church has proposed such a simple condition of entering into fellowship with it; and yet has required so exact obedience to such a code of laws on morality and religion, as the terms of continued communion. No other Christian church has been gathered so entirely out of the world, without robbing other churches, and with such a simple instrumentality; and yet manifested a more catholic regard to all other Christian communities.

It is not, however, contended that the system is perfect, or its agents in any department altogether without fault. Every thing in which a short-sighted, fallible being is the principal agent must bear more or less of a corresponding character. To correct and over-rule our errors, and thereby improve our wisdom, and to succeed our sincere endea. vours to do good, and thereby encourage us to proceed in the same career, are indications of the divine will, and are not to be carelessly trifled with or disregarded. God's blessing can only be vouchsafed to the Connexion, so long as, as a Connexion, we please Him. And we are bold to say, with the late Dr. Clarke, "Methodism is not now what it has been; it is more rational, more stable, more consistent, more holy, more useful to the community, and a greater blessing to the world at large. And all this we should find no difficulty in proving." Now, we contend, that a system which has been brought to its present state by God,-first by the special operations and effusions of his Spirit, and, secondly, by the signal interpositions of his providence,-we are not at liberty to tamper with, as we may experiment upon a system or institution which is the result of mere human policy and power. It will always admit of circumstantial modifications; but we deny the right of any man to vitiate its essential principles. It is what it is, by being what Mr. Wesley emphatically called it, "a work of God;" and truly is it " wonder unto many." The men of the world have uniformly erred in their judgment of it; not from a mental incapacity, but from the absence of those moral qualities which

a

are as essential to form a judgment of Methodism, as the possession of a mathematical and philosophical tone of mind to write the biography of Sir Isaac Newton.

That "the system works well," those who are least friendly to us will not deny; and that there is nothing essentially wrong or defective, may easily be made manifest. The hosts of experienced Christians within the pale of Methodism, and the grand scale of her successful operations, are proofs that her Leaders, Local and Itinerant Preachers, and other officers, are men of God, in the sound, practical, scriptural sense. Wholly to deny this, would be either to suppose that spiritual good could be effected without a direct, approving blessing of God; or, that God largely blesses and succeeds the labours of unholy men. To allow that some of the agents are good men, "full of faith and of the Holy Ghost," and yet suppose that a great number of others are not men of sincere and devoted piety, is either to suppose that a whole class of men may be indevout, unholy, corrupt, and yet their associated fellow-labourers may not know their real character; or, that some of these agents may be exemplarily holy men, and yet remain in fellowship and labour with these known wicked men, and still enjoy an extensive prospering blessing of God on this absurd and wicked union of Christ with Belial. No unholy ministry ever produced a holy people; and we must either deny that the Methodist people are a body of devoted Christians, or we must admit that their Ministers are pious men; that their ministry is "the savour of life;" and that their system is so far approved of God, that they must, as they regard the continued blessing of Heaven, pause before they admit any fundamental change.

It is manifest that the same truths must be maintained and preached. Our doctrines we cannot change. Mr. Wesley has made provision against this; and the Methodists of every generation, and throughout the world, have the utmost possible security for their doctrines being "un

corrupt." Whenever any of our Ministers preach doctrines contrary to those recognised by the Deed of Declaration, they cease to be Methodist Preachers, and must find some other pulpit for the exercise of their ministry. Methodism, as such, is annihilated when the Conference declares such a change of opinion on matters of doctrine. Those who object to tests should remember that all our trust-property can only be secured to Methodism according to the purposes of those trusts, by the most rigorous and faithful application of discipline on these points; and Methodists who know their call ing will rejoice that such security is provided, that their children, and their children's children, may hear the same truths which have been blessed of God to their salvation and comfort. Should the day ever come when, from outcry against tests, and in behalf of greater latitude of opinion, the Conference shall relax on this point, Methodism will, legally, be dissolved, and quickly become the greatest mass of virulent putrescence that ever loaded the moral atmosphere with death.

No change, that we hear of, is proposed in reference to our doctrines; nor do we hear it alleged that they are not preached clearly, fully, and as the old Methodists preached them. But it may be worth while to inquire, whether our ministry might not be more domestic, more minutely practical. The conjoint testimony of our own spirit with the Spirit of God, to the fact of our adoption, is a very practical doctrine; as also the believer's privilege of power over all sin, by virtue of the indwelling Spirit of adoption and holiness. Is it sufficiently explained, that the highest attainments in religion do not consist in ecstatic, rapturous feelings in some devotional exercise; nor in the notion of superior piety, from the peculiar tone of our experience; nor in the selfdestroying violence of our labours in behalf of others; but in simple, humble love, and a just, and nice, and almost scrupulous, regard to the duties of life? Are there no practical departures from Christianity, on

which Ministers have been "slow to speak," as well as "slow to wrath?" Have they not yielded so far to "the spirit of the times," as, by a sort of general consent, to say nothing on obedience to Pastors; and to drop all allusion to other duties of submission; and sometimes failed to exhibit the full and harmonious round of practical duties; as if the duty of a Minister were rather to preach those truths only which are productive of the most immediate and manifest success, whilst the making "the man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works," might be left to contingencies? Have Ministers ceased to be responsible for the reproof of the church, because they are peculiarly called to rouse and instruct? Are they at liberty to pass by in silence those topics which the very fact of their being unpalatable may show to be necessary? May they cease to

