Full text of "A needed exposition; or, The Claims and Allegations of the Canada episcopals calmly considered"

See other formats

3 9004 0151591

2 9

A NEEDED EXPOSITION ;

THE CLAIMS AND ALLEGATIONS OF THE CANADA
EPISCOPALS CALMLY CONSIDERED.

BY ONE OF THE ALLEOED " KECEDERS."

(JOHNfiARROLU

" And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me to be king oyer
you, then come and put your trust under my shadow ; and if not, let fire come
out of the bramble and consume the cedars of Lebanon."— Parable of .fathom.

"And there passed by a wild |fjjast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the
thistle."— J V<n'.b/f ofJc1nni.sk.

TORONTO :
SAMUEL ROSE, METHODIST BOOK ROOM,

80 KING STKEKT EAST.
1&77.

^fy: ~ "■ 120* 9

c mm s

A NEEDED EXPOSITION ;

THE CLAIMS AND ALLEGATIONS OF THE CANADA
EPISCOPALS CALMLY CONSIDERED.

BY ONE OF THE ALLEGED "SECEDERS.

(JOHN CARROLL.)

" And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me to be king over
you, then come and put your trust under my shadow ; and if not, let fire come
out of the bramble and consume the cedars of Lebanon." — Parable ofJotham.

"And there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the
thistle." — Parable o/Jehoash.

TORONTO :
SAMUEL ROSE, METHODIST BOOK ROOM,

80 KING STREET EAST.

1877.

PREFACE.

When the Canada Conference and its adherents and
friends in 1833 congratulated themselves that they had pro-
vided against the possibility of a divided Methodism in the
Upper Province by an arrangement with the British Wes-
leyan Conference, including an organic union with that
body, which nevertheless preserved the essential integrity
of the Canadian Church, it was very disappointing to have
another rival body, within a year or two, spring up to spread
dissension and to " draw away disciples after them," on such
trivial grounds of dissatisfaction as the non-continuance of
local preachers' ordination and whether or not their business
should be best conducted in a " District Conference " or in a
circuit "Local Preachers' Meeting."

None felt the sorrow and discouragement more than my-
self. I had been personally attached to many of those who
were induced, earlier or later, to go with that movement,
among whom were such men as John Reynolds, Joshua
Webster, Jabez Bullis, G. P. Selden, Mr. Bickford, and
others I could name. After the line of separation was dis-
tinctly drawn, I found it very sad to ride or drive past the
doors which erst had been thrown open to me, and to see
. once happy societies sundered in twain ; and I yearned over
them still " in the bowels of Jesus Christ."

It is true, the course of procedure to effect these changes,
embracing blind prejudices, absurd apprehensions, un-

founded representations and allegations, and secret plottings
and misunderstandings, cooled my sympathies, estranged m3^
attachments, and in time reconciled me to their absence.

For many years my maxim in regard to this doubtful
organization was the Scriptural one, to " let them alone "
and to have as little intercourse as possible — on the ground
that if they were doing good I should not hinder them (and
I had no doubt that there was some incidental good) ; and,
if the aggregate of harm arising from the division should ex-
ceed the individual good, and I feared it would, I would not
be accessory to it.

But after some years, regarding the separate organization
as an accomplished fact ; and flattering myself that under
such a Superintendent as the venerable Richardson, and
such an editor as the amiable Abbs, much of the tierce
sectarianism and overt proselytizing of the earlier stages of
the movement had passed away, I not only reciprocated
brotherly advances, but made them myself, and interchanged
denominational courtesies. I also dedicated my biographical
history to all the Methodist bodies, inclusive of this one ;
and when forced to trench on matters which could not be
ignored, with regard to which we differed, I touched them
as tenderly and delicately as possible— so much so, indeed,
as caused some to think I was compromising the interests of
stern historic truthfulness. And when I made bold to ad-
dress a humble overture on the plan of unifying all the
Methodist bodies, I ventured to propose as part of the
new machinery that the diaconate should be restored, that
a modified Presiding Eldership should be accepted, and that
there should be a General Superintendency, though without
ordination. So much so that some of the other contracting
parties said that I had " conceded everything to the
Episcopate."

After organic Methodist union began to be generally
talked of, even by men who were traditionally conservative
of things as they had been, a trustful, unsuspicious feeling
sprung up in my heart ; and I allowed myself, with many
others, in freedom of communication with not a few of that
body whom I found ready to reciprocate those advances —
albeit, I must confess at the most encouraging of times, the
majority of those brethren seemed hard to inspire with any-
thing like a generous spirit of candor and reciprocity on the
questions which had torn us asunder.

The stand the Episcopal section of the General Com-
mittee on Methodist Unification took in their unyielding
aspect on Episcopacy, as though their own was of the most
hereditary and unquestionable character, although not
averse myself to a General Superintendency and several
other features of this system (which would have been
accepted by the other parties to the engagement if the
" Episcopals " had been reasonably tolerant) ; when I saw
this, I say, I confess I did experience surprise at such de-
mands from such a quarter ; and when negotiations were
broken off by them on those grounds, the feeling of dis-
appointment partook largely of the element of disgust.

Still, I confessed none of this to those on my own side,
but continued to hope against hope for many months. To
many less trustful than myself it became apparent that from
the time of his installation the new " bishop," Dr. Carman,
would have all to come to their standard, or they could have
no countenance from those who now trumpetted themselves
as the Methodist Church, par excellence, of the country.
And innumerable oral and written utterances of the
"bishop" and other mouthpieces of that body show that
this is the policy to be pursued.

To this there can be no objection, only in view of one

consideration. They have a natural right to pursue this
course, if it pleases their fancy ; and they have a moral
right also, if they can justify it to God and their own con-
sciences. But the moral rectitude of it ceases when it has
to be sustained by statements which are false, and when it
places their neighbors in a false position : such as that the
Canada Conference did an unwarrantable thing in their
compact with the parent of all the Methodist bodies in the
world, making themselves " seceders " and leaving the
present " Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada " as the
only true lineal descendant of the original Methodism of the
country ! These falsifications of facts and of history being
paraded to prevent a good end and to perpetuate an anomaly
and an evil, I am at length persuaded to comply with a
request, often preferred to me by individuals, to present the
real facts of the disruption of this boastful and pragmatic
section of our colonial Methodism.

I am deeply sorry for the necessity of this ; and that the
rather, because I am persuaded that there are many in that
community who, unless they have lately and greatly changed,
cannot approve of the self-asserting course now adopted by
the present leading influences of the body. To them, and all
the candid in that community, I commend this exposition.

I have only given a summary view of the question at
issue. I have by no means exhausted facts, arguments,
and illustrations ; but have kept a large store of both one
and the other. In the meantime, the prophet's determina-
tion will be mine : " I will stand upon my watch, and set
me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say
unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved."*

Don Mount, July 17th, 1877.
* Hab. ii. i.

A NEEDED EXPOSITION.

I. A Brief Epitome of Canadian Methodist History
from 1790 to 1832.

Methodism was planted in Canada during the year 1790-
9.1, by the Rev. William Losee, who came from the then
newly-organized Methodist Episcopal Church of the United
States. His ingress was at his own instance, having been
left for that year, by the Bishop, to " range at large "; but
he was sent by authority the ensuing year. Several organ-
ized classes crowned the labors of those two years. In
1792 an ordained Elder, in the person of the Rev. Darius
Dunham, was sent in to superintend the whole and dispense
the ordinances. The work in Canada was thenceforth a
Presiding Elder's District, in connection with some one of
the Annual Conferences in the United States connected
with the M. E. Church. Sometimes the Conference bore one
name, and sometimes another. In 1810, the Canada work
fell to the newly-organized Genesee Conference, by whom
it was thenceforth supplied with preachers.

In 1812, the war broke out between Great Britain and
the American Republic, by which some of the preachers de-
signated to Canada were prevented from coming to their
stations ; likewise, some that were already in the Provinces,
being American citizens, through fear, were induced to
leave. The vacancies created in the Upper Province were
supplied from among the local preachers by the Presiding
Elder, the Rev. Henry Ryan. He also gave some oversight
to the work in Lower Canada, the Presiding Elder for that

District, the Rev. Nathan Bangs, having been deterred from
coming to his appointment. From this cause, the Montreal
and St. Francis Circuits were left destitute, and others but
partly supplied during a part of the time. The Rev. Thomas
Burch, a born subject of Britain, appointed to Quebec, think-
ing that a place of less importance, Methodistically, than
Montreal, of which the absentee Presiding Elder, Mr. Bangs,
was to have had the special charge, settled himself in the
latter city, and went only occasionally to the former ; and
at length he ceased going altogether. The Quebec Metho-
dists felt their destitution very much, and being ignorant of
the new doctrine, that Episcopacy was essential to true
Methodism, and regarding the Wesleyan Conference in Eng-
land, not only as co-ordinate with the Methodist Episcopal
Church, but viewing it as " the mother of all," applied,
through the chairman of the Nova Scotia District, which
stood in immediate connection with the British Conference,
to send them a missionary, which request was granted ; and
he arrived in Quebec, June, 1814. The larger part of the
society in Montreal, no doubt on account of prejudices
created by the war, also desired to be supplied by a preacher
from the British Conference. In answer to that request,
the Rev. Richard Williams arrived in that city in 1815 — I
suspect about the time Mr. Burch returned to the States.
The majority of the society siding with the- British mis-
sionary, under the plea that the most of the means for its
erection was raised in England throughout the Wesleyan
connexion, put him in possession of the chapel. The Rev.
Wm. Brown, the appointee of the Genesee Conference, with
the minority who adhered to him, was forced to set up wor-
ship in a temporary place ; and there were two sections of
Methodism in that city until the arrangement between the
British and American connexions took place in 1820. Soon

after, other British missionaries arrived, and took up the
vacated St. Francis country and all accessible places in the
eastern townships. In 1816, the Revs. Messrs. Black and
Bennett, from Nova Scotia, by authority of the British Con-
ference, attended the American General Conference, which
sat in Baltimore in the month of May of that year, and
met the two representatives of the Canada work, in the
persons of the Revs. Messrs. Ryan and Case. The delibera-
tions in the General Conference led to such a representation
to the authorities of the British connexion as drew forth a
letter of instructions from the missionary secretaries to their
missionaries in Canada, cautioning them from trenching on
the stations occupied by the appointees of the American
Church, and against occupying their chapels. Now this pro-
ceeding is proof that these two Connexions regarded each
other, reciprocally, as co-ordinate. Nevertheless, upon one
plea and another, by 1820, Wesleyan Methodist ministers
had been stationed along the St. Lawrence from Cornwall
to Prescott ; at Kingston and along the Bay of Quinte ; and
at length, Niagara and York received European preachers
and possessed Wesleyan societies.

In 1820, an interchange of Delegates took place between
the British and American General Conferences, and the fol-
lowing arrangement was agreed to :— Mr. Wesley's original
maxim, uttered at the formation of the American Methodist
Church, that " the Methodists are one people in all the
world," was re-affirmed ;* and that, Lot and Abraham-like,

* The Rev. John Wesley, in a letter to the Rev. E. Cooper, only
twenty-nine days before his death, uttered this admonition :— " See
that you never give place to one thought of separating from your
brethren in Europe. Lose no opportunity of declaring to all men,
that the Methodists are one people in all the world, and that it is their
full determination so to continue, —

" Though mountains rise and oceans roll,
To sever us in vain ! "

one was to "go to the right hand and the other to the left."
The British missionaries were to be withdrawn from Upper
Canada and the American laborers from Lower Canada.*

Nevertheless, there were many in Upper Canada of
Methodist proclivities and name who shrank from a connec-
tion with American Methodism from national prejudice and
other reasons ; and either refused to unite in the societies
governed from that side of the line, or agitated, more or less,
for a separation from under American jurisdiction As
some measure of concession to this feeling, by the authority
of the immediately preceding General Conference, the
"Canada Annual Conference" was organized in 1824,
which took place in Hallowell, August 25th, of that year.

Gradually those most conservative of American connec-
tion united with the others in asking the American General
Conference for a peacable separation, which was granted
May, 1828. And it was agreed that if the Canadians organ-
ized an Episcopal Church that one of their bishops should
be permitted to come over and ordain the first bishop, when
elected.

At the next meeting of the Canada Annual Conference,
which took place in the ensuing October, in Switzer's
Chapel, Earnestown, independency was assumed, and "The
Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada " was organized.
The particulars in which it differed from the parent one in
the States were the following : There being, as yet, only one
Annual Conference, the General Conference, instead of being
composed of delegates by election, should consist " of all
travelling elders who had travelled four full calendar

* Resolution of Liverpool Conference, 1820: — "The Conference
embraces this opportunity of recognizing that great principle which,
it is hoped, will be prominently maintained — 'That the Wesley an
Methodists are one body in every part of the world. ' "

years last past and had been received into fall connexion."*
This cut off local elders, of course, as they were not in con-
nection with the Conference of itinerants at all.

Another marked difference between the Canadian and
American Discipline was the " Sixth Restriction " on the
legislative action of the General Conference.

At the Conference when the Canadian Church was organ-
ized, a committee was appointed to correspond with the
Parent Connexion in England, and to inform the British
Wesleyan Conference officially of the formation of such a
Church, which committee, however, failed to perform the
duty assigned it. In default of that, after some time, the
Rev. Egerton Ryerson, the Secretary of the General Con-
ference and Editor of the Guardian, opened a correspond-
ence with the senior Missionary Secretary in London, the
Rev. Richard Watson, but there was no nearer intimacy.

No less than three episcopoi were elected by the General
Conference of the new Church during the five years of its
existence, but from one cause and another, no bishop was

* The literal wording of this clause cut off those travelling elders
from a seat in the General Conference who had graduated to Elders
orders, and even served the Connexion many years, if they had
been forced to locate, it might be for only a year, and had not re-
sumed their place in the Travelling Connexion early enough to
make "four full years last past" before such General Conference,
although they might be among the ablest and wisest ministers in
the Connexion ; so also it might be construed to exclude superan-
nuated elders, no matter how long their services, how active soever
in mind, or how desirable their long and thorough experience might
be in that legislative body ; for though they were travelling
preachers in the technical sense, as contradistinguished from " local
preachers," yet in point of reality they had not travelled on a circuit.
The manifest unwisdom and injustice of excluding these two classes
was seen upon reflection, therefore at the first meeting of the
General Conference, held in Belleville in 1830, all beyond the clause

consecrated. The Rev. Wm. Case was elected by the General
Conference as " General Superintendent," and each succeed
ing Annual Conference elected him to occupy its Presidential
Chair.

