
    [Present, Chancellors Rutied&e, James and Thojitsoit.]
    John Combe, and others, Trustees of the Primitive Methodist Church, vs. William Beazier and Philip Mathews.
    A deed was executed conveying certain lands and buildings to trustees ofthe Methodist Episcopal Church, and giving power to H. and oil his death, to B. to nominate aminister for that congregation. Provided however, that such minister should preach the doctrines of Mr. Wesley, according to certain specified books written by him.
    The nomination by B. of aminister, who had been read out ofthe Methodist Church, and who had been ordained an Episcopal Minister, and had officiated as such; and the delivery and conveyance ofthe Church and Parsonage to such a minister, and for a sum of money, is not such a nomination or conveyance, as can be supported under the deed ; however such minister may pretend to conform to the regulation of preaching Mr. Wesley’s doctrines.
    The court decreed that the conveyances should be set aside and cancelled.
    THIS bill was filed to set aside a sale and conveyance alleged to have been made by William Brazier, to Philip ■ Mathews, of a church and parsonage house, belonging to the Primitive Methodist Church, and converted into an. Episcopal Church, without the consent, and against the will of the congregation. — And to have the deeds .of sale and conveyance cancelled, as illegal and void.
    The bill of John Combe, Wm. Fair, Samuel Pilshury, David Rechon, Samuel Nobbs and John M’Eee, trustees of. the Primitive Methodist Church, stsu.es, that in Feb. 1792, some persons living in Charleston formed, themselves into a feKoious sect named Primitive Methodists, and detormi- ° ned to procure a piece ot ground m Charleston to build a church upon, dedicated to the religious use of said sect, proposing to pay therefor by subscription. In pursuance of such design, th.ey agreed to purchase a lot of John Eb« erly, now deceased ; the conveyance of which was to be made to John Gordon, one of said sect} who was to convey the premises for the uses hereinafter mentioned.— That said Eberly for. six hundred pounds gave á release dated 15th February, 1792} of the premises to said Gordon in fee simple. And to secure the payment of said money, Gordon gave his bond to Eberly, dated 15th Feb. 1792, payable 15th February, 1798, and a mortgage of the premises; which have been since satisfied out of the funds of said sect; except 100/. That said Gordon, by indenture, dated 27th April, i 792, made between himself and Geo. Sinclair Capers, Abraham Seavev, John Combe, Benja* min Darrell, Charles Desel, Wm. Hutchins, Joseph Baker, Wm. Favi and James Mylne, in consideration of 5 shillings, granted unto them and their heirs and assigns for ever, the said Lot, together with one adjoining described in the bill, upon trust that they and their survivors, and the trustees for the time being, should permit the Revi. Mr. Harnett, one of the elders of the Methodist Church in this city, and such others as he should appoint during his life, to enjoy the use of the church, and other buildings intended to be erected on said premises ; and that he and such others as he should nominate, were to occupy and preach there; and after the death of Mr. Harnett, the com-plainánts or their survivors, were to permit the Rev. Mr. Brazier, then of Jamaica, (should he survive said Harnett) and such other as he should appoint duriug his life, to have the same privileges as Mr. Harnett j and after their death, if a body of ministers of their union shoúld exist, a president should bt chosen annually : and tbat complainants and1 their survivors and trustees for the time'be-iRg, should permit the said president and such other as he might appoint during his presidency, to enjoy the same privileges, provided that no other doctrine should be preached than what is contained in Mr. Wesley’s notes upon the new testament, and four vols. of his sermons. That as soon and as often as said trustees should die, or cease to be members of said sect, the rest of them or a majority should fill up their vacancy from other members, in order to keep up the number of five, seven, or eleven for ever." And that in case the conference of ministers of said Ha-rnett or Brazier’s union should cease to appoint a president for two years, then the majority of said trustees, with a majority of the white members, should choose their own minister. In case it should be deemed necessary by said trustees or a majority to raise a sum not above 5004 for erecting