Minutes.” So, then, contemporaneously with the emerging of a new nation to life, a new Church—the Methodist Episcopal Church—by the same general agencies, or sympa- 264 thetic with the same general agencies, was brought into existence. In its first breath, it was a unit, it was one Church. The evidence that it was to be and remain a unity as long as it should exist is just as unequivocal as the evidence that it was to exist at all. There is as little dream of duality in this birthtime of the Methodist Church as there is of deism or pantheism. Duality is no less a heresy, according to the objects and original destiny of this Church, than either the one or the other. Its territorial extent, present and future, was meant to be perfectly defined, and ab ori- gine it was, and was to be co-extensive with these States. By a solemn compact of all with each, and each with all, that power which created that Church in 1784, who- ever that power was,—call it the whole body of preachers, the whole body of Metho- dist laity, that vast body of preachers and laity, preachers acting for the laity and laity for the preachers,—ordained from its birth that it should be one Church. Even then, it is striking and beautiful to observe, that they saw in it the promise of an abiding and an expanding agency, for the benefit of the nation whose members they were become. I submit that everything in the history of Methodism, everything in its origin, everything about it, is unity. Unity is the law of its beng. From the start every- thing implies, everything expresses it. Go back to its origin, and you find that from its birth-time till 1844, unity is everywhere. It is as frontlets between its eyes. It is written on every fold of its robe. It is garnered up in every corner of its large heart. Every one of its institutions was originally adapted to the preservation of that unity to the end. For the administration of local business it has local judicatories ; for the conduct of its general affairs, proceeding on the plan of our grand secular Union, it has a general body; and then, above all, is that extraordinary distinguish- ing and characteristic element of a grand superintending itinerancy, whereby the universal Methodism of America may be said to be brought together from season to season, in one vast creation, homogeneous and identical, to be kindled with one flame, to be melted in one tide of emotion, to sit down to eat and drink unreproved and unblamed at the same promiscuous banquet of charity. That Church, thus created for unity, of which unity is a part and parcel, the General Conference of 1844, it is said, has divided in twain. Forgetting their own subordinate and admini- strative relations to the Church, and to the sovereign will behind, that created and produced it; forgetting that the grand idea of Wesley and the generation of 1784 was, that the Methodism of these United States should work out all its ends in and through and by the instrumentality of a compacted and organic unity, and that when it ceased to be one, whatever it became, it ceased to be the original Methodism of Wesley ; forgetting that its essence was itinerancy, and through itinerancy a whole nation was meant to be kept within a single fold; I will not say, forgetting their duties as patriots and as men, but, as it seems to me, with great respect, miscon- ceiving those duties, and showing themselves for the moment, a little unequal to the forbearance, and self-control, and humility which the hour demanded, and which enno- bles more than it degrades any man—forgetting these, this General Conference divided this Church in two as coolly as a mathematician would draw a great circle on a wooden globe. It was divided in an instant, even as if a child were cut through the head and heart to compose the dissensions of stepmothers. I know that a great deal of ingenuity has been employed by my learned and able friend on the other side, to prove that all the Methodism has not been divided. A great deal of pains has been taken to show that Methodists, whoever they are, and wherever they are, are one body. I believe some poetry has been printed, to the effect that although mountains rise and rivers roll between nations of Methodists, still a certain tie of Methodism unites them at last. I submit that that is nothing at all 265 to the purpose ; for after all, this forgets entirely that the Methodism of 1784 was the Methodism that was to exist, and act, and do its work, only through and by means of an organic unity ; and when that organic unity is cloven down, and that structure destroyed, it is in vain to say that, though unity is gone and the Church is dead, Methodism is alive. Why, suppose the National Government to-morrow should di- vide these States into two independent nations, or thirty-one, or thirty-two, or five hundred independent nations, I suppose about the same absolute quantity of demo- cratic liberty might remain and lift up its voice all over this land. I dare say, inas- much as a certain tie is said to connect us everywhere, we should still retain a tie of connexion with one another till, through a series of affliction, and struggle, and strife, we had been fain to take refuge all of us beneath the Dead Sea-of despotism, just as we are connected with patriot Hungary and patriot Poland, and other patriotic falls. I dare say the same quantity of republicanism would be left ; but this national unity, through which our liberty was achieved—this constitutional unity—where would it bet Just exactly where the Methodism of 1784 went when the Church in which it was embodied, and through which it was to act, was destroyed by the act of the Conference. The question now is, whether the General Conference had the constitutional authority, under the ecclesiastical polity of Methodism, to make such a division as this. We utterly deny it ; and I feel an extreme anxiety to bespeak in advance the indulgent attention of the Court to the perhaps very tedious historical argument, to some extent, by which I am now about to endeavour to establish that proposition. I submit that they had not a particle of authority, under the ecclesiastical polity of Methodism, to divide the Church at all. The question might perhaps be avoided on the part of these defendants, for, as I have said, according to a view of the act on which we shall much insist before the argument shall be concluded, even if it had power to divide the Church, he who retires takes no fund with him, unless by a spe- cial grant. But the question lies in that. It is one of a great deal of interest, and a right determination of it, which we shall be sure to have from the learning of this Bench, will, in my humble judgment, do something to conduct these parties back again, which I personally certainly very much desire. It is common to say, and it is said in the case cited the other day from Benj. Mon- roe—a case which I brought with me, as it is the one which discussed this subject— that there is a sovereign and ultimate power in all bodies competent to destroy it. There must be, it is very common to say, some power to dissolve the Union; there must be a power somewhere competent to dissolve a corporation, a firm, to dissolve the Church, to dissolve society itself. This may very well be so; and this was an ar- gument which was very much pressed by my learned brother, in adverting to a great variety of circumstances which might occur, in the progress of events, to render a division of this Church expedient, and perhaps necessary. But then it does not fol- low that any specific body in a given polity is the organic depository of this transcendent and fatal power. Whether any specific body, as the General Conference, has it or not, or whether such a body itself is a mere subordinate or administrative function, depending on a higher and secret sovereign will, is a question in every case of his- tory and of law. That is a question in this case as applicable to the General Con- ference. Somewhere, I may admit, the power must exist. It must exist, if your Honours please, in the General Conference, or in the sovereign will which created the Church behind it ; but whether in one or the other, is a question of law and of history—a question of ecclesiastical law to be illustrated by the history of the Church—a ques- tion of ecclesiastical law upon the polity of Methodism itself. I have drawn out 266 with some care a proposition which I shall endeavour to maintain, in regard to the powers of the General Conference. Our proposition is, that the General Conference in the Methodist Episcopal Church, whenever, as in 1844, it is called and assembled in its ordinary course, under its ordinary and appointed designations of meeting, is a mere administrative body of the Church. It is, and always has been, the superin- tending legislature, judiciary, and executive of the Church, created and existing to administer its affairs from time to time, and for that purpose durante vita to make rules and regulations for its government, and provisions for its unity, and growth, and good; but it was a subordinate agent, a servant of the Church itself. It never was the original creator of the Church. Sitting in its ordinary capacity, and under its ordinary call, it never represented the sovereign power which created the Church ; it never was made to be the destroyer of the Church ; and it has never had, in any era, more power to dissolve or to destroy the Church than the General Government has to-day to divide the Union by a line of partition drawn across it from Hast to West. The Methodist Episcopal Church itself was created in 1784, by an extraor- dinary and special Conference, convened for that precise purpose, under a letter from Wesley, and in accordance with the universal wish of Methodism, lay and clerical, in the United States. That Conference created the Methodist Church for the whole United States—created it to be one, to exist forever, or while such Churches exist upon the earth. When that Conference had done its work of creating the Church, it retired, disappeared, and has never again been assembled in the history of Method- ism. By virtue of that act of creation, the Methodist Church has existed ever since, and will exist until another Conference called for the purpose, representing and em~ bodying the will of the real sovereign—that is, universal Methodism as a whole— shall decree its dissolution; and long, late, and distant may that be. After this Church was created, it had, and necessarily must have had, administrative bodies, through which im various spheres to carry on its daily business. Such are the officers of the Church, such are the annual conferences, such are the quarterly conferences, and such is, or such at least was in 1792, the General Conference. These, all of them, are subordinate, executive agencies of the principal, the constituent—the Church. When they are called together in the ordinary way, and under the ordinary call, they have none of them any more power to destroy the original sovereign creator and con- stituent than an attorney employed to execute a deed of land has power to shoot his principal through the head. Such is our proposition. I now have respectfully to ask the attention of the Court to the general outline of proof by which I shall endea- vour to establish it. I have stated it as it applies to every one of the conferences, and to every one of the eras of the General Conference. For the discussion I must to some extent follow the example ef my learned brother, and consider the General Conference as existing in the Methodist Church before 1808 and after 1808, which is the period when it became strictly a representative body, called the General Confer- ence ; and under that division I mean to submit these two propositions: in the first place, that the body called the General Conference, meeting in its ordinary course, and under no extraordinary call, instructed to do or consider no specific or extraordi- nary act, did never, even before 1808, have power to divide the Church, or any analo- gous power, but was strictly an administrative body, existing to govern a Church which another distinct body had previously created ; in the second place, I mean to say that even so, its actual administrative powers were reduced to some extent in 1808. I shall first consider the earlier eras and first proposition. To know what the General Conference prior to 1808 was, what it was created, and what it was authorized to do, I shall have to treat the subject somewhat historically. The history of the Conference before 1808 lies precisely in these few facts. I will 267 present the facts to the Court as I suppose them to exist, and call your Honours’ at- tention a little more in detail to the evidence. The history of the Church before 1808 stands on these facts, and these alone. First, the creator of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1784 was not a General Conference meeting in the ordinary course, but it was a power totally distinct from, and other than, any General Confer- ence that was ever convened. It was an extraordinary body, such as never assem- bled before or since, convened under the apostolical letter of Wesley, the real father and founder of Methodism in America, for the express purpose of considering on the organization of a Church for a new nation, composed of all the travelling preachers en masse, and not of a representation or delegation, acting in execution of a strong and general demand of the laity for a Church that could administer its own sacra- ments. That is my first historical proposition. 2d. After this body had created the Church, it separated to appear de facto no more. 3d. After that attempt there was not, and there never had been, such a thing as a General Conference, with any recognised character, and duties, and powers, known to Methodism in this country; and there never was a General Conference called by that name, and with known and recognised powers, until the year 1792. Advisory bodies, under the name of regular conferences, had been called by the general assistant before, but with no power of deciding in any instance against his voice. 4th. This convention extraordinary which made the Church, did not provide for any General Conference then to exist in it at all for any purpose, but it set it going with an administrative economy made up of various administrative agents, variously subordinate—bishops, annual conferences, quarterly conferences, and on one occasion a body called a council. So it continued to exist till 1792, without any General Con- ference in it, or about it, or recognised by it at all. 5th. After some years’ experience of these administrative agencies, in 1792 a General Conference developed itself. The proper mode of expressing it, perhaps, would be to say that the General Conference was the last and most perfect in the series of mere administrative agencies. The General Conference from this time down to 1808 was never endowed with a particle of power to dissolve the Church, with a particle of analogous power, with a particle of power to do one act which the bishop had not done by his own regular conference. So it existed down to 1808, and at that time these administrative functions, such as they were, were actually reduced instead of being enlarged. In other words, I shall say when I come to present the proofs of it a little more fully, that it merely developed itself and took the place of the bishop and his advisers, and had exactly the same power to dissolve the Church which the bishop had, and not one solitary particle more. I beg your Honours’ par- don for occupying so much time in the narration of the five great facts which com- pose the history of that period; and now pardon me if I trespass a little further to return and endeavour successfully to establish them. Who, then, created the Church organization? That, I suppose, is the first question in an inquiry like this. Of course I need not say that it was no such General Con- ference as this that existed in 1844—that is, a body of delegated representatives, for no such Conference had before 1808 existed at all. Ishould say, before I proceed to adduce the proofs on which I rely for it, that the creator of the Methodist Episcopal Church was an extraordinary body, such as had never assembled before, called for a convention—under the name of ‘“‘ The General Conference,”’ it is true, but composed of all the travelling preachers, not of a part of them selected by the annual or the quarterly conferences, or otherwise, of the whole body of the preachers en masse. This body assembled under Mr. Wesley’s letter of invitation, in accordance with the 268 general and strong demand of the laity of the country for a separate organization, and for a Church capable of administering its own sacraments. That convention, thus composed, and thus called in obedience to such a demand, created this Church. The true sovereign then, I submit, the true sovereign by which alone it was created, and by which alone it can be destroyed, may be said to be the preachers in a mass, acting in obedience to the wishes of the people, through the advice of Wesley, and upon their own judgment of expediency, utility, and duty, and convened (I must not allow to be forgotten for an instant) for the express purpose of doing that very work. So that it was, in a remarkable degree, as distinguished from any General Conference that ever sat before or ever convened afterwards, analogous to the con- vention that created the Federal Constitution in 1787, and the various conventions which from time to time have been assembled to create the various constitutions of the several States. That body was the true creator of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It may be variously stated, but every mode of statement is equally decisive for the use to which I would hereafter endeavour to apply it. It may be stated that the true creator of the Church was the general and collective will of American Me- thodism, acting through the laity and through the preachers. Or it may be said that it was the collective will of American Methodism, expressing itself and acting through an extraordinary convention, called under a letter of Mr. Wesley for that express purpose, which did its work, and then disappeared. But, however it may be denominated, I submit that I am right, in an abbreviated and general way of stating it, in saying that it was an extraordinary convention called for that express purpose, under the name of a General Conference, but not in the least degree resembling any Gene- ral Conference convened before, or any General Conference that has been assembled from that hour to this. It was a great ecclesiastical convention of the Methodists of America. This brings me to the consideration of a question of some importance, and that is this :—it may be said that, inasmuch as the body creating the Church assembled un- der the name of a General Conference, therefore, wherever we find in the history of the Church, a body sitting under the name of General Conference, it may be pre- sumed to have all the powers and to be clothed with all the authority, with the same transcendent powers, with the original convention. In other words, the argument may be, that whereas this body, which I have called an extraordinary convention, really assembled under the name of General Conference, therefore, whenever you afterwards find a body in the Methodist polity assembling under the same denomina- tion, it is fair to presume that it assembles for the same general ends, and is clothed with the same transcendent powers. Now nothing can be more erroneous than this ; for the second historical fact, to the