one of peculiar interest and importance. An object so noble as the erection of a sanctuary to Almighty God cannot fail to excite in every well-regulated mind feelings of the highest satisfaction and delight. Actuated by a sincere desire to provide for the spiritual wants of this rapidly increasing population, and to accommodate a small society which our community has had for many years in this locality, we have, in humble dependence on the blessing of Almighty God, commenced this work of faith and labour of love; and the desire most paramount in our hearts is, that His glory may be extensively promoted by it in the conversion of sinners and the edification of real Christians. We wish, above all things, that this house of prayer may become a Bethesda, a house of mercy, in which the Divine Saviour shall bind up the "brokenhearted, proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison doors to them that are bound." We regard the blessed Gospel, which will be proclaimed within these walls, in all its simplicity and purity, as by far the noblest instrumentality that can be employed for the promotion of human happiness; in fact, as the only panacea for the miseries and evils which sin has produced.

I presume it is almost unnecessary for me to state, that in this effort we disclaim everything like sectarian hostility or rivalry to our brethren of other communities. We love all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and rejoice in their prosperity. We regard ourselves as the friends of all evangelical sections of the Christian church, and as the enemy of none. We honour the zeal and enterprise of the Baptist and Independent denominations in their Chapel Extension Associations, and we are solicitous to emulate their energy and spirit, and to co-operate with them to the extent of our ability in promoting the great and glorious objects of our common Christianity. In this metropolis there is ample and abundant scope for us all, and would to God that the dormant energies of the universal Church of Christ were waked up to

prosecute, with apostolic energy and zeal, a crusade against all the enemies of the Cross. There is not a system of idolatry and superstition in the world that does not find its counterpart here; not a single vice or form of evil in existence that has not its temples, its votaries, and victims in this great city. Our object, therefore, is to co-operate with other Christian communities, to stem this torrent of infidelity and impiety, and protect, if possible, the rising generation from the baneful and soul-destroying influences by which they are surrounded. There is, however, another form of error which assumes the garb of sanctity, and which is being insidiously and vigorously propagated with a zeal which would do honour to a better cause. I refer to Popery, and to the Romanizing tendency of certain parties in the National Church, who teach the doctrine of salvation by the sacraments, and claim the exclusive right to administer them. Now, against these combined errors and influences, we are anxious, in conjunction with our brethren of other denominations, to oppose a purer faith, accompanied by superior energy for if these objectionable and unscriptural systems are to be counteracted, it can only be accomplished by an ardent, burning zeal for the Divine glory, proceeding from an elevated and lofty piety, which will give us power with God, whose grace and providence are alone sufficient to accomplish these important and desirable results.

But it will, no doubt, be expected that some more special and distinct allusion should be made on this occasion to those peculiarities which distinguish us as a religious community. We are, then, Methodists, holding and preaching precisely the same doctrines, and observing the same ordinances, as the Wesleyan community from whom we seceded in the year 1797. The causes of that separation were-a refusal on the part of the Conference to allow the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper to be administered in their own chapels by Wesleyan ministers, and also a rigid determi

nation to maintain irresponsible and absolute authority over the rights of the people, who were not allowed any voice whatever in the making of the laws by which they were governed, or in the distribution of the funds raised by themselves. Against the assumption of these unscriptural claims our fathers protested, and the noble-minded Kilham, the first Methodist Reformer, and the champion of religious freedom, after contending for some years single-handed for the rights of the people, at last became the victim of ecclesiastical tyranny, and subsequently died a martyr to the cause of Methodist Reform. He nevertheless gave birth and impulse to a demand for freedom in the Wesleyan community, which no arbitrary power can ever extinguish. The liberal and enlightened sentiments of Alexander Kilham and his coadjutors were, however, half a century in advance of the spirit of the age; and hence the period when they were enunciated was exceedingly inauspicious for their efficient development. Toryism was then rampant in the state, and the advocate of either civil or religious liberty was designated a traitor or a Jacobin. Under these unfavourable circumstances, our community was started. With only two circuit preachers, without funds, expelled from the chapels we had built, the overwhelming influence of the Old Connexion exerted to extinguish the infant cause, and the tide of public feeling against us, was it to be wondered at that the cause did not rapidly flourish? Who does not see that if the work had not been of God it would have come to nought? But the system could not fail, because it was founded on the dictates of enlightened reason, the usages of the primitive church, and the teaching of the Holy Spirit, as deduced from the New Testament. Our founders regarded the Word of God as the only authoritative standard of faith and practice; and although many subsequent secessions have taken place from the parent stock, I am not aware that any one new principle has been enunciated,