buildings on said lot, then upon trust to permit said trustees, or a majority, to grant the same to such persons as they should think proper, as will appear by the deed, &c. That said trustees and other members did proceed to build on said lot a church and parsonage house, and other out buildings at considerable expense. That by an act of the legislature, passed 21st December, 1793, the said congregation was incorporated under the name of the Primitive Methodists of Trinity Church, Charleston. That said Rev. W. Harnett died about 15th May, 1803 : soon after which, the said Philip Mathews endeavoured to obtain possession of said church to officiate therein as minister; but a considerable part of the congregation were averse thereto, and were determined to prevent his exercising such duties; more especially, as he had been read out of the said congregation; and because it was conceived that according to the trusts of the deed, Mr. Brazier had a right/of succeeding Mr. Harnett. ‘ That said Brazier, who lived neár Augusta, some short time after the death of Mr. Harnett, returned to Charleston, and opposed Mathews, asserting his own right under the said trust deed. In so doing, Mr. Brazier was then supported by a majority of the church; and he was therefore permitted to resume the functions of minister to the church, and con-turned so to do for nine months. That soon after that ^me some of complainants and others were informed that Mr. Brazier, without communicating on the subject to complainants and others of the congregation, and against the intent of the deed, and the constitution and by laws of said society, for certain pecuniary advantages, entered into contract with Mr. Mathews, to yield up to his use the said church and premises, it being the declared views of said Mathews to convert it into an Episcopal Church, and to draw a living from the rents of the pews, he having procured himself to be ordained a minister of the Episcopal Church. That complainants have been informed that the price to be paid by Mr. Mathews to Mr. Brazier for his own gain for so surrendering, was the sum of $500 in cash, and a bond of his, with the Rev. Thomas Frost as surety, for the payment of $500 annually for six years.— That in pursuance of said contract, Mr. Brazier executed a deed in writing, which after reciting the above deed from Gordon to Complainants, states, that in consequence of indisposition, and incapability of travelling, and inability to perform the trusts in the above deed, and for other good and special considerations, and to the purpose that the above deed of Gordon’s should be earned into effect, he the said W. Brazier nominated the Rev. Philip Mathews and the Rev. Thomas Frost, protestant ministers of the Episcopal Church, to take possession of said Trinity Church, and to keep the same in their possession, according to the intent of the aforesaid deed, during the period of the life of said Brazier, and also to have' and to hold to their use or the survivor of them, the appurtenances, &c. belonging to said premises : and that also he appointed the aforesaid Mathews and Frost to officiate in, and to have the controul over the church, called St. James, situate on Charleston neck, in such way as they shall think best to promote the word of God-: And he as- ' signed over all his right to said premises, to the intent that they might have the same power over all the premises, as he the said Brazier would have if said deed were not made. This deed was dated the 24th March, 18Q4. Complainants soon after were informed that Mr. Mathews and Mr. F rost meant to convert the church into an Episcopal one, and lease out the pews ; all which would be derogatory to the terms of the said trust deed, and to the constitution and by laws of said church. That Mathews has possessed himself of the parsonage house and other buildings. That Brazier soon after receiving the purchase money aforesaid, removed to or near Columbia, (5. C.) relinquishing his clerical functions and practising as a physician. That complainants being desirous of counteracting the above views, communed on the subject, and on recurring to the trust deed, it was found that most or all the trustees were either dead, or had ceased to be members of the said church, or had resigned as trustees, except John Combe ; and at a meeting of a number of the members of said society, Combe, with the consent of the members, appointed the present complainants trustees, and a number of the members approved of such nomination.
    