proof of which I am now about to ask the atten- tion of the Court, is, on the contrary, exactly this, that at that time, 1784, when this body assembled, there existed no such thing as a General Conference in the Metho- dist Church with defined and recognised character, or with any character or any powers whatsoever ; so that this body was not only new, but was exactly and merely a convention of creation and of independency, no less and no more. That is the second fact, and to prove it, I shall have, perhaps, to take a little more time than I desire. Before 1784, then, there was nothing in the Methodist system in this country un- der the name of General Conference, or with any recognised powers of any descrip- tion, even to make rules and regulations for the Church. I think important conse- quences flow from this fact, and I shall therefore take pains to see whether it is controverted on the part of the counsel for the other side, and if it be controverted, I shall proceed to establish it by the histories of Methodism, if they are admitted for 269 the purpose; if they are not admitted, I shall content myself with stating what I understand and am satisfied the historic fact really is, and then to say that the plaintiffs have the burden of proof on this part of the cause, and they are to evince the contrary if they maintain it. It is true then, that from 1773—that is the first period to which I go back—there were occasionally convened by the general assistant of Mr. Wesley in this country, a body under the name of regular conference, for the purpose of advising the assistant upon the administration of the affairs of the Church. That first began, as far as we can learn, in 1773, which is perhaps a date not unimportant for your Honours to bear in mind. That body, however, was simply an advisory body, and it must be perfectly clear that it had no power, on any debatable matter at all down to 1784. And, extraordinary as it may seem, the fact is indisputable that the general assistant, who convened it for his own advice, after he had heard a matter debated, decided it for himself indepen- dent of the conference. Such continued to be the state of the case from 1773 to 1784. As to the proofs of this, I should begin first by referring to the History of the Discipline, page 10, where we find some allusion to a conference of 1773 ; but I feel bound to say that for the complete exhibition of the evidence on this point, I shall desire to refer to Dr. Bangs’s History of the Methodist Church, which I suppose to be an authoritative and satisfactory account of these proceedings, and which fully sup- ports the statement I have had the honour to make. I would turn your Honours’ atten- tion in the first place, to 1 Bangs’s History, page 342, for the general statement that no such thing as a General Conference, by that name, ever existed in this country until 1792. I refer to it merely in proof of a fact which is really very well established in the History of the Discipline itself, that, down to 1792, there had been no General Conference at all. Until 1773, there seems to have been no sort of conference at all. For the purpose of showing the Court that when after that time, between 1773 and 1784, the general assistant called regular conferences, they were advisory only, and had no powers to pass on any debatable matter at all, I refer to 1 Bangs’s History, pages 131 and 132. That passage is of so much pertinence and importance, that I shall pause to read it. He is writing the History of 1779 ; he has not yet arrived at 1784, but this is subsequent to the calling of these conferences. What he says, therefore, throws light on their power :— “These resolutions were adopted at the conference held at Judge White’s, in the State of Delaware. It seems, therefore, that they were not in the habit at that time of determining debatable questions by a majority of votes; but, in imitation of the practice of Mr. Wesley, after hearing all that could be said pro and con, the presiding officer decided the point.” In confirmation of that fact, and for the purpose of showing how it probably had its origin, I will make two references to different parts of the History of the Disci- pline, and then leave the subject. In 1773, History of Discipline, page 10, it is re- corded that— “‘At the first conference held in Philadelphia, June 1773, the following queries were proposed to every preacher :— “ Quest. 1. Ought not the authority of Mr. Wesley and that conference to extend to the presen and people in America, as well as in Great Britain and Ireland? Ans. Yes.” So that the real truth of the matter is, that by an ordinance of the first conference of 1773, the proceedings of subsequent conferences and Methodist denomination in this country were subject to the determination of Mr. Wesley’s conferences in Europe. Therefore it came to pass exactly as the historian had recorded it, that 270 down to 1784, these bodies were nothing but advisory bodies, without any power to decide a matter which was debatable. I will not trouble your Honours with any further references or citations to establish that proposition. I think it will not be controverted. Now it follows from this that the body which in 1784 created the Church was, as I have denominated it, a new and extraordinary body, called for a new and extraor- dinary purpose, and under a new name in that Church; because, as I have shown, down to that time a General Conference had never existed, and the regular confer- ences that existed had been advisory bodies, without the slightest power of determina- tion. The next important fact is, that this body, which thus created the new Church, then retired, and did not create or provide for any General Conference at all, even to administer its affairs. This is a fact of very great importance, and when I come by- and-by to apply it to an important problem, i.e., with what powers the General Con- ference of 1792 came into existence, I think it will be found to throw very great light on that inquiry. The fact is, that this General Conference of 1784 did not create or provide any General Conference even to administer its affairs; but on the contrary it seems to have assumed that the administration would be carried along very well by the annual conferences, and quarterly conferences, and the officers of the Church. In point of fact, therefore, there was no General Conference in the Church to do any- thing under any name. The amount of the matter is, that this extraordinary conven- tion made it at first, set it in operation, with a bishop, and with annual conferences and quarterly conferences to advise him as to its administrative economy. Therefore your Honours will see that the General Conference of 1792, which is relied upon as starting all at once into existence with power to destroy the Church, did not origin- ally even come into the contemplation of the plan for creating the Church and pro- viding for its administration, for it started, and began, and proceeded eight years unattended and unaided by a solitary particle of administrative agency, except its bishop and its annual and quarterly conferences, and for a very brief period a body called a council, to which I shall call attention ina moment. This fact is not con- troverted by anybody. Everybody agrees that no General Conference existed until 1792. What was the administrative economy of the Church during this time? A bishop at its head, quarterly conferences and annual conferences, that is to say, local assemblages called from time to time by the bishop to give him advice, composed the entire administrative economy of this Church, from 1784 to 1792, and in the contem- plation of its creators seems to have been thought likely to be enough for the Church in all periods. The bishop from time to time in these annual conferences, and in these quarterly conferences, and in his regular conferences, if he chose to call them, conversed with them on changes of Discipline which he proposed to introduce ; and if he found by that consultation that his changes would be likely to be acceptable to the body of the Church, of his own authority he changed the Discipline. That was so for eight years; and those were what we should usually call the first and purest years of the Church, inasmuch as they were those which immediately succeeded its creation. Nay, so little was a General Conference thought of by the generation of 1784, that in 1789—I will show it from the historian to whom reference has been made—it was mutually taken for granted that a General Conference was entirely im- practicable, and therefore, by way of adding a new administrative agency to the Church, and for the purpose of collecting the general will of the Church more easily and more completely, the bishop actually projected the measure of a council, 7. ¢., a small body that should act and confer with him. That proposition was adopted, and for some time that body and the conferences, annual and quarterly, and the bishop 271 made up the whole administrative polity of Methodism. Let me call your Honours’ attention to this administrative economy as I find it in 1 Bangs, page 302—a very instructive chapter, as I regard it, for more purposes than one, as I hope to have strength enough and voice enough to make the Court understand before I am through. He says, speaking of 1789 :-— ‘“‘ Having thus noticed the progress of the work of religion in different parts of the country, let us return to the doings of the conference. In consequence of the exten- sion of the work on every hand, spreading over such a large territory, there were two difficulties which arose in the way of proceeding in the manner they had done here- tofore. ‘“‘1. It was very inconvenient for all the members of the conference to assemble together in one place to transact their business. Hence, as we have already seen, the bishops had appointed several separate conferences for the despatch of their ordinary affairs. “‘2. But anything which was done in these separate conferences was not binding, except simply the ordinations and stationing the preachers, unless sanctioned by them all. And as this could rarely be expected, constituted as human nature is, it was plainly seen that there was danger of their falling to pieces, or of their having divers administrations. ‘To provide against this evil, and to remedy the inconvenience above mentioned, it was determined this year, as the best thing which could be devised, to have a council, for the reasons and purposes, and with the powers set forth in the following questions and answers :— “«¢ Questions. Whereas the holding of General Conferences on this extensive conti- nent would be attended with a variety of difficulties, and many inconveniences to the work of God ; and whereas we judge it expedient that a council should be formed of chosen men out of the several districts, as representatives of the whole connexion, to meet at stated times ; in what manner is this council to be formed, what shall be its powers, and what further regulations shall be made concerning it ?’” : The Court wili have been struck, I am sure, by the recital of the impracticability of holding General Conferences to collect the general will for the administration of ordinary affairs. Therefore the idea of a council develops itself. The answer to the question then is :— “ Answer. 1st. Our bishops and presiding elders shall be the members of this council ; provided, that the members who form the council be never fewer than nine. And if any unavoidable circumstance prevent the attendance of a presiding elder at the council, he shall have authority to send another elder out of his own district to represent him ; but the elder so sent by the absenting presiding elder shall have no seat in the council without the approbation of the bishop, or bishops, and presiding elders present. And if, after the above-mentioned provisions are complied with, any unavoidable circumstance, or any contingencies, reduce the number to less than nine, the bishop shall immediately summon such elders as do not preside, to complete the number. “¢ Qdly. These shall have authority to mature everything they shall judge expedient. 1. To preserve the general union. 2. To render and preserve the external form of worship similar in all our societies through the continent. 3. To preserve the essen- tials of the Methodist doctrines and discipline pure and uncorrupted. 4. To correct all abuses and disorders; and, lastly, they are authorized to mature everything they may see necessary for the good of the Church, and for the promoting and improving our colleges and plan of education. “« 3dly. Provided nevertheless, that nothing shall be received as the resolution of the council, unless it be assented to unanimously by the council ; and nothing so as- sented to by the council shall be binding in any district, till it has been agreed upon by a majority of the conference which is held for that district.” This council, thus and then and upon that policy created, existed but a little while ; but as it was really the prodecessor of the General Conference proper, and was the first large or general administrative body ever collected under the new Church, I believe 272 your Honours will be inclined to say the child was the father of the man in this instance. And when you come by-and-by, when we arrive at 1792, to inquire with what scope of power the General Conference then met, you will regard as a fact of extraordinary importance, not to say decisive interest, that it was immediately prece- ded in this very line of development of administrative agency by a bishop’s council intended to collect the general will. There will not be a particle of doubt left on the mind of any fair historical inquirer, that there never was the least intention, from 1792 to 1808, to clothe the General Conference with a scintilla of authority more than was given to the bishop’s council. It is for that reason, that I have somewhat solicitously called the attention of the Court to the powers and objects of the council, as they are stated in Dr. Bangs’s History. The first is, to promote the general union. They were not creating a body to provide means for facilitating the destruction and disrup- tion of the Church, but simply and solely, when, after having provided a series of administrative agency that had worked well, outgrowing its infancy, the Church de- manded something more, this further administrative agency was provided, to collect the general will more easily, and do greater service. Then and for that purpose, to meet that exact want, this council was devised and introduced. It was tried for a brief space of time, and then abandoned, and in its stead was substituted the Gene- ral Conference. But I submit that there cannot be a particle of doubt that it was intended to have, and did have, through its brief period of somewhat unpopular exist- ence, the very same work to do, and did the very same work, nothing less and nothing more, which the General Conference which assembled in 1792 did. ‘Therefore I hope I shall be excused for reading again the powers of the bishop’s council, that you may see whether the Methodists at this time were carving, and whether they were anything more than carving out, a mere series of devices for a more perfect Christian and associated life, which the old convention of 1784 organized, and organ- ized to exist. ‘The powers of the council are :— “1. To preserve the general union.” Not to destroy the Methodist Episcopal Church, but to preserve the general union of the Church, simply and solely by enabling this wide-spread community to concen- trate their wills upon the administration of its affairs from day to day. “«2. To render and preserve the external form of worship similar in all our societies through the continent. 3. To preserve the essentials of the Methodist doctrines and discipline pure and uncorrupted. 4. To correct all abuses and disorders ; and, lastly, they are authorized to mature everything they may see necessary for the good of the Church, and for the promoting and improving our colleges and plan of education.” This council I have said was unpopular. The next fact we find is, that in 1792 the first General Conference ever convened in America under the Methodist Episcopal Church, assembled. We find all at once, in 1792, that it had been ordained by the constituent body, by the Methodism of the country, that from that time forward such a body should assemble once in four years, for the same purpose and clothed with the same powers. Now the problem is, with what powers, and for what purposes, the constituent creator and sovereign of 1792 all at once wakes up and ordains that there shall be in the Methodist ecclesiastical polity, from that time forth, a General Confe- rence, assembled, and sitting, and doing its work every four years. I submit that prima facie we have established, that the only purpose for which the constituent body could have all at once called a General Conference into existence, was for the pur- ‘ pose of enabling it to act as a body of mere administrative power, and with no power at all beyond it. The sovereign will in 1784 had made the Church, and set it in ope- ration, and left it to carry on its practical life by officers and annual and quarterly con- 273 ferences. For some time these answered that purpose very well. In the progress of events it was found that a council would be a convenient addition to the existing, appointed series of administrative devise, and thereupon a council was created ; but nobody will pretend, that in creating a council they meant to go beyond the creation of a mere administrative body, with no more power to dissolve the Church than the bishop had. That body was unpopular, and did its work but for a little time. Then comes the General Conference. Prima facie, I submit that the very date of its birth, the very order in which it comes into existence in the series of administrative agen- cies, the very fact that the great want of the Church at that time was not a power to destroy, but a power to administer, the very fact that the Church was already cre- ated, and set going forever, shows that the General Conference came into existence as an administrative body, and an administrative body alone. This is the inference the historian would make, if he were to inquire into the matter independent from this controversy. This is the inference, I think, which this Court will make. It actually was created to be, and became to be, just what we should infer from the historic facts—the time when it came into existence, the order in which it stood, and was pro- bably designed. I have a right to stop here, and call on the counsel on the other side for a particle of proof, that the prima facie inference is not the true inference in regard to the character of the General Conference. I call upon them now to exhibit to the Court one solitary scrap of proof, that the General Conference of to-day possesses a particle more power than the bishop’s council of yesterday. I press them on the historical question. If it were a question on the history of Rome, to be illustrated by a Niebuhr, or by a Neander on the history of the Church, I respectfully submit that it is perfectly manifest as a solution of the historical problem, having re- gard to the dates and series of events and the demands of the Church, that at the time the General Conference came into existence, it was just exactly what the bishop’s council had been, what the bishop had been, what the annual and quarterly conferences had been—administrative functionaries, but neither creators, nor de- stroyers, nor participators in a particle of that transcendent