66

warn the unruly," and may they wink at transgression, because it is directed against themselves, not personally, but as the Ministers of Christ? Has not the same authority coupled the pecuniary support and "double honour" of the ministry, with the duty of open rebuke? "The labourer is worthy of his reward." "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." Who will say how far the present state of things may be a retribution for unfaithfulness in this, as well as other pastoral duties?

But to return. The early divisions in Methodism were chiefly on the ground of doctrine, and generally such as directly favoured Antinomianism; the early, natural, and common abuse of the doctrine of salvation by grace, whenever prominently set forth. Nothing but the strongest inculcation of personal holiness, a very practical ministry, and the vigorous enforcement of discipline, can ever save the Methodists from the influence of this most pestilent heresy. But since our doctrines are settled and embodied, and security is given to them by our Deeds and general system, the later divisions have arisen from objections to our discipline. And that which

raises schismatics among us to importance, and affords agitators such power of mischief, is "the head and front of our offending," our connexional character. We have referred to the origin, the nature, and design of "the United Societies, in London, Bristol, Kingswood, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, &c., so called, not after the Moravians, but because they consisted of several smaller societies united together." So they continue to this day. "Our societies are not independent churches, but a Connexion; that is, a number of societies who have agreed to unite themselves in a common bond of doctrine and discipline, under a common code of regulations and usages, and under a common government." Those who connect themselves with us do know, or ought to know, the fundamental principle of our ecclesiastical polity. It is what it was from the first; and, much as is said against the power of the Conference, it is not difficult to prove "that the sum of that power is nothing more than the power which is essentially vested in each Minister, by the very duties which he is under scriptural obligation to perform; with the addition of that conventional authority which arises out of the voluntary act of each member of the hody, in choosing that form of church government which excludes Independency, and takes that of a Connexion." This form of government is conceived to have advantages over Independency, in securing redress of grievances,

either by counsel or discipline, on the part both of Ministers and people, through an appeal to the common authority.

It is plain, that the present quarrel is with ministerial authority; the cry is against tyranny. Yet there are few among those who make the greatest outcry, who even profess to have been personally injured by the undue exercise of power: and which of these men had not flagrantly broken rule? But admitting that proceedings against them had been arbitrary and unjust; what do they but go about designedly, avowedly to "agitate to the centre," by informing all the Methodists of their universal bondage, and awakening them to survey the horrors of their dungeon, and cast about them for the chains by which "their rights as free-born Englishmen are shackled?" as if there were any parallel between a political constitution and a NewTestament church. Not that their own Preachers insult them, neglect them, tyrannize over them; but the system! the system is bad! The Preachers, good individually, are bad collectively. The system, good in its particular, local influence and effects, is, abstractedly, generally, as a whole, corrupt, illiberal, and unsuited to the spirit of the times. We in these parts are surfeited with the gratuitous assertions, hypotheses, and groanings of those whose ipse dixit is the sole, sage, sufficient proof of these and a thousand similar declarations.

which can only bave originated in the most reprehensible carelessness, or the most palpable illiberality. Considering the influence which the Methodists, as a Connexion, possess and exercise in the formation of the national character, the immense mass of ignorance, misery, and vice, which, under God, they have been a

--

means of preventing,-the positive good, in the various cities, towns, villages, and hamlets of the country, which, under the divine influence, they have produced, the moral worth and intellectual character of many of their members, the vast number of human beings who have received all their religious knowledge and spiritual enjoyments from their exertions, -their cheerful submission to the laws, and to persons in authority, and their utter abstinence, as a body, from those discussions of a political nature so injurious to the trade, the institutions, and the social character of the country, it is not too much to expect, not as a matter of courtesy, but of right, to which we are entitled on every principle acknowledged as regulating discussions on literature, philosophy, morals, and religion, that persons who profess to describe our constitution, who censure us for our defects, and suggest measures of improvement, would, at least, make themselves acquainted with the matters they profess to describe, by a candid examination of that documentary evidence of our views and proceedings which has long been laid before the world, and to which every man desirous of obtaining correct information may gain easy access. If the most ordinary degree of attention and candour had been exercised by the noble author of the "Affairs of Modern Europe," unless he can be supposed capable of the most wilful perversion of truth, he would not have blundered so egregiously as he has done in his account of the Methodists. I distinctly disclaim all political allusion in thus referring to the injury which the noble Lord attempted to inflict upon the Methodists as a body; though I unequivocally assert, that, on every principle of justice, he is bound formally to retract his calumnious mis-statements. Till this be done, he will refuse an act of restitution, of the justice of which it is said he professes to be convinced, and to which we, as a Connexion, feel ourselves entitled.

