The article on which I am now remarking professes to be a review of "The Life of the Rev. Alexander Kilham," recently published. It is composed, however, principally of observations on Methodism generally. After the explanations that have been repeatedly given on the subject, I certainly did not expect to see in the Baptist Magazine a reiteration of the common-place and empty declamations about the position which the Methodists occupy in reference to the established Church in this country. The Reviewer thinks that all the religious denominations might easily be arranged under two classes,-Churchmen and Dissenters; and that the position of the Methodists is anomalous, because they will not allow themselves to be called Dissenters, and yet most evidently are not Churchmen. It is really amusing to read a string of such questions as these:-" Do the Methodists as a body employ the Church formularies? Do they conduct their worship in places canonically consecrated? Do their Ministers receive Episcopal consecration? &c.-How is it, then, that declarations are heard so loud and frequent, of attachment to the Church? How is it that we see so great an anxiety to escape the odium of Dissent, and to be recognised by Churchmen as their friends and allies?" For my own part, I could not help saying, when I read these queries, Does the Reviewer know no better than all this would indicate? The Methodists may have taken up a wrong position; but is it really so anomalous and inexplicable? Be they right or be they wrong, they have never disguised their opinion on the subject. They have been anxious to be understood, and have most unevasively explained themselves whenever a fair opportunity has been presented: all, it seems, to very little purpose. They have been called to experience, in the treatment they have received, that prejudice has neither eyes to see, nor ears to hear, except what is agreeable to itself; and that whatever attempts are made to rectify its decisions, they are still pronounced in the same unvarying cuckoo-note. For themselves the Methodists have no particular reason to regret this. Censure is not disgraceful where it is undeserved. But they regret it for another reason. Religion itself is by such proceedings seriously injured. The readers of the Baptist Magazine, in full confidence that the Editor (who promises to do his best "to make the Baptist Magazine as superior to all other periodicals, as the principles of the Baptists are superior to those of all other Christian communions"!!!) would not insert any thing that was notoriously incorrect, take for granted that these references to Wesleyan Methodism are all true. This conception is thus fixed in the mind like a fast colour, and true charity becomes lamentably impeded in its exercise. The writer who gives such gross misrepresentations for truth, incurs a fearful responsibility. He throws the sparks about, it may be, only in sport; but he should calculate the moral consequences. "that But, in reply to the Reviewer's questions, it is only necessary to remember the logical canon, fallacies lurk in general terms." The word "Dissenter," for instance, is a general term; and the sense in which it is used must be plainly stated, before any argument can be founded upon it. Does the Reviewer mean by the term this, and no more than this, that it denotes all who are separate from the Church, and independent of it? If this, and no more than this, be the meaning of the term, then do I say, explicitly and fearlessly, that he cannot prove what he asserts, that the Methodists refuse to be called Dissenters. They profess to he as separate from the Church, and as independent of it, as any Dissenters in the kingdom; and therefore all such questions as the Reviewer strings together constitute mere pointless declamation,-declamation so evidently sophistical, so utterly worthless, that were a theological student in any respectable Dissenting seminary to present it to his Tutor as a college-exercise, he would be deservedly rebuked for his ignorance. But, while the Method ists never attempt to deny their Dissenting character in this sense of the term, they cannot shut their eyes to the fact that there is another sense in which it is now frequently used. The Methodists do not lay it down as a fundamental principle that an ecclesiastical Establishment is essentially antichristian. They believe that the State may, in its state character, recognise the divine origin and obligation of Christianity, and provide for its diffusion through the land. They believe that a religious Establishment, properly constituted and managed, and connected with what is commonly termed "full toleration," may, under God, be a great blessing to a country. Now, by many persons at the present day, the word "Dissenter" is used to include the denial of all this; to express, not merely separation from the Church, but irreconcilable opposition to it, as it is connected with the State in this sense of the term, the Wesleyan Methodists, as a body, are not Dissenters. I am not going just now to defend them. It