power. I call then on the other side. for a historical deduction ; and I have only to submit, and I demand judgment for the defendants in this case on it, for it puts an end to this controversy, that the plaintiffs have not furnished your Honours with a solitary particle of proof, to show that the powers taken by the General Conference exceeded those which I have been attempting to present. Then where is the proof tocome from? There are only two sources of evidence. They may, in the first place, call attention to the Discipline of 1792, to find there written a code defining the powers of the General Conference. It is silent on the matter. There is not one word in the history of the Church, not one word in the written constitution, showing with what powers the constituents, in 1792, intended to invest this body at the time it was called into existence. Then we are driven to the other source of inquiry. How are we to ascertain the powers possessed? By looking only at the powers which it put in exercise. The Court are, therefore, simply on these proofs, which the parties on both sides lay before them, to see if the General Conference, from 1792 to 1808, ever dreamed, so far as its powers and intentions can by possibility be conjectured, that they were clothed with a solitary particle of power beyond the authority possessed by the bishop’s council, which preceded it. On the contrary, the General Conference went on in the path of the bishop’s council and the annual and quarterly conferences. We find it going on, in the same useful, but well-defined and comparatively humble path of mere administrative service. We find it here and there making changes in the Dis- cipline of the Church, and those not considerable changes. I submit that not one 18 274. act of a higher degree of power was done in this period, and that nothing was done by the General Conference, from 1792 to 1808, which had not been done over again in the period which preceded it. Therefore, unless the learned counsel are prepared to say, that the bishop’s council, before 1792, could have dissolved the Church, the plaintiffs have not presented a scrap of evidence that the General Conference, after 1792, could dissolve the Church. The only answer I heard suggested to this by my learned brother was, that this Conference must have had all power to dissolve the Church, because it was com- posed of allthe preachers. Because it was composed of all the preachers, did it neces- sarily have power to destroy the Church? On the contrary, I suppose the question is exactly this: With what powers, and for what purposes, do the preachers appear to have decided, all at once, to introduce and establish a General Conference? That is the question. The question is not, whether all the preachers, assembled under a special call for that purpose, might or might not, at any period before 1808, pull down the Methodist Episcopal Church. That is not the question. The question is, for what purposes, and with what powers, they decided, in point of fact, that they would at once introduce, and make part of their regular polity, a General Conference ? We do not advance one solitary step to the solution of that, by being told that all the preachers were members of that Conference. Suppose they were. The very last thing they might have dreamed of on earth would be all at once to set going a body that should have power to destroy the Church. They might have introduced such a General Conference beyond all doubt; but the question is, whether they did so in point of fact. For the proof of that we have to go back again to the language of the constitution of the Church, in which there is not a word about it from beginning to end. I therefore submit, with very great confidence, at least so much as this, that the plaintiffs have entirely failed to show that even before 1808 this General Conference could ecclesiastically work a division of the Church. There is an utter failure to show it in point of fact. Wedeny it by our answer. The fair result of the historical investigation seems to be that they did not possess it; and unless it be held that be- cause the preachers might have clothed it with all powers, they necessarily decided so to clothe it, there is a total failure, as far as I can see, of this part of the plaintiffs’ case. The hour of adjournment having arrived, the Court adjourned until to-morrow morning. SEVENTH DAY.—Tvespay, May 27 Tu, 1851. Mr. CuoaTe resumed,—May it please your Honours, if, on this review, or any review of the history of the Church, and of the Conference of 1792, the Court should be of the opinion that it is a probable inference that that Conference came into existence as a mere body of administration—the last and ripest of the series of administrative agencies—then the case on this point is ended. If your Honours should only doubt on that question, the case on this point is also ended. If, however, you are of opi- nion that it has been clearly and certainly established as a proposition of historical fact, by the proper species of evidence, and the requisite degree of it, that this Con- ference, ab origine, was clothed with these extraordinary powers, then we have arrived at the question, whether or not the same extraordinary power was bestowed upon the representative General Conference created in 1808? This is a mere matter of intent. It all turns on the single inquiry, and that, I think, is not extended and 18* 275 not difficult, whether the constituency of 1808 intended, as a matter of intent, to clothe the General representative Conference, which it then, for the first time, brought into existence, with a power to dissolve and destroy, by dividing the Church. For, I take it that it is a universal and elementary proposition, that the powers of a representative and delegated body are exactly what the constituent creator meant to give it—no less and no more. I take this as a universal and elementary proposition, running throughout all agency, as between parties of substitution, of representation, of delegation, from the broadest to the narrowest, that the intention of the constituent defines and measures the power of the delegate. While this is true, undoubtedly, throughout the law of agency, in a general way this is recognised to be true by every school of politics in its application to the highest departments of government under the constitution. Even they who hold that the representative is not to be palsied by the will of his constituents, place themselves on the broad, general, original ground, that the constituent, by the act of creating the representative function, at first intended to clothe the representative, as a matter of intent, with the power and to devolve on him the duty of acting from time to time, of acting upon his own independent judg- ment, unaffected by the occasional interposition of the irregular and uninstructed will of the constituent. So that I believe I may submit it as a doctrine universally accepted, and everywhere applied, that the will of the constituent is the limit and the measure of the power of the representative. Turning, then, to this transaction of 1808, in search of the intention of the consti- tuent, I do not know that it is not enough for me to say that I can discern no trace of an intention to confer such power. Your Honours will find the history of that transaction on p. 13 of Proofs No. 1. You will there find that the constituent body began, in the first place, by composing the new representative General Conference, and then, in article 5, on the same page, it proceeds to define the power which it intends to confer. The language is simply and exactly—‘‘ The General Conference shall have full power to make rules and regulations for our Church.” Now, resting there, and not advancing to the subject of the restrictions by which this grant of power is presently to be limited in a very important degree, I must say, that I discern no evidence that this bestows the capacity of destroying or dividing the Church at all. On the contrary, what it seems to me I find the constituent body doing is exactly this: The Methodism of the United States had long before decided to become, and to be one Church; had, by a paramount and fundamental law, ordained unity as the form of its organic being; and here, in furtherance and exe- cution of that ordination, it goes on to create a body which, under certain restrictions and limitations, shall make rules for the guidance of the affairs of that unity thus previously created, existing and intending to exist indefinitely. I deduce this as all that the constituent body intends to do in the first place, from the nature of the act that he is doing, and from the character of the actor that is doing it. What is the act being done? And who is the actor that does it? An existing Church, already a quarter of a century old, created by the general Methodism, for a life all but per- petual on earth, having an existing government, is found simply amending a single fea- ture of that government. It is found to be doing nothing less, and nothing more, than altering the third article in the Discipline of the Conference which preceded it. I now respectfully submit that from the act which is being done and the actor who is doing it, from the nature of the act and the actor, the indefinite future existence of the association is properly assumed as a thing beyond controversy, and aliunde estab- lished and settled; and therefore the implication is simply this—that whereas here is a Church, to exist long, if not forever, and to its administration and government a. General Conference is needful, they proceeded to constitute such a General Confer- 276 ence, with power to make rules and regulations for it during its whole life. That, I submit, is the implication which inevitably results from the nature of the act and the character of the actor. However broad are the terms in which the power is bestowed upon the General Conference, it is all at last to be considered secundum subjectam materiam—it is all to be taken back, and rendered ad hoc and ad rem. It is to be considered at last, however broad the terms in which it is conveyed, as an auxiliary and administrative power alone. Why, is it not so throughout the whole range of analogous law? A power of attorney may be conveyed in language the broadest, putting the agent, apparently in all things, in the condition of the constituent—but it only means at last that he shall have power within the specific agency, and for that particular constituent. A partnership makes an agent with the amplest authority, but he is not to dissolve the partnership; his powers are to be taken to be for the partnership, and under the partnership, and in aid of the partnership ; he is not to alter the identity of his constituent, or put an end to his civil life. A corporation, to pursue the same analogy, creates a board of directors, with power to make rules and regu- lations, and by-laws, for the corporation. Would any body suppose they had power to dissolve the corporation and surrender its charter? Why, of course, the consti- tuent was not dreaming of a dissolution. He reserved all that power and all that subject-matter to his own control; he expects to live a corporate immortality, and on that idea he hires a servant to enable him to live while he lives. I deduce the same conclusion in the next place from the language in which this power is bestowed upon the General Conference. ‘They are ‘‘to have full powers to make rules and regulations.” For what? For Methodism? Certamly not. For Wesleyanism? Certainly not. Rules and regulations for the promulgation and spread of Methodism by the destruction of the Methodist Church? Not at all. But ‘rules and regulations for our Church’’—affectionately and specifically—rules and regulations for Methodism through our Church, through and by that specific instru- mentality. They are to have power not to make rules and regulations for the destruction of the Church, but for the Church. That is to say, they shall rule it, it being all the while an existing thing. Who could possibly mistake such language as this, if it were found in any other connexion, or on a question anything less than the momentous one which now engages this Court? If we found the phrase “rules and regulations for our firm,”’ “rules and regulations for our corporation,” would not everybody understand, as a matter of course, that it meant rules and regulations whereby “our firm,” undissolved, ‘‘ our corporation,”’ undismembered, should go on, and order its existing and identical life ? I had not the honour to be present and hear the commentary made the other day, by one of the learned counsel on the other side, upon a case from 1st Peters, which, I believe, is to be cited and commented upon. It is founded on language in the Con- stitution, supposed to be somewhat analogous to the grant of power to the General Conference, but which, I think, the learned and eminent counsel must admit to be substantially unlike. I will not pause to comment on the language of the Constitu- tion, but my learned friend knows that the subject-matter of the “rules and regula- tions” referred to in the Constitution, makes all the difference in the world. Con- gress is to have power to make rules and regulations for the territories. What is to be done with territories? Instead of being preserved in an existing and inflexible identity, the territory is to undergo a thousand changes. It must undergo a thousand transformations before it can reach and achieve the grand uses for which it has been spread out westward. It must be cut in two; it must be made into lots; it must be built up by the hand of man; it must be broken up into plantations and into States, and then, at last, it reaches its ultimate destination. Rules and regulations 277 for the territory of the United States, I submit, imply necessarily that they are to be rules and regulations that are to attend it through a thousand metamorphoses, enlarg- ing, diminishing, changing, until it reaches its ultimate destiny. The Church, on the other hand, is a perfect identity at the beginning ; to translate into English a familiar expression, it is “a fact accomplished ;” it is intended to exist until the end of time, enlarging and beautifying itself, if you please, but its identity forever unaf- fected, and all for an ulterior and specific end. Before I leave the argument, which I do not intend to extend, and on which I have only entered and generally indicated, of the intention of the constituent body in 1792 and 1808, to bestow a power of de- struction, I should like to ask my learned friends on the other side, if, in the course of their researches, they have found any breaking out of a dira cupzdo for destruction in the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and whether or not, beginning in 1784, and coming down to 1792 and 1808, they find men’s thoughts began to be directed to the importance of facilitating the means of breaking the charmed unity, and converting the Church into two, or two thousand; because, I admit, that if they can find historical evidence that the Methodist mind was taking such a direction as that, we should be led the more readily to anticipate that this intention was carried out by lodging such a power of destruction in the bishop’s council, or in the Con- ference of 1808. So far from that being the case, however, is it not most striking and beautiful, that the very preamble by which the Constitution of 1808 was ushered into existence—I have it here in 2 Bangs’s Hist., p. 229—solves this problem, and answers the question which I have referred to my learned friends? Before I read that preamble, let me remind the Court that the very problem which we are now in- vestigating is, whether that constituent body was then about lodging in the General Conference a power to destroy the Church. The preamble is :— «Whereas, it is of the greatest importance that the doctrine, form of government, and general rules of the United Societies in America, be preserved sacred and invio- lable ; and whereas, every prudent measure should be taken to preserve, strengthen, and perpetuate the union of the Connexion.” Therefore do they on that policy proceed to clothe a body with power to destroy the Church? Certainly not. Before I leave this matter, I wish to notice another topic, and the subject of the restrictions on the power of the General Conference. I have thus far been considering it, independent of the restrictions, upon the general ground of power. I respectfully submit, as I take my leave of this part of the argument, that if any doubt existed, it is removed by the language of these restrictions. My learned brother was pleased to say, that there was no prohibition in these restrictions against dissolving and destroying the Church. I respectfully submit, that that is because no grant of power had been previously given or dreamed to be given, which could be supposed capable of being tormented into a power to divide the Church. But I meet my learned friend beyond that suggestion, by inquiring how we shall possibly account for it, that an assembly of intelligent men, not to say men fit to be out of Bedlam, should have set them- selves to work, more like the philosophers of Lilliput, than the intelligence and character of a great denomination like this, to restrain, as they have done here in half a dozen articles of restriction, the exercise of powers comparatively subordinate, and leave so tremendous a power as this unrestrained? how they should sedulously and laboriously prohibit by all manner of man-traps and springs, the cutting off of this leaf or that twig, and yet leave the party entirely at liberty to pluck up the noble tree by the roots? In the humour of restraining, would they not restrain the larger and more formidable power? If, as the historian tells us, to preserve the 278 unity of the Church, they thought it needful so anxiously to guard its Discipline from change, the rules of its societies from change, the plan of its episcopacy from change, would they leave power to make a direct attack on unity itself? 