there was no evidence of guilt, when a crime was committed by an associate, or in their vicinity, were required to clear themselves of suspicion by the most solemn protestations of their innocence. Now the document in question makes no inquiries into the past, but merely gives a pledge as to the future. Had they all been guilty, no confession was required, but only a promise of obedience for the time to come. The superintendent's test, therefore, was much easier than either of those appointed by Alfred and Moses. According to the laws of Alfred, the oaths of the inhabitants of the tithing to which the delinquent belonged, was not sufficient to clear them; the oaths of nine other persons belonging to three neighbouring tithings were necessary to remove from them the reproach and punishment of a crime committed by one of their associates. And in the case mentioned in Deut. xxi. 1-9, the city might be several miles from the place where the murder was committed; but that did not excuse the inhabitants from the trouble of clearing themselves of all participation in the crime, by the most solemn declarations, and the most awful ceremonies. Had they been like our Protestants, they would have stood out most stiffly against the degradation of making such confessions and expiations.

Some of the violators of our laws were known, and the superintendent determined to sift the matter to the bottom. They treated him with ridicule and contempt, set him at defiance, and boasted that a large majority of the leaders were in their favour, had attended the illegal meetings, were pledged to stand by them, and would acquit them. Common sense, and English law, and the word of God, all agreed to assure him, that the ends of justice could not be answered, if a delinquent were tried by his partners in guilt; and as this was the character given of many of the jurors by the accused, he disappointed their expectations and spoiled their mirth, by providing the test. Then came forth the dolorous lamentations against packed juries, despotic priests, and infringements on British liberty.

This document merely regarded their qualifications, as jurors, to try those against whom charges were preferred, for violating the laws of the society. The reason of the case requires, that those who try others should be impartial themselves, free from any strong bias either for or against the accused. In our civil courts, a man is not thought to be degraded by a test; for every juryman is put to his oath. There, a mere declaration is not thought sufficient; and if a juryman were to hector the judge respecting the degradation a free-born Englishman must endure, to be obliged to make oath that he will deal fairly between the king and the prisoner at the bar, and decide according to the evidence, he would soon find himself in a box, not quite so comfortable as the jury box. But before he is brought to this test, he may be excepted against by the prisoner, and dismissed, without any reason being assigned for it; and so, on the other side, if he be suspected of partiality to the prisoner, he may be ordered off unceremoniously; for "in cases where the king is party, the justices of gaol delivery, or of the peace in sessions, may reform the panels of jurors, by putting to and taking out of the names of the persons impannelled, by their discretion.”* This is carrying matters a great deal further than just requiring an expression of approval of the constitution, and determination to abide by the laws.

In all cases when rebels are known to be in a place, all the loyal subjects in it will be as anxious as government officers can be to detect them; and will therefore, cheerfully submit to any test which appears likely to answer that purpose. None but the rebels and their friends can object to this. So it was at Leeds. The faithful leaders who, contrary to the predictions of the disaffected, formed the majority, were thankful for the test. When men will rather abandon Methodism, than express their approval of it, we know what state their hearts are in; and it is high time " they went out from us."

Williams's Justice, vol. iii., p. 18.

66

Many who refused this test left us; but none were expelled for not subscribing or assenting to it. The non-conformist leaders, as they then called themselves, might have all continued in office, as well as in the society; and the past would have been buried in oblivion, on a promise that they would attend no more opposition meetings. The following resolution. was passed by the leaders' meeting, Dec. 10th, 1827: That the dissentient leaders who will not, from this time, explicitly engage to desist entirely from attending those opposition meetings, which so manifestly lead to a division, be now removed from their office." kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." To have kept in their office men who were determined to attend opposition meetings, would have amounted to a surrender of discipline, and a dissolution of the society. If you left us, therefore, on account of the test, you left us because your superintendents would not give up the whole of our discipline, and act contrary to the laws of both God and man. Think on these things; and may God open your eyes to see your sin and danger!

