IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (AAT-3) // // V. i/j 1.0 I.I 1.25 ;miim iim 2.0 llllli^ i-4 IIIIII.6 V] V ^\P /^ «■" ^'' O^ ■%^ ^9,^ 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 .<;^ % \ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the beft original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ D D D D n D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilieur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exernpiaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliograohique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. n n □ n This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachet^es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de faqon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. lOX 14X 18X 22X 26X SOX y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of; National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire U\rn6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^*- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the .ymbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — »- signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FfN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droits, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 C/PJ (( WHY I AM A METHODIST," A SERIES OK LETTERS IN REPLY TO CHURCHMAN ALIAS LAYMAN, BY JAMES LAWSON. METHODIST MINISTER, COBDEN, ONT. " Hay the truth, and Hell it not."— PRov. 23:23. Price 6 Cents. STANUAKI) BOOK AND JOli PRINT, MAIM STRBRT, PEMBROKE. i .,,,5Sjjft^j',> 1^: f b(j tu ail }i( thl ClI I>H pc wJl ird ofli sts tiu §■ :m Uo ■. 2 V 'b<<- Why 1 AM A Methodist;^ REPLY TO LAYMAN'S LETTERS. 3SIO. 1. To the Kditor of ihc FJandanl j of their eler^'y had nnswered the Dkau Sii{, — Just thre§ montlis ago ! Daniphhil, liosides ;i littlr squib from to-day 1 wrote you a letter undor the its arhuirers every now and then. licading, "Why I am a ^Methodist," Shortly aft(>/, sonic^ one, whether friend pointiii.i^ out a few of the many itiac- or foe I know not, .sent nie a copy, curate statements made in a pampiilei; hearini? tin* PcMubroke postmark. I by a "Churchman" reviewing a tract took it as a sort of challenge to reply entitled as above, f was led to do .so to it, either l>y one who thought I by the follo\\ ing reasons : About a could and v.i.shed 1 would, or, by one year previously a series of fifteen who imagined it to be unanswerable, letters appeared in tlu; Peml)roke So 1 concluded to write one letter, to Standaui) with th(! heading, "Why I .show that the ))i(mplilet could very am a Methodist," and the signature of , easily lie answered by anyone who saw "Churchman." So far as 1 am aware lit to do so. At once "Charchman" no one thouglit it worth while to take alias "Layman" flew to the rescue of any notice of them. After the hif.se his oflspriug, but its pretty, smooth of some months, however, they w(;re features had lieen sadly distig- (lished up again, a little additional urcd, and tin; ugly scars still remain, spice being thrown in. and juesented | I referred to the name of his pam- to us in pamphlet form. r>ut the plilet, "Methodism vtn-sus tiie Church," "pamphlet" like the letters, serined to and showed that, according to his be ignored. Its High Church fricMuls, \ iut I never found anyone I and the thing still has an ugly look who had found it sutliciently interest- 1 al)out it. If (! nn'ght as well have left in£ to read it through. Then, an ! it as it was. - - editorial appeared in the Standaud , Layman in his reply .speaks of stating that it did not speak well for | Methodist having' made an "attack" on the non-episcopai churches that none the church, although in a po.stscript to ?#%. ^^^L 2 WHY 1 AM A METHODIST." my first Iett(T T liaclpointffl outtliofact tlifif, it WHS only a dc.hni.ca agniiist an "att.n'k" by an Epis< ((paliaii. But of course lio has not tlic manliness to acknowledge ihis tht>U|.,'li he cannot i deny it. \ I referred to Layman's very funny '\ and ;,'ratuitous remarks about an 'invisible church," the tract having mentioned no such thing. In his ^ "rejoinder" he "advisfsrl" me to make a ] more "elaborate research," ifec, and endeavored to make it appear to your readers that those words were actually there. This compelled me to charge hin) with "wilfully trying to deceive." This he did not relish, but had to .swallow. He now acknowledges that those words are not there, (he might better have acknowledged that before), but in doing so he jumbles up words after this fashion, "no such an allu sion" as "invisii>le church" — and by his ready use (»f quotation marks tries to make it app(!ar I wrote them in that way, but which T certainly did not, as may be seen by referring to my letter. And just here, as Layman does not seem .il)le to g'»-^p the idea of the writer of the tract, I may remark that, while he acknowledges that "unity of faith and spirit is es.sential to a true church, but denies that there is any "scriptural authority for the Romish dogma, that corpor:ite unity is an essential thing,' he certainly does not mean that a brut! church is tluM-e- fore invisible. Indeed so far from those words implying that, they can- not be so understood jy any intelligent and unbiased reader By usin;,' the words "a truechircli" the writer shows that he bf>l'r,»es there is a true church, v*?., that there are different true churches, and that the true church, i. e. God's universal church, is conipos- ed of all those who have this "unity of faith and spirit," even though they belong to different organizations .so far as the "visible church" is concerned. It may not be out of place just here to (juoti! th(i words of Canon Wilberforce, who recently said that schism is not conscientious separation from any visi.)l«! church, but separation from "th(! Holy Catholic Church, or Body of Christ, which is in its essence a spiritual and invisible body, existing wholly independent of its external manifestations and methods, which may be national, geographical, even almost climatic." Now if Layman found "the subject of an iiuusible church" in the tract "Why I^n a Methodist," what does he find in the foregoing extract from so eminent a «lergymen of the church of England? Still, at the risk of exposing Canon Wilberforce to the terrible fate of the tract, which, according to Layman's boastful declara- tion he "turned inside out," (let pigmy Canon Wilberforce of London treml)le befoie this giant Goliath of Pembroke !), I shall give a few lines more from this honored clergyman's pen, as follows : "The idea that the sin of schism is separation from the visible communion of the Church of England, when weighed in the balances of the sanctu- ary, and tested by the word of God, is found wanting, and may without loss, be consigned to the limbo of exploded fallacies." In. my first letter I also showed the absurdity of Layman's assumption in the r)th letter of his .series that when the Saviour prayed, "that they all may be one," he was actually praying for "corporate unity," or in other words, that all might belong to the church of England ! How does Layman "grapple," as he calls it, with this ? Why he doesn't 'grapple,'with it at all; he wisely passes it by in silence. It IS too silly to bear repetition. He knows right well that even the church of England is not one, and he has also acknowledged that it is only a "part" of the church, and therefore, according La it tht cht Imt to 17/ of grel " WHY 1 AM A METHODrST." the in /hen I may for )rds, lurch rraan bhisi ^tall; It Inowa Ih of also [part" Irding to him, the Saviour prayed that liis people nii^jht all lioloiig to the "Roman, Eantern or (Hii^li) Anglicuii Church, as the case mij^ht l)e I ! 