to be "particularly careful to enforce." And how is he to enforce this rule? We answer, briefly, In the first instance, by reason, by appeals to conscience and to a sense of duty; particularly in individual and ordinary cases. But, when this will not suffice, and especially when resistance becomes systematic, organized, wilful, and factious,—by disciplinary action. Such is the case with which we have to deal; and in such a case we have no alternative, but by the exercise of discipline, "to enforce" the rule, or tamely to surrender it to a wilful resistance, a factious opposition. And, to say the very least, whatever forbearance may be exercised in the case of private members, no man who continues, after due admonition, to violate this rule, ought to be allowed to retain any office in connexion with a Wesleyan-Methodist Society,

Connected with this "money question" there is another matter which must be noticed briefly. It is upon this subject that a certain writer, in a print notorious for the untruthfulness of its statements upon almost every matter pertaining to Wesleyan Methodism, recently delivered himself to the following effect :-"The poor have been robbed for half a century,-the poor whom Methodism as it is has well-nigh ignored!" Justly to characterise the conduct of such a writer, a well-known scripture must be slightly modified: "This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag," and was wishful "the usual contributions to all Wesleyan funds" should be "put therein." In the same matter, and by the same party, the Conference is charged with "a dishonest violation of the trusts of the Founder of Methodism." The gravest part of this slander is already disposed of; and for the rest, a few remarks will suffice.

That which was spoken of by the Prophet has been eminently fulfilled in Wesleyan Methodism: "I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord." (Zeph. iii. 12.) Methodism has enriched multitudes: it has impoverished none. It has blessed millions whom almost no other system would have found out; and to none has it proved a richer and more varied blessing than to the poor. To myriads who were "ready to perish" in pagan lands, "to the poor" in almost every country under heaven, "the Gospel is preached" by Methodism as it is. For the poor within its own communion, Methodism cares as affectionately, and provides as liberally, as ever it did; and it is as solicitous as ever it was to mitigate their sufferings, and in every way to improve their condition, both temporally and spiritually. Its Sunday-schools, day-schools, tract-societies, and various charitable institutions for the relief of the sick and needy, in which tens of thousands of pounds are expended annually, all aim at this great object. In the year 1789, Mr. Wesley and the Conference resolved that "the money collected at the lovefeasts shall be most conscientiously given to the poor." And since the death of Mr. Wesley, it has become the rule and the

practice in all our principal chapels and Societies, to make a collection for the poor once a month, when the sacrament of the Lord's supper is administered. Thus we have sixteen collections made annually "for the relief of the poor."

Besides all this, many thousands of pounds are annually provided and expended by "Methodism as it is," to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked, and send relief to "the widows and fatherless in their afflictions." In addition to the funds raised by public collections, and administered from week to week by our "Poor-Stewards," separate funds are generously provided for the above purposes by private donations and subscriptions. In fact, there is not a single benevolent object originally contemplated by Mr. Wesley which is not cherished and nobly prosecuted by "Methodism as it is," and carried out upon a scale of benevolence worthy of his followers. To say, therefore, that the poor among us are either robbed or ignored by "Methodism as it is," is a shameless calumny;-a calumny which no ordinary calumniator would have dared either to utter or to pen.

REMARKS ON THE BRISTOL ADDRESS.

THE "Address of the Wesleyan Reform Committee, in Reply to the Expostulations and Admonitions of the Wesleyan Ministers in the Bristol North Circuit," contains serious misrepresentations, which appear to call for exposure and correction. The following remarks are designed to place the points at issue somewhat more fairly before those who wish for the means of forming an impartial judgment.

On page 8 of the "Address," it is asserted, "They" (the Preachers) "well know that it was the serious inroads made by the Conference itself upon the Constitution of Methodism that originated the Reform movement: and they are equally well aware that the extreme measure of 'stopping the supplies' was not resorted to until every other measure had been exhausted." No proof of this allegation can be produced on the contrary, no such inroads have been made on the constitution by the Conference; the relative rights of the ministry, office-bearers, and people, standing now as they were determined by what is called the compact of 1797.

