the "Committee" have conducted their investigation and "revision of the whole of the Methodistic laws." In the first place, however, we must warn this "Committee," that they have been guilty of so many serious omissions, that it will be impossible to satisfy the great bulk of Reformers with the very few alterations which they suggest; and it will be quite needful to have another "Committee of Revision," if anything is to be done effectually. We will put a few of these omissions down in the order in which they occur to us at the moment. 1. No comment upon, or alteration of, the rules and regulations by which our great Connexional Institutions are managed, is submitted; though the "Circuits and Societies' are certainly as much interested in them as in any other part of Methodism. This is a capital blunder; especially after all the outcry of the last year about their mismanagement. This 2. The Funds are unnoticed-with one exception, the Chapel-Fund. must be keenly felt by one who has made so long and wearisome a crusade against the Contingent Fund. We suggest, however, that it was both modest and becoming in the Delegates and their "Committee" to say but little about the Funds. See the irritating pamphlet called "The Salt of Methodism." 3. The "Committee" do not decide how the Chapels should be settled; nor, indeed, whether they should be settled at all. They only decide, that they "do not recognise the Model Deed." 4. Sunday-Schools, and some other local institutions, are not even noticed in the "revision;" doubtless not being deemed worthy of it, though "relating to the Circuits and Societies." 5. Private members of Society receive no information whatever about their "rights and privileges," except as to the way in which they will be tried. 6. Local Preachers are indeed consoled with the promise, that they shall not even "be cited before any Leaders' Meeting" until they "shall have been first degraded from the ministry by the Local Preachers' Meeting." But no provision is made for their administering the Sacraments, and being in other respects on an equality with the Pastors. The "Committee" do not even decide, whether Local Preachers are to retain their status in the Circuits to which they may remove,-a concession which, we know, some members of the "Committee" have strenuously opposed. 7. If a Leader, through the death or removal of his members, should have his class reduced to less than three, he immediately ceases to be a Leader; being thus evidently disqualified for the office. 8. The mode of electing Stewards is not determined, though the time is fixed for Christmas. But Stewards are encouraged to take office by an assurance, that, if they do not perform what the majority of the Meeting may require, they will instantly lose their place. These are a few of the omissions, but there are plenty more. Among the admissions, or things which are conceded, are some that cannot be denied to wit, "Article 1. The Committee admit the Constitution of the Conference by Mr. Wesley's Deed-Poll of the 28th of February, 1784, and leave it in full possession of all the powers conferred by that Deed." For such an admission, the Connexion in general, and the Conference in particular, may be very thankful; as the "Committee" have plainly granted it in opposition to their judgment and inclination. "Methodist Preachers" are to derive their "rights and powers "" from the New Testament," which is a greater concession than could have been expected from this" Committee," and is, therefore, so far very satisfactory. Such is a part of the farce which the "Committee " have enacted; and in their introduction they direct attention specially to two points, which they, doubtless, consider the very crown of their "revision." The first is in dealing with a refrac tory Superintendent; who, if not obedient to the majority of the meeting over which he presides, is to be at once superseded, and another put in his place. Just think of a Judge being dragged out of his chair, because he told the jury that he could not take their verdict; or of a High Sheriff being kicked off the platform because he would not put an informal Resolution! Indeed, all the proposals respecting the Ministry are for its degradation. But the second point is in reference to appeals in cases of trial. Instead of being, as now, to a Minor District-Meeting, the appeal is to be to a Meeting of "all the Leaders of all the several Societies within the Circuit." And this is the only court of appeal provided. Now there are some Circuits in which there is but one Leaders' Meeting. What sort of an appeal, therefore, could an aggrieved member make in such a case? And there are many Circuits where the Leaders of the principal Society are far more numerous than the Leaders of all the other Societies put together. Suppose, then, a member is charged before such a Leaders' Meeting with some delinquency, and unanimously condemned. How much better would he be for applying to "all the Leaders of all the several Societies within the Circuit?" The majority have already condemned him. We incline