Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

and of supporting the Connexion. However, when he died, in the year 1791, that which had been foreseen took place. It became then necessary to lay down more precise laws, for the purpose of regulating the Connexion in future; and it is to the law passed in the year 1791 that I must first direct my attention; because it appears to me, that, upon the just construction of that law, much of the present case necessarily depends.

[ocr errors]

In the year 1791, then, after the death of Mr. Wesley, for the first time, Districts throughout the kingdom were established; and a provision was made to this effect, that the Assistant of the Circuit shall have the power of convening together the Preachers of the District, upon "any critical case which might occur; that they should have the power of appointing a Chairman, when so met; that their decision upon the matter before them should be final, until the next Conference; that the Chairman should report the proceedings to the Conference; who, upon that report, should act as the Conference should think proper and just. That is the first law to which I think it necessary attention should be directed.

Nothing is said with respect to offences committed by Preachers; nothing is said as to the trial of Preachers; but still, taking the language, and the spirit, and the scope of this law, and the nature of the society, can it for a moment be doubted, that, if a Preacher had so conducted himself, I am not now alluding at all to the case of Dr. Warren, but that, had a Preacher so conducted himself, as to introduce discord, and to disturb the harmony of a society like this, and endanger the Connexion, that would not be considered as a critical case, justifying the Assistant in calling the meeting of the Preachers? If so, and they had the power to decide, and their decision was to be final till the next Conference, is it not quite obvious, that it might, in many instances, be necessary, under such circumstances, for the purpose of preserving the very existence of such a society, that the meeting should have the power of suspending or removing the Preacher, subject always to the ratification or opinion of the Conference?

to such an extent as to disturb the peace and harmony of the society, would justify the Assistant in calling a meeting; and when the meeting assembled, they would be justified, if they thought the case one of such description as to endanger the peace and harmony of the society, to suspend or remove him till the next Conference. I consider this, therefore, as the basis of the law with respect to this subject.

In the year 1792 some alteration was made in this law; but not an alteration of any material consequence. As the law stood in the year 1791, the Chairman was to be appointed, pro hac vice, by the District Committee, when assembled. An alteration in this respect was made, and a permanent Chairman was directed to be appointed immediately after the Conference, who was to hold his situation till the next Conference. By the law of 1791, the meeting was to be convened by the Assistant: by the law of 1792, the meeting was to be convened by the Chairman. Nothing was said, in the law of 1791, as to the trial of Preachers; but in the law of 1792, something is said as to the trial of Preachers; not giving express authority to try Preachers, but assuming, as it were, that they had that authority, and pointing out some regulations with respect to the manner in which that authority should be exercised. One of those regulations was, and a very just and proper one, that an exact copy of the charges should be handed to the Preacher, in order that he might prepare for his defence, when the meeting should be convened for the purpose of deciding on his case.

But there is another part of this law, to which it is necessary I should advert, for an object to which I shall by-and-by direct my attention. The Chairman was to call the meeting: he might be the culprit, he might be the party accused, -and therefore the Superintendent, if there was any accusation against the Chairman, was, in that case, directed to convene the meeting; and if the majority of the meeting were of opinion the case was made out against the party accused, the Chairman being described to be a Travelling Preacher, in that case the District Committee had the power to suspend him. It has been reasoned, and very properly reasoned, that it would be extraordinary there should be a power given to suspend the Chairman, and not power given to suspend any other Preacher; and it is almost impossible that one could be led to that conclusion. But I have already said, that, under the general

It appears to me, therefore, notwithstanding the generality of these terms, it embraces the very case in question; and that, if the law had stopped here, and no other act been passed, still, under this act of Conference, in the year 1791, any Preacher who misconducted himself

law, I understand there would be a power to suspend ; and this is a confirmation of the opinion I have expressed on the construction of the general law.

In the

There, therefore, the matter continued, till the end of the year 1792. year 1793 there is a provision of a different description, referring to a particular charge against Preachers. If a Preacher

is charged with immorality, in that case, provision is made to try him by a species of domestic tribunal: two persons are to be appointed by the Preacher; two by the accuser; those four persons, with the Chairman, are to assemble; and they are to decide on his guilt or innocence of the offence which is imputed to him.

I find, by the rules of the year 1797, to which I refer now incidentally for this purpose, that it was not considered at that time that the decision of the tribunal was to be binding upon the Preacher; for he might, if he thought proper, instead of submitting to the decision of this tribunal, insist on being tried by the District Committee.

