him, before he applies his case, which he is in a great hurry to do, to the ruin of our system, he would be so kind as to stop a moment, and inform us, why the officers in his own community do not divide their authority with the whole church.

The reviewer next comes to the consideration of the appointment of the seven deacons, recorded Acts vi., and observes, "In the true spirit of christian ministers, the apostle called upon the church to appoint deacons to take the entire charge of managing the temporal affairs thereof into their own hands." Why then do not your rulers call upon the whole church to appoint your deacons, or poor stewards? Why have they restricted to the leaders' meeting what they contend belongs to the whole society? You know you have never been called upon to elect a deacon.

The reviewer thinks Mr. L.'s argument from Acts xv., in favour of" the whole church" having an equality of power with the apostles, is " decisive and unanswerable." Then why do you not call your pastors and masters to account for robbing you of your privileges? They persuaded you to leave us, under the pretence that we treated you like slaves; but they promised, if you would only join them, you should be raised to an equality with the apostles! You believed them. They have taken care, however, that you shall have neither voice nor representative in the yearly meeting, where their decrees are made; and they are, no doubt, laughing at your folly in being so easily cajoled.

On 1 Corinthians v. 4, 5, Mr. Leach contends that the apostle, "So far from claiming a ministerial right to rule, only requests, as a member, to be allowed to vote by his letter or epistle." This even our reviewer cannot swallow; and he takes some pains to show that this is carrying matters rather too far.

But the reviewer is soon on friendly terms with Mr. L. again, and quite agrees with him that Hebrews xiii. 7, 17, "Is not to be understood as denoting power or authority; but leading, guiding, and ruling, in the sense of conducting a person; and not in the sense of go

6

verning by authority; a thing entirely unknown in the sacred scriptures, and not claimed, nor alluded to by any of the New Testament writers." If the passage is not to be taken "in the sense of governing by authority," are we to take it in the nonsense of governing without authority? or is there no government in the church at all? In your church there is government by authority to as great an extent as in ours. The reviewer adds, "Mr. L. very properly quotes Mr. Wesley, relative to the extent of the submission there required; namely, ' Give up, not your conscience or judgment, but your own will in all things purely indifferent.' But in the Leeds case, both the consciences and judgments of nearly a thousand members, including numerous preachers, stewards, and leaders, were disregarded, opposed, and their testimony forcibly violated." I subscribe, and I can answer for my brethren that they do also, most heartily, to Mr. W.'s exposition. Did the Conference require you to give up your judgment respecting the organ? No such thing. The Conference know that many of the preachers and people disapprove of organs; and no one was ever required to alter his opinion respecting them. But the consciences of many were violated! and "forcibly violated" too! Ah, that was a sad thing indeed-to have their consciences ravished! No virgin under the greatest alarm for her virtue ever cried out more lustily than did these poor afflicted souls at this dreadful attack upon their consciences. "The Leeds Methodists had a conscientious objection to an organ in their chapel," says Mr. Leach: "The Leeds Methodists had a conscientious objection to an organ in their chapel," is reiterated by the reviewer. In proof of this, the only organ in the circuit prior to the one set up in Brunswick chapel, was secured for their own use by these conscientious gentlemen, when their consciences forced them to separate from us. They determined they would cheer their disconsolate spirits, and animate their devotions after their escape from the oppressions they had suffered under the tyrannical Conference

preachers, by the enlivening tones of the organ at Burley; and thus afford a practical demonstration to all men how much conscience had to do with their opposition to the organ at Brunswick. What state must a man's conscience be in to qualify him to set up a plea of conscience, in such circumstances as these? Since conscience then is only a stalking horse, used by the objectors to conceal motives which they deem it prudent to keep out of sight, the matter in dispute is really in their esteem of an indifferent nature; and in this case, according to Mr. Wesley, they ought to have given up their own will; and then all the evils which followed would have been avoided. Mr. Wesley adds, what these gentlemen omit, "Whoever answers this character of a christian pastor, may undoubtedly demand this obedience."

