and govern irrespective of the people? Nothing of the kind. Lay influence and suffrage are recognized in the constitution of the Lutheran church. So they are in the Swiss Churches, in the churches of the Vaudois, in the French Protestant churches, and even in the Church of England, subject, though it is, to a state control. When the stern and inflexibly conscientious Nonconformists resisted the semi-papal dogmas of the Established Church, did they originate a system which ignores the rights of the people to a voice in matters of church government and discipline? Let the popular system of their successors in the Congregational churches of this and other lands testify. Look when we will, and where we will, to any age, ancient or modern, to any country, far or near, we find no evangelical denomination but one, which has, either in theory or in practice, denied the right of the people to a voice in its government and administration. If there be any authority in Scripture any prestige in antiquity-any force in example— any truth in universality of sentiment and practice-they all combine to pronounce that the members of a church, like the members of a secular state, have a natural, inalienable right to a voice in the appropriation of the funds they contribute, and in the formation of the laws by which they are governed; and no man can surrender that right without basely giving up a trust for which God has made him responsible; and no man can rob him of that right without the practice of usurpation and despotism. Hooker, the eloquent writer on ecclesiastical polity, might well, therefore, remark, churchman though he was, that "the general consent of all is requisite for the ratification of the laws of the church. Laws they could never be, without the consent of the whole church to be guided by them; whereunto both nature and the practice of the church of God set down in Scripture is found so consonant, that God Himself would not impose His own laws upon His people by the hands of Moses without their free and open consent."

Now, just such were the great principles asserted by Mr. Kilham, and our founders and forefathers, and it was the resistance of these principles by the parent community,-the Wesleyan denomination, that gave birth to the Methodist New Connexion. Methodism, as constituted by Mr. Wesley, was, in one phase, a mere appendage to the state church; and, in another phase, it was a close corporation,-its ministers were a self-elected and irresponsible aristocracy. I mean no offence by this statement; nor do I mean to disparage the usefulness and efficiency of Methodism. I utter a simple truth, without a particle of malice or ill-will. I will yield to no man in my admiration of John Wesley. I regard him, in the simplicity and purity of his character, in the kindliness and benevolence of his disposition, in the depth and fervour of his piety, in his unsparing beneficence, in his self-sacrificing zeal and indefatigable labour, as not a whit behind the very chief of the apostles. I know not, indeed,

whether, take him all in all, the world ever saw his equal. And, in speaking thus, I am sure I am uttering the sentiments of thousands in our own body. But, after all, Mr. Wesley greatly erred in the polity of Methodism. If the Bible is right, there is no doubt Mr. Wesley was wrong; and no man can defend his system without confronting the testimony of all antiquity, and confronting or frittering away the testimony of Scripture itself. If I must honestly cleave to the Bible, and be true to my own nature, and faithful to my own species, I must utterly repudiate the despotic element of Wesleyanism.

Let us look at facts. I challenge an appeal to Wesleyanism in its polity. What was it as left by its venerable founder? Why, as to its members, they were received in or put out by the preacher; they were retained in good standing, or degraded, or censured, or suspended, or expelled by the preacher. As to stewards, they were chosen to office, or dismissed from it, by the preacher. As to leaders, they were called to labour, or excluded from it, by the preacher. As to local preachers, they were employed in the work, or cashiered from their office, by the preacher. As to circuit preachers, they, too, were called out, or excluded from office, by their fellows the preachers. As to Conference, it was composed, as, indeed, it is still, by the preachers a self-elected and irresponsible body of men. As to funds, though contributed by the people, they were distributed by the preachers. As to the stationing of preachers, it was done by the preachers themselves. As to the laws for the government of the people, they were made, as well as administered, by the preachers.

Such was the Methodist polity, as constituted and retained by Mr. Wesley, and as bequeathed by him to his successors. Absolute and enormous as this despotism was, Mr. Wesley defended it, and that with as much simplicity and frankness as if the system had been the most liberal and benign piece of economy that could be conceived. Adverting to his absolute authority and power, he naïvely asks, “What is that power? It is power of admitting into, and excluding from, the societies under my care; of choosing and removing stewards; of receiving, or not receiving, helpers; of appointing them where and how to help me; and of desiring any of them to confer with me when I see good." In reply to any who demurred, he simply said, "Such a one had power to go away when he pleased." This enormous power, then, was first centred in one man, and afterwards transferred to his successors. Now, if this be not despotism,-if this be not colossal despotism,-I know not where anything worthy of that name can be found. If this be not directly antagonistic to the principles and practices of the apostles and the primitive churches, I know not the meaning of words.

It is remarkable, that Mr. Wesley, in transferring his power to the Conference, calls that assembly the "Conference of the people called Methodists," on which Dr. Whitehead, Mr. Wesley's

biographer, and a distinguished preacher in the Connexion, wittily, but truly remarks, "The title of the deed is most incongruous. It is well known, that the people called Methodists never held a Conference since Methodism existed. The Conference is an assembly of itinerant preachers only (except two or three clergymen), and its members are not assembled by any authority derived from the people. When sitting, it exercises powers which are neither derived from the people nor under any control by them. It elects members into its own body, or excludes them at pleasure; it makes regulations and laws, not only for itinerant preachers, but for all ranks and orders of persons in the societies ; and while these things are transacted, neither local preachers, trustees of chapels, stewards, leaders, nor any of the people, have a single voice, or a single representative in the assembly; the people have no check, no balance of power, against any regulation or law the Conference may choose to decree. It is difficult to conceive why this assembly of a few preachers was called 'The Conference of the People called Methodists,' unless it was to give the people a hint that they ought to have some representatives in an assembly where laws are made by which they, as Methodists, are to be governed." Such, then, was the recorded and published view of Dr. Whitehead respecting the constitution of Methodism, as left by Mr. Wesley; and it fully justifies the characteristic of Dr. Coke, in a letter to Mr. Kilham, in which he remarks, "Hitherto we (the preachers) have been, since the death of Mr. Wesley, the most perfect aristocracy, perhaps, existing on the face of the earth. The people have had no power; we the whole, in the fullest sense that can be conceived."

I think you have now both facts and testimony to establish my position, that the Methodist ministry was a close, self-elected, and irresponsible corporation. Some changes have, indeed, been made in the details of Methodist polity, but little that affects the principles of the colossal despotism which Mr. Wesley framed for himself, and transferred to his successors.

I remarked, also, that Methodism, in another aspect, was an appendage to the state church. Let me just prove this, by adverting to facts. Mr. Wesley, to the day of his death, declared himself a member of the Established Church; he pronounced the various associations of his people to be not churches, but societies; and his preachers not ministers, but helpers or assistants; taking care to adopt none but secular or non-ecclesiastical designations for all his officers and coadjutors in the work of Methodism; and, in conformity with this principle, he forbade, as a general rule, the holding their own worship during the hours of church service, and disallowed his people to receive the ordi ances of baptism and the Lord's Supper from the hands of their own ministers. There were a few special exceptions to this, but such was the rule and such the general practice; and, as a lamentable consequence, the people were often compelled, either to

neglect those Divine ordinances, or to receive them at the hands of ungodly and immoral men.

It was not likely that an evangelical and spiritually-minded people could long brook this privation of their religious privileges; nor, when once they awoke to a just appreciation of their Scriptural freedom, was it likely they would submit to this yoke of ecclesiastical bondage. Accordingly, soon after Mr. Wesley's death, signs of agitation commenced, and a storm shortly followed. Loud and powerful were the calls for a change. Numerous letters, memorials, and petitions were sent up to Conference, but they were destroyed without being read. At the ensuing Conference, the petitions and memorials were almost as numerous as before, but again they were destroyed without being read. I admit, that there were embarrassing difficulties connected with the disposal of the questions before the Conference; but it was the unnatural position of Methodism with regard to the establishment on the one hand, and its despotic polity on the other hand, which had created those difficulties; and the summary mode of destroying memorials without reading them, soon started the idea that it was high time to have in the Conference a sort of representatives, whose living voice could not be so easily silenced, and whose influence could not be so summarily disposed of, as these papers had been.

Among those who evoked the spirit of freedom, there was one honest, ardent, and indomitable man, Alexander Kilham, a preacher of good standing in the body. He was no half-and-half Reformer. He contended, not merely for the ministerial prerogative of administering the sacraments to the people, but advocated a full and comprehensive scheme of liberty for the people, -maintaining, that while the people ought to be unshackled as to their hours of worship, and the enjoyment of religious ordinances, they were also entitled to a share in the government of the churches. For a while he was sustained by some of the leading preachers, among whom I recognize the names of Dr. Coke, with Messrs. Bradburn, Pawson, Edmondson, and Taylor; but afterwards he was deserted by them. For asserting and maintaining these rights, Mr. Alexander Kilham was, in the first instance, tried and censured, and afterwards tried and expelled. There was no stain on his moral character-no impeachment of his integrity, of his ability, of his doctrines, or his attachment to Methodism. His only fault was, that he had advocated the cause of truth and freedom, no doubt with fervour and strong language, but always with sincerity, and an honest desire for the prosperity of Methodism; and, for this advocacy, and because he would not retract his sentiments, or promise silence in future, he was expelled; and the men who, for a time, had urged him to prosecute the work of reform, rose up to sanction his expulsion from the body. But the cause of freedom was not extinguished by ecclesiastical censure. It lived and burned in many honest bosoms, and the determination to obtain it gathered strength;

and, when all attempts to obtain it from the parent body were found to be unavailing, Mr. Kilham, accompanied by two preachers, and a number of faithful men, organized that Connexion with which we have the honour to be connected, embodying those great principles of religious liberty which have been already defended.

Here let me briefly sketch our constitution. First, we are dissenters both in theory and practice. From the beginning we have had our hours of worship appointed with reference, not to any intervals of church service, but to our own convenience; and, regarding a religious organization of believers as properly constituting a church, and not a mere society, we have, from the beginning, had the sacraments, and all religious ordinances, freely administered by our own preachers. As to our polity, it is that which recognizes the right of the people to a participation in all matters of church government. Our members are admitted, not by the preacher's dictum, but by the preacher and people united, the rule being, that a canditate, after being approved by the leaders' meeting, shall be presented to the whole church for their reception into fellowship. In the case of a member walking unworthily, our rule is that prescribed by our Lord "If thy brother should trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he shall not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of one or two witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."-Matt. xviii. 15-17. If the milder measures prescribed should not prove effectual to the restoration of a brother, and if discipline has to be exercised eventually, the offending brother is heard and examined at the leaders' meeting, and with that meeting rests, not only the verdict as to the impeachment itself, but also as to the sentence to be inflicted, whether censure, suspension, or expulsion. When a leader is wanted, the leaders' meeting suggests the names of those brethren who are deemed suitable; these are nominated to the class, but the choice rests with the members themselves. In the appointment of stewards, also, the nomination is with the leaders' meeting, and the choice with the members of the church. In calling local preachers to their work, the nomination is with the leaders' meeting, subject to the approval of the local preachers' meeting, and the final determination of the quarterly meeting. And here, it should be remarked, that our local brethren are regarded as true ambassadors of Christ, and, as such, are considered eligible to administer baptism and the Lord's Supper, and, indeed, to conduct any of the ordinances of the sanctuary. Our quarterly meetings are composed, not on the fanciful ground of official and irresponsible prerogatives, but on the principle of proper representation -delegates, according to the number of members in each society,