their preachers, is false, officious, and meddlesome, and what intelligent and honourable men would not say.

6. That the Methodist ministers are supported by the voluntary contributions of their people; while the Orthodox ministers generally receive not only much larger salaries, but have them legally assessed and secured by law.

7. That if the Methodist preachers are 'hirelings,' because they receive large 'salaries,' and are 'sure' of their support, the Orthodox ministers must be 'hirelings' for the same reason; but then as the latter receive more, and are more 'sure' of their salaries than the former, they are more properly hirelings. This is according to their own showing. The next letter of the Rev. gentlemen is devoted to show how the sums necessary to support this 'traveling multitude' are raised. Loud complaints are uttered against the frequency of our collections, and the tariff' on our books, as well as against the objects to which they are applied. The gentlemen seem to think the civil government, and all our republican institutions, are in danger from the 'immense' revenues of the Methodist Episcopal Church; and that some 'earthly tribunal' ought to be created to look into this subject, lest it should rear a wealthy and haughty aristocracy' in the midst of us. We have wondered to see the gentlemen so anxious upon the subject of Methodist preachers' salaries. But the secret is now out. In a former letter they tell us, 'The Methodist ministry furnishes a living which is equal at least to the avails of a fund of $10,000. And into this living they step with little or no previous expense for education: while other ministers, after having spent in time and money, and for necessary books, what is equal in ordinary cases to $3,000, to prepare themselves for usefulness in the church, receive for their labour, in a vast variety of cases, "but ▲ BARE LIVING, and in many cases BARE ENOUGH. .”—A bare living!''Ay, there's the rub.' The Rev. gentlemen, after spending $3,000 to qualify themselves for usefulness,' cannot bear to see the illiterate Methodists' out-do them. Surely there must be a strange mysterious 'power in Methodism, of which we have not been aware.' So the gentlemen think. And they are half right. There is a power in Methodism,' otherwise the Methodists in so short a time, from such small beginnings, unaided by the 'powers that be,' without wealth and without learning,' could never have grown to be more than half a million' of souls in these United States. This power, so mysterious to these gentlemen, is none other than the truth and consistency of their doctrines, their manner of preaching them, and the blessing of God upon their labours. The love of Christ and of souls has carried them forward against the world, the flesh, and the devil, and against some Orthodox ministers and floods of calumny, and the pleasure of the Lord has prospered in their hands. Between them and the children whom the Lord has given them, there has been a mutual and strong affection. They have been united in labours, in reproaches, and in divine consolations; and hence the freeness and the cordiality with which they have communicated to each other's wants. For a farther answer to the gentlemen's misrepresentations and exaggerations, the reader may consult the Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, and the Reviewer Reviewed, as before referred to.

On the eighth and ninth Letters I shall barely remark:

1. The 'prefixing the significant word our' to their music, books, &c, is not done, as the gentlemen represent, to 'prevent their members from mingling,' or communing with those of other denominations,'-learning their 'tunes,' or reading their books, but as giving preference to their own, as every denomination ought to do.

2. The burlesquing the whole body of the Methodists, because a Methodist once relinquished the reading and admiring of Thomas à Kempis when he came to be informed that he was a Roman Catholic, is just such a proof of an exclusive feeling in that body, as the following anecdote is of the same feeling in the whole body of the Orthodox. Many years ago, when I traveled a circuit on Penobscot river, about half a dozen Calvinists in held a separate meeting on the Sabbath, when the Methodists preached in the vicinity. A certain man, who sometimes attended with them, read one of Wesley's sermons to them on a Sabbath, and after the meeting he asked several how they liked the sermon. They, supposing the author to be a Calvinist, gave their unqualified approbation of the discourse. One said it was his experience.' Another, that is 'was the very marrow of the Gospel.' The person who read it then told them that John Wesley was the author of it. The whole meeting was in a sad dilemma. To approve the discourse of a Methodist, would wound their consciences; and to take back their approbation was impossible. After enduring for some time their disagreeable situation, one hit upon a method of relieving the whole company, by observing that it did not come from a Methodist preacher's mouth.'

3. In Chap, i. sec. i, of our Discipline, about thirty 'rules' are given by which to judge the sincerity of those who 'desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins:' but the gentlemen, with their accustomed candour and good 'feeling,' give about half the initiating lines of the section, and exclude every one of the 'rules,' and then say, Who does not see that this condition, namely, a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins,' throws the doors of Christian communion open to ALL who may wish to enter?' Were the Presbyterians to pursue such a course of admitting members, their church would swell to millions.'