The above remarks will show what help is afforded to your cause by Mr. L.'s appeal to the sacred scriptures. The reviewer, however, will press him into your service; and I have shown in every instance in which he has done so, that Mr L.'s views of scripture are not more opposed to our plan of discipline than to your own. But if the reviewer has not the strength, he has the heart, of a Sampson; and seems to be regardless though his own system be crushed to atoms by his mighty efforts, if he can but pull down ours.

I have not occupied my time in pointing out the awful perversions of scripture which occur in Mr. Leach's production. This has been done, and done effectually, by a reviewer in the Methodist Magazine for May last. In proof of this I appeal to two reviews of his article, which appeared in the Protestant Magazine the two following months; the first in the form of a letter from an anonymous correspondent, the second under the title of a "review." In neither of these articles is the slightest notice taken of the proofs adduced by the Methodist reviewer, that all the texts urged by Mr. Leach in support of his system are misapplied; nor is any reference made to a single text of scripture; although the professed design of Mr. L. was to show

that the word of God was hostile to our plan of discipline, and favoured his republican scheme.

This silence speaks aloud all that the most bigoted Methodist could wish. Of the passages Mr. L. produced, your reviewer attacked one, in which the principal fact referred to, he contended, had not the sanction of inspiration; and he gave up another as obviously opposed to the inference Mr. L. drew from it; but he stiffly contended that the other texts supported Mr. L.'s positions. But when the Methodist reviewer had commented on the whole of Mr. L.'s scripture evidence, the Protestant advocate, though professing to answer him, dare not look at a single text. A more complete victory need not be desired. But the scurrility contained in these two Protestant articles was, perhaps, never equalled; and I only notice it, as it shows the chagrin of the writer at being so completely worsted; for no one will give him credit for it, that he would substitute abuse in the place of argument, if he could have answered his opponent by scripture and reason. Thus then matters stand between us and you, as regards the testimony of holy writ. Your champions have ceased to appeal to the Bible in support of your cause; and my task has been to show that the Bible speaks in our favour and against you, in the main points on which we are at issue.

I have demonstrated that God has attached many important duties and powers to the evangelical office. Whatever liberty the New Testament grants on the subject of church government, it gives no man, or body of men, authority to diminish the duties or privileges which are attached to an office by the Head of the church. Things which he has not settled are left to human prudence; but for us to presume to alter what he has ordained, is impious; as though we were his superiors in wisdom and authority. Of this presumption. your rulers are guilty, in reducing the evangelical office nearly to a cypher.

Let us consult common sense. Will it decide, that a man who is following secular employments six days

out of seven, is better qualified to govern the church, than another is, who devotes the whole of his time to the study of religion, and the service of Christ; or must the man of business necessarily be superior in piety and virtue to him who is given up entirely to the work of the ministry?

the

Suppose your secular men, who have at present all power in their hands, were released from their worldly engagements, and at liberty to consecrate their time, and talents, and energies, unreservedly to the advancement of the church's welfare, would this change in their circumstances unfit them for exercising the powers they now possess? Must they really be degraded and fettered exactly in proportion as their qualifications and opportunities for usefulness increase? To affirm this, would be the same as to say, that none but fools ought to govern.

If the history of the church through every age be examined, it will be impossible, I believe, to produce an instance, prior to the appearance of the Protestant Methodists, of a religious community having ministers wholly devoted to their work, who were divested of every particle of power. This is a new thing under the sun; and your legislators must be considered either as the most wise, or the most silly men, who have ever undertaken to illuminate mankind: I will leave the solution of this problem with you.

Suppose one of your missionaries to visit a heathen country: according to your laws he has no power to form a church, to appoint an officer, to administer the sacraments, or to do anything but preach; he might as well, therefore, stay at home. But suppose your society which sent him out should have authorised him to plant churches, I presume he would be required to constitute them on the plan of the societies at home. Here, however, would be new difficulties. He could make no elders in a new church; for "elders must be preachers;" and a heathen convert would not be fit to preach the moment after his admission into the church by baptism. But if there were no elders, there could