not, however, be denied that, after all, "tests" are somewhat extensively disliked. Men of heretical pravity hate the "test" of an orthodox creed; witnesses of doubtful veracity hate the "test" of a cross-examination; there are parties who hate the "test" of trial by jury; and some men there are who hate the test" of the Anti-"Fly-Sheet" Declaration. Concerning the real grounds of antipathy in all these cases, people will form their own opinions.

66

We are further told, as a reason why the Anti-"Fly-Sheet" Declaration should not be signed, that "no man is bound to criminate himself." I hope the men who thus speak do not preach any such doctrine to their congregations. If the Bible is to be credited, every man must so far "criminate himself" before God as to confess his sins, and desert of punishment, or he will never be forgiven; and every man who has wantonly injured his neighbour must "criminate himself," both by confession and restitution, or perish for ever. But, letting that pass, the document in question is so far from involving "self-crimination," that it is a full and distinct declaration of innocence on the subject to which it relates. Innocence is not criminality. A declaration of integrity is not an acknowledgment of guilt.

"Oh! but those who do not sign this document will be suspected of either writing the 'Fly-Sheets,' of approving of them, or of a desire to screen the authors; and will therefore be treated, at least, as accomplices." This is very true; and to some persons it will doubtless be an inconvenience; but there is no help for it. No man can control another's thoughts. Yet honest people ought not to lie under injurious imputations, that they may keep suspicious characters in countenance. The non-signers have chosen their own course of action, and must bear the consequences. If any of them are innocent, and yet suffer in the public estimation, they have the remedy in their own hands. They can any day relieve themselves, either by signing the Declaration, or by affixing their names to one of their own, which shall be equally explicit and satisfactory. If the non-signers are guilty, either as principals or accessories, and the public deem them such, they have no right to complain; for they "suffer the due reward of their deeds ;" and it will be well for them to remember that the censure of public opinion is not the only penalty with which such sin as theirs will be visited. "Revilers shall not inherit the kingdom of God," any more than adulterers, extortioners, and thieves. 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10.

I once thought that "Fly-Sheets" were new in Methodism, and peculiar to the present times: but in this I was mistaken. About fifty years ago there was a Methodist Preacher who was famous for the composition of such pamphlets, only he had the honour to acknowledge their authorship. He was a man of the note-book and ink-bottle, who was always on the alert, collecting scandal and gossip against the senior Ministers of the day; men who were incomparably wiser and better than himself. He was called to an account by the Conference of 1796, and expelled by a unanimous vote of that body. His name was Alexander Kilham. The late Mr. Entwisle, who was present on the occasion, says, respecting this noted pamphleteer, “He was considered as having charged the body of Preachers with many things; and having told the public he would substantiate his charges, he was called to do

this. He made nothing out. It seems he has scraped up all the reports he could, and has reported them again. Many of them are much misrepresented, and others totally false." "I am perfectly satisfied the Conference could do no other than expel him. Some times he made ill-natured reflections, and

at other times he laughed."*

There is nothing new under the sun. If Dr. Newton, Dr. Bunting, the other Missionary Secretaries, the Rev. Treasurer of the Wesleyan Missionary Society, are at present loaded with abuse by petty and petulent scribes, so were William Thompson, Alexander Mather, Joseph Benson, Samuel Bradburn, Adam Clarke, John Pawson, and others, in the last age; so was Mr. Wesley, at an earlier period; and so will the men of talent, and energy, and usefulness be, in the generation to come. Envy will still hate the excellence it cannot reach; ambition, in its eager attempts to climb, will endeavour to pull down and trample upon every one that even seems to stand in the way of its progress; and disappointed expectants of office will fret and fume because other people do not think so well of them as they think of themselves.

The fact, however, is equally undeniable and gratifying; THE BODY of Wesleyan Ministers (honest men as they are!) have shown themselves to "be CLEAR in the matter" of "Fly-Sheet" MEANNESS and TREACHERY.

TZADDI.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFERENCE.

To the Editors of Papers on Wesleyan Matters.

