me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day." "For I know in whom I have believed." G. SMITHSON. South Shields, January 16, 1854.

A PENITENT SOUL DELIVERED.

STALYBRIDGE. During our late revival services at Stalybridge, one Sabbath evening, one of our local preachers brought up to the communion rails a stout young man, in deep agony of mind. He fell on his knees like a smitten bullock, and roared out in the disquietude of his soul, saying, "It's my mother's prayers. It's my mother's prayers. O Lord, I am a great sinner! God have mercy upon me!" I said "Jesus Christ is a great Saviour: look to him, believe on him, and he will save you." For some time he could see nothing but his sins. I told him he would not get saved by looking at his sins; that he must look to Jesus, and plead his precious blood. "Tell the Saviour you believe he died for you." He began to do so, and I said, "There now, that is right, stick to it." "Tell him, you believe he can save you, and he will save you." He did this for a minute or two. I said, "Now believe he receives you, and tell him so." He did it with a trembling heart, and had not repeated this act of faith above three or four times before deliverance came. His sorrow was turned

into joy. He wept and praised the Lord until the close of the meeting. On the following Sunday morning, he 'went to class. On the first of this month, I met the class to which he belongs. When I spoke to him, and inquired the state of his mind, tears started in his eyes, and he was deeply affected. He said, "I am filled with wonder, love, and praise. Last NewYear's Day, I was a poor drunkard; I was in debt; my family was miserable; my constitution was broken; so much so, that the doctor said that nothing but an improbably great change could preserve my life; but now," he continued, "God has restored my health, saved my soul, and wrought a real change in me. I am now out of debt; I have got myself and family well clothed, and do not know how to praise the Lord sufficiently. Truly it may be said, 'Godliness is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and that which is 'to come.' A. LYNN.

January 16.

THE REV. ALEXANDER KIL HAM DEFENDED AGAINST THE MALIGNANT SLANDERS OF THE "WATCHMAN." THE important official document, entitled, "The Census of Great Britain in 1851," comprising the statistics of the various religious denominations in this country, has called forth numerous eulogistic observations from men of all creeds. Its accuracy, impartiality, and fidelity, reflect a high degree of honour on the diligence and candour of Mr. Horace Mann, who has compiled this national record. The Watchman, however, is displeased with this production, because some of its facts yield no flattery to Wesleyan polity; and because the author has done justiceto the several offshoots which the despotic power and usage of the parent body has at different periods originated. In reference to the origin of our own denomination, Mr. Mann has the following candid and faithful observation :

་

"The question of lay influence remained untouched until 1797, when the Conference conceded that the Leaders'meeting should have the right to exercise an absolute veto upon the admission of new members to the Society, and that no member should be expelled for immorality until such immorality had been proved at a Leaders'-meeting.' Certain lesser rights were at the same time conceded to the Quarterly-meetings, in which the laity were represented by the presence of their Stewards and Class Leaders. But this was the extent of the concessions made by the Preachers; and all propositions for lay-delegation to the Conference and the District-meetings were conclusively rejected.

"Foremost amongst many who remained unsatisfied by these concessions, was the Rev. Alexander Kilham, who, singularly enough, was born at Epworth, in Lincolnshire, the birthplace of the Wesleys. Mr. Kilham, first acquiring prominence as an asserter of the right of the Methodists to meet for worship in church hours, and to receive the sacraments from their own Ministers, was gradually led to take an active part in the advocacy of the principle of fay participation in the government of the Connexion. For the vigorous

expression of these sentiments in a pamphlet entitled the Progress of Liberty,' he was tried at the Conference of 1796, and expelled from the Connexion."

These remarks of Mr. Mann will be recognized by all candid minds acquainted with the history of Methodism as literally correct, free from all partiality, injustice, and flattery. But this simple unvarnished statement of facts must not be allowed to pass by the Watchman without the manifestation of hostility against the memory of Mr. Kilham, and a serious reflection upon Mr. Mann himself. We give the Watchman's animadversion:

"Our objection to these paragraphs is simply that they falsify the history they profess to give. Whoever relies

on them for the facts of the case will be much in the same position as one who should go to the Arabian Nights' for the history of the Caliphs of Bagdad.

"1. So far from the question of lay influence remaining untouched up to 1797,' the legislation of 1794 on the privileges of Trustees, the Plan of Pacification in 1795, and the rules of 1796, had each and all conceded to the laity of Methodism a very large share of influence in the government of the Body. The rules of 1797 did indeed extend the range of lay influence, though the Conference declined to accede to the proposal to incorporate lay delegates; but it would be as correct to say that the popular element had no existence in the British Constitution until 1832, as to state that the question of lay influence remained untouched by the Conference till 1797. We wonder how Mr. Mann could have fallen into this mistake.