II. The Circumstances which led to the Blending of

the British and Canadian Methodist Churches to

be thought of.

During the four years of the existence of the Canada

Church, — that is to say from 1828 to 1832, — the members in

the Canadian society greatly increased, and the work of

evangelization among the aborigines of the country was so

greatly extended, that the lack of funds to follow up the

openings and to mature the missions already planted, by

translations, schools, churches, &c, was greatly felt. Appeals

had been made to the Methodists of the United States, and

very considerable sums had been kindly given; yet the funds

"travelling elders" was stricken out, so that all elders in the
Travelling Connexion had a seat in the legislative body. This was
two years before the Union was proposed. And when that measure
was under consideration, another omission was found to do a great
injustice to a large number of ministers. As soon as a preacher was
received into full connexion, after his two years' probation, he
could enter on the deliberations and vote in the Annual Conference,
as it was not ordination but service and experience which prepared
him to take a part in its deliberations. By the same analogy, when a
preacher had travelled four years and was elected to Elder's
orders, though not yet ordained, he had the true qualification for
sitting and deliberating in the General Conference. If construed
otherwise, it would have been a great wrong to some of the ablest
ministers of the body, and a great loss to the body itself. K we
may anticipate, there were fourteen brethren, at least, in this con-
dition in 1832, when the changes necessary to the legality of the
Union measure were submitted to a special meeting of the General
Conference. These were the following very capable men :—
Alvah Adams, Cyrus R. Allison, John S. Attwood, John Beatty,

iral

>p.d-

were inadequate to the work required to be done. As another
resource, in the spring of 1831, that distinguished Indian
preacher, Kah-ke-wa-quon-a-by , or Rev. Peter Jones,
was despatched by the Canadian missionary authorities to
the Mother Country, — the British Isles — to make an appeal
for aid. This led the brethren in England to think that
they were now called to enter this field also, especially as
they believed that they were released from their pledge to
the General Conference to vacate the Upper Province by
the Upper Canada Methodists having passed from under the
jurisdiction of that Conference.

Accordingly, in 1832, one of their Missionary Secretaries,
the Rev. Robert Alder, accompanied by some of their colonial
ministers, was sent to explore the country, to see what parts
of it were unsupplied with Methodist ministrations. Coming

Hamilton Biggar, John C. Davidson, Ephraim Evans, Asahel
Hurlburt, Richard Jones, Peter Jones (Indian), James Norris,
Richard Phelps, George Poole, and William Smith. The specific
purpose for which the General Conference was couvoked was to re-
ceive the necessary three-fourths majority for the altering the
second "Restriction," which prohibited the "doing away with
Episcopacy," (page 18,) Elder Case, the General Superintendent,
having refused to even put the motion until the restriction was con-
stitutionally removed. But before that vote was put, the composi-
tion of the General Conference itself was determined, and the mem-
bership of the General Conference was made to consist — by legal
vote of the then undisputed members, — of all the " travelling
elders and elders elect." This gave the brethren above-named a
seat, and a more than three-fourths vote was received for removing
the Second Restriction. These changes were preserved in the
MS. Journals, but there being no M. E. Discipline published later
than 1829, the latest changes do not appear therein. The reason for
there being so many elders elect was this : the Church, although Episco-
pal in name, had no bishop to ordain them, nor ever had. The " doing
away" with what never existed, except on paper, was more a fiction
than reality.

to York (now Toronto), where a small Wesleyan cause, in an
irregular way, had been started, fearing strife and division if
rival societies were permitted to multiply, the Missionary
Board of the Canada Church, consisting of a large preponder-
ance of laymen, invited Mr. Alder to meet them, and request-
ed him to remain until the ensuing session of the Canada Con-
ference, to see if some method could not be devised by which
the British and Provincial Methodist bodies might labor in
concert, — a proof, by the way, that no intelligent Methodist
of that day ever dreamed that there was any essential differ-
ence betweeen the two Churches which would make the
transmutation of the one form into the other occasion the
loss of its identity.

III. A Detail of the Unifying Process.

The Rev. Mr. Alder complied with the request above re-
ferred to, and made his appearance timely at Hallowell, the
seat of the Conference, in the month of August, 1832, accom-
panied by the Wesleyan missionary from the town of King-
ston, which place had retained a preacher from the British
Conference from the- first, despite the arrangement of 1820 ;
this was the Rev. John P. Hetherington. The memorial
of the Canada Missionary Board to the Conference was
read, and after much friendly consultation, in_ which the
representative of the British Conference took part, a com-
mittee of nine of the most capable and experienced mem-
bers of the Conference was appointed, who reported Pre-
liminary Articles of Union between the two Conferences,
which, after some discussion on some of the details, were
adopted by large majorities, and a Delegate was appointed to
carry them to the British Conference the following summer
of 1833. The Rev. Egerton Ryerson was the representative

elected, with the Rev. James Richardson as the reserve, or
substitute, in the event of Mr. Ryerson being prevented
from going.

These were the same, in all substantial respects, as those
finally adopted (which I herewith produce), finally endorsed
by the two Conferences : —

Articles of Union between the British Wesleyan
Methodist Conference and the Conference of the
Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada.

The English Wesleyan Conference, concurring in the
communication of the Canadian Conference, and deprecat-
ing the evils which might arise from collision, and believing
that the cause of religion generally, and the interests of
Methodism in particular, would, under the blessing of God,
be greatly promoted by the united exertions of the two
Connexions ; considering also, that the two Bodies concur
in holding the doctrines of Methodism as contained in the
notes of Mr. Wesley on the New Testament, and in his four
volumes of Sermons, do agree in the adoption of the follow-
ing Resolutions : —

I. — That such a union between the English Wesleyan and
Canadian Connexions, as shall preserve inviolate the rights
and privileges of the Canadian preachers and societies on
the one hand, and on the other, shall secure the funds of
the English Conference against any claims on the part of
the Canadian preachers, is highly important and desirable.

II. — That (as proposed in the second and third Resolu-
tions of the Canadian Conference) in order to effect this
object the Discipline, Economy, and form of Church Gov-
ernment in general of the Wesleyan Methodists in England
be introduced into the societies in Upper Canada, and that
in particular an Annual Presidency be adopted.*

* This is understood both by the Canadian Conference and the
representatives from the British Conference, to refer to no other
modifications in the economy of Methodism in Upper Canada than
those which have taken place at this Conference, and that the
Canadian Book of Discipline has heretofore provided for.

III. — That the usages of the English Conference, in refer-
ence to the probation, examination, and admission of candi-
dates into the itinerant ministry, be adopted.

IV. — That preachers who have travelled the usual term
of probation and are accepted by the Canadian Conference
shall be ordained by the imposition of the hands of he
President, and of three or more of the senior preachers, ac-
cording to the form contained in Mr. Wesley's " Sunday
Morning Service of the Methodists," by which the Wesleyan
missionaries in England are ordained, and which is the same
as the form of ordaining Elders in the Discipline of the
Canadian Conference.

V. — That the English Conference shall have authority to
send, from year to year, one of its own body to preside over
the Canadian Conference ; but the same person shall not be
appointed oftener than once in four years, unless at the re-
quest of the Canadian Conference. — When the English Con-
ference does not send a President from England, the Cana-
dian Conference shall, on its assembling, choose one of its
own members.

The proposal of the Canadian Conference is understood to
include, as a matter of course, that the President of the
Conference shall exercise the same functions generally as the
present General Superintendent now actually exercises ; he
shall not, however, have authority to appoint any preacher
to any Circuit or Station, contrary to the counsel and advice
of a majority of the Chairmen of Districts or Presiding
Elders, associated with him as a Stationing Committee.

VI. — That the missions among the Indian tribes and
destitute settlers which are now, or may be hereafter, estab-
lished in Upper Canada, shall be regarded as missions of
the English Wesleyan Missionary Society, under the follow-
ing regulations : —

First. The Parent Committee in London shall determine
the amount to be applied annually to the support and ex-
tension of the missions ; and this sum shall be distributed
by a Committee, consisting of the President, General Supeiv
intendent of the Missions, the Chairmen of Districts, and

seven other persons appointed by the Canadian Conference.
A Standing Board or Committee, consisting of an equal
number of preachers and laymen, shall moreover be ap-
pointed, as heretofore, at every Conference, which, during
the year, shall have authority, in concurrence with the
General Superintendent of missions, to apply any moneys
granted by the Parent Committee, and not distributed by
the Conference, in establishing new missions among the
heathen, and otherwise promoting the missionary work.

Second. The Methodist Missionary Society in Upper
Canada shall be auxiliary to the English Wesleyan Mis-
sionary Society, and the moneys raised by it shall be paid
into the funds of the Parent Society.

Third. The missionaries shall be stationed at the Canada
Conference in the same way as the other preachers ; with
this proviso, however, that the General Superintendent of
Missions shall be associated with the President and Chair-
men of Districts in their appointment.

Fourth. All the preachers who may be sent from this
country into the work in Upper Canada, shall be members
of the Canadian Conference, and shall be placed under the
same Discipline, and be entitled to the same rights and
privileges as the native preachers.*

Fifth. Instead of having the Annual Stations of the
missionaries sent home to the English Missionary Com-
mittee and Conference for their "sanction," as is the case
with our missions generally, and as the Canadian Conference
have proposed, the English Conference shall appoint, and
the Parent Committee shall meet the expense of supporting
a General Superintendent of Missions, who, as the Agent of
the Committee, shall have the same superintendence of the
Mission Stations as the Chairmen of Districts, or Presiding
Elders, exercise over the circuits in their respective districts,

* The understanding of this article is, that the Canadian Confer-
ence shall employ such young men in Upper Canada as they may
judge are called of God into the itinerant work ; but should not a
sufficient number be found in Upper Canada properly qualified, the
British Conference will send out as many young men from England
as may be requested by the Canadian Conference.

and shall pay the missionaries their allowance as determined
by the Conference Missionary Committee, on the same scale
as the Canadian Book of Discipline lays down for the
preachers on the regular circuits ; — but who, being at the
same time recognized as a member of the Canadian Confer-
ence, shall be accountable to it in regard of his religious and
moral conduct. This General Superintendent of Missions,
representing the Parent Committee in the Canadian Confer-
ence, and in the Stationing and Missionary Committees, the
appointments of the missionaries at the Conference, shall be
final.

VII. — That the Canadian Conference, in legislating for its
own members, or the Connexion at large, shall not at any
time make any rule or introduce any regulation which shall
infringe these Articles of Agreement between the two Con
ferences.

Signed by order and on behalf of the Conference,

Richard Treffry, President.
Edmund Crindrod, Secretar;/.

Manchester, August 7th, 1833.

Resolved, — That the Canadian Conference cordially con-
curs in the Resolutions of the British Conference, dated
" Manchester, August 7th, 1833," as the basis of Union
between the two Conferences.

Egerton Ryerson, Secretary.

York, U. C, October 2nd, 1833.

The projected arrangement had been freely discussed in
the organ of the Connexion from the time of Mr. Alder's visit
to York till the Conference, and the result was a vast con-
course of visitors to the seat of the Conference, to whom the
doors were thrown open to hear the deliberations, a proceed-
ing then very unusual. And I don't remember to have
heard myself, or heard of, a single objection among the
assembled laity or local preachers to the measures proposed.
There certainly were no petitions against them, or outside
pressure of any kind. And I remember distinctly, that Mr

John Reynolds, afterwards bishop of the rival organization,
seemed well enough pleased, and said, that " if there were
any things proposed which conflicted with the rights of his
order or of the laity he would have his say when those
measures were laid before the Quarterly Conferences." He
made no objection to the surrender of Episcopacy itself, but,
as I shall have the means of proving hereafter by sworn
testimony, he was glad that we were about to ''get from
under the heavy hand of a bishop," as he was pleased to
phrase it.

The Canada Conference was purposely appointed to sit two
months later than usual the ensuing year (1833), to give
time for the return of the Delegate from the British Confer-
ence, which sat in August of that year.

The proposals of the Canada Conference, as we have anti-
cipated, were substantially affirmed by the British Confer-
ence, and two eminent members of that body accompanied '
the Canada delegate on his return to the Province, to repre-
sent the views of the British Conference and to fill important
posts in the Canadian Connexion, in the event of the
Articles of Union being finally adopted by the Canada Con
ference. These ministers were the Revs. George Marsden
and Joseph Stinson.

There was some little inquiry and discussion on some of
the details, but the Articles as a whole, upon the urgent re-
commendation of the Rev. James Richardson, were unani-
mously adopted by a rising vote, the venerable Thomas
Whitehead alone demurring; yet he did it in such a way as to
create a laugh, and to leave the impression that he intended
it as a joke, for the venerable Superintendent, Rev. Wm,
Case, pronounced the vote " unanimous," and no one more
cordially co-operated than Mr. Whitehead himself.

One aged man, who had stickled very much for the continu-

ance of Episcopacy, did not vote, but withdrew rather than
spoil the unanimity of the vote. I had all along thought
that Mr. Gatchel did not from the first intend to concur,
but I am now thoroughly convinced, that at that time, and
for many months after, he had no intention of placing him-
self in opposition, much less of creating a rival party; and
my reasons for it are these, he made no disclaimer, — he en-
tered no protest, — nor did he forbid the continuance of his
name on the journals and in the minutes, but laboured
during the next Conference year in holding special services,
&c, raising collections for the Superannuated Ministers'
Fund, which he credited against his own claim, and received
the balance from the Stewards of Conference (as much as
any other claimant). But my strongest reason is a fact,
brought to my knowledge only within a few days : he and
the now very aged Rev. Robert Corson were fellow-lodgers
during the Conference of 1833. Here is Mr. Corson's testi-
mony, which has been in print now about thirty-five years and
never contradicted, and Mr. Corson is still living to be ques-
tioned if any one is curious. Mr. Corson said in a letter to
the Rev. C. R. Allison, who made use of it in a printed dis-
cussion, in ,1842 : — " He " (Mr. Gatchel) " said to me,
* That although he felt opposed to the Union in some
degree, yet he should go with the Conference.' "

When the measure was finally carried, Mr. Marsden
assumed the Presidential Chair, Rev. Wm, Case having
vacated it, and conducted the routine business of that session ;
but, much to the regret of ministers and members, he returned
to his duties in England at its close. Mr. Stinson remained
in the country, and became the " Superintendent of Missions,"
according to one of the provisions of the Sixth Article of
Union, a position which involved duties all the year round.
Just here I may present —

IV. Considerations which Prevailed with the Mem-
bers of Conference to Concur in this Union.

1st. As thoroughly informed in Methodist views, they
were entirely persuaded of the co-ordinate character of the
two bodies as demonstrated by the reciprocal recognition of
each other by the British and American Connexions from
their earliest history.

