in those very honourable Christian publications, have employed words of bitter invective and empty declamation; but who of them has confuted, by argument, any of the "Papers" you have published? Who, of all the "croakers" in Methodism, that for some years past (under the pretence that the Wesleyan system needs reforming) have been heard uttering in their circuits, the" cuckoo-note”—“ Methodism is on the decline!" has shown, by facts and right reasoning, that Methodism has really become infirm, through a hundred years of efficient working, and is now tottering with feebleness to its fall? Who has controverted the serious and admonitory statements made in Paper headed-" The Evils of Religious Dissensions?" Who has disproved the truth of the eight propositions, put forth in open denial and contradiction of the false assertions made in newspapers, and in lithographed letters, concerning the Manchester Minor District Meeting, in the case of Mr. Walton and the "Fly-Sheets?" Who has made it appear that envy, hatred and malice, are not the "origin of" the "evil" that your "Papers" expose? Who, of all the professed Reformers of Methodism, has met the notoriously truthful statements made concerning the "Modern attempts to subvert Methodist economy and morals?" Who has even denied the historic facts you have given of the juggling tricks successively played by parties desirous of making a gain of the Wesleyans, under the plea of publishing, for their benefit, a liberal newspaper? Who can, by fair argument, meet the "Reasons" given in your last number "for signing a Protest against the "Fly-Sheet?" Who does not perceive the truth of the observations made by one of your correspondents, respecting the danger of Wesleyan Antinomianism? Who would declare that the next President of the Conference ought not have the qualifications for his office that you have added to the " suggestions" printed, and clandestinely circulated; and, to my knowledge, revived and used, of late, to prepare for the election of a party-man at the next Conference? The reply to all these questions is" No person has answered them, even in the professed form of argument." The Editors of the "Wesleyan Times," and of the "Wesley Banner," have written, in their Reviews and Notices, a few words to warn their readers against the purchase of your "Papers ;" and they, with a few more petty scribblers, have, in their arrested course of calumny and reproach, like enraged and disappointed children, thrown pebbles at the formidable barrier you have reared before them; but Truth, which is your protection, and also the protection of Methodism, stands, as it always will stand, unmoved and uninjured. Some of the factious "minority," conscious of their weakness, have whined and complained against oppression by a "majority ;" and have sought the sympathy of their friends in the unexpected circumstances in which they now find themselves. They say, in Mr. Dunn's monthly advocate of Conference minorities, that, of course, they expected some opposition, but not of the hard and unfeeling kind that has appeared. And those very delicate, courteous, and gentlemanly individuals, who, for years past, have been speaking and writing the most bitter and cruel falsehoods against the best and most honoured men in Methodism, now, when, after long and continued warning of the consequences of their evil conduct, the time for their exposure and condemnation has come, they cry

out against personalities and abuse. It was truly amusing to me, as I doubt not it was also to many others, to see how readily Mr. Dunn and his few friends took up the words in your Preface respecting "the plans of the disaffected," and applied them to themselves. And I have heard some equally amusing things, from the apologists for "Fly-Sheet" calumnies, respecting the article which appeared in the last number of your "Papers" on 66 The President of the next Conference." They (for there will be no scruple in the minds of honourable men in classing apologists for what is "wicked and slanderous," with the "wicked and slanderous" authors of the "Fly-Sheets") even nominated men for the office of President-gave a list, by name, of such as should be elected, successively, for several years to come; and, after defaming the character and conduct of supposed rival candidates, they urged, by name, and on the ground of liberal principles, the election of their partyman. And this they did in publications professedly in opposition to "Dictatorship." But when one of your correspondents has only added to their own. list of qualifications for the Presidency, and that without the mention of the name of any candidate for that office, then, these members of the Liberal association of defamers, finding that such added qualifications, if required, would leave them, and their favourites, on the floor of the Conference, cry out—“ Now, this is too bad!" What! too bad, to say what a minister that shall hold the highest and most responsible office in Methodism ought to be? Too bad, to show that ministers who refuse to unite with their brethren in making a personal declaration of their abhorrence of what the Conference has pronounced "wicked and slanderous," has so much less claim to be honoured above all their brethren? Too bad, to say that they who abuse inferior offices, to the annoyance and injury of their colleagues, ought not to exercise authority over all their brethren?. Too bad, to say that they who deny to beloved and venerable men their appropriate ministerial status, and say they ought to meet in class as private members, are not duly qualified to be ranked among those whom Methodism has delighted to honour, but whom they would evidently degrade. Too bad, to write a word to suggest even the disqualification for the Presidency of those who, holding intermediate offices in the Connexion, yet sweepingly denounce the proceedings of this year's President —of 60 or 70 brethren assembled with him in committee-and of a regularly appointed Minor District Meeting in Manchester; and that, too, when the full evidence of the case investigated by them is not yet made known? bad, to say that men who refused to sign the Declaration in a former crisis of Methodism, when Dr. Warren and his party aimed at its destruction; and who write letters under the abused signature of "An Englishman," menacing the Conference, and threatening its members; and who, when in an assembly of christian ministers, offend so frequently against good order in debate, and decency in language, that they are required to retract and apologise; and who, when in mixed companies, say, they hate their brethren, are undeserving of honourable office in a christian church? Too bad, to say that they who oppose the invitation of their colleagues in a Quarter Meeting, and tell them publicly that they are not fit for such important Circuits, even when the votes of Stewards and Leaders declare to the contrary, are unfit to bear rule

