ble to the opinions of all; and the preacher or private member, who endeavors to prevent the discussion of principles, ought to be deemed an enemy to the brethren. For an official man to request preachers or members to withdraw, is an offence which can only be exceeded by expelling them unjustly. What right has any man to brow beat another out of his fellowship, because he is dissatisfied with an existing rule which is made alterable by its own enactment? There are many men among us, who must lose their senses before they can be reconciled to the legislative and executive powers in the church being exclusively in the same hands.

ADYNASIUS.

No. 13.

Preface to Wesleyan Repository, vol. ii.

To those who anticipated opposition only to the Discipline, from the Repository, every position and sentence, not having upon their foreheads, the marks of non-resistance and passive obedience, seemed to take the attitude of resistance. The writers for the Repository, are yet to be convinced that the letter of the Discipline is opposed to the rights of the members of the church. That the Discipline neither grants nor guarantees to the church the right of making rules and regulations for its government, is certain; but, by what argument, can it be demonstrated, that the contents of the Discipline, oppose all it does not grant? The truth is, that book is entirley silent upon the great question of church rights, except in the 13th and 22d articles of religion, which expressly assert them. Not one of the six restrictions (most improperly denominated the constitution!) is opposed to the principles of church legislation. Church representation is perfectly compatible with any fair construetion of either of the restrictions, or of episcopacy and general superintendency.

These pages recommend no overt act, either for the purpose of suspending or controlling the execution of discipline. Its writers submit to the powers that be; not for wrath, but for conscience sake; i. e. for peace sake. Is there any more reason, we would most seriously ask, for accusing writers of opposition to discipline, who write in

favour of a change in its rules, by legal means, than there is in charging politicians with treasons, for arguing in favour of the repeal of old and injurious laws, and the enactment of new and wholesome ones?

In this volume, the principle of right, in behalf of the members of the church has not only been maintained; but, in addition to the defence of rights, certain opinions have been combatted, either as unscriptural, or as contrary to the discipline itself. That the authors of the opinions controverted, should claim for their own exclusive benefit, the praise of truth and right, was to have been expected; and of course, that they should consider their opposers, as enemies of the discipline, if not of the church. But we fear not to assert, that, every member of the church has as substantially inherent privileges to investigate opinions and practices regarding discipline, as the ministry have to legislate for the church without its consent; to impose penal laws, and, to publish them to the world. However it may fare with legislative enactments, thus originated, put forth and excuted independently of the governed, we are sure that the opinions and arguments of individuals, do not amount to legal acts.

Suppose, for instance, that A says, the General Conference have no powers to make rules and regulations for our church -and Z says, they have "full powers"-and B says, the divine right of the goverment is in the body of elders; but Z denies it. Now Z cannot with any shadow of justice be charged with opposing the discipline in either of these cases. In the first case, the dispute is about the meaning of words; and the proofs, are proofs of fact, not of right: Z does not say that the General Conference, ought to have full powers; he only contends, that definite restructions, cannot distroy indefinite full powers. And in the second case Z does not refuse actual obedience to the government of the elders, nor to any body else, who are in authority according to the discipline; but he proves, FIRST, that the fathers of the discipline did not trace its powers to the Scriptures; and, SECONDLY, that the powers claimed by B for the body of elders, cannot be derived from the Scriptures. It was B then, not the discipline, who claimed the divine right for the body of elders, and, if Z has disproved the claim, the discipline remains as it was. When, therefore, B and his frends attempt to break the head of Z, with the Book of discipline, they do not treat him logically; and he has a right to self defence. These distinctions between the discipline, and those

who dispute with each other, for or against certain powers, are of importance; for, as long as each party obeys the discipline, is it not equally bound to protect both?

Having brought this second volume to a close, we would devoutly express our gratitude to divine providence. Readers and patrons are now invited to reflect more seriously than ever upon the merits of this controversy. We think writers may confidently appeal to you in favour of the great cause advocated; and we doubt not, that you will not only. duly appreciate their prudence, zeal and diligence, in maintaining and defending ecclesiastical rights and liberties; but, that you too, will enlist under the same banner, and never cease the holy strife, until obsolete is written, on every vestige of clerical supremacy.

No. 14.

Wesleyan Repository, vol. ii. June 1822, No. ii. page 67.

The tradition of the elders: or as some call it, the constitutional question.

