character. They had too strong a conviction of the Scriptural nature 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 that without 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 is warranted 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. Hence I find the apostle thus 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 ard 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 church at Corinth, on whom does the apostle call to perform the solemn duty of excommunication? Does he address the pastor or ruling elders exclusively? He addresses the whole church, including members and officers. "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."(1 Cor. v. 1-5.) Here the power of the expulsion rested with

the whole church, and although the executive would be performed by the officer or officers, the sanction and concurrence of the members were undoubtedly expressed, for, when the solemn deed of excision had been performed, the apostle refers to it as the act of "many ;" and, while he commends the whole church for the fidelity thus exercised, he exhorts the same to restore the penitent to their communion and affection.

But, not only in the appropriation of funds, in the election of officers, and in the reception and expulsion of members, was the free and unfettered voice of the church recognized, but in the matter of legislation for the churches generally we see the same distinct and emphatic recognition of the people's right to united action with the ministry-yea, of united action with the apostles themselves, specially commissioned though they were, and gifted with the plenary inspiration of the Holy Spirit. When a counsel or synod, composed of representatives from various churches, was held at Jerusalem, in the days of the apostles, we find that assembly was composed of the laity and the ministry conjoined. I refer to Acts xv. Now, let any one mark the four special features which distinguished this assembly, -the subject for discussion; the constitution of the assembly, the united decision of apostles, elders, and brethren; and the recorded sanction of the Holy Ghost to the whole proceedings. With these facts before him, let him judge whether a Conference consisting of ministers alone, or composed of ministers and laymen, has the sanction of the New Testament. Here was a Conference, the first Conference held in a Christian church. Now, what was the subject for discussion? It was one of a spiritual nature, and intimately connected with the spiritual interests of the Church of God. It was, indeed, just such a subject as many would suppose laymen were the least qualified to determine a subject which might be supposed to belong to the apostles alone. Certainly, if any topic could require the exclusion of the laity, this was one. But of whom was this counsel composed? Was it of apostles alone? It was not. Was it of apostles and elders alone, in their united capacity? It was not. Of whom, then, was it composed? The text itself tells us it was composed of apostles, elders, and brethren. people, the unofficial members of the church, had a seat and a voice in that assembly, as well as apostles and elders. So, then, however unfit the laity may be deemed to have a seat with ministers in Conference in these modern times of fashion, respectability, and high ministerial prerogative, it was not so in plain apostolic times. It was no disgrace then for a plain, unofficial brother to sit side by side with Peter, James, and John in a legislative assembly. When the subject was discussed, the laity

were

The

present, and took a part in the proceedings. Hence it is said, "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”—(v. 12.)

When the decision of this important question was taken, it was done by the united voice of the apostles, elders, and brethren of the laity, "Then pleased it the apostles, and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas."-(v. 22.) When the epistle, containing the determination of this council, was sent to Antioch, it was sent in the name, not of the apostles alone, not in the name of the apostles and elders only,-but in the conjoint names of apostles, elders, and brethren. "And they wrote letters by them after this manner: The apostles, and elders, and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia." "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you," &c. It should be noted, too, that the constitution and proceedings of this assembly had the sanction of the Holy Ghost. This is recorded, as if to fix the visible impress of Jehovah's approval of such an assembly before the eye of the church in all future ages. It is expressly said, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," &c. We know not how language can more clearly set forth the union of the laity with the ministry in the highest court of the church, and in deciding questions of the highest spiritual interest. It should be remembered, that this synod, or conference, occurred when the church was in its virgin purity, and specially guided by the Holy

Ghost.

If we descend from apostolic times to succeeding ages of the church, we find the same union of the ministry and the people. I select a few instances illustrative of the truth of this statement. Clement lived in the first century, and in his epistle to the church at Corinth, written about the year 96, or, as some say, between the 66th and 70th year of the Christian era, speaking of the appointment of bishops (or ministers), he says, they were ordained by eminent men, with the consent of the whole church." So with respect to the election of elders by the church, we have the testimony of Tertullian, who in his Apology for Christians against the Heathen, A.D. 198 or 205, says, that the elders came into their office by the testimony of the people, that is, by the suffrage or election of the people. Their free and independent suffrages were the highest testimony which the people could give of the approbation of their elders.

With regard to doctrines, as well as church officers, the voice of the laity, in unison with that of the clergy, was appealed to. Thus Eusebius informs us that when Paulus Samosatenus was condemned by the great synod at Antioch, the assembly was composed of "bishops, presbyters, deacons, and the churches of God.”—(Euseb., b. vii., c. 80.) By the “churches of God" must be meant laymen, who represented the several churches, as it would have been quite impossible for so many churches, en masse, to be present. Now, this was in harmony with apostolic usage. Again, we read in the fifth book of

Eusebius, that when the heresy of the Montanists had spread itself, "the faithful met together often, and in many parts of Asia, and having examined the heresy, denounced it."—(Euseb., b. v., c. 16.)

The same reference to the voice of the people, in conjunction with the ministry, was made in determining the reception of members, which plain from the testimony of Cyprian, who lived in the third century. When some who had fallen from their steadfastness were employing improper means to get restored to the church, Cyprian, then in exile, writes to his church, saying, that "the lapsed should wait in patience until God had restored peace to the church, when there should be convened a synod of bishops, and of the people who had remained stedfast during the prosecution, who should consult together, and determine respecting the matter."-(Cyprian, Epist. 14.) Moses and Maximus, to whom Cyprian had written on this subject, wrote in reply, approving the caution of the bishop, and expressed their concurrence with his proposal of "consulting a synod of all the bishops, presbyters, deacons, confessors, and the standing laity.”—(Cyprian, Epist. 26.) The clergy of the Church of Rome also expressed their willingness that this question respecting apostates should be decided "by the united council of the bishops, presbyters, deacons, confessors, and the standing laity."—(Cyprian, Epist. 31.)

The ancient church exhibits also a conjunction of the laity with ministers in synods and general councils. This, indeed, is evident from the quotations already adduced, to which we add another from Cyprian. When the great council was held at Carthage, in year 258, there was the same union of the laity with the clergy and ecclesiastical dignitaries, in discussing and deciding the affairs which came before them: "for there were present many bishops from various parts, with presbyters, deacons, and a great part of the laity," on that memorable occasion.-(Cyprian p. 443.) If, then, there be any weight in the usages of antiquity, it is decidedly all in favour of uniting the laity with the ministry in all matters of legislation and administration.

If we come down to the history of the church in modern times, we find the same practical recognition of the people's rights in every evangelical denomination, with only one exception. When the lion-hearted Knox roused the people of Scotland to shake off the incubus of popery, did he inculcate a system which excluded the people from their Scriptural rights? Look at the constitution of the Presbyterian church for an answer. You will find in their church sessions, their presbyteries, their synods, and general assemblies-in all their courts, from the lowest to the highest, the people identified with the ministry in every branch of their administration. When the heroic and indomitable Luther hurled the popedom from its ascendancy in Germany, did he substitute one despotic system for another, by establishing a priestly oligarchy, who could rule