injury from these distinctions, but be actually, ay, and largely, benefited by them. Only let brotherly love be cherished, and manifested in all its proper forms of expression, and the evils of division would no longer exist, though divisions themselves might continue till a more advanced state of holy Christian knowledge. Churches, as well as families and individuals, should be, if I may use the phrase, upon honour with each other. If they are not so, boundless contention must be the result. It will not do to talk of freedom, just as if the church were to be governed by the maxims of worldly politics; though, even here, freedom alone will never lead to strength and prosperity. Order and law are equally necessary. Order without freedom would be tyranny; freedom without law would be licentiousness and anarchy; and each would be social destruction. But in the church, love is the only healthy condition. Freedom must be the freedom of love; order, the order of love. And whatever interferes with love, grieves the Holy Spirit of God. Let the Wesleyan Magazine be thrown open to all factious and discontented complainants among the Congregational churches, and they would find plenty of correspondents. I could fill a tolerably long letter were I to put down all of this kind that I have heard. Are there never any disputes in any of these churches? And might not the Methodists easily make themselves a party, and pour oil into the fire? In all seriousness, I thank God that they adopt no such policy. I have read the Wesleyan Magazine for many years. In that period, I have known many threatening disunions among other churches, heard many petty grumblings. I have known narrow-minded men, ignorant men, disappointed men, factious men, mistaken men; and all would have been glad to state their grievances wherever they had the opportunity. I recollect no instance in which they have received encouragement from the Wesleyan Magazine; and I believe firmly, so well do I, as I think, know the Wesleyans, that were an opposite line of conduct to be adopted, one burst of indignant disapprobation would proceed from the whole length and breadth of the Connexion.

I hope I shall not be misconstrued. I do not even intimate that a case could not possibly arise in which it would be right to publish letters of complaint from members of other churches: I say nothing of the kind. But I do say that the case would be peculiar, and one that must be judged by all its true circumstances at the time of its occurrence. But this is very different from making such publication the rule, and even inviting materials for it. It is this of which I complain. For some years has Methodism been thus assailed, and its more active Ministers thus regularly aspersed. Their characters have been attacked. Their conduct has not only been misrepresented, but their motives, their personal honour and integrity, have been impeached. They have been described as in some cases oppressively tyrannical; in others, despicably servile. It is time that all this were brought to an end; or, if it continue, that it be continued only there where the friends of union have no influence to put a stop to it. It is the duty of all such, if they cannot frown it down, publicly and avowedly to discountenance it. The scatterers of fire-brands must either cease from their work, or they must be left to stand alone in it, solely responsible for their own doings. Between those who are thus assailed, and those who regularly associate with the assailants, there can be no real alliance; and where the reality is not, the semblance is worse than useless, it would be injurious. Methodism seeks no support from without, but such as it is willing to repay in kind,—the support of genuine, active friendship, of Christian love. If it cannot have this, and upon equal terms, it must do as it has had to do before now,-go on, minding its own work, and looking to God for his help and blessing.

But, before I leave this branch of my subject, there is another aspect under which I think it requires to be considered. Is such conduct politic? I am no alarmist. I pretend to no new discoveries in the mystic volume of prophecy. But I cannot be blind to the signs of the times. I may be mistaken: I shall be most thankful if I am proved to be so. There are circumstances, however, which lead me to believe, that never, since the days of the Reformation, was it more necessary for the non-Episcopalian professors of evangelical Protestantism to be not only friendly, but united, than at present. Among the leaders of public affairs Protestantism is in no favour; and though Romanism may be regarded with indifference, Romanists are becoming increasingly popular. One class of our Senators dislike evangelism because they think it belongs not to the Church: their opponents dislike it bitterly on its own account. It is most evident that the higher orders of our most liberal Statesmen, whatever they may say on public occasions on the general topics of religious freedom, are not only opposed to the Methodism of religion, that is, to its orthodoxy and its evangelism, but are agreed with their political rivals in giving to the Church as much influence and power as possible, without any other reference to Reformation-principles than opposition to them may occasion. And are these the times for the friends of truth to be weakening each other by their divisions and animosities? When their opponents are increasing in number and strength, are they to be encouraged to anticipate an easy victory by the absence of anything like real union among those whose further progress they so plainly desire to prevent? If the "Christian Witness" should be successful in weakening the principles of union among the Wesleyans, and damping, by discontent, the zealous energy derived from its connexional form, will the cause of evangelical Dissent be at all strengthened? Questions of ecclesiastical discipline require for their discussion a season of serenity and peace: is it wise to withdraw a large body of defenders, when at the gates there is an enemy by whom principles are assailed,-principles all the more dear to those who hold them, because believed to be connected with the stability and spread of religion at home and abroad? In sincere friendship, I would remind the supporters of the "Christian Witness" of the solemn maxim of our Lord, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation." At all events, let the Wesleyans strenuously resist all attempts to foment internal dissension and distrust. They are strong only in their union; and no avowedly hostile assault can have half the danger of the insidious friendship which seeks to disunite them. "And every city or house divided against itself shall not stand."

