This is the great matter of complaint;-we repeat it-it is not merely whether or not Joseph Barker could, with propriety, have been retained in the Connexion; but whether he has been expelled fairly, and in harmony with the great leading principles of the body! This is the question of questions, and this question deeply concerns every member of the Methodist new connexion. It may be stated at once, that the boasted representation of the New Connexion in the Conference is not a guarantee of liberty; it is little more than a cover to a power, equally as destructive to liberty, as any power which has ever been complained of in the Wesleyan Body. A very few individuals, perhaps amounting from six to twelve, constitute, so far as power is concerned, both the Conference and the Connexion, and whoever may suppose that the principles of the Connexion secure to them a liberty apart from the will of these individuals, they are perfectly mistaken. The mere fact of the annual committee and the Conference being composed of an equal number of preachers and laymen proves nothing; such an arrangement is only good so far as it, not professedly, but actually, protects that liberty, which the founders of the Connexion declared it to be the right of every christian to possess. With out such protection, what is lay representation worth? and in what does the New Connexion differ from other arbitrary bodies, except it be that the power to govern, although as absolute, is in fewer hands? Let the people ponder these questions, and let these questions be examined in connection with what has taken place within the last few months, and they will be able to understand their true position in the Connexion. It will not do for T. Allin to assume the authority of Jabez Bunting. The Connexion is not prepared to acknowledge him as an arbitrary ruler, or a universal Bishop; he has made too many professions in favour of religious liberty for that; and, therefore, the sooner he retires from his present office the better,-it is impossible that he can retain it without injuring the Connexion. This is not the opinion of a few only, who at

present may be the objects of his displeasure, but it is the opinion of his own friends, who, during his recent campaign, have stood by him; it is their opinion, as well as ours, that the community will not-cannot rally, until T. Allin be removed from the responsible situation which he has, for a long period, occupied in the Connexion.

upon

Let us briefly review the recent proceedings of the ruling party in the Connexion of which T. Allin is the leader. We may begin with the Manchester meeting :-This meeting was called in consequence of certain reports having reached the corresponding member, respecting the peculiar views of Joseph Barker the subject of baptism, the bookroom, and the beneficent fund. Now if the only object of that meeting had been to protect these institutions, and to obtain a distinct understanding among each other that they should be protected, the meeting might have been a constitutional one for any thing we know. With that subject, however, we have nothing to do; no one need find fault with the Manchester meeting for protecting the Institutions of the Connexion. It is not these Institutions which is the matter of enquiry, but the trial of Joseph Barker. We ask, therefore, was that trial a fair and impartial one? Was it as fair and impartial a trial as is secured in a civil court to the greatest criminal that exists within these realms? Let T. Allin answer that question, and let him answer it satisfactorily, and he will render a far greater service to the Connexion than by fishing up and down for names to support his tottering authority. One requisite to a fair trial is, that the case of the criminal is kept perfectly free from from all influences arising from predetermination; for if persons possessing high offices which give them immense influence, decide against a man before that man is tried and fairly heard in his own defence; and if these persons, moreover, use their official influence for the punishment of that man, previous to his trial, in the name of common sense we ask, what sort of trial must he have? Are we, after all this, to believe the story, that his trial was as free and unprejudiced

sence,

as though such influence had never been operating, and as though such predeterminations had never been formed! Who that is sane can admit the truth of such declarations for a moment? And yet such are the declarations made respecting the trial of Joseph Barker. It is said, nothing previously done had the least unfavourable influence upon his trial in the Conference; and yet, in the face of all this, we see the same parties who took the most active and influential part in the Conference, sitting in a meeting at Manchester, and whatever else they did at that meeting, they so far tried J. Barker in his aband in the absence of his friends, as to come to the unanimous conclusion that, unless J. Barker thought proper to withdraw from the Connexion, it would be the duty of the Conference to " remove him." Let this fact not be forgotten,—let it ever be kept in mind, that this conclusion to expel J. Barker was come to at the Manchester meeting, which was held some weeks previous to the Conference. Here then we have an important, and to the liberties of the Connexion an awful fact, viz., that all the great officials of the Connexion meet together at Manchester, and so far try Joseph Barker, as to come to a unanimous conclusion, that he must be expelled from the Connexion,— this is done weeks before Conference meets. The meeting at Manchester dissolves, but dissolves only, that each individual composing it, may act upon the conclusion to which they had mutually come. From that time, -the time at which they agree upon the fate of J. Barker, their influence is seen at work, in making that fate secure. And when the Conference arrives, the same persons, with their predeterminations, are found to be the very persons, above all others, engaged in consummating that, on which they had previously, unanimously determined. With facts like these before us, who can believe that the case of Joseph Barker, when brought before the Conference, was entirely unaffected by any thing which had been previously done? Such a statement only makes bad worse, because there is neither truth nor probability in it.