matters not, for my present purpose, whether they are, in this particular respect, right or wrong. I am only explaining their meaning when they object to the unexplained, unrestricted application of the term "Dissent" to the system which they have embraced. In occupying their position, they may be mistaken; but there is in it nothing inconsistent, nothing anomalous. They may think it right there should be an Establishment; they may object to a systematic attack on the Establishment actually existing in the country; and yet they may see cause to be, themselves, separate from it, and independent of it. Dr. Chalmers, when in England, is, in respect to the Episcopal Church, as much a Dissenter (in the former sense of the term) as the Wesleyans. Was his position, when he lately defended the principle of an Establishment, at all (in these particular respects) an anomalous one? The Reviewer asks, "Can it be possible, we are sometimes tempted to ask, that persons so sensible and shrewd as our Wesleyan brethren, can be duped by the forced smiles and suspicious compliments of those who are avowed and determined enemies to all separatists?" The Methodists are "sensible and shrewd " enough to perceive, (and they regret that, unless they renounce all pretensions to either sense or shrewdness, they cannot avoid perceiving,) that they must expect both misrepresentation and hostility from parties not at all connected with the English ecclesiastical Establishment. I believe they are "sensible and shrewd " enough to be "duped" by neither. The Reviewer refers to the discipline of Methodism. The passages in which he does so betray either gross ignorance, or something worse. He just puts into his sentences truth enough to make them plausible; while the omissions are so numerous and important as to make the whole a complete tissue of misrepresentation. Thus, he says: "To the Conference all the chapels are consigned, and no Bishop of the Establishment more completely demands the complete surrender of an edifice intended to be used for churchworship, than the Conference insists on the transfer to itself of all right and control of every chapel, as the condition of its being supplied with Methodist Preachers." I am not now going to defend the manner in which the Wesleyan chapels are settled. As I just now said, it matters not to my present object whether that is right or wrong. The question is, Is that method fairly stated by the Reviewer? He compares the settlement of Wesleyan chapels with the surrender to Episcopal purposes of places of worship designed for the Establishment. What the conditions of the surrender in this latter case are, I do not know; but I do happen to know something of the mode in which Wesleyan chapels are settled; and when the Reviewer states that the Conference demands "the transfer to itself of all right and control of every chapel," he says what any Wesleyan Trustee could have told him was not true. The chapels, it is true, are settled in a manner quite inconsistent with the principles of Independency; but that is because the principles of the Wesleyan discipline are essentially power" of our "religious commuconnexional. I would recommend nity" is "exclusively under the conthe Editor of the Baptist Magazine trol of" the "Conference," then is to take the trouble of studying the the intimation not only incorrect, Methodist discipline, before he ad- but notoriously untrue. It is time mits any articles on the subject into that an end was put to such slanhis pages. He will never obtain for derous insinuations; for slanderthe periodical which he conducts ous they are, and only excusable on that "superiority" to which he as- the supposition that the writer was pires, if he admits articles reflecting totally ignorant of the subject on on his brethren of other denomina- which he was animadverting, and tions, which are flagrantly incorrect. that he wrote from some vague reports that had reached him, and which he would not even trouble himself to investigate. The Wesleyan system is essentially connexional: and if the writer had made inquiries on the subject, he would have found that the people love to have it so; that they love the connexional principle with an unconquerable affection; but this principle cannot be preserved without what I may call a supreme Connexional Court. The real question is, Does this Court possess, exclusively, the whole power and control of the community? The Reviewer himself seemed to fancy he was going a little too far, and therefore says, “Its power is absolute, or nearly so." So, then, there are checks and restrictions. Why were they not more distinctly adverted to? If the Reviewer knows what they are, he ought to have stated them more plainly if he does not, (and my own opinion is, that he has written in almost total ignorance of the subject,) he ought to have had the case before him, before he gave judgment on it. He may have read, for what I know, some declamatory attacks on "the Conference" in the book which he reviews, or he may not: I have never read it. But no man, with