Cooper's Clarksburg register. [volume] (Clarksburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1851-1861, 1854-07-19

have constructed two ecclesiastical or,
ganization over theterritory Of the United
States originally. if deemed expedient. in
the place ofone; so they might at any
subsequentperio the power remaining
unchanged.
But, it is insisted that this power
has been taken away or given up, by the
action of the General Conference of 1903.
In that year. the constitution of that body
was changed, so as to be composed there
after of travelling preachers. to be cleo
ted by the annual conferences, in the ra-
ito of one for every FIVE members. This
has been altered from time to time. SO
that, in 1914. the representation was one
for every twenty -one members. At the
time of this change, and as part of it, GER
tain limitations were imposed upon the
powers of this General Conference, called
the six Restrictive Articles l. That they
should not alter or change the articles of
religion, or establish any new standard of
doctrine. 2, Nor slow of more than one
representative for every fourteen mem
bers Of the annual conferences. nor less
than one for every thirty. 8. Nor alter
the government so as to. do away with
Eriscopacy, or destroy the plan Of timer
ant superintendencies. 4 Nor change
the rules Of the united societies. s. Nor
deprive the ministers or preachers Of trial
by committe and of appeal nor men,
bers before the society. or lay committee.
and appeal. And, 6. Nor appropriate
the proceeds Of the Book Concern nor the
Chartered Fund. to any purpose other
than for the benefit Of the travelling. su-
pernumerary, superannuated, and worn
out preachers. their wives. widows. and
children. Subject to these restrictions.
the delegated conference possessed the
same powers as when composed Of the en-
tire body Of preachers. And it will be
seen, that these relate only to the doc
trine of the Church. its representation in
the General Conference. the Episcopacy,
discipline of its preachers and members,
the Book Concern. and Chartered Fund.
In all other respects, and in every thing
else that concerns the welfare of the
Church. the General Conference repre-
SCENTS the sovereign power, the same as
before. This view taken by the General
Conference itself. as cxemplifcd by the
usage and practice Of that body. In 1890
they set OF to the British Conference Of
Wesleyan Methodists the several circuits
and societies in Lower Canada. And in
1928 they separated the annual confer
ence Of Upper Canada from their jnris-
diction, and erected the same into n dis
tinct and independent Church. These
instances, together with the present divis-
ion in 1914, furnish evidence of the opin
ions Of the eminent and experienced men
of the Church in these several cOnfercn-
ces. of the power claimed. which, if the
question was otherwise doubtful, should
be regarded rs decisive in favor of it.
We will add, flat all tie northern bishops
five in number. in0council in July, 1845.
acting under the "plan of sePara' ion,"
regarded it as Of binding obligation, and
cOnformed their action accordingly.
II has also been urged on the part Of
the defendants. that the division of the
church, according to the 'Plan of separa-
tion," was made to depend. not only upon
the consent of the annual conferences
north. as we'll as south. to a change Of
the, Sixth Restrictive Article, and as this
was refused, the divisi N which took place
ilensTon. The change Of this article was
not made n condition Of the DIVISION
That depended alone upon the decision
of the southern conferences.
.Uhe division Of the Methodist L Episcopal
Chu. rch hnvig thus tar en- place, in pur-
Suanc Of The proper authority, it carried
with it matter Of law, n division Of the
common, property belonging to the eccle-
sastical organization, and especially Of
the propc rty in this Book Concern-which
belonged to the travelling preachers. 1t
would be st, angc if it could be otherwise,
as it respects ,he Book Concern, mas
much rs the o'ivisionof the association was
affected under the authority of body Of
preachers who were themselves the pro-
p1ielors and fol md ers Of the fund.
1t has been argued, however, that, ac
cording to the " Z Ian of separation" the
division Of the PROV 'erty of this Book Con
Germ was made to depend upon the vote
of the annual cUnferA noes to change the
Sixth Restrictive Art. Gle, and that. what
ever might be the legA effect of the dlvls-
ion of the church upon the common prop
rrty otherwise, this stipulation controls
it and prevents division till the consent
is obtained.
We do not so understand the plan Of
1t admits the rights OF the
Church South to its share of the common
property. in case Ct n separa tion' and
provides, for a partition of it among the
two divisions. upon just and equitable
principles; but, regarding the Sixth Re-
StrcIive Article as IL limitation upon the
power of the General Conference as it re.
Spected division Of the property in the
Book Concern, provision is made to OBJ
tain a removal Of it. The removal Of this
Limitation is not q condition to the right
Of tho Church Sou h to its share Of the
property ; but is a step taken in order to
enable he General Conference to complete
t .He partition of the property.
We will simply add, that as division