The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-11-15

But the obytsss answer to them u.s. that the argument
oveooks the and fountain OF the power belonging
TO the general conference. We must look up TO these,
and not 10 the OF power IN the administration
OF the sacrament when seeking 10 It's depth and
extent Where is the limit and who has prescribed il
The travelling preachers, assembled IN general confer
ence mbody IN themselves The sovereign powers and we
have nowhere seen lha consent to any limitation Or re-
strelon. l all came DOWN IN the history OF their admin
isIration to the conference oil 1903
We must have some evidence that they have parted
with portion OF their sovereign power that conessedly
belonged 10 them al the first organization since that perl
cd, and that they assembled in the subsequent conef-
ences subject 10 the disability, before their powers can
be distinguished from those originally possessed Wehave
not been referred TO such evidence have our own
researches discovered any, do believe there are
any recorded acts declarations OF this body TO me eec
Claimed When jurisdiction and authority, spiritual and
temporal IN each general conference, from 1888 10 o0s
inclusive, the same, unlimited and unresiraned,
possessing all the power, what since the latter PERIOD
has belonged TO the general and annual conferences com
bned under the new organization. This is necessarily
SO, all the power and authority possessed by the an
nual conferences have been conferred upon them IRON
time TO time by The general conference,
The argument that this body previous to 1908, did not
possess the competency reoganze and the
government and the charch they might think best for
the great objects OF lis MISSION goes the length OF deny
ing that power to the concurrent action oil both the gen
eal and annual conferences since that PERIOD and that
there is something this association and system OF pol
ity differing radically from all others OF which We
have any knowledge that even the constituent and repre-
sentative, although comprising every element OF power
appeIanDg 10 the government, neither change nor
modify it; Tor the argument comes down TO this We
cannot think II necessary TO pursue this branch oil the
case any longer.
AS il respects The power OF The general conference
the notifications OF 1908, it is the previ
ousy existed subject to the SIX restrictive articles and
neither OF them has any connexion with bearing upon
The question have been considering They relate TO
the doctrine of church, its representative IN the gen.
era conference the epscopacy, discussion OF preachers
and members, the Book Concern, and charter fund.
These concern the exercise OF the administrative pow
ers of the conference, and intended as limitations
upon them less concurred in by the annual confer
ences
The powers conferred upon the general conference are
broad and unlimited subject only 70 these checks IN regu
ang the doctrine, discipline, and property OF the church
In all other respects, and in everything else that concerns
it, this body shall represent the sovereign power the same
before.
The practice OF the general conference since the change
in 1928 confirms this view The connection OF the an
nua Upper Canada conference with the Methodist Epis
copal Church dissolved in 1928, and that body au
thorzed 10 erect itself into independent ecclesiastical
The force of this precedent has been attempted to be
weakened upon the allegation that this connexon differed
from that of the annual conferences within the United
States and that rested upon sort OF compact between
tina, conference and this church, and therefore held dill
eren relation TO it. But looking into the history and
discipline of the church, this will be found to be msap
prehension OF that relation and that the Canada confer
ence brought within ITS folds IN the same way as
those lying upon the frontier settlements within the Uni.
ted States.
districts included in the New York annual confer
ence, and continued part OF IT, the same other dis
lrcs Til 1872 when these districts and also the Lower
Canada districts included within the Genesee
ference. In 1916 The Lower Canada districts were
braced within the New York and New England Confer
In 1920 both Upper and Lower Canada agar
included in the Genesee conferences and in the same
year the bishops authorized, with the concurrence
OF this conference to establish annual conference
Canada; aid in 1924 The Canada conference included
The whole of the upper province And thus il stood IL
1925 when erected into an independent establishment
We have seen nothing in the history. discipline, o
practice OF the church restricting It's organization
States but much TO show that both have been steadily
devoted the accomplishment OF the high and holy mis-
sion ayowed in founding the chuTch-namely, ITO reform
the continent and 10 spread scrptura holiness over thes
4 lands"
As early as 1910 the republic Of Texas was incopora
ted into It's BOSOM and an annua conference established
and we doubt not but that, the principles OF civil lib
ery and religious federation work their way in the ad
vancement OF civilization regions hitherto lmpene
lrabe 10 The missionary unless OF particular FAITH thu
great work OF organization and Christian labor Will b
carried regardless OF territorial boundaries forms
secular government
In reference the practice OF the church, must
overlook the action OF the general conference OF 1874
in the instance before The vote upon the mrs
resolution stood one hundred and forty TO twenty
two, IN body representing four thousand travelling
preachers in this community, and among whom, IL Is
fair suppose, included OF the greatest e1pe
rience and knowledge in the administration OF the poty
OF the church Indeed looking into the report OF the
OF session, ana upon tbe
report OF the committee the division OF the church
and especially upon the aabsorbng circumstance. that
led TO It's essty, fail to be oppressed with
the eminent ability and intelligence OF The leading members
OF that body for a moment doubt bat that they were
profoundly skilled in all the history, practices and usages
OF the church government, spiritual and temporal and
IN the and extent OF their powers the highest
judicalure belonging 10 IT.
As II respects the action OF this body n the matter OF
the DIVISION one can pretend but that il proce eded
upon the assumption OF unquestoned power 10 erect the
church into two separate ecclesiastical establishments
The only doub, entertained expressed in the plan OF
separation related 10 the division OF the prop
erty, account Of the sixth restrictive article. which
have conceded all along was not within lis competence,
but which shall presently notice particularly In
another part OF the Independently OF this question
OF property the power OF severance written upon every
page OF their proceedings.
Having arrived a, the conclusion that The general
conference OF 1874 was competent 10 make the DIVISION
and that The only condition annexed 10 has been fully
complied WITH are prepared TO apply the principles OF
law winch, in this posture OF the case, must govern it,
We have held in previous part OF this opinion that
the compaInanis must bring themselves within the de-
scnpon OF persons entitled to the benefit OF this chart
when they have done this those who deny or withhold
the charity must present to the taking them
out OF the description. This has been attempted by show.
ing that they have been wronguly separated from the
connexion and communion OF the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and erected themselves into Independent
ceNasical establishment, and have therefore, deprived
themselves OF the character OF benehcaes of the fund
Having arrived at the conclusion that there is no oun-
dalton Tor this allegation the ground of defence of
fails; and the compliments still continue clothed with
the character and rights belonging TO them previous to
the separation. The separation having taken place in
pursuance OF the action OF the competent ecclesiastical
autbory-by the action of the founders OF the fund
ms -hau 4 ha al hiatt h. hoco