to think that, in such circumstances, he would greatly prefer to have his case gone into by five Ministers, who were not previously acquainted with the matter, and would sit as impartial judges. We had expected something more creditable to the party than this "revision," especially when it was known that a metropolitan Solicitor, who has long boasted of his efficient plans for revolutionising Methodism, was behind the scenes; but we leave it, being fully convinced that any man of common sense and honesty, who understands Methodist law and looks at this "revision," will come to the conclusion, that it would be difficult to find a more inexperienced set of bungling "revisers" than the "Committee " appointed "by the Eleventh Resolution of the Aggregate Meeting of Wesleyan Delegates, held in Albion Chnpel, Finsbury, London, on Tuesday, the 12th of March, 1850." The Model Methodist Reformer. Printed by Brown, Parsonage-Row, Newington-Butts, London.-Had our articles for this Number not been in the press, we should have printed for our readers this very pungent and life-like representation of a Wesleyan Reformer. It is evidently from an able, and we should say from a practised, hand in verse-writing. Our friends should inquire for it, and treasure it up among the publications of the present times in Methodism. NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS. THE MONEY QUESTION.-This excellent article is in type, and will appear in our next. HORNCASTLE. Thanks for the perusal of your Ms. It is too good to be withheld. Our only difficulty is in its length. We could give it to our reader 3 in parts. JUNIO. The conception is good, and the characteristics of the evil well brought out; but it treats too much of the conduct of individuals. Our object is to avoid personalities, as much as practicable; and to direct attention to those within Methodism, rather than to those who are separated from it. T. E., BRISTOL.-Thanks for your communication. It is in type; but, lest we should interfere in any degree with your purpose, we retain it until we shall hear from you again. LONDON :-PRINTED BY JAMES NICHOLS, HOXTON-SQUARE. THE WESLEYAN FORM OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT. YOUNG MEN OF METHODISM,-In the introductory letter which I addressed to you in the last Number of the Vindicator, I observed that "there is no fully-developed model of church-government in the holy Scriptures;" but I did not intend you to conclude from that statement that the holy Scriptures do not supply to us all needful instruction on the government of Christian churches, or that they are not in this respect to be regarded as the standard of appeal and authority. We could not reasonably suppose that the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the supreme Head of the church, would leave it to be governed merely according to human discretion; and that the increasing multitude of His obedient subjects, whom He has redeemed by His blood, and subdued by His grace, would be left without any clearly-defined laws to direct them in their organization and conduct for the advancement of His kingdom in the earth. No well-regulated society can exist without laws; and, as the church of Christ is a society of Christian believers, it requires fixed and definite laws for its government. Accordingly, you will find in the New-Testament Scriptures that such laws are given to His people; so that they may know how to act in their associated capacity, and fulfil their allotted functions in the world. It is true, you will not find a formal or systematic code. The circumstances under which the books generally were written would not admit of this. They were chiefly addressed to churches already formed, and then under ministerial oversight; and all that could be reasonably expected, in such circum LONDON PUBLISHED BY JOHN MASON, 14, CITY. ROAD; Ꭰ stances, would be statements of general principles, and incidental notices of what either existed or was required. In this manner the Christian Scriptures instruct us in church-government; and in this respect the instruction they give accords with their general teaching. Christian theology is not taught systematically in them, but is presented to us incidentally in parts which we are left to collect and to arrange into a harmonious body of doctrine; and it is so with ecclesiastical rule and order. It is incidentally set before us, amidst historic notices of the first Christian churches, and in the apostolic Epistles. The general outline of church-government may be traced, but this is left to be filled up according to particular circumstances; and for this reason,—that the Bible is for the use of God's people in all the successive ages of time, and therefore treats of general principles which are applicable to all, and does not give minute and specific directions which would be suited only to a few. Therefore, in our investigation of the Wesleyan form of church-government, our appeal must be to the word of God for general examples and precepts; and yet we must not expect to find there full and