will probably be the next subject of their clamour against us, I do not deem it necessary to enter on a justification of the sacrifices we have made for the sake of peace.

You will now know how to estimate the professions of your ecclesiastical legislators, about being guided by Mr. Wesley and the apostles.. They knew that many of those whom they had seduced from Methodism were warmly attached to the Bible, and revered the memory of our father in the gospel; it was therefore, necessary, in order to lull suspicion to sleep, to talk loudly about pure Methodism, and pure christianity. It was pretended that nothing more was designed than to protest against the abuses of Methodism, and to reform them, in order that our connexion might be restored to its primitive standard of excellency, and to an exact conformity with the platform of government laid down in the New Testament. The fact is, however, that they have outraged every law of Methodism, both ancient and modern, and paid no more attention to the Bible than to an old almanac. And if we are to judge of men's intentions by what they do, rather than by what they say, we are irresistibly brought to the conclusion, that the agitators in this revolt, belied their consciences in their professions, practised a foul deception on the simple souls who yielded to their guidance, and in reality cared no more for Paul and Wesley, than for the Conference preachers. They have usurped the authority of itinerant ministers, and set up themselves as the chief rulers in the church.

Your missionaries can discharge no part of the duties of their office, except preaching. They are not so much as allowed "to renew the tickets, to meet the societies," or "to address the new members who may have been admitted into the society during the preceding quarter,"-though the new converts may be the fruit of their own ministry; for these things are headed, "Duties of elders." Did ever tyranny equal this? No man who believes he is called to this office, and responsible to God for the discharge of its duties,

N N

and who understands what its duties are, can become a missionary amongst you; because he cannot do the work of an evangelist, if he would: he must either be extremely ignorant or else bankrupt, in character or fortune, if not in both.

Of all the publications on your side of the question, I have met with only one, Mr. Leach's pamphlet, in which it is attempted to show that the scriptures are in your favour and against us. Mr. L. has explained his theory with sufficient precision in the following words: "What I contend for is this, that the laws and usages of christian churches can only have the sanction of divine authority, when they are in accordance with the precepts and examples of scripture; and can only be so, when they are enacted by, or with the express consent of, the whole church; and are administered, not by a bishop, an elder, or a pastor alone, nor by a conclave or conference of such persons, but by the whole church; or when that is impracticable, by a number of persons deputed from the whole of the members of a church, and representing fairly all their interests, and all their opinions." * In illustration of this scheme of church government, Mr. L., in commenting on the expulsion of the incestuous Corinthian, reduces the authority of the apostle Paul to a single vote; and he allows the same to each member of the church. The phrases in the preceding extract of "the whole church," and "the whole of the members of a church," must include females as well as males, and children as well as adults; and I have shown in "Baptism Discussed," that there were numerous young children in the churches planted by the apostles. An inspired apostle, then, had actually, according to Mr. L., just as much authority in the church, as a girl or boy of half a dozen or half a score years of age!

Mr. L. is a radical reformer with a vengeance! What megrim will come next?

In the Protestant legislature, "the whole church" can have no voice. "The yearly meeting," in which * Page 16.

the laws are made, "shall consist of the presiding elder of each circuit; a preacher from each circuit, to be chosen by the preachers' meeting: a member of the quarterly meeting, not being a preacher, to be chosen by the quarterly meeting; and not more than three missionaries, to be sent by the missionary committee. In places where the number of members in a circuit shall exceed one thousand, two preachers and two other persons may be sent from the preachers and quarterly meetings as before directed." Not one of these, you perceive, is sent by "the whole of the members of a church." Nor have the private members much to do with the executive department of your government. I cannot find that they have a particle of power in the administration, except where, through the smallness of the society, there happens to be no leaders' meeting; then they are allowed to vote on the admission into, and expulsion from, the society. Mr. L.'s scheme is, therefore, as much opposed to your rules as to ours; and if his scripture authorities support his theory, they conclude as decisively against his friends as against his foes.