      MAY, 1806.
    
      Complainants say that as a conference of ministers of Harnett’s union did not then exist, they apprehend that such appointment of trustees was as regular under the trust deed as existing circumstances would admit; but should there be any irregularity, the complainants hope for the aid of this court in supplying the same.
    That Mathews and Mr. Frost, (particularly the former) in furthering the plan of converting said church into an Episcopal Church, caused an advertisement to be inserted on the 27th June, 1804, that divine service would that day be held at Trinity-. Church, when suitable prayers would be performed by the Rev. Mr. Mills, and a sermon, adapted to the occasion preached by the Rev. Mr. Frost. That on the morning of said day, some of the members caused the doors and windows of the church to be fastened, hoping thereby to divert them from their object j but Mathews caused them to be forced open, and a sermon dedicating the church was preached by the Rev. Thomas Frost. That said Mr. Frost has since died, and Mathews has proceeded to rent said pews, and appoint a vestry and wardens, and has conformed the church in all re-1 spects to an Episcopal one — all which acts are inconsistent with the customs of the Primitive Methodists. Complainants have been informed that Mathews intends making alterations in said church. They apprehend that Mr. Frost and Mathews being ministers of tht Episcopal Church, could not consistently with their engagements as such, (and Mr. Frost in addition thereto, consistently with his engagements as rector of St. Philip’s,) accede to the appointment of Brázier, more especially as Mr. Frost was never of the persuasion of the Methodists. On the contrary, it is manifest that their intentions are to convert it into an Episcopal Church: all which actings of Brazier and Mathews are in direct violation of the trust d- ed. Complainants pray that Mathews and Brazier may be compelled to set forth and discover the matters alleged in bill upon their corporal oaths ; and in the mean time that they may be restrained from using said church, and that they may be compelled to account for the profits derived from the rents of the pews, &c. Bill prays for relief.
    The answer of P. Mathews admits that certain persons at time and place in bill mentioned, did form themselves into a religious society, and distinguished themselves by the name of the Primitive Methodists. Defendant believes that only one or two were members at that time. That they determined to get a piece of ground in Charleston, for the purpose stated,and that subscriptions should be procured, not'only from the members of said society, but generally. But it does not appear from the documents that either of complainants have ever paid, and defendant believes that neither of them has paid any thing towards tbe church or premises aforesaid. Defendant does not know by whom the purchase of' the lot of land was made, but believes it was made by the late Rev, William Harnett and William Brazier, with consent of said society, and for the purposes in deed (referred to) expressed. Admits that conveyance was made as stated and the purchase money was to be paid as the complainants have alleged. Admits the deed, bond and mortgage given as has been stated, but satisfaction was made after defendant took possession of said church, which was between five and six years ago. That for three years of the above period, the defendant officiated as minister, and was superintendant of their conferences, duly appointed according to the rules. That at the time defendant took possession, there was not in the society box, Si. of funds. That through this defendant, collections were received, many pews taken, and by these means defendant paid 350/. on the bond aforesaid, including about 5-or $600, which were due to defendant, as minister, which he could have appropriated to his own use, at any time from the box aforesaid, but which he applied in the manner stated. The stewards of said society promising that defendant should be reimbursed with interest, when defendant should wish it; but defendant has not hitherto received any part of it. That the receipts given of the money paid as aforesaid, are to this defendant, and in his name. Admits there is a balance due on said bond. Admits the deed from Gordon to the trustees mentioned; and that the church with the buildings, have been erected on the lands purchased; ■ but whether with and from the funds of said society, defendant knows not; but believes the funds belonging to Mr, Brazier were applied by him to purchase materials for the parsonage house. Defendant believes that William Server and William Baker, two of the trustees, were the principal workmen employed on the buildings erected. That; they, with Mr. Mylne, another of the trustees, were then and are now members of said church. Defendant admits the conveyance from Mr. Vicars, and that the buildings mentioned were built by money