1 submit, that the inconsistency of such a proceeding refutes the argument. Look at it. The General Conference shall not have power to alter the articles of religion, but they may alter the Church; they shall not change the creed, but they may kill the believer; they shall not alter the Discipline, but they may create two Churches or two thousand Churches, every one of whom may go off; as I read in the newspapers the other day,—I hope it was not true,—that they had already in South Carolina altered that very Discipline in face of the Discipline which was produced before this Court ; they shall not deprive an individual member of his right of trial and appeal in this Church, but they may send them off by thousands and thousands without trial; they shall not so alter the plan of episcopacy, as to say toa Northern bishop, ‘ You shall only go to Mason’s and Dixon’s line on your way South,” and to the Southern bishop, ‘‘You shall only go to Mason’s and Dixon’s line on your way North,” but they may with great constitutional propriety say to the Northern bishop, ‘‘ When you go to Mason’s and Dixon’s line you shall find no Church beyond it,” and to the South- ern bishop travelling this way with scrip and sandal, ‘You shall find no Church north of it.” I respectfully submit, that such inconsistencies as these could not possibly have been entertained and embodied by men fit to represent the grand con- structive intellect of Wesley, and perpetuate a system, giving him a fame among the builders of mitres. So much for the law of 1808. Is any light thrown on this interesting inquiry by what has happened since 1808? Now there are only three occasions on which any- thing has been done which anybody supposes throws any light on the subject of the inquiry. They are,—lIst, the Canada case; 2d, the action of this very body in 1844; and 3d, the action of our own body in 1848. I begin for a moment or two with a few words on the Canada case. I respectfully submit, that the Canada case affords evidence perfectly conclusive to show that they had not this power in point of fact. What was this Canada case? It was this exactly. The Methodist Episcopal Church from its origin was created by the Methodism of the United States, in consequence of the independence of the United States, in and for the United States alone. Expansive as they have been, the Methodist Church, from the nature of its constitution, and in point of fact, although the very day it came into existence it spread itself to the limits of the territory of the United States, yet it has never exceeded, and it could not exceed the limits of that territory for a hair’s breadth. It may go up to the line; it may meet on the other side of the line a separate and independent Methodist Church, and they may shake hands across the line; they may organize by agreement or compact a connexion, but there it ends. ‘There it is, and there it will remain, nothing im the world but an American Methodist Church in league or in treaty with a foreign and equally independent Methodist Church on the other side of our frontier line. That is the condition of the Methodist polity. I deduce it from the letter of Wesley, who says, that in consequence of the unexpected independence of this nation, he gives it a separate Church. Wesley, as everybody knows, through important periods of his life, clung fast to the old Church of England, and left it with reluctance. He be- stowed the boon of a new Church upon American Methodism with reluctance, and he limited the precious grant by the necessity of the case, and that necessity, blessed be God! was a pretty ample and energetic necessity in American independence. He gave it no further than the limits of the United States. The same thing is proved by the fact that the Church was created by American 279 citizens, The Conference of 1784, which I denominated an extraordinary conven- tion, that created it, was a conference of American preachers alone, and no work created by their hands could proprio vigore, or by its probable destination, have ex- istence without the United States. Your Honours cannot, I think, fail to remember that significant recognition of the political interests of these new United States, which they bring forward into the very constitution of the creation of the Church, their measure and their end, ultimately subordinate to the greater ends they had in view. ‘The Methodist Church then was a Church for this land, it was a Church for all of it : but let that pass. While this is true, Methodism from the beginning recognised the beautiful enter- prise of missions, and therefore it had always been in the habit of sending its mis- sionaries, hy their own consent, into Canada. There they met a germ of North American Methodism growing up in Upper and Lower Canada. An acquaintance was matured, and at last it came to pass, that the Canadian Methodist Church con- ceived a desire to be connected, by such ties as they thought appropriate to such jurisdictions, with the larger and more prosperous Methodism of the United States, Thereupon, as your Honours will find recited on every page of these proofs which contains the history of the Canada case, a compact was made, an agreement was entered into, a league was concluded; and the result was, not that the Church ex- tended itself to the North pole, or to the line of perpetual congelation, not that it extended beyond its territory, but that it filled up to the territory of the Canadian Church, and that Church occupied the region beyond, and the two then and there meeting, formed this league and brought themselves under that well-known rule of law recognised, I believe, in 2d Denio, that two Churches entirely independent of each other may voluntarily conclude a treaty of union, which shall leave their iden- tity perfectly distinct, as the sweet and bitter fountains that flow together without mingling, and which union either may terminate without schism, with or without the consent of the other. That was exactly in ecclesiastical law, as I understand it, the condition of these Churches. As it seems not, as a statement of fact, to be entirely appreciated or admitted to be correct on the other side, I shall presently call the attention of the Court to the proofs from which I gather it. I shall find them on the recitals of the gravest and most deliberate action of the General Con- ference, and I apprehend the Court will receive them as the very highest historical evidence upon a historical inquiry of fact. Such was the transaction. In that state of things time passed on, and the nationality of the Canadas came to be a little more developed. The political interests of the two countries, which Methodism always recognises, and which I commend to her special care to-day, led to a necessity for separation; and thereupon Canada applied for a separation of the connexion. Now we come to the constructions of that case. Notwithstanding such had been their relations, although this had not been an identical and homoge- neous Church extended by fusion over a common territory, but two Churches iden- tically distinct, connected simply by a conventional tie, yet when the Canada Con- ference came here to apply for a dissolution of the connexion, the first judgment of the General Conference was, that it exceeded their constitutional powers to grant it, and they thereupon proceeded to announce a set of doctrines, after great deliberation, which give to the winds the assumptions of the hasty and ill-considered proceeding of 1844. In the first place, it was reported by a committee to which the subject was referred, that it was beyond the constitutional power of the General Conference to grant the request in the form in which it was presented. On pp. 34, 35 of Proofs No. 1, your Honours will find, that the committee on Canada affairs, to whom the subject was referred, reported :— 280 “ The committee are unanimously of the opinion, that, however peculiar may be the situation of our brethren in Canada, and however much we may sympathize with them in their present state of perplexity, this General Conference cannot consistently grant them a separate Church establishment, according to the prayer of the peti- tioners. The committee, therefore, recommend the adoption of the following reso- lution :— “1. That, inasmuch as the several annual conferences have not recommended it to the General Conference, it is unconstitutional, and also, under the circumstances, inexpedient, to grant the prayer of the petitioners for a separate Church establish- ment in Upper Canada.” The extreme anxiety felt in relation to the matter, and the very kind acquaintance that seems to have been entertained, led the Conference to hold the matter under consideration ; and there is very satisfactory evidence to show that it was thereupon subjected to the best lights in that Conference, and after several days of deliberation, it was discovered that the peculiar relations between the two Churches, the fact that they did not constitute one single homogeneous and identical Church, but a league between two independent Churches, afforded a source of power, and indicated a means of escaping from the difficulty. Therefore we find, on page 35, that the fol- lowing resolve was adopted, on the motion of Mr. Ryerson. This is the second stage to which the deliberations of the Conference conducted them :— ‘«¢ Whereas the Canada Annual Conference, situated in the Province of Upper Canada, under a foreign government, have, in their memorial, presented to this Con- ference the disabilities under which they labour in consequence of their union with a foreign ecclesiastical government, and setting forth their desire to be set off as a separate Church establishment ; and whereas, this General Conference disclaim all right to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction under such circumstances, except by mu- tual agreement :— “« Resolved, therefore, by the delegates of the annual conferences in General Con- ference assembled, that the compact existing between the Canada Annual Confer- ence and the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, be, and hereby is, dissolved by mutual consent.” Ineed not say this would be most extraordinary language as applicable to the Methodist Episcopal Church dealing with one of its outlying conferences. I need not say it would not be competent, because it would not be historically true, in such a case, to talk of a ‘union with a foreign ecclesiastical government,” or of a union existing by means of a “compact” voluntarily entered into. Why, the union which binds the Methodist Episcopal Church, its identity and organism, is a union de- rived from the original act of creation, not something done first, and then that which was first created forming a succession of leagues with various annual conferences ; but wno et eodem flatu, by one and the same creative act, by the ordinance of the ex- traordinary Convention assembled under the letter of Wesley, the Church instantly existed co-extensively with the land, and thenceforward every annual conference, then existing or ever afterwards to exist, came into being, not by virtue of succes- sive compacts, but under and in obedience to the original plan of growth,—they were nothing less and nothing more than successive developments according to the origi- nal organic law. I should not care, for the purposes of this discussion, whether the Conference of 1828 had or had not left the Canada case with the passage of the resolution which I have read. What do they say by that resolution? “That they have power to dis- solve the existing Methodist Episcopal Church? Nothing like it; but they say, on the contrary, “‘ Whereas we have not the constitutional power to do what we first thought was something resembling it, after a week’s study, and a week’s prayer to 281 God, we have found out a legal method by which we can grant the prayer of the petition, and yet abstain from doing anything resembling, in the least degree, a divi- sion of the Church; for we have discovered that it is not one Church which is to be cut in two, but only a union between two that is to be divided, and we therefore do it.” How different that is from the power of dividing an existing identical Church let one illustration suffice to show. I suppose to-day the general government, with all its power, cannot divide the Union that is committed to its care ; but I suppose it very competent, indeed, for the general government, by its appropriate organ, the treaty-making power, or the legislative power, acting under its commercial authority, to put an end to a treaty with England, or with Austria. Therefore, it is not com- petent for my learned friend to argue that because this Conference have put an end to a treaty with another Church, they have the power to divide their own Church. But the sober second thought of the Conference of 1828 did not dare to leave the matter rest exactly there, and after some more reflection it was discovered that even to go so far would perhaps be to go too far; and, therefore, you find its ultimate opinions on this question, the result of a great deal of thought, of a great deal of conscientious and charitable desire to grant the request, at last embodied on page 37 of Proofs No. 1. The resolution on which I have been remarking was rescinded, and the ultimate determination of the Conference embodied in these words :— “« Resolved, by the delegates of the annual conferences in General Conference assembled, that, whereas the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, has heretofore been extended over the ministers and mem- bers in connexion with said Church in the Province of Upper Canada, by mutual agreement, and by the consent and desire of our brethren in that Province; and. whereas this General Conference is satisfactorily assured that our brethren in the said Province, under peculiar and pressing circumstances, do now desire to organize themselves into a distinct Methodist Episcopal Church, in friendly relations with the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States; therefore, be it resolved,” That if Canada will dissolve the treaty, we will send her a bishop, and assist her in organizing for the new ecclesiastical life on which she will thus have resolved to enter. There it is exactly. I think no historical and legal inquirer can doubt that the fair construction to be gathered from the Canada case is, that it denies the power to dis- solve or divide an identical Church, and the first impression of the Conference was that they could not sever a treaty between them and an independent Church, and after- wards they thought that could be done, but ultimately they receded from even that pro- position. That is the whole of the Canada case. I shall refer to it for a moment hereafter, when I come to its bearing on the property question, but I have addressed myself to it now, only as it might be thought to throw light on the judgment of the Conference as to the existence of a power to divide the Church. Then, the only other occasions on which it may be supposed that any light can be thrown by the action of the General Conference on the question which is now the subject of inquiry, are the proceedings of 1844 and 1848. [I did not understand the eminent counsel for the plaintiffs to place great reliance on the proceedings of 1844, as evidence of the law. Ido not intend to say anything disrespectful to that body, but it is my duty to remind the Court, that under the circumstances in which it met and did its work, its proceedings, as evidence of the law, will be considered, I think, by no fair inquirer as entitled to any considerable degree of weight, when compared with the more deliberate, and prolonged, and instructive discussions and investiga- tions of the Conference of 1828, on the Canada case. In the first place, this Confer- ence of 1844 was a body assembled in the ordinary way, so that, so far as we can 282 learn, no constituent to any member elected had the slightest intimation that such a transcendent question as this was coming into consideration at all. Then, the trans- actions of that body unfitted them for the deep and calm inquiry. The greater part of the time they were together was occupied in debate touching the proceedings in Bishop Andrew’s case, and when they arrived at the close of that discussion, some- what exhausted, a little dispirited and peevish, needing the air of the mountain tops and the firesides of their own families to restore them to their habitual temper, not to say free action of the Methodist brain, they left themselves no time to deliberate on this matter, for the vote was taken on Bishop Andrew’s case on Saturday, and on the next Saturday they cut the Church in two, as a man would serve a cucumber, and the intervening time was occupied in writing the Protest and the Reply to it. There is not a particle of evidence that a single member of that Conference ever in his life, before he came or after he came, reflected for half an hour on the constitu- tional question which is to be decided by this Bench. If I am wrong my learned friend will correct the statement; but I repeat, there is not a particle of evidence that in their preparatory studies, in the annual conferences, they thought of it ; there is not a particle of evidence that there were three lines in a newspaper preparing the Church and the country for this thunderbolt out of an unclouded sky. They came in the ordinary course of business to do ordinary business, and were not called for any extraordinary purpose. Being there, under the circumstances to which I have referred, the work is done. Hence, I respectfully submit that it is not high and satisfactory evidence of the law on such a question as this. T ought to take in this review, and in answer to that in some measure, the pro- ceedings of the General Conference of 1848, which declare a rule of law directly the other way, to the end that the Court may have in a single view all the considerations which may be deemed important on the point. My learned brother does not go fur- ther than I do when he says, that he who bereaves me of our South bereaves me of most precious and valued jewels; but he goes a little too far, when he says that the Conference of 1848 met bereaved and shorn of all its strength. Not quite so. On the contrary, the annual conferences in 1848 were most ably represented—public opinion had developed itself; men had cooled. That Conference stood on higher ground. I agree that it then had a somewhat sectional character, but I shall pray your Honours by-and-by to iook with some attention on reports in that body on which we rely, to see whether ability enough did not remain, circumstances in other respects being the same, to investigate and elucidate such a question as this. I would state here that the decision inthe case cited from Benjamin Monroe, which was read from a pamphlet the other day, was made before 1848, and there was no- thing before that decision to show that there was the conflicting judgment of another General Conference on the subject. The mention of that case reminds me of a sin- gular suggestion on the subject of power, which I remember is advanced in the opinion of the Court in that case. J do not know that the learned counsel for the plaintiffs adopted that argument, which certainly would have given a great deal of respectabi- lity to it, but it is an argument advanced by the Court in that case, and will there- fore come under the observation of your Honours. It is said that if, without any faci- lities being afforded by the General Conference, the South had gone forward and done this very act, the General Conference would be the body, according to ecclesi- astical polity, to go on and arrange and adjust between the separated and mutilated fragments; it would be the constitutional body to draw the new line of boundary and to adjust the terms of future union with the new Church, which convulsion and violence had thus unexpectedly erected by its side; and that, therefore, by analogy, the General Conference should have a power to do in advance that same thing. I 283 beg to say, that that is the old logical sophism of ignotum per ignotius, because there is no manner of certainty that, in such a crisis as that, there would be devolved on the General Conference the absolute power of arranging for a crisis so extraordinary. Nobody knows whether it would be or not. What is the value of the argument in the supposed case? Nobody knows whether it would be devolved on the General Conference by a great moral, civil, or ecclesiastical convulsion, tearing away half the Church. Nobody can show me anything in the history or polity of the Church to prove that the General Conference would be the only body charged with the adjust- ment of such a crisis as that. On the contrary, I say it is ten thousand times more probable that thereupon the united remaining sovereign will would be assembled en masse; for the great question would be, What should then be done with this muti- lated fragment? Shall it be deemed that the Methodist Episcopal Church still exists? Or shall it be deemed disintegrated? And hence, until you see that the General Conference would, in such a case, certainly do this, to argue in this way is, in