1 also showed that in his 1th h-ttor he had misrepresented the teachin;; of the Methodist church ; that what he was coinhatiiif,' niiyht he the tea-'hin^j of the Plymoutli Brethren, hut was certainly not the teachinji? of the Methodists. I said I did not "charge him with tryinc; to deceivt»," hut j though he has written three letters ' since he has not told us whether it was through ignorance, as T charitahly assumed, that he made that unjustiti- able attack, or whether it was ','wilfully i and maliciously" done. He passes it [ by in silence and there!)y tacitly acknowledges my criticism correct. | Next, I noticed his unjustiHabh^ remark that Wesley and his follower disagreed in the matter of conversion. 1 proved from their own words th-it they did not, and that in order to make it a}>pear that they did Layman had quoted the words of one in regard to conversion and of the other on th(! Christian life subsequent to eonversion. How does he try to extricate himself? Why by leading off your readers to the doctrines of "Iiiptismal regenera- tion, " a "three-fold order of ministc^rs," and "apostolic suecession." In my reply I held him to his own words, "//er« we have an insttnici' of the founder and the follower disagreeing." Layman felt he was fairly (•aught and made no further struggles to eseape. Now, if this were the only case of Layman's " wilfully trying; to deceive," it is such a glaring and despicaV)le one ', that he ought not to complain of the | charge so frequently and so fully proven. , But perhaps I should here remem- ber the words of Mr. Wesley addressed to the Bishop of Exeter in the year 1750. When speakmg on the subject of "conversion," he savs : "And here | great allowances are to be made : I biM'auso you are talking of things (juite "ut of your spiierl!4yiiig, kc I turned the tal)lps on him, howev(^r, and showed that the slander came from his side of the house. I hope he has used in his own behalf the prayer he otl'ered up for me. As Layman found it convenient to overlook so many points in my fornn^ letters, I thought well just to refer to them Virietly in this. In doing so I have necessarily referred also to some of his remarks in the? first of his pr(!sent series, but as it contains upwards of four columns 1 shall have to try and b(; as brief as I can in noticing the remainder of his letter. And, first, let me call attention to the V(>ry first sentence in that remark- able effusion. Layman says : "It was my intention to reply immediately to Mr. Lawson's last letter, but having been informed that a certain gentle- man had decided to criticize the above named pamphlet in a serie-* of letters, I at once made way, not wishing in the least to interfere with his privih^ge and right." Now if your readers turn to "WHY I AM A METH0D18T." Layman's letter in tlio Stanuakd of the 1 1th of .May thiiy will liiid these words : "In coin liiKiou 1 niuy stuti^ tliat I have no intention of coutinuin'4 this diacussion at i)res<'nt. My tinu; is too much occupied with other matters." Which of his statements whull we believe '? It then "struci?" Layman "as not very complimentary to Mr. L. for 'Presbyter' to step in and take up a matter already begun hy a 'Methodist minister.'" lie then adds : "However, I fancy the matter was ail pre arraii";- ed, and if the Methodists of this county an! satisfied with their defend- ers, I have no cause to complain." Now perhaps it may give ease to his troubled mind when 1 inform Layman that his "fancj" has led him altogether astray. It was not pre-ar- ranged. Neither Presbyter nor any one else outside my own family knew anything about my letters till they were in the hands of the printer ; nor did Presbyter see either of them till he saw them in print, nor anyone else for that matter, except the printers themselves. And Just here I may also correct the false statement made by a clerical member of the firm of Church- man, Layman & Co. to the effect that "Mr. Lawson was assisted by Presby- ter in pieparing liis second letter." Neither Presbyter nor anyone else but myself had any thini^ to do with its preparation. I am solely responsible for every line, and might, with equal propriety have subscribed myself, as Layman did to the preface to his pamphlet, — "The Autiiou ! " By the way, although Layman in his preface says tiiey were "averse to any clerical hand appearing" yc.'t it appears he is not "averse" now to "clerical" help, (and perhaps was not before, so long as it did not "rt/>/9ear"),and consequent- ly judges me by himself. I appreciate the compliment, how- ever, which was thus, though unwit tingly, paid both to ProsV)yter and myself. As was remarked by a peison of more than ordinary intelligence and <;(Uication, it showed that they felt the force of the arguments and facts there stated, and therefore concluded they must have been the product of no ordinary writer, and so gave the credit, in part at h^ast, to Presbyter, whose articles lecently published in the Standaud, prove him to be a man of keen intelligence, extensive information and liigh literary attainments. iJut why was it " not very compli- mtmtary" for Presbyter to write those four letters? I am sure there was nothing uncomplimentary so far as I was concerned, as I stated in my first letter that 1 did not " wish to go into anything like a full review of the pamphlet," inteniUng to write simply that one letter, also adding, " unless it be really necessary and time can be found." Perhaps 1 should thank Lay- man for his kind solicitude on my behalf, but I beg to assure him I do not need it, and he had better keep all his sympathy for ]iimself,as the articles in question are far more " compli- mentary" to me than to him. " Aye, there's the rub." And as a matter of fact I may state, that so far from there being any " pre-arrangement" be- ! tween us, some of Presbyter's letters I were written before my second letter, I though I was not then aware of the , fact, and one of them actually in the hands of the editor, who thought best, however, on receiving mine, to give it the precedence. Hence Layman's " fancy," like many of his alleged facts, is not to be trusted. As to the " Methodists being satisfied" I may say that complimentary allusion to my letters by the accomplished editor-in- chief of the C/wi.s'^ta>i Guardian, Rev. Dr. Dewart, some weeks ago, the fact that the Methodists have published my last letter in tract form for free distribution, and that they intend hav- 'ISlE!^ssnssr-T7r HTT" "WHY 1 AM A METHODIST." ini^ Presbyti'f's four IoUitk |iul>lislie(l, us tli<>y iiu' t'\»'i'ysv Ik.'Ic ; pokcii of in twriiis of lii;,'lii'st jMuLsc, aliundautly pi\)Vti llmt tliey .no ;is hutisfiu'l.oiy to M'jtliodists as they tire uiistitihfatitory to Layiimii aud othur ili;.jU Ciiuroh biyots. I Layman coniplains that " both Mr. ! L. and ' P.' havo hvvishfd a <;opiouH '' supply of abuse and .scurrility upon" him, and then piously {() quoies the ! words of the great Apostle — " but none of these things move me I" Jiut what has he been ' iavishinj;' on us 1 Let the readers of the Standaud \ answer. But for Laynjan's benetit 1 may say that the point of diireronce is just here : Layman made most insult- : injij and j»roundless stati nients. We I said they were so and proved it. He \ made similar charges at^ainst us, but i faUa to prove, them. Hence his sad wail of discomfiture. 