raised by subscription generally. Defendant believes that said church was built chiefly from the contribution of Mr, James Smith. Defendant docs not believe that complainants contributed towards the said erection. Admits Mr. Harnett did Preac^ln sa^ church, but without permission; does not believe Mr. Brazier has ever preached there. Defendant bas preached there during the life time of Mr. Harnett, Admits that the society was incorporated at the time mentioned, and that Mr. Harnett died at the time stated. This defendant was superior as superintendant to Mr. Harnett. Soon after the death of Mr. Harnett, defendant (wrote as superintendant) to the stewards of said society, to deliver the keys of the church to Mr. Munds, which they were bound to do from the rule.
    Mr. Harnett attempted once in a state of intoxication, to read out defendant and Mr. Munds. Defendant did not endeavour to obtain possession of said church in any other way, but the order to deliver the keys to Mr. Munds, nor did defendant endeavour to officiate therein. Defendant did think he could preach there, or appoint some one to do so, but was advised by a gentleman of the bar, that his right must give way to Mr. Brazier’s. Being informed of the rights of Mr. Brazier, defendant relinquished all claims. Defendant believes Mr. Brazier did afterwards officiate ; for on application for the money aforesaid, Mr. Brazier with the stewards of said society, gave their notes to this defendant, which still remain unpaid. Defendant knows not of any terms imposed on said Brazier, before he was permitted to preach. Nor does he know if any or what promises were made by Brazier, about the manner of exercising his power, or the objects in whose favour he should exercise it, of appointing under the deed of Gordon, as Mr. .Harnett had the right of preaching & appointing to preach during his life time. Defendant conceives Mr. Brazier stood in the same situation as Mr. Harnett. Admits the deed from Mr. Brazier to himself and Mr. Frost; but is ignorant whether with the approbation of said society or not: said Brazier was unable to officiate, and did make the aforesaid deed. That it was agreed to pay Mr. Brazier g500 per annum, for six years, for the transfer of bis right, in which he had a life estate. Admits that he has been ordained an Episcopal Clergyman, but denies he is incompetent to preach in said church. Defendant avers the doctrine now preached to be the same as formerly, as also the prayers. It is true that night me e tings are abolished ; such meetings being considered unlawful. That defendant has nothing to do with renting of said pews ; every right vested in him from Brazier’s deed, he transferred to the trustees previous to the filing the bill of complaint, for the purpose of carrying Gordon’s deed into execution. Defendant is to officiate in said church, and receive such salary as is allowed by the trustees.
    As to the charge of defendant’s converting said church into an Episcopalian church, he has been under the controul of the congregation, and preaches only the doctrines expressed in the deed of Gordon. Defendant admits that he caused the gates and doors of the church which had been fastened up by complainants, or some other persons, to be opened. Denies that the trustees under Gordon’s deed have resigned as such, and have ceased to be members of said congregation. That by the laws of said church, Combe had no right to appoint trustees. He says that a dedication sermon was to be preached by the Rev. Mr. Frost in said church. That a time was appointed for it and notice given to the public. That said sermon was not preached, in consequence of assurances given by Mr. Pringle, that the matters of difference should be brought speedily before this honorable court; but as they were not so brought, Mr. Frost and defendant believing that complainants entertained improper views, a sermon was after-wards preached. Pews have been made, (but not by defendant’s order) which is not repugnant to the by-laws of said church. Defendant admits that having taken off the locks put on the church doors by Mr. Pilsbury, and a few others, he performed divine service. There were few opposed to him who were members when Mr. Brazier officiated. Admits that three or four persons were buried in St; James’s Church yard by his permission, for which no charge has been made. Defendant says, that complain. antg cease¿ to be members of said church several months before the dedication, while Mr. Munds, a methodist preacher officiated, by absenting themselves, and taking tickets of admission to the society of methodists in Cumberland-street; and since their admission, have taken the sacrament, and .attended preaching in said street. The two societies never have been united, and differ in many respects. That he possesses some papers relative to the church, which he is ready to produce; all which matters defendant is ready to prove, and prays to be dismissed •with costs.