"2. Instead of a party waiting to be negotiated with, and entitled to pronounce upon the legislation of 1797 as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, Mr. Kilham was at that time formally disowned by the Conference, and without any ground to hope that he would ever be reunited to it. One of his biographers (Mr. Blackwell, if our memory does not fail) tells us, that some months before the assembling of the Conference of '97 he perceived that the formation of a separate body would be inevitable.

"3. The statement that Mr. Kilham was expelled for the vigorous expression of his sentiments in a pamphlet entitled The Progress of Liberty,' is

equally misleading. The Conference took no notice whatever of his sentiments on questions of Church Government, but dealt with him solely on moral grounds. The record of its proceedings in his case was published as soon as the proceedings were closed, and is a most instructive document. It goes through the charges against him seriatim,-sets forth the evidence by which each was sustained, and the conclusion arrived at upon the whole. That conclusion we subjoin, leaving our readers to compare it with Mr. Mann's statement:

"The final and unanimous judgment of the Conference is Whereas Mr. Kilham has published to the world so many particulars so highly injurious to the characters of Mr. Wesley and the body of Preachers, and declared himself able and willing to substantiate his charges before the Conference; and, notwithstanding, on his trial was not able to substantiate a single chargethe Conference, on due consideration of the whole body of evidence, together with the disunion, confusion, and distraction which Mr. Kilham's pamphlets have made through the Societies, do unanimously judge Mr. Kilham unworthy of continuing a member of the Methodist Conference.'

"The vigorous expression of his sentiments' upon a disputed question may be a euphemism which commends itself to Mr. Mann's taste; but we prefer the plain language of our prayerbook, and say that, as he could not 'keep his tongue from evil speaking, lying, and slandering,' Mr. Kilham justly forfeited his place in a body of Christian Ministers; and it is most unjust to those whose fellowship he forfeited, to represent them as dealing with him merely as a partizan in an ecclesiastical squabble."

On reading these observations-so full of malignity, so characterized by jesuistry and falsehood-we felt it our duty to furnish a reply. It was superfluous to animadvert upon the Watchman's quotation of an ex-parte statement from an obsolete pamphlet issued by Mr. Kilham's persecutors and enemies; but justice itself required that we should confront the false statements of the Watchman by supplying the plain facts of the case; and this we have already done in a letter published in the Wesleyan

N

66

TO THE EDITOR OF THE WESLEYAN TIMES." SIR,-Every candid mind will be ready to make a large allowance for the predilections and prejudices of our fellow-men, even when they are exercised on the side of palpable and egregious errors; but when attempts are made to sustain those errors by a wilful perversion of truth, by the denial of facts which are established by the clearest evidence, and especially by malignant aspersions of character, charity herself recoils and blushes at the depravity of human nature. The animadversions of the Watchman, of the 18th instant, on Mr. Horace Mann's remarks on Methodism, I regret to say are replete with falsehood and slander. I will, Sir, with your permission, point out one or two instances.

In contradicting the statement of Mr. Mann, the Watchman affirms, that "the legislation of 1794, on the privileges of Trustees, the Plan of Pacification in 1795, and the rules of 1796, had each and all conceded to the laity of Methodism a very large share of influence in the government of the body."

I am literally amazed at this statement. Never was there a more impudent falsehood penned than this. The man who wrote it must either be very ignorant, or can have no regard to truth. "Very large" concessions made in 1794! larger concessions still in 1795!! and again larger concessions in 1796!!! This is wonderful. Any one totally ignorant of Methodism might suppose, from this statement, that the Wesleyan Conference had, by that time, surrendered all its power into the hands of the people; or, at least, had become a perfect pattern of freedom to the whole Christian world. how stands the case? What do all these "very large concessions," thrice extended, amount to? Up to the year 1797, who had the sole power of receiving members?-The circuit