or the slightest possible advantage gained over the privileges we have possessed from the very commencement of our existence as a community. I will not detain the present audience longer, but offer a few additional remarks at the evening meeting.

The doxology was then sung, Mr. H.Webber offered the concluding prayer, the Rev. J. Maughan pronounced the benediction, and the first part of the proceedings terminated.

PUBLIC TEA MEETING.

THE Company having retired to the Birkbeck School-room, where tea was provided, JOSIAH BATES, Esq., in the unavoidable absence of Richard Barford, Esq., was subsequently called to the chair. He said: My friends,-Our strength, as a Christian denomination, lies not in our wealth or our influence, but in our distinctive principles. We are the first Reformed Methodist Church. Some of the more recent seceders from Wesleyanism have adopted our principles without knowing it—others have appropriated them without acknowledging the source from whence they were derived; and, I regret to say, a very numerous party avail themselves of our principles, but vilify and despise us as much as they do the Wesleyan Conference. It is something, however, to have been the means of awakening in others a consciousness of their Scriptural rights. Our principles are at this moment making greater progress than at any previous time; and, sooner or later, they must be adopted by the Wesleyan Body itself. We can join with the loudest in the cry for religious freedom, because, in our community, no impediments exist to its attainment. We call no man Master on earth. One is our Master, even Christ, and all we are brethren. We revere and highly venerate the memory of the devoted and disinterested men who were our standardbearers and founders, and most readily acknowledge our deep obligation to them; but we recognize in them no right to bind our judgments or limit our progress. As our authority

we bow only to God. We are free to adapt ourselves to the changing circumstances of the age. The opinions held by our fathers were especially adapted to their own times; but it does not follow, that what is needed at one period, is, therefore, of necessity, adapted to another. We are free to avail ourselves of any modification or improvement that the growing intelligence of the times may demand, or that is calculated to facilitate what is of much greater importance the extension of the Redeemer's cause. I am aware that it is possible to rely too much on the excellency of an ecclesiastical constitution. I am even willing to admit that a bad system, if carried out with devoted energy, will accomplish more than a good one inefficiently sustained. I am, therefore, deeply solicitous that we, as a people, should recommend our principles by a holy, earnest, and energetic faith. What care the masses for denominational peculiarities and distinctions? The multitude can, and will, appreciate results. Let us, therefore, show that our principles are calculated to produce a devoted and lofty piety. This will give us power with God, and will constrain him to pour out such a blessing as there shall not be room

to contain.

Mr. B. JOHNSON and H. WEBBER then addressed the meeting, expressing their gratification at the event which they had that day witnessed, and their anticipations of the greater things of which that event was but the precursor.

The Rev. W. COOKE said: Mr. Chairman and Christian Friends,The occasion which has brought us together this day is one of no ordinary interest and importance,-the erection of a sanctuary for God. I cannot, indeed, claim any degree of merit as to the origination of this great undertaking. Anxious as I felt for the perpetuity and extension of our cause in this locality, I did not see my way clear to encourage the erection of a structure of such magnitude, when I knew the cost and responsibility must necessarily devolve upon a few individuals. It

is owing, Sir, to the extraordinary liberality of yourself, and our generous friend, Mr. Barford, combined with the indefatigable labours of my worthy coadjutor, Mr. Maughan, that this noble structure is being erected. I have, however, a few bricks in the building, and heartily shall I join its most sanguine promoters in prayer to God that it may prove to be the birthplace of thousands of precious souls, and the commencement of a new era to our cause in this place.

