Page images
PDF
EPUB

rior to those you formerly enjoyed. The protestants of the reformation differed essentially from you in these matters. They divided from the church of Rome, because of her corruption of worship, as well as of doctrine. They deemed the mass, the worship of men, women, and angels, and prayers for the dead, to be idolatrous and superstitious; and they abolished them. They objected to the sacraments of the papists, that five were added to the original number, that baptism was vitiated by puerilities and absurdities, and that the Lord's supper was poisoned by priestly adulterations; and they rejected those of popish invention, and purified the two of divine institution. Had the protestants retained the mass, the seven sacraments, the adoration of the host, angels, saints, and sinners; and all the other abominations of Rome; what would have been thought and said of them? Had they admitted that the popish services were wells of salvation to them, and that in them they had received pardon, regeneration, and a regular growth in grace, how could they have justified their secession? Such extravagance in the reformers would have ruined their cause for ever.

I know of no other justifiable causes of separation than the three to which I have adverted above. And as you cannot defend your conduct on any of these grounds, you are guilty of disturbing the peace of the church, and of sowing discord among brethren. But since many other reasons have been assigned for the rash step you have taken, I must proceed to examine. them.

It has been affirmed that our plan of discipline is opposed to the rights of free-born Englishmen, and is destructive of liberty. Your governors have been loud in their appeals to the British constitution, claim its privilege of being tried by their peers, and spurn the slavery of being tried by a superior order of officers. One would suppose, while listening to their declamations against the degradation which the sous of freedom suffer in this land of liberty, while members of the

Methodist society, that our civil constitution existed in Palestine, in the days of Christ and his apostles, and that they took it for their model in framing their ecclesiastical polity. The New Testament knows nothing of the British constitution. We not only grant, but contend, that for excellency it stands unrivalled. But we do not forget that Christ's kingdom is not of this world; that it differs from all civil establishments in its nature, its principles, and its end; and that, consequently, the best constitution for the state would be quite unfit for the church.

Let us see how far this principle of the state is carried in your laws. The election and trial of local preachers, and leaders, is by their peers: here the analogy ends. If this principle of our civil constitution be so excellent in the church, why do you object to us for adopting it in any instance? and why do not you carry it into every grade of your own society? You have heard much of the farce of itinerants trying itinerants among us; but when local preachers try local preachers among you, then this is the noble privilege of Britons, and the glorious liberty of the sons of God! Since this principle is so liberal and spiritual, why have not your people the benefit of it? Your laws say, "Private members of society shall be tried by the leaders' meeting." Look at this, and see how you have been hoaxed. You were promised the liberty of being tried by your peers, like free-born Englishmen ; and your passions were roused almost to frenzy at the thought of the ignominy you suffered in being deprived of this right; and now the battle is over, and your new constitution is promulgated, you are just in the same condition as when you were with us, before you engaged in this conflict; for you were amenable to the leaders' meeting then, and you are so still. That the troublers of our Israel, at the time they were inflaming your minds against us, had no intention of granting you the boon they promised, is evident; for they could as easily have decreed that private members should try one another, as that they should be tried by the leaders'

meeting; but by such a rule they would have lost the prize they so boisterously contended for, which was not to increase your liberty, but to gratify their own pride and ambition.

If election and trial by peers be the great privilege of the church, why are your missionaries deprived of it ? You do not allow them any such privilege. They are to be approved by "the local preachers' and quarterly meetings," as eligible for the office; and then the committee of elders, etc., are 66 authorised to call out and employ such missionary candidates as they may approve." Missionaries have no more to do with the trial of their own body, than with their appointment. "They shall be subject to the same rules as the preachers," that is, local preachers.* One of these rules is, "Should any charge of immorality or want of conformity to our rules, attachment to our doctrines, or want of ability for the work, be preferred against any preacher, it shall first be sent to the presiding elder, who shall be empowered to summon a special preachers' meeting for the occasion, if necessary, and to call before them the person preferring the complaint, and also the accused person; and after investigating the case, they shall have power to suspend the accused preacher from office, until the ensuing quarterly meeting, whose decision in the case shall be final." are two tribunals, the local preachers' meeting, and the quarterly meeting, competent to try a missionary, neither of which is composed of his peers. But besides these two, he is amenable to another tribunal, that of the missionary committee, consisting of elders and others, to which his colleagues have no access. The committee are "authorised to employ such missionary candidates as they may approve, and as the state of the funds, and calls for assistance, may justify." So that