Too

and authority in the Connexion? Too bad, to censure and condemn those who report Conference proceedings falsely to serve the party objects of antiMethodistical newspapers, and who publish in their columns letters, so rude and vulgar in their epithets, that they could not be admitted to the columns of a decent paper; and letters that denounce as unrighteous, the acts of the Conference, such as the expulsion of Joseph R. Stephens? Too bad, to defend the character of deceased ministers, who may be slandered and maligned so greatly, that holy men shall rise up indignantly at the reading of what has been written concerning their departed brethren, as did the Rev. Richard Reece, at the last Conference, on the reading of an extract from the life of Mr. Tatham concerning the venerated John Barber, and declare—“That is a falsehood!" Too bad, to say that parties who do these things ought not to be honoured, or trusted, in Methodism? All this, too bad! So say the tenderly delicate gentlemen, who having injured and abused the best of men to the utmost of their power, demand for themselves the greatest courtesy and respect. But their demand cannot secure for them what they have forfeited beyond recovery. "Fly-Sheet" calumniators, and their supporters, have been borne with too long. The abused licence of the press cannot longer be allowed them. Their day of exposure and condemnation has come. Your "Papers" are bringing to light the hidden deeds of their dishonesty. As cowardly assassins, skulking in thick darkness, and shooting their poisoned arrows at their more virtuous brethren, they must be determinately grappled with in their own region; and, having disarmed them of their weapons, they must be dragged forth for open and universal contempt. Nor must their secret friends and abettors, who were seen chuckling over slanderous publications respecting others, but who now write officious letters, to pray that the "Papers on Wesleyan Matters" may cease, be heeded. Let such parties cease to attack the Conference and its members-let them cease their insinuations against the justice of the proceedings of their friends, respecting what the Conference has pronounced "wicked and slanderous;" and let them cease to assist, by professed reports of what they themselves have delivered in public, antiWesleyan publications; and then they will, more fully than at present, deserve confidence and attention. Doubtful men, who profess private friendship with those whom, in their absence, they condemn; and who stand looking at a misleading weathercock, to ascertain which way the wind blows, before they speak or act, must not, in these times, be trusted.

66

But it seems to be the effort of the principal writer of the " Fly-Sheets," who writes weekly in the "Wesleyan Times," under the name of “ Andrew Marvell," to justify himself in his assassin-like attacks, on the ground, that your "Papers" are anonymous. In this pretended justification, however, he leaves out the important circumstance, that he, in violation of English law, withheld the name of any responsible party for what he published, while you give the names both of the printer and publisher of your "Papers." He also confounds things that differ, inasmuch as he does not find it convenient to say, that he has given the names of Ministers whom he has charged with the grossest immoralities; while you have only stated general principles which cannot be applied where there are character and conduct at variance with