But

preachers. Who had the sole power of censuring, suspending, or expelling members?-- The preachers. Who had the sole power of appointing, degrading, censuring, suspending, or dismissing leaders, stewards, and local preachers?-The circuit preachers. Who had the sole control over the Connexional funds?—The preachers. Who composed the Annual Conference, and had the sole power of making and enforcing the laws for the body?-The preachers. So, then, after "very large " concessions had been made to the people in 1794, and larger still in 1795, and yet larger in 1796,-all these priestly prerogatives were retained. It is in the face of these facts that the Watchman has the hardihood to contradict the true statement of Mr. Mann, and even to compare the polity of Methodism with the British Constitution. For he says, "It would be as correct to say that the popular element had no existence in the British Constitution until 1832, as to state that the question of lay influence remained untouched by the Conference till 1797. We wonder how Mr. Mann could have fallen into this mistake." How far Mr. Mann has fallen into any mistake, the public may now judge and how far there is any resemblance between the Wesleyan Conference and the British Constitution, the public may easily determine. Resemblance, indeed, there is none. Contrast there is, complete and perfect; and it is an insult to the common sense of his readers to pretend to any resemblance. The writer himself knows there is no resemblance. The British Parliament is a representative and responsible body, and was so even prior to the Reform Bill; but the Wesleyan Conference always repudiated representation,-it is even to this day an exclusive, self-elected, irresponsible corporation, possessing a power that is absolute. To the absolutism of Popery it has, indeed, a striking resemblance; but, to the British Constitution, or to any Protestant ecclesiastical body in the world, it has no resemblance. It stands alone as an abhorred system of perfect despotism.

Permit me, Sir, to direct attention to another veracious statement of the writer. In contradicting the fact given by Mr. Mann in reference to Mr. Kilham's expulsion, the Watchman has the unblushing hardihood to affirm "the statement, that Mr. Kilham was expelled for the vigorous expression of his sentiments in a pamphlet entitled 'The Progress of Liberty,' is equally misleading. The Conference took no notice whatever of his sentiments on questions of church government, but dealt with him solely on moral grounds." I am prepared to prove that this is another audacious falsehood.

A document lies before me containing the categorical accusations, or "the identical brotherly questions," which were officially put to Mr. Kilham on his trial at the Conference of 1796. From that document we select a few of these questions, which, in fact, formed the very counts in his indictment; and while we quote them, let the reader remember the affirmation of the Watchman, that "the Conference took no notice whatever of Mr. Kilham's sentiments on church government, but dealt with him solely on moral grounds." There were six charges preferred by the Conference against Mr. Kilham on his trial, and we take just four of them, exactly in the order they were presented :

Q. 1. "Do you acknowledge the pamphlet entitled, 'An Appeal to the Methodist Societies of the Alnwick Circuit,' dated May 24, 1796?"

Q. 2. "Do you intend to support the third paragraph in the first page of that pamphlet, which declares, that 'there are several parts of our plan both unscriptural and oppressive to the people?

Q3. "Do you intend to support the second paragraph in the second page of that pamphlet, declaring that no government under heaven, except an absolute monarchy, or a papal hierarchy, is so despotic and oppressive as ours,' or words to that purport?'

Q. 4. "Do you intend to support the second paragraph in the third page of that pamphlet, which declares, that 'Priestcraft is the same in every sect and party. It loves to deal with igno

rance and credulity. It abhors the light -ever strives to keep its votaries from free inquiry.' And do you mean to support this as our character, according to the implication of that paragraph?"

These were the first four counts in the indictment against Mr. Kilham. There were but two others, and they were only certain allegations respecting his charges against the preachers. We now ask the reader whether the Watchman is a true or false witness in affirming, that "the Conference took no notice whatever of Mr. Kilham's sentiments on church government, and dealt with him solely on moral grounds?" It is here evident as daylight, that instead of the Conference taking 66 no notice of Mr. Kilham's sentiments on church government," those sentiments, if not the sole ground of his trial, yet were, doubtless, the head and front of his offending, and the real ground of his expulsion.

As to the moral grounds of which the Watchman speaks, we demand, what were they? Was there any charge against his conduct as a father, as a husband, as a member of civil or religious society, or even as a minister? Had he neglected any duty, or violated any law, or brought a single stain upon his own character, or that of the Methodist community? We unhesitatingly reply, in all these respects he was not only beyond reproach, but beyond suspicion. Even his bitterest accusers could not point to a spot upon his moral character, else they would have been eager to do it. The fact that the first four counts in his indictment had reference to his views on church government alone, at once convicts the writer in the Watchman of either gross ignorance or malignant falsehood, and proves that the Conference had no charge against his moral character, except the sinister construction which was put upon some verbal statements made by Mr. Kilham in his honest denunciation of wrong principles and wrong doings in the Wesleyan Connexion.

I would not justify even a wrong word which might be penned in the