This is a brilliant period for the shores of our Chesapeake, and the Baltimore conference. The mantles of our Pigmans* and Cassells have again fallen upon the favorite

* Ignatius Pigman, one of the early Methodist preachers, was a natural, rather than a self-taught orator. At one period of his life, by a train of untoward circumstances, he became obnoxious to a considerable degree of public prejudice and censure; and yet, at that very time, in his native place, surrounded by his greatest opposers, such was the power of his eloquence, that he could work upon their feelings in a manner which surprised and confounded them. His surviving hearers to this day give him the precedence of all other speakers. There seems to be sufficient evidence to induce us to place him among the great natural orators who have appeared in different ages and countries, and indeed, if we might adopt the rule in order to determine the native countries of orators, which naturalists do, in order to ascertain the native regions of certain trees and fruits, viz. whenever they are found wild in the forests, as the olive tree in Asia, which produces fruit in perfection when the surrounding growths are cleared away, and it is exposed to the sun. We might safely pronounce the shores of the Chesapcake, to be a native country of orators. Men, women, and children, learned and unlearned, rich and poor, can all relate anecdotes of the effects of Mr. Pigman's preaching. Unfortunately it should seem, that he furnishes another melancholy example of the danger of trusting to native powers of elocution, and neglecting to cultivate them. It is highly probable, that, if the consciousness

sons of Maryland. After two days of debates and explanations, the resolution to pronounce the act of the late General Conference, respecting the choice of presiding elders unconstitutional, was indefinitely postponed 49 to 26. The opposers of the resolution would fain have dissuaded its friends from bringing it forward at this time; but when it was submitted, they shrunk not from the discussion. This result is highly gratifying in many respects; we were particularly pleased to find that so much amicable feeling remained after the question was put to rest; and we trust that this trial of strength will serve to abate that air of contempt, heretofore but too visible in the manner of certain brethren, and produce a more respectful tone of feeling in the breasts of those who have the mortification to find -themselves in a minority, they will not surely deem it a great act of condescension to treat their brethren in the majority as equals. The address, it is said, has the merit

of his mighty energies, as is too often the case, had not allured him from the closet, he might have escaped all the misfortunes of his life, and left a name among the foremost in the rolls of fame. Mr. Pigman was once preaching on the commons in Baltimore, and in illustrating the joys of a converted penitent, he introduced a sailor, who, after a long and tempestuous voyage, descries land: but using a landsman phrase, a sailor, who was lying on the grass, sprang up, and cried out in his wonted tone "land hoo!"

We take occasion to bring into view, the talents of our public speakers, not from any affectation of vanity, but to convince our friends, that the effects which they have witnessed, were produced by adequate causes, and our opponents, too, if they should chance to be among our readers. We have really had men among us from the beginning, who were inferior to none, who lived in the same time, and place. Several of the members of the Baltimore conference, who have been in the habit of hearing our statesmen and counsellors, declare that they seldom if ever heard a speech to surpass that of our Apollos on the present occasion, and we are sure that in this judgment they do not greatly err, as brethren cannot be easily blinded by party favoritism, while matters of controversy engender keen feelings of resistance. He who can extort admiration from a rival brother in the heat of debate, displays the greatest resources of his art, and must be a master indeed. We are not ignorant that it was said on the floor of the conference, that the argnments were not new; but this was disingenuous. It is a mere matter of accident with the genuine orator, whether he or another, first advanced an idea. It is the privilege of such geniuses to give new lustre to every subject they touch. We consider this as an era in our conference, and if there be not something radically defective in our system, we are destined to rise to new and unexampled degrees of eminence.

was

of being well composed. It is unusually long, and some say, remarkable for pushing assumptious to their extremest consequences"If the sky shall fall we will catch larks." The writers of the address wanted nothing but facts and arguments to have secured to them a complete victory. We hope that so much talent will never again be so much misplaced. How such acute logicians should have been so little versed in the art of divining, is matter of surprise. This immense display of art, could only have been intended for the north and the east, where it is as unavailing as Persian numbers against Grecian tactics. The chief speakers in behalf of the powers of the General Conference, are in several respects dissimilar to each other: Mr. marked by the genius of oratory for her own, she gave him a memory as true as a mirror and of the utmost tenacity, gifted him richly with taste, and inspired him with undaunted heroism, but unfortunately, from some cause or other, the bees neglected to settle on his lips,* and the ardor of his mind partakes more of the nature of earthly fires than of the lightning of heaven, but, notwithstanding his want of tone and melody of voice, and defect in the art of condensing his thoughts, he is a formidable rival, and if he shall give more of his days and nights to writing and pruning, will rank high among the first class of orators. Mr. , on the contrary, wants nothing but physical force, nature and art have vied with each other in enriching and embellishing his mind. He is unquestionably a most skilful debater. A head so cool and so clear, is rarely found in any deliberative body. We have to regret that we may not give an abstract of this interesting debate, as the address is inaccessible to us, and we choose not to trust to memory.

Taking the address, as we may safely do, as an expression of the opinions of its authors and advocates, we may give a satisfactory view of the final form into which the question in dispute is likely to resolve itself. This we have already expressed in our motto, "The Tradition of the Elders"—that is to say, this controversy cannot be carried on without obliging the opposers of the powers of the General Conference to say in effect, that a usage or custom ought to continue because it has been-that it is not old because

*The ancients used to say of those who were remarkable for sweet or honied accents, that the bees settled on their lips as they slept in their cradles.