them. It is not all anonymous writing that Liberal advocates in Methodism condemn, surely. Anonymous writing is common in all departments of literature; and, under certain circumstances, is universally approved. If not, what shall be said concerning the articles in Reviews, Magazines, Newspapers, &c. ? It is not the simple fact, that an envious and disappointed man, now held in general contempt, writes weekly letters in the "Wesleyan Times," under the name of " Andrew Marvell" that is to be condemned. It is what he writes that must be considered, and brought under judgment. He who says of himself and his associates, their name is " Legion," may sign himself "The Great Adversary," if he pleases; and the public will not be surprised, much less complain, of any impropriety. But, if he writes under a dead man's good name, let him write Truth; not falsehood. This, however, we cannot reasonably expect; and when we read his letters, we must remember that Mr. John Kaye, the "sole proprietor" of the "Wesleyan Times," and his most honourable Editor, who, after having complained of abuse by this country correspondent, when editing a former Anti-Methodistical paper, has since most rejoicingly congratulated himself and his friends, that they had obtained the promised help of "Andrew Marvell,”—they, the Proprietor and the Editor of the "Wesleyan Times," are the responsible parties for what appears in their columns. It is by mere accident, such as writers and printers are subject to, that the real name of the correspondent, so rejoicingly hailed and welcomed by Mr. John Harrison, has become positively known. Had it not been for such an accident, the letters written, might have been supposed to come from respected correspondents in Ashton, or in France; or they might have been thought to have come from the pen of the Editor himself. There can be no reasonable objection to Mr. Dunn's simply receiving communications from his brethren, and publishing them, as he does, with the mere initials, or wholly without the names of the writers. These things he can do, if Circuit work will allow one man to edit a monthly periodical; and if the Connexion does not consider that he is interfering with its own similar, but vastly superior, periodical-"the Christian Miscellany." It is raising a "Banner" to gather the discomfitted "Minorities," that they may agitate and disturb Methodists through the year, by the renewal of questions fairly discussed and settled by the preceding Conference, that is to be condemned. And it is for this he makes himself responsible to his brethren. You cannot be justly classed amongst anonymous libellers who give no responsible name to what they publish; and leave men charged with fraud, robbery and drunkenness, without redress. Your readers will know how to distinguish between an attack and a defence-between anonymous falsehood and anonymous truth. You are, by the confession of Mr. Dunn and his few friends, of the "majority," and are, in your principles, evident defenders of the Conference and its most honoured members. But, "you ought to give your names to the public," say the men, who in print declare-let the truth of the accusations brought against nearly all the official men in Methodism be disproved, before the names of the accusers be asked for. Such is the immaculate consistency of professed Liberals! But all reasonable men will see through their manœuvre, and will also perceive the prudence and wisdom

of your refusal to comply with their demand. They want you to stand in the light, that slanderous men, who are hidden in darkness, may shoot their envious and malignant shafts at you. They want you to put up your visors when you enter into combat with enemies who wear theirs down. Admirable advocates of "Equality,"-" Fraternity," and "Liberty!" They know well enough that they could not write as they do, if their names were attached to their writing. Besides, if, as some think, you are Ministers in Circuits, and in different parts of the kingdom, it is better for you not to appear publicly as controversialists. You can, by law and usage, defend Methodism honourably and efficiently, without giving your names; and I hope that you will continue to do so. There is no doubt that your names would give additional authority to what you publish; but I apprehend you have other work to do than to expose false brethren. The style and ability displayed in your numbers show that you are no mere scribblers; and the sale of 4000 copies a month is proof that your doings are generally approved. You have wisely supplied a medium for letters and articles necessary at the present time, but not suitable to the general readers of a Newspaper; and I, with many others, sincerely and earnestly thank you for your timely, resolute, and effective defence of Methodism against slanderers and destructionists; and remain, yours respectfully,

ALIQUIS.

"THE WESLEY BANNER"

AND ITS "REVEREND

CORRESPONDENTS."

To the Editors of Papers on Wesleyan Matters.

66

SIRS,―The "Minority of Five"* in the Wesleyan Methodist Conference, have "unfurled their Banner;" and feeling a little mortified, doubtless, that the 'minority" is so small, the editors of "The Wesley Banner" are attempting to show off by a tremendous array of "Reverend Correspondents.' An accident, and a recollection of the case of the Rev. J. Boyd (See "Watchman," Jan. 31, 1849), made me suspect that I might possibly figure as one of them; and having, quite unexpectedly, an offer of the loan of the "Banner," I borrowed the 2nd and 3rd Nos., to ascertain whether this honor were assigned me; and, sure enough, on the cover of No. 3, " To Correspondents," my initials appear amongst those of 22 "Revds." as having sent communications" to the editors. A minority of "five" in the Conference, favoured with "communications," in one month, from 22 of their "Revd." brethren! Such an announcement as this, unless something be said to the contrary, in ordinary editorial parlance, implies concurrence with the views and purposes of the editors. But who will believe this here? Just let us suppose a case; which, in the instance under review, is not a mere parable. A brother minister has to write to one of these "EDITORS-WESLEYAN MINISTERS"-on a matter of business, not at all connected with the "Banner," and he never so much as names it. A copy of No. 1 of the "Banner," however, is enclosed

* Banner, p. 37.