1 now come to that part of Lay man's letter which he calls " business." and then he so completely begs the , question that if I were as free in using i quotations as he is T should quote his ' own words and say, he writes " in a ' most silly and foolish way!" And just here 1 am again reminded t)f a ' remark by Mr. Wesley in reply to the Uishop of Exeter above referred to, namely, "It is well for you, tliat fhri/irit/ qnotatiu'ii.s is not fc^iony," for I did not couple those words as he has them." He has simply stated as a tact that the Methodi>t Society does not constitute a Christian cluuch, but he has sadly failed in giving proof. He has stated that her ministers are " priestly pretenders," but again fails in proof ; and now, after liuving his insulting, abusive and unfounded statements so completely exposed and scattered to the winds by the letters of Presbyter, so full of cl' logic and solid fact, he still has the effrontery to ask me to read his pamphlet again and accept his statements as facts ! Not so, Ml'. Layuwin ; that is too much to ask of any iutelliijent person who has read both ; and let me whisper in your ear that you have not yet hoard all you will hear as to your own boasted ecclesiastii'J"' ^aiJing. Laynmn tri<'S to prove me incorrect in stating that "Methodism is through- out the Cliridtian world recognized us a branch .)f the Christian church, by quotiiig ' statistics,' which a little farther on he seems to disparage, to show that some churches do not so r(!gard it. 1 did not say they nil did, but if 1 had it would havo been as accurate as for him to try to make it appear that none in those churches he names Uo so regard it, for even the Church of England is divided on thiR point. Perhaps it would have been as wtill if 1 had said the Frote,nlnnf Christian world, Avhich would then have excused Layman and his section of the "Anglican" church. I'wt With a desperate hut ludicrouH attempt at sarcasm Layman says : "In his extreme agony of soul he utters a cry of despair for me to apologize for the insult. What insult 'I For tell- ing the truth ?" This is all gratuitous, for my words wcjre as follows: " He is in duty bound, as an lioneeifc man, either to prove his state mei it true or withdraw his unfounded assertion and apologize for the insult." It might cause ' agony of soul ' iind evpn a *crv of despair' if of sutii( ieiit im porta nee, for certainly 1 do not not t;x[ie(t him to do cither — the one he is unable and tue other unwilling to do. •* • The remaining part of jjayman's letter is taken up with the sul^jf^ct f)f baptismal regeneration. I shall try, to be very brief in noticing his three columns on this subject, for two reasons ; first, becaust; I proved mo-^t conclusively in my second l;:tter tii.i*. Layman did give "garbled extracts of a very misleading character," and also because Presbyter will answer Layman il WHY I AM A METHODIST." on this guhject, as well as others treated of in his letters. I shall, how- ever, offer a few remarks. In your issue of May 11th Layman quotes Wesley as saying : ' By water then, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again.' I called this a ' garbled' extract, add- ing the qualifying phrase, ' if extract at air — simply because I was not sure whether it was or was not. This stirs up Layman's wrath and he is neither ' courteous and mild' — nor even truth- ful. By the way. Layman says I admit- ted he was *■ courteous and mild.' Where 1 When) He cannot tell. He modestly (?) takes this unction to himself because I said, ' It is all very well to be mild and courteous, but not at the expense of truth,' having in my mind at the time a flattering notice of his pamphlet by one of its admirers, for however much courtesy he may pro- fess or his friends profess for him, his writings show more need of than justiQcation for such a claim. But to return. Layman says : ' Their source being given, why did he not verify the quotation before mak- ing such a base insinuation V He then adds : ' No ; this was too manly a course for our Methodist minister to adopt So he seeks to convey the impression that the extract is a forgery — manufactured to mislead.' Now, Mr. Editor, I wish to ask you and your intelligent and unprejudiced readers, where is there ' courtesy,' ' mildness' or even tMth/uliiess in the foregoing fulminations of Layman ! Because I did not choose to vouch for the accuracy of his alleged quotation an has no right to assert that I ' sought to convey the impression that it was a forgery.' I did not. He charges me with being ' unmanly' and with making a 'base insinuation ;' and still, at the risk of his repeating the charge, J have to say that he has been ' un- manly' and ' base' enough to * seek to convey the impression' that in his letter to which I was replying, and which contained the quotation above referred to, the 'source' of said quotation was given ; but it ia not, else I would have ' verified' it. Let your readers turn to his letter in the Standard of May 1 1th, and, as Lay- man says, ' Look and see.' But if they look at it till they are blind they will not find the least indication of the 'source' of that extract. Now what are we to think, Mr. Editor, of one who will make such reckless and unfounded assertions, and by such means endeavour to prove to your readers that I acted a ' base' and ' un- manly' part 1 Such a man is not to be trusted, and your readers will certainly require him to ' verify' his statements in future before accepting them as the truth. But though no such hint was given in the former letter Layman does intimate in this one that he was quot- ing from Wesley's ' Treatise on Baptism.' He then goes on and makes very elahorale quotations from this ' treatise,' which seem to establiuh his theory ; still even in this * treatise' it is admitted that while baptism is the ordinary means of Salvation ' to which God hath tied us,' yet ' he may not have tied himself.' Indeed it is acknowledged that ' where baptism cannot be had the case is different,' i.e., the person may be regenerated with- out baptism. But it matters little what this treatise teaches or does not teach. In the first place it was written, not by John Wesley, but by his father, who was a rigid high church clergy- man. In 1756, the date properly quoted by Layman, John Wesley did republish this treatise, and adopt it as his own — thus showing his veneration for his father and strong attachment to his mother church, WHY 1 AM A METHODIST." this teach, not ather, lergy- perly ly did b it as ration ment In Mr. WeKley's defence against an attact by Dr. Erskine in 1766, he com- plains of being held responsible for Kverythiiig oontjvineohn 3:5, Mr. Wesley shows that it is not the water, but the Spirit that lenews the heart. In the one place he says, 'no ceremonial ordin- ances can entitle any to the blessings of the Messiah's Kingdom,' and then affirms that 'an entire change of heart and life is necessary,' and that this can be 'wrought in man only by the power of God.' In the other place he speaks of 'the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which purifies the soul as water cleanses the body.' Now that is just what the Methodist ministers believ:' and teach, nann^ly, that the Holy Ghost renews and purifies the soul as water cleanses the body. But believing that the Holy Spirit cleanses the soul in like manner as water cleanses the body is very ditFerent from b'^lieving that they both musl» necess- arily take place at the very same time. In the eight^verse of that same third chapter of John the Saviour compares the operations of the Holy Spirit in the new o'rth or work of regeneration to the blowing of the wind, but the resemblance is in reference