This brings me down to the year 1793. In the year 1794 there was a different regulation made, as to the trial of Preachers who were accused of immorality. In that case, the Leaders, the Stewards, the Trustees, and the Preachers of the Circuit, are to be assembled, and they are to decide upon his guilt or his innocence; and if a majority decide against him, in that case, the Chairman of the District is to remove him. I do not think it ne cessary to dwell upon this particular law, because, when I come to look at the law of 1795, the regulations are so much at variance with the law of 1794, that I consider the law of 1795 was intended to be substituted in lieu of that of 1794; and I am confirmed in that conclusion, when I find, that in the Code of Rules which was published in the year 1797, this law is altogether omitted; and, although I do not know where to find it at the present moment, in consequence of the mass of affidavits before me, I have a strong impression on my mind that, in the affidavits, it is mentioned that it was considered as being abrogated, and as being no longer in force.

Now, this has brought me down to the Act of Pacification. How, then, did the law stand at the commencement of the year 1795? I think it is impossible to doubt for a moment, after the history which I have given of the progress of these laws, that, in the early part of the year 1795, and before the Act of Pacification was passed, the District Committee

had the power to try; and, as the result of that power to try, to remove and to suspend any travelling Preacher; to remove and suspend him only till the next Conference. I think that deduction is clear, and absolutely certain and deci

sive.

If that be so, then the question that remains to be considered is this,-Has any alteration been made in this law, in this power, by the Act of Pacification; and, if so, what is the extent and nature of that alteration? The Act of Pacification was an act which appears to have been very much considered. Disputes had taken place in this society, principally founded on the administration of the sacraments; and for the purpose of terminating all those disputes, this Act of Pacification was agreed to by the Conference. Now, it is unnecessary that I should say any thing as to the first part of the Act of Pacification, which relates to the "Administration of the Sacraments." I come, therefore, to the second title, the title "Discipline." Now, what does that provide, and what is the law? It begins by saying, that no Trustee shall expel or remove any Preacher from the chapel. However, it says, that if the majority of the Trustees, or the majority of the Leaders and Stewards of the society, have reason to think that any Preacher has been guilty of the offences therein mentioned, namely, of immorality, or of erroneousness in doctrine, or of a violation of the rules therein before specified, with reference to the administration of the sacrament, or that he is deficient in talents, in abilities, that, under such circumstances,—not that they are compelled, -not that they are bound, but that they shall have authority, to convene a particular species of tribunal, a mixed tribunal. That tribunal is to consist of the Preachers of the District, of the Trustees, of the Leaders, and of the Stewards; they are to consider the case as alleged against the party accused; and, if a majority of them are of opinion that the case is made out against him, then he is to be considered as removed,-as removed from that Circuit. It is then provided, that the District Committee shall fill up the vacancy so occasioned by the removal of the Preacher from that Circuit, only until the next Conference,-that the District Committee shall fill up the vacancy. And then it goes on further to provide, that the District Committee may, if they think proper, proceeding upon this act of the majority, suspend him from all duties until the next Conference.

This is the first part of the Articles of Pacification, as far as relates to discipline; and if it rested here, it appears to me there would be no ambiguity in the case. This is not at all at variance with the previous provisions. It does not take away the power of the District Committee: it only says, that in the case of certain delinquencies, or want of ability, certain persons have the power, if they think proper to exercise it, to call together a particular tribunal a mixed tribunal to consider the case. It does not interfere with the right of the District Committee, in all cases in which those particular parties having this particular authority do not choose to interfere, or in cases in which they have no authority to interfere. Therefore, if the case rested here, it appears to me there would be no doubt in the question.

But then the doubt which is brought into the question is occasioned by particular words contained in the fifth division of this Act. The terms, as far as I recollect them, in that fifth division are these, "That no Preacher shall be removed from his Circuit, or suspended by any District Committee, except he have the privilege of the trial before mentioned." Now these words, taken by themselves, are extremely large and general; and, I confess, I have felt some difficulty in dealing with them. Do they apply to the taking away all authority of suspending and removal from the District Committee? If they do, how can we apply to such a case all the terms that are contained in this fifth clause? No District Committee shall have the power of suspending or removing from the Circuit, except the party have the privilege of the trial before mentioned. But no District Committee has the power of giving the Preacher the benefit of the trial before-mentioned. There is no authority for that purpose. They have no power to convene this mixed tribunal. There are no regulations authorizing them to do so; and if it was meant that the District Committee should have had such a power, there is no doubt, I apprehend, it would have been distinctly provided for. It does not appear to me, therefore, that this applies to the general authority of the District Committee. But does it apply, and has it reference, solely to the powers given in the second head of this Article of Pacification? There is a difficulty even in construing it strictly with reference to this second head. If the word "suspend" only had been used, it would have been free from ambiguity. "No Preacher shall be suspended