On this occasion, strangers will naturally inquire,-Who are you? and what is the character of your religious denomination? And I feel that it is but just, both to ourselves and inquirers, to answer the question. I reply, then, we are Methodistsour system may be briefly described as Methodism with the despotic element taken out of it. Our venerable founders were no speculators in doctrine. They were born in Methodism, and understood its value, its importance, and its providential character. They had too strong a conviction of the Scriptural character of its doctrines, its ordinances and appliances, to desire any change in its spiritual elements. But they thought then, as we think now, it was to be deeply deplored that a system containing so much that is superlatively good and excellent in its spiritual character should be combined with a polity essentially despotic and unscriptural. They, therefore, laboured to purge away the dross from the fine gold, to render Methodism as free and as Scriptural in its government, as it was pure in its doctrines and effective in its appliances; and our existence as a distinct religious denomination is owing to these correlative facts-the assertion of the great principles of religious freedom by our forefathers, on the one hand, and the refusal of those rights by the Wesleyan Conference, on the other hand. Our venerable founders held, as a fundamental principle, that the church of God has a right to freedom in the action and administration of its government, in conformity with Scriptural principles, and with

out either external control or an internal and irresponsible oligarchy. They held, as we still hold, that the church of God consists not of ministers without members, nor of members without ministers, but of both united; and that no system of government could be either rational, scriptural, or just, which did not unite the members with the ministers in every department of its political administration; that in appropriating the funds which the church contributes, and in the formation and administration of the laws by which the church is governed, the people have a natural, a Scriptural, an inalienable right to participate with their ministers. This was their fundamental principle, and, I ask, was it right? I hear you respond, "Yes;" and, sir, the voices of Holy Scripture, of ecclesiastical antiquity, and of all Protestant churches, with one single exception, unite with you in reiterating that response.

On referring to the New Testament, I find that, when the abundant liberality of the primitive church supplied funds for the hand of charity, the apostles themselves, though endowed with the highest authority, declined the charge of the church's treasures; and, though gifted with plenary inspiration, equally declined the responsibility of choosing others for that office. They would neither retain the charge themselves, nor dictate to the church those who should undertake it; but devolved the election on the church itself, and left its members free and unfettered in their choice; they called the multitude of the disciples together, and said, "It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God, and serve tables; wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, and full of the Holy Ghost, whom we may appoint over this business." Again, I find, that, when the contributions of one church were sent to the aid of another, they were committed, not to the apostles themselves, but to men chosen by the churches to bear their benefactions; and this was done that no man should suspect the ministry of covetousness

or peculation,-"providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.” In these facts there is an explicit recognition of two things-the right and duty of the church to a participation with the ministry in the appropriation of its funds, and the equal right and duty of the church to elect its own officers. The right thus acknowledged by apostolic authority, no man has a right either to usurp for himself, or to restrain in its exercise by others. It is the right and duty of the church, and woe be to him that interferes therewith.

So, in reference to the reception of members, and the expulsion of the unworthy, the voice of the church was distinctly and formally recognized in apostolic times. I again appeal to Holy Scripture. When a member was received, was it by the pastor alone? or was it by the pastor and a few officials, irrespective of the church? Nothing of the kind, but by the body of believers. I thus find the apostle addressing the whole church-the church including members, officers, and ministers-"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him . . . Wherefore, receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God. . . . Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them." (Rom. xiv. 1-3; xv. 7; xvi. 17.) The right of the church, and not of a few officers, to receive members within her communion is here distinctly recognized. When an offending member was expelled, was that solemn act of discipline performed by the minister alone, or by the minister and a few officers alone, irrespective of the body of believers? Again I answer, nothing of the kind. When discipline had to be exercised upon the incestuous person in the