Mr. Leach has favoured us with his opinion on the rule of elders." Peter says, (1 Epistle v.,) 'The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, to feed the flock of God, not as being lord's over God's heritage, but as being ensamples to the flock.' (Ver. 3.) Here is an express declaration that the pastors of the flock are not lords over them. There was danger in those days of their fancying they ought to be, but Peter removes the ground for such an opinion. But in denying to ministers [elders] the lordship over God's heritage, does Peter state or define any powers vested in them, other than the power of instructing, warning, reproving, and exhorting their flocks? or does he allude to any methods beside these, by which they were to conduct themselves in the churches? The marked omission of any such reference in every part of the epistles, is a certain proof that nothing of the kind was known among the primitive churches, nor in

66

tended to be sanctioned by the authority of Jesus Christ. It was the assumption of later times, and one of the causes, as well as one of the proofs, that the fine gold had become dim, and the glory of primitive christianity had departed. The same effects will doubtless follow in every age, from the same causes." This is Mr. L.'s comment on the apostle Peter's exhortation to elders. He denies that they had "any powers vested in them, other than the power of instructing, warning, reproving, and exhorting their flocks;" and insists that they are not warranted to use any methods beside these," in any part of the epistles, or "by the authority of Jesus Christ." It follows, that they ought not to exercise any of the extra prerogatives vested in them by your rules. Their assumption of such powers in these later times he ranks among the causes and proofs of the glory of primitive christianity having vanished. It is an awkward circumstance that this pamphlet came out prior to the first yearly meeting, which adopted the supremacy of elders as the chief corner stone of its babel of discipline. Mr. L. was not aware, I dare say, at the time of writing his epistle, that he was putting a rod into pickle with which we should chastise his friends.

In the Protestant Magazine for May last, Mr. Leach's pamphlet is reviewed, and lauded in no very measured terms. In his list of scripture proofs, Mr. L. first of all appeals to Acts i., where we have an account of the appointment of an apostle in the place of Judas. On this he remarks, "The appointment of the highest and most important station was vested in the whole church, and was not claimed by any, nor by all of the apostles, to the exclusion of the other members." The reviewer is quite of Mr. L.'s opinion, who says, “We think this remarkable instance of the exercise of ecclesiastical power, in that important case, is quite decisive of the fact it is adduced to prove; namely, that even the apostles themselves did not attempt to monopolize the authority requisite to put in nomination two candidates for the vacant office of an apostle; but divided that au

thority with the whole church."" If you, my friends, think so too, pray have the goodness to say what you think of the state of things in your own connexion, where your elders and other officers are so far from dividing with the "whole church" the authority to appoint your apostles, that "the whole church" is never consulted, in any way, concerning such matters. But the reviewer immediately proceeds to impeach the conduct of the apostles in the whole of this transaction. He states that, "Most certainly the appointment of an apostle in his church, rested with the Lord Jesus Christ alone; that it was not until after this appointment had taken place that the plenitude of divine inspiration was imparted to the apostles on the day of pentecost:" that "this was not the first instance of Peter's zeal transcending his wisdom prior to the day of pentecost;'" and that "Jesus Christ himself filled up the vacancy by the miraculous call of St. Paul to the apostleship." According to this, the whole proceeding was nullified; because the apostles, and the whole church, were guilty of invading the prerogative of Jesus Christ; their example, therefore, is to be avoided rather than imitated. No, says our learned reviewer, "This circumstance, however, does not at all weaken the evidence of the case, in favour of Mr. L.'s argument founded thereon; for the concurrence of the whole church was unquestionably sought for by the apostles, and obtained also, in confirmation of the measure proposed by St. Peter." Reviewer! thou art beside thyself! much learning, or something else, hath made thee mad! Ordinary minds would come to the conclusion, that the concurrence of the whole church sought and obtained in an affair in which they had no right to intermeddle, but in which they usurped the authority of Christ in a point never delegated to human beings, could be no argument for the stirring of the whole church in any similar business, but a pretty strong one against it. But since the reviewer will have it, that this "important case is quite decisive of the fact it is adduced to prove," I have only to beg of