Here

*The Protestants call their itinerant ministers, missionaries; and those who in the old connexion are denominated local preachers, are by them termed simply, preachers.

+ Rules, p. 16.

should a missionary offend these gentlemen, they can be at no loss for a pretext to dismiss him, without any trial at all. The calls for assistance" have ceased, or "the funds" are in a declining state, or they do not "approve" of him; and he may go a begging as soon as he pleases. Here is the liberty of an Englishman, granted to a missionary, by Protestants maintaining the most liberal system of church government in christendom! He has given up his worldly employment to serve the church of Christ; and is liable to be sent adrift in a trice, by a knot of jealous elders, who have, perhaps, taken umbrage at his faithfulness..

The

It will serve to unveil the mystery of the above enactments to keep in mind that one person may hold several offices; he may be an elder, a local preacher, and a leader; but the office of elder is supreme. elders, therefore, have taken care of themselves. I have shown in my first letter, that there is no tribunal before which they can be arraigned. Every office they can grasp is to be inviolable. The leaders' meeting may have several elders in it; and, therefore, leaders are to enjoy the rights of Englishmen, and be tried by their peers: the same remark applies to the local preachers. But elders are not private members; and, therefore, these are deprived of the privilege: and as missionaries might be dangerous rivals, they are in the same predicament, and may be trampled under foot by their superiors whenever they fail to deport themselves with becoming humility!

There is another rule which ill accords with our civil constitution. "In the elders' meetings, and all other meetings, everything shall be decided by a majority of votes, the chairman to have but one vote."* In our courts of judicature, a majority does not decide a case: the jury must be unanimous. And was it ever known that the chairman, or judge, in any of our courts, was associated with the jury, and gave a vote on the fate of the prisoner?

Rules, p. 13.

In the state, it is essential to liberty that the people have representatives in the legislature, of their own choosing. But the private members in your connexion cannot send a single duputy to the yearly meeting. If the state, then, is to be the model of the church, as the brawlers about the liberties of Englishmen are perpetually vociferating, why have they deprived you of all access in your own persons, or by your chosen delegates, to the legislative assembly? The want of conformity to the British constitution, it would be easy to show, is greater in your spiritual code than in ours; if you left us therefore under an expectation that your rules were to be in accordance with our civil code, you begin to see, I hope, that your rulers have left you in the lurch; and till the above anomalies are explained, I hope we shall not be annoyed with any more silly invectives against the preachers, as the destroyers of English liberty.

In a letter from a Protestant Methodist inserted in your Magazine for August last, and addressed to the editor, the writer remarks, "As you have frequently stated that the Conference laws of Methodism are contrary to reason, to the British constitution, and to the New Testament; and as the Conference preachers stiffly deny such declarations, I beg leave to suggest, that in order to settle the dispute, you should print, in separate columns, some of the laws to which allusion has been so frequently made in your excellent miscellany, and also those of the British constitution, those of the New Testament, and lastly your own; the religious public will then be able to form a correct judgment upon the subject." The editor I presume approved of the suggestion, or, at least, wished his readers to think so, or he would not have given it currency. But none of your people have furnished the printed columns. Those of them who have thought upon the subject, know better. Their frequent statements, without any attempts at proof, appear to answer their purpose admirably well. So long as you are willing to be gulled in this way, you

« PreviousContinue »