against it. Decency and old prejudices will not allow a direct attack on the doctrines and precepts of the bible; and the men who are their prototype and heralds are singled out for assault. Great consequences hang on this contest-not only as regards this age, but ages to come. The truth never failed to support its firm and inflexible adherents. God never countenanced turn-coats and cowards. The changes going on in this mutable world, in commerce, legislation, and arrangements of power, cannot alter the relations of man to God-the truth of the bible-the immutable nature of religion-or the obligations of both pastors and people. That which has been deposited with the Wesleyan ministry from the beginning, is the gospel of God, our Saviour;—the attempt of this fanaticism is, to wrest this precious boon from their hands, and to make its administration agree to the views and feelings of a ranting and haughty democracy. If it is fashioned to that, it must lose its present character; and the responsibility is with those who hold the trust. We have no doubt they will be faithful. Personal abuse and calumny-the suspicion of their principles and character-the loss of their temporal support, by the "stoppage of the supplies"-nay, their banishment into rude and distant climes; or, if it should please God, imprisonment at home-they can endure : but let no man touch their divine charter. They hold it on a superhuman tenure; and that array of party and brutal violence, which, by its numbers, would wrest it out of their hands, is an outrage on the law, economy, and grace, of the great Head of the Church, who has deposited the gospel with his servants-not as a subject of party litigation and strife; but to be simply, faithfully, and affectionately dispensed—for the salvation of a lost and ruined world.

THE METHODIST NEW CONNEXION AND ITS GOVERNMENT.

Lay delegation in the Methodist Conference appears to be fervently desired by most of the delegates who, on a late occasion, assembled in Manchester, as essentially requisite to introduce "a scriptural reform in Methodism." Mr. Wesley's close, diligent, and devout study of the Holy Scriptures, from his youth even to a good old age, is so well known as not to be disputed; and yet, he is considered by these worthies to have established a system of church order, which is most clearly and extensively at variance with the principles of the New Testament! How these ecclesiastical politicians magnify themselves at the expense of this great and good man, whom they profess to admire and venerate! Having heard some three or four exparte statements as evidences of a general tyranny and corruption in the government of the connexion, they proceeded, after some dispute, to pass a resolution which demands lay delegation; and “if this be conceded, every thing else," it was said, "will follow, to place Methodism on a scriptural basis." We most conscientiously dissent from the conclusion of this reforming assembly, even though, to some of its leading members, the right of popular interference in all matters of church discipline, seems to be written in the book of the Lord" as with a sunbeam. It is our conviction, that if lay delegation were to be granted to the arrogant claims of any number of unruly and ambitious men, "every thing else would follow," to revolutionize the body, and to fix Methodism on an unscriptural foundation. It has thus operated in the New Connexion. We will prove this position by selecting some measures that would arise out of lay delegation, and be contrary to "the oracles of God."

66

66

The preachers of God's holy gospel will have no control over the admission or expulsion of members of society.

The powerlessness of the ministry in reference to these two important particulars, immediately followed lay delegation in the New Connexion. Hence, we read in the general rules of that body-"The leaders' meeting shall determine on the admission and expulsion of members." The power with which this law invests a number of leaders, we pronounce to be anti-scriptural; for such authority appertains, not to minor office-bearers, but to the ministers of Christ. It is unto these that the right of admitting persons into the church of God belongs. We will adduce, in proof of this assertion, the commission which they have received, not from the church, but from the hands of their Lord and Master, and it reads as follows:-" Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." By the terms of this divine warrant, it is evidently the duty of ministers to disciple the fallen population of this vast globe, and to receive them into the church by the administration of baptism. Did not the Apostles to whom it was primarily given, thus practically un

derstand its import? On the day of Pentecost, "about three thousand souls were added to the church;" and by whom was this glorious addition made? Undoubtedly, by the men who, by God's blessing, discipled and baptized them.