to m^inner and not time. A word more on the passage in Titus. Wesley does not mention th« word baptism at all in the whole chapter, the explanat^iry phrase in which it occurs being added by a later hand as may be seen by its being enclosed in brackets. This is explained on the title page. But if he had it would have proven nothing in support of baptismal regeneration, as already shown. Layman also has undertaken to "xplain Mr . Wesley by the use of brackets or parenthesis marks, inform- ing us that one of the effects of justifi- cation is justification ! As may be seen above, Mr. Wesley gave justifi- cation as one of the effects of redemp- tion. Layman also quotes Mr. Wesley on Acts 22:16 and Romans 6:3 ; but, as the other passages, his theory in instead of being strengthened is weakened by what is quoted. By the use of the word 'ordinarily' Mr. Wesley clearly shows as he also does elsewhere, that conversion and baptism did not always go together ; and that they did 'ordinarily referj-only to the 'primitive church,' as Mr. Wesley is careful to state. By his use of the wordfj 'real penitents' and 'faith,' he also shows that he is here referring not to infants but to adults, and that such can only be saved by becoming 'real penitents' and exercising faith in the Lord Jesus Christ — which is 'real' good Methodist doctrine. We, as Methodists, do not by any means ignore the sacrament of baptism. Let this be distinctly understood. It is only its abuse, or the laying of too much stress upon it and too little on repentance, faith and good works, that we deplore. Methodists believe with the apostle Peter that baptism is 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.' Layman tells us of Mr. Wesley Vjaptising 'a gentlewoman,' and ► manner I in Titus. ;h« word chapter, which it > hand as closed in on the it would pport of already idertaken bhe use of 3, inforni- of justifi- niay be ve justifi- f redemp- ^esley on J ; but, as is theory hened is By the rily' Mr. also does d baptism and that y to the ^Vesley is se of the faith,' he referring and that becoming ; faith in 1 is 'real' We, as y means ism. Let )d. It is g of too little on works, ;s believe mptism is ! tilth of of Mr. man,' and •♦ WHY I AM A METHODIST," of the 'ppace she immediately found' being a 'fresh proof that the outward sign, duly received, is always accom- panied with the inward grace.' Also of 'two young women ; one of whom found a deep sense of the presence of God in His ordinance ; the other re- ceived a full assurance of His pardoning love, and was filled with joy unspeak- able.' Well, and what about if? Mr. Wesley also tells of attending the sacrament (of the Lord's supper) on the 18th of May, 1755, and many found an uncommon blessing, and felt (lod has not yet left the church,' At other times he speaks of blessings being received by fasting and prayer, and the faithful performance of other Christian duties. Methodists cordia'ly lielieve it all. We believe the blessing of God attend5the pi oper observance of both of the sacraments and of each and all the means of ^race. So did John Wesley. But we do not believe the new birth is effected V)y any rite or ceremony or that it always necessar- ily accompanies its administration. Neither did John Wesley, and the very fact that he quotes those instances shows that he was painfully aware thatin many cases baptism was adminis- tered and received in such a way that no blessing accompanied it : and cer tain it is that he records the conversion of scores, yea hundreds if not thousands though the preaching of the word, lieing accompanied l)y the Spirit of God, producing true repentance and faith, without a word being said or hinted about water baptism, John Wes- ley preached sermons on 'Salvation by faith,' but never on 'Salvation by Baptism ! ' I have thus shown that Wesley did not teach baptismal regeneration as Layman would fain make your readers believe he did. Mr. Wesley taught 'Salvation by Faith,' preceded by re- pentance for sin. His own words which I have quoted declare that ^baptism is not the first part of the nen" birth,' and that it is no part of it at all. Also that Hhey do not constantly yo together,' and therefore tJiere may he one withont tlie other. This is not Layman's doctrine, but it is the doc- trine of the Book, and therefore of John Wesley and the Methodist church. I intended being more brief than I have in my discussion of this subject ; still I have necessarily omitted much that might be said, I am now willing, however, to leave the matter with your intelligent and unprejudiced readers, nothwithstanding all the self laudation of Layman and his crowing ovi r PresVjyter and me. He tells your readers he has put us in a 'dilemma,' and with beautiful simplicity and cruel kindness offers us oar 'choice of horns.' But as we are not accustomed to 'horns' we decline with thanks. No, Mr. Layman, we shall not 'take our choice of horns.' We have no use for them and are not driven to therii by necessity. Wo have a more pleasant alternative , I have proved my state- ments true and many of yours false, and I can safely predict that PresV)y ter will do the same, Youi's sineerly, .Jamk.< Lawsov. Methodist parsonage, Cobden, \ i I \ i i Why I AM A Methodist." REPLY TO LAYMAN'S LETTERS. INTO. 3. To the Editor of the Standard. Deau Sir, — The second letter of Layman in reply to mine published in your issue of May 4tli, occupies nearly a whole page, upwards of tive columns being taken up with a dis- cussion of the apostolic succession theory. Layman's feelings must be very tender on this subject, Judging from the way in which he writhes under the few gentle raps I gave him. Nevertheless, he must submit to a few more. I shall endeavour, however, to condense my reply as much as possible in order to make way for 'Presbyter,' whom your readers will be anxious to hear, and who.se province it is, more than mine, to answer Layman on this particular question. The able manner in which Presbyter has already treated t!iis subject is a sufficient guarantee that he will tind it no difficult task to maintain his solid position and expose the sophistry of Layman. As, however, these letters of mine, like my former reply to Laymaii, are to be published in tract form for dis- tribution, and will of course fall into the hands of many who will not be fortunate enough to see those of Presbyter, I shall take the opportunity of noticing brieHy the remarks of Lay- man ou this subject. In beginning his letter. Layman tells your readers that in his "reply to Mr. L.," he '"culled a couple of extracts from the pamphlet. They were these : 'We believe that the three-fold order of ministers is not only authorized by its apostolical institution, but also by the written word.' Again : 'We be- lieve it would not be right for us to admini&ter either baptism or the Lord's Supper, unless we had a commission to do so from those bishops whom w(! apprehend to be in a succession from the apostles.' " Now, in the first place, let me ask Layman why he 'culled' those extract in his 'reply to Mr. L. 1 ' That was not replying at all, for they had nothing whatever to do with the matter in question, which was 'conver- sion.' Layman had endeavored to make it appear that 'Wesley and his follower,' meaning by 'follower' the writer of the tract, 'Why I am a Methodist,' disagreed oi: that subject. I clearly and unanswerably proved that they did not, and so Layman was driven to the expedient of 'culling' from his pamphlet 'a couple of ex- tracts' which had no V)earing whatever on the subject, to see if he could blind your readers and draw me off from the point at issue to something else. But as I have had occasion before to point out to your readers this trick of Layman 1 will say nothing more aV)out it now. 