sions, if needs be. Should this fail, two other steps are to be taken, as stated, Matt. xviii. 15-17.

In the case before us, the three steps are involved in one: the Conference is the highest ministerial authority in the Wesleyan church. The Conference, as the injured party, is bound, by the Gospel rule, to go to the person justly suspected, in order to arrange and adjust matters between themselves, amicably, if possible. Now, if the party refuse to say whether he is or is not the aggressor, he shuts the door against any amicable adjustments, and by the Divine rule he can no longer be

considered as a brother.

Writing on this subject, a sense of duty and integrity, hearkening to God and not to man, obliges me thus to speak; while at the same time I have sympathy, grief, and deep sorrow of heart, on account of the parties expelled, especially in respect of one of them, to whose kindness and generous hospitality I am greatly indebted; and one of you, my dear class-mates, was my dearest earthly friend, and in other things we may so remain. I write this with a melting heart, and with tears.

I may add a word or two respecting Mr. Bromley's three letters, which, in my opinion, do not contain a single argument worthy of the name. He has been so weak and absurd as to apply the successive steps of our Lord's directions, Matt. xviii. 15—17, with some of Mr. Wesley's most excellent observations on the subject, to the above case, to which they do not, to which they cannot, belong. The letters are fraught with the envenomed poison of asps, swelling itself more and more, till he accuses the Conference of exercising Popish tyranny in some of its most terrible forms. Vain fury! empty rage! Alas! alas for the Minister who

could thus treat his brethren!

It is not the first time that the charge of Popery has been preferred against Mr. Wesley and his successors; but nothing can be farther from the truth. There is nothing compulsory in Methodism : we have our rules, we like them, we wish to keep them; if any be otherwise minded, he is free, as far as we are concerned, to walk in a path of his own choice. You, on the contrary, have imbibed the principle of coercion, which is the leading principle of Popery; in this you go to your utmost length, even to the starvation of your Ministers: you justly claim a right to think for yourselves, and, unjustly, you consider it right to force us to think as you think. There is another thing, very grievous to you and others, having excited loud and bitter complaints: it is the law of 1835, which confers on our people a right to memorialise the Conference, respecting new laws, or changes in the present ones. You think this law is rendered useless by its restrictions.

Many talk of this law, while they know not its nature, or import: the following articles contain its chief parts.

1. After the June Quarterly-Meeting, the Superintendent shall ascertain, from the Stewards, if a wish for any important change exists, and, if so, shall call a Special Circuit Meeting, to consider the propriety of sending a memorial to Conference the Special Mecting to be held, not less than seven, and not more than ten, days from the time of the June Quarterly Meeting.

2. "Such Meeting shall include,—

"The Circuit-Stewards, the Stewards of all the Societies in the Circuit Town, one Steward of each of the other Societies, containing fifty members or upward; the miale Class Leaders and the Local Preachers in the Circuit, of ten years' continuous and uninterrupted standing in their office; the Trustees of the chapels regularly settled in the Circuit Town, being members of the Society; and one of the Trustee Treasurers, or Trustee Stewards, of every other regularly settled chapel in the Circuit, being a member of the Society.

3. "Any member of the Meeting may propose the subject of the memorial. 4. "Notice in writing shall be given to the Superintendent, at least three days before the Meeting, of the subject of the Meeting.

"All memorials, requesting any change in our laws, shall be limited to such

changes only as are consistent with the essential principles of Wesleyan Methodism.

"The Rules to be affected are such as operate on our Societies at large.

"The Special Meeting of one Circuit is not to meddle with the local affairs of another Circuit."

The Conference, also, in 1835, asserted its usages and constitutional rights, recognised from its commencement, respecting the questioning of its Ministers, as to their moral, Christian, or ministerial conduct; and to decide, as might seem to them most in accordance with the New Testament, and the usages of the Connexion. I cannot see why this should give offence. Such rule is well known to each of them; every Preacher subscribes to it on his admission. Above I have given my opinion; and now I further ask, What would become of Methodism if the Conference resigned this rule and right? A multitude of incurable evils would invade the body, and destroy its sanative regulations. This rule affects only the regular Ministers, not the Connexion at large. It is a wise and excellent means of guarding against immorality, un-Christian conduct, and ministerial defection. Without it, Wesleyan Methodism would soon cease to be what it always has been, and now is. I pray that the Preachers may on all proper occasions be duly examined, and that they may be for ever preserved as a holy, pure, and truly Christian church, diffusing piety through every society of Methodists, and through the world.

These articles contain the essential parts of the law: the whole, in order and in full, may be seen in the Minutes of Conference.