Let us now look at another matter. T. Allin, in conjunction with

the annual committee, previous to the meeting of Conference, sends circulars, containing certain resolutions bearing upon the case of Joseph Barker, into every circuit in the Connexion except those where J. B.'s friends were likely to form the majority. This proceeding also has been defended, and that defence says more for the hopeless state of the Connexion than any thing which may be said in the way of condemnation; and for this reason,-it shows that the parties in power have not only taken a course inimical to the interests of the Connexion, but that they are confirmed in that coursethey have not only lost all sense as to its impropriety, but are prepared to stand by it, and defend it to the very last. For what purpose, it may be enquired, were the circulars designed, unless it was to let the circuits know what the authorities intended to do with Joseph Barker at the Conference, and to dictate to them also, as to what they ought in duty to do? The annual committee had no reason to suspect that any of the circuits were departing, or likely to depart, from the ordinances and institutions of the Connexion; this could never be supposed-the committee did not suppose it. Why, then, did the corresponding member of that committee send to the circuits the circulars to which we have referred? Why not leave the circuits alone to manage their own work as usual? Why should the influence of the annual committee be sent forth in the form of resolutions to fetter and interfere with the judgments of the people? That resolutions from such a quarter would exert a considerable influence upon the circuits, there cannot be a question; that the circulars were understood by the circuits generally, as being intended to exert such an influence is also certain; we, therefore, have only to ascertain whether or not that influence was unfavourable to Joseph Barker, and whether it was not the cause of resolutions being passed in various parts of the Connexion detrimental to him? If this was the case, how could the circuits who had passed such resolutions under the authority and by the dictation of the annual committee-how could they, with propriety, come into Con

D

ference and vote upon the trial of a man against whom they had, by formal resolutions to a greater or lesser extent, previously pledged themselves? How could they do this with clean hands or unprejudiced hearts? How could they, in the very nature of things, while sitting in judgment upon J. Barker, think and feel and act as impartially and freely, as though they had never previously and virtually decided, or passed resolutions against him? To say that under such circumstances a man could have a fair trial, is to say that which every one who possesses any knowledge of mankind, will find it next to impossible to believe; and were the trials of persons for civil offences in our common courts of law to bear any thing like an analogy to the trial of Joseph Barker-were their trials to be anticipated and prejudiced by the official parties, who had afterwards to decide their case, in the manner his was anticipated and prejudiced, the people of England would not submit to such a mockery of justice for a day, and reformation or revolution would be the immediate consequence of such a state of things. And this is not all. Admitting, for a moment, that the circulation of the Hanley and Manchester resolutions was, so far as the case of J. Barker is concerned, perfectly harmless, it may be asked, was it the wish and intention of the annual committee that they should be so? Was it not desired nor designed by them that these circulars should influence the decisions of the then approaching Conference at all in reference to that case? This is a question which deserves consideration, because the true character of the action of an individual is determined, not so much by the extent of injury that action may inflict upon another, as by the disposition and motive of the individual from which the action proceeded. A man may fully intend to murder another, and make those arrangements which appear to him to be best calculated to carry his intentions into effect, but after all, Providence may defeat his designs; but is the man less a murderer in character, or is he in any wise less guilty than he would have been if Providence had not frustrated his murderous purposes? The answer