the first place, ignotwm per ignolius. ; There is, however, a deeper difficulty. It does not follow that because the Gene- ral Conference may act constitutionally on a crisis produced by the action of another, it may therefore proceed and initiate and facilitate that business in advance. I ap- prehend that before the least weight can be given to such an argument as this, your Honours must see that the power, which it is said they possess in that case, is so exactly like the power they would exert in the supposed case, that you can see no reason why the original constituent body could not have given one as well as the other. Therefore, if you were judicially to discern that the constituent body might perfectly well have clothed them with the constitutional competency to deal with such a case as that,and yet have withheld it from them, then this power does not follow from that power, and there is the fallacy of the argument. Let me take a case—Quod omen avertat Jupiter! If a convulsion in one State spread into another and carry off a range of States, that same general government, when that crisis shall have arrived, would be the constitutional body to recognise the foreign existence and to arrange the terms of frontier connexion, to define the line of boundary, and to act on the crisis. Could we infer from that that they could divide the States? So here exactly. I put this argument with very great confidence of its general soundness. Cannot this Court say judicially, perfectly well, that the constituent body of 1808 might have said exactly this to the General Conference: ‘‘ Consider yourselves charged with the great mission of preserving the unity of the Church; let that unity be first and last in all your thoughts, and counsels, and prayers; if an excited locality hereafter shall come to you and solicit to be let off, discourage them, hang over their heads every terror of the Church, hang over their heads all the undefined terrors of excommunication, and thus, if you can, restrain the dire desire, and bring them back again ; but if, unmindful of this your action, they go out, remember you have unity to preserve ; what you have, keep and adorm; for unity, take care of what is left, and for unity do not throw out facilities in advance for its dissolution.” To tell me, then, that because this body would find itself charged with the great duty of saving all they could, and arranging a frontier of peace with this separated secession, in the case I have been putting, they may therefore divide, is to say that extreme medicine may be made into daily bread, and a shield into a sword of death. I therefore respectfully submit that that analogy does not, in the slightest degree, apply to the case before the Court, and that unless your Honours do clearly discern that, in arguing from one thing to another in this case, and especially to ignotius from ignotwm, and the reverse, the powers are so identical that one being given the other follows necessarily, neither of the powers is given. 284 I have said all that I intended to say on the subject of power. I am ready to leave it with a single suggestion. Your Honours are aware that we take another ground, and that is, that if this power existed, it was exerted only on a contingency by the General Conference, i. e., upon a representation made to them by the minority from the South that a necessity would certainly develop itself for such a change, and thereupon, in anticipation of such necessity to be afterwards developed, the General Conference proceeded to do what they have done in the way of a division, and that that contingency never has happened in matter of fact. That is the substance of the point. ‘The minority feared a local excitement. Their brethren of the North said to them, “If you find you must desert them or us, we will let you go.” We say they did not find it, but made it so. We say that whether it existed or not, the General Conference next to sit was to decide, or this Court was to decide. If it was the General Conference next to sit which was to decide, they have decided against them. If it was this Court, we respectfully submit that your Honours will decide against them. I propose to submit all that part of the case to the official report on the state of the Church, to be found on page 138 of Proofs No. 1. It is an argument of great ability, embodying all I could wish, and more than I should be able myself, on the same point, to say to the Court. I have done, then, with the question of power and the exertion of the power. It remains for me very briefly to open, not to attempt to enforce, in the first place, that the legal consequences of this proposition, if maintained, are fatal to the plain- tiffs’ claim ; and, in the next place, that even if this proposition of the want of power or the exertion of it is not maintained, still the plaintiffs cannot sustain their bill. In the first place, and in a general way, if the plaintiffs have voluntarily seceded and separated themselves from membership, without competent ecclesiastical authority terminating their membership, I am not able to understand how it can be seriously contested that their rights of property have also terminated. To avoid that conse- quence, the plaintiffs must show that the beneficiaries of this fund have such a right that a voluntary unauthorized abandonment of membership does not lose it. This conducts us to the very important question of the nature and limitations of the right of the beneficiaries in this fund. Ido not know that we have very much to observe on in the statement made by the eminent counsel for the plaintiffs in regard to the origin and nature of this fund, the Book Concern, except, perhaps, if he will give me leave to say it, a certain degree of indistinctness in the exhibition of the capital quali- fication, on which all the rights of the beneficiaries in it are limited—that of continued membership. In his interesting outline of its history in a general way, we concur. We may pause to refresh ourselves for a moment. That history goes back to the year 1787. It was very early discerned, as my learned brother has said, that a sacred written literature would be among the most important instrumentalities by which the great ends of this Church could be accomplished. Some books of devotion and worship, at any rate, there must be provided for the humblest and least literate of its numerous and growing congregations. ‘Therefore, as early as 1787 individual preachers appear to have conceived the idea of publishing and circulating such books and creating such a literature as this. ‘To this end, as we gather from history, they began, as we are very apt to begin in America, on borrowed capital. A contribution may have been occasionally made, but the main source of growth undoubtedly was from the profits of the business. It has grown, under the administration of the Church, from 1787, when it was started with $4,000 capital and $3,000 debt, to the very large amount of $750,000—from $1,000 to $750,000. These relative sums are not important to the determination of the legal point, though a very large perennial con- tribution of spiritual, and, I am glad to be able to add, intellectual as well as moral food. 285 It was very early discerned that this business could be made, not only to support and enlarge itself, but also to yield a surplus of profits; and it is very interesting to observe, that from its origin it was determined to dedicate that sort of profits to, what we call at the bar, a charitable use,—that is to say, technically and legally, a charitable use, but not at all excluding meritorious service, and giving a great deal more prominence to meritorious service in the beneficiary’s title than our friends on the other side contend. From its very origin this fund was devoted to a charitable use. The designation of the beneficiaries and the mode of administering it have varied a little; but from 1796 to this day, by a law passed in 1796, standing on the record of its Discipline, re-enacted in 1800, re-enacted in 1804, re-enacted in 1808, and continued, that surplus fund has stood explicitly, and irrevocably, and unequivo- cally devoted to a perfect and well-defined description of beneficiaries—to travellmg, * supernumerary, superannuated, and exhausted preachers and their families, being, as we say, all the time in membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church. That ap- propriation of these funds was made by law in 1796; to that appropriation of them this Church has adhered, without the interruption of a moment. Under that dedica- tion it has grown up from $1,000 to $750,000; under that dedication, many laborious men, of the living and the dead, came into the Church, lived there, laboured there, died there, and live there and labour there yet, on the faith of a sound interpretation and an exact form of administration of that trust. And I am here to-day for nothing but the true interpretation of that trust. Find me the beneficiary according to the law, and that beneficiary shall have his share of the funds in the hands of my clients. The Court knows how the matter stands. The trustees are my clients, the book agents on record; the beneficiaries are the persons indicated ; those who manage the fund are the annual conferences and the General Conference ; and the mode of doing it is this :—these book agents designate the amount to which each annual con- ference is entitled, and each thereupon draws its amount, calls the beneficiaries, and proceeds to measure to each party according to his claim. So much for the history. Passing from this to the legal questions, I will not stop to say anything on the first two points which are contained on the plaintiffs’ brief, although perhaps they would warrant the criticism that they are somewhat inade- quately conceived, a little overstated ; but I pass them without particular remark. It is on arriving at the third point that we find the beginning of the controversy. We think, with very great submission, that the learned and eminent counsel, in this point and in his argument, overstates the right of any beneficiary when he calls it a perfect right, and that they misdescribe it when they call it a right in a fund of earn- ings in the nature of a partnership derived from work and labour about books. We must submit on this that they fail, as it seems to us, to appreciate that the capital qualification under which every beneficiary is to acquire and hold it, is the quali- fication of original and continued membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church. That qualification we think they fail, in all its importance, to appreciate. I will not pause at this moment to indicate with what propriety it is said that the right of any beneficiary is a perfect right. In regard to the qualities that are properly at- tributable to it in a legal point of view, it is a right which began to be acquired by coming within the designatio personarum, but it is a right to be maintained and per- fected only by the continued performance of certain conditions. He who becomes a travelling preacher initiates a right ; but if he is expelled, as he sometimes is, or if he is located, as he may be, he loses that right. So also of asupernumerary and even of a superannuated. So then I submit that it is a right, beginning by one coming within a certain designatio personarum, but which is lost for want of a continuance in official well-doing afterwards. 286 Nor will I pause at this moment to inquire, because I attach no sort of con- sequence to it, although there is some diversity of judgment as to that point, if this right of the beneficiary is in the least degree better or worse from the circum- stance on which my learned friend places some stress, that the fund has grown from profits on books which the travelling preachers of the society sold. I suppose it alto- gether immaterial. The right of the beneficiary on this dedication to charitable uses does not depend in the least on the kind of work which, as a travelling preacher, he does, or, as a supernumerary or superannuated, he has done; but the right depends on this—that he became a preacher and continued to be a preacher under the Disci- pline, under the dedication which gives a preacher a certain allowance and a certain claim on this fund. That I submit in point of law is exactly the origin of the preach- *er’s right. There is no natural right under any circumstances, no right raised by implication for work and labour done. The only requisite is—becoming a travelling preacher, continuing a travelling preacher, continuing a supernumerary or superan- nuated preacher, under the same dedication, in whatever field of Methodist labour he may have been employed. Whether this preacher was, what they call in some soci- eties, a colporteur of books, is of no importance. He who never carried a book for sale in his life is as clearly within the grant as he who has carried libraries of books. Some preachers carried books and some did not carry them. Ifhe carried them, it adds nothing to his title; if he did not, it detracts nothing from his title. My learned bro- ther will give me leave to say that the most conservative and best instructed on the other side really can find nothing better to put their case on than absolute socialism at last. “He has laboured about the books, and therefore has a natural right to the fund,’ they say. Is not that socialism? To be sure he has laboured about the books, but the books were not his. Did he write them? No. Did he own them? Certainly not. Did he own their profits? Certainly not. On the contrary, they were the property of another party, to wit, the trustee, for charitable uses, and that party hired him to work for him, and told him, “If you work and be a travelling preacher, supernumerary or superannuated, you will have an interest in this fund.” But in the meantime books and profits belonged to his employer, and his right at last cannot be placed or maintained for a minute on any ground but that he is a ser- vant and labourer, and therefore, according to the highest authority, ‘‘ worthy of his hire,” according to the terms of that hire. I shall therefore take it for granted, with- out stopping to develop it, that while the right is no doubt perfect, in a certain sense, if he continues in well-doing officially to the end, it is not accurately de- scribed, it is not described according to law, it is not described according to the jurisprudence of conservation, by the plaintiffs. There is not a labourer in the ser- vice of New-York that might not allege an interest in the fund on the same grounds exactly. Does he not carry out the milk? Does he not take care of the chyme? Is it not immediately and directly attributable to his skill that the fund was gathered ? Why has he not a right to it? Because he did not work in a state of nature, but under a convention quae vincit legem, under a contract with the owner that he should’ do his work and receive certain wages. I have not therefore attached a great deal of importance to this view, although much has been said about it. We come directly at last to the great decisive qualification which is overlooked on the other side, whether membership is not an indispensable qualification to initiating a right, and continuing membership indispensable to the continuance of the right. I submit that is perfectly plain—too plain for me to argue for a moment. I do not believe either of the eminent counsel mean to say that there can be any pretence that this description of persons, at the time when their right inchoates and attaches to them at first, are not to be members of the Methodist Episcopal Church. - My learned 287 brother surely does not mean to say that a travelling preacher in Bermuda has a right to this fund. Nobody contends for that. Beyond all doubt, when they first come within the designatio personarwm on which the right takes its inchoation, they are to be members. The question is, whether they can go away and still be members. I submit that they cannot, for this general reason, that the right is not perfect at the start, but it is a right to be kept alive and matured by a series of service—because the Church may exact duties from him, in the administration of which he may lose the right. The travelling preacher, if he is expelled, loses the right ; if he is tamed into a local preacher, he loses his right. Now, can it be pretended that while a travel- ling preacher remains and works in the Methodist Church, and holds his interest on condition that he does not get expelled and does not get located, another preacher, who came into the Church on the same day, can retire from its service, and thus relieve himself from the conditions and inconveniences and qualifications under which the other holds his right, and retain his right? Can he retire, and thus avoid the onus, and retain the conmodum? JI respectfully submit that he cannot. The mean- ing, therefore, of the system is, if he becomes a travelling preacher, if he remains a travelling preacher, he earns a right ; but if he lives so that the Church cannot fol- low him by the conditions, so that it cannot follow him by the qualifications, cannot hold him to any responsibility, his right is gone; or else it is to be conceded that by departing from the Church he may, by his own act, change the tenure of title granted to all alike by the original law. That is just as true of the supernumerary as it is of the travelling preacher. A supernumerary (if my ecclesiastical friends will permit me to say it) is nothing but an officer on shore waiting orders. He is subject to the call of the Church, and is lable to be put in active service, liable to be expelled, liable to be located, as well as another. This seems to be just as true of the super- annuated. One would think that if anybody could retire from the Church and retain title, it would be the superannuated, the exhausted preacher. Yet there can be no doubt that he also is required by the discipline of the Church to stay and serve. It is true that his day of active, manly exercise is done, but it is also true that there re- mains a service of loyalty and love. His silvery cord may be about to be loosened and the bowl to be broken at the fountain, yet he may testify of the Church by the beauty of a declining and ripe age ; his lips may continue to speak for her, his hands may continue to be lifted up. Therefore it is that the Church that maintains him, follows him with a duty gentler and gentler, and more and more kindly executed, but a duty to his grave. There is never an hour when the longest official life entitles the most meritorious superannuated preacher to throw off the weight of age, to retire from duty, and yet enjoy support. This is what makes this Church what it is—small pay, hard work, constant superintendence, justice to all men according to the con- tract. I do not know that it is necessary to add anything to this general argument. My learned brother cannot conceive how a Methodist going occasionally to a Pres- byterian meeting should lose his share of the fund. I think that perhaps it might do him good occasionally to go toa Presbyterian meeting. He may go anywhere until he gets expelled, and do anything that does not terminate membership. That is all. This Church is not strict, this Church is not narrow ; and strict, or narrow, or other- wise, while the membership remains undissolved by expulsion, the right remains. My learned friend did not seem to consider that remaining a Methodist was neces- sary to continue the right. Why, says he, he was to be a preacher, and nothing is said about his being a Methodist. He deduced it, however, that the