The time allotted for the Meeting, and the period that the Leaders and Local Preachers must have held their offices, are, it seems, the most objectionable parts: respecting this, let every man peaceably hold his own opinion; yet every man, who can think and judge, must admit, that it would be exceedingly injurious to the Connexion to give universal and unguarded power to bring forward discussions of general rules, already carefully made and settled; it would be easier far to make a worse than a better law. That of 1797, which you ask, is much worse. Had you sought in an authorised way for some alteration in the law of 1835, it is very probable and likely you would have obtained suitable alterations. Yet I speak to every thinking man, who can judge for himself, What is there in this law un-Christian or formidable, so as to justify your opposition? Is it right that our Leaders and Local Preachers of but three or four years' standing should have a voice in a Meeting of such vast and vital importance to our Methodism? Probably a less time than ten years, for the standing of the Leaders and Local Preachers, and a longer interval from the calling of the Meeting to the close, might have been obtained, had it been sought according to righteous and legitimate order. It should, however, be duly considered, that the time for the Meeting is sufficient, since there is the whole year to prepare and get in readiness any memorial intended to be proposed: also the time is a very suitable one, being just before the sitting of the Conference; so that the subject would come before them in all its warmth and freshness.

Thus have I relieved my mind, by declaring, as an old Methodist, my decided views on this, to me, mournful separation. Return, my dear brethren, to your companions in Jesus Christ. Let me entreat you. I beseech you, in the name of our only Lord and Saviour, give up strife and contention. If you can be at peace, and like-minded with us, return at once into fellowship with us: with joy should we hail this healing of the breach. But if you cannot be one with us, at least do not persecute us: we have not injured you at all; let us have peace: if we cannot work together in peace, let us work peaceably apart, endeavouring to promote the honour and glory of Jesus Christ our Lord, in every possible evangelical manner, to spread universally the Gospel of Christ Jesus at home and abroad.

THE MONEY OBJECTION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE METHODIST SOCIETY, CALMLY CONSIDERED.

BY A METHODIST IN NORFOLK.

AMONG the numerous excuses pleaded against membership in the Wesleyan section of the church of Christ, is that of, “I cannot afford it." Now, one not acquainted with its financial arrangements, would be led by this remark to infer that Methodism is a very expensive form of Christianity. We cannot but think that it is frequently made insincerely, and altogether without due consideration on the part of those who plead it. That there are some persons in our Societies who are "in extreme poverty," and cannot "afford to observe our rule," we readily believe. But what of that? Does that exclude them from membership? By no means. They are heartily welcomed among us to enjoy our communion and fellowship. And although they cannot support the cause as the Rule requires, yet they do-many of them at least-support it according to their ability. And if they cannot afford to give any pecuniary support to Methodism, it gives to them; and, perhaps, to an amount that is not surpassed by any other section of the Christian church. But those who say they cannot afford to be Methodists, because of the expense, are generally those who really can afford it, but are not willing. The following circumstance may serve to throw some light on this subject. A conversation, to the following effect, took place some time ago in one of our poor Circuits, between a Minister and one of his members. The subject was the "Worn-Out Ministers' and Ministers' Widows' Fund." While the Minister was urging its necessity and equity, the member said, "Yes, Sir, that is all very right; but when a man and his wife are both in Society, it comes heavily for both to subscribe to all the funds." "Have you ever carefully considered," inquired the Minister, "how heavily it comes? what is really the whole amount it costs you?" "No," replied the member, "I cannot say that I have." "Then, if you have no objection," continued the Minister, "we will just reckon up what it costs you and your wife to be members of the Methodist Society." No objection being raised, the whole matter was entered into, allowing something for every collection,-Class-pence, Quarterly contribution, Yearly Collection, Worn-Out Ministers' Fund, Sacraments, Lovefeasts, Schools, Chapels, July Collection; indeed every conceivable object was mentioned, and something allowed for each; (though there are few persons, comparatively speaking, who contribute to all the funds of the Connexion ;) and when the whole was summed up, and the average sum apportioned to each member of Society, the man looked quite ashamed that such a thought had ever possessed his mind. "Did it cost you less than that," inquired the Minister, “ when you were in the service of Satan?" "O no!" answered the member; "but a great deal more." This, we fear, is but one instance out of many which might

be furnished, to prove that Methodism, "with all its collections," is far cheaper than sin. And even if it was not, but much more costly, is it nothing that we have been saved through its instrumentality,brought into blessed fellowship and communion with its members,and are admitted to all the rites and privileges of the Christian church? Perhaps it will be said that one might have had "all the rites and privileges of the Christian church" apart from this. Permit us here to inquire if there is any other section of that church, in which you could have enjoyed them as much as you do in this one? But, waving this point, we believe that thousands of its happy people would never have been converted to God by any other instrumentality, and possibly you might have been among them. Go into many of the villages and hamlets of this country, even at the present day, and ask what would have been their moral and religious aspect, had not Wesleyan Methodism been introduced into them? Indeed, we shall not stretch ourselves beyond our measure, if we ask what would have been the moral and religious aspect of our whole nation without it? We do not use this language boastingly, in any other respect than that "it is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes."