2nd. Their love of the English Connexion as British, they
all being British subjects themselves ; no less than
twenty-one out of the sixty being of the British Isles by
birth, and largely by education : more than a dozen of them
had been brought to God by that form of Methodism which
they were now accepting.

3rd. They were aware that a larger proportion of the mem-
bers of the Church were Old Countrymen, with Old Country
sympathies, and that hundreds on hundreds of these had'
been converted by the instrumentality of Old Country
Methodism, who were delighted at the thought of being re-
united to their spiritual relatives by a closer tie than of late
years.

4th. They saw that the Articles of Union propounded guar-
anteed them against any interference with the rights of them-
selves or the members of the Church.

5th. They knew by what had passed under their own eyes,
that all the changes made had been legally and constitution-
ally effected ; and they believed that many of the changes
were for the better.

6th. As to the Episcopacy, they remembered that we had no
experience of a Provincial one, and the people had little
knowledge of, or care about, a bishop. The Conference had
failed in all its attemps to secure one, and the ministers be-
gan to suspect that God had purposely set us free from his

jurisdiction. They knew it would be a responsible and hard
matter to settle if we were shut up to Canadian expect-
ants. The life-long Episcopacy, they knew, would be an ex-
pensive institution, and an Annual Presidency could perform
all the functions and duties as well.

7th. But it was a very persuasive motive with most of
them, that we should now be stronger in men and means for
carrying on our work among the Indians.

8th. The absence of any declared opposition from the
people between the Conference of 1832 and that of 1833,
but a great deal that was of the opposite character, during
that period, influenced the final vote to a great degree. We
have seen that a vast number of private and official mem-
bers were at the inception of the measure, and all were
rather favourable than otherwise. The Presiding Elders
were requested to make particular inquiry throughout their
respective districts, between the Conference of 1832 and the
time of the delegates leaving in the early spring of 1833,
relative to the state of feeling on the subject of the prospective
Union, yet no report adverse was made, but rather the re-
verse. Some of these letters were published in the Guardian,
and no contradiction given. As the Canada Church was
planted by the American Connexion, great respect was held for
the opinion of its leading authorities: some of these the dele-
gate took upon him to consult in New York on his way
to England, and he wrote, on the eve of sailing for Europe,
as follows: — "I stayed with Dr. Fisk all night and a part of
two days. He was unreserved in his communications, and
is in favor of the object of our mission, as were Bro.
Waugh, Dr. Bangs, Durbin, &c. I have conversed with
them all, and they seem to approve fully of the proceedings
of our Conference." There was not a single petition pre-
sented to the Conference of 1833 against the measure before it.

V. The Opposition which Afterwards Arose, and the
Form it Took.

There was no opposition to notice until the new regula-
tions affecting the private membership and local preachers
were submitted to the Quarterly Conferences, as they were
then called, by the Presiding Elders at the first round on
their several districts, during the Conference year 1833-34.

The only thing affecting the private membership related
to. a sort of capitation tax on the members for the support
of the work. It is to be found on the thirty-eighth page of
the Discipline published in 1836, under the heading, The
Duties of Superintendents. It is to the following effect : —

" To see that Mr. Wesley's original rule, in regard to
weekly and quarterly contributions, be observed in all our
societies as far as possible. The rule was published by Mr.
Wesley in the Minutes of Conference, held in London, 1782.
It is as follows :

" ' Q. Have the weekly and quarterly contributions been
duly made in all our societies'?

" ' A. In many it has been shamefully neglected. To
remedy this,

"'1. Let every Assistant (Superintendent) remind every
society, that this was our original rule : Every member
contributes one penny weekly (unless he is in extreme
poverty) and one shilling quarterly. Explain the reason-
ableness of this.

" ' 2. Let every Leader receive the weekly contribution
from each person in his class.

" ' 3. Let the Assistant (Superintendent) ask every person
at changing his ticket : Can you afford to observe our rules 1
And receive what he is able to give.' "

The Methodists of this day will smile to learn that this

was made the occasion of bitter accusations and agitations,
and cost the Connexion hundreds of members.*

The principal changes proposed related to local preachers ;
and it was that order in the Church, or at least a few of
them, who created the first dissatisfaction, which spread to
other things, and made a sad conflagration. The changes
relating to them were these : — (1) Up to the time of the
Union, a local preacher, if recommended by the Quarterly
Conference of his Circuit, and elected thereto by an Annual
Conference, might receive deacon's orders at the end of four
years after he had received a regular license as a local
preacher ; and in four years from the time of his receiving
deacon's orders, upon the same conditions as above, he
might receive Elder's orders from the hands of the bishop ;
but as a concession to the British Wesleyan usage, no per-
son becoming a local 2weacher after the time of the consum-
mation of the Union, could be eligible to ordination. (2)

* It is perhaps but right to say, that all following the word
"possible " was in the form of a foot-note in the MS. copy of the
Discipline put in the hands of the printer ; but because there was a
note to that note explaining the original meaning and use of the
term "Assistant," the compositor, in a mistake, set it up in the
text, and the Conference stood charged with foisting a surreptitious
rule into our code of laws with the design of bringing the members
under a money condition of membership, and a lamentable "scare "
was produced. As this epoch was made the occasion of re-enforcing
the quarterly renewal of tickets, which had fallen too much into
desuetude (that and the inquiry into the ability of the members to
support the cause), it was resisted by the malcontents as a usurpation.
One of the first two delegates to the American General Conference,
from the new Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, finding a
society ticket belonging to some member of his household, held it
up and asked in a scornful tone, " Who has been purchasing Indul-
gences?" Such were some of the means by which our members
were prejudiced against the Union !

Under the former economy, the licensing and annually
renewing the license of local preachers was relegated to
a District Conference of all the local preachers in a Pre-
siding Elder's District, of which the Presiding Elder was
President ; but under the new arrangement, the same
business was to be transacted in the several circuits to
which they belonged, in a Local Preachers' Meeting, of which
the Superintendent of the Circuit was chairman. If there
were seven or more local preachers in a Circuit, there
might be such a meeting ; if less, their matters were to be
attended to in the Quarterly Meeting ; and when the Local
Preachers' Meeting was not held, the Quarterly Meeting was
to do it. This arrangement was far more feasible than the
District Conference, which in some cases required a hun-
dred miles' travel to attend it, of which most of them
bitterly complained, yet, when the change was proposed, the
promoters of disruption resisted it. I remember, in parti-
cular, Mr. Reynolds in 1828 ridiculing the impracticability
and senselessness of the arrangement, yet we have cause to
believe, that his reason for leaving the Church, in 1834,
arose from his dissatisfaction that the new regulations about
local preachers had carried in the Quarterly Meetings.*
(3) Another arrangement of the new Discipline (page 43),
which made it the duty of the Superintendent of each
Circuit " To make out a regular plan of appointments for

* Since the above was written, a now-printed letter of the Rev.
John Reynolds' to a brother local preacher has bjen put into my
hands by the person to whom it was addressed, Rev. Philip J.
Roblin, which implies that at the time of its date, Mr. Reynolds,
by implication, acknowledged himself a member of the Canada
Methodist Church under its IVesky m name and form, and shows
that the new changes relating to local preachers, which had been
carried by the c institutional majority in the Quarterly Conferences,
was the cause of his dissatisfaction ; and that if they could have been

the local preachers and exhorters on the Circuit, with the
counsel of the Quarterly Meeting where there is no Local
Preachers' Meeting, " although honorable to this class of
laborers, was very distasteful to those who went away. The
changes with regard to their trial under accusation, trans-
ferred their final appeal from an Annual Conference to a
District Meeting, gave them an advantage in their first ex
animation, before a "committee," in giving them the
privilege of choosing one-half of the jury — a privilege not
accorded to any other person in the Chnrch, whatever his
rank or office.

brought to reverse their vote, he would have remained in the Church.
With these preliminary remarks, the letter speaks for itself : —

" Belleville, June 30th, 1834.

" Dear Bro. Boblin, — In reply to yours of the 24th inst., I have
to say that I feel no disposition to comply with the resolutions as
laid down in the new Discipline, by which local preachers are to be
governed, my parchment or certificate from the bishop shows my
standing in the Church and my right to its privileges, and therefore
I see no reason why I should consent to have my name entered on
a plan.

" I labor under no fearful apprehension of being disowned in
consequence of refusing to comply. The resolutions are unreason-
able and altogther uncalled for, and many of our travelling
preachers know it.

" The proper course for us to take is to petition those Quarterly
Conference who passed the resolutions, to rescind their former vote,
and thereby do away with them altogether ; for you will observe
that the preachers tell us that it was the Quarterly Conferences
that made the law, and I say, if so, the Quarterly Conferences can
make that law null and void if they choose to do so. Shall we
make the trial ? If you and the other local preachers of jour Cir-
cuit think with me on this subject, please say so, and we will get
up a respectful petition to lay before those Conferences as soon as
possible.

" I am, dear Bro., yours in love,

" John Reynolds."

These new regulations, however, received the required
majority of two-thirds, and passed into a law, and were
published in the first issue of the new Discipline. They
also must commend themselves as reasonable and just to all
dispassionate and reflecting persons.

The account I have given of the Conference and the
ample provision made for supplying the work, we naturally
would have thought augured future prosperity. So thought
some of the wisest at the time, who had not been before so
sanguine of the Union measure. This will appear from the
following short extract from the valedictory of the retiring
Editor, Rev. James Richardson, never given to view matters
in rose-color :

" The Conference closed the important, interesting, and
difficult business of the Session at one o'clock this day.
Notwithstanding the multifarious and highly important
matters transacted, the Session has been distinguished for
an unusual degree of order, peace, and unanimity in its
proceedings ; and we trust the ministers go forth to their
respective appointments and labors with renewed vigor,
animated with the cheering prospect of an abundant harvest
of souls the ensuing year. The net increase in the societies,
during the past year, amounts to 1,138 souls. To God alone
be the praise and glory ! In reference to the momentous
change in our relations and economy, arising from the union
effected with our trans -atlantic brethren, we would just
remark, that the whole is adjusted and settled on that basis
which we hope may prove as durable as time, and as bene-
ficial to the interests of true religion as the most ardent
wishes of its best friends can desire. And we trust the
good sense of every member of our Church will lead him to
see the propriety of cordially assisting, in the spirit of
Christian love, to carry into effect as extensively and fully
as possible the arrangements of the Conference in relation
to the union ; and that no personal, private, or party con-
siderations whatever will in the least be permitted to

hinder or interrupt the good understanding which now hap-
pily exists between the British and Canada Conferences ;
upon which, under God, the permanency and prosperity of
that branch of the Church of Christ in Canada, denominated
Methodist, principally depends. It becomes us to observe,
that when the preliminary arrangements for effecting the
union were under consideration, we were not without our
fears for the results. Not in fear of a union with our
British brethren, for this we have considered most desirable
from the first, but it appeared to us that the measures pro-
posed and adopted to obtain it were not advisable or expe-
dient, and would ultimately fail of the desired end ; but we
are now free to confess, and happy to find, that our fears
were groundless ; and we are fully satisfied that the best
arrangement and disposition of this important measure is
made that the respective circumstances of the two Con-
nexions would possibly permit. To this favorable result
we are greatly indebted to the prudence, wisdom, and piety
of those to whom the management of it has been committed
by their respective Conferences. In the Rev. Mr. Marsden
the Canadian Conference has found not only a respectable
and judicious representative of the British Conference, and
an effective President of their own, but a kind, paternal coun-
selor and friend. May the choicest blessings of heaven
attend him ! and prosper his way, not only to his native
country and the affectionate embraces of his family and
friends across the great waters, but throughout the days of
his pilgrimage, till his Divine Master shall be pleased to say,
' Come up higher and enter into the joy of the Lord !' "

But alas ! what was so good in the inception, was made
the occasion of a great deal of harm. First, as to the
interior of the Church itself, there were some persons (at
first only a few) opposed to the union, or some of its details,
but they exemplified a most tireless industry to inoculate as
many as possible with their own disaffection ; and many
persons were brought to think their rights had been invaded,
who, but for these persistent efforts, would not have sus-

pected they had been injured at all. It began with certain
local preachers, some of whom had been employed under
Presiding Elders, and who aspired to membership in the
Conference, but they had been thought too old, or otherwise
disqualified for admission into the regular ministry of the
Church.

The writer never heard of but one person opposed to the
union, absolutely and on principle, before the Conference of
1833. This was the Rev. David Gulp,* a located minister,
a very worthy man in his way, but certainly not dis-
tinguished for very broad views of Church matters. He
had travelled abeut twelve years in all ; and his active
ministry had comprehended the whole period of the
" invasion," as he would have called it, of the Upper Pro-
vince by the British missionaries, at which time his mind
had become very much prejudiced against British Method-
ism. He had been located about eight years at the time
the union was effected, dining which time he had shown a
disposition sometimes to criticise the travelling ministers.

According to Dr. Webster's history, a short time after the
consummation of the union, Mr. Culp called meetings about
the " head of the lake," near which he resided, " which
were approved and attended by several of his brethren."