is plain. And it is on the self-same principle we must judge of the annual committee, in sending forth the circulars above-named into the circuits of the connexion. To suppose these circulars left the circuits as free to think and act as they found them, is to suppose an impossibility; but, even supposing that it makes no matter, it still leaves the designs of T. Allin and others exactly the same as if their designs had been fully accomplished; and as to what their designs were in issuing these circulars, there cannot be two opinions. So glaringly has the corresponding member and his associates committed themselves in the circular affair, that many of the decided opponents of J. Barker acknowledge that that part of their conduct is not to be justified. To justify it is impossible; and while the principal official man in the Connexion persists in defending it, the character and liberty of no minister in the connexion can be considered as safe.

power

We now come to the Conference; and here we find the very persons possessing the principal official in the Connexion-the persons who had decided against J. Barker, at the Manchester meeting, and who had subsequently sent circulars into the Connexion for the purpose of inducing the circuits, in an indirect manner, to come to a similar decision. We see these self same persons for the third time, taking a leading part against J. Barker in the Halifax Conference. We see them not only stating the case, but also specially pleading that case in the most disingenuous manner--in a manner the best adapted to prejudice the Conference against the character of Joseph Barker. They not only do this, but they (the same individuals) proceed to move and second and support resolutions for his expulsion; and, finally, to crown all, and to complete what they have begun, and so far carried on, they are seen holding up their hands against him, and thus giving the finishing stroke to a work which, when properly examined, and fully understood from beginning to end, will, no doubt, be looked upon as an awful work, when viewed in connexion with the interests of true religion, and as a fatal work when considered in relation to the

prosperity of the Methodist New Connexion. In this ecclesiastical tragedy in the cutting off of Joseph Barker from the Christian Ministry, we have the same persons acting the part of accusers, witnesses, counsel, jury, and judges! Such is the recent history of the far-famed Methodist New Connection; such are the alarming events to which we have briefly alluded, and on account of which thousands of the people scarcely know what to do. A "blow" has certainly been struck, and it no longer remains to be seen whether that "blow" has settled or shaken the Connexion. A few more such blows will not only shake, but shatters a community which has for nearly half a century boasted of taking the lead of all others in defence of religious liberty, and of being above all others placed upon principles which would necessarily prevent the existence of every description of corruption.

We have now named a few things which deserve notice, and from which the public must not allow their attention to be diverted. It is, in the abstract, a very little matter with them whether Joseph Barker be a good man or a bad man; for whether he be good or bad, he does not stand alone, nor will his private character make the public proceedings of T. Allin towards him one whit the better; because, admitting him to be the subject of the greatest criminalty, ought he not still to have been tried in a fair and constitutional way-in such a way that the friends of the Connexion might have seen, that while its principles afforded every facility for the detection and punishment of the guilty, they at the same time were equally efficient in protecting the character and privileges of the innocent? To these points, we also request the attention of T. Allin himself. They want explaining and illustrating in connection with the course he has been taking for a considerable time, but more espe'cially for these last few months. An explanation of these subjects, apart from the personalities of the most bitter and inveterate discription in which he has of late so freely indulged, is required at his hands. We wish him to set himself calmly and dispassionately to the work, and

if he finds himself unable thus to go into these matters, which are in reality the only ones of vital importance, we hope he will not deceive himself by supposing that he can raise himself, or the cause he is employed to promote, either by attempting the ruin of J. Barker's character, or the character of any other man.

What T. Allin says, respecting the persons whose testimony he brings forward in his defence, having been formerly the friends of J. Barker, may serve to deceive the unwary, and no doubt will do so to a certain extent, but we all know, that to have friends in prosperity is one thing, and to have friends in adversity is another. Kilham had plenty of such friends as these-friends who before his expulsion professed every thing which could be desired, but after his expulsion, when they were similarly applied to, could express their doubts and fears respecting Kilham's piety, and the like, and make use of the very same language in substance as is used by friends Oldham, Fowler, Withinshaw, &c., respecting Joseph Barker; so that such testimony as T. Allin furnishes, is no new thing;-in short, the whole scene is only the old thing acted over again, and surely no one can think that T. Allin has shown either very very much judgment, or very much taste in imitating, so exactly, the expedients which were adopted by the leading parties of the Wesleyan Body, to screen the character of their Conference from public reprobation, after that Conference had expelled Alexander Kilham for advocating the right of private judgment, and the religious privileges of the people in general.

