are responsible for the mischief which follows, and ought to take the shame and blame to themselves.*

In

* As a man unfit for the situation cannot become, so neither can he continue, an itinerant amongst us, without a criminal connivance on the part of the people. They have the power of dismissing any preacher from their circuit, with whose character and qualifications they may be dissatisfied; for thus it is enacted, "If the majority of the trustees, or the majority of the stewards and leaders of any society, believe that any preacher appointed for their circuit, is immoral, erroneous in doctrines, deficient in abilities, or that he has broken any of the rules of pacification, they shall have authority to summon the preachers of the district, and all the trustees, stewards, and leaders of the circuit, to meet in their chapel on a day and hour appointed. The chairman of the district shall be president of the assembly; and every preacher, trustee, steward, and leader, shall have a single vote. And if a majority of the meeting judge that the accused preacher is immoral, erroneous in doctrines, deficient in abilities, or has broken any of the rules above mentioned, he shall be considered as removed from that circuit." (Min., vol. i., pp. 323, 324.) The local officers, in such a case, will form a triumphant majority, should all the preachers vote in favour of the culprit; any circuit, therefore, can rid itself of a preacher who does not conduct himself with propriety.

And here I will take occasion to notice, the difference between our chief officers and those of the Protestants, as to the mode of their trial, the special directions how it is to be managed, and the punishment which may be inflicted. I have just mentioned a tribunal to which ours are amenable, and where the people can do themselves ample justice. No law was ever penned with greater precision. Another way of trial is before the preachers of the district only. "The chairman shall have authority to call a meeting of the committee of his district, on any application of the preachers or people, which appears to him to require it. He shall send an exact account of the complaint in writing to the person accused, with the name of the accuser or accusers, before he calls a meeting of the district committee to examine into the charge. If it appear on just grounds to any superintendent, that the chairman of his district has been guilty of any crime or misdemeanor, or that he has neglected to call a meeting of the district committee, when there were sufficient reasons for calling it, such superintendent shall have authority, in that case, to call a meeting of the district committee, and to fix the time and place of meeting. The committee thus assembled, shall have power, if they judge necessary, to try the chairman, and, if found guilty, to sus pend him from being a travelling preacher till the ensuing con

the Protestant connexion the evangelists have nothing whatever to do with the appointment of their co-ad

ference, or to remove him from the office of a superintendent, or to depose him from the chair, and to elect another in his place." (Min., vol. i., p. 259.) There is a third mode of trying a preacher, when the parties are of opinion that the case does not require so large an assembly to determine it, as either of the preceding. "If a preacher be accused of immorality, the preacher accused, and his accuser, shall respectively choose two preachers of their district; and the chairman of the district shall, with the four preachers chosen as above, try the accused preacher; and they shall have authority, if he be found guilty, to suspend him till the ensuing conference, if they judge it expedient. The chairman shall have a casting voice, in case of an equality." (Min., vol. i., p. 277.) In addition to all these, an accused preacher may be tried before the conference. These laws are as definite as any person can desire; and a child cannot misunderstand them.

Now compare the above with the Protestant rules, in reference to the trial of elders. As they have raised such a dreadful outery against the abuse of power by our preachers, the difficulty of bringing them to justice, and the natural tendency of power to corrupt its possessor; I concluded that, when they had raised their elders to the supremacy, they would have watched them with peculiar jealousy, and carefully instructed the subordinate authorities how to deal with a lordly elder. But though their rules contain particular directions respecting the trial of a private member, a local preacher, and a leader; and have given a committee authority to bandy about at pleasure a missionary; yet they have not said one word how an elder, as such, is to be tried; although they have more rules respecting elders, than any other class of persons amongst them. We should not have suspected that these gentlemen were considered as peccable, had it not been for the inti mation contained in the following rule: "All charges intended to be preferred against any member of society, must be sent in writing to the presiding elder; but in case he should be the person accused or implicated, to any other elder; who shall give one week's notice also, in writing, of the time and place of trial, to the person accused, with a list of the charges, and the name of the individual by whom they will be preferred." I can find nothing more in the rules applicable to such a case, except the following may be thought to have a bearing upon it: "In all cases of trial, the elders shall have power to summon before the proper tribunals, all disputing parties, accused persons, and the necessary witnesses." (Rules, p. 14.) The question in this case is, what is the "proper tribunal" for the trial of an elder? Upon this point the rules are silent. In all the other cases of trial, the tribunal

jutors or successors; this being referred to a committee of local officers ;-against this we protest.

before which it is to take place is particularly noted; but in the instance under consideration it is omitted! This cannot be accidental. Here is the judge, the accused, the accuser; but no one to bring in a verdict; the elder must, therefore, necessarily escape. I should like to know what hand the elders had in drawing up this marvellous scheme of church policy; the mystery of this affair might then be explained!

