On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
*¦* $$$ ¦ ^? $ ? was / this ';—' jTfcie Conference &K J |> J ? i W& * ^ ISl ^ Jound ii expedient to peniut . some of , the preachers to administer % be sacrameuts } u < & rj&ijp specified circojts , Hot incliidtng ; that oF Loiwjforide rry , and
> ¥ itU c ^ i iai o , restrictipns , upon \ y hich the respondent ? j who were trustees of the jtJer ^ c ^ apel ^ shut the doors against the preacher appointed by the Conference , and refused t < o adnilt l ) i in to the use of the
chapel , except upon , the terms of his reljng lushing" all connexion with the Conference , and those who * were disposed to auTbtriit to it , Thepetitioners , one of whom \ yas the excluded preacher , the other one of hiscongregation , on 4 he 15 th day of P ^ e ^ ruarv , 1 ^^> presented' their ^ petition to the Chancellor , under the 52 d of the
King * , ch . 101 , praying io fee restored to ihe use of the chapel ; arid that the trustees tiavingT violated their trust , might be rejriojred . The respondents answered the petition on the 23 d day of April , 1817 , an ^ insisted , in substance , that the Confer ^ lice , by permitting the administration of the sacraments by the Methodist preachers ,
iand by allowing * service at the Methodist chapels in church hours , had introduced a radical change in' Metnodisrn , and violated their duty 5 and that , therefore , their character as the Conference of the Methodists ^ and their right to appoint preachers to the use and enjoyment of the chapels , had ceased . On the l ^ th day of May
following * , an order was made by his Honour , referring * it to the Master to inu quire and report whether the petitioner , £ > innen , was a preacher duly appointed under the meaning of the deeds in the pleadings mentioned , being * Mr . Wesley ' s deed of declaration , executed in 1784 , establishing * the constitution of the Conference , and the deed under which the
trustees held tiie chapel in question , executed in 1788 , and also to inquire and report whether Mr . West ( a gentlemanto whom the trustees had given the use of the chapel after the exclusion of the petiiio&er , I ) innen ) had officiated therein , and for What time , and by what authority . The Master having , ' after the fuHest exanifautioti of the evidence offered on each
4 side ^ on the 18 th day of Mav ^ 1818 , reported that the petitioner , Dinhen , was a preacher duly appointed according to the imst of the deed mentioned jn the order 5 and that Mr . West had been permitted by kthe respondents to have the- use of- the ^ hapel , to the je ^ elu ^ ionof thfi petitioner Diunen : , an application was made by the
Respondents jto |* i $ Honour jthe Mpstpr of the Rolls , to set aside the report , and also » n -application by 4 fee petitioiiers ? that the report npig-ht stand c . onfiiimed v ai > d foraji jQJfff ^ : ^ ccordiog * ,, ^ t \) e J ) my «? r of their petition ;; the ^^^ atiftn ^ j p ^? : ^ on t ^ i > e f * eard on the first day of June , when the
Untitled Article
Attq ^ ney-Geh ^ ral , stated tlie case 6 n the part of tbe respdndents ; and on the next day the Solicitor-General statied the petitioners * case 5 his Honour their * heard the evidence ori either side , and aHer
hearing-_ Mv .- Edward Pennefather , of counsel . for the respondents , and Mr . Siriyly , on behalf of the petitioners ; he farther heard Mr . Stokes and Mr . Deeiing , on behalf of the Tespotidtints nnd a qjiestion hstifnig Jbeen raised , whether the Methodists were ' entitled to the benefit of the ToleiatiOn Act
or uot , his Ron-our expressed hfs concurrence with the Master on the general question , anid called on Mr Schoa'i ^ sanji Mr . Cruis . e , counsel on behalf of thfe petitioners , desiring * them to confine themselves to the question made on the Toleration Act , and after hearing them to this point , his Honour , on the 19 th day of June , pronounced his judgment nearly as follows : —¦
** I have considered this ease , and looked into the cases that were cited by Mr . Deering * . ^ I conceive the general question to be , who are cestui que trustees in the deed of 1788 , and the evidence ought to be very convincing * to induce ine to dissent from the conclusion which the Master has
drawn > but on the best consideration I have been' able to give to the evidence , I concur with the Master in his deductions . u A temporal court must always encounter great difficulties in such a case as this ; but it appears to me that this must be considered a trust , and it is in that light only that a temporal court can consider it .
u And considering it in that light , the question is , whether this preacher appointed i by the Conference ( whicb is an emanation from tbe English Conference , a delegate from which is of vital necessity
to its existence , ) is to be ; restrained from exercising * his functions by the proviso in this deed , that lie preach no other doctrine than what is Contained in Mr . Wesley ' s notes on the New Teatamient , and bis four volumes of Sermons . Thdse works are
the standard by which we . are to measure the rights of the preacher , and the question is , how far ? he has regulated or intends to regulate himlseLf by . the&e ., , " The points in diilereuce between the parties are three . - ¦ ¦> ,. . , r f By tbe Conference of 1816 and 1817 , & p 6 wer is claimed , which is hot exercised
in the particular chapel -in question , > is exercised in others , namely , the power , <^ f administering the sacraments of baptism j | . nd of the i ^ ord 7 s suppisry and of having divine service in . cjhurch tpurs : whether these are inconsistent with the opinions of Mo Lesley , as foMn 4 in ,, his stan ^ ud w $ * gfr W * K Jft ^^ n- ' '' : '& » & ^ ^ « vievvy if we can iind in these writings saii $ -
Untitled Article
1 ^ B XntdtigeweJ ^ Case : decided between the- Methodists in fretandfV
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Feb. 2, 1819, page 128, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1769/page/60/
-