6

This is the ingenuousness of ministers calling themselves ORTHODOX! We will not complain, but simply add, that if a Methodist minister should depart so far from the spirit of these rules, as these gentlemen have from fair dealing, he would be expelled from the Church.

4. Even that merciful 'rule' which relates to the doing good, espe cially to them that are of the household of faith, (whether Methodists or Orthodox,) helping one another in business,' &c, for the express reason that 'the world will love only its own,' and will oppress these, is by the gentlemen resolved into a sectarian feeling.' Really, gentlemen, you have driven us to despair-despair of pleasing you, unless at the expense of our consciences, and the word of God. We have seen how you trifled with the rules respecting dress, though founded on the plain word of God. The plainness of dress in the Methodists you condemn as 'grimace' and 'pride.' Here is another rule founded on the express word of God, Gal. vi, 10, Do good, especially to them that are of the household of faith.' This you make to be evi

dence of a 'sectarian feeling.' To clear ourselves, we adopt the Apostle's mode of reasoning, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you, more than unto God, judge ye.'

We pass over in silence a great many things in these Letters, because it is as painful to us, as it must be unedifying to our readers, to follow Rev. gentlemen who deal in little beside injury and insult. There are a few things more, however, which we must notice. We have met with many strange things and anomalies in the course of the Letters on Methodism, which are a tissue of misrepresentations and falsehoods from beginning to end. We have now a most queer thing to notice. The pious female, whose letter of inquiry has led to this public disclosure of the evils of Methodism, being exceedingly perplexed in her mind to know whether she could safely continue to worship with the Methodists, since she had begun to see their true characters, writes to her 'spiritual father,' and requests him to resolve her difficulties: but, alas! he, at the end of his eighth letter, finds himself as much in the dark as to the object of her inquiries, as she is herself; and returns her this comfortless answer: You must settle this question for yourself.” Yes, who would believe it? All these Rev. gentlemen, after accusing the denomination of Methodists of pride and arrogancy; bigotry and a sectarian spirit; of deceit, and guile, and falsehood;' as a 'mischievous' sect; after representing them as an anti-Christian sect, the most favored daughter of the Church of Rome,'-after all this and more, the gentlemen cannot answer her inquiries as to joining herself to their assembly. Their words are,

'The most difficult part of your question respects your relation to the Methodists. If you were so situated that you could conveniently attend meetings of your own denomination, the case would be plain. Christians should weigh well the matter before they consent to become in any way accessary to the mischiefs practised by them.'

What, gentlemen! after the character you have given the Methodists, do you hesitate whether it be the duty of an Orthodox Christian to commune with them? Do you really mean to say, that 'if it is not convenient for him to meet with Christians, he may meet with hypocrites, deceivers, and corrupters of the word of God? Do you say, that Christians should weigh well the matter before they consent to unite with bacchanalians, thieves, and incendiaries? Really, gentlemen, we cannot believe that you are in earnest; for if the Methodists be the people you represent them to be, you can with no more propriety consent that Christians should unite with them, than with a gang of incendiaries. If we may therefore be permitted to speak the honest sentiments of our hearts, we must say, either that you yourselves do not believe what you have said about the Methodists, or that what you say as to the pious female's relation to them, is mere affectation of candour and liberality. This is another proof that the correspondence with this pious, anxious female, is all a fiction. Men do not trifle thus in matters of importance and truth.

The gentleman gives the following as a 'test' by which the guilt or innocence of the Methodists may be known:

"You may test their unwillingness to attend to any subject which does not come from "our" people, by offering my letters to some of them. In doing this you

will be asked, Who are they written by? "One of our preachers?" And if you say, No; they will reply, "O it is some_RADICAL, and they are not to be believed; there is no truth in them; no, not a word." There are horrid letters in circulation. p. 36.

According to this it would seem that if the Methodists deny the charges, it is to be regarded as proof of their guilt. We always thought that the accuser was bound to prove his charges; but according to these gentlemen, the accused are held to prove their innocence, and that by not denying their guilt! Ah! hapless Methodists! Our reverend accusers seem indeed to have brought us back to the days of witchcraft, when, if a poor hag on being thrown into the water sunk and was quackled, she was of course deemed a witch, and was dealt with accordingly; or to the days of the fire ordeal, when, if the accused in walking blindfold over nine red hot plowshares touched one of them with his feet, he was reputed guilty!