66

"A

The suspension of the local preacher who acted as secretary in the illegal meetings, created a strange uproar against the itinerant preachers, as being arbitrary and despotic men, who invaded the civil and religious rights of the local brethren. Let us see.

With regard to the religious part of the question, the inquiry is, whether the local preachers ought to govern itinerants, or the contrary. I have proved in my former letter, from the express testimony of scripture, that itinerant preachers, or evangelists, had authority to appoint and depose elders. It is as plain from the New Testament that the elders were local officers, as that the itinerants had jurisdiction over them. Some of the elders, at least, were local preachers. "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." (1 Tim. v. 17.) It is agreed on all hands, that labouring in the word and doctrine, denotes preaching. Here then, are local preachers, who were

elders also, over whom the evangelist Timothy had authority. There were, no doubt, in New Testament times, some local preachers who were not elders; and as your "elders must be preachers," and as you have local preachers who are not elders, you cannot dispute these points with me, without disputing against yourselves. But if the evangelists presided over, the local preachers who were elders, as we have seen they did, they must also have been superior to the local preachers who held no other office. The more offices a man holds, the greater is his dignity. This principle is admitted amongst you; for the local preachers who are elders may preside in preachers' meetings; but a mere local preacher cannot even attend a meeting of elders, and cannot preside in a preachers' meeting, if an elder be present. The conclusion then is, that according to the New Testament and common sense, evangelists or itinerants, are superior to all local preachers, whether they be elders or not. But the same conclusion may be come to in a more compendious way. Titus, who was an itinerant preacher, was not only authorised to "ordain elders in every city," but was also empowered to "set in order the things that were wanting;" which words contain a general licence to appoint any officers, or perform any act of discipline, according to his discretion. But this would not, and could not, have been the case, if the supremacy, or even a veto on Titus's acts, had been lodged in any local officers whatever.

Having demonstrated from the scripture that itinerant are superior to local preachers, and have jurisdiction over them, it only remains, to complete the defence of the Leeds superintendent, to show that scripture does not require a judge in a spiritual court to submit the decision of the penalty to a majority of the peers of the accused. This is easily done. St. Paul, though absent, decided on the expulsion of the incestuous Corinthian. (1 Cor. v. 3-5.). Timothy was charged, as having to answer to God for it in the day of judgment, to be impartial in his censure of

sinful elders; but had this point been determined by a majority of elders, they must have been answerable for it, and not the evangelist. (1 Tim. v. 19-21.) Titus was charged to reject an obstinate heretic; which he could not have done, had he merely presided in a meeting, in a majority of which the power of rejection was placed. Other examples might be

given; but these are more than sufficient.

As the governor of a church is responsible to the head of it for its external purity, he must possess the power of administering discipline on the factious. This power is reserved by our laws to our evangelists; and it is a power which they cannot give up to any body of men, unless these men could procure a transfer of the responsibility to themselves. But that is impossible, since God has not left these matters to the option of his ministers: he has connected the duty with their office; and however disagreeable to flesh and blood, (and there is no duty they have to perform so unpleasant as this,) they are bound in conscience, as they dread his displeasure, to discharge this duty with impartiality. When the venerable Wesley was traduced as a lover of power, and tyrannical, because he held the reins of discipline in his own hands; his usual reply was, as may be seen in his writings, that God had laid it upon him, that he felt it as a great burden, and that he would gladly have resigned it to others, if he could have done so with a clear conscience. But to give our people the best security they can have against clandestine expulsions, the Conference have decreed that the guilt of the accused, whether he be an officer or a private member, shall be proved in the proper meeting, to the satisfaction of a majority of the brethren, before the superintendent can pronounce sentence. Beyond this, I have shown from the word of God, he is not authorised to go.

The result of this examination of scripture evidence, as it applies to the case in question, is plainly in favour of the Leeds superintendent. The evangelists of the New Testament, we have demonstrated, had jurisdic