The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-11-14

organization This Is necessarily 50, as all the
power and authority possessed by the annual
conferences have been conferred upon them
from time 10 time by the general conference.
The arguments that this body previous to
1903, did not possess the competency to reorg-
snixe aud reconstruct the government and the
church, N they might think best for the great OBJ
jecis of its mission, goes the length of denying
that power " the concurrent action Of both the
general and annual conference since that period.
And, that there is something in this association
and system policy, differing 80 radically from all
others Of which we have any knowledge, that
even the constituent and representative, although
comprising every element Of power appertain-
ing to the government, can neither change or
modify it. For the argument comes down to
this, We cannot think it necessary to pursue this
branch Of the case any longer.
As 1t respects the power Of the general con-
ference since the notifications Of 1903, it is the
same a. previously existed, subject to the six
restrictive articles; and neither Of them has any
connection with or bearing upon the question
wa have been considering. They relate to the
doctrine Of one Church, its representative in the
general conference, the Episcopacy, discussion
OF preachers and members, the Book Concern
and charter fund. .at
These concern the exercise of the admnsta-
tive powers Of the conference, and are intended
az limitations upon them, no less concurred in by
the annual conferences.
Tia powers conferred upon the general con.
ferences are broad and unlimited, subject only
to these checks in regulating the doctrine discip.
line, and perhaps of the Church. In all other
respects, and in anything else that concerns it,
this body shall represent the sovereign power,
the same as before.
The practice of the general conference since
the change in 1928, confirms this view. The
connection of the annual Upper Canada confer
ence with the Methodist Episcopal Church, was
dissolved in 1928, and that body authorized to
erect itself into an independent ecclesiastical
establishment
The force OF this precedent has been attempted
10 be weakened upon the allegation, that this
connection differed from that OF the annual con-
ferences within the United States; and that 1t
rested upon a sort of compact between that con-
ference and this Church, and therefore, held a
different relation to it. But on looking into The
history and discipline of the Church, this will
be found TO be Misrepresentation Of that rela-
ton: and that the Canada conference was brongh,
within its folds in the same way as those lying
upon the frontier settlements within the United
States.
1t will be found, that as early as 1904, the
Upper Canada districts were included in the
New York annual conference, and continued as
part of it, the came as other districts, till 1919,
when these Districts and also the Lower Canada
districts, were included within Genesee confer
ence. In 1916 the Lower Canada districts were
embraced within the New York and New Eng
land conferences. In 1920, both Upper and
Lower Canada were again included in the Gen.
nesee conference and in the same year, the
bishops were authorized, with the concurrence
of this conference, to establish an annual confer
ence in Cansda and in 1924, the Canada con-
ference included the whole of the upper prov
ince-and thus it stood in 1928, when erected
into an independent establishment
We have seen nothing 10 the history, discip-
line or practice of the church, restricting its or
ganzation or Christian labors to the territorial
limits of the United States but much to show
that both have been steadily devoted to the ac-
complishment of the high and holy mission
avowed in founding the church, namely, "to re-
form the continent, and to spread scriptura holi-
ness over these lands"
AS early as 1910, the republic of Texas was
incorporated into its bosom, and IN annual con-
ference established. And we doubt not but that
as the principles of civil liberty and religious toll
erntion work their was in the advancement of
to the missionary, nnless Of particular faith
this great work of organization and Christian
labor will be carried on regardless of territorial
boundaries, or forms of secular government.
In reference TO the practice of the Church, We
must not overlook the action Of the general con-
ference of 1874, in TIE instance now before us.
The vote upon the first resolution stood one
hundred and forty seven to twenty-five, in
Nd fopr thnusap1 fr,volipu
preachers in this community and, among whom,
il is fair to suppose, were included men of the
greatest experience and knowledge in the ad.
mnstration of the policy of the Church. In
deed, on looking into the report of the debates
of this session, and into the discussions upon
the report of the committee on the division OF
the Church, and especially upon the all-absorb-
ing that led to its necessity, no one can fail to
be oppressed with the eminent ability and intel
liQenee Of the leading members of that body Il
nor for moment doubt but that they were pro-
fouDdly skilled 10 all the history, practices and
ussges Of the Church government, spiritual and
temporal, and in the nature and extent Of their
powers as the highest judicaton belonging to it,
As it respects the action Of this body in the
matter OF the division, no one can pretend but
that it proceeded upon the assumption Of I'M
questioned power to erect the Church into two
separate ecclesiastical establishments The only
doubt entertained or expressed in the plan of
separation, related to the division of the CON-
mon property, account Of the sixth res trictive
article, which we have conceded all along was
not within it's competence, but which we shall
presently notice more particularly in another
part Of the case. Independently of this question
of property, the power Of severance is written
upon every page of their proceedings.
Having now arrived at the conclusion that
the general conference Of 1874 was competent
to make the division, and that the only condition
annexed to il has been fully complied with, we
prepared to apply the principles of law which,
in this posture of the cnse, must govern it.
We have held, in a previous part Of this opin-
ion, that the compliments must bring themselves
within the description of persons entitled to the
benefit Of this charitable fund prescribed by its
original founders and that, when they have done
this, those who deny or withhold the charity must
present case to the court taking them out of the
description. This has been attempted by show
ing that they have wrongfuily separated from the
connection and communion of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, and erected themselves into an in
Il 4 LII.