taken for granted, if it be admitted at all; for not a shadow of proof can be adduced in its favour. The word angel, as every one knows, signifies a messenger. The Messiah was the sent of God, -the angel, or messenger of the covenant. The word apostle has pretty much the same meaning,- a missionary, messenger, or envoy. The Galatians received St. Paul as an angel, or messenger of God, even as Christ Jesus. (Gal. iv. 14.) Titus was a partner, and fellow helper of the apostles Paul and Timothy; and Luke and Apollos are supposed to be the persons who are styled their "brethren, the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.” (2 Cor. viii. 23) All these were itinerant ministers; and there is no evidence that the title of angel, or messenger, was ever given to a permanent officer of a single church. Christ was sent by the Father, the apostles were sent by Christ, and the evangelists were sent by the apostles; but we never read of elders being sent; for they received their official appointment for the service of those churches of which they had previously been private members. As applied to an evangelist, therefore, the word angel, would have a significant meaning; but to an elder, no meaning at all. Besides, we have abundant evidence of a single evangelist presiding in a church; but none at all of an elder ever attaining to that distinction.

I must now leave this subject to your most serious consideration. I have shown how you have been deceived and betrayed; and it is your duty, now that the cheat is exposed, to return to those who were instrumental in your conversion, who yearn over you in the bowels of Jesus Christ, who seek not yours, but you, and who will gladly spend and be spent in promoting your spiritual and eternal interests. I have demon

constitution; which is the great model your governors profess to follow. But in your connexion, the same as in the church of Rome, the whole of the executive is in the hands of the legislators. The main particulars of any government are, the head, the law makers, and the law administrators; and in these you exactly imitate the papists.

strated that God's word is in our favour, and opposed to your new system; if you, therefore, pay any conscientious regard to the authority of scripture, and have not extinguished every feeling of obligation to us for the religious helps you received while under our care, I call upon you by the sacred ties of duty and gratitude, to " depart from the tents of these wicked men" who have imposed upon you, and to re-unite with those who were your first and best guides through the wilderness of this world to the heavenly Canaan.

I am, your's affectionately and faithfully,

LEEDS, April 19, 1830.

LETTER II.

D. ISAAC.

The Conduct of the Protestant Methodists, in leaving the Old Connexion, brought to the Test of their own Professions, in a Second Letter addressed to the Private Members of that Community.

RESPECTED FRiends,

THE design of my first letter was to show that our ministry, and the more important parts of our discipline, have scripture authority for their support; and that in departing from us you have departed from the word of God. If my arguments cannot be overturned, and of that I am under no apprehension, the sinfulness of your secession cannot be denied; and your plain path of duty is to repent of your rashness, to flee from your seducers, and to return to the fold of Christ which you have deserted. I know you will feel some reluctance to retrace your steps; shame, and other kindred feelings, will operate powerfully to prevent a retreat; but since conscience, if you will allow it to speak, must condemn your late conduct, you can only enjoy peace of mind in humbling yourselves, con

fessing your fault, and availing yourselves of this invitation to return. All sects are agreed, I believe, that unity among christians, as far as it can be maintained upon scripture principles, is desirable; and that separation, when these principles do not require it, is sinful. Nothing certainly is plainer in the Bible than are the exhortations to christians, to maintain the unity of the -spirit in the bond of peace, and to avoid divisions. But since the best christians have their infirmities and failings, if every fault we could find in a church would justify a breach of its unity, divisions must be perpetual and innumerable. What is more strongly inculcated in scripture than charity? If we have not this, our noisy profession is only as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal; and if we are living under its influence, it will cover a multitude of sins, and thus, in most cases, prevent all occasion of strife and schism. What will justify a division, is a question little understood, though of infinite importance. Let us examine it.

66

1. It is a duty to separate from a church, when we have substantial reasons for believing that she is separated from Christ. The apostate church mentioned in Rev. xviii. 4, is in this awful state; and the call of duty to the few in it who adhere to the Lord, is, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." When God has left a church, it is time for his people to leave too; but if they run before him, they get on too fast; for a good man need not fear to remain where the divine presence may be enjoyed. If you can prove that God has left the Methodists, you can justify your separation from them; but if you have abandoned them, and he continue with them, you have much cause for alarm at the precipitate step you have taken.

It is no uncommon thing for the dividers to be the culpable party. There is much more said in scripture respecting divisions being made by wicked than by good men. "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing

the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts xx. 29, 30.) It would be easy to multiply passages of this sort. When one person wishes to disinherit another, we know how common it is to raise a clamour against him, and charge him with things of which he is innocent. A man's motives may be justly suspected, when he is bawling against his neighbour with a view to get his situation. Now what is the state of the case between us and your protesters? They have been vociferating against us till their throats are dry, have persuaded many of you to join them in a revolt, and have told you that you shall have itinerant ministers, such as St. Paul and John Wesley, sent forth in the name of the Lord. And how have they served you? Why, without consulting either of their professed patrons, they have stripped the office of all its powers, and unceremoniously divided these among themselves; they have promised you that they will administer them more to your advantage; and they have set up a few puppet missionaries, without any of the prerogatives of their office, who can only move as the strings are pulled by these showmen. Had they been honest men, and themselves believed what they have persuaded you to believe, they would have set up such missionaries as those who were employed by the apostle and our founder; instead of which, as I have made it abundantly manifest, they have not paid the slightest regard to either the Bible or the Minutes, though these they protested should be their guides. They have acted just like a set of rogues, who first abuse a man with words, then rob him of his money, and strip him of his clothes; and to save their own necks, try to persuade the judge and jury that the clothes were intended for them, because they fit them better than they did him; that he will do his work better in a state of nudity, than with the incumbrances about him of which they deprived him; that the money found upon him belonged to the public; and that they had a scheme by which they could employ it to the greater benefit of the

community, than he could have done. A verdict of not guilty must, of course, follow such a defence.

It is not a sufficient proof of God having forsaken a church, that there are some errors in its doctrines, worship, ministers, and people.

1. Of doctrines. A church may hold all the essential doctrines of christianity, with some errors; and yet these may not be of sufficient magnitude to neutralise the truth. Upon this point I need not enlarge, because you do not charge us with corrupting the word of God, but profess great zeal for the doctrines of Methodism. Herein you differ essentially from the protestants who effected the reformation. Their protestations lay chiefly against the doctrines of the papists, as the source of almost every other error. The corruption of worship sprung out of the corruption of faith. There would have been no idolatrous worship of the host, but for the doctrine of transubstantiation; no prayers for the dead, but for the doctrine of purgatory, etc. An impure ritual can never be associated with a pure creed. It would have sounded odd at that time of day, had the protestants expressed a warm attachment to the whole body of popish doctrine! This very circumstance ought to excite your suspicion that you are under delusion. There is another consideration also, of a very alarming nature: many of the heads of your party were suspected of heterodoxy respecting the Trinity. It was naturally expected that this most momentous subject would be noticed, in some way, in your list of doctrines; but though it extends to fourteen particulars, the Trinity is left out. Does not this startle you?

2. Of worship. No one doubts, I presume, but that worship may be spiritual in its nature, and acceptable to God, though the form and manner may possess much of imperfection. Here I must take up the organ question. I object to organs, and all other instruments of music, in public worship; because I think the christian sacrifice of praise should be "the fruit of