    The answer of William Brazier states, that he arrived in Charleston, in the year 1791, and joined the Reverend William Harnett in forming a religious society, termed Primitive Methodists. That he and Mr. Harnett acted as pastors or preachers to said society. That he opened a subscription for purchasing a lot, and building a church thereon, for said society. That contributions were made generally by the people of Charleston; and particularly by the members of said society; thé church was consequently built (now called Trinity Church,) which together with the lot on which it is built, were conveyed agreeable to the deed referred to in complainants bill.
    William Harnett was rector of said church until his death, when this defendant took possession of the parsonage house, and became preacher in said church, conceiving he was warranted by the terms.of the deed.
    This defendant saith that he never departed from the tenets and ordinances of said church, and while incumbent of said church, he preached the doctrines of Mr. Wesley, prescribed in the above said deed. That defendant’s and ■his family’s health would not permit him to officiate in Charleston as preacher of said church, longer than nine months, at which time he left it, previously appointing the Rev. Philip Mathews bis successor, agreeably to the spirit and intent of said deed. That he was not influenced by pecuniary considerations, in admitting Philip Mathews to the privilege of preaching in said church, as he believed the said Mathews to profess the principles required in the trust deedthat he was formerly preacher to said society. That the said church was indebted to Mathews in the sum of $500, which he had advanced when rector thereof, and which said church was unable to repay. That said- Mathews made some compensation to this defendant for the use of the parsonage house, which was built by his oun exertions, and by his assistance, and solely for his use, he being the only incumbent with a family. This defendant received, in part of the compensation, five hundred dollars cash, and a bond for the payment of $3000, from the Rev. Mr. Frost and Mathews jointly. That this sum was not too large, as the defendant might have leased the parsonage house at 50l. per annum, during his life. That as to the charge of Mathews not preaching Wesley’s doctrine as required in the deed to be preached by William Harnett and his successors in that church, this defendant saith that there is no difference between W esley’s doctrine and that of the Episcopal Church of England. The book of common prayer has been uniformly read in said church, and all its ordinances administered by the Methodists. That Mathews never at all endeavoured to pervert the doctrine of the said church. This defendant states, that before bis appointment of Mathews, the society had been considerably diminished, and that his audiences frequently consisted almost wholly of negroes, and that he consequently feared the interposition of the police of Charleston. That this inconvenience more probably influenced the Rev. P. Mathews in dedicating the church anew, than the motives mentioned in the bill. This defendant knows nothing of the alteration of the pews, or Mathews’s profit therefrom.
    He admits his deed of conveyance to Mathews, but knows not hotv said Mathews appropriated the burial grounds, or what persons have been buried there: noi whether He ever intended to convert the said church into an Episcopal one : he further denies alt combination and confederacy with said Mathews.
    The cause cánie to a heai-ing, and the several deeds referred to in the pleadings were produced.
    The following testimony was then given :
    Mr. John C. Faber testified that payments were made' to him as the executor of Ebberly, on the bond "given for* the land. The payments were chiefly made by the stewards of the church, and in small money,- Such as would be expected at collections in the church. Mr. Pilsbury paid off the bond in June, 1804-. Mr. Mathers made some payments. ^
    Mr. John Beale testified that he subscribed SOI. fot the Primitive Methodist Church, and only sis such. The form of worship is different from that of the Episcopal-Church :■ and he believes the Methodist Church differs-from the latter in some .doctrinal points. That Mr. Brazier was poor. Witness contributed to pay his passage money to this country.
    Major Charles Lining testified that suit has been brought on the bond given by Mr. Mathews and Mr. Frost to Mr.Brazier.
    Counsel were instructed on the part of Mr. Frost’s estate to resist the payment, on the ground that the bond was given for an illegal consideration. He saw Mr. Mathews attend in the convention of the Episcopal Church as a minister of that church, in Feb. 1806, and he produced his certificate from the vestry for that purpose.- (This was álso admitted.)
    The act of incorporation of this chufch as a Primitive Methodist Church, was produced. It- is dated in the' year 1793.
    