Among the writers by whom the literature of our country may be en

riched, the author of the "Natural History of Enthusiasm," and of "Spiritual Despotism," is likely to occupy a prominent place. It is not intended at present to enter upon a general notice of the acknowledged excellencies and palpable defects of these popular works. My observations will be restricted to that part of the work on "Spiritual Despotism" which relates to Methodism ; and which, though it indicates no unkind or unfriendly feeling, is calculated to convey very erroneous views respecting the position which the Pastors and members of the Methodist societies occupy towards each other. As the writer has announced a series of works on subjects of importance, I am not without hope, should he condescend to read these remarks, that he will in

future be more cautious in his conclusions, and more accurate in his researches, lest, however eloquent may be his language, discursive his fancy, vivid his imagery, his works, not being grounded in truth, which is necessary to immortality, be speedily consigned to oblivion.

The article which demands animadversion is found at pp. 392, 393, in the work on "Spiritual Despotism." It is as follows:- " John Wesley's Church of Englandism, and his respect for episcopal orders, involved, incidentally, his admirable system in an embarrassment which now threatens the integrity of the whole, and is actually dividing it. Compelled, in the prosecution of his great objects, to break away from the reach of the crosier, he nevertheless refused to consider his irregular Preachers as Clergy: this dignity belonged only to himself, and a few of his companions who had received a University education, and episcopal ordination. His legislative and administrative assembly therefore, the Conference, was, in his view, a mixed convocation of Clergy and laity;-the latter being predominant in numbers. But this arbitrary and artificial distinction, a mere canonical fiction, necessarily grew fainter and fainter every year; and soon completely disappeared. Yet the silent change was of vital

consequence; for thenceforward the society fell into the despotic form of a purely hierarchical polity. The Preachers the Clergy, no longer pretending to call themselves laymen-managed affairs apart from, and to the exclusion of, the people. This might last while the personal authority of several of the venerated colleagues of the Founder was at hand to check resistance; but the removal of these respected men was the signal of rebellion. In the temper of the present times, an unmixed and irresponsible hierarchy will not be endured. The Wesleyan leaders should long ago have discerned the growing danger, and have prevented the schisms that have actually happened, by rendering the Conference what Wesley intended it to be,-a convocation of Clergy and laity. Disinterested spectators cannot but grieve to see a system, so excellent originally, and which has effected so much good, generating feud upon feud, scandal upon scandal, the consequence of which must be a loss of genuine influence over the people, and a lowering of ministerial character in that communion. Shall the established Church, with a noble and a Christian-like concession to the circumstances of the times, embrace Wesleyan Methodism, leaving to it its vitality and independence; and so, while it loses a formidable opponent, gain an efficient ally?"

"Church of Englandism, and his respect for episcopal orders, involved, incidentally, his admirable system in an embarrassment which now threatens the integrity of the whole, and is actually dividing it." That the Founder of Methodism had a strong attachment to the Church of England, and, especially in the early part of his life, great respect for episcopal orders, I admit; but that his views on these matters involved his "admirable system" in embarrassment, I deny. The system which he established is indeed "admirable," and worthy of everlasting perpetuation. As a system it is in no embarrassment, but retains its pristine vigour and purity; and its energies are unimpaired and unbroken. It still guards, with the same impartial and watchful attention, the door through which its Pastors enter into the ministry; requiring, as sincerely as it ever did, of the candidates for the sacred office, the possession of grace, gifts, and fruit. In this important feature it has undergone, it can undergo, no change. The very moment there is the slightest deviation from this fundamental principle, it would cease to be the admirable" system of John Wesley. Is there any other system so strict in its requisitions, and so impartial in its application, as this?

But were we, for the sake of argument, to admit that this "admirable" system is now subject to some embarrassment; in what way did Mr. Wesley's “ Church of Englandism, and his love for episcopal orders, involve" it in this embarrassment? Is he to be regarded as the primary cause of an embarrassment which is felt nearly half a century after his death? To ascribe the present supposed embarrassment of the system to his "Church of Englandism, and his love for episcopal orders," is just as logical as it would be to impute effects to causes which are perfectly dissimilar; or to attempt to connect with them the variations of the weather. The agitation of the Methodist societies "involved" in the causes which are here specified, was that by which the waters of the Wesleyan ocean were disturbed on the

On this very complex paragraph, indicating so much apparent candour and kindness, but demonstrating the entire absence of all correct knowledge of the principles and proceedings of Mr. Wesley, and of his successors in the ministry, I beg to submit the following remarks; simply premising, that my object is to exhibit and vindicate truth, and not to retaliate on an able and eloquent, but, in this instance, at least, an erroneous, writer. It is with no disrespectful feeling I declare, that never, in the whole course of my reading, did I meet with a more perfect illustration of the remark of Locke respecting a class of writers, who “ know a little, presume a great deal, and so jump to a conclusion."

It is affirmed that Mr. Wesley's