* After much attention to the subject, first and last, I am now
thoroughly persuaded that Mr. Culp wa:i the great origiuator of the
Episcopal division. He was an almost bigoted Episcopalian, and
he hated British Methodism with a perfect hatred, besides having
during the days of his locatiou fostered a disposition to suspect and
criticise the Conference. Next to him was Mr. Bailey, who was
bound to be a travelling minister at any hazard ; and was apparently
unscrupulous of the means. Poor weak-minded old Mr. Gatchcll, he
was more their dupe than anything else ; and was persuaded by
them to do duty as the impersonation and embodiment of the
original Canada Conference ! A wondrous representative truly !

"On the 18th of December, 1833, a little more than two
months after the York Conference, a public meeting was
held in Saltfleet, at which a decided stand was taken against
the terms of the union." It purported to be a " meeting of
the local preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church."
Of this meeting Mr. Culp was chairman and Mr. Aaron C.
Seaver secretary. But the Guardian averred, from infor-
mation received from parties on the spot, that the meeting
was attended by but three local preachers besides their two
selves, five in all, and these, when assembled, constituting a
meeting no wise provided for by the Discipline of the
Church.

" Another meeting was held on the 9th of January, 1834,
in the old meeting-house on the Governor's Road, township
of Blenheim, at which the proceedings of the Saltfleet meet-
ing were discussed and sanctioned." [Webster.] It is but
just in connection with the account of this meeting to place
on record the following extract from the Guardian of March
19, 1834, which speaks for itself : —

" Correction. — The following note from an esteemed local
preacher of long and respectable standing will be read with
interest and satisfaction by the fi iends of the Church who are
acquainted with him, as it shows the unworthy measures
which have been adopted to create disturbance, and that they
are without the slightest sanction from such pious and intel-
ligent brethren as the author of the following note — notwith-
standing the unauthorized and unhallowed use which has
been made of the name. The best of men in the same Church
may differ in opinion on prudential matters ; but they will
be far from making such difference of opinion a ground of
schism, or of such defamatory and separating resolutions as
adopted by certain local preachers (have, by their own
avowal, separated themselves from the Church, and have no
right to take part in its proceedings), met at the Governor's
Road referred to below. Men of candor and principle,

founded on intelligence, feel too much of the spirit of
genuine liberty and liberality to cherish or give utterance
to such sentiments of anti-Methodism and narrow-hearted
intolerance."

'Burford, March 9th, 1834.

' Dear Brother, — Having lately heard that my name is
used in many parts of the Province as sanctioning the reso-
lutions passed at the Local Conference, held on the Govern-
or's Road the 9th and 10th of January last, I take this
method of informing the public, that I, as chairman, signed
the resolutions, yet protested against them in toto at the
time, and disapproved of the course pursued By the local
brethren at their meeting, and still do. I assembled with
others,, expecting the meeting was called for the purpose of
having our grievances redressed ; but finding this not to
be the case, and rather a separation intended, my mind
was grieved, and had to lament that I took the chair.

' I remain, yours in the bonds of Christian love,
' Rev. E. Ryerson." ' Abner Matthews.

"One day later than the Blenheim meeting, the 10th of
January, 1834, another meeting was held at Belleville, in
the proceedings of which sixteen local preachers from that
section of the country took part." [Webster.] Their pro-
ceedings, however, seem not yet to have been so extreme as
those before mentioned, and to have turned upon details
affecting local preachers, and a misapprehension of the guar-
antee in the Articles of Union for the continuance of the
privileges of existing local preachers. Certain it is, that the
principal actors in it practically declared their adhesion to the
new order of things till after the ensuing -Conference. They
sat in the Quarterly Meetings in which the changes were dis-
cussed.

" On the London Circuit," says Dr. Webster, " a still more
decided stand was taken than there had been at any of the
places previously mentioned. Here the j)reachers appointed

at this Conference " (1833) "to that Circuit were rejected
by the Quarterly Conference, held January 25th, 1834, be-
cause, being an official board of the M. E. Church, they
deemed they could not consistently receive as their preachers
persons who were ministers of the Wesleyan Methodist
Church in British North America ; and, accordingly, that
the work might suffer as little as possible, the Rev. John
Bailey, who had already travelled some years in the Connex-
ion, was requested to supply it as far as was practicable,
which he did." (So says Dr. Webster's History.)

It was my intention to have passed these events over
slightly, and especially out of respect for his highly respecta-
ble friends, to have touched upon Mr. Bailey's very ques-
tionable course as little as possible ; but after the above
erroneous version of the case, the interest of historic truth-
fulness compel me to enter into this matter a little more
fully. First, then, with regard to Mr. Bailey himself, in
confirmation of what I said relative to his position at the
previous Conference, when his name was mentioned in con-
nection with the report of the Committee on Examinations,
the following was the minute adopted : " John Bailey was
not received, his examination, as to qualifications, not being
satisfactory. It was resolved that the Presiding Elder be
allowed to employ him during the year, should the work re-
quire it." Thus was he practically discontinued. But sub-
sequently some who sympathized with his wounded feelings
and those of his family, pleaded for and obtained a recon
sideration of his case, with the understanding that if his
name were left on the Minutes as a probationer, with an ap-
pointment attached, he would, of his own free-will, decline
coming forward at the end of the year. With that view, the
following minute was made : — " Brother John Bailey's case
was reconsidered, and he was continued on trial !" His

name was set down for Goderich, which had been connected
with London, where his family resided, with the understand-
ing that he and Mr. Beatty would travel the whole ground
in conjunction. Now, there was nothing wrong in all this, if
he had not thus assumed a trust which he deliberately be-
trayed. He was a man of fifty years of age, more or less ;
he had been both at the Conference where the union was
proposed, and the one where it was ratified, and ought to
have known whether he approved of the proceedings or not.
There was no blame to him if he did disapprove, if, like an
honest man, he had said so at the time, and not have allowed
himself to receive work from a seceding Conference ! But what
did he do 1 He went back to London, and did his utmost
to alienate the people before Mr. Beatty, the newly appoint-
ed preacher in charge, his old friend, should have time to get
on the Circuit and get acquainted, thus causing him infinite
vexation and perplexity. Mr. Bailey succeeded in doing this
by working on the fears and prejudices of good Mr. Mitchell
and others who were more influential than himself. All this
time he held the position of a preacher in connection with
the Conference. By an incidental business note in the
Guardian of December 25th, 1833, we learn his paper was
duly mailed to the London Post Office, with all the regulari-
ty of those of the other Circuit preachers. Secondly, as to
the Quarterly Meeting which called out Mr. Bailey, it was
not the regular Quarterly Meeting of the Circuit, for that
was appointed to meet " November 30 and December 1,"
according to the Presiding Elder's printed plan in the
Guardian, and this one was held so late as January 25, 1834.
Nor was it a legal one, for it was presided over by a local
preacher and not by the proper officer. It may, for aught
we know, have comprised a majority of the official members
on the London Circuit, but it was not a legal Quarterly
2*

Meeting for all that. Thus, for nearly four months, had Mr.
B. held the position of a Wesleyan preacher, and employed
the influence the position gave him to divide a people he was
expected to keep together.

Dr. Webster resumes : " Following out the plan proposed
by the London Quarterly Meeting a general convention was
called, in order to ascertain what the state of feeling really
was in the different sections of the Province." " The Con-
vention met at Trafalgar, on the 10th of March, 1834, and
continued sitting till the 12th. Though the attendance was
not large, sixteen preachers only being present, the different
sections of the work were pretty well represented." Then
follow the resolutions they passed. This meeting was pre-
sided over by John W. Byam, who had travelled nearly
two years, but had been discontinued for disciplinary
reasons, about sixteen years before ; he had, however, for
several years regained a respectable standing as a local
preacher. Of Mr. Seaver, who acted as secretary, we know
nothing beyond this, that he was a local preacher.

Here is the Guardian's account of this meeting following
closely upon the time of its being held : " The business, we
learn from a person present, began with seven persons. The
number, when our informant left, on the second day, had
been increased to sixteen. Six of these sixteen we know
have sought to be employed in the travelling Connexion, but
were not called out for want of requisite qualifications, or
other hindrances ; and three of them, we learn, were licensed
to preach at the last local Conference." There were no
travelling preachers there, unless Messrs. Gatchel and Bailey
were present.* These are all the meetings we know of hav-
ing been held of a similar kind before the Wesleyan Confer-
ence of 1834.

* I now doubt either's having been there.

Occurrences relating to the Connexion (which I will not
now go into, but which I stand ready to enter upon, when
any unwarranted use is about to be made of them) ex-
traneous to the Union, or incidentally growing out of it, of
a disturbing character having transpired about the middle
of the Conference year 1833-34, were laid hold of to
strengthen the opposition, and so far increased its adherents,
that by the time this ecclesiastical year was ended, or at
least by the close of September, 1834, there was some sort
of an organization claiming to be the Methodist Episcopal
Church in Canada, the challenge of which I will thoroughly
examine further on j but I will proceed at present to in-
vestigate their

VI. Objections to the Identity of the Wesleyan
Methodist Church in Canada with the Original
Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada.

These objections have been variously entertained and put
forward : thus they have been implied and acted on when
courage to announce them was wanting — orally stated, either
by individuals in conversation, or in public discourses of
various kinds — printed and published in various ways — and
finally, prosecuted in courts of law. The challenges
seriatim : —

1. Abolishing Episcopacy. (1.) According to this, there is
no Methodist Church in England, South Africa, or Australia
because they are not Episcopal. That is the fair logical
eduction, and it is amazingly molest and charitable !

(2.) If this objection is valid, there would have been no
Methodist Church at all in the United States, if its founders
in 1784, had not adopted the Episcopal form; and that once
adopted , Episcopacy could not have been done away without
destroying the Church's identity I Now let us hear what

some of its actual founders had to say on that subject : — In
1837, the Rev. Egerton Ryerson addressed the following note
to every one of the surviving founders of the M. E. Church
in the United States : —

" Rev, and Dear Sir, — As you are one of the two or three
ministers who commenced their labors, as itinerant
Methodist preachers, before the organization of the Method-
ist Episcopal Church in America, I beg permission (in con-
sequence of a case which is at issue in the courts of law
in Upper Canada, affecting the right of property held by the
Wesleyan Methodist Church in that Province) to propose a
few questions relative to the organization of your Church
and the powers of your General Conference.

"1. In organizing your Church, had your General Con-
ference power to adopt any other name for your Church than
that which it adopted %

"2. Had your General Conference power to adopt what
form of Church government it pleased 1

" 3. Had your General Conference power, after the adop-
tion of Episcopacy, to dispense with the ceremony of ordina-
tion in the appointment to the Episcopal office ?

" 4. Has it always been your understanding, that the
General Conference had the power to make the Episcopal
office periodically elective, or to abolish it altogether, if it
judged it expedient to do so 1

" I will feel greatly obliged to be favored with your
views in reply to the foregoing questions, and what has been
the understanding of your Connexion from the beginning
respecting the points of ecclesiastical government involved in
them.

" Yours very respectfully,

" Egerton Ryerson."

rev. ezekiel cooper's reply.

" Philadelphia, Nov. 20th, 1837.

" Rev. and Dear Sir, — Yours of this day I have looked
over, containing sundry questions, to which you request an
answer. Time, indisposition, and other circumstances pre-

elude me from so full an answer as you wish to receive, and
as I would be willing, under other circumstances, to give
most cheerfully, I briefly answer them, viz. : —

" I. When our Church was organized, the General Confer-
ence had power, and a right, to adopt any other name than
that which they did adopt, for the style and name of the
Church, had they seen proper to do so. The Conference was
under no necessity, but, from mature deliberation, it was
voluntarily resolved to choose the name of the Methodist
Episcopal Church. Had they been disposed, they could have
taken the name of the Evangelical Church, which some of
the preachers would have approved of ; or they might have
called themselves Wesleyan Church, the Reformed Church, or
any other name, had they chosen it in preference.

" II. The Conference had power to adopt any form of
Church government it pleased, or might have chosen ; but it
was the voluntary choice to adopt the Episcopal form of
government — modified as we have it, subject to amendments or
improvements, from time to time, as exigencies might require,
and circumstances call for, in the judgment of the Confer-
ence. The Episcopacy was always amenable to the General
Conference, with power to suspend or even expel the bishop,
or bishops, for causes sufficient in the judgment of the Confer-
ence : — which may be seen by collating the several editions of
the Discipline from the first to the last.

" III. After the adoption of Episcopacy, the General
Conference had power to change or dispense with the cere-
mony of Episcopal ordination in the appointment to the
Episcopal office, if it appeared proper and necessary to do so.
Stillingfleet in his " Irenicum," and other Episcopal digni-
taries of the Church of England, have admitted that the
power of ordination is inherent in the Elders of the Church,
or Presbytery ; but in certain canons, made by the ecclesi-
astical councils, the power was restrained, for the better
order and regulation in government. And our Church holds
the same opinion ; therefore, if by expulsion, death, or other-
wise, we should be without a bishop, the General Conference
is to elect one, and appoint three or more Elders to ordain
him to the Episcopal office ; so that the power of ordina-

tion is, in the Elders, under restraint — but the Conference
can take off that restraint if necessary ; then the Elders
have the power of ordination, and are authorized to ordain
even a bishop. Surely, then, by an appointment to the
Episcopal office, if an Elder, with the restraint taken off, he
can exercise the power of ordination without the ceremony
of re-ordaining him, and perhaps, as in the case above stated,
by Elders only, with the restraint taken off. If the restraint
is taken off, and the ceremony is dispensed with in one
case, surely it can be in another, and the ordination in the
one case would be fully as valid as in the other ; therefore
the ceremony can be dispensed with, and the Conference has
power to do it in the case of Elders ordaining bishops.

" IV. In my opinion, the General Conference had, and
has, the power to make the Episcopal office periodically elec-
tive, and, if necessary for the good of the Church, to abolish
it, — provided the requirements of the Discipline for making
alterations be complied with ; or, if the restrictions be
removed, which there is power to do, and though difficult,
yet not impossible to accomplish ; then any and every alter-
ation may be made, which exigencies or circumstances may
call for, and wisdom may direct. Note. — If Elders can be
occasionally elected or appointed to exercise Episcopal func-
tions in ordaining a bishop, and then cease and never exer-
cise them any more, then why not occasionally or periodically
elect or appoint to the Episcopal office for a term of time,
and then to cease or even be abolished, and ordinations be
performed by the Elders appointed thereto, as in the case of
ordaining bishops. I am now considering the powers of the
General Conference in cases of necessity, under existing cir-
cumstances of exigency that might possibly occur, to make
the thing necessary for the good of the Church. It is not
necessary, nor good, nor proper, always to do what is in our
power to do ; but it is good to have power to do that which
may possibly, or probably, become necessary, proper, and
good to do.

