MESSRS. R. M. CORWINE, and HENRY STANBERRY, of Ohio, and JUDGE BRIEN, of Tennessee.

Counsel for Defendants,

MESSES. ADAM N. RIDDLE, JUDGE LANE, and THOMAS EWING, of Ohio.

THE bill in this case was filed on the 12th day of July, 1849. The answer of Swormstedt and Power, then the Agents of the Methodist Book Concern at Cincinnati, and the answer of James B. Finley, were filed February 20, 1850.

The hearing commenced at Columbus, on the 24th of June, and the arguments closed on the 2d of July, 1852.

The Judge postponed his decision in the case till the opening of the term of the Court on the third Tuesday in October.

The Rev. William A. Smith, A. L. P. Green, and Charles B. Parsons, Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, and Rev. John F. Wright, Leroy Swormstedt, Adam Poe, Edward Thomson, and Michael Marlay, Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, were all in attendance.

Judge M'Lean declined sitting on the case, principally in consequence of having been consulted as to the mode of changing the sixth restrictive rule, through the action of the annual conferences, and, to some extent, involving the effect of that rule on the power of the General conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

The evidence agreed upon by counsel on both sides, and read in this case, was the same used in the case of Henry B. Bascom, and

4

others, vs. George Lane, and others, heard in New York in May, 1851. The testimony relied upon by the plaintiffs and the defendants, is found in two books compiled by agreement of counsel in the New York suit. They are designated as PROOFS, numbered one and two. Reference was likewise made to the Book of Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, printed in 1840; Emory's History of the Discipline; also, the printed journals of the several General conferences of said Church for 1840-'44,-'48; and Bangs' History of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

It is not deemed expedient, to include in this publication any of the evidence, except what is found in the arguments of the counsel in the defense.

It was the unanimous judgment of the Commissioners on both sides, that all the arguments submitted to the Court ought to be published in one book, that all who chose might examine and judge of the case for themselves as presented by the counsel. The Commissioners, therefore, before they left Columbus, agreed upon a JOINT PUBLICATION—the work to be put to press so soon as the arguments were received at Cincinnati in manuscript. This arrangement, though very desirable, we have been compelled to abandon; two of the counsel for the plaintiffs, Messrs. Stanberry and Brien, having failed to furnish their arguments for publication. Mr. Corwine prepared his argument in due time, but we think it would not be equal or just to include in this publication Mr. C.'s argument alone on the side of the plaintiffs.

This explanation will furnish ample, and, we trust, satisfactory reasons to the public why the arguments of counsel for defendants alone are published in this book. We exceedingly regret that the members and friends of both organizations can not have the advantage of all the arguments submitted to the Court in the hearing of the case; but we have done the best we could under the circumstances, and solicit from all interested a patient and careful examination of the three arguments here presented.

THE delay of our publication till this date-October 26th-has enabled us to add Judge Leavitt's decision in the case; which we think the public should have in this permanent form.

ADAM N. RIDDLE'S ARGUMENT.

MR. R. M. CORWINE opened the case for the plaintiffs, and was followed by MR. RIDDLE, in the defense.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,

case.

It is with great diffidence that I rise to address the Court in this The questions presented by the record, and the proofs, grow out of a transaction of singular and sad interest-one suggestive of many admonitions, thoughts, and fears-the dismemberment of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is not only a question of mere property, to be decided according to the strict rules of law, but it involves a question of greater moment-that which money can not restore the existence of the Methodist Episcopal Church itself. The claim of the complainants, to some extent, is predicated upon the argument that, by the action of the General conference of 1844, in adopting the "plan (so called) of separation," and the establishing under that plan an "independent organization," that the Methodist Episcopal Church was destroyed. That I conceive to be a much more important question than the amount of property in controversy. I do not expect to aid the Court much in any remarks that I may make. Should I be so fortunate as to throw any light upon the questions at issue, that will have a tendency to dispense justice to the parties before the Court, then I shall be fully satisfied with the effort that I may make.

I propose to give a brief view of the economy and organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, before and at the time of the withdrawal of that portion of it which now constitutes the "Methodist Episcopal Church South." The Church was organized in its present form in 1784. Up to that time the people called Methodists. were, professedly, a society within the pale of the Church of England, although they regulated their ministerial and disciplinary operations without any reference to that Church. The preachers of the society, however, were not ordained, and did not administer the sacrament, either in this country or in England. Some two or three exceptions to this rule were made in England, upon extraordinary emergencies; but in this country the rule obtained without any exceptions at all. During the Revolutionary war, most of the clergy of the Establishment, siding with the Crown, left the country, so that for hundreds of miles together the Methodists found themselves without the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper; and such was the importunity of the members, and so vehemently did they

insist upon the administration of these Christian ordinances, that a considerable number of the preachers in the southern portion of the connection yielded to their wishes, and proceeded both to baptize and administer the Lord's supper. Francis Asbury, however, who was the General Superintendent of the societies, as Mr. Wesley's assistant, prevailed with those preachers to suspend action till Mr. Wesley, who was considered here, as in England, the "pater familias," could be consulted.

In 1784, Mr. Wesley, assisted by other presbyters, ordained Thomas Coke, a presbyter of the Church of England, as a General Superintendent of the Methodist societies in America, and sent him over with directions to ordain Francis Asbury Joint Superintendent. Dr. Coke arrived in the latter part of the year, and a General conference of the preachers in the connection assembled in Baltimore in December. Mr. Asbury declined the superintendency, unless he should be elected by the conference. The conference accepted Dr. Coke, and elected him and Mr. Asbury as General Superintendents, by an unanimous vote.

The Episcopal plan of Church government, recommended by Mr. Wesley, was adopted, and remains, with such modifications of detail as time and circumstances required, the settled economy of the Church to this day.

It may be said, as to the organization of the "Methodist Episcopal Church," "that the people were not consulted." In reply, the history of the Church shows, that their wishes were already known. They had been expressed over and over again; and, that their voice was in exact accordance with the proceedings of the conference, is demonstrable from numerous testimonies.

Mr. Lee, in his History of Methodism, says: "The Methodists were pretty generally pleased at our becoming a Church, and heartily united together in the plan which the conference had adopted; and, from that time, religion greatly revived.”

66

Mr. William Watters, the oldest American Methodist preacher, says, in his memoirs of himself: We became, instead of a religious society, a separate Church. This gave great satisfaction through all our societies."

Rev. Ezekiel Cooper, in his memoirs of Bishop Asbury, after stating the fact of our having become an independent Church, says: "This step met with general approbation, both among the preachers and members. Perhaps we shall seldom find such unanimity of sentiment upon any question of such magnitude."

The "official bodies" of the Church, with an exception or two, are called "conferences." There is, first, the "quarterly meeting conference," in every circuit and station; that is, in every pastoral charge, whether consisting of one or more congregations. It is composed of the leaders of classes, the stewards, exhorters, and local preachers of the circuit or station, together with the traveling preacher, or preachers, appointed by the bishop to the charge, and the presiding elder of the district-an officer selected from the traveling ministers by the bishop, and having the superintendence of an indefinite number of stations and circuits.