Again, if in Kilham's case a Conference of two hundred acted wrong, may not a Conference of only "seventy" do the same? To talk of the mere circumstance of numbers being a sufficient guarantee that all shall be done righteously in a Conference; and that, when it is notorious that the greatest of numbers have frequently acted unrighteously, is to talk like one who is neither human himself, nor knows any thing at all of the properties of human nature. -Arguments of such a character, however, always carry with them

their own refutation, and consequently need no refuting. We therefore leave the matter for the present, and shall be very glad if T. Allin does not, by another publication similar to his last, oblige us to return to it again.

As the result of the foregoing observations there is one question which suggests itself to the mind,-it is this. If, in dealing with the case of Joseph Barker, T. Allin has done all right, and if the Annual Committee and the Conference have also done perfectly right, in giving their concurrence and support to his proceedings, wherein did the Wesleyans do wrong in the manner in which they conducted the trial of A. Kilham, which terminated in his expulsion? This is a question which many find it very difficult to answer; nor can it perhaps be answered fully, and to satisfaction by any one, save the individual who has said so much in condemnation of the Wesleyans, and who, notwithstanding this, has of late been closely imitating them in some of the most corrupt and arbitrary parts of their conduct. If T. Allin and others have done nothing wrong in the trial of J. Barker, what was there in the Conference which expelled A. Kilham, to justify a division in the Wesleyan body, which will not justify a division in the Methodist New Connexion? It appears to be a matter of a secondary kind whether the cases of A. Kilham and J. Barker were conducted by all preachers, or all laymen, or by an equal mixture of both; it is not the parties, but the proceedings of the parties, which merit our attention, and these proceedings, in each case, possess such a striking similarity, that it appears impossible either to justify or condemn the one, without at the same time justifying or condemning the other.

Of J. H. Robinson's letter to J. Barker we need say nothing-its own manifestly low, extreme, and sarcastic character will of itself be to all, a sufficient caution as to how, and with what limitations it ought to be received. It can do no harm, except it be to the party for whose good it was intended. By such a letter that party may be pleased, but they cannot be benefitted. With a bitter, violent, sectarian feeling, the

religious public in general never was, and it is to be hoped never will, be found to sympathise. Any one of ordinary discernment may see that J. H. Robinson has written more for the sake of the Conference than for the sake of the truth, as almost every sentence he has penned is capable of the most perfect refutation, and will in another form be very shortly refuted.

We beg in connection with this subject, to refer our readers to an advertisement on the cover of this number, of a new publication, by W. Trotter.

INVESTIGATION COMMENCED. "Is the Religion of Jesus Christ indeed destined to become the Religion of the World?"

THIS question, the first of the series we have proposed to examine, leads us to ground which has been very frequently traversed already; and an affirmative answer is now, generally, said to be the true one.

as to

We say such an answer is said to be the true one, not in order to insinuate that it is not so, but to make a distinction between mere verbal assent, and positive conviction. For we are apprehensive that in regard to this particular, as well many others, the tongue very frequently affirms what the heart denies. Had we reason to believe that a sincere, spirit-stirring expectation of the subjugation of the world to the faith of Christ, (and all sincere expectation of such an event must be spirit-stirring) was as generally prevalent as is the profession of that expectation, we should have been inclined to pass by our present question, and take for granted the affirmative of it. But we fear the one is by no means so prevalent as the other. Notwithstanding our frequent repetition of those prophecies which bear upon the subject, there must be a great deal of practical scepticism on the subject amongst us. It is impossible to conceive that the lives of many Christians would be so inconsistent with such an exalted expectation, as they must be allowed now to be, if the expectation were really cherished in each heart. For one to be convinced of the approach, and especially of the speedy approach,