" I hold that government is of Divine right ; but I do not
hold that any particular or special mode, form, or organiza-
tion, is of Divine right. Government originates with, and

emanates from God, and is of Divine authority and sanc-
tion ; but the mode, form, organization, &c, is human, as to
the construction and management, order and regulation, and
may, by human authority, be varied to suit different coun-
tries, times, circumstances, necessities, &c. • and also may,
by human authority, be changed, improved, and altered for
the general good, according to the various occasions and
necessities.*

" As to the Divine right of an uninterrupted Episcopal
Prelacy from the Apostles down to the present time, it
cannot be proved nor supported. In the Apostolic times,
the terms bishop, elder, overseer, and presbyter, were
interchangeably applied to the same men and office. (See
Acts xx., 17 and 28.) The same men called elders in one,
are called overseers in the other verse. St. Jerome informs
us that in the Apostolic Church at Alexandria, the elders or
presbyters, from the Apostolic time, used to choose and
ordain, or set apart, their own bishop or patriarch. In the
annals of the Church at Alexandria, written by one of their
patriarchs, the same is stated and confirmed. We have
numerous authorities : See JJord King on the subject —
" Presbyters and bishops the same." The immortal Hooker
admits the validity of the ordination of the Reformed
Church, on the Continent, by presbyters, under the necessity
of the case. Archbishop Cranmer went further, in his
answer to King Edward's questions, and said, that the
necessity of the case would make ordinatjen, instituted by a

* "As to my own judgment," says Wesley, " I still believe the
Espiscopal form of Church government to be Scriptural and apostolical
— I mean well agreeing with practice and writings of the Apostles.
But that it is prescribed in Scripture, I do not believe. This opinion,
which I once zealously expressed, I have been heartily ashamed of
ever since I read Bishop Stillingfleet's ' Irenicum.' I think he has un-
answerably proved, that neither Christ nor his Apostles prescribed
any particular form of Church government." Wesley's Works, vol.
13, p. 139 : " Lord King's Act, of the Prmitive Church, convinced
me many years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order,
and consequently have the same right to ordain." Moor's Life of
Wesley, p. 327.

king and laity, in a supposed case, both valid and a duty,
and that such things had been done. (See Stillingfleet's
" Irenicum.") Archbishop Usher advised King Charles I., in
the dispute with Parliament, to admit the Church of Eng-
land to become a Presbyterial Episcopacy ; the king con-
sented, but was too late.

" I have extended further than I intended — must now
close. I could write a volume had I time and strength.

v " Yours respectfully, etc.,

" Ezekiel Cooper.

" N.B. — I commenced my itinerancy in the Methodist
Episcopal Church, A.D. 1784, though not printed in the
Minutes till 1785. I was twenty-one years old when 1
began to travel, and am now seventy-four years of age, and
in the fifty- fourth year of my ministry.

REPLIES OF THE REV. THOMAS MORRELL, REV. THOMAS WARE,
AND REV. NELSON REED.

"State of New Jersey, Mizabethtown, Nov. ISth, 1837.
" Rev. Egerton Ryerson,

" Sir, — Your favor of yesterday was received, wherein
you request me to answer some questions relative to the
organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the
powers of the General Conference, — I give the answers with
pleasure : —

" First, you inquire, ' Had your General Conference the
power to adopt any other name for your Church than that
which is adopted 1 ' I answer, certainly it had ; we called it
by its present name, as Mr. Wesley recommended it, and as
we conceived it an appropriate term, according with having
a Superintendent, who was raised to that office by a vote of
the General Conference, and could have designated it by
any other name if we could have found one more appro-
priate.

" Second question, — ' Had your General Conference
power to adopt what kind of Church government it pleased ? '
Most assuredly it had ; for though Mr. Wesley recommended

us to use a form of prayer, in our public services, and gave
us a ceremony for our baptismal services, yet the General
Conference laid aside the prayer-book, and it is not used in
one of our churches in the United States, and altered also
the form for baptism in a way we thought more suitable for
such service.

" Third question, — ' Had your General Conference the
power, after the adoption of the Episcopacy, to dispense
with the ceremony of ordination in the appointment to
the Episcopal office V I am confident they had ; and had
they thought it necessary, would have done it.

" Fourth question, — ' Has it always been your under-
standing that the General Conference had the power to
make the Episcopal office periodically elective, or to abolish it
altogether, if they judged it expedient to do so 1 ' Before the
year 1808, the General Conference had the power to make
any alterations in the Discipline or government of our Church
they thought expedient ; but since the year 1808, they
are restricted from making any alterations in our present
system without the recommendation of three-fourths of the
Annual Conference.

" Yours, &c, very respectfully,

" Thomas Morkell.
" Written with my own hand, and within four days of being
ninety years of age."

" I fully agree with the above statement by the Rev. T.
Morrell in all things save that of his supposing the name of
the Church being recommended by Mr. Wesley. The name,
Methodist Episcopal Church, was recommended, to the best
of my recollection, by John Dickens, as I have stated in the
Methodist Quarterly Review, published by our book-agent,
for Jan., 1832, page 98. I also agree fully with Bishop
Hedding, in his letter dated Lansingburgh, S". Y., Oct. 12,
1837, and addressed to Rev. E. Ryerson.

" Thomas Ware.

" I am in the seventy -ninth year of my age, and fifty-sixth of my
ministry.

"Salem, New Jersey, 20th Nov., 1837.

u P.S. — Mr. Morrell not being at the Conference at
which the Church was organized, accounts for his mistake
about Mr. Wesley's recommending the name of the Church."

" I commenced travelling as a Methodist itinerant
preacher in the year 1777, and have had knowledge of the
general usage and mode of proceeding in said community to
this day, and fully concur in the ideas of Messrs. Morrell and
Ware in their above statements, with the exception Brother
Ware makes to an item in Brother Morrell 's statement, and
concur with Bishop Hedding's letter to Brother Ryerson,
dated Lansingburgh, Oct. 12, 1837.

" Nelson Reed.
" Aged eighty-four years.

"Baltimore, Nov. 22nd, 1837."

The opinions of leading ministers in the M. E. Church in
the United States, and the constitution and practice of the
Church, were in accordance with the above statements down
to 1837. Letters were addressed by the !Rev. Egerton
Ryerson to leading ministers of the American Church, whose
names are given below : the answers which they returned
speak for themselves : —

" From the Bev. Samuel Luckey, D.D., elected by the Ameri-
can General Conference, Editor of the Official Periodi
cals and Books published for the Methodist Episcopal
Church in the United States.

(Copy.) " Perry, Genesee Co., N. Y., Sep. 29th, 1837.

" Dear Sir, — I am at this place attending the Genesee
Conference. Your letter came to hand yesterday, via New
York. I have counselled with several of the preachers who
were at the Pittsburg General Conference, in company with
the bishop, who has been in all the General Conferences for
thirty or forty years past. By their counsel I am sustained
in the opinion I here offer, on the question you propose.

" Question. ' Has the General Conference power, under
any circumstances whatever, by and with the advice of all
the Annual Conferences, to render the Episcopal office

periodically elective, and to dispense with the ceremony of
ordination in the appointment thereto !'

" Answer. 'In my opinion the General Conference un-
doubtedly has this right. — This is evident from the fact that
the Discipline provides for the possibility of their doing so
— as it is explicitly enumerated among the things which the
General Conference shall not do without the recommenda-
tion of the Annual Conferences, plainly implying that it may
do it with such recommendation.'

" Add to this, there is an example of an acknowledgement
of a superintendent without ordination as such. In the
General Minutes of 1786 or '7, or near that time, the ques-
tion is asked — ' Who exercise the Episcopal office V " Ans.
'John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury.' — This
is according to the best of my recollection. This shows that
it was not in the intention, in adopting the Episcopal mode
of government, to insist on consecration as essential to one
exercising the Episcopal office. Besides, it is known that
our entire defence of our Church organization, according to
our most approved writers on that subject, proceeds on the
same ground.

" Yours, most affectionately,
(Signed) " Saml. Luckey.

" Rev. Egerton Ryerson.

" N. B. — The opinion of your Chief Justice is an admir-
able document ; the best I think I ever saw, showing the
connection of law with ecclesiastical matters. S. L."

" From the Rev. Elijah Hedding, D.D., the second senior
bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United
States.

(Copy.) " Lansingburgh, N. Y., Oct. 12th, 1837.

" Dear Brother, — I have just arrived at home, and found
your letter. I am sorry I did not receive it early enough to
render the aid you wished. The Genesee Conference did
not close till the 30th ult. I suppose the law case is de-
cided ; therefore, anything I can write will be of no use.
I would have tried to get to Kingston, had I known the re-
quest at the Genesee Conference.

"It is clear from the Proviso, added to the Restrictions
laid on the delegated General Conference, that by and with
the supposed " Recommendation" said Conference may alter
the plan, so as to make the Episcopal office periodically
elective, and also, so as to dispense with the ceremony of
ordination in the appointment.

" I believe our Church never supposed the ceremony of
ordination was necessary to Episcopacy; that is, that it
could not in any possible circumstances be dispensed with, —
nor that it was absolutely necessary that one man should
hold the Episcopal office for life. One evidence of this I
find in the Minutes of our Conference for the year 1789,
— four years after our Church was organized. There it is
asked, ' Who are the persons that exercise the Episcopal
office in the Methodist Church in Europe and America \
Ans. Join Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury.' —
Bound Minutes, Yol. 1, p. 76. From this it appears those
fathers considered Mr. Wesley in the Episcopal office, though
he had never been admitted to it by the ceremony, of ordi-
nation.

" I shall be glad to know how the law case is decided.
Please write me or send me a paper containing it.

" My best respects to and her parents, your

brothers, &c.

"Dear Brother, affectionately yours,
(Signed) " Elijah Hedding.

Rev. Egerton Ryerson."

Mr. Ryerson continues : — " After examining the Disci-
pline " (the Canadian Discipline), "and mature reflection,
these gentlemen expressed their concurrence in the views of
Bishop Hedding, at the bottom of his letter, as follows : —

" I hereby certify that I fully concur with Bishop Hedding
in the above opinion.

(Signed) "J. B. Stratton.*

"New York, Nov. 16th, 1837."

* Mr Stratton had been elected bishop of the Canada Church in
1831, but declined the office,

" We concur in the opinion of Bishop Hedding expressed
above.

/a. ,x " Thomas Mason,

(Slgned) „ Geqrge LanE)

" Agents of the General Conference for the publication
of books for the M. E. Church."

Mr. Ryerson further continues : — " I also addressed a
letter on this subject to the Rev. Dr. Fisk, President of the
Wesleyan University, and late representative of the Metho-
dist Episcopal Church in the United States, to the British
Connexion. The following are copies of my queries and the
answers : —

" 200 Mulberry Street,

" New York, Nov. \1th, 1837.

" Rev. and Dear Sir, — A question of law is at issue in
Upper Canada which involves the Chapel Property held by
the Wesleyan Methodist Church in that Province. The
principal points in the case ' on which there are any doubts'
relate to the views of the Methodist Episcopal Church re-
specting Episcopacy — the imposition of hands in the conse-
cration of bishops— and the powers of the General Confer-
ence to modify the Episcopal office. I have been favored
by Bishop Hedding, Dr. Luckey, and others with an explicit
statement of their views on these points, and will feel greatly
obliged to you to be favored with your views, and what
you believe to be the views of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, in reply to the following queries :

" 1st. Is Episcopacy held by you to be a doctrine or
matter of faith, or a form or rule of Church government as
expedient or not according to times, places and circum-
stances 1

" 2nd. Has the General Conference power, under any cir-
cumstances whatever, by and with the advice of all the
Annual Conferences, to render the Episcopal office periodi-
cally elective, and to dispense with the ceremony of ordina-
tion in the appointment thereto 1

" And as you were present at the British Conference in

1836, as the representative of the Methodist Episcopal
Church in America, I would beg to propose a third query.

' 3rd. Do you consider the ordinations performed under the
direction of the British Conference to be Scriptural and
Methodistical 1

" Earnestly soliciting your earliest answers to the foregoing
queries,

" I am, yours very respectfully,

" Egerton Ryerson.
" The Rev. Wilbur Fisk, D.D.,

" President of the Wesleyan University.

"P.S. — I had intended to visit Middletown University;
but as I am unexpectedly required to go to Philadelphia,
and cannot get home by Saturday, the 25th inst., without
proceeding directly from this to Albany, &c, I must deny
myself that pleasure. Please address me, Kingston, Upper
Canada. E. R."

DR. FISK'S REPLY.

" Rev. Egerton Ryerson,

" My Dear Sir, — Your favor of late date is before me ;
making some inquiries respecting the constitution of the
Methodist Episcopal Church. •

" The first was in reference to the Episcopal form of
government.

" I, as an individual, believe, and this is also the general
opinion of our Church, that Episcopacy is not ' a doctrine or
matter of faith ' — it is not essential to the existence of a
Gospel Church, but is founded on expediency, and may be
desirable and proper in some circumstances of the Church,
and not in others.

" You next inquire as to the power of the General Con-
ference to modify or change our Episcopacy.

;' On this subject our Discipline is explicit, that ' upon
the concurrent recommendation of three-fourths of all the
members of the several Annual Conferences who shall be
present and vote on suoh recommendation, then a majority
of two-thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall

suffi ce ' to ' change or alter any part or rule of our govern
ment, so as to do away Episcopacy and destroy the plan of
our itinerant General Superintendency.' Of course, with
the above-described majority the General Conference might
make the Episcopal office elective, and, if they chose, dis-
pense with ordination for the bishop or superintendent.

" I was a delegate from the Methodist Episcopal Church
to the Wesleyan Conference in England, in 1836. At that
Conference I was present at the ordination of those admitted
to orders, and by request, participated in the ceremony. I
considered the ordination, as then and there performed,
valid ; and the ministers thus consecrated, as duly authorized
ministers of Christ.