    The Rev. Dr, Furman certified that Mr. Brazier had belonged to the Baptist Church.
    Joseph Guaitier testified that he joined Mr. Harnett’s church as a Primitive Methodist Church, distinct from other churches. The buildings were erected by subscription, and the lots paid for by general contributions. The forms of church government are totally different from the Episcopal Church. There is no vestry, and there are love feasts and band meetings, with other differences. The .common prayer book was used once a day, much curtailed. Witness was then a member of the churpji, and took the sacrament with Mathews. Mr. Mathews, when he officiated, read prayers, psalms, &c. as in St. Michsel’s Church.
    When Mr, H.amett chqse to do so, he read out a member of the church. He read out Mr. Mathews and Mr, Munds from the pulpit. Mathews then retired and never came back to the church till he purchased it. Brazier tried to keep Mathews out, till he sold the church tq him. The congregation were astonished and offended at the sale of the church. They never consented to it, nor were ever consulted about it.
    The original trust deed of 1792 being examined, it appeared that four of the trustees named in it are complainants in this suit. Three have seceded from the church, and three are dead.
    Abram M’Kie testified that he knows not if Mr. Mathews was actually cited before he was read out of the church. But he withdrew after being read out, and neither preached nor was afterwards considered a member. Ministers are read out publicly ; members at a private meeting. Mr. Mathews was not superintendant when he was read out.
    Mr. M’Infuss. The superintendant must, by the rules, be elected annually. Mathews was elected but once su-perintendant.
    Mr. Harnett was president and superintendant when Mathews was read out. Witness was present. As soon as Mr. Harnett returned from Georgetown, Mathews withdrew from the church, and never officiated again, and was not considered by the people of the congregation as a minister of their church. Mr. Brazier promised that Maihews should not have any thing to do with the church.
    ^ declaration was produced, signed by the members of the Primitive Methodist Church, stating that they do not ,1 . aPPr°ve of Mathews as a pastor.
    jt was admitted that Mr. Mathews had become an Epis.-copal minister, ordained by bishop Madison.
    Mr. Piungle, Mr. William L. Smith, and Mr. De~ saussure for the complainants,
    argued, that the deed conveyed the property in question to trustees, for the benefit of the church, and not for tbe advantage of individuals. That to convert this trust into an instrument of private gain, was contrary to the intent and spirit of the deed. That the powers given by tbe. deed are to be construed so as to promote the views and objects of the original parties and not to defeat them. That however unlimited the powers appear to be at first sight, they must be restrained to the objects of the contracting parties. Tbe latter part of the deed shewing those objects will control the former part giving the powers. The proviso will be construed strictly.
    That the Primitive Methodists differ in many important particulars from the Episcopalians of the church of England. The acts of incorporation shew a difference. The constitution of the Primitive Methodist church differs widely from the organization and the rules of the Episcopal church of England. The Primitive Methodists have abridged the common prayer book; and indeed it is seldom if ever used.
    They have only two degrees of order, elders and deacons. By the canons of the Episcopal Church, there are bishops, priests and deacons; and the common prayer book is never disused. The doctrines are said also to be somewhat different. The Methodists prescribed that Mr. Wesley’s doctrines, according to his notes and his four volumes of sermons should alone be preached in their 'church. The-Episcopalians certainly have not adopted these as the sole standard of their belief, and of their doctrines.
    The new ordination of Mr. Mathews by an Episcopalian bishop, shews that he was not deemed a regular priest, though ordained according to the Methodisticai system. The re-dedication of the church, to the worship of almighty God, by Mr. Frost, shews that the Episcopalians considered there was a real difference.
    Then the nomination by Mr. Brazier of Mr. Mathews, to be the minister of this people who had cast him out, and whom he had abandoned, and taken refuge in ano.-ther church, was not consistent with the deed authorizing the nomination, and must be void. And the delivery of the church and Parsonage to him for a sum of money, for the private emolument of the vendor, who was entrusted, with authority for very different purposes, must be considered an act entirely unwarranted by the deed of trust; totally contrary to the intention and objects of the deed ; and therefore void,
    Mr. Moultrié and*Mr. Gaillaiid, for the defendants,
    argued, that the deed under consideration must be construed like any other deed ; by the words used in it, and not by parol evidence of the intentions of the grantors, contradictory to the words employed in the deed. That by the deed, Mr. Harnett, and afterwards Mr, Brazier, had the right of nominating a minister or preacher to this church. That the sole restriction imposed by the deed was that tbe minister should preach the doctrines contained in certain enumerated books. That if this were conformed to, it was unimportant under the deed, who or what the individual was. He might be a Roman Catholic.
    That it was stated that Mr. Mathews had conformed to these doctrines in preaching; and this satisfied the provisions of the deed.
    That the deed gave such power to Mr. Harnett and Mr, Brazier, as amounted to a freehold interest. And provided their nominee conformed to the deed in preaching Mr. Wesley’s, doctrines, it was not in the power of the'congregation to inquire into the' inducements which jeq to Hie nomination,
    That the Methodists recognized the common prayer book, arid had bishops. So that they conformed in these great essentials to the'Episcopal church.
   Chancellor J ames