66

As ministers are to receive persons into the church, so they have a right to exclude from it the unworthy. From members of depraved hearts and lives, Timothy was commanded to "turn away." How? By deserting the church which these godless members disgraced and injured? Most assuredly not. He was to separate them from the house of God, as Paul did "Hymenæus and Alexander, whom," says he, "I delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." The correctness of this interpretation is, we are inclined to think, confirmed in the charge which the inspired Apostle gave to Titus, saying "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject." This appellation-the only text in Scripture where it occurs-Mr. Wesley says, evidently means, a man that obstinately persists in contending about foolish questions, and thereby occasions strife and animosities, schisms and parties in the church." Such an individual, whatever might be his talents or station, Paul makes it imperative upon Titus to "reject." Deeming him an enemy to the peace and prosperity of the church, Titus was bound-to whatever charges of tyranny, apathy, and unkindness it might expose his ministerial reputation to expel him from its communion.That God holds ministers responsible for the expulsion of dishonourable and injurious members is likewise apparent to us, from the rebuke which was given by Him that "hath the sharp sword with two edges, to the angel of the church in Pergamos," for allowing persons to remain in its fellowship, after they had fallen into the sinful errors of Balaam and of the Nicolaitanes. If the expulsion of these glaring offenders were not the minister's duty, but the duty of the inferior officers of the church, how is it that the innocent was admonished, while the guilty escaped all correction? It is certainly due to Christ to believe, that this judicial punishment was not their office to award. No. It is not enjoined upon such a class of officers in the New Testament. Had it been their duty, it would have had a conspicuous place in Paul's epistles to the churches, with directions how to perform it in the most beneficial manner; and it would, therefore, have been omitted in his letters to Timothy and Titus, as one of the rights of the pastoral office. There is, indeed, one of his epistles which some individuals think recognises the right of the church to expel from its privileges. But they forget or overlook, that in this case of the criminal member at Corinth, the Apostle assumed the functions of both judge and jury, saying, according to Dr. Doddridge, "I have both judged and passed sentence upon him ;" and he required the Corinthians, in the name of Christ, to see that the judgment of excision which he had solemnly pronounced was duly carried into execution. The guilty man was, agreeably to the Apostle's commandment, cut off from the church that he had awfully scandalized by his immorality; and it is said, "the punishment" was "inflicted of many;" a clause which, we believe, Mr. Wesley correctly interprets-" Not only by the rulers of the church: the whole congregation acquiesced in the sentence;" they were convinced that the glory of God, the honour of Christianity, and the good of the transgressor, justified the act of his excommunication. This severe procedure was an instance of their obedience to ministerial authority, for which Paul congratulates them: "For to this end did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things."-2 Cor. 2, 9.

Having asserted and vindicated the scriptural rights of the ministerial office, in relation to the admission and expulsion of members of society, we are, at the same time, free to declare, that we have not the least desire to see these important prerogatives without any check on their exercise, in the Wesleyan connexion. They are-and, indeed, they long have been-under a wholesome and sufficient restraint, by the two following wellknown rules:-"The leaders' meeting has a right to declare any person on trial improper to be received into the society; and after such declaration, the superintendent shall not admit such person into society. No person must be expelled from the society for any breach of our rules, or even for manifest immorality, till such fact has been proved at a leaders' meeting."

Though the observance of these regulations must prevent preachers abusing the power which the Redeemer, who "counted them worthy, putting them into the ministry,' has committed to their trust; yet, under the pretext of their insufficiency, violent and dishonourable plans, have, by a party of misguided laymen, been adopted, and are in progress, to usurp this authority, without even leaving to God's ministers curb upon any its wanton administration. Such an unscriptural enterprise, lay delegation would as speedily and effectually accomplish in the Old, as it did in the New connexion. The preachers in that community ought to "feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof;" to "rule well," and so "be counted worthy of double honour;" but to call them rulers who are happy in the obedience and submission of their societies, would,

we are persuaded, be to insult them. Though they may "know how to rule their own house," yet they are not permitted to "take care of the church of God;" for in the admission and expulsion of members of society, they are only the mere mouth-piece of lay governors. An honourable attempt was made at the Conference of 1822, to elevate them a little from their helpless and degraded condition, by conceding to them a degree of control over the reception of new members. A resolution to this effect was brought before the assembly of ministers and delegates, and we shall make no apology for laying it before our readers. It reads as follows:-"That no person can be admitted into any of our societies without the concurrence of the superintendent preacher, except there be three-fourths of the leaders and society-stewards in favour of it." It is very probable, that some of the superintendents brought forward this reform bill, because they found their title empty and useless, being truly unconnected with any superintending power; they had also seen, how often two or three wealthy or loquacious leaders could command a majority on any question, right or wrong, which they espoused. As the measure of reform was exceedingly moderate, it ought to have become the law of the New connexion land. And did it not? NO! Had not the Conference power to legalize the bill? NO! Is not that Conference the supreme legislative assembly of the body? NO! The supreme legislative authority is, de facto, in the circuit quarterly meetings. If any of our readers doubt this position, let them consider the humbling and mortifying preamble to the resolution:"That the following be submitted to the quarterly meetings of our different circuits, in order to be decided upon next Conference." Now, it is clear as day, that this reform bill was to be really decided by the laity in the quarterly meetings, and then to be formally settled at the Conference of 1823. And what was the nature of this decision? Did the preachers gain in the circuit assemblies, where they would, doubtless, put forth all their powers of logic and rhetoric, the limited veto on the admission of new members? No! They were doomed to remain only "speaking brethren!" The law of 1823 is confined to re-admissions, and does not even name the superintendents! We find it in the Minutes thus expressed: "That no person who has been a member of any of our societies, but has withdrawn, or has been expelled therefrom, shall be re-admitted, except there be three-fourths of the leaders' meeting in favour of such person's re-admission." This resolution demonstrates, that the efforts of the preachers to recover a small portion of their scriptural authority, terminated, as exertions in their favour in that community generally do, in painful disappointment.

Is such the working of lay delegation? It is not at all surprising that some restless and aspiring leaders, who are imbued with the spirit of Diotrephes, wish to introduce it into the Wesleyan connexion, that they may become masters in Israel, and the preachers humbled to merely talking brethren in their presence. And are their revolutionizing schemes to succeed? Is the body to be subjected to the sovereignty of lay delegation? Never; no, never! We are fully assured that heaven and earth shall sooner pass away, than the strong and lovely fabric of Methodism shall be demolished by the confederates of a rampant radicalism. The determination expressed by the preachers at the late district meeting in the metropolis, will be most cordially echoed by their brethren in the ministry; and in that decision, we are confident, they will be vigorously • supported by an overwhelming majority of the people committed to their charge "Never will we agree to mutilate or alter the essential principles of that pure and simple constitution which, under God, was confided to us as a sacred deposit by the Rev. John Wesley." EPSILON.

(TO BE CONTINUED.)

Correspondence.

MANCHESTER DELEGATE MEETING-A FAILURE!!

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ILLUMINATOR.

Sir-The portentous cloud which has so long darkened the hemisphere, and threatened the interests of Methodism, and which is said to be composed of the mightiest elements by those who, thrusting their heads into it, have made it their "fool's cap," after being almost dissipated in Lincoln's Inn, made another attempt to burst in something like grand style, a short time since, in Manchester. Many a magician essayed to brew a tempest-"sweltered venom" rose in the market-the public were invited to witness the effect-"strange rumours were abroad," and-at length the awful hour of Wesleyan doom arrived, and the meeting of Wesleyan Delegates was held. The pro

ceedings of this assembly have been given to the world, by (to quote Dr. Warren, the great master, or, as he appeared during some of the proceedings, the mastered spirit of the faction), the forbearing, charitable, able, eloquent, elegant, Christian Advocate; a paper which the same Scotch Doctor tells us, "is entitled to the respect and support of the literary and Christian portion of the community." We are aware that to appreciate the force and consistency of this commendation, it is necessary, we should be just as remarkable for literary attainments and Christian feeling as Dr. Warren himself. We fear it will be lost upon those individuals who may differ from him in either respects. The respectable editor of this respectable journal also received a vote of thanks from the collective wisdom present. And who will say that he did not deserve it? He has certainly repaid the courtesy as the delegates intended he should, by taxing his ingenuity to make the best of a bad job. But some things are not worth mending; and the reporter's note-book account, of course the most faithful, must have been of this character. From this mass of eulogium we infer but one thing, viz.-that the account in the aforesaid journal, may be considered as official, or demi-official at least.

-46

Considering the parade and fulsome bombast made concerning the greatness and overwhelming importance of the objects of the intended meeting the loud "talk," and £800 worth of printing, which had been employed to create an interest throughout the kingdom; which interest was to be concentrated on the occasion-the boast and affidavit that 40,000 Wesleyans were favourable to the course adopted by the Association-and the assurances made by the leaders in the uproar (who are wholesale dealers in such commodities), to their followers, of nearly the universal sympathy of the connexion; some persons would, perhaps, be surprised at the aspect of things when the gathering" was complete. We were not, however, surprised at all. We were too well acquainted with the Wesleyan body, and also with the empty, vain, moonshine, blow-bubble, Hudibrastic system, adopted by Dr. Warren and his abettors. Lodgings were eagerly sought for-hundreds of delegates were expected-who never came, of course; but, like prudent folks, concluded to stay at home, lest they should be minus their travelling expenses, as well as a donation towards lightening the Chancery "millstone" which bows down and sorely galls the necks of certain of the "Heads of Houses." For these and other reasons "best known to themselves," hundreds did not come; nor, indeed, did one hundred of the many expected make their appearance. On this ground, doubtless, it was, that the meeting was considered and denominated a "provisional" one ;-in plain English it was not just the meeting the faction would like to regard in any other character. Too few were present for an acknowledgement that the strength of the party was concentrated-though that is the fact! Therefore, to keep up agitation the only chance left, it is said to be preparatory to one ten times as large (why not say a thousand and so do the thing in style ?) to be held in Sheffield during the Conference. We quote this from the earnest hope of the dear Doctor.Whether his hope of the next assembly be better founded than that which has just exploded, remains to be seen. We have no fear, as we have for some time regarded Dr. Warren's prophecies as equally veritable with the more celebrated ones of Old Mother Shipton.

An analysis of the list of circuits, delegates, &c., will illustrate the foregoing remarks. To make such an analysis is somewhat difficult, because some of the delegates whose names now for the first time appear in print, are involved in an obscurity very convenient to themselves and to their cause. This circumstance will, however, keep the following statements within the bounds of the fact and will prevent exaggeration, as all doubtful or unknown gentlemen will have the credit, whether they deserve it or no, of being Wesleyans.

At the last Conference there were four hundred and eleven circuits in Great Britain, Ireland, aud the Shetland Islands. Now although universal Methodism is roused to sympathize with the Association in its designs and proceedings, we find, that from only forty-three circuits, representatives are said to be sent. Keighly is named, but it is the Protestant Methodist circuit! Leeds has a place in the list, but not a single Wesleyan comes from thence! Instead we have four doughty champions of Protestant Methodism :-Sigston, the veteran "Lord of Misrule," Mallinson, who affirms, that Sunday School teachers are ipso facto as good ministers of Jesus Christ as any preachers in the world-Johnson, a second-rate actor in the Leeds commotion, and one of the "tail.” The Manchester branch of the Protestant Methodists is also named. This is bad fishing; eight hundred pounds spent to construct a net of "Remarks," "Appeals," "Answers,' 'Sufficient Final, &c." "Addresses," &c., and to set up "Lanterns," to allure and catch the Methodists which Dr. Warren employed for so many months with all his experience in gull-taking and flat fish netting; and, after all, to take the statement given us, only forty-three circuits caught in any shape, looks like fishing out of season.

Here

we give the Association credit for all they claim; but, if further examined, the boast of even forty-three circuits will illustrate the elegant Sancho Panza-like language of one of the delegates, and to be a reckoning the chickens before they are hatched." The whole number of delegates named is ninety-two. Now let us see how this number is made up.

1.—Five are marked as "not official”—ergo, officious! We should like to know what is meant by “official ?”—because if the term means delegated by Wesleyan Quarterly, Leaders', or Local Preachers' meetings, we challenge the Association to prove that any one of the delegates was an official person. Such formal delegation would have been blazoned in and by the meeting, as too good a thing to be lost. The delegates are said to be sent so they should be to answer their character; and they ought to be sent by Wesleyans in the manner just stated. The history of the sending of some of these sent ones would be not a little curious. Till these delegates prove their commission, we shall mark them all as "not official," and dare them to establish the contrary. If "not official" means, not officers in the Wesleyan society, so much the worse for the delegates, few, if any of whom can prove that they are such officers. 2.-Seven are Protestant Methodists, who, after some demur as to the " 'deep and mature thought" which resulted in their invitation by the Committee, were graciously allowed to take "pot luck," and to "travel in company" with the meeting, as the learned Dr. Warren hath it.

3. Twenty-five have been expelled from the Methodist society; and, no doubt some more also if we knew them. Yet these worthies would palm themselves on the world as Wesleyans, and as Wesleyan delegates.

4.-Fifty-three of these delegates are from Manchester, Liverpool, and the neighbourhood. Rochdale has eight; 1st Manchester, seven; Todmorden, five; Burnley, four; and Stockport, four representatives in the meeting. So much for the general interest felt throughout the connexion. A more complete failure could hardly be conceived. The Association will, of course, adopt their own method of accounting for this circumstance; but to unsophisticated minds the solution is easy.

But

It appears also, that out of 1070 preachers in Great Britain and Ireland, three are said to be present, viz.-the learned, amiable, and suspended Dr. Warren, "one of the hundred," and J. Lamb, and R. Emmett, who, we suppose, belong to the thousand. Will Mr. Lamb tell the public the history of his superannuation, and the nature of the charges now pending against him on that account? We trow not! his history has followed him to England-and we know it. R. Emmett is a nobody kind of personage, who would fain be somebody if he could. Besides this trio, came the dealer in inspiration, the quondam Rev. GIN Gordon, of Dudley; so that not one preacher bona fide in the work was present on the occasion. Now, if this motley group think the Conference will be swayed by their harlequin decisions, they are, to quote the debate again, reckoning without their host." As to the decisions themselves, we don't think them worth farther notice.

Some good has, however, been produced by the meeting. Dr. Warren's character is better understood-that is, if you take his own statement; to which, of course, we have no objection. "Hitherto," he says, "he had not written or spoken his mind fully he should now speak out, in honest and faithful words.” We have all along believed as much, but did not expect that the man of deep and mature thought, would have made such an admission. This justifies an observation made by one of the delegates just after the meeting, "We do not believe that Dr. W. is a sincere reformer. He would not have cried out had he not been pinched." Nay, so far from being, as he has all along professed to be, a reformer and true conservative, he, at the meeting, proclaimed himself a destructive. Hear him-"It was not easy to say how he could accomplish what he wished, without abolishing Methodism, or reducing it to a state of ruin.' And these are the "deep thoughts of the mind" of the man who has been puffing his attachment to Methodism, and his determination to live and die a Methodist. So much for his consistency! If this do not open the eyes of his deluded admirers, we pity, but we do not fear them. The Doctor has unmasked himself—and we thank him for it.

The proceedings of the assembly prove also that Dr. Warren's influence is not so very great, even with his own party. Thus we read: "The motion of Dr. Warren was then put, and negatived without a division." A new trait of character was elicited-modesty. The man who would not submit to the Conference-to his brethren in any way -to the Vice-Chancellor; but would recklessly pursue his own course, till stopped by Lord Lyndhurst, now says, that "such was his deference for public opinion,” (i. e., the opinion of the delegates) "that he would tell them-what he would hardly tell any assembly else—that he should feel more satisfied and safe in adopting their decision than