tion over local preachers, and all local officers, as well as private members; and to their discretion and impartiality is entrusted the penalty to be annexed to established guilt. The next point in this case is to inquire, how far the superintendent has deviated from the laws of the land, and invaded the liberties of our free-born Englishmen. From the first the local brethren at Leeds appear to have been most active in opposition to their own preachers, and to the Conference. When at a proper local preachers' meeting the secretary of the illegal meetings was cailed to account, he neither denied that he had called and attended these meetings, nor that they were contrary to our rules; and instead of making any concession, he gloried in what he had done. In English law, when a man acknowledges the truth of the charge, the jury have nothing to try, and the judge proceeds to pass sentence. The precipitancy of the young man in confessing the violation of rule, left his brethren nothing to do; they could not deny the fact, in the face of his insolent avowal of it; and the superintendent felt that, under these circumstances, he must either resign his authority, or make an ex`ample of the offender :-he suspended him from office for a short period. A most dreadful clamour was raised against this act, as arbitrary, unconstitutional, popish, etc. Mr. Barr having quoted the rule, remarks, "Now from the rule itself it is evident, that the sentence could not be taken, as no penalty is attached to its non-observance."* Mr. Barr ought to have known that it is seldom any penalty is attached to our laws; and the reason is, because the degree of guilt connected with their violation depends so much upon circumstances, that many folios would be insufficient to mark the various shades of criminality, and to adjust the proper degrees of censure; it has been thought best, therefore, to leave this matter to the discretion of the superintendent. In the administration of justice Statement of Facts, p. 23. The in our courts of law, this is very much the case. degree of punishment is not settled by the jury, but by the judge; and in many instances the law has entrusted a great deal to his discretion. But it is further objected, "As in the laws of general pacification it is stated, that no local preacher shall be taken upon the plan, without the consent of the body, it is a fair presumption, that no local preacher can be expelled, and consequently not suspended, without their consent." * It is as good an argument to say, "As no local preacher shall be taken upon the plan without his own consent, so neither can he be suspended or expelled without his own consent." Once more, "As no gentleman can take a seat in the commons' house of parliament, without the consent of the electors, so neither can he be expelled without their consent." But in spite of this conclusive way of drawing consequences, members have been expelled without their constituents having been consulted. And so Mr. Barr seriously thinks that the superintendent ought to have asked and obtained the consent of the other local preachers, before he inflicted the censure! He has told us also, in the preceding page, what the opinion of the local preachers was on this act of discipline. "The local preachers protested against such a measure, and contended that they ought, as a body, to be consulted upon the propriety of such a step, and declared that if any guilt attached to the conduct of the accused individual, which they denied, that every other local preacher who had taken part in the proceedings, was equally culpable; for that the condemned person had only acted in the capacity he had sustained, as secretary to the meetings, at their united request." This is one of the most singular paragraphs ever penned. A person takes his trial for violating a certain law, pleads guilty, and a slight censure is passed upon him. Against this several of the jurors solemnly protest; they do not deny the fact, that the + Ibid., p. 22. * Statement of Facts, p. 23. accused person had broken the law, but deny that any guilt attaches to his conduct, and insist that they ought to have been consulted on the propriety of awarding any punishment at all. But how do they make it out that no guilt attaches to this violation of law? Why because they "were equally culpable ;" and what he had done was "at their united request!" Was impudence like this ever matched? They had employed him to break the law, and they would sit as jurors if he were brought to trial, and in spite of law, would screen him from the consequences of trangression; but when his effrontery left them nothing to try, and the court, knowing their participation in his guilt, did not choose to consult them on the sentence; why then they raise a hue and cry against the tyranny and oppression of the preachers! Well, what was done next? Their oracle informs us, that "the view taken by the local preachers generally, of the suspension of one of their body, for doing an act in which they had all participated, was correct; they felt it an attack upon the whole of them; and they properly considered, that he was but the ostensible, and themselves the real party. It is then to the everlasting honour of from fifty to sixty of them, that they spontaneously resolved to consider the sentence of the suspended individual, their sentence, and his punishment, their punishment; and that they would preach no more until the sentence was revoked, or the period of punishment terminated.”* Here is the spirit of our free-born Englishmen. Let us suppose something like this to transpire in the state. A man is accused of theft, and when brought to trial makes a full confession of his crime. In this case the jurors have nothing to do; and the court proceeds to sentence him to three months' imprisonment. At this, the foreman steps forward, and insists, that the jury ought to have been consulted on the measure of punishment, because "they had all participated" in the crime; that the * Statement of Facts, p. 25. ،، sentence was an attack upon the whole of them; that he was but the ostensible, and they the real party; that they had spontaneously resolved to consider his sentence, their sentence; and his punishment, their punishment; and that they would" accompany him to prison, and share in his confinement! This would, no doubt, redound" to their everlasting honour;" and I dare pledge myself, that the county would cheerfully supply them with bread and water, till they should recover their senses, and reform their manners. But this subject must be viewed in another light. These preachers, it appears, had no sense of divine obligation resting on their consciences, to induce. them to fulfil the ministry they had received; but felt themselves quite at liberty to suspend their labours, without any call from either God or his church. These are a most singular sort of Protestants. Their ances tors did not act thus. Their conduct would have appeared in a very dubious light, if, when one of their number was silenced, the rest had all protested, that they would not speak another word in the name of the Lord, till he was restored. Instead of this, they continued at the hazard of their lives to labour after they were prohibited. But these new fangled protestants can preach or not, just as the whim seizes them. All feeling of duty and responsibility to God must have been extinct, before they could come to the rash determination to suspend their own labours. We have seen in this transaction the state of their feelings in relation to Methodism, the itinerant preachers, and Almighty God; it only remains to see how their hearts were affected towards the people. If the superintendent and Conference had offended these gentry, what had the people done, that they must be deprived of the means of grace? The consequence of the voluntary suspension of the local preachers is thus explained by Mr. Barr: "Such a determination produced, of course, the greatest consternation among the travelling preachers, well knowing that many of the chapels would be almost unavoidably left without a R R preacher." And that this might be the result, the local preachers kept their determination a secret as long as they could; so that it was only the day preceding the sabbath that the travelling preachers became apprised of it. And so these local preachers contrived, if possible, to deprive their congregations of the ministry and the other religious ordinances connected with it. If this be not taking the devil's part, I do not know what is. This shows better than volumes of professions could do, what hold the congregations had on the affections of these men. But then, the success of the scheme would have " produced the greatest consternation among the travelling preachers;" and no doubt, the greatest joy among the local preachers. And why this difference in the feelings of the two classes of preachers? I know of only one explanation: "The Protestants could jest, like infidels, with the religious feelings of their hearers; and our preachers felt anxiously concerned to promote their spiritual and eternal interests. Had the itinerants cared no more for the souls of the people than their calumniators did, instead of being seized with consternation, they could have joined in this Protestant laugh! Out of the mouth of your apologist we judge you, ye wicked servants. You must have been strangely infatuated, to think that you were bound in conscience to leave us, and unite with men who could make your privation of spiritual ordinances, matter of profane mirth! But the special district meeting! None of our writers, it is said, have ventured upon a defence of that! So far from this being true, we have scarcely a writer who has omitted it. Mr. Watson has demonstrated that a constitution like ours, cannot subsist without something of the sort, but must crumble into independent churches; and none of his opponents have dared to grapple with his main arguments. Mr. Welch, too, has taken up the same line of argument in a most masterly style; and your champions have deemed it prudent to let him alone. And Mr. Beecham has proved beyond successful contradiction, that special district |