afterwards delivered the decree of the court:

In considering this case the court do not deem it ne* cessary to enter into the extensive grounds occupied by the learned counsel on both sides. We are of opinion that the original trust deeds will fully shew what was the intention of the parties to the same, and that after finding out that intention, nothing more is necessary than to compare the second deed from the defendant William Brazier, to Thomas Frost and Philip Mathews, with the original deeds, in order to discover whether it be repugnant or consistent with the same. The grounds taken by tbe court will therefore be two fold.

1st. To consider the intention of the parties to the original deeds.

2d. To examine whether the deed from William Brazier to Thomas Frost and Philip Mathews be consistent with that intention.

And 1st. The deed from John Gordon, and that from William Harnett to the trustees, appear to be for like considerations, and much in the same words; therefore to shorten this decree, they may well be considered, as to construction, in the same point of view. From these it appears that the intention of the ox-iginal parties was to associate themselves together for the worship of God, and to hear the truths of the gospel expounded; but nevertheless with this express reservation throughout, that they were to hear these truths expounded agreeably to the doctrines of their own sect.

Now it is not material that there are but slight shades of difference between the • different sects of protestant christians; it is enough for us to know that such differ-enees do exist; and perhaps for wise purposes, since they would all become supine, were they ail of the same persuasion. But to forward these views of the parties to , . . - . . . ... • , i the original deeds, it was also their intention that lots should be purchased for a church and a parsonage; and that buildings should be erected on the same.

And it is very material here to observe that the original parties to the deeds, were not actuated in their views by pecuniary considerations; since the consideration money expressed on the face of both the deeds, is only five shillings ; and the trustees or a majority of them were to raise a sum of money not exceeding five hundred pounds sterling for the purpose of erecting buildings on the said lots. ’They were to raise a sum of money, in what way? By contribution among themselves, and by donations from abroad, which was all very fair, for they had no funds from which they could otherwise draw. Then they were to spend, not to make money by entering into these engagements.

The consideration of the original deeds, and of the views of the original parties to the same, not being of a pecuniary nature, we will next inquire whether it could ever be intended by them, that William Brazier was to make his appointment for pecuniary considerations ? On this point the deeds are silent, and what is to be collected from them is by implication and general usage in similar cases. The words of the second deed are, that he, (Wm. Brazier,) shall from time to time appoint during his natural life. And from these words, it is strongly urged that he may appoint in any manner that he pleases, either for mo-' ney or not. But if the original grantors, and the members of the church were not, as we have seen, actuated by pecuniary considerations, can it be reasonably supposed that they ever intended that their minister should be so actuated ? They were not themselves stimulated by the love of money! How then could they have it in contemplation that their clergyman, that reverend expounder of God’s holy word, who was to lead them in the way to salvation, that he should be actuated by the love of money? The thing is absurd.

Let us next examine whether the deed from William _ Brazier to Thos. Frost and Philip Mathews has, notwithstanding, been made for a pecuniary consideration ? After reciting the original deed from John Goidon, the latter deed goes on as follows, “ that he, the said William Brazier, named in the aforesaid deed, being unable from indisposition to perform and execute the trusts reposed in him by the same, and also for good and pious causes and considerations, him thereunto moving,” &c.