The writers of the "Address," with sufficient gentleness of expression, speak of "stopping the supplies" as an "extreme measure." Extreme, doubtless, it is: and most persons will probably be of opinion, that, involving, as it does, a denial of the right of the ministry to continued support, it is a practical dissolution of the ties which connect the Pastors and people; and cannot but be considered as placing those who persist in it out of the pale of the constitution of any Christian church which recognises the scriptural claims of the ministry to be supported by the people. In justification of this outrage upon justice and Christianity, it is urged, that the Conference refused to entertain

and consider the demands made on them by the Reformers, and to redress their alleged grievances.

The Conference did entertain, consider, and reply to all memorials presented to it through the regularly-constituted Meetings; the laws determining the mode of access to the Conference having been actually acquiesced in by all the Quarterly-Meetings in the kingdom.

But what are these alleged grievances, as enumerated in the "Address?" As to the veto by the Leaders'-Meetings on the admission of members, it remains now precisely as it originally stood. No ticket of membership is given but with the approval of the Leader with whom the member has met on trial. It is competent to the Leaders'-Meeting to interpose its veto in the case of any person deemed unfit for membership; and not only a Leader, but a private member, may require the investigation of any charge which affects the membership of any individual. Is it not, then, flagrantly unjust to represent as an actual and prevalent evil in the Methodist Societies, the risk of being "associated with persons of the most exceptionable character, at the will of the Preacher ?"

'

It is asked, (page 9,) “Is it no grievance that you can be cut off from Christian communion by the same arbitrary will,.........nay, that you can be quietly dropped by the Preacher without a charge, and without the intervention of any church-meeting whatever?" On the anomalous and unprecedented case of those who have "stopped the supplies," observations have been already made: they did in effect outlaw themselves. But in all instances where the right of membership is questioned by the Superintendent, any member denying the charge may demand and have a trial before the Leaders'-Meeting for the proof of an alleged violation, on his part, of the Rules of the Society. Till such proof of his guilt be afforded, the exercise of discipline cannot take place. Nor does any appeal lie against the decision of the Leaders'-Meeting, except where the Superintendent is prepared to prove that the verdict is against the evidence. It is manifest, therefore, that the rights of members are under the guardianship of the Rules of Society, and not, as is rashly affirmed in the "Address," subject to the caprice of the "arbitrary will of the Preacher."

It is not true, as is asserted on page 9 of the Address, that because any Resolution "is unpalatable to the Preacher," he can "refuse to put it to a church-meeting." Neither rule nor usage sanctions such refusal, except where the Resolution is held to be unconstitutional. As to the power of the Conference in making general laws, it is sufficient to say, and it would be easy to prove, that this power is so checked as to secure the people against its arbitrary exercise; and that, so far from it being true that "the members of the church have not the slightest voice in the matter," first, on many questions submitted to the Conference, the subject of their decisions has been previously discussed and determined on in Mixed Committees; secondly, all new laws may be brought under the notice of the Quarterly

Meetings, considered there, and suspended for one year; and, thirdly, as to the "redress of grievances," which affect societies or Circuits, the Leaders' and Quarterly Meetings possess, respectively, unrestricted right of access to the Conference; while, by the much-maligned Memorial-Meeting in June, the views and wishes of those members best entitled to consideration may be fully represented.