object was to promote Methodism, and he was a little shocked that a person should lose his right because he was promoting another religion. Does my friend mean to say that in the first instance a man can take a right to the fund because he preaches Methodism? I 288 suppose he preaches it in Bermuda under the pine trees, or in Canada among the regions of perpetual snow—does he take title? It is perfectly clear that he does not. I submit that it is not accurate to say this fund was created to promote Metho- dism. It was created by the Methodist Episcopal Church to promote its own effi- ciency and strength for good, and thus enable it to spread Methodism. That is the object of the Methodist Episcopal Church and of this fund. Then it is not to pro- mote Methodism generally, but to strengthen the Church, to enrich it, to make elo- quent tongues, and touch lips as with fire, to the end that by the Church Methodism shall be spread. Why should I argue the matter at large when we have two such memorable con- structions before us as the Canada case and the case of 18442 What was the Canada case, as a property case? I have touched on it at considerable length as it bears on the ecclesiastical question. I submit that it was settled on that occasion with great deliberation, against every wish of every man’s heart, that this fund was to be used within these uses for travelling, supernumerary, and superannuated preachers ; and that in departing, not merely in peace, but with every benediction of the Church, the Canada Church could take nothing. That is the Canada case. Canada left this Church in peace. Did not the members of the Canadian Church remain Methodists still? Did they not continue to give, in Methodistical spirit, the advice of foreign philanthropy about slavery, to show how affectionately they remembered us? They went in peace, they remained Methodists, and yet you find this Church, by a unani- mous and deliberate judgment, declaring that they were not entitled to a farthing. That is the very question now before the Court. I am now departing from the case of unauthorized secession, and speaking of the case of secession authorized, and at- tended by the greetings of those who gave the leave. In that case it is settled. Your Honours, by referring to the case, will find that there was a strong desire to indulge the Canadians ; it was a struggle between conviction and inclination. Your Honours, as men as well as learned judges, will appreciate the value of such a deci- sion as that. It was a decision wrung from the Conference by a perfectly understood sense of duty. We are on that very identical question, Who is within these uses ? It is to be devoted to travelling preachers, supernumerary and superannuated. Where and who? Members of what? Members of this Church; and that decision is that if they cease to be such, although by consent of everybody, and affectionate dismissal of everybody, the right was gone. Have we not a still stronger case in this very proceeding of 18447 Have we not here all but the unanimous judgment of this body, that persons no longer members, even if they depart in peace and by consent, cannot take a dollar? Does not the action of that body record the unanimous judgment of the body, that these uses fail on failure of membership, and that this retirement, although peaceable, is a failure of membership, and that therefore, unless the uses could be enlarged, the retiring member was no longer within them? Was not that the very reason why they recommended to the annual conferences a change in the restrictive article? I sup- pose then we have here the highest evidence of law ; we have the contemporaneous exposition of its makers, under extraordinary circumstances, and they certainly re- lieve me from the trouble of pursuing the argument further. I had intended to trace the connexion between such an association as this and a partnership ; but ITremember by whom I am to be followed, on the part of these defendants, and I gladly relieve the Court from the further consideration of this part of the case. Then, if this be so, the case is ended in every view. Authorized or unauthorized, membership has gone, and with membership right is gone. The only answer to this, which we have been able to appreciate, is, that the old Church is destroyed, and 289 two new ones created upon its site, and upon that destruction everybody was remit- ted to his natural rights—the ship had gone ashore, and every man was to get a nail or a plank as he could—everybody upon that dissolution is remitted to his natural right, as in a joint-stock company or ina partnership. ‘That is the only case, as I understand, which is left for the plaintiffs. To this there are four answers, each of which is, I think, equally decisive. In the first place, I have already argued that the General Conference has no power ecclesiastically to destroy the Church. I am not now speaking of a division leaving the old identity untouched. I have argued that they cannot destroy the Church, and raise two or two thousand Churches from its ashes. In the next place, the General Conference in this great transaction did not assume to destroy the Church, but on the contrary, the Plan of Separation, from beginning to end, shows that what they intended to do was to authorize a departure, leaving the old identity untouched. If your Honours will do me the favour to look into the Plan as it is stated in the bill you will find:—lIst. That the General Conference never assumed, in terms, to destroy the Church. 2d. That they never assumed, in terms, to divide the Church. On the other hand, it is quite striking to remark, that while it speaks of a division of property, it never speaks of a division of the Church, but simply and merely of a separation of parties from the Church; it deals throughout with a contemplated act of other persons, and calls that act a separation by them, and all it authorizes is a separation by others leaving itself to exist. It calls itself by the old name of Methodist Episcopal Church, and designates the new one, thus to be erected, by the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South ; and I submit that to retain the name is to retain the identity. I would call the attention of the Court to a single section in the bill on page 4. It embodies the entire theory of the Plan of Separation. Article 2 of the Plan of Separation says :— “That ministers, local and travelling, of every grade and office in the Methodist Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer, remain in that Church, or, without blame, attach themselves to the Church, South.” Your Honours will find the proof of my argument on pp. 4, 5, and 6 of the bill. In that connexion, I may be permitted to say, that such is the view of this transaction taken in 7 Ben. Monroe, p. 507, in the case which has been cited. (For extract, sce p. 368.) Let me add two auxiliary suggestions. The first is, That the Louisville Conven- tion throughout all their resolutions say nothing at all of a division of the Church, but characterize their own act as a separation from an identity already existing, and which it leaves exactly as it was before, only abridged. 2d. The frame of the plaintiffs’ bill so treats the affair. They do not call us, or anybody representing us, a new Church, nor these defendants the agents of a new Church ; but it is assumed throughout that the old Methodist Episcopal Church exists ab eo nomine. If your Honours will turn to pp. 10 and 11 of the bill, you will find this remark abundantly verified. In the third place, not only does the General Conference not assume to destroy, and thus to allow the plaintiffs to interpose their theory of the natural right of all the stockholders, but it goes further. It does not content itself with authorizing a sepa- ration and stopping there, but it goes further, and takes care to ordain solicitously that the party seceding shall have nothing at allon the ground of natural right, nothing at all on the ground of natural equity, attaching to dissolution and growing out of an old quantum meruit for work and labour about books, but that he shall have nothing except according to the existing law of the society—except the annual con- ferences would give it. I think we find here evidence of the proposition. ‘Thensin the bill to which I have been making reference, we find evidence of it also. The 19 290 work was consummated by the Conference, and I submit that no man is to take any- thing on the ground of natural right—no man is to take anything except under the lex societatis, i. e., if the annual conferences will give it, and they recommend them to do so. Instead of a dissolution, there was a withdrawal of parties; and it was ordained that everybody not withdrawing, should be subject to the still ex- isting law of the society. ‘Therefore, I submit that it is impossible, against this reiterated question of intent, that the plaintiffs can imply a constructive equity on which they can come in and insist upon remission to natural right. Is it not perfectly plain, as a matter of meaning, that the General Conference in- tends that nobody shall take a dollar by secession or natural right, unless the annual conferences give it? Is it not absurd to suppose they would go on providing, that if the annual conference do so and so, something shall follow, if they meant to ordain, whether the annual conferences do so or not, that every man should have part of the fund? Is it not perfectly obvious that they meant to recognise the law of the society as in force, to interpret it as giving the property only to members, and there- upon to confine their action to the advisory alteration of the use without which no right was to arise at all? Is it not then perfectly plain, that against this ordinance of the General Conference on this express agreement no possible implication can be raised? How can the plaintiffs take a part of this bill and reject the rest? Can they take so much of it as suits them, and go for natural equity for the rest of it ? Would the Conference of 1844 have divided the Church, if the effect would be to let in natural right, on which the seceder should take as much as he that remained, when they were sitting under a constitution expressly prohibiting them from com- mitting any such act ? Finally and fourthly, there is another answer to the suggestion that the division lets the plaintiffs in on natural equity against the meaning of the Conference ; and it is, that if such must be the effect, whether the General Conference can by express declaration help it or not, we know they had no power to make a dissolution. Your Honours will observe that it adds another element to the argument I had the honour to submit yesterday, whether ecclesiastically they can divide or not. If it be so that a division, in spite of the General Conference and everything they can ordain to qualify it, must necessarily carry the property out of its use, by carrying it to one not a member, we know they cannot make it, because they are a representative body, with no power but what the constituent gives ; and we know by the terms of the constitution under which they exist, that they are forbidden to do that act directly, and they cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. Therefore, I say that if the General Conference is so situated, that it cannot divide this Church without the additional consequence that the property goes to one not entitled, it follows that they cannot divide the Church, and that is no great harm in my humble judgment. They cannot divide, if to divide is to break the constitution. They cannot grasp doubtful ecclesiastical power with the effect of violating plain civil right. T need not, then, in conclusion, suggest the other point which, however, I believe, stands on proof that the annual conferences and General Conference together could not set this use at large. The general grant may be thus stated. The right is in cestique and his continuing a member. ‘Therefore, if the annual conferences had acted on this recommendation, they could not have given the fund to the retiring members. Such was the original grant. The use was created in 1792 or 1800, and renewed in 1804, and it became the law of the Church, and thenceforward I suppose remained the law of the Church. The authorities for the proposition are on the brief. Tt is, however, a moot-point, and of no sort of consequence, as the annual confer- ences did not unite in agreeing to the recommendation. 19* 291 I have been too much indulged by the kindness of the Court to trespass for another moment on your Honours’ attention. I have certainly supposed that the plaintiffs have no legal and no equitable right to the relief for which they ask, in any of the forms in which they ask for it. I cannot admit that they have been misled into their present position by any act of the defendants. The General Conference did for them all it could; it recommended to the annual conferences to rescind. They did not rescind. The plaintiffs will give me leave to say that they knew per- fectly well from the beginning, and at every step they took, that they took it under the hazards of the action of the annual conferences, and that they ran the risk of an unfavourable judgment, even if they themselves did not procure that unfavourable judgment. One consolation and one certainty we have. We know that the law of the case will be discerned and applied. We know perfectly well that whatever may be the result of the case, or the result of the general controversy, it will vindicate and exemplify, what needs neither to be vindicated nor exemplified—the administration of justice according to a settled rule. With the consequences of their judgments, this Court is not in the habit of troubling itself in advance to inquire. But I may be permitted to say for myself at the bar, looking a little beyond the immediate profes- sional inquiry here involved, that I do not know that there is anything this day which a wise man and a lover of his country should as much desire as the re-establishment, in some good measure, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, one Church again for the North and the South. Whether and to what extent one may surely entertain such a hope as that, I am sure I have not a satisfactory means of determining. For myself, let me tell the Court, however, before I take my leave of them, that my clients this day are a Methodist Episcopal Church for North and South, shorn of some beams, bereaved of some auxiliary talent, and impaired to some extent of their strength and means of utility. These defendants are this day still a Church for the North and the South. This Methodist Episcopal Church, the old organization, exists this day in many a slave State. In Delaware, in Maryland, in Eastern Virginia, in Western Vir- ginia, in Kentucky, in Missouri, in Arkansas, in Texas, it has thousands of attached affectionate adherents. I rejoice to be able to believe that it is enlarging. I will not deny that, and in addition to the reasons of gratification with which I believe the law of the case is with the defendants, I feel also that a decision in their favour will do something to enable this Church to enlarge itself in that direction, will add something to its means of winning back, by its ample provisions and its ever open arms, the whole ancient household of its faith. Mr. Woop,—May it please your Honours, so much time has already been occu- pied in the inyestigation of this case, and the evidence has been so fully and so ably sifted and detailed by the opening counsel on both sides, that I think it would be a waste of time for the closing counsel to occupy much of your attention in going over the evidence. I shall therefore condense the remarks which I propose to make on that branch of the case in as narrow a space as possible, and confine myself principally to the argument of the law of the case, considering the facts in a great measure as already fully developed before the Court. It is important that we should understand, at the very threshold of this argu- ment, the precise issue between these parties. The plaintiffs in this case, claim a portion of this fund, corresponding in amount with the relative proportion of the members who have gone off from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and formed the new Church, South. They have brought this suit for the purpose of recovering this property. There has been an actual separation of the ecclesiastical body. That is not disputed ; and the question now is, whether that separation entitles them to 292 recover and receive a ratable proportion of the property, the income of which be- longs to certain beneficiaries for the time being, who are attached to the Methodist Episcopal Church. That is the important issue between the parties in this cause. It certainly is a most unfortunate controversy—for if there are any subjects which ought to be kept out of dispute, which ought to be marked emphatically with the spirit of peace, they are religious subjects. Every controversy of the kind has a most deleterious effect upon the morals of the community. The rising generation lose, in a great measure, their respect for religion, when they see the heads of the Church quarrelling and dividing. We have seen the baneful influence of these con- troversies in divisions of-other Churches which have heretofore taken place ; and I will venture to say that the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Church, South, will soon discover it, by sad experience. But there is another point of view in which it is unfortunate. This Methodist Episcopal Church, in its territorial jurisdiction, is commensurate with the entire Union. It is one of the largest Churches in this coun- try. It has been the pioneer of religion. It has gone on with the advance of civili- zation and improvement in this country. It has carried religion along with settle- ment and civilization, and has ameliorated the condition of the different classes of the community upon our gradually extending borders. A division of this kind, therefore, may be said, in some measure, to be a national concern; and when we find in the present condition of our country, that there has been, as is admitted on all hands, and as many believe still to exist, serious danger threatening the unity of this federal government, it is of importance that a controversy of this kind should, if possible, be adjusted, and it is to be seriously regretted that such a controversy has arisen. It is seriously to be regretted that the Southern members of this Church have thought pro- per to bring their claim into a court of justice, more especially while it was in a course of amicable adjustment, and when, with a little more patience and forbearance, there was every probability that it would be finally adjusted. But, unfortunately, they have commenced this controversy, and it is our duty now to defend ourselves. The counsel on the other side have mainly rested their claim upon grounds which | appear to me to be entirely fallacious. ‘They seem to look upon themselves, or rather upon the beneficiaries whom they say they represent, in what is called the Southern branch of this Church, as having a sort of vested right to this property. They draw a distinction between property which has been given to a Church, and property which has been acquired by the labour of individuals belonging to a Church. They treat this as property of the latter kind, and they claim they have a right to it, a vested right ; and upon the division of this Church they are entitled, as in the case of a part- nership or tenancy in common, to have a division of the property and receive a