by the District Committee, except he shall have the privilege of the trial before mentioned," might have had reference to what had gone before, because they had, in terms, the power to suspend the Preacher in consequence of the decision of the mixed tribunal; but then it goes on to say, "No District Committee shall have the power of removing from the Circuit the Preacher, unless he has the privilege of the trial before-mentioned." But the District Committee is not the body that removes him; he is removed, not by the District Committee, but the act of the majority. But then it is impossible not to take notice of the term of expression here used,-" He shall be considered as removed." It does not say he is actually, and in fact, removed, but that he shall be considered as removed. And then that is followed up immediately by saying, the District Committee should appoint his successor. It would seem, therefore, as if it was considered that the act of the District Committee was necessary to consummate, as it were, the act of removal. Giving it that interpretation, and supposing that to be the intention of the parties who were engaged in framing this law, then the whole is consistent; and it amounts to nothing more than this, that the District Committee shall not give effect to the proceedings hereinbefore mentioned, against any Preacher, unless he has had the privilege of the trial which is above-mentioned,—that is, provided for him.

I do not mean to say, there is not some difficulty in this case; but, as I said during the argument, and as I have felt throughout, there are difficulties both ways. The construction is doubtful; and if the construction be doubtful, then let us advert to the circumstances which have taken place since the law was passed. What took place in the year 1797? The question to be considered, it is always to be recollected, is this,-Was the authority of the District Committee to suspend, and to remove from the Circuit, taken away by the Act of Pacification? Bear that always in mind, and see what has taken place.

In the year 1797, two years afterwards, another act of Conference was published; and in that act of Conference there is this provision. By that act of Conference the District Committee has, with respect to different items, with respect to different acts, only a negative power. Much of the authority of the District Committee was taken away; and then it goes on thus: " In short, brethren, out of our great love for peace and union, and our

great desire to satisfy your minds, we have given up to you by far the greatest part of the Superintendent's authority; and if we consider that the Quarterly Meetings are the sources from whence all temporal regulations, during the intervals of the Conference, must now originally spring; and also, that the Committee formed according to the Plan of Pacification can, in every instance in which the Trustees, Leaders, and Stewards choose" - choose "to interfere "-choose to interfere" respecting the gifts, doctrines, or moral character of Preachers, supersede in a great measure the regular District Committees; we may, taking all these things into our view, truly say, that such have been the sacrifices we have made, that our District Committees themselves have hardly any authority remaining, but a bare negative in general, and the appointment of a Representative to assist in drawing up the rough draft of the stations of the Preachers." The authority, therefore, of the District Committee was superseded,-when? Not absolutely, but only in those cases in which the Trustees, Leaders, and Stewards choose to interfere, respecting particular objects, namely, the gifts, doctrines, or the moral character of the Preachers. It appears to me, therefore, impossible to consider, taking this article of 1797 in connexion with the article of 1795, that the Articles of Pacification were meant to have the effect which is contended for on the part of the plaintiff.

But the case does not at all rest here: the case is much stronger. In the year 1797 it was considered by the Conference, who are the legislative body, that it was of importance to the Connexion, both for the purpose of promoting harmony, and for the purpose of pointing out the line of duty which individuals should pursue,— that it was of importance to publish the existing rules of the society. In the preamble to this, it says, "And whereas we have collected together those rules which we believe to be essential to the existence of Methodism, as well as others, to which we have no objection,-we do now voluntarily, and in good faith, sign our names, as approving of and engaging to comply with the aforesaid collection of rules, or code of laws, God being our helper." So that they publish what they consider to be the code of laws of Methodism, in the year 1797, and they sign that code with their names. Now that code has been given in evidence. It is the document, I think, described by the letter "F."-the exhibit " F." Do we find that that code of laws begins with

But

the Act of Pacification? By no means. Those laws and rules to which I have referred for the trial of a Preacher by the District Committees, form a part of that code. They precede the Act of Pacification. They were obviously considered, therefore, as in force at the time when this Act was passed, namely, in the year 1797. The mode of trial of a Preacher by a District Committee is pointed out. it may be said, and has been said, that though the District Committee may have a power of trial, they have no power of removing or suspending; the Act of Pacification, in that clause to which I have referred, takes away that power. Did it so? Why, in the code of laws, that provision for suspending the Chairman of the meeting still remains; and it is perfectly clear, therefore, that the party publishing this code of laws never considered that that clause in the Act of Pacification could have the meaning that is now assigned to it, namely, that of taking away from the District Committee the power of suspending in any case when the party had not the privilege of the particular trial mentioned in the Act of Pacification.