Without affirming that the details of these general arrangements are perfect, every candid person will admit that their obvious aim and tendency is to hold the balance equitably between interests which, though different, ought never to be regarded as conflicting. Nor has the Conference, while resolutely maintaining the above principles, ever refused to consider suggestions adapted to render their practical application more satisfactory; while, on the other hand, the demands of the Reformers, under the plea that pastoral rule may be abused, would, in fact, abolish it, and reduce the Pastor to the mere Chairman and organ of the Leaders-Meeting; substituting, for the rule of the Presbyter, the absolute despotism of majorities. And it may with truth be asserted, that, thus altered, Methodism, so far from continuing to be Wesleyan, would be transformed into a "huge superstructure of ecclesiastical republicanism." Whether, so altered, the rights of the members would be safer, the purity of the body better guarded, and the vigour and just influence of the ministry remain unimpaired, are questions entitled to the gravest consideration. At all events, much stronger evidence than has hitherto been given, not only in support of the probable utility of these revolutionary changes, but of their absolute necessity, must be adduced, to justify the violent courses pursued by those who boast of the title of Wesleyan Reformers; or even to vindicate them from the heaviest censures for having recklessly violated the peace of the church, rent it into hostile parties, subjected its Ministers to the grossest contumely, and, as far as their influence could go, withdrawn from them and their families the means of sustenance. And, whatever be the result of the present unhappy agitations, there is surely but too much reason to fear, that the reflections of those whose intemperate counsels have excited and fed strife and division, cannot fail to be bitter and self-reproachful.

A BRISTOL CORRESPONDENT.

"SOMETHING MUST BE WRONG."

THERE are many well-meaning persons, both in and out of the Methodist family, who have lately heard. so much said, and seen so much printed, against the Conference, that they are ready to say, "There must be something wrong somewhere;" and they also wish to know where and what it is. In many cases, however, before they have got an answer to the inquiry, "What is all the noise about?' they incline to the opinion that Conference ought to let the noisy ones have what they wish, just for the sake of peace and quietness. Now,

it must be admitted, that there is something wrong somewhere in the Methodist family; but those who know what it is, and where it is, know also, that for the Conference to grant what the unruly members demand would only be to increase and perpetuate the disturbance. How often do children cry for things that are unsuitable, and parents give them for the sake of a moment's quietness! But, in almost the very next moment, the same children cry again for something else; and that, too, is given for peace' sake. Presently, they roar and stamp for some other article; but, as they neither know how to use what is given them, nor when to be satisfied, they keep the house in a perpetual uproar. It is evident there is something wrong here, and that concessions produce no permanent peace. The noise now heard in the Methodist family is made by children of a larger growth. Some cry for one thing, and some for another: and some do not know exactly what they want, or whether they want anything at all; but they make a noise, because others do. They all admit that the food provided for the family by the paternal arrangements of the Conference is wholesome and good; but certain members object to some old domestic regulations of the family as being far too strict, and as not being in accordance with the rules of political societies, or the regulations of the House of Commons. Many of the younger members of the family cry for what they call liberty; that is to say, they wish to have the chief management of the family in their own hands. They want some of the long-established rules of the house to be done away with, and others of their own invention to be adopted. Having lately studied the newspapers more than the Bible, they say very naughty things, and make certain demands in parliamentary phraseology. Looking round on the Methodist establishment, and assuming an air of importance, these would-be legislators say, "This house must be reformed. Things must be regulated according to the spirit of the times. We will enforce these alterations by stopping the supplies," &c. The elder and more prudent brethren and sisters of the same family exhort these refractory ones to be quiet and obedient. They say, "We lived happily in this family, and approved of its rules and regulations, long before many of you were born. We approve of them now, and wish them to remain unaltered. We think your demands are unreasonable, and hope you will allow us the quiet use of our privileges. We beg you will not attempt to force your proposed alterations upon us; for we do not want them: they will neither do us nor you any good." But the headstrong and rebellious agitators continue their noisy interruption, very much to the discomfort of their peaceable brothers and sisters, and declare they will be satisfied with nothing short of submission to their demands, whether the other members of the family like it or not. All who are not blinded by prejudice may now see what is wrong, and who are wrong. These agitators are wrong in temper and in conduct. We may confidently declare that the Conference will never grant the demands of these