Who shall be the President of the next Conference? is, under any circumstances, a grave question, though not involving all the consequences which certain writers have attached to it; but at the present time it may be justly regarded as being more than usually important. The decision of this question is properly the business of the Conference itself. And, until within the last few years, parties not belonging to the Conference, and even members of the Conference themselves, have had the decency to abstain from any public agitation of the matter,—they have, at all events, avoided the impertinence of premature and offensive dictation. But in these days it would appear to be assumed, as one of the recovered "rights of man," that every thing belongs to every body; and even newspaper editors and pamphleteers, take it on themselves dogmatically to pronounce, not only what, but who, the individual must be, to whom this dignity shall be assigned. The example of this innovation on propriety was first set by the Editors of the "Fly-Sheets" and the "Wesleyan ;" and, after repeated provocations, at length, in the way of a justifiable and dutiful counter-appeal on behalf of those who have since proved to be the great majority, and probably to show that it was a game at which two parties might play as well as one, that example was in part and "for the nonce," followed by the "Watchman."

*Memoirs of the Rev. Joseph Entwisle, by his Son, pp. 170-172.

The Conference must needs be greatly indebted to the spontaneous advisers, known and unknown, who have so liberally proffered the assistance of their counsel on this interesting subject. And, as the parties thus gratuitously laid under obligation are said to be quite open to the influence of such counsel as may be suggested to them through the medium of the press, the opportunity may be embraced of adding a few words to what has been already written in the "Wesleyan" and other publications.

These sage authorities have been pleased to lay down, for the guidance of the Conference, the following very oracular suggestions, as to the qualifications of the individual to be elected as its President:-1. "That he should not be one who has been previously elected to that office."-2. That he “should not be a junior," or one of "the boys of the Connexion."—3. That he should possess the gifts of "wisdom, disinterestedness, firmness and dignity."-4. "No private or party considerations should be allowed either to promote or hinder any man's election to this office. The prime objects to be kept in view are (1) the credit and good of the Body, and (2) the fitness of the man, which fitness will be seen in the qualifications already adverted to."

As to the first of these four points, as it is not required by the "PollDeed," so neither is it required by any principle of Methodism. Palmam qui meruit ferat―(let merit bear the palm)—is surely a more rational principle and rule of action than any bye-law such as that which is now recommended for adoption; and the fact is, that no bye-law can be made that will prevent its appropriate and natural operation. The Conference of any given year, in the exercise of its discretion, may act for that year on the exceptional principle now sought to be established, but such action cannot bind the Conference, in the perpetuity of its existence, to the same stringent principle. Neither is it to be expected that it will do so. Extraordinary talents, more especially if found in close conjunction with extraordinary virtues or extraordinary services, will in future as in former years, be found to override any such prescription; and, maugre all exceptional cobwebs, the choice will inevitably fall, oftener than once, if possible, upon the gifted and meritorious individuals whom, for such reasons as may from time to time seem good to itself, the Conference shall "delight to honour." If there be any weight in the considerations which are pleaded in support of the new principle, this principle is applicable in other cases, as well as in the election of the Wesleyan President;—such, for example, as the re-election of an individual to the office of Speaker of the House of Commons, or to any office in a civic or municipal corporation. Let the first of these two cases be tested by the arguments now pleaded by the "Liberals" against the re-election of an individual to the "Presidential Chair" of the Wesleyan Conference, the word "House" being substituted for the word "Body;" and the objections against the re-election of an individual to "the Speakership" will stand thus:— 1. The honours of the House are denied to those who are entitled to them. -2. The respectability of the House is prostrate.-3. The liberties of the House are jeopardized.-4. Re-appointment, like repetition, is no exaltation. It adds nothing to the dignity of either the man or the office.-5. It is a

piece of flagrant injustice to others of equal and, in many instances, superior claims to the persons appointed.-6. It is unnecessary." The same string of objections, mutatis mutandis, may be regarded as equally availing against the re-election of any individual to the mayoralty or any other office of importance in a civic or municipal corporation.

The absurdity of their objections against the practice of the Conference upon the point in question, when those objections are thus tested by obvious analogies, is sufficiently apparent. But farther, it is quite clear that, in reality, these Liberals have, after all, no faith in their own principle, and are not convinced by their own arguments, but are simply misled by a blind feeling, having no basis either on settled principle, or honest argument. Otherwise, as professing to be General Reformers, as well as Reformers of Wesleyan Methodism, they would long ere this have opened the battery of their objections against the parallel abuse which, on their principle, so flagrantly exists, not only in the House of Commons, but in a host of civic and other Corporations throughout the country.

The second consideration-that "the President should not be a junior," or one of the "boys of the Connexion,"—one might suppose to have been nothing more than one of the low jokes for which the " Fly-Sheets" are remarkable, but that from other passages it is seen to be a spurt of sheer malignity against two or three honoured individuals, who are distinguished as having been elevated to the Presidential Chair a few years earlier in life than Ministers less gifted and less effectively devoted to the great interests of the Connexion can ordinarily hope to be. Well were those early honours earned, and most appropriately have they been accumulated, as the subjects of them have ripened to a venerable age. And let Detraction,

Yes, let Detraction do her worst to smear: she has no power to efface, nor even to affix any blot that will remain upon their ministerial escutcheon. We have, after all, one great objection to the second test, as generally applicable, and no objection at all to the other tests, which these professed haters of tests have claimed the right of enacting; and so far it is pleasant to agree with those from whom upon so many points we are compelled to differ. But, admitting all of them to be legitimate, they are not the only tests which ought to be applied. In addition to those tests, and in explanation of some covertly wrapped up in a partially hidden form, it is respectfully suggested that such inquiries as the following may very properly be instituted, with respect to any minister on whose behalf a claim to the high office in question may be made; and, especially, as it appears that party efforts are being now clandestinely, and openly made, to secure the election of a questionable man to the chair of the next Conference :—

1. Is it apparent that he is firmly attached to constitutional Methodism, or is it evident, by his continued complaints and fault-finding, that he does not regard it as fully in accordance with the teaching of scripture, and as admirably suited to the wants of the country and the world?

2.—Is he eminently a devout man, who by his spirit and conduct would shed a softening and subduing influence over the minds of his brethren, when presiding in the midst of them; or is he harsh and ungracious, watching more like a policeman for delinquents than as a co-shepherd endeavouring to promote the spiritual improvement of those with whom he is associated?

3. Has he shown himself to be a pattern of "all good fidelity" in the discharge of the duties with which he has already been entrusted?

In his capacity as the Minister of a Circuit, does he "rule well?" Does he encourage the societies over which he is appointed, to place increasing confidence in the system of Christian agency with which they are associated; or does he speak in doubtful or disparaging terms of parts of that system, and of the more public men in Methodism, and thus discourage the people in their minds, and weaken their efforts for the extension of the Church to which they belong? Does he employ the office with which he is entrusted by the Conference, to the ends of a selfish and masterful disposition; and by force, rather than by reason and by New Testament principles, carry his measures in the meetings where he may preside?

As a minister appointed to a Circuit does he "keep" that Circuit; or does he, without any special license for so doing, spend a great portion of his time out of it, regardless of rule and admonition by the Conference?

As the Superintendent of a Circuit, is he considerate and courteous in his treatment of Ministers equal with him in the associated "pastorate," as well as of the people who have the power to invite or to reject him, according to their judgment of his spirit and conduct; or does he "magnify his office" to the damage and annoyance of his colleagues, by complaining to them, and before the members of Society, of their engagement on Connexional business, and, if not according with him in their views of Methodist polity, pleading against their employment on Committees, or in public services, while he, himself, has evidently no objection to stations of trust and confidence? If faulty in this point, has he not as much of "office" as he is well able to bear, and will he not, by his farther promotion, be "exalted above measure," and exhibit his infirmity yet more publicly and offensively?

As a Member of Connexional Committees does he, as frequently as possible attend their meetings, and as much as possible forward their business; or does he attend, chiefly, when there is some party object to be gained, or for the purpose of presenting obstructive and crotchety objections? Does he take a large and comprehensive view of Connexional matters-showing himself ready to legislate for the good of the whole Body; or does he yield himself to mere local interest, looking only at his own circuit? Is he evidently desirous of upholding constitutional authority, by supporting where it is manifestly reasonable, the character and conduct of men found "worthy of all honour;" or does he set himself to trouble and annoy them, by raising endless objections to whatever may be proposed, without substituting anything better in the place of what he would put aside?

In his behaviour in the Conference, and in General Committees, is it quite clear that he loves "Methodism as it is ;" and that, faithful to his ordination vows, he is trying to "keep our rules rather than to mend them;" or is he