It appears to me, that this is demon. strative upon this. Who are the parties promulgating those laws? Not parties who had slight information; not persons who had only a slight knowledge of the constitution of the Connexion;-why, it was the legislators themselves,-it was the very parties who promulgated the Act of Pacification;-it was they who promulgated this law, and who, by that very act of their own of promulgation, made it become of itself a legislative act; and it is a declaration, by the legislature, that the power of suspension still continues in the District Committee.

But that is not all. I should advert here, however, to a document which was put in on the other side, and much insisted upon; which is handed, as I understand, and I believe that appears in the affidavits, to each Preacher at the time of his ordination; and which document is accompanied with this declaration, that "as long as you conform and adhere to these rules, we shall rejoice to acknowledge you as a fellow-labourer." That contains the Act of Pacification; that contains the act of the year 1797; but it takes no notice of the preceding acts and it is said, therefore, that that document is to be put in opposition to the code of laws published in the year 1797, and is to be considered pro tanto as an abrogation of them. But I consider this as nothing more than as a guide

It is

to the conduct of the Preacher. not intended as a perfect code of laws, for this obvious reason, that the regulations as to the District Committee are entirely excluded from it, not merely for the purpose of trial, but for all other purposes. It is quite obvious on the face of that document itself, it was not intended as a transcript of the code of laws, as then existing, but as a mere guide and assistant to the Preacher. It appears to me, therefore, that that document, which is dated as late as the year 1833, cannot have the effect which it was said it was intended to have, of abrogating and annulling the code published in the year 1797.

But now, then, as to what has taken place since the year 1795. From the year 1795, down to the present time, a great variety of instances, at least seventy in number, have taken place; seventy instances, at least, of Preachers suspended or removed by the District Committees. It is said, that if a law is clear, usage at variance with that law cannot alter the law. But I do not consider, taking the law by itself, for the reasons I have stated, that it is perfectly clear. Standing by itself, it is not perfectly clear. But this is to be considered, with respect to the usage, that it is not the ordinary usage of ordinary persons, acting under a code of laws; but that it is the usage of the very legislative body itself, acting under and interpreting its own laws. Now mark,-a Preacher is suspended by a District Committee ;what is the course that is immediately taken ? He is suspended only till the next Conference. The Committee is bound to report to the Conference; and in the Minutes of Conference those reports are regularly entered. Is it possible to suppose, that if, in 1796 or 1797, immediately after the passing of the Articles of Pacification, the District Committee had removed or suspended a Preacher, when they made their report to the Conference, would they not have immediately said, (if that was not the meaning of the law,) "You have acted illegally; you have acted, it may be, with good intentions; but you have acted contrary to our law for promoting the harmony of the society, as promulgated by us in 1795?" But no such thing takes place. The report of the District Committee is entered by the Conference, without comment; and so it goes on from the year 1795 down to the present time.

But then it is said, there was an ex

ception. It is said there was no resistance to those cases, because it is very likely the parties themselves, in many instances, would not be disposed to resist, for the reason fairly stated in the affidavit. They might be conscious of their guilt, and, if so, they would be desirous that the matter should not be further investigated. But the Conference itself would have been called upon to act, whether the parties had intervened or not; the legislative body would have been bound to act, and would have been of necessity called upon to have considered and declared that to be a violation of the rules.

But then it is said, "Mr. Henry Moore's case is an exception. What signifies those seventy cases that have been acted upon and acquiesced in,-Mr. Henry Moore resisted; and in Mr. Henry Moore's resistance he triumphed in his opposition to the District Committee."Now, really what are the facts of Mr. Henry Moore's case? Mr. Henry Moore took the chapel under particular circumstances; he took it under an express provision, as I understand, in the will of Mr. Wesley. The Conference had allotted that house to the Superintendent. Mr. Henry Moore, conceiving that he had a right to the house, in defiance of the Conference, refused to give up possession. What did the District Committee do? They assembled, summoned him, and suspended him from his Circuit. Mr. Henry Moore resisted; but what was the limit of his resistance? He did not attempt to preach in the other chapels in the Circuit, but confined his preaching to that particular chapel, and his resistance to that particular house, on the ground which I have stated. He said, "You have no jurisdiction over this par ticular chapel; I hold it by a particular title; I hold it under the will of Mr. Wesley:"-but he abandoned his title to all the other chapels; he did not preach there. This matter afterwards came before the Conference; but, from Mr. Moore's high character, and the respect that was entertained for him, the matter went no further, but was suffered to drop. And really it appears to me, that as to Mr. Henry Moore's case being an exception, his abstaining from preaching in the other chapels, and the discharge of his duties there, is rather a confirmation of it; and that his holding this particular chapel on particular grounds, shows that he thought he had no right to oppose the general authority of the District Committee, but only that they had no right to disturb him with respect to this parti

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »