gazine, I shall now be obliged to you if you will afford me the opportunity of replying to a very similar attack in the "Christian Observer," for March, in the present year.

In his January Number, the Christian Observer reviewed a collection of recently-published works, on various branches of the controversy between Protestants and Romanists. One of them, while arguing against Popery, likewise attacks the Church; but the Observer, in passing, just remarks that, though a parallel is given "between Popery and the Church of England," yet, "to be sure, the poor Wesleyan Conference is not better treated." A correspondent, signing himself "Vigil," (and whose letter is inserted in the Number for March,) says, that while he does not dissent from the Reviewer's remarks on the book in question, yet "he thinks its author has some cause for speaking of the Priest-rulianism of the Wesleyan Methodist Community." Then follow two-thirds of a page of animadversions on Methodism; on which I shall request permission, in my turn, to animadvert. To this letter an editorial note is subjoined, stating that, during the last few years, numerous letters to the effect of the above" have been received; "but," it is added, "we have always felt reluctant to enter upon the question." As a proof that such clerical complaints of Methodism are not new, the Editor says, he has had in his possession, for thirteen years, a letter written by the late Rev. John Scott, whose catholic charity is eulogized, and who, on the 5th of November, 1827, penned what, after having been suppressed so long, is now given to the public. The subject of the letter is an angry, a bitter, attack on the Wesleyan Conference, while the Wesleyans themselves are contemptnously represented as "the most Priest-ridden people in the Protestant world."

Such is the general nature of the attack of which I complain. I propose to notice the separate subjects which are adduced; and, having

done this, to remark on the real character of the entire article, ascertaining this, not merely by consulting the record itself, but likewise by referring to the time of its appearance, and to the circumstances in connexion with which it has been published.

The first point in the attack is presented by the title given to the paper, “On the anomalous Position of the Wesleyan Methodists." And among the Editor's own remarks occurs the expression: "Persons who do not pretend to dissent from the Church, while they are dismembering it." Over and over again has this been explained; and when viewed as it really is, there is nothing anomalous about it. The word "Dissent" has, of late years, acquired a peculiar meaning, as implying hostility to the principle of a religious Establishment. Formerly it was not so. The best defence of that principle that I ever read, was in a brief tract upon the subject, by the celebrated Dr. John Owen. Wishing, therefore, not to be supposed to hold the opinions which are embodied in modern Dissent, the Wesleyans have repeatedly said, that, in that sense, they were not Dissenters. But does it follow from our attachment to the principle of an ecclesiastical Establishment, in the guarded and tolerant manner in which it is now proposed and defended, that we act inconsistently by refusing to become members of the established community? mers were an English resident, would his position be anomalous, because, having advocated the principle of an Establishment, he then went to worship God along with the Scotch Presbyterians? Or is it necessary to consistency, that, because we approve the doctrines of any given community, and some portions of her services for public worship, we should therefore approve the whole,-not only doctrine and Liturgy, but discipline in principle, and discipline in administration? May not separation exist without hostility? Is it safe ground for the Church to take up, when

If Dr. Chal

her advocates say, "If you separate from us, and do not join the ranks of our enemies, your position is anomalous? If you will not give us your submission, we reject your alliance; we spurn your friendship; and we will not cease to taunt you with your inconsistency? Does the Christian Observer really think it desirable that we should move from this anomalous position? Or have he and his friends thought of asking what the new position might be? The Methodists believe that their existence, as a separate community, is providential. They believe, too, that it is their duty to maintain it; and I want to know whether the Christian Observer wishes to impress us with the conviction, that we cannot do this, consistently, unless we become Dissenters in the modern sense of the term? "Anomalous position," indeed! If I had not seen the phrase actually printed in capital letters in the pages of the Christian Observer, I could not have believed that any man of good sense would thus have spoken. And, even now, I can scarcely understand it. The whole seems to me to be rather more in the character of a taunt than any thing else. It is not the only circumstance of the day which has led me to suspect that there is a party in the Church who wish to venture the desperate experiment of reviving and of reviving practically the bigoted, excommunicating exclusivism of the Canons of 1603; but I did not expect to see them joined by the Christian Observer. At present, however, I will dismiss this part of the subject. Towards the close of this paper I may refer to it again, in connexion with another consideration or two. I content myself now with saying that I really see nothing anomalous in the position of the Wesleyans, as expressed by the adjectives independent and friendly. If to be friendly, we must be dependent, or if to be independent we must be hostile, then is our position anomalous but if independence and friendship are compatible with each other, all this talk about anomaly is worse than un

meaning; it is seriously mischiev

ous.

A second point in this attack is, as coming from a Churchman, somewhat singular. The correspondent of the Observer says, "I think he " (the writer reviewed in January) "has some cause for speaking of the Priest-rulianism of the WesleyanMethodist Community. There is no sect more completely under the control of its Teachers." On this subject the Editor says nothing. And had nothing more been said, I could have told "Vigil" to dismiss all his fears.

The present are

not times in which authority is likely to be carried too far. But there is such a power as the power of opinion. While it rests on a secure foundation, its energy is great; but when removed from its foundation, it is nothing. Vigil" will not deny that there is a power which, according to the New Testament, the Christian ministry should possess. Now, let it be supposed that the Wesleyans believe that the body of their Pastors use, designedly and actually, the power which the Wesleyan constitution gives them, for the edification of their flock; that they are satisfied with the checks and limitations by which it is both explained and guarded; and thus they feel, that whatever submission they render is entirely voluntary; let such views of the case be supposed, and it may be assumed that the result will be a considerable degree of pastoral influence. is an influence continually depending on the conviction of its honest, wise, and affectionate exercise. The truth is, the whole discipline of Wesleyan Methodism assumes the existence of vital piety. Were this lost, not only would pastoral power be lost, but the societies themselves would crumble to pieces. That which disturbs “Vigil” so much, is, I confess, to me a source of unalloyed pleasure. In no Christian church are the Pastors so completely dependent, and, at the same time, so completely independent. In no Christian church have they so much power of doing good; in none, so little power of doing harm. It is

But it

the power which results from confidence, and love, and a felt community of interests.

But, to the insinuations-the comparatively gentle insinuations--of "Vigil," must be added the really serious charges of the late Mr. Scott. These are rendered-I will not say, the more weighty, but certainly-the more plausible, by the Editor's introductory observation: "He was always ready to give the right hand of fellowship to all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." I fear there was one class which, practically at least, was exempted from these catholic regards. I pretend not to account for it, nor do I refer to the fact at all exultingly; but he does appear to have imbibed strong prejudices against Wesleyan Methodism, and especially against the Wesleyan Conference. He, with others, seem to have wished that Methodism should be a mere subordinate appendage to the Church; and that whatever in the system was inconsistent with this, should be renounced; and the independent movements by which the Methodists sought to do good by the agency which they believed God had raised up, and in those spheres to which they likewise believed that God had given the opening, did, there is no doubt, occasion a strong feeling of disapprobation, not to say of resentment, among those who did not like to contemplate Methodism under any other form than that of Church-Methodism. They would, I dare say, think that their resentment was justifiable; but the resentment was there; and, in the mind of Mr. Scott, it does appear to have produced very decided results. The Editor of the Christian Observer and myself would, very likely, differ as to the right expression for the designation of this feeling. I might regard it as an unhappy and unkind prejudice; he, as only a just resentment against those who had separated from the unity of Christ's fold. But, as I have said, the feeling was there, always ready to be called forth by what might appear as a fitting occasion.

letter in question was written, these feelings had been revived and strengthened among Mr. Scott and his Hull friends, by a plan which had been projected in their neighbourhood for the establishment of a system of "Church-Methodism," as it was termed. The projector is no more; and I therefore only refer to the occurrence as a fact necessary to be noticed, but calling for no particular comment, either as to its origin or its objects. It is enough to say, that the author of the plan was exceedingly zealous about the scheme which he had devised. He endeavoured to enlist the dignitaries of the Church in his favour; and he appears to have been successful in persuading Mr. Scott and others, not only that his proposed system was favourable to the Church, but that the Wesleyan Preachers were opposed to it from motives of personal ambition. I doubt not, but that he would say much about the power of the Conference, their possession of the chapels, and of I know not what large funds for regular distribution. They who recollect the local controversy which this scheme occasioned, will know very well that there is no surmising in all this. What was said publicly, would not be withheld privately. Mr. Scott was a historian. He had to examine the heavy charges brought by the Papists against the early Reformers. He knew very well that many of the most unfounded of these had been nevertheless presented in very plausible forms. He ought to have remembered, therefore, that, before he made certain facts the basis of any reflections, laudatory or criminative, it was his duty to ascertain that they were correct. From a person who had been a Methodist, but was now a zealous and public opponent of Methodism, Mr. Scott received certain statements; and though he was, as the Christian Observer tells us, "the continuator of Milner's ChurchHistory," yet these statements he received as furnishing a fair representation of facts, and according to them his own opinions on the subject were formed. It was under 2 F

the influence of the convictions which had thus been impressed on him, that he wrote the letter which the Christian Observer, after preserving it for thirteen years, has chosen the present juncture for publishing. Had Mr. Scott written his volumes of Church-History, as he allowed himself to write this letter, they would have been utterly worthless. I am sorry to be compelled to use such language, but no alternative is left me. What would the Christian Observer say, were a Wesleyan to listen to the statements and arguments of Mr. Beverley; (whom I mention by name, only because his writings are so well known ;) and then, having assumed their truth without any farther inquiry, to sit down and pen a letter to the Editor of some periodical, asserting, that "the members of the Church of England were the most Priest-ridden in the Protestant world;" and that “the rule of the hierarchy was often an usurped and abused rule over the consciences of the people?" I know what he ought to say; and I think I know what he would say. And yet, this is precisely the character of the influence under which Mr. Scott's letter was written.

