Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1875-12-10


ferred he carries his orders with him.
Not ouiy so but the uniform prac-
ice of our church is to regard a
preacher ON probation AZ having for
feited none of his rights as local
preacher, aud this uniform practice
makes it the common law of the
chnrch. I instance the case of the
Rev. Junius p. Moore (here the
speaker called upon the Rev. Mr..
Moore who stated that his case was
analogous to that under consideration
DR.. Gloss then stated that the case of
Mr.. Moore was decided under the adj
ministration of Bishop Andrew. He
then cited the case of Rev. W. g. Nor
man that under the administration of
Rev. N. F. Reid D. D. the same quar-
terly conference recommended him to
the Annual Conference to be admitted
on probation; recommended him also
as local preacher to be gra1uated to
the Office of deacon; SO also in the
case of Rev. J. Il. Gibbs, under hi
own administration. These last named
brethren were first admitted on trial by
the Annual Conference and were subs
quently elected to deacons orders at
the same session. My argument from
these precedents is that from the
moment that these brethren were ad
| mitted on probation or trial they lost
their rights as local preachers, if
probationer is not local preache> and
could not have been lie, ally elected to
deacons orders. but Bishop Paine
ruled that they were entitled 10 be so
| elected and ordained and therefore a
preacher on proba ion continues in
the status of local preacher, and is en-
titled to all the rights of a local preach
er. The difference between the cases
ted and that under confederation is on
| ~ a difference inpoint OF time and |
maintain that it can make no diff r
ton or trial, one day or one year if he
forfeits his rights as a local preacher
by being received on probation by
Conference he fOrfeits those rights,
the moment he is received. If they are
not forfeited, he retains them SO long
as he Is probationer and this Brother
J W Shackford is entitled to ordiua-
tor. I will for the present rest the
case here.
Dr. Craven reaU Ine law M the q
cipline The Bishop gave his opinion
in part claiming the right of reserv-
ing the question to be decided by tie
Collage of Bishops.
Rev. n. Fl. u. Wilson stated his
opinion on the case il few pertinent
remarks maintaining that Mr.. Shack
ford cannot be ordained because he is
travelling preacher and not local and
has not filed out the time necessary
to qualify preacher for orders.
DR.. Gloss presented the credentials
of Rev. NJ G Heptinstsll of the Meth
odist Protestant Church and asked for
him admission to the Conference.
Laid on the table.
The application for deacons orders
of " Fl Pegram, was granted; Jno L
Sutliff was rejected; application oi
| W P Williams; d. 3 F Dixon:J II
Davis; VIM O'Neal. were granted.
The application for Elders orders,
Neil NJ Smith was granted.
Rev II II d. Wilson N, d that the
Bishop draw on the Trustees of the
Conference for Sl96,S3 which sum is
to be turned over the Board of FL
nance.
The Bishop announced that he would
ordain deacons to- morrow morning
after the II o'clock service.
Question 29th-By the Bishop
Where shall the next Conference be
held.
Greensboro was selected as the place
for the next Conference to be held.
Conference then adjourned to 3!
clock