'My critic' then quotes (almost cor- rectly) my question as follows : 'Does 2 "WHY 1 AM A MKTIIUIJIST. 'i| not Layiiirtii know perfectly woU that Mr. Wesley wrote those words in the year 1745, shortly utter his conversion, and while he was a strict and, to some extent, bigoted ihurchnian 1 ' He then replies with apparent injured innocence, 'Of course \ kujtin that fact and ac- cordingly prefixed the date (1745) to the quotation in the pamphlet. Look and see. But my critic seeks to con- \vy the impression that I did not do so, ' Now l(!t us see who it is that 'seeks to convey' a false 'impression' which crime Layman thus gratuitously charges upon his 'critic' In my Ittterof May 4th I was answering his letter of April 27th in which those 'culled extracts' were found, and certainly there was no date 'prefixed' there. My letter was addressed to the editor of the Staxdard, as this is, and Layman should know that a very small propor tion of the readers of the Standard can 'verify' his assertions by referring to the pamphlet. If he recognized the fact that it was important to 'prefix the date' in his pamphlet, why did he omit it in his letter to the Standard 1 Was it not to 'convey a false impres- sion 1 ' Let your int^'^lligent readers decide. But even had the date been given in his letter, comparatively few would have known that that was 'shortly after his (Wesley's) conversion, and while he was a strict and, to some extent, bigoted churchman,' Layman took good care to keep those facts in the dark, and endeavored to make it appear that those words quoted from Wesley gave a true idea of his teachings during the principal pai't of his ministerial life. My explanation, showing that they were written before he broke loose from the fetters of High churohism, gives qjite a difference colouring to those words. And Layman knows I am correct. However, he says, 'they arc ab.solutely truc,noithGrmanfacturod nor yet separated from the conditions which surrourid them when written.' Once more I am r(!minderi of Mr. Wiisley's remark to the Episcopalian bishop, 'It is well for you that forging quotations is not felony,' for I never used the words, 'separated from the conditions which surrounded them ('surround' being probably a typogra- phical error) when written,' though Layman encloses that phrase in quota- tion marks as though I had. But perhaps Presbyter used some such language, and so that is ([Uite accurate enough for Layman. Indeed in the third column of letter No. I, he posi- tively states in reference to Presbyter and me, 'Both these men professed to 'interpret' their quotations 'in the light of their surroundings.' He had no right whatever to use the word 'both' in the foregoing quotation, but as I perfectly agree with Presbyter in this as in all that he has written, so far as I remember, I shall not hold Layman accountable for anything in this incorrect statement more than his usual recklessness and want of ac- curacy. But, date or no date, why did Lay- man introduce those (juotations, even if they had been at all relevant to the subject, which I have already shown they were not? Evidently he did so to prove that Wesley believed in the theory of apostolical succession, which doctrine, or more properly "fable," as Wesley calls it, I have ah'eady clearly shown from Wesley's own writings he repudiated the very next year, yes, the very next month, and continued to do so during the whole of his after life — a period of nearly half a century. Consequently I repeat, it was done " on purpose to deceive." While allowing that " the year 1745 may be an 'early period of Wesley's ministry,' Layman adds as an offset, ' but he was 42 years old, and had been tvientij years in tlie ' niin- WHY 1 AM A METHODIHT." onditions written.' of Mr. scopalian ,t forging I never ironi the ,ed thein typogra- ),' though in (juota- ad . But )m« such 3 accurate id in the he posi- Presbyter professed s 'in the He had ^ord 'both' but as I jr in this so far as Layman in this than his nt of ac- did Lay- ons, even mt to the idy shown entl} he ^ believed mccession, properly t, I have 1 Wesley's 1 the very xt month, ring the period of [isequently purpose to that " the ' period of adds as an rs old, and the ' uiin- ,« « istry'." Let me remind him that many a man besides Wesley has lived to be 42 years old before lie has been led to renounce the errors taught him in his younger days. Considering the "vehe- ment piejudice of his education," of which he speaks, and all his ".sur- roundings," the wonder is that he renounced them when he did. As to "his having been "twenty years in the ministry " let me also rtMuind Layman of the kind of a " ministry " it was. Listen to Wesley's own words in his " Appeal to men of KeuKon and Re- ligion," in which he says : " It was just at the time when we wanted little of filling up the measure of our ini(|ui ties, that two oc three; clergymen of the Church of England began vehe- mently to call sinners to repentance." Bishop Burnett's account of the clergy is as follows : "Our cmbor-weeks are the burden and grief of my life. The much greater part of those who come to be ordained are ignorant to a degree not to be apprehended by those who are not ©bliged to know it. The easiest part of knowledge is that to which they are the greatest strangers. Those who have read some few books yet never seem to have read the Scriptures. Many cannot give a toler- able account even of the Catechism itself, how short and plain soever. This does often tear my heart." Southey says : " The clergy had lost that authority which may always comraand at least the appearance of respect ; and they had lost that respect also by which the place of authority may sometimes so much more worthily be supplied. In the great majority of the clergy zeal was wanting. The excellent Leighton spoke of the church as a fair carcass without a spirit." I could copy pages of such de- scriptions of the clergy of the Church of England at the time Wesley appeared, if it were necessary. Let it be borne in mind, then, that although Wesley had been twenty years in the ministry — such as it was -he had been only seven years a Clu'istian, tha* is, a tru(! belittver in Christ, according to his own testimony, his conversion having taken })lace on the 2 1th of May, 17;3S. But as [ must not occupy too much spac(! in noticing this t^rst paragraph of Layman's letter I now proceed to tilt; ne.xt. And here I am again com- pelled to charge him with "wilfully trying to deceive,'' as 1 sha I soon show. He begins by saying, " .