The only satisfaction I feel is, that the Methodists have done nothing to render such an attack necessary. They are endeavouring to do good, as they may have opportunity; and they are doing this as an independent (though I again say, not a hostile) society; but this has been their conduct for many years; there is nothing new in it. The letter of Mr. Scott is gratuitously published by the Christian Observer; and now that it is brought from the privacy in which it has slumbered so long, its origin, and the character of its statements, must be explained. But in doing this, I am acting entirely on the defensive. I have no wish to exasperate any existing differences by retaliation. It is enough for me to repel the attack; and for this purpose, to show (as I think I have done) the suspicious origin of Mr. Scott's complaints, and to point out

the gross misapprehensions which his statements evince.

I need not copy the entire letter. One single spirit breathes throughout. Even where the writer allows that the Methodists may do some good by their labours, his language discovers any thing but frank and hearty acknowledgment. That, however, may pass. The approval and affection of the truly wise and good, the Wesleyans will always receive with humble thankfulness, and, in the spirit of Christian love, endeavour to respond to them; but it is not for these that they labour. They wish to promote the work of God, and to be content with the

66

praise that is of God." If this work be promoted by others, they will rejoice; and if, when themselves are made instrumental in its promotion, others will not rejoice with them, they can only regret that human infirmity should prevail over Christian sympathy. But there is a defence of their character which it would not be right for them to withhold. Mr. Scott, immediately after a sentence of very cautious and not unmingled praise, adds, Still, I believe the Methodists to be the most Priest-ridden people in the Protestant world; and the poweroften the much-abused power-of the Conference, considered as a hierarchy, I do wish to see checked and weakened." Again: By various means," they possess a formidable power."-"They are able, in a great degree, to suppress information of many of their objectionable proceedings."-" And by the delicacy which other persons, particularly those placed in situations resembling your own, exercise towards them, THEY

ARE EMBOLDENED TO DO THINGS ON

WHICH NO OTHER BODY WOULD VENTture.' ,, A more melancholy instance of the blinding power of prejudice, I have not often seen. Thus could a man, like the late Mr. Scott, to whose talents and piety no one will bear witness more readily than myself, allow himself to write, because a disaffected Methodist had persuaded him that the existing system of Methodism, as administered by the Preachers, was altogether wrong.

Some of Mr. Scott's proofs are really ludicrous. Your readers will scarcely believe him to have been serious in saying, (speaking, not of the Priest-ridden people, but of the usurping Preachers,) " They have that influence over the provincial press by their numbers and weight, in many of the most populous districts of the kingdom; and that command over their people as to what books they shall or shall not read; that they are able, to a great degree, to suppress information of many of their objectionable proceedings." I do not refer to the closing words," their objectionable proceedings," but to the statement, that they are able to suppress information of them," and to the reasons which are alleged for the assertion. Many of the proceedings of the Conference, Mr. Scott might regard as objectionable; but, as to the societies, at all events, no information concerning them is suppressed. What the Preachers do, the people know, and, to a greater extent than Mr. Scott supposed, approve likewise. And it is in that knowledge and approval that the real strength of the Conference consists. So far as their proceedings relate to the societies, they are published in the Annual Minutes; and these are always extensively read. A more accurate acquaintance with Methodism would have taught Mr. Scott that the societies, by means of their Quarterly-Meetings, have the power of objecting to any new rules relating to the Connexion, and of limiting their operation, till subjected to farther discussion. As to what is said respecting "command over their people as to the books they shall or shall not read," no Methodist will call for a reply. Nor does the assertion respecting the provincial press require much more notice. Where the Preachers are so numerous, the people must be numerous likewise; and it is to the most numerous class that the con

neither in finding for those champions a public hearing. It is not for me to say, what Mr. Scott might have been persuaded by his informant to believe; but had he sought for exact information on this subject, he would soon have found that his assertions (of which, let me again say, I do not believe he was the inventor) belonged to the class in which he himself would arrange the Papal calumnies against Luther. Mr. Scott was not the man, I very readily admit, to assert what he did not believe; but before he had made such assertions, he ought to have required very different evidence than that on the strength of which he spoke, and which, I am compelled to say, was utterly worthless. An enemy, anxious to justify his opposition, is not always a witness to be relied upon.

There are other two of Mr. Scott's assertions that require some notice. In these, as well as the others, it is rather his informant who speaks, than himself. I had rather fall into useless repetition, than run the risk of being misunderstood. I again say, therefore, that I do not charge Mr. Scott either with saying what he did not believe, or with inventing what he said. My charge is, that he too readily received what his more crafty informant laid before him, and that thus he has given the sanction of his name to statements which are at variance with fact, and brought what in themselves are calumnious accusations against the body of Wesleyan Ministers. If they do wrong, let their wrong-doing be publicly censured; but let the facts be stated as they really are. He says. "By their rule-often an abused and usurped rule-over the consciences of the people; by their control over very considerable funds; by their holding all the chapels exclusively in their own hands; and by other means, I confess they possess a formidable power." As to their "rule over the consciences of the people," no instance being adduced, I dismiss the general charge by a general denial. The members of the Wesleyan societies are members

ductors of the press will look. They want purchasers. And if the people were groaning under oppression, as there would be no difficulty in finding champions, so