" With kind regards to yourself, personally, and the best
wishes for the prosperity of your Church, I am, as ever,
yours,

" In friendship and Gospel bonds,

" W. Fisk.

" Wesleyan University, Middletown, Ct., Nov. 20, 1837."

But why am I arguing this point 1 Did not the original
Canada Discipline, the very Discipline, if the}r have not
changed it, by which our accusers profess to be governed
provide for the " doing away " with the Episcopacy (if in-
deed we had any Episcopacy to do away), as I have already
shown? Our opponents will say, "The provisions were
there, but you did not fulfil the conditions." Let us see.
Here is the sworn testimony of the Secretary of the General
Conference before a Court of Law : —

" The witness delivered to the Court the following ex-
tracts from the Journals of the General Conference : —

" Special Session of the General Conference, called by th
General Superintendent, at the request of the Annual Confer-
ence, Hallo well, August 13th, 1832.

" Conference met at six o'clock a.m.

""Names of members : — William Case, Thos. Whitehead,
Thomas Madden, Peter Jones, 1st. Wyat Chamberlain, Jas.

"Wilson, Samuel Belton, William Brown, Joseph Gatchel,
George Ferguson, David Yeomans, Ezra Healey, Phil. Smith,
F. Metcalf, William H. Williams, John Ryerson, William
Ryerson, David Wright, William Grifhs, Solomon Waldron,
Robert Corson ,Jos. Messmore, R. Heyland, Edmond Stoney,
George Bissel, James Richardson, Egerton Ryerson, John
Black, Anson Green, Daniel Mc Mullen, Andrew Prindel,
Ezra Adams, Alexander Irvine, King Barton — 34.

" Egerton Ryerson was chosen Secretary.

"Proceeded to elect a General Superintendent pro tem-
pore. The Rev. William Case was duly elected.

" Resolved, — That the first answer to the second question
of the third section of the Discipline be expunged, and the
following inserted in its place : ' The General Conference
shall be composed of all the Elders and Elders elect who are
members of the Annual Conference.'

" Names of Elders elect : — John C. Davidson, Geo. Poole,
Richard Jones, John S. Atwood, James Norris, Cyrus R.
Allison,* Peter Jones, 2nd, Matthew Whiting, William
Smith, John Beatty, Asahel Hurlburt, Alvah Adams, Richard
Phelps, Hamilton Biggar, Ephraim Evans, Charles Wood,f
Thomas Bevittt— 17.

" Adjourned until nine o'clock a.m.

" Conference met at nine a.m. Singing, and prayer by the
President.

* Mr. Allison was ill.

t The claims of Messrs. Wood and Bevitt to be members of the
General Conference, even on the terms now established, has been
disputed : they had, first and last, travelled more than four years —
Mr. Wood was certainly an ordained deacon when he re-entered the
work, three years before. When the Secretary of the General Con-
ference was questioned on the subject many years after, he could re-
collect nothing about the terms on which they were allowed a seat in
the General Conference, if indeed they were allowed ; and the Jour-
nals of that Conference, having never been printed, were not to be
found — were lying, possibly, in some lawyer's office. If allowed to
vote without a legitimate claim, it would have no appreciable effect
on the issue : they were only txoo against fifty -one. Their being in the
list may have been a clerical error which is my opinion. — Compiler.

" Resolved, — That this Conference, on the recommendation
of three-fourths of the Annual Conference, having in view
the prospect of a union with our British brethren, agree to
sanction the third resolution of the Report of the Commit-
tee of the Annual Conference, which is as follows : —

" That Episcopacy be relinquished, (unless it will jeopard
our Church property, or as soon as it can be secured,) and
superseded by an Annual Presidency,' — in connection with
the 10th Resolution of £he said Report, which says, 'That
none of the foregoing resolutions shall be considered of any
force whatever, until they shall have been acceded to on the
part of the Wesleyan Missionary Committee and the British
Conference, and the arrangement referred to in them shall
have been completed by the two Connexions.' — Adopted by
three-fourths of the members. Adjourned sine die.

" William Case, Prest.
" Egerton Ryerson, Secy.

" Hallowell, Aug. 13th, 1832.

(Truly Extracted,)

" Egerton Ryerson."

"Kingston, 11th Oct., 1837.

" Counsel — Did the votes of those persons who were ad-
mitted into the General Conference affect the decision of
the question 1 T do not think they did, unless they rendered
it somwhat less unanimous than it would have otherwise
been. Eight of them were, to the best of my recollection,
opposed to the then contemplated union, although I cannot
say whether so large a proportion of them was opposed to the
relinquishment of Episcopacy. Several who opposed the
union were in favor of an Annual Presidency. Mr. Richard-
son, who was the Secretary of the Annual Conference, spoke
against the union, but in favor of abolishing Episcopacy.
But they were not admitted with a view to secure the adop-
tion of the measure, but simply to have as full an expression
as possible of the views of all the preachers.

" Counsel — Were the votes of your Annual and General
Conferences (for they appear in fact to have been substan-
tially one and the same body under different names, ) pretty
3

unanimous 1 More than three-fourths were in favor of
superseding Episcopacy by an Annual Presidency.

" Counsel — Was any objection made as to the power of
your Conference to do what it did in respect to the union
with the British Conference 1 I never heard of the expres-
sion or existence of such a doubt.

"Counsel — Did those members who constituted the minority
on the question of Episcopacy and the union, show any dis-
position to persevere in their opposition after the disposition
of those questions by the voice of so large a majority of their
brethren 1 By no means. Far otherwise. The discussion
was conducted in the most friendly manner, such as is usual on
any merely precedential question ; and, after the close of the
proceedings on those questions, some of the leading speakers
in the minority expressed their intention to acquiesce in and
support the views of the majority. Not a single member left
or seceded from the Conference on account of those proceed-
ings, or showed a disposition to do so.

" Counsel — Were you not appointed by the Hallo well
Conference to represent the interests of your Church on the
subject of the Union in England 1 I was.

" Counsel — Were you aware that, in the interval between
the sessions of your Conference in Hallowell, 1832, and in
Toronto, 1833, there was any opposition on the part of any
considerable portion of the members of your Church to the
object of your mission to England "? I was not. I employed
every means in my power to ascertain the views and feelings
of our members and friends on the subject. Immediately
after the Hallowell Conference I published the proposed
Articles of Union in the Christian Guardian. [August 29th,
1832], and request the Presiding Elders on the different dis-
tricts to inform me of the state of feeling among our people
within the bounds of their respective charges, as it would be
a guide to me in my negotiations. A short time before I left
the Province for England in March, 1833, I received letters
from two of the chairmen on the subject. I also conversed with
the other two chairmen. From these sources I learned that the
union was, with very few individual exceptions, universally
approved of by the members of our Church. The only point

on which I could learn that any apprehension existed was in
relation to the appointment of preachers to their circuits
and stations. As the Superintendent or President had the
power of stationing all the preachers, fears were entertained
in some instances that a President sent out from England
might appoint English preachers to the best stations, and
send the Canadian preachers into the interior. I provided
against the possibility of an event of this kind, by getting
the consent of the British Conference to limit the power of
the President, that whilst he exercised the same functions
generally as the General Superintendent had heretofore ex-
ercised, he should not station the preachers contrary to the
consent of a majority of the Chairmen of Districts associated
with him as a Stationing Committee.

"Counsel — I think you said you were at the Toronto Confer-
ence, held in October, 1833 : will you state to the Court and
to the Jury, the proceedings of that Conference on the subject
of the union 1 I arrived in Toronto, from England, a few days
before the meeting of the Conference, in company with the
Rev. Mr. Marsden, who had been sent out as the represen-
tative of the British Conference, and the Rev. Mr. Stinson,
representative of the Wesleyan Missionary Committee,
whom I introduced to the Conference. Before the meeting
of the Conference, the resolutions of the Hallowell Confer-
ence, and the resolutions agreed to by the British Confer-
ence, were printed on parallel pages on the same sheet, and
on the morning of the meeting, were put into the hands of
each preacher, that he might carefully examine them and
compare the one with the other. After the Conference was
organized in the usual way, by calling over the names of all
the members, and appointing a Secretary, and some other
preliminary business had been disposed of, the subject of the
union was taken up, the proceedings of the Conference on
which I cannot better state than in the words of the Jour-
nals, or official records. Witness read the following, which
he delivered in to the Court :

[Extracts from the Journals of the Annual Conference, held
Toronto, Oct. 2nd, 1833.]

" The question of union with the British Conference was

taken up. The Rev. George Marsden addressed the Confer-
ence on the object of his mission, giving an account of what
had taken place in England on the question of the union, the
deliberate and careful manner in which it had been examined
and considered, the unanimous and deep interest which the
English preachers felt in it. Egerton Ryerson presented
and read the report of his mission to England. — See Letter
I., No. 4.

" Conference proceeded to examine the articles agreed to
by the British Conference seriatim. — Adjourned.

" Conference met at two o'clock p.m. Singing and
prayer.

" The consideration of the Articles of Union was resumed.
The legal opinion of Messrs. Rolph^and Bidwell, as to the
effect which relinquishing Episcopacy might have upon the
titles to Church property, was read. See Letter I., No. 5. —
After several hours' careful investigation, it was moved
by E. Ryerson, seconded by J. C. Davidson, and unanimously
resolved,

" That this Conference cordially concurs in the adoption
of the Resolutions agreed to by the British Conference, dated
Manchester, August 7th, 1833, as the basis of union between
the two Conferences.

(Truly * extracted.)

" Egerton Ryerson.

"Kingston, Oct. 11th, 1837."

" Witness proceeded : During the forenoon of the day
following, a Committee was appointed to revise the Discipline
and report thereon. Five days afterwards, on the 7th of the
same month, that committee reported the various modifica-
tions which constitute the difference between the Discipline
of 1829 and 1834. The report was carefully considered and
adopted, when it was proposed and agreed to, to call a meet-
ing of the General Conference, to confirm what had been
done by the Annual Conference, in respect to the Discipline
and the union. Witness handed into the Court the
following : —

[Extracts from the Journals of the Annual Conference, held
Toronto, Oct., 1833.]

" October 3rd.
" A committee to revise the Discipline was appointed, con-
sisting of the President, Secretary, Editor, Chairmen of Dis-
tricts, W. Case, W. Ryerson, D. Wright, E. Healey, and E.
Evans.

" Monday, October 7th.
" Conference met at eight o'clock a.m. Singing and
prayer.

" The Report of the Committee on the Discipline was pre-
sented and taken up item by item, and agreed to in view of
its adoption by the General Conference. For Report, see
Letter I., No. 7.

" It was moved and resolved, That the President be re-
quested to call a special session of the General Conference,
to take into consideration some points of discipline.

" The President accordingly called a special session of the
General Conference, to be held forthwith.

[The above resolutions were, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, adopted unanimously.]

(Truly extracted.)

" Egerton Ryerson.
"Kingston, Oct. 11th, 1837.
" Witness then handed in the following :
[Extracts from the Journals of the General Conference, held
in Toronto, October 7th, 1833.]
" Special session of the General Conference, called by the
President at the request of the Annual Conference, Oct. 7th,
1833, at York.

" NAMES OF MEMBERS.

[The same as were present at Hallowell, mentioned on
page 48, and are therefore omitted here, though they were
given into the Court.*]

* Of those mentioned on page 48 as constituting the members of
the General Conference, J. Gatchell and K. Barton were absent at
the session in Hallowell. Mr. Gatchell was present, however, at
Toronto.

" Egerton Ryerson was chosen Secretary.

" The Report of the Committee of the Annual Conference
on the Discipline was maturely considered and adopted, nem.
con. See Letter E., No. 8.

2. The Church's having Changed her Name was Another
Reason given why she had lost her Identity.

This is a frivolous, objection. On the same principle,
a lady whose name is changed from her maiden one to that
of her husband by a legal marriage, ceases to be the same
person she was under her former name ; and forfeits all the
property to a person who unwarrantably assumes her maiden
name, after she is known by her husband's name ! As well
might a noble steamboat, which has undergone some change
in her ownership and relations, has been refitted, and has
had the name on her stern somewhat modified, be run off
the route, and her monied earnings claimed by a tiny craft,
which has been built out of a few spars and splinters once
belonging to her outworks and rigging, since these changes
were legitimately made, receive her original name and claim
to be the same identical steamship ! Or as well might an
incorporated college which bore a particular name, because
it has come into a new affiliation, and has some words in its
original designation changed, although all the changes have
been made according to the constitution or charter, and
according to law, be robbed of all its rights and endow-
ments by an upstart school got up by a dissatified usher and
some refractory students, after all the changes have been
legally made and ratified.

This very objection was anticipated and provided for
before any change was made. The Conference of 1832
ordered the consultation of Messrs. Bidwell and, Rolph, an
eminent legal firm of that day, on the legal effect of changing
the name of the Church. And early in the next civil year,

months before the delegate left for England, the editor and
the minister in charge of York Station waited on the legal
gentleman referred to with the categorical questions prepared
by the Conference, which are implied in the answer they
received, which I herewith give, and which speaks for
itself: —

" York, 5th January, 1833.

" Gentlemen, — We had the honor to receive last even-
ing your note of this month, in which you state that
the Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
Canada desired us to give our opinion on the question,
' Whether the abolishing of the Episcopal form of Church
government from among them would jeopard their Church
property.'

" We are not aware that there has been any adjudication
exactly in point ; but it has been decided that, if a corpo-
ration hold lands by grant or prescription, and afterwards
they are again incorporated by another name, as where
they were bailiffs and burgesses before and now are Mayor
and commonalty, or were prior and convent before, and
afterwards are translated into a dean and chapter, although
the quality and name of their corporations are altered, yet
the new body shall enjoy all the rights and property of the
old. 4 Co. 87—3 Burr., Rep. 1866.— Judging from the
analogy of this case, as well as from other considerations,
we are of opinion that, if Episcopacy should be abolished in
your Church, and some other form of Church government
should be established in the manner mentioned in your book
of discipline, the rights and interests of the Conference in
any Church property, whether they were legal or only
equitable rights and interests, would not be impaired or
affected by such a change.