^Ir. L. makes a desperate etlbrt to prove," etc. There was no ''desperate etlbrt " about it. I simply related facts and correctly (juott'd W(;sley's own works on the subject, which no man can truthfully deny. But Layman says : " I ask the reader's special attention to a some- what fuller examination of this matter than ' one brief sitting ' has evidently permitted Mr. L. to make." Now I wish to call " the reader's special attention " to the fact that Layman wrote the foregoing sentenee "on purpose to deceive." There is no " evidence " to show that my "examin- ation of this matter" wap all made at " one brief sitting." As a matter of fact it is not true. I have been mak- ing an "exarainatioli of this matter " more or less for years, and have read Mr. Wesley's testimony on the subject many time.'; as written by himself and quoted by others. That " one brief sitting " referred merely to the writing of my first letter, as was there distinctly stated, and nothing but the most con- summate stupidity or "wilful" attempt "to deceive" could cause Layman to misuse those words as he does. As it was a fact I had a perfect right to state it ; and I may now add that my second letter, written on the 29th of April in reply to his published in the Standard of April 27tli, cost me very little more time or study than the former one, having written it the very "WHY I AM A MKTIIODrST." ill w \ first opportunity after sroinj^ his, and the very same day having attondcd to a lot of private correspondence, cor- r(?ctod and niturnod -'proof" of my tract on "Christ's P'irst Miracle," in reply to the sermon l»y Rev. (I, J. Low, Hijjh Ciiurch clergyman of Drockville, and also led prayer-njeeting, choir rehearsal, etc., in the evening. I had no intention of making these statements, bu as Layman was just tioo mouths replying and has so much to say ahout my letter being written at " one brief sitting " I have taken tlie liberty of making the foregoing ex- planations. In so doing 1 tak(! no special credit to myself, as the facts stated in those letters are (juite familiar to anyone who is at all con- versant with the history of the Meth- odist Church. But having disposed of Layman's un- )ustiiial)le sneer, let us look at his ' somewhat fuller examination of this matter.' lie quotes Wesley as follows : ♦ I set out for Bristol. On the road I read over Lord King's Account of the Primitive Church. In spite of the vehement prejudice of my education, I was ready to believe that this was a fair and impartial draught ; but if so, it would follow that bishops and presbyters are (essentially) of one order; and that originally every Christian congregation was a church independent of all others." This is the whole of Wesley's entry in his journal for Mon- day, January 20th, ITtO. I see on coHiparing it with Layman that he has omitted a little at the end. In his comments on this, Layman says : 'Here Wesley admits that ' if this book were correct then bishops and presbyters we. 3 the same order.' Now why does he emphasize the word 'i/''? Evidently to weaken Mr. Wesley's statement ; but assuming that he is candid in this, then we must conclude he is wholly unacquainted with the logical method of reasoning made use of in Geometry ' and similar >iiV>jectH, for if he were ho j would know that every proposition in Euclid is demonstrated by the use of just such langUiiL,"' as WcsU'v h«>rH employs. Fust he Htat(?s the fact that *in spit(^ of th«; vehement prejudice of his education he was ready to believe that this was a fair and impartial drauglit '; then, as a nec(;ssary se(jueiice . he says, 'but if so, it would fol'ow that bishops and presbyters are (essentially) of one order.' Whilst, therefore, to the illogical mind of Layman the conclusion appears some- what doubtful, it was perfc^ctly cU^ar to the logical mind of Wesley, and, as Vcis his habit, he sets down his pre- mises and conclusion with logical con- ciseness, clearness and conclusiveness. And in this, as in many other respects, he showed himself to ho. a true apostolic successor to St. Paul, wiio, in his Epistle to tlie Romans, viii. IG, 17, reasons thus : ' The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God ; and if children, then heirs." Now will Layman say that when St. Paul used the word 'if in this passage he thereby weakened its force 1 Did he doubt that he was a 'child of God'1 Was it not this very fact that he was here asserting with the utmost assur- ance? Certainly it was, and having thus clearly established the fact of sonship he then argues with the strongest possiV)le logical conclusive- ness, ^ And if children, tlten heirs.' Layman should not accuse others of making ' desperate efforts '; he has here made a * desperate effort ' himself, and, to use the word m its wider signification, he has made a despurate failure too. He then speaks sneeringly of Wesley having read this book 'ovi the road,' italicizing the words as I have just done. Let me remind him that the road was not only a long one and the mode of travelling far less expeditious " WHY I AM A METHOD FST. e werfi h^ osition in the use of ,lev luTH fact that cjudicH of to believe iiiipiirtial .S(M|UOHC(! . kl fol'-)w ters are Whilst, mind of \rs sonie- y clour to ,r, and, as 11 his pre- lyical con- usiveness. ' respects, ; apostolic >, in his ■ 10, 17, if beareth ve are the ren, then ; when St. is passage be ? Did of God'? at he was ost assur- d having fact of with the onclusive- ?7t lieirs.^ others of he has ' himself, its wider despurdte of Wesley the road,' lave just that the 1 and the icpeditious than now, but that Mr. Wesley did a ve»'y great deal of his extensive reading 'on the road,' as when not so occupied he was usually either preaching or writing or engaged in some other active lauour. In this way it was that he accomplished so much more than almost any other man sine ' the days of the Apostles l)oth as a reader and writer, and also as a prt^acher of the gospel. But what does it matter where or how the book was read 1 The point in dispute is, whether Wesley did tu- did not believe that 'bishops and presbyters were the same order.' That point I have clearly settled in the affirmative by his own positive declara- tion. Layman foolishly says : 'ne does not then speak of being convinced by it,' for what difference does it make whether he 'then' speaks of being 'con- vinced' or not, when we have his own testimony to the fact, written nearly forty years after, where he says : 'Lord King's Account of the Primitive Church coiivinced me many years ago that oishops and presbyters are the same order.' Thus we see not only from Wesley's words at the time, but many years afterwards, that he certainly was 'convinced' at the time of reading that book, and tho-t he, stayed couvircced too. Surely no reasonable man would require anything more convinciny. Layman's third paragraph now de- mands a brief notice. He speaks of 'a few expressions of Wesley' which he says I have 'suppres.sed.' He might as well have 'suppressed' them, too, for all the good they do him. I no more 'suppressed' them than I did everything else that Wesley wrote on the subject. I could not put every- thing in one letter. But I am perfectly sure, Mr. Editor, that none of your intelligent readers will come to the conclusions of Layman from those 'few expressions of Wesley' which he 'cites.' He concludes (1) that presbyters have no right to ordain or to appoint, simply bei;ause Wesley said on one occasion : 'It is not clear to us, that presbyters, so circumstanced as we are, may appoint or ordain others.' Layman improperly emphasizes /^r^^j/yy^erw. Why (lid he not emphasize the modifying j)hrase ^eircuiusffinced a.i we are '/ ' That very 'expression' proves that Wesley believed time presbyters had a right to ordain, though he was not 'clear' that it would be right just then for them being 'circumstanced' as they were. 1 do not wish to lengthen my letters unduly, though it might not be amiss to refer to the fact that at the confer- ence held this year (175;')) the main (juestion discussed was, whether they ought to separate! from the establish- ment, in reference to which Wesley says : 'Whatever was advanced on the one side or the other was seriously and calmly considered, and on the third day we were all fully agreed in that general conclusion that (whether it was lawful or not) it was no ways expedient.' It was tlie 'expediency' and not the 'lawfulness' of it that actuatea Wesley, and