complete patterns of all parts of its ecclesiastical rule and discipline. The Wesleyan form of church-government is that of a SCRIPTURAL PRESBYTERY. It has been framed with the belief, that the chief oversight and direction of the church on earth is committed by Christ, its Head, to His Ministers, who are all equal in ministerial status, being alike empowered to discharge all the offices and functions of the Christian ministry; and that there is scriptural warrant for this, and also for their assembling together in council for the promotion of the order and welfare of the religious Societies under their care. This form, you will perceive, differs, on the one hand, from that of the Church of England, which is based on the belief that there are, by Divine appointment, three distinct orders of the Christian ministry; namely, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons : and it differs, on the other hand, from the Independent form of the Congregationalists, which assumes that every individual church has an entire and complete jurisdiction over its Minister and members, independent of either synods or Prelates. The scriptural authority for the Presbyterian form of ecclesiastical government maintained in Wesleyan Methodism, you may readily find in the inspired writings of the Apostles and Evangelists. Ministers are there plainly taught and commanded to "feed the flock of God,-taking the oversight thereof,"-to "rule well," to "exhort and rebuke with all authority;" and to reject a man who is a heretic; —that is, a factious or schismatic person. The people are instructed and enjoined to "esteem, very highly, those who are over them in the Lord, and who admonish them,”—to remember and to obey those who have the rule over them, and to submit themselves to them. This Divine teaching, both for Ministers and people, is so plain and decisive, that, if duly considered, it will, I think, leave no doubt in your minds that the general discipline of the church has been committed to Christian Ministers, and that they are mainly responsible for its administration. If any question should arise, as to whether the ministerial authority here spoken of belonged only to the Apostles, a satisfactory answer to such a question would be found in the fact, that it is spoken of, chiefly, in connexion with the pastoral rule and oversight by Christian Ministers who were not Apostles-such as Timothy and Titus. For ministerial equality, as maintained in Methodism, you will find satisfactory support in the Scriptures. The several names—such as Bishop, Elder, and Presbyter-are therein indiscriminately applied to Christian Ministers, without any intention of setting apart any class or order of them for rule and authority over the rest. St. Peter, in his First Epistle, when addressing himself to the Presbyters or Elders of the churches, declares that he also was a fellow-Presbyter or Elder with them. (1 Peter v. 1.) St. Paul, in his Epistle to Titus, directs that Evangelist to ordain as Elders only such as were blameless, and not accused of riot, or unruly; and then immediately, in giving the reason for what he enjoins, employs the term of "Bishop," and says," For a Bishop must be blameless," &c. This ministerial equality, you will find in your reading, was openly asserted by the great Reforming divines of the Church of England, and was acted upon by them. Mr. Wesley, in an entry he has made in his Journal, when he had been reading Lord King's book on the Primitive Church, has recorded his deliberate judgment in support of it; and before his death, in the "last words" which he penned for the direction of the Conference, he solemnly enjoined the practical regard of it upon his successors in the ministry, who, through having their names enrolled by him in the Deed of Declaration for the legal security of the rights and privileges of the Connexion, might be tempted to think that they were superior in office to their brethren. Men eminently endowed with gifts and graces will always be prominent in any community; and offices, such as Presidency, Chairmanship, and Superintendency, are necessary, for conventional order; and, as such, should and will be respected: but the order of Christian Ministers, as set forth in the New-Testament Scriptures, and as received in Methodism, is one and the same. An example for the assembling together of Ministers to confer on subjects relating to the church of Christ, will be found in the assembly of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, to whom Paul and Barnabas carried their appeal concerning the liberty of the Gentiles from the church at Antioch. (See Acts xv.) It is there expressly stated, that "the Apostles and Elders came together to consider this matter," and they decided what should be done. But on the scriptural warrant for the Wesleyan form of ecclesiastical government, it is not necessary for me, in these letters, to argue at length. Many able writers on Methodism have done this, most conclusively; and have proved, that all its essential principles are firmly based on the platform |