GENTLEMEN! Authors and distributors of the Letters on Methodism, in this address to you, I have aimed to use plainness of speech, but to avoid invective; and while on the one hand I would not impute to you false motives, on the other my conscience would not allow me, through an affectation of candour, to impute to error or mistake what you have evidently said wilfully and with design.

You have sometimes complained of the treatment of the Unitarians toward you. But when did the Unitarians ever treat you in the manner you have treated the Methodists. Yet you have complained; and the language of your complaint is well suited to our present occasion.

'I have openly avowed in this letter my own opinion, and what I know to be the opinion of the Christian brethren with whom I have the honor to be associated, in relation to these subjects. I know that what you have said is incapable of being supported on any grounds of evidence. I do know that the accusations which you have brought against [the Methodists] are Not true. I aver that THEY ARE NOT, before Heaven and earth. That they are accusations of a hurtful tendency need not be said. They go to destroy all respect for us, all confidence in us, all prospects of our usefulness in society, or in the church, just so far as you are believed; and to render us the objects of suspicion, of scorn, and of hatred. As injured men, as injured in a manner that is highly unjust and cruel, we call on you either for reparation, or else to support your charges. These charges are allegations as to matter of FACT. They are not matters of opinion merely, or the deductions which may be drawn from opinions. As matters of fact, you are bound to support them. According to all demands of propriety and justice, you have no liberty now to retract, [or remain concealed,] by professing disdain for your opponents; none to screen yourselves under the allegation that you dislike controversy. On every ground of equity you must either support the charges you have made, as to the facts, or take them back; or else stand before the public as those who have abused and maltreated their fellow beings, members of the same commonwealth, entitled to the same privileges with yourselves, and having a right to claims that they shall be spoken of with truth and justice; a right which cannot be violated without responsibility for so doing."*

* Professor Stewart's Letter to Dr. Channing.

Your charges, gentlemen, are brought against the largest denomination of Christians in the country: a denomination who hold the Divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of atonement, the doctrine of the Trinity, the depravity of human nature, regeneration by Divine agency, and justification by faith, as well as yourselves: a denomination which has done as much to spread these doctrines, and to revive religion, as your own; and whom you have found it expedient to imitate in a variety of respects.

Your treatment of the Methodists is a poor example to your respective flocks, and if followed, and Gospel discipline should be enforced, would cut them off from the kingdom of Christ.

It will, I fear, set our respective denominations farther apart than they were before; prejudice many against the Methodists who know nothing of them; and finally furnish occasion to our common enemies to reproach the religion of the Bible, and to say sarcastically, See how these Christians love one another.'

Permit me, gentlemen, in my own name, and in behalf of ination, to subscribe myself

Your injured Friend, and humble Servant,

Malden, Mass., June 29, 1831.

my

denom

TIMOTHY Merritt.

DR. GREEN'S ATTACK ON PRACTICAL METHODISM.'

་

,

It had been our purpose, as intimated in our last number, to continue in the present a more particular notice of the articles on Practical Methodism contained in the Christian Advocate, edited by the Rev. Dr. Ashbel Green, of Philadelphia. We are glad to find, however, that our design has been so far anticipated in a preceding article, (the review of the 'Letters on Methodism,' by the Rev. Timothy Merritt,) as will very much curtail our task, and in a great measure supersede the necessity for its minute execution. The well merited castigation which Mr. Merritt inflicts upon the concealed authors of the 'Letters on Methodism,' is as justly due to the masked author of the articles on Practical Methodism;' and little less so to his endorser and supporter, Dr. Green. We shall, nevertheless, still glean up a few items which have not fallen in the way of Mr. Merritt, and place them in such a light before our readers as will enable them to judge with what truth and sincerity Dr. Green's correspondent has styled himself our friend;' and how far his articles contain internal evidence of having issued from the bottom of a guileless heart,-one touched with 'no feeling' toward us 'but that of kindness and good will,' and destitute of any design to hold us up to 'contempt or ridicule.' Such are his professions: --such the fair show in the flesh with which he commences! Indeed, he acknowledges that it was among the Methodists that he received his first religious impressions:-that with many of them he has been 'long and intimately acquainted,'-has often held sweet counsel together with them,' and regards them, as a body, 'as a respectable and pious branch of the church of Christ!'

But now mark what follows these professions. Mark the fruits and the evidence of the friendship and the gratitude of this model of a 'friend;' and then judge also what ideas he must have of what constitutes 'a respectable and pious branch of the church of Christ,' since he admits ours to be such, and yet represents the practices which he condemns as 'general in