Now the only consideration expressed in this deed is, one similar to what is expressed in the other deeds, viz. for certain pious considerations. But in looking- over the answer of Wm. Brazier, we find that all the considerations were not expressed in the deed. He has there admitted that he received five hundred dollars in hand, and that three thousand dollars more were secured by the joint* bond of the late Mr. Frost and the said Mr. Mathews ; a sum he says by no means too large for the use and benefit of the parsonage house, as he could have leased the same for fifty pounds a year. Then the ostensible reasbn which is given for receiving a pecuniary consideration is for the use of the parsonage house. This parsonage house he says would rent for 50/. a year. Now seven years is considered in law as the length of a life ; therefore in'seven years this rent of the parsonage house would only amount to 350/.; but he received $3,500, which is a sum nearly three times as great as the rent of the house would amount to upon his own shewing.

Then there can hardly remain a doubt but that there was a pecuniary consideration kept out of view in the -deed, and which was to be given for the' sale of the church. Besides Wm. Brazier had only the use of these lands while the legal estate remained in the trustees, and he could not properly dispose of them without their consent.

We also apprehend that the exertions he speaks of, were. made, and the assistance given, upon the expectation of his being repaid by the congregation, and. not out of the • ■

. . We think it now sufficiently appears, that the second deed frota William Brazier to Thomas Frost and Philip Mathews, was made for a pecuniary consideration ; and we have seen before that the original parties to the trust deeds were not actuated by pecuniary motives : therefore we conclude that the second trust deed is inconsistent with the original trust deeds. But there is still another consideration upon which this deed must fail. After those clauses in the original deeds- containing the powers to Wm. Ha-rnett and Wm. Brazier, during their lives respectively, to preach, &c. there is a proviso, as follows — “ Provided always that the said persons shall not preach any other doctrine than is contained in the late reverend John Wesley’s hotes upon the new testament, and four volumes of his sermons, as essential to salvation.”

Now it appears plainly that the words, “ the said persons shall not preach, &c.” refer not to Wm. Harnett .and Wm. Brazier alone^ but also to every person which either bf them might appoint to preach, so that the person appointed was liot to preach any other doctrines than those specified in the proviso.

But says Philip Mathews, I conformed to'that proviso,,' for I preached some of those very sermons. This is mere evasion. We find that he had before that time joined the Episcopalians, and sat with them in convention. . How then could the Methodists any longer consider him as of their persuasion, or receive him as their minister ? For we know that none of the sects of Christians will borrow their clergy from another sect. Besides the Rev. Mr. Frost was united with Mr. .Mathews in this appointment, and they proceeded, to dedicate the church which was not in.conformity to the rules of the Methodists. They also read'all the prayers of the Episcopal Church^ and not those selected by Mr. Wesley, which was also contrary to rule. ■These .were indeed small deviations, 'but small as they are, they shew the intention to convert the church into an Epis-» copal one, contrary to the proviso : and smaller matters bh.an these, when connected with religion, have caused discord and bloodshed in the world. But we have it in evidence that Mr. Frost preached ip the church. He was, we are informed and know, avowedly and zealously, an Episcopalian. Then is it for a moment to be supposed that he would preach the doctrines of Mr. Wesley ? That is very improbable indeed.

Upon the whole of the circumstances of this case, we are therefore of opinion that the intentions of the parties to the original deeds were not pecuniary — that they could never have intended that Wm. Brazier should make his appointment from pecuniary motives : that nevertheless it appears he has done so ; and also that the persons so appointed by him have broken the proviso contained in the original deed. The second deed therefore from William Brazier to Thomas Frost and Philip Mathews is void.

Wherefore it is ordered and decreed, that this second deed be delivered up to be cancelled, and that the defendants do pay the costs of this suit. But as it has been urged by the defendants that certain sums of money are bona fide due to them from the congregation, let it be referred to the master to settle" all accounts between them. 
      
       The ground on which the court appears to have decreed, seems to have been that here was'a power coupled with a trust, and thatthe appointment of a minister of the gospel who did not bona fide answer the description intended in the deed, and for money for the benefit of the person entrusted with the nomination, was not such an execu. lion of the power as could be supported. Therefore the deed of appointment and conveyance was void.
     