any regard to his own character, with the whole system of Wesleyan discipline before him, would even insinuate that the whole power and control of the community are exclusively in the hands of the Preachers. Our Dissenting friends just hear the words, "The chapels are settled on the Conference: the Preachers are stationed by the Conference: there is no appeal from the Conference:" and without either asking whether the expressions be The Reviewer has some remarkable admissions respecting the state of things in connexion with Congregationalism. He admits that this latter system is" perhaps chargeable with a deficiency of ministerial power." But your readers shall have the entire sentence. He says, "We have often thought, that among Congregational Dissenters there is too little of unity; an extreme jealousy of the independence of the churches has almost insulated them. There is not a healthy circulation kept up in the system: some portions of it are plethoric, and others in a state of starvation. If Methodism exhibits an excess of ministerial power, Congregationalism is, perhaps, chargeable with a deficiency. The Pastors of churches among Independents and Baptists, instead of having all the power, have often scarcely any. A few capricious individuals in office, or a small faction of ignorant and violent members, may sometimes destroy their peace, or force them from their station, without relief or appeal. But whatever alteration is desirable, and of whatever modification the Congregational order is susceptible, we should ever deprecate the introduction of a system which would confer the whole power of a religious community on its Ministers, and place the church exclusively under the control of Couneil or Synod, Conference or Association." On the Reviewer's admissions (and which, I assure him, are perfectly intelligible to all who know any thing of the workings of the system to which they refer) I shall offer no remarks. My present object is simply a defensive one; and confining myself to that, I say, that if it be meant that the whole exactly correct, or whether there are not parts of the extensive machinery intended for checks and limitations, away they go with, "We never wish to see Ministers lords over God's heritage:"" and, "Though the system of Methodism gives, in a high degree, unity of movement and promptitude of action, we cannot but deem its form of government unscriptural, and savouring more of human policy than of the wisdom which cometh from above."" It is exactly as if a foreigner, looking exclusively at the monarchical branch of the British constitution, and the legal dependence of the Judges, the army, and "the High Court of Parliament," on the Sovereign, were, from such insulated, incomplete, and partiallyobserved facts, to come to the conclusion that the English government was an absolute despotism, "or very nearly so"!! What will your readers think of the following assertion?" Not only is the name of its Founder quoted with boundless veneration, but a deference which belongs only to inspired Apostles, is claimed for the authority of Mr. Wesley." I again charitably hope, that the writer knows nothing of the matter. The assertion itself may go along with the other mis-statements of the paper. I could not help smiling when I read this observation: "There is an exclusiveness, a party zeal, which no denomination of Protestants exhibits to an equal degree." Exclusiveness, indeed! And the charge brought by a Baptist! I never knew that, among the excellencies of that denomination, an eminent freedom from sectarian narrowness was one. That, however, may pass; but when the writer attributes systematic bigotry and uncharitableness to the Wesleyans, as a religious community, other and sadder thoughts sprang up in my mind. Thus,-" Rarely are religious services exchanged with other Ministers, or the courtesy shown of giving way in the hours of worship, or of special and extraordinary meetings, to the convenience of others. Where is the Dissenting Minister who has not had his path crossed in some line of usefulness by an officious and indelicate interference ?" There is not a reader of the Methodist Magazine who will not be ready to say, on reading the last quotation, "This is too bad." It is indeed. That, among both Methodists and Dissenters, there may be instances of real bigotry, is not indeed to be denied. "To err is human." But the Reviewer refers, not to cases of exception, but to cases which mark the rule. The Methodist Preachers must be strangely forgetful and negligent, if this be so. Annually, in their DistrictMeetings, they hear read, among other general regulations, this important one: "Let us ourselves remember, and endeavour to impress on our people, that we, as a body, do not exist for the purposes of party; and that we are especially bound by the example of our Founder, by the original principle on which our societies are formed, and by our constant professions before the world, to avoid a narrow, bigoted, and sectarian spirit, to abstain from needless and unprofitable disputes on minor subjects, and, as far as we innocently can, to please all men for their good unto edification.' Let us, therefore, maintain towards all denominations of Christians, who hold the head,’ the kind and catholic spirit of primitive Methodism; and according to the noble maxim of our fathers in the Gospel, be the friends of all,— the enemies of none.'"