he even goes so far as to say in reference to those who opposed his view that he 'admired their spirit and was ashamed of his own.' He acknowledged that though he 'did not fluctuate, yet he could not answer the arguments' on their side of the question. And coisidering the 'vehement prejudice of his education' we can scarcely wonder at the tenacity with which he clung so long to the rules of the Church of England. Notwith- standing, the time came, as I have al- ready shown and may find occasion to show again, when Wesley was quite 'clear' that the Methodists were 'so circumstanced' that it was not only lawful but expedient for him as a 'presbyter' to exercise his right to 'ordain' — tvhich he accordingly did. Does Layman require any stronger proof than this of Wes-ley's belief in the right of presbyters to ordain ? fl 6 WHY I AM A \fETnOI)lST" acts ; ■fl I Wo have both his word and what could wo have more 1 As to Ijnyniaii's coiu'Iusion (2) that according to his (Wesley's) ju(lp;ment, the Kpis(!opal form of church j^overn- metit was scriptural and apostolieal, it will 1)0 Butiicient to add Wesley's own comment, namely, 'I mean, well aj?reeing with the practice and writings of thyter and me 1 Why this : 'While 1 admit that Wesley wrote in 1784, 'Lord King's account of the Primitive church convinced ni<; many years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same ri<,'ht to ordain,' as quoted by Mr. L. ; and again : 'I firmly believe I am a Scrip- tural bishop as much as any man in Kngland or Europe, 'as quoted by Mr. L. and P. ; yet, in June 1789 nearly five years subsequently, Wesley tells us how he came to thus express him- self. He says : When I said, 'I believe I am a Scriptural bishop, I spoke on Lord King's supposition, that bishops and presbyters are (essentially) one order." This, Mr. Editor, is the 'bit of .' evidence' which Layman prophesied would be so 'discomfiting I ' Well, so it is, but unfortunately for him it is he who is (lisromlited, for, f-o far from renouncing his previously expressed views, Wesley in these wjrds reiterates his former expn.'ssed opinion, unth the grounds for holding it. He considered I himself a l)ishop, not l>»'eause he had I l)een consecrated to that otKce but because bishops aiifl [)resbyter8 are I one order, and he being a preaV)yter, was therefon; also a bishop. Wesley j here used the word 'supposition' in the place of assumption^ gromid, ^'.W'- thesisov jii'inciide. That is, he explains on what grounds he declared himself a bishop ; it was on the assiiniptiun that 'bishops and presbyters are one order' ; and this coiu;lusion he arrived at by rending King's book. Thus does , Wesley defend his position and justifies i his former statement. But Layman I sa}s : 'Thus then does VVt>sley with his own hand sweep uwc»y all tIk? sophistry . of my two Clitics about King's liook I having convinced him.' 1 will show I the reader where the sonhistrv belonjis. I In his former letter Layman quotes I Weshsy's word.^ on baptism in which he { makes use of the very same expression, namely 'supposition,' adding, 'This I language undeniably proves,' but now, i simply because it suits him to do so, he flatly contradicts his own words and declares that supposition is 'not proof ! ' Perhaps if he had a better WHY I AM A METHODIST." 1 11 memory he would be more consistent in his .tatements. But so far as my argument is con- cerned it matters nothing whether supposition is proof or not. It is opinions we are discussing, and we have the most undeniable proof that Wesley's opinion in 1746 was that 'bishops and presbyters are the same order.' We have undeniable proof that in 1784 his opinions on the s.ibject httd not changed, as Layman himself is compelled to admit. And we have also undeniable proof that in the year 1789 — the year in which Layman says ♦he really makes what is an apology' for having expressed that opinion (!) — he still tirmly held that opinion, for in that very yea,' Wesley ordained Henry Moore and Thomas Rankin. It is said that actions speak louder than words. I have shown by Wesley's words that his opinion on this subject remained unchanged, and now I have proven it by his actions loo. Layman says : 'Thus does Wesley sweep away with his own hand all the sophistry of my two critics,' rd King. , 80 clear estament it more and the ly e8tab- s, as all 36 altoge- a,te, that 'bishops ler,* not it, nor slieved it, y taught mely, in byter has doubtless I up much id yet it nt or two ) may see those of although byter or the New srchangf,- Each is showing er, and are never riptures, one and 'bishops but not ops and d elders,* tological )ps,' &c. 1 is quite f inspira- be said 1. \.cts we le 'elders n, 'Take B, and to ihe Holy Crhost hath made you overseers.' Here the apostle calls the 'elders' 'overseers' — the word translated 'overseers' being precisely the same as that translated 'bishops' in Phil. 1:1. From this, then, it is undeniably clear that, according to divine inspiration an elder is a hiihop . Peter and John, each calls himself 'an elder,' and even Layman will concede that they were both 'bishops,' and having iti the preceding paragraph proven that an elder is a bishop, I need not occupy more space on this subject, having briefly, but clearly shown to the candid reader that those different terras are used in the Scrip- tures interchangeably and therefore synonymously, referring to the same persons and to the same office. Another word in passing. We read of a plurality of elders or bishops in one church. At Ephesus we read of elders and at Philippi we read of bishops — showing that there were a number of elders or bishops over the church in each of these towns or cities. This well accords with the practice of non-episcopal churches which frequent- ly have several ministers in one place, but how does it accord with the usages of our Episcopal friends and their diocesan bishops 1 But to proceed. Layman next asks a question, namely, 'Why did Wesley apply to the Greek bishop Erasmus in 1763 to ordain some of his preachers.' This is a question very easy to answer, and the answer will show the utter incorrectness of Layman's unwarrant ab'e conclusion, 'This one act proves that he did not believe he had the right to ordain because he was a presbyter.' It proves nothing of the kind. Even Layman has had to admit that up to the year 178-1 Wesley held that a presbyter had the right to ordain ; only ridiculously claiming that though he 'might have been blinded for a season,* yet he saw his error in 1789. The absurdity of this conclusion of Layman I have shown by referring to the fact that in that very year Wesley showed his faith by his works and actually performed acts of ordination himself ! But this year 1763 referred to by Layman comes within the period of Wesley's 'blindness' aj our modest (1) eagle-eyed (?) churchman is pleased to style it. A little confused and incon- sistent of Layman to be sure, but 'part and parcel' with the r*»8t of his writings. But has no one but Wesley ever asked another for certain reasons, to do what he might legally have done himself. Do not ministers, as a general thing, employ others to baptize their children 1 But in the case now under consideration Wesley has not left us in doubt as to his reasons for pursuing the course he did. In the same letter, dated Bristol, September 10, 1784, to whic't reference has so frequently been made, after affirming his long-settled conviction that presby- ters b"ing the same order as bishops had the same right to ordain, he ex- plains his own conduct in not having, up to that time, exercised the right, as follows : 'For many years I have been importuned, f '»m time to time, to exercise this right by ordaining part of our travelling preachers. But 1 have still refused ; not only for peace sake, but because I was determined, as little as possible, to violate the established order of the national church to which I belonged.' Thus easily have I answered Lay- man's question by simply directing his attention to Mr. Wesley's own explan- ation of the matter, viz. — 'for peace sake,' and, 'to violate as little as possi- ble the established order of the national church.' Mr. Wesley then proceeds in the same letter '. " But the case is widely different between England and North " WHY I AM A METHODTST. " America. Here there are bishops who have a legal jurisdiction ; in America there are none, neither any parish minister ; so that, tor some hundreds of miles together, there is none either to baptize, or to administer the Lord's Supper. Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end ; and I conceive myself at full liberty, as 1 violate no order, and invade no man's rights, by appoint- ing and sending labourers into th^ harvest." Here Mr. Wesley declares his right to ordain, and that in so doing he violates no order, and invades no man's rights, thus once more clearly showing that he firmly held the belief that ' bishops and presbyters are one order.' But as I have determined, according to intimation in my third letter, to conclude the present series with this one, I must not quote further, but proceed to notice the remainder of Layman's letter On glancing over it I see there is not much that is new to answer, as most of what follows is a sort of rehash of what has been answered already. For instance, he again questions Wesley's right to ordain, being only a presbyter, and again tells us that Wesley ' spoke on King's snppositioit (not proof)' when he declared ' bishops and presbyters are • the same order,' and consequently have the same right to ordain.' I have already so thoroughly exposed the weak and unsuccessful attempt of Layman at sophistry on this point that it is wholly unnecessary to do so again. Those who have candidly and intelli- gently read thus far will be iil)le to appreciate the foregoing statement, and as for Layman I trust he is among the number ; if not, then the most con- clusive evidence and logical proof, so far as he is concerned, are useless. Next, Layman denies that Wesley ordained Dr. Coke, maintaining that he simply 'appointed' him. Now does Layman really believe this? If so, how does he account for the following language of Mr. Wesley ? He says ; * For many years I have been impor- tuned, from time to time, to exercise this right [bishops and presbyters being one order] by ordaining part of our travelling preachers.' And then, after stating that in so doing he * violates no order,' he says, ' I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke,' etc. Now if Layman knows the meaning of words he must know that the word 'accordingly' links together the request to 'ordain' with his acquiesence in having 'appointed' Dr. Coke. Wesley was too logical to write illogically and too truthful to write untruthfully. By his use of the words he certainly means them to be understood in the same way, as referring to the same thing, stating what he had been 'importuned' to do and why he had 'accordingly' done it. And surely Wesley knew what he was doing. I do not like to make such a comparison, but it is simply a question of veracity between Wesley and Layman, the former de- claring he did do a certain thing, and the latter declaring he did not ! I have no fear of the verdict of your readers, Mr. Editor, as to which should be believed. Wesley considered he did actually ordain ; his brother Charles, not nearly so free from High Church notions, called it by that name, so did those who were thus ordained, and so have historians ever since, and it is now getting rather late in the day for a ' Layman ' to expect intelligent people to discredit thi fact simply because he knows no better cnan to deny it. 1 may state just here in passing, that the act of ordination does not necessarily imply the imposition of hands, and has not always been per- formed in that way. Mr. Wesley ordained Dr. Coke, however, by 'ap pointing' him, and also by the impo- sition of hands and prayer. He .^T, "WHY I AM A METHODIST." ordained Mr. Asbury by 'appointing' him, and also by the imposition of hands by Dr. Coke who had receivtid ordination at the hands of Mr. Wesley. Layman scoffs at the idea of the Methodists being called a Church, and intimates that Wesley did not so regard it ; but if not, what did Wesley mean when he wrote in 1784, 'As our American brethren are now totally disentangled both from the State, and from the English Hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again, either with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the Primitive Church. And we judge it best, that they should stand fast in that liberty, wherewith Go'l has so strangely made them free.' Free from what? Evidently all English authority of both Church and State, and were now at 'full liberty' to follow, not the Church of England but, 'the Scriptures and the Primitioe Church.^ lu answer to Layman's next para- graph about Coke and Asbury being ' placed on precisely the same footing,' etc., I need add but little more to what I have already stated. Wesley was at this time the recognized head of the Methodist body. Of course then Coke was not. In being sent to America he wished to have authority from Mr. Wesley to do the same work in America as Mr. Wesley did in England and would Jo in America if there. With this Wcs^ley complied as we have seen, and on reaching America Dr. Coke, assisted by others, proceeded to ordain Mr. As.)urv. Layman tries to make it appear that Dr. Coke did not consider himself duly ordained, which statement goes for nothing when we reflect o\ the fact that not only was it granted by his own special request, but he at once ' magnifiea his office ' — not order — by ordaining others. What he may or may not have been led by certain con- siderations to do subsequently has nothing whatever to do with the points now at issue. I thank Layman for quoting the i words of Wesley respecting the title I of 'bishop.' I was prevented from quoting them in my letter of April 29th only for the sake of brcivity. What do they prove? Why simply the.se two facts : tifst, tlnit they were ' no more bishops after that ordination, consecration or apnointnient than be- fore, in the way that term was usually understood. They had been placed in a higher position or office than ordinary presbyte»'s, being now superintendents, l)ut not to a higher ' order.' The j other fact is, that Mr. Wesley had I become so perfectly disgusted with the ! English Bishops, whom he designates i ' mitred infidels,' and declares that the I obedience he rendered thHtn was simply 1 ' in obedience to the laws of the land,' , that wt! connot wonder u hen he heard ! of one of his superintendents allowing ; himself to be called by that pretentious title, that he should use the words I which Layman has kindly quoted, viz., 1 ' How can you, how dare you sufl'er yourself to be called bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought ! M^^n may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content ; but they shall never, by my consent, call ine a bishop.' What a terrible set those ; bishops must have bcjen ! Again Layman ridiculously asserts that, 'however, then, he (Wesley) might have been bliudfid for