It is my purpose here, to give an analysis of the funds of our Connexion, generally, endeavouring to show the obligation of every truehearted Methodist to support them to the utmost of his ability.

The first in order is the Fund for supporting the Circuit-Ministers who labour among us. This Fund is raised, in part, by the weekly pence and in part by the quarterly contributions. The Methodist Connexion being purely voluntary in its nature, this is one of its prominent characteristics. But this is strictly scriptural. "If we have sown unto you spiritual things," says St. Paul, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?" (1 Cor. ix. 11.) In framing the Rules of our Society, Mr. Wesley observed this scriptural requirement, and acted upon it. The following are his own words relative to this subject, spoken in the Conference at London in the year 1782.

66

Q. 31. Have the weekly and quarterly contributions been duly made in all our Societies ?

A. In many it has been shamefully neglected.
To remedy this,-

1. Let every Assistant (Superintendent) remind every Society, that this was our original Rule. Every member contributes one penny weekly, (unless he is in extreme poverty,) and one shilling quarterly. Explain the reasonableness of this. 2. Let every Leader receive the weekly contribution from each person in his class.

3. Let the Assistant ask every person at changing his ticket, "Can you afford to observe our Rule?" and receive what he is able to give.

The reasonableness of this is at once apparent. The Ministers of the Gospel who labour among us have abandoned their worldly occupation, and have thus deprived themselves of all support from that source. This is done by mutual agreement. Whenever a Circuit requests a Minister to be appointed to it by the Conference, it is fully

understood that that Circuit shall provide him a suitable income; and this is done in the way above-mentioned. To fail of this, therefore, would be a breach of contract, and would appear to every reasonable mind most unreasonable. So that if we look at the matter in the light of moral honesty, we are bound to contribute towards the support of the ministry among us. Nor will our obligation appear less binding, viewed in the light of piety and Scripture. How many of the Lord's poor deprive themselves of the blessedness of giving! (We here refer to those who are poor, but not extremely so.) How many are there of this class of persons who seem to settle it in their minds, that they ought not to give anything towards supporting that ministry through which they have been enlightened and saved; while their neighbours, who have no better means than themselves, contribute cheerfully, and are blessed in their deed. The scriptural equality is most assuredly abandoned here. It is expressly said by the great Head of the church, who well knows who can and who cannot afford to support its interests, that none shall appear before him empty. (See Exod. xxiii. 15; xxxiv. 20.) And, again: "Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God WHICH HE HATH GIVEN THEE." (Deut. xvi. 16, 17.) Sometimes, in answer to an urgent appeal for the fulfilment of this requirement, it is boldly asserted, that "the Lord does not expect it from such and such persons." Now, if this assertion be true, those passages of holy Scripture which we have cited cannot be true. What Methodist will take the responsibility of that bold assertion upon himself? The poor widow, who saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury, might surely have said, "There is no need of my giving anything, for the Lord does not expect it from me: and if I was ever so disposed, the trifling amount of my contribution would scarcely be noticed among their abundance; and, moreover, it is all I have in the world." But she cast in her two mites; and so far from its not being noticed, the Lord Jesus has passed it down to posterity as a memorial of her. Now, if the Lord did not expect her contribution, why did He not say to her, "Take thy two mites back again: I see thy will is good, but thou canst not afford it?" But, no; our blessed Saviour well knew how to make up her lack, and therefore he accepted her offering. "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty." (Prov. xi. 24.) It is a remark frequently made, and with much truthfulness, too, that those who give least to the cause of God, seldom appreciate the means of grace and hold such communion with Him as do others. If any ask, whether we wish to make it appear that if a person does not give to the cause of God, therefore he cannot enjoy so much of true piety; we answer, that we do not wish to make it appear more or less than it really is. If the Lord's requirements are set at nought, and we refuse to support His cause according to our ability, we commit the sin of disobedience against Him, and consequently incur Ilis displeasure.