* The truth of the charge, and its candour, are about equal. There is much more of the same kind, which I pass over. I have no wish to notice everything objectionable in the paper. But there is one insinuation which the whole body of your readers will join with me in indignantly repelling. The Reviewer says, "In the great struggle for the abolition of slavery, previously to the passing of Lord Stanley's Act, they did their duty, and they did it well:"—Yes; and they did it the more efficiently, that their interference had no taint of political bias ▪ Minutes of Conference, 1820, Question xxvi., Answer 12. about it, nor was it suspected of being designed to assist in the attainment of political objects. Let the reader mark what immediately follows, and let him say whether Methodism has any thing to expect from Dissent, more than from High-Churchism :"But then their own Missionaries were so persecuted by the planters in Jamaica, that they could not prosecute their work!"-So that Wesleyan opposition to slavery was mere selfish partisanship!" and in addition there was a master-spirit guiding the helm of the whole Connexion, deeply imbued with compassion for the injured negro, and bent on redressing his wrongs, whose mantle does not appear to have fallen upon any successor." I understand the writer, perhaps, better than many of either his readers, or my own, will do. I advise him to pay somewhat less attention to religious talebearers; and, if I thought it of any use, I would advise him to believe that men may cordially hate slavery who do not think it right to join Papists, Socinians, and Infidels in the establishment of such political speculations as Papists, Socinians, and Infidels can, on principle, admire. If we understand the personal allusion, (and even this the writer could not make without showing his total ignorance of Methodism and Methodists,) I will only say that the writer who brings forward such utterly groundless charges, and goes as far as he dares go in making them personal, goes very far towards putting himself beyond the limits of all honourable controversy. Sir, what have the Methodists done, thus to draw upon themselves the wrath of the Editor of the Baptist Magazine? To the points in controversy with the Baptists as a religious community, I recollect no disrespectful allusion in the Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine. Of the Baptist Missions I have heard the kindest and most honourable mention made from Wesleyan platforms. The whole paper is aggressive, and aggressive in the first instance. But "is there not a cause?" The writer now and then lets out the secret. Such an expression as the following, for in stance, tells us "the set of the current:"-" The complete subordination of the whole body to a hierarchy, which possesses a power almost absolute, must, we conceive, be adverse to the growth of a warm and generous spirit of freedom." The political leaven makes itself apparent here. And this, I fear, is the origin of all these heart-burnings. The Methodists have their own views of liberty; and if in any people under heaven there glows a generous spirit of freedom," it is among them. It is true, they know how to distinguish between that ennobling temper, a love of just, orderly freedom, and that ambitious lust of personal domination which so often seeks to disguise its real and dangerous character under the mask of liberty; as in Spenser's instructive allegory, even the Red-Cross Knight was, for a time, beguiled into the service of "Duessa foul, with forged beauty hid." And they have been confirmed in their conviction of the vast importance of the distinction, by the writings of a man whose name reflects honour even on the denomi nation which calls Ryland, and Fuller, and Carey, and Ward its own. Suffer me to quote a few sentences. The Editor of the Baptist Magazine may pardon the Methodists for listening to the solemn warnings of Robert Hall. In his sermon with the title, "Reflections on War," he speaks of "a daring spirit of speculation, untempered by humility and devotion," as the distinguishing feature of the present times:" and adds these remarkable words, the truth and wisdom of which the events of the last thirty years have rendered increasingly apparent :-" While it confined itself to the exposure of the corruptions of religion and the abuses of power, it met with some degree of countenance from the wise and good in all countries, who were ready to hope it was the instrument destined by Providence to meliorate the condition of mankind. How great was their disappointment, when they perceived that pretensions to philanthropy were, with many, only a mask, assumed for the more successful propagation of impiety and |