As to the subjects on which the "correspondents" of the "Christian Witness" write, I shall say little about them. The views which men take depend very greatly on their general habits of thought; and we should be better able to judge of the value of the opinions put forth in these letters, did we know something of the writers. A Wesleyan who thinks that a separated ministry is a mere matter of conventional arrangement, and that a lay-Preacher ought to have an equal standing in all matters of church government and ministerial duty; as well as that the pulpits ought to be occupied regularly, and the sacraments administered, by all such, in common with those who are separated to the work of the ministry, is no impartial witness on such matters. I say no more on this point, because I know what the universal feeling is in Methodism upon it. A greater enemy to the layPreachers in Methodism exists not, than one who holds such opinions. Neither is an earnest politician, who carries what he calls liberal sentiments into

VOL. III.FOUTRH SERIES.

X

ecclesiastical matters, and would quote, as the "Witness" does, a passage from the "Municipal Corporation Report" to illustrate church proceedings, an impartial judge as to the constitution of Methodism. Undoubtedly that constitution is not founded on the popular principles of Congregationalism. One of the "correspondents" is evidently in substantial agreement with the writer of the paper on this subject. He, as well as the writer, evidently wishes the principles on which Congregationalism rests, to be adopted by the Wesleyans. On this point neither shall I say more than that the Wesleyans like best the Connexional principle. They have no desire to quarrel with the Congregationalists; nor would they wish to see the pages of their Magazine occupied with details furnished by the factious and discontented members of Independent churches, illustrating the way in which the system works. Let the members of both find better employment. Each likes his own system best. Let each endeavour, in accordance with its principles, to do all the good he can. Practice developes principles, and ultimately shows them in their true character. Eventually, that which is best, will appear best. At present there is a diversity of opinions. On this subject, as upon others, let us agree to differ. Let no Calvinist, assuming the truth of his own views, judge of the views of his Arminian brother; let no Arminian thus judge of Calvinism. And so as to discipline. I might point to some things in Independency which, on my Connexional principles, are wrong; but they are right on Congregational ones. Let the Congregationalist exercise the same forbearance, and judge of Methodism on its own principles; unless he come forward openly as an antagonist, and avow that what he seeks to effect in Methodism is, not a change of subordinate rule, but of fundamental principle. Any man has a right to do this; but even rights are to be exercised with honesty. And, in this case, common honesty requires the full avowal of the object. A republican has a right to point out what, on his principles, are the evils of a monarchy. But if he be an honest man, he will stand forth as a republican, and fight the battle, not on cases which are right or wrong according to the point of view from which they are beheld, but on great principles. If he do this, even his opponents, who think him mistaken, will confess that he is honourable, and respect him while they oppose him. If he do not, they will regard him as a subtle enemy, who wishes to effect his purpose under the guise of friendship; and though they should have to admit that he is talented, they will tell him that he is not honourable.

One of the friends of the " Witness," however, makes a very serious charge. I give it in the words of the letter, and with the italics and capitals in which it is printed. "Perhaps there never was a period in the history of Methodism, when so large a number of unconverted, unpardoned, unsanctified men were nominally in church fellowship with us, as at the present; and I attribute this mainly to OUR HAVING SO MANY UNCONVERTED MEN IN OFFICE." Let the Wesleyans judge what sort of Methodist correspondents the "Witness" has procured, by this sentence. A man does well to write anonymously when he thus libels his brethren, and plays into the hands of the decided foes of those doctrines in which the whole body of Wesleyans glory. What I mean, your readers will see when I have made a remark or two upon the fact. I do not believe in its existence; and I have had, for a long time, at least as many opportunities of knowing the state of things in Methodism as this writer. "UNCONVERTED MEN IN OFFICE." Passing by subordinate offices, as not at all necessary for the argument, there are three great classes of connexional officers,-Trustees,