" We have the honor to be, reverend gentlemen,
" Your obedient, humble servants,

" Marshal S. Bidwell.
"John Rolph.

" Revs. Messrs. J. Richardson and A. Irvine."

The soundness of Messrs. Bidwell and Rolph's legal
opinion was confirmed, as well as the constitutional regu~
larity of all the proceedings in the union measure, by the
issue of no less than six several suits which the self-created
Episcopals instituted to possess themselves of property
belonging to the original Methodist Church of the Province
of Upper Canada, which were as follows : —

1st. The chapel in the Jersey Settlement, Gore District.

2nd. The Rock chapel, Gore District.

3rd. Lundy's Lane chapel, Niagara District.

4th. The Belleville chapel, Victoria District.

5th. The Waterloo chapel, Midland District.

6 th. The chapel ground in By town.

Further, that the preservation of an original name is in
no wise indispensable to the solidarity and identity of a
Church, and its claims are implied in several authoritative
statements which have been produced, especially that of the
Rev. Ezekiel Cooper.

Examples in illustration and confirmation of this position
might be furnished from other lands and times. Not to
go back too far, or beyond our own country, many such ex-
amples might be produced from the Presbyterian chinches of
this land, in which I do not pretend to claim more than sub-
stantial correctness. Several of the older Presbyterian
churches, such as Prescott, Brockville, Perth, York, &c, at
the first, I believe, stood in connection with the Synod of
Ulster, in Ireland. Next, they appear in connection with
the Church of Scotland, which involved some change of
name, as well as administration, yet their identity was not
destroyed, or their rights impaired. The same was true,
after the changes brought about by the union of the
" Canada " and " United " Presbyterian Churches. The
same holds good with this united body after its union with

the residuary Church of the Province, and all attempts to
prevent the property going into the new organization have
failed. The union of the first " Canadian Wesley an Metho-
dist Church" with the "New Connexion," and the combina-
tion of these two names in one, did not destroy the identity
and claims of the former. The last and largest unifying
Methodist measure, because done constitutionally, has with-
stood all appeals to the law to prevent the property of any
one of the sections from going into the united body, though
now under a new name.

The last objection to the union measure, and the changes
involved in that measure, was —

3. Tlie body which previously elected one of its own mem-
bers to preside over the deliberations of the Conference and to
superintend the Connexion, afterwards received a President
from the British Conference, who jjossessed the administrative
authority also.

Even so ! The General Conference, both of the United
States and Canada Churches, had power to change the mode
of appointing their presiding and superintending officers into
any form, and to confide the office to what hands they liked.
A General Superintendent from England, or who resided prin-
cipally or wholly in England, did not destroy the identitv,
autonomy, or even independence of the Methodist Episcopal
Church in the United States, and by consequence did not
destroy that of the Canada Church. Observe the following
reiding of the American Minutes in 1789 : "Question 7.
Who are the persons who exercise the Episcopal office in the
Methodist Church in Europe and America'? Answer. John
Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury." The intelligent
reader does not require to be told that Wesley resided
wholly in England, and Coke principally, yet they belonged
to both Connexions. The articles of the first union did not
3*

empower the British Conference to appoint the same person
to be President oftener than " once in four years"; or in the
event of failing to do it, as they did in 1840, the Canada
Conference had power to elect one of its own members to
that office. For seven years this Conference elected its own
President and administered its own affairs without any
change in the name or the essential organization of the
Church.

The immediate, original mother of the Canada Church re-
ceived the delegates of that Church each succeeding four years,
at its General Conference, not only without hesitancy, but
with cordiality, as the lineal descendant of the Church it at
first planted, and as co-ordinate with itself, on the principle
that none of its changes of name or administration had de-
stroyed its identity or impaired its true Methodistic validity.

The above line of argument might be greatly expanded,
illustrated, and fortified, but my object has only been to give
an epitome of the case throughout, as being thus more likely
to be read and understood than if it had been more extend-
edly amplified. I have, therefore, reserved plenty of
materials for strengthening any part of this fortress that
may be assailed. And here I might stop.

For what is the fair inference from the facts and argu-
ments I have adduced 1 If Mr. Wesley and all sound and
sensible Methodists believe that no exact form of Church
government is laid down in the Scriptures ; if he and they
believe that elders and bishops are but one and the same
order, and may ordain indifferently, yea, that there are
other modes of ordination than by imposition of hands —
that any one particular name is not essential to the exist-
ence of a true Methodist Church, and that its essence con-
sists in something more vital — that a Presbyterial Wesleyan
Church in Europe and a Presbyterially Episcopal one in

America are co ordinate® — and that all the changes involved
in the translation of the Canada Church, through a brief
period of independency, from an immediate connection with
the latter to an immediate connection with the former, were
constitutionally made, and that one must be the original and
true Methodist Church of the Province ; and finally, that,
therefore, any ecclesiastical body claiming that position must
be a pretence and & fraud. And here I might rest the case,
but I fear our would-be rivals are so pertinacious that I
shall be forced to advance one step further, and —

VII. Examine the Claims of the Redoubtable Chal-
lengers.

In order to eliminate the real truth from what some have
made a tangled, heterogenous mass, I will apply several
tests in the form of questions, and honestly inquire what
answers contemporaneous history affords. One of the first
questions that should be asked is the following : —

Who originated the body now claiming to be the true
Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada 1

In answer, I am justified in saying : — One located elder —
one who was once a travelling preacher, but who had been
out of the Connexion twenty-two or twenty-three years —
(some say expelled) — two that had been on trial two or
three years, but were never received into full connexion —
one who had attained deacon's orders as a travelling preacher,
but had been located twenty years at the time of the union
in 1833 — one superannuated preacher — one who located to
escape notification of location for inefficiency, after the union
was effected — and a few local preachers, one or two of whom
had been hired by a Presiding Elder to travel on circuits
for short periods — some exhorters — and a few dissatisfied
officials and private members, and an augmentation in suc-
ceeding months and years of other adherents, not dissimilar

to those who went to David in the cave of Adullum, as re-
corded in Samuel, chapter xxii. and verse second, which fcee.

What was the order and the dates of their respective
adhesions to this enterprise ]

If we allow Dr. Webster's (their own historian) version
of the successive opposition movements against the Union
measure that transformed the Methodist Episcopal Church
in Canada into the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada,
and his dates as I have given them on a former page, then
(1) the Rev. David Culp, once a travelling Elder, who had
located eight years before the union was consummated, was
about the first who evinced overt hostility to that measure.
Yet there is no evidence that his opposition at the first went
any further than dissatisfaction with the prospect that no
one becoming a local preacher after 1833 would receive ordi-
nation.

The next in order, and probably greater in mischievous-
ness, was Mr. John Bailey, to whom I have already referred,
who was given, and took an appointment from the Wesleyan
Methodist Conference after the union was consummated in
1833. This was done, as I have shown in another place, to
save his own and family's feelings ; and he betrayed the
trust voluntarily assumed by him. Let us hear this gentle-
man's admissions, on oath, under cross-examination, during
the progress of the Belleville Chapel Property trial : — "It
was witness's desire to be admitted a member of the travel-
ling Connexion at Toronto in 1833. They agreed to the
union before he received his appointment to a station."*

One of the earliest who co-operated with Mr. Culp was
Daniel Pickett, a man who had earned no right to be
listened to with respect in such a juncture. He had been
received on trial for the ministry in 1800, and had been

* Belleville Chapel Property ea^e.

for some years considered reliable as a preacher, but in
1809 his name was discontinued from the Minutes with-
out any reason assigned. He went into business and
fell into some difficulty. The report was current when
T became a Methodist, in 182*4, that he had been ex-
pelled. The probability is that the Rev. Henry Ryan dis-
membered him during the interregnum which comprised the
war period (1812-15). As early as 1820, at least, he had
commenced the attempt to raise a body of " Provincial
Methodists," and with that view he preached in various
places about the head of the lake. During the Conference
year 1831-32, Mr. Ryan being out of the way, he made
application to the District Conference (" Local Preachers' "),
and was re-admitted as a local preacher, the Rev. James
Richardson presiding. The Discipline provided that where
an ordained local preacher was expelled his orders should be
demanded and deposited in keeping of the Annual Confer-'
ence, which was the only authority which could restore the
parchment again. It is morally certain that the Annual
Conference never restored Mr. Pickett's orders, but it is
likely that no person ever challenged his right to dispense
the ordinances, and the matter went by default ; but, if
strictly canvassed, it is almost certain, that this person who
claimed the right of joining in the ordination of a bishop
was not even a bona-jide local Elder. A pretty man was he
to fly in the face of the unanimous action of sixty of God's
servants who had kept on in their proper pastoral work, and
made all the arrangements with the view of subserving the
best interests of the Church, and with the utmost scrupu-
losity in observing constitutional requirements.

Mr. Bailey was one of the two who had been on trial, but
not received into full connexion ; John Wesley Byam was
the other. He was received on trial at the Conference of

1817, and travelled the year 1817-18 and at least a good
part of 1818-19, but before the ordination lost his status as
a preacher. After some time he regained his standing as a
local preacher, and so far earned the confidence of the cir-
cuit on which he lived as to be recommended to the Confer-
ence for orders as a local deacon, which he received at Salt -
fleet in 1825. Farther than this he had not gone when he
took part in the earlier Conferences of the new organization.
If the accuracy of this statement is challenged, I will give
particulars which I now pass over.

I have said that one had located to escape notifica
tion for location ; this was John H. Huston, who, after being
a long time under a Presiding Elder, without being able to
secure recommendation by a circuit, was received on trial in
1827, but had to travel three years, instead of two, before
he received deacons orders. Three years after, when the
unk>n was consummated, he received ministerial orders' at
the hand;* of the new English President, the Pev. George
Marsden, in 1833; but his chairman, the Pev. James
Pichardson, finding it hard to procure him a circuit because
of inefficiency, moved, ''-That Brother Huston receive
notice of location," which would have gone into effect in a
year from that time ; upon which he was led to ask for a
location at once, which was voted without delay. His dis-
satisfaction of mind prepared him for co-operating with the
dissatisfied ones ; and in 1835 we find him among the four
consecrators of the new bishops and ranking among the
founders of a Church !

The remaining two Elders who went to make up the five
who constituted the first General Conference which elected
a bishop were Messrs. John Reynolds and Joseph Gatchell.
For certain reasons, though he gave in his adhesion later
than any of the rest, I will present the case of Mr. Reynolds

first. It is quite important to consider it carefully, as this
was the gentleman chosen to be their first bishop, on whom
all their claims to Episcopacy, and all the traditional heir-
ships of the Church, hinged.

Mr, Reynolds was received on trial in 1808, and travelled
between three and four years, at which time he had to dis-
continue for want of health, and before he received Elder's
orders. But these he received as a local preacher, according
to the usage which then obtained, at the first session of the
Canada Annual Conference, in 1824 ; but he never returned
to membership in the Conference, and was a local preacher
at the time the union was consummated ; and we have seen,
and shall further prove, remained in the Church after the
union, filling various offices, till July, 1834 ; " but it was not
till the early part of September he finally withdrew;"* so
that in uniting to reconstruct a Church, which had gone out
of existence, constitutionally, so far as it respected the
original name, he was making himself, to all intents and
purposes, a seceder.

It must be plain to any one who has studied the question
in the slightest degree, that neither of the four persons
already mentioned, Messrs. Culp, Pickett, Huson, and
Reynolds, had any pretence for claiming to be " travelling
Elders" and to sit in a General Conference, much less to con-
stitute one in toto.

But the pretenders' plea is, that the Rev. Joseph Gatchell
having now gone with the Union measure, constituted the
true Conference in himself, and having re-admitted these
four Elders into the travelling Connexion, they five convoked
themselves as a General Conference, elected and consecrated
one of their number as a bishop, and put all the machinery

* Proven by Rev. Henry Williamson's sworn testimony, who was
Mr. Reynolds' pastor at the time.

of the original Church once more in operation ! We shall
see, by my giving his veritable history, what grounds there
were for putting in these claims for him and their Church.
He was a " travelling Elder " in its technical sense at the
Conference of 1834, in the Minutes of which his name ap-
pears as a superannuate preacher, and for the last time.
He had been received on trial in 1810 — travelled three
years, and located in 1813 — he remained located eleven
years, that is, till 1824, when he united with the travelling
Connexion again, and labored as an effective preachei until
1830, — six years, — when he superannuated — the change of
the constitution in 1831 gave him a seat in all the General
Conferences which followed. He was known to be somewhat
opposed to the Union measure, and when the final vote was
put in 1834, he withdrdrew from the General Conference
room to avoid voting either way, but told his fellow-lodger,
Rev. R. Corson, that he did not intend to dismember him-
self from the Conference. He continued to labor in protract-
ed meetings through the Conference year 1833-34, if not
1834 35 also; but the former year he received his super-
annuated, allowance from Conference funds, and is duly
charged with it in printed Minutes of 1834, one year after
the ratification of the union. He was not at the Wesleyan.
Conference in Hamilton, which commenced June 10th, 1835,
and is not mentioned in any form, neither " located," " with-
drawn," or " expelled." But about that very time, — June
5th, 1835, — while the second Conference after the union was
being held, he and the four local Elders already named,
" met and resolved themselves into what they called a Gene-
ral Conference, and elected one of their number to the office
of a bishop." This is stated in the Journals of the American
General Conference in Cincinnati, to which they had applied
for recognition, dated May 14 th, 1836, and affirmed by the

Canada Episcopals themselves, by their publishing it in the
Minutes of their Annual Conference for 1836, which met in
" Belleville, June 21st" of that year. That there may be
no dispute about it I herewith give the Report in extenso as
they presented it : —

" General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
"Church, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 14, 1836.