ratable proportion. It appears to me that this is an entirely erroneous view of this subject. T am aware they are somewhat warranted in this course of remark by the decision which was made in the Maysville case, whch they refer to, and on which they mainly rely. But I trust I shall be able to satisfy this Court that the principles upon which that decision rests, and the principles upon which they now base their claim, are entirely fallacious and unfounded. I consider, and they admit, I believe, in their claim, that their rights in this case depend upon the law of charitable uses. It is important, therefore, that we should understand precisely the nature of that kind of property, and of the claim which they make. A charitable use is a public use. It is called charitable mainly because the largest portion of that kind of public property in every Christian country is based upon a charitable foundation. There are four elements in every class of charitable use. There are, in the first place, the founders of, and contributors to, the charity, those who have created and bestowed the property or the funds to the charitable pur- ee 293 poses. There are, in the second place, the trustees of the charity, those who hold the legal estate in trust. In the third place, there are the managers of the charity, those who take charge of it, who conduct it, and who distribute it. Managers are essentially necessary, because there are no certain persons taking a temporal interest in the property. And, lastly, there are the beneficiaries among whom the property is distributed, according to the purpose of the charity, the use which was originally impressed upon it. ‘The management of the charity is according to the scheme or plan which was originally impressed upon it by the founders, or where it is of a gene- ral nature, and a charity at large as it is called, a court of equity which protects all kinds of uses, takes charge of it and establishes a scheme. Such a scheme will be found in the case of Mogridge vs. Thackwell, in '7 Vesey’s Reports. These beneficiaries in this case have no vested estate, no fixed right, and hence they have no power of alienation. They cannot dispose of this property. Suppose, before any division of this Church took place, all the superannuated and supernume- rary ministers of the Church for the time being, all who come within the description of the beneficiaries of this charity, had undertaken to alienate, what would the alien- ation have been good for? The attempt would have been perfectly visionary. They would have had no right to doit. They have no right, except as they answer the description of the beneficiaries, to receive from time to time the income or profits of the fund, as it is dealt out by the managers in the administration of the charity. Their right, therefore, is enforced and managed by the managers of the charity ac- cording to the scheme, and their right too in a court of equity, wherever it comes into dispute or difficulty, as between them and the trustees, managers or founders, is protected by the attorney-general. Your Honours will find in the case of Duke vs. Fuller, 9 New-Hampshire Reports, 536, a case which will fully illustrate this sub- ject. That was the case of a charitable use, in which the beneficiaries of the charity undertook to dissolve the institution altogether, and to divide the funds among them- selves individually. A bill was filed by the attorney-general in order to deprive them of the property which they had thus taken and appropriated among themselves, to es- tablish the charity, and to have a plan devised and adopted for the administration of it. The claim in that case was enforced by the Court. Well, if im the case cited, as the counsel on the other side seem to think is the case here, the property really belonged to these beneficiaries ; if they had acquired it, and they were to be con- sidered as tenants in common of the fund, they would have had a right to divide it, to dispose of it as they pleased, each individual to alienate his share. But if it is under a charitable use, and if they are entitled to nothing more than a portion of the funds as administered under the charity, then they take them whenever they are doled out in that way; and they have no other right, except what is derived in that manner under the management of the charity. This law of charitable use is enforced in this State and in this country. It has been involved, I admit, in a good deal of doubt and difficulty heretofore But I be- lieve it has come now to be thoroughly understood. You will find it adopted in this State in the case of the Garden-street church, 7 Paige, 78 ; and you will find that the chancellor, too, in that case, takes back some positions which he had advanced in another case at an earlier period. You will find it further devolved in the case of Shotwell vs. Mott, 2 Sandford’s Chancery Reports, page 46, and in Vulcan vs. Yates, 3 Barbour’s Chancery Reports, 242. I will not detain the Court with read- ing these authorities—you will have an opportunity of referring to them at your lei- sure. ‘This doctrine has now been adopted and fully settled in the United States Courts. This was done in the case of Vidall vs. Girard’s Executors, 2 Howard’s Reports, 195. The subject had been enveloped in some doubt by a decision made 294 by that Court in the Baptist Association vs. Hart’s Executors, 4 Wheaton’s Re- ports. In this case a doubt had been raised, whether these charitable uses were recognised at all by the law of England, except as they were protected and enforced under the statute of Elizabeth. In the case of Burr’s Executors vs. Smith, 7 Ver- mont Reports, where the subject was investigated, that decision of the Supreme Court in the 4th of Wheaton was not followed, and a vast variety of authorities were cited, showing conclusively that this law of charitable use existed in England long prior to the statute of Elizabeth; and there was as much evidence, I think I may venture to say more evidence, in support of that head of equity existing anterior to the reign of Elizabeth, than of any other equity doctrine whatever that can be ad- duced. That case of the Baptist Association, however, was regarded in various State courts as authority for some time, but it was finally abandoned in the case in 2 Howard. I will refer the Court to a case in Georgia, Beale vs. Fox, 4 Georgia Reports, 404, where you will find that subject ably treated and fully investigated ; and I think it may now be put down as settled, that this law of charitable uses exists at common law, independently of the statute of Elizabeth, and that it is enforced wherever the common law prevails, and wherever charities exist of this public kind, although the statute of Elizabeth may not have been introduced. A question, however, arises here which I shall briefly consider, because it is of some importance to the case, and that is, whether this law has been repealed in this State by the Revised Statutes. This charity was created, of course, long prior to the in- troduction of these Revised Statutes. But it may be said, if it has been repealed by the Revised Statutes, all the property of this Book Concern acquired since such repeal, and which is now held by subsequent acquisitions, is not protected by the law of charitable use. J must admit in candour that there has been one decision in one of our Supreme Courts—I mean one of those various Supreme Courts which have been lately created in this State—which goes the length of declaring that they have been repealed. But I apprehend it has not yet gained such a footing in this State as to be considered as settled law ; and I think your Honours will come to the con- clusion that it is entirely fallacious. There are two grounds upon which this doc- trine rests. One is, that the chapter in the Revised Statutes which treats of trusts begins by stating that all trusts are abolished, except those contained in that chapter. Your Honours are perfectly aware that general words are always construed in refer- ence to the particular subject-matter; and you will find that that whole chapter treats of private trusts, not of public trusts and public uses, which are entirely differ- ent ; and it is confined, too, to private trusts of real property. It does not touch personal estate ; it does not touch charitable uses. Every man, who is at all fami- liar with the doctrine of charitable uses, knows perfectly well that it is as different from the law of private trusts as public crimes are different from private trespasses. And you might just as well contend that a statute which made especial provision in regard to private trespasses, covered and applied to public crimes, as to say that a statute which makes provision in regard to private trusts of real property, has any bearing upon public charitable uses. They are entirely different in their nature and in their character. ‘They are always treated differently, and they are generally treated in authors separately and distinctly. I took occasion the other day to look over the law of trust as it is explained in “ Tickling on Equitable Estates,” the object of which is to show the analogy between equitable interests created by trusts, and legal estates. There is not one word in that book upon the subject of charitable uses. And on the contrary, in works which treat of charitable uses, such as Duke and Shelford, you find nothing on the subject of private trusts, unless it is in some particular case where an analogy exists, and where it is followed out. a a 295 There is another ground relied upon for the purpose of showing that all these cases of charitable uses are repealed by the Revised Statutes, and that is the provision which is contained in those statutes in regard to perpetuities. They are brought within narrower limits. The alienation of property shall not be prevented now be- yond two lives in being at the creation of the estate, and inasmuch as in the case of charitable uses the equitable interest is in perpetuity, it has been held that that repeals the whole doctrine of charitable uses. May it please your Honours, the law of perpetuity itself as it has always been understood in England and in this country, was in perfect harmony with the existence of these charitable uses. It was never considered as extending to these public uses beyond the legal estate, and yet the law of perpetuity has always been enforced. Before the creation of this provision in the Revised Statutes, the restriction in alienation extended only to lives in being at the creation of the estate ; but the Revised Statutes confined it to two lives, and that is the difference between them. Well, now, will it be pretended that a mere alteration in the law of perpetuity, as to the time of its continuance, has the effect of extending it to a subject which was never embraced in that law at all—to a public use? Your Honours are aware that after the decision upon Thellison’s will, the Thellison act was passed, which made an alteration, and imposed some new restrictions upon the law of perpetuity, but what lawyer in Westminster Hall ever dreamed that that altered and destroyed the law of charitable uses? Now, why should an alteration in the mere time of continuance of the perpetuity in our statutes have the effect of abolishing the law of charitable uses? Real estate could always be alienated under the law of charitable uses, but it is done under the sanction of a court of chancery. If the alienation of the legal estate in real property, therefore, was protected, under the law of perpetuity, it could not be bound up beyond the limits which the law of perpetuity allowed. The equitable use was always an exception to that law, so far forth as the equitable use continued attached to the property in which the proceeds of the alienation was invested, and I apprehend that there is nothing in the Revised Statutes which has, in any particular whatever, altered that exception ; and that you will, therefore, consider in this case, that the law of charitable use applies to all this property, as well that which has been acquired since as that which was acquired be- fore the Revised Statutes went into effect. It is true, in some few cases, since the adoption of that code, the legislature have authorized and regulated the holding of this kind of property, but it has been done at the instance of applicants, out of abundant caution. In the same way special pro- visions have been inserted in manufacturing charters, like those in the general act, applicable to all such companies. It would be a poor compliment to the revisers who assisted in framing that code, to suppose that they would recommend the entire aboli- tion of this law, and throw all the property invested—and which, from the nature of things, will continue to be invested in that way while Christianity lasts—completely afloat. Having considered the general elements of a charitable use, with a view to this claim for a division of the property, I shall next consider them in reference to this particular case. You will find here all the elements which I have already considered as existing ordinarily in the creation of a charitable use. You have the founders of this charity. Who are the founders? Those who originally advanced the funds ; and you have those, too, who have subsequently taken up those funds, and by indus- try, exertion, and cultivation, have improved and enlarged them from some 3,000 or 4,000 dollars, to some 700,000 or 800,000. All these persons are the contributors to this charity. Some, perhaps, originally contributed money ; others have contributed their services and labours; but they all constitute contributions to this charitable 296 fund; and all who have participated in the original creation or in the accumulation of this fund, are to be considered as the contributors of this charity. You have, in the next place, the trustees to hold the legal estate subject to this trust. They are now brought before this Court as defendants to this suit. It sometimes happens that more than one of these different offices or functions are vested in the same persons. Sometimes the trustees are also the managers of the charity. Sometimes they are distinct. In this case the functions are distinct. The managers of this charity are the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America—the Methodist Episcopal Church as an organized, ecclesiastical institution, acting in an organized form. ‘There is one additional peculiarity about this charity, to which I will call the attention of the Court, and that is, that the managers of the charity themselves exist under the law of charitable uses. ‘The Methodist Episcopal Church, as an ecclesias- tical body, entitled to hold property, entitled to temporalities, entitled to legal privi- leges, holds them all under the law of charitable or pious uses, and the institution itself exists under that law. In this case, however, we are to look upon them prin- cipally as the managers of this charity. And how are they to manage it? They manage it through their General Conference and their annual conferences, all participating, in their respective spheres, in the management of this concern, and in the distribution of the profits among the beneficaries. The General Conference performs its functions. It takes the general direction and superintendency over the whole concern; it appoints the trustees and changes the trustees. The annual conferences perform their functions. They seek out the beneficiaries who are entitled to relief, and in their respective local jurisdictions, after receiving from the trustees their respective shares of the income, distribute those shares among the various beneficiaries within their respective local jurisdictions. Here you have the managers of this fund. In the last place, you have the beneficiaries. Who are they! They are the superannuated and supernumerary travelling preachers of the Church, their wives and children, and, in the case of death, their widows and children. They are the beneficiaries of this charity. They take this income as it is thus doled out in charity, and they take it as answering the description of beneficiaries. They must be designatio personarum of the charity, to entitle them to take anything; and if they do not answer that description, they are entitled to nothing. What is that description? Is it all poor persons, paupers, who happen to be within the territorial jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church? Not at all. Is it all ministers who are superannuated, and who are entitled to relief on a claim of relief? Not at all. Is it all Methodist ministers? By no means. It is the superannuated and supernu- merary ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of that body thus organized— that body under whose auspices this fund was originally created, and under whose management and direction this fund has subsequently accumulated. They are the beneficiaries. They must answer that description to entitle them to take. If they do not answer it, they cannot take. In order to answer to that description, what must they be? They must be of the Methodist Episcopal Church. And what is this Methodist Episcopal Church? It is a unity. It is a body, not exactly incorpo- rated under the law, but it is a body possessing, to a certain extent—so far as respects its charitable purposes, and in a court of equity, and in reference to property—a corporate capacity. It has precisely in equity that sort of a capacity, which an association of individuals, who are not a mere partnership or a tenancy in common, at law have, when they are at liberty to act in a certain collective capacity, if not actually clothed with all the powers and attributes of a corporation. Your Honours are aware of the existence of that class of bodies generally called quasi corporations, and that is the character in a court of equity of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 297 And in all charitable uses, the bodies and individuals when they take under the cha- rity, in succession, take in that guasz corporate capacity. I will refer the Court, upon this subject, to a passage or two, in the opinion of the Court, inthe case of Decow vs. Hendrickson. It is fully reported, but not in any regular Book of Reports. It is a leading case in this country upon this subject ; and the opinion is collected in a book, as it was delivered in the Court below, by Chief Justice Ewing, who, as every one acquainted with him knows, was a very profound lawyer. He bestowed upon this subject a vast deal of attention. I will read from pp- 21 and 39 of the opinion. He is describing the yearly meeting of the Society of Friends, which is held in Philadelphia, which was never incorporated. It was an ecclesiastical institution. The property in question, in this case, was under that re- ligious institution, the yearly meeting being at its head. The question which arose in that case was, which of the subordinate meetings, which had become divided, and claimed this property, was entitled to it. In order to settle that question, as there had been a division in the head of the Church, the yearly meeting—which, in this particular, answers to this General Conference in the Methodist Episcopal Church— it became important to inquire into the character of that body, and which of those two separate institutions was the legitimate yearly meeting. What I now read is the description he gives of that body, as a charitable use protected under its law, and according to which law that case was to be decided. He says, at page 21,— ‘“‘This body was not a mere incidental, casual, disconnected assemblage, convening without previous arrangement, ceasing to exist when its members separated, and formed anew when individuals came together again at some subsequent time. It was a regularly organized and established body, holding stated sessions, correspond- ing with other bodies of the same religious denomination, consulting together for the welfare of a portion of their Church and its members, the ultimate arbiter of all dif- ferences, and the common head and governor of all belonging to the Society of Friends within its jurisdiction, which extended over the territories just mentioned, while they were called Provinces, and since they assumed the name and rank of States. The meetings of this body were annually held, as its name imports, and as long and steady usage has wrought into a part of its structure. 'The time and place of convention are subject to its control, and have accordingly, in several instances, been fixed and altered by it. The time and place, however, when and where only the body can constitutionally assemble and act, must, when fixed, so remain, until the voice of the body, in a yearly meeting capacity, which alone has the power and right to govern its own proceedings, shall resolve on and enact a change.” I will read another passage from p. 39. Speaking of a resolution of this body, he says :— “The resolve was an act, not of private or individual benevolence, but of this meeting in its collective capacity.” If this meeting is to be considered an organized body, having existence in an or- ganized form, and as such performing functions and having a “collective capacity,” the consequence is that it is of a corporate character so far. You will find this same doctrine laid down in Shelford on Montmaine, p. 712. The case of M’Gurr vs. Aaron, in 2d Pennsylvania Reports, was one where this same doctrine came up. In that case the property was limited to the support of a minister of a certain Church and his successors. Why, your Honours are aware that no property can be limited in that way, under any legal title, or in any creation of any private trust, and in such cases the property cannot goto successors. Yet, under this law of charitable use, it can be limited to the successors. In these cases of charitable uses, the majority, asa general rule, dispose of the property, and that doctrine is laid down in Shelford on Charitable Uses, p. 712. But in the case of private property held by a private asso- 298 ciation of individuals, a majority cannot control it. Each one has a right, asa tenant in common, to his respective share, and he can alienate that right. But the majority of the individuals have no control over it. But that is not so in the case of a chari- table use. An attempt was made, in a private association, to transfer the property, by a majority, without all joining, and it was decided to be unavailable, in the case of Livingston vs. Lynch, 4 Johnson’s Reports, 573. If I am right in this view of the subject, then we have a case where these benefi- ciaries take no vested title ; nothing that they can dispose of ; nothing that they can claim in any other way than simply under the management of this charity, and they must necessarily answer the description of the objects of the charity. How do they overcome this doctrine on the other side? On what does that decision in the Mays- ville case rest? The gentleman tells us that this property is not given—that it is no donation—that it was acquired by these travelling preachers? Suppose it was; does that alter the case? Who were to claim it? Can the travelling ministers claim it? Have they in fact devoted the fund to their own private use, as an asso- ciation of individuals? Nothing like it. On the contrary, they have devoted it toa certain purpose, and that is, such that the income is to be bestowed upon the superan- nuated, supernumerary travelling ministers, their wives, widows, and children. These are the individuals upon whom it is bestowed. These are the persons who are entitled to the income. ‘The travelling ministers, therefore, cannot claim it. It is, so far as they are concerned, a donation by them to the Church, and they, the trus- tees, hold it in trust, not for them as donors and founders, but for the individuals who are the objects of charity. It is, therefore, just as mucha case of donation, as if one individual should bestow a capital of one hundred thousand dollars, for the purpose of applying the income to the support of these supernumerary and superannuated minis- ters. It is no answer to this to tell us, that some of these persons who become su- pernumerary and superannuated ministers, may originally have contributed a portion of this fund. That does not alter the case. That gives them no greater right, nor does it deprive them of any benefit. Let me illustrate my view of the case upon this branch of the subject, because it is a main point on the otherside. Let us suppose aclass of mechanics in New-York— for instance, masons—should create a fund; that each should contribute a certain sum, say five dollars a year; that it should be put into the hands of trustees to be managed ; that a certain religious society should be appointed managers of that fund ; and that the profits should, from time to time, be distributed among the superannu- ated mechanics of that description, their wives, widows, and children: would not that be a charitable use? Unquestionably it would. Here would be a donation. It would not be a donation of one individual, or of a few individuals ; it would be a do- nation by a body of men. It would be a donation devoted toa charity. It would be a donation devoted to persons answering a certain description. ‘They would be, of course, a portion of those who had originally contributed, some more, some less, some perhaps lately come in, and become superannuated, before they contributed anything at all: it would be a charitable use. It would have all the elements of a charity ; it would have the donors; the trustees, the managers, and the beneficiaries. Let me suppose another case. Suppose that some fifty of these mechanics should contribute certain funds, that should be put into the hands of trustees to be managed for the purposes of speculation, and the profits to be divided, not among certain be- neficiaries, objects of charity, who answer a certain description, from time to time, but among the donors themselves, in proportion to theirrespective shares. Here they would be entitled to it as tenants in common. They would have private rights. They would have the power of alienating their respective portions of the fund, and 299 bringing in others as their alienees, as tenants in common, and be entitled, at any time, to make a division of that property, and on a division, each would take a rata- ble proportion of the original funds and property of the concern, with the accumula- tions. That illustrates the distinction between these tenancies in common in a private trust, and a case of charitable use. In the latter case, all would have to jom in a suit ; all could bring a suit ; all might alienate the entire property ; any one indi- vidual could alienate his portion of the property at any time; and it would be per- fectly immaterial whether they held it at law or in equity, because there is a complete analogy between private trusts in equity and a legal estate as protected by the com- mon law. But in the case ofa charitable use it is entirely different ; and I will take the liberty, in order to explain this doctrine further, and show the distinction, to refer your Honours to the existence of this doctrine as it stood before it was introduced into the common law. I will read from 7 Vermont Reports, 246 :— “The doctrine of charitable uses had its origin in the civil law. Hence it spread through the different countries of modern Europe. “ In Domat’s Civil Law, vol. 2, pp. 168, 169, 170, (book iv, § vii,) are the following passages: ‘ Legacies to pious uses are those legacies that are destined to some work of charity, whether they relate to spiritual or temporal concerns. Thus a legacy of ornaments for a church, a legacy for the maintenance of a clergyman, to instruct poor children, and a legacy for their sustenance, are legacies to pious uses. ‘“«* We may make this a just difference between legacies to pious uses and the other sorts of legacies, that the name of legacies to pious uses is properly given only to those legacies which are destined to some work of piety and charity, and which have their motives independent of the consideration which the merit of the legatees might procure them; whereas the other legacies have their motives confined to the consideration of some particular person, or are destined to some other use than to a work of piety and charity. “¢ All legacies which have not for their motive the particular consideration of some person, are not for all that of the number of legacies to pious uses, although they be destined for a public good, if that good be any other than a work of piety or charity. Thus a legacy destined for some public ornament, such as the gate of a city, for the embellishment or conveniency of some public place, and others of the like nature, or a legacy of a prize to be given to some person who should excel others in some art or science, would be legacies of another nature than those to pious uses. “«, sates ecient te 323 Address of the Southern Delegates to members of the M. EB. Church in slave- holding States and Territories, 1844, (Mr. Lord. Adjustment of differences, a friendly, re- commended, (Af. Wood.).......2...06- S24 AJabama Conference, preamble and reso- lutions adopted by, (Mr. Lord.) ........ 119 Andrew, Bishop, discretionary position of, as exhibited in Minutes of Conference, [ Proofs, p. 124,] (Mr. Choate.) ......+.5 243 Andrew, Bishop, from his connexion with slavery, is requested to desist from ac- tion as a Bishop, (Mr. Lord.)......... 5, 63 Andrew, Bishop, his case reviewed, ( Wood.) 313 ——_—_——_—_——-(Johnson.) 352, 354 , his connexion with sla- Wel Yan VU Obs Vnctes Wise) oxabatis ev sreieiehe albialel 312 Andrew, Bishop, his direct violation of the M. E. Church Discipline, ( Wood.) ...... 314 Andrew, Bishop, his letter to the Louisville Convention, May, 1845, (Zord.) ........ 120 Andrew, Bishop, his name not omitted in the M. E. Hymn Book, (Lord.)......... 5 Andrew, Bishop, his ‘‘ Pastoral Address” to the M. E. Church, 1845, (Lord.)........ 121 Andrew, Bishop, his reply to Bishop Soule’s letter of invitation “to perform episco- pal functions,”? (Lord.) Andrew, Bishop, not a slaveholder at the . period of his inauguration to the SPE PAG, (CWVOOW.) on vale s te ce vn cis sett eae ens Andrew, Bishop, the case of, before ‘the General Conference and Committee on 31, 62, 63 ee) ancedor ie Defendants’ “Gouna ‘ad- verse to claims of the M. E. Church, South, ( Choate.) ..vercce, ssscccecvess Gol Arguments by Plaintiff's Counsel in sup- port of claims of Dr. Bascom and others in slaveholding States, &c., (Lord.)..... 149 Arkansas Conference, report and resolu- HONSIORS (LON) s talgndie tle Fo cles sre ered ws 109 Asbury, Bishop, ordination of, by Dr. Coke, (BO) Oe os Seca sleies Uae covelocvceswcles 32 Bangs, Dr., and associate Commissioners M. E. Church, North, reply to communi- cation of Dr. Bascom, &c., 1846, (Zord.) Bangs, Dr., and Northern Commissioners, their reply to Dr. Bascom and others, MGC UBSRS (Zr dite racteee tates «6st hs Bascom, Dr., his letter to Bishop Soule, &c., on the Minority Protest, 1844, (Lord.).. 77 Bascom, Dr., and others of M. E. Church, South, communication to Northern Com- missioners on division of funds, &c., 1846, (Lord.) ...+..ceeeee ai seer stettebe L4G 24 Page Bascom, Dr., his report in the matter of the Westmoreland Circuit, 1840, (Johnson.) 3857 Bascom, Dr., and Southern Commissioners, letter to Messrs. Bangs, Peck, and Fin- ROY LS4S i CHOP, Arie Pellrteci tele ne ates 104 Beneficiaries of M. FE. Church, their rights CONBIGETER, . (LOrG.) 2h «ares sais viele oie ane 150 Bascont, "Drs (WO) Seas ve shieins eee altelate 298 Lishop, office of a, considered, (Johnson.) 358 Bishops, address of the, to Baltimore Con- ference on subject of slavery—Extract, VQOTO.) iste cie mate aes tieie es eek en ale cea eaee 50 Bishops, duties, regulations for, 1792, 1804, (Lord) sx aeinistnarcinicts a olwte aaaes cere apreletenhy 34 Bishops of M. E. Church, conduct of, sub- ject to consistorialinvestigation, (Lerd.) 5 Bishops of M. E. Church never slaveholders till the instance of Bp. Andrew, ( Wood.) 307 Bishops, letter of the, to General Confer- ence, 1844, on case of Bishop Andrew, CLONGN. saiste aurea core Telaee aes /iottr ee ere ers 6+ Bishops should not be slaveholders, special objections why, ( Wood.) ............005 310 Bishops and Presbyters, Mr. Wesley's opinion of their qualities and powers, CLOG: lone ith eesuiocn nantes a aasaten 30 Book Concern, 1800, duties and regulations for government of Superintendent and Book-Stewards, (Lord.).......++.e00008 26 Book Concern, distribution of profits aris- ing from, 1804, (Zord.) .........0.e000 27 Book Concern, capital and profits emi wmat- ing from,'\(L6r'd.) 20% celts carl : 25 159; 1355 Book Concern, funds of ri not to be di- i co special purposes and pythe (Choate. er 2 Book Concern, origin and history of the, (Bi A SOBEL ie eric rien dp ineee Book Concern, portion of profitsofthe,ren- dered to Canada Conference on their se- paration from the United States Confer- ECNCOAULONOU) eet ape deste con as vac emis ies 166 Book Concern, distribution of profits ac- eruing from, (Lord.) ......- reas 155, 203 Book Concern ( Choate.) ...20ccceeseceees 285 British Conference, address of the, to the General Conference, United States, on subject of slavery—Extract, (Wood.)... 308 Canada claims, Minutes of Committee on, "P* VEBG UB OrUs yards Shes 54h Centers a cde ate 96 support of adherence to, ( Wood.) ......+ 312 Conferences, Annual, of M. E. Church, Church, M. E., final report of state of the, their nature and functions, (Zord.)..... g (BQGHETN Neat css caw eae ieleee atle ts 6 219 Conference, change of organization in, Church, M. E., North, their answer to the 1808, (Berd) eae pep. dt silly culeicents Go 5 judicial citation by their Southern breth- FON, (LOT, . o's os b's ogo c UME weele's ala ovine he 3 Church, M. E. not empowered to author- ize separation or division of funds, COUR) eine Serene ests weenie usataa a oe 290 nn (Wood.) 302 Church, M. E., organization of the, South, decided as unconstitutional by the North- ern Commissioners, (Lord.)...+++++++++ 7 Church, M. ©, origin of, extract from Bp. Emory’s History of, (Lord.)..........++ 82 Church, M. E., plan of separation of the Northern and Southern, presented, dis- cussed, and adopted, 1844, (Lord.)...... 6 Church, M. E., regulations of the, for re- ception of Pr eachers from Wesleyan and ‘other Connexions, 1840, (Lord.)......++ 165 Church, M. ., amicable separation of the American from that of Great Britain, TVG s( Dor deita hess wrbil spn liars 164, 165 Church, M. E., South, biil of the, against the Northern M. E. Church, (Zord.).... 8 Church, M. E., Unity, the great law of tho, ( CRORE.) 1Ad's's iss a yeb ole leisinibigaieawielelo 264 Church and government of the Church distinguished, (Johnson.) ......+.e0200 835 Church union, importance and necessity of enforcing and preserving, ( Wood.) ..... 313 Claim, relative and proportionate, of the Plaintiffs, (W00d.) 0 +s.02.2 00 291, 292, 300 Climatic difference, a ground for division or separation from Parent Church, (Lord.) 176 Coke, Dr. T., appointed first Bishop of American M. EK. Church, by Mr. Wesley, CLOnGs Sia el aiai othe aikle's) sient sfolbieitle. shoe: Sie $2 Coke, Dr. 'T., resolutions in the matter of slavery, by the Church, under the ad- ministration of, (Johson.)...+-.++0+0++ 351 Commissioners, Northern, for treating with the Southern M. EH. Church, (Lord.) .«.. 185 Commissioners, Southern, report of Finance _ Committee, Petersburg Conference, 1846, in reference to appointment of, for set- tlement of their claims on the Northern CHUPo I (TIOTE, ats Mes erdrnroiuihtota siwieee aierelelloiegs 103 Committee on Separation, resolutions of, adopted by Tennessee Conf., (Lord.) ... 105 Conference, the, 1784 to 1808, powers, &c., of, examined, (Johnson.)....seeeeee 828, 334 Conference, the, 1784, its special creation, NICO is lateiellowels windatein lo, v'n'p loan ommininle Niele 267 Conference, the Breakwater, case of fF. A. Harding, 1844, (Zord.)........cseceseee 57 Conference, the first General, convened in United States, 1792, ( Choate.) .......... 272 Conference, the General, powers of the, (FORMS ONE in< See tte tome SOTO ee RI 2x00 5 ose. 209 ( Fancher.) 209 Conference, the General, Limitations of PHS) (TORSO cis lats-saharsbiobelee ante heieie so 335 Conference, General, power of the, to con- sent to a division of M. E, Church into two bodies, (Lord.)..... Bh, iets eee 262, 0168 Conference, (Choate.) .ecccervecceccsececs LOO . Conference, division of, proposed, and power of, by select Committee of Gen- eral Conference, (Lord.).......++.+++ 87, 838 Conference, General, their origin and func- TIONS SCEGRG: \otelaate's dials cis avs <1 ole vtelieisteie. ss 184 Fund chartered, its origin and intentions, (Lege acs cul F ap wintas sigh Sen OeRaes Fie wie bin 155 General grounds of the Plaintiffs’ claims to separation, division of profits, &c., (SORTESOR: sew ew ccelein. des vie deer we eWine ¢ 348 Georgia Conference, preamble and resolu- tions adopted by, (Lord.)......++++-.04: 115 Green, Rev. A. L. P., and associate Commis- sioners, M. HE. Church, South, letter to General Conference, 1848, (Zord.)...... 146 Griffith, Rev. Mr., his position before and after the Conferences of 1840 and 1844, KQUAMIOTE Neots ceaae aegis tee teite ts are 350 Harding, Rey. F. A., his case examined, a Vetaclartelsra ad tay tise eclemte sie acta ieee 241 GCE Daa Borie pester eeriator 311 Harding, Rev. F. A., and Bp. Andrew, ae judgments on, considered, (Johnson.) .. 356 Hymn Book and Discipline, customary re- publication of, after every General Con- FOPENCE, (LO7rd.) 0. seve cecccvegarcecaeve 5 Indian Mission Conference, resolutions adopted by the, (Lord.).......+..seeeee 115 Institution of M. BE. Church, its objects and intents inquired into, ( Wood.),.......-. 813 Itinerant Superintendency of Bishops of M. E. Church, ( Choate.).......-..+- 255, 257 Judges Nelson and Betts, their recommen- dation of an amicable adjustment of the question at issue...........eceeeeeeeee « 367 Maryland, extract from Dorsey’s Laws of, LEBEMLOTOs ):cibec's ei Ue cendvieshegeces 60, 61 Maryland, slavery laws of, extract, (Zord.) 59 Maysville case, extracts from decision, Court of Appeals, Kentucky, (Zord.).... 206 Maysville case, extracts from, ( Wood.)... 298 se IS ae , (Johnson.) 347 Memphis Conference, reference to proceed- ings Of, (LZord.).-.csecesereees peeves et 106 ‘i INDEX. * 371 ¢ at ay . Pa Methodism of United States, its early ig termination to be one Church, ( Choate.) 2 Methodism, its wide-spread ctttene in o United States, (CORDELE) 4: daicte ots A on wae 278 Methodism, its character and position in 1844, (HORNSOM. \iie ores sinia dace vide ns ~ aftaots 326 M. FE. Church, an enterprise of: missions, ( OROGTES) a 5. < cPosst ado Are carers gala Hah werersjeyne 279 M. E. Church, its creation in 1784, (Choate.) 266 M. E. Church, neyer had a slaveholding Bishop till the instance of Bp. Andrew, CWabd Sous saaae ts eae ee eee 307 M. E. Church, unity the great law of the, (hoagie) ak sete es tee ee 264 Methodists of Canada, their petition in 1827, for separation from the M. E, Church of the United States, (Zord.)........... 35 Mississippi Conference, preamble and re- SOLUTIONS. Of) ( LOO.) s dient oe thks