Compare this with the particularity of our rules respecting the trial of preachers, and even the chairmen of districts; contrast the openness of the one with the Jesuitry of the other, and no person can be at a loss to determine which shows the face of a christian.

If it be said that, since a leaders' meeting may try a leader, and a preachers' meeting a preacher, so a meeting of elders may try an elder, I ask, how is the thing to be done where there are but two or three elders? One must preside as judge, another is the party accused, the third may be the accuser; and then there is no jury! If there were four elders, the jury would consist but of one person, a thing never heard of before in English story. The rule respecting the number of elders is this: "The number of elders shall be regulated by the largeness of the society, and the work to be done. In Leeds, seven are deemed a proper number." (Rules, p. 13.) The number of members in the circuits at the time this law was made, is thus stated in the Magazine for November following: namely, "Leeds, 1553; Barnsley, 445; Preston, 253; York, 120; Newark, 47; Walls-end, 62." If seven be deemed a proper number for Leeds, and the number for the other circuits, as the law directs," be regulated by the largeness of the societies," then there is not a circuit besides Leeds entitled to three. would be nonsense in the extreme, in this state of things, to talk of elders trying elders. Besides, the trial by peers is not an acknowledged principle of the connexion. The missionaries and private members, are deprived of the privilege; the elders, therefore, cannot try one another, without the authority of an express law.

It

Nor will it help the cause to say, that, as "elders must be preachers," they may be tried by a preachers' meeting; for this meeting can only take cognizance of offences against its own rules: the preachers can only try a person as a preacher for transgressing the preachers' laws; not as an elder, for violating the laws of the eldership. The same person may be both a preacher and a leader; but no one pretends that he can be tried in the leaders' meeting for the neglect of his duties as a preacher. And so after all the hubbub which has been raised against us, as pa

10. Our evangelists have, as those of the New Testament had, control over the funds of the society. We have associated with us, however, in the management of them, many of our respectable friends, who cheerfully take upon themselves the chief of the labour: so that the preachers have little more to do than to exercise a general superintendence, which does not interfere with their spiritual duties. Thus, we have society stewards for the management of the society's fund, poor stewards for the poor fund, and circuit stewards for the circuit fund. As committees, and collectors, our people have the chief care of the missionary fund, school fund, chapel fund, etc. As to the auxiliary fund, we think that we know the wants of superannuated preachers, preachers' widows, and children, better than other persons do, and, therefore, do not need their assistance in disbursing this money. By the annual reports, however, the subscribers may see how their money is disposed of. The legal fund is for the maintenance of worn-out preachers and their families, and supported principally by our own subscriptions; and others have no more right of interference with it than with the fund of any other annuitant society. The pretended right of our small friends to meddle with the profits of the book-room, has always appeared to me preposterous; as though attention to the duties of the ministry actually deprived preachers of common sense, in relation to the ordinary affairs of life. The sale of religious publications is not inconsistent with their office; and they have as much right to the fair gains they make, as any man has to the

pists, and tyrants, they have no sooner deprived the evangelists of all power, than they assume to themselves prerogatives, which even the papists have denied to the pope, with all his infallibility; for the council of Constance not only decreed, that a general council has authority to depose a pope, but they acted upon it. I will, however, defy the most artful Protestants to show from their rules how a presiding elder may be deposed. I wonder the words popery and tyranny, which these men are perpetually bawling out against us, do not stick in their throats and choke them!

profits of his business; and their devoting thousands a year from this concern to the extension of the work of God among us, entitles them to the thanks of all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. I wonder it was never seriously proposed, in this age of marvels, to appoint preacher stewards, whose business it should be to take charge of the preachers' salary, and to dispose of it for them, that their heavenly meditations might not be disturbed with the intrusion of such earthly vanities. If this scheme were adopted, radical stewards would soon reduce them to jail allowance for the belly; and for their filthy lucre, would furnish them with filthy rags, for the back. The Protestants have deprived their missionaries of all control over their funds, and transferred it to the presiding elder and others. As this has been proved to be contrary to Scripture, we protest against it.

11. The whole discipline of churches where evangelists resided, as in the instances of Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus at Crete, was administered by them. The same is observed in our connexion, which, however, has provided numerous and powerful checks against the abuse of this authority. Your governors have stripped your missionaries of every vestige of power, in direct opposition to the word of God; on which account we protest against it.

I now call upon you, and all impartial men, to decide between us and our accusers, as to which has the sanction of holy scripture. Every man whose conscience is not seared as with a hot iron, will pay some respect to the sacred records. Here we fearlessly meet the reformers. In every instance, in the preceding examination, where there is an apparent want of conformity in our discipline to the word of God, the deviation is a concession made to subordinate officers. It may be proved, however, I think, that these concessions have not been carried so far as to be irreconcilable with the spirit of the texts referred to; though they strike me as going to the extreme point of consistency. But till our opponents accuse us of conceding too much, which