" The committee to whom was referred the address of
sundry persons in Upper Canada, claiming to be the M. E.
Church in that Province, beg leave to report—

" That they have had an interview whh the individuals
appointed by those persons, and who were the bearers of the
address, and have availed themselves of such other sources
of information as were within their reach. And they find
that in June, 1835, certain persons to the number of five,
only one of whom was a travelling preacher, the others
being local Elders, met and resolved themselves into what
they called a General Conference, and elected one of their
number to the office of a bishop, and the remaining four pro-
ceeded to ordain and set him apart for that office, and imme-
diately held an Annual Conference, from the Minutes of
which it appears that they then numbered twenty- one sta-
tioned or travelling preachers, twenty local pieachers, and
1,243 members of society. It appears there have been addi-
tions since, both of preachers and members. In view of all
the circumstances, as far as your committee has been able to
ascertain and understand them, they are unanimously of
opinion the case requires no interference of this General Con-
ference.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

" D. Ostrander, Chairman.

"Cincinnati, May 14th, 1836."

I think enough has been said to show that Joseph Gatchell
et al. had no ground in Methodist or general law to set up
the claims they did ; nay, that their claims were prepos-

terous in the extreme. These persons had a natural right to
organize a Church to their taste; or, to state it more properly,
to take the responsibility of opposing and thwarting a per-
fectly legitimate and well-intentioned measure. But their
proceedings were of a kind for which there was no provision
in the Discipline of the Methodist Church. It is true the
Discipline provided, that "If by death, expulsion, or other-
wise, there be no bishop remaining in our Church," then
" the General Conference shall elect a bishop ; and the Elders,
or any three of them, who shall be appointed by the General
Conference for that purpose, shall ordain him according to
our form of ordination." But the General Conference of
yore, by constitutional provision, was merged in the then
existing Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, and
certainly did not exist in the five men described, only one of
whom would have been competent to vote in that General
Conference, if it had continued ; besides, that General Confer-
ence, by a unanimous vote, had agreed to "do *away with
Episcopacy," — to do away with it even in theory. Farther, the
conditions to which the clause above quoted refer did not, and
could not, exist. There had never been a bishop to die, be
expelled, or " otherwise " be disposed of. Although they
might have had a natural right to create what they called
an Episcopacy, they had no legal Methodist ic right to do any
such thing. No wonder, therefore, that one American
Methodist editor should have pronounced the proceedings
" little less than a solemn farce."

Then, also, viewing it on general religious grounds, was
there anything to justify itl Here is a branch of Methodism
which at first intends to adopt the Presbyterio-Episcopal
form of Church government ; but they have never succeeded
in securing an JEpiscojws. In the meantime, the oldest, or
parent branch of Methodism, having entered on the same

ground in the prosecutions of missionary openings, as Church
government is a secondary matter in Methodism, it has been
thought best that these two branches should combine for the
evangelization of the country, each one giving up some pe-
culiarity, adopting some feature of administrative economy
from the other, all of which changes were made constitution-
ally. Was it kind and Christian-like in a very small minority
to try to force their views on the majority1? or to rend the
peace and unity of an otherwise prosperous Church because
their views could not be met 1 Did they not justly lay
themselves open to the suspicion that their opposition was
founded in one or more of the following causes — one or two
in some, and all in others — namely, prejudice, bigotry, vanity,
ambition, want of humility, and love of ascendency and no-
toriety 1 If I am forced at last to speak out, I must say I
have never changed the opinion I had then, that their stand
was unwarranted and wicked — oh, it was enough to make
angels weep to witness the strife and evil-speaking which
were resorted to to rend happy societies apart.

The manner of prosecuting these devisive objects, and the
reasons for their success, are honestly put, and expressed in
the most temperate language and kindest spirit in my
biographical history, which I here reproduce, as I choose to
treat this matter in the judicial, rather than in the contro-
versial, manner : — " At first their accessions were mostly
from the old body, for a disruptive spirit is not usually the
spirit of revival. They drew on the Wesleyan Church in
various ways and for many years. First, there were the

disaffected local preachers and their immediate friends

These local preachers showed the most untiring industry.
They visited nearly every local preacher in the land, and
tried to shake his adherence to the Conference. Wherever
they heard of a dissatisfied or susceptible class-leader, they

visited him, and tried to secure the adhesion of him and his
class to their measures. They did the same with individual
members of the Church. The most unfounded stories were
put in circulation against the Conference and individual
ministers, adapted very much to weaken the influence of both
one and the other. These, because of the political prejudices
awakened by causes already described,* were very largely
believed, and caused the members of the Conference, in
many cases, to tread a thorny path ; and this rather in-
creased than diminished for many years. The Episcopal
brethren appealed to the sympathy of the so-called reform-
ing politicians of the day, and received it largely. This to
them was a great source of gain and support. Then, no
doubt, as they saw everything depended upon it, their
preachers labored hard, despite all privations. They went
into neighborhoods where the "Wesleyans had no services,
and raised up classes. Many a Wesleyan brother was per-
suaded to take the leadership of such a class ; many a local
preacher was lured over with the prospect of obtaining a
circuit ! "

Every line of the above is true, and this method was
pursued with effect for full ten years after the disruption.
Their misrepresentations relative to their claims of being the
original Church of the land, long years after, confused and
inveigled many a quiet, uninformed country society, and
divided or totally alienated them. A tithe of such proceed-
ings could not be particularized. I sadly remember Edwards-
burgh, the Manning Settlement, the Dalson neighborhood,
and many others.

But the most embarrassing aspect of this whole matter is,
that this people, who were directly refused recognition by

* Reference is here made to some matters which for a time pro-
cured the Wesleyan Conference the ill-will of the Reform party.

the American General Conference in 1836 and in 1844,
after years of endeavor to leaven a certain class of American
Methodist ministers with their ideas and with sympathy for
them ; and upon their advice, in 1856, ap plied to that body
for a "friendly recognition," and going early, before our
delegates had arrived, it was carried in the sense of a quasi
acknowledgment. If they had worn their honors meekly,
although anomalous, it might not be worthy of remark, but
the use they make of it in this country, I am quite sure, is
anything but what the most considerable of the American
ministers intended and expected at the time. This I saw
from the indignation and regret expressed to me by the two
Drs. Peck and Dr. Hibbard at the General Conference in
Philadelphia, in 1864 ; but when a committee was struck to
examine the matter, there being a portion of their friends
upon that committee thoroughly schooled in the mode of pro-
ceeding, when I, as the senior representative, commenced to '
make a statement of the facts of the case, I was immediately
called to order by the Rev. Mr. Blades, their special friend
and advocate, on the ground that I was " making an attack
on a Church with which they held fraternal relations." It
was in vain I plead that " that was the very point to be ex-
amined ; namely, whether it was intended to give them such
a recognition as endorsed the regularity of their origin and
standing ; and if so, was it correct and proper 1 " But Mr.
Blades having effectually retarded any progress in the
inquiry, the committee adjourned, and at a subsequent
secession of the Conference, the committee itself was dis-
charged.

If this spurious section of Methodism had been quiet and
allowed by-gones to pass, and shown a disposition to deal
in the spirit of candor and concession with the exigencies of
general Methodism at the present hour, as a great fact con-

fronting ns for solution, I think my past course should cause
me to be believed when I say, I should be the last to revive
old issues ; but when we find a pseudo-Methodist Episco-
pacy flaunted in our faces, and we ourselves tolerantly treated
as erring " seceders" it is a little tough that we have to frater-
nize and tacitly endorse these pretenders in the largest
court of Methodism on the continent.

My own final opinion now is, that if the American Gene-
ral Conference cannot induce their proteges to conduct
themselves with decency ; if we must listen to the diatribes
of " Bishop " Carman in this country, and then meet him
and endorse him by our representatives there, if we
hold fraternal relations with that great division of Metho-
dism at all, then I say, we had better forego the honor alto-
gether. If these circumstances continue, I deliberately

GIVE IT AS MY HUMBLE OPINION, THAT WE SHALL CONSULT
OUR DIGNITY BEST BY SENDING NO DELEGATES TO THE GENE-
RAL Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

THE END.

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR,

For Sale at the Methodist Book-Room, King Street,
Toronto.

Case and his Cotemporaries. In five vols $4 90

The Stripling Preacher o 60

The School of the Prophets 1 00

Methodist Baptism o 25

Past and Present 075

The latter work out of print, but will be re-
published at an early day.

ANALYTICAL INDEX.

Preface : Page

One rival forestalled, another arisen- Loss of personal friendship— Un-
reasonable grounds alienating- iii

Maxim of non-complicity— Courtesies reciprocated and extended .'.'.".". iv

Trustfulness ensuing \ v

Unyieldingness on Episcopacy— Hope disappointed by Bishop Carman's
course — How far natural and moral right will justify, and when they

will not v

Sorry for the necessity laid upon me- Materials not exhausted . ... vi

A Needed Exposition 7

I. A Brief Epitome of Canadian Methodist Histort from 1790 to 1832:
Summary of events from 1790 to 1810— Ditto from 1812 to 1820, including the

war and its necessities, advent of missionaries, discussions, and tempor-
ary expedients 7

British and American Conferences— Interchange of Delegates, and arrange-
ment of 1820— Unity of Methodism re-affirmed— Wesley's letter to
Cooper (note)— Resolution of Liverpool Conference (note) 9

Want of compliance with some and of cordial compliance on the part of
others — The concession of an Annual Conference in 1824— All ready for
a separation from the States by 1828— Organization of Canada Church in
October, 1828, in Earnestown— Dissimilarities between the old and new
Churches — The " Sixth Restriction '—Committee to correspond with the
Connexion in England— Non-fulfilment of its duty partly supplied by the
editor— Three Episcopoi elected, but none consecrated 10

Note detailing the successive changes in the claims to membership in the
General Conference, with the reasonableness of the modifications H

II. The Circumstances wiitch led to the Blending of the British and

Canadian Methodist Chukciies to be thought of:
Appeal to England for aid to prosecute the work of Indian evangelization led
the British Connexion to -think itself required in the colony, as it
thought itself released from the arrangement of 1820 by the withdrawal

of American Church's jurisdiction 12

Visit to Canada of a Missionary Secretary, and his invitation by the Canada
Missionary Board to attend the next Annual Conference, in 1832 13

III. A Detail of the Unifying Process :

Rev. Mr. Alder's visit— Conversations- Committee— Preliminary Articles-
Delegate and reserve — The whole matter before the Connexion from the
early summer of 1832 until October, 1833- Affirmation of the British
Conference — Return of the delegate, accompanied by the Rev. Messrs.
Marsden and Stinson — Unanimous approval by the Canada Conference
— Cases of Whitehead and Gatchell 14

IV. Considerations which prevailed with the Members of Conference to

to Concur in the Union :
1. Substantial oneness of the two bodies. 2. Love of the British Connexion,
for various reasons. 3. The numbers of Old Countrymen in the Church.
4. No rights surrendered. 5. Saw that the whole had been legally
brought about. 6. Their relation to Episcopacy. 7. Need of men and
money. 8. Absence of opposition, and approval of leading American
ministers 21, 22

V. The Opposition which Afterwards Arose, and the Form it Took:

No opposition till the new regulations relating to members and local
preachers were put and carried in the Quarterly Meetings during- the
year 1833-34... 23

Page
A certain note's engrossment in the text of Discipline accounted for— The

changes with regard to Local Preachers— Circuit Meetings— Plan 24

Letter of the Rev. John Reynolds (note) 26

Received the suffrage of the required majority— Hopes inspired— Editor's

valedictory . 27

What intended for good made occasion of harm ... 28

Mr. Culp originator (text and note) 29

Meeting at Saltfleet— Governor's Road 30

Belleville meeting— Stand at London 3L

The facts with regard to Mr. Bailey 32

Convention at Trafalgar, Guardian's account 34

Untoward events incidentally arising 35

VI. Orikctions to the Identity of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in
Canada with the Original Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada;

Variously put forth 35

1. Abolishing Episcopacy —

Unchurches all other Methodist bodies 35

Letter of inquiry from Rev. E. Ryerson —Reply of Rev. E. Cooper, showing
that Episcopacy not necessary to the Church, and that it mi<*ht be modi-
fied, or done away 36

Wesley's opinion (infra) 39

Replies of the Revs Thos. Morell and Thos. Ware to the same effect 40

Origin of the name M. E. Church 41

Opinions of leading ministers in that Church in accordance with the above-
Rev. Dr. Luckey's letter 42

Do. from Rev. Dr. Hedding, senior bishop— Mr. Stratton's confirmation. . 43, 44

Two Book Agents' ditto — Letter from Rev. E. Ryerson to Rev. Dr. Fisk.. .. 45

President Fisk's reply favoring the views of the others 46

Provisions of the Canada Discipline .. . . : 47

Sworn testimony of the Secretary of the General Conference— Note on the

case of Messrs. Wood and Bevitt 48

Secretary's sworn testimony continued 49, 50, 51, 52, 53

2. Objection : Change of the Church's Name—

This objection anticipated by the Conference 64

Messrs. Bidwell and Kolph's legal opinion 55

Sustained by the Civil Courts during the six suits for the recovery of the

Church property 56

3. Objection : President from England 67

Wesley and Coke's foreign relations and residence— Summing up of the

argument 58

VII. Claims of the Redoubtable Challengers :

Tests for eliminating the truth— Who originated the challenging body ?. . .. 59

The order and dates of their respective adhesions — Dr. Webster's version —

Rev. D. Culp— Mr. John Bailey -D. PicKett 60

J.W. Byam— J. H. Huston— Messrs. R and G. — Case of Mr. Reynolds— Neither
he nor Culp, nor Pickett, nor Huston, "Travelling Eiders " to consti-
tute a General Conference— Rev. H. Wilkinson's testimony in Court
(infra) — Rev. J. Gatchell having gone with the Union measure, &c— His
history 62, 63

Episcopals' own statement as to the time of their first General Confer-
ence—Report of Committee and deliverance of the Cincinnati General
Conference, 1836 65

The provisions of the Canada Discipline did not provide for their action-
No Episcopos h^d ever existed in Canada Methodism 66

The manner of prosecuting the devisive objects 67

Truth and sadness of the above— Matters held in abeyance (infra) -The
history of the appeals to the American General Conference, and the
shape the matters finally took 68

If the Episcopals were not pertinacious and boastful, it might be allowed
to pass- The present awkwardness of the case -The author's opinion of
the course to be pursup^ if the present anomaly cannot be mitigated ... 70

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "A needed exposition; or, The Claims and Allegations of the Canada episcopals calmly considered"

See other formats