Local Preachers, and Leaders of classes. Allow me to take each separately. 1. Trustees. These are not, strictly speaking, spiritual officers. They are the immediate holders of chapel property, conducting the business connected with it, and responsible for its pecuniary burdens. They ought, therefore, to be men of business, and of such a respectable position in life as will fit them for responsibility. They have often to borrow sums of money on their notes of hand; so that their names should be such as will satisfy the lender. In selecting these, there is no official investigation of their spiritual state. It is not necessary. Respectability of character and position is what is required. A man may be a good Trustee, though he has not yet "found peace with God." Except in very rare cases, to be judged on their own merits, they are members of the society; and, after all that the Editor says about "mixed communion," (on which I shall soon remark,) this, added to the fact that they are usually of some standing in the church, is no ordinary security for their piety. Taken as a body, especially considering the object of their selection, the Trustees among us are a body of men decidedly respectable, not only as to worldly position, but as to spiritual character. Instances of unfaithfulness may exist; but a little reflection will show that even where there is withdrawment from the society, a mere vote of the others cannot remove from trusteeship. Legal proceedings, often expensive ones, are necessary to exonerate from trust responsibilities; and though the case may be lamented, it is seldom that, circumstanced as the trust-funds mostly are, the expense is absolutely required. Still, these are only occasional instances, and what I have already said constitutes the rule. 2. Local Preachers.— I need say very little here. To say much, would be to reflect on those to whom I refer. I say, most confidently, that to them the remark is notoriously inapplicable. Their fidelity on this point is in every respect unimpeachable. With the care that is taken at Local-Preachers' meetings, I see not how an unconverted man could be received on trial; and when I look both at subsequent examinations, and the service required, even were such a one to get in, I am sure he would not long keep in. I know the Wesleyan Local Preachers extensively, and have thus known them for many years; but I never knew one who presented the marks of unconversion, that is, supposing continuance on the Plan. For disallowed backsliders the Local Preachers are surely not to be responsible. 3. Class-Leaders.-The same remarks are to be made here. I do not believe that unconversion exists among them, except where there has been declension, not yet publicly appreciable. The body of Wesleyan Class-Leaders comprises some of the most excellent persons in the Connexion, for spirituality, as well as for morality. It is true that great care is required in their appointment; but great care is taken. The Minister who proposes them first satisfies himself, both by inquiry of the proper persons, and by his own private examinations; and then, when proposed at the Leaders' Meeting, there is conversation on the subject, and then an examination before the meeting, followed by another conversation, and the vote of the meeting whether the examination has been satisfactory. Great pains are taken in these cases, and I believe that they are successful. It is not easy for a person to be received, or to be continued, as a Leader among us, who is Methodistically unconverted.

I have an object in view in using this phrase. Some important principles are here involved. The "Christian Witness" speaks with an air of astonishment of the "mixed communion" (so he terms it) existing among the Methodists; speaks, as if he had learned it for the first time on reading

"Mr. Caughey's volumes." However I may have wished to be brief, yet to me this subject appears so important, that I must be permitted to consider it fully. Certain charges are alleged against the terms of Wesleyan communion. I will first state, and then examine, them.

The charge is thus made:-"Methodism makes regular provision for the full admission of unconverted men in any numbers." "In apostolic times the churches, so far as man could judge, were exclusively composed of believers.” "The Methodist community, however, on this point, is constituted on an entirely different plan from that of the Apostles. According to the Rules,”let the reader who knows what these "Rules" are, notice the quotation, and especially where it stops: let him remember what is omitted, and the vast importance of the suppression to the argument. The writer thus goes on : "There is one only condition previously required of those who desire admission into these societies, viz.,-a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and be saved from their sins.' This condition, so different from that of a 'new creation,' opens a door so wide, compared with that of the true Nonconformist churches, as to admit of vastly increased numbers. This condition,' then, FURNISHES PRODIGIOUS FACILITIES TO METHODISM FOR SWELLING ITS NUMBERS WITHOUT CONVERSION." (These capitals are ours.) "On this condition' the Independents and Baptists might augment their flocks two or three fold, and go on with the process till, like the Presbyterian bodies of Scotland, they severally turned the bulk of the congregations into the churches."

Now for the proof of this. After other and similar observations, in which the writer gives his own sense-we shall soon see what that is—to what his correspondent had said, about the "great number of unconverted persons nominally in church fellowship," he quotes from Mr. Caughey, who, referring to several places where he had been labouring, speaks of numbers of persons who had been converted, having previously been members of the society. Of Mr. Caughey he says that he is, "perhaps, the fittest man alive to settle this point." More the writer then proceeds to say, expressive of his astonishment and alarm at this state of things, which, he says, is "inexpressibly awful." "The extension of such a community," he says, "is, at best, a very mingled good, and its retrogression is also a very mitigated evil.” He had just before spoken of “ THE UTTERLY AND PERILOUSLY UNSCRIPTURAL CHARACTER OF METHODISTIC MEMBERSHIP." Such are the charges: as to the proofs, I have no objection, in the present argument, to take the facts as they are given. But let us see whether, when they are rightly explained, explained according to Mr. Caughey's own meaning, they will bear the construction which the "Christian Witness writer puts upon them.

I must, in the first place, refer to a doctrinal subject. I am not going to enter into a controversy upon it. Reasons must exist which at present I do not see, to induce me to engage in this. My task, simply and exclusively, is one of explanation. I do not inquire whether the Calvinistic, or the Wesleyan, system of doctrine is the right one. But, in looking at terms and phrases, it is necessary to understand the sense in which they are actually employed. Now, generally speaking, among Calvinists, faith and justification are preceded, in Methodism followed, by regeneration. The writer in the "Christian Witness" speaks of the "new creation" as the proper condition of church membership; but the Divines of his school would apply the term so as to include in its application those whom the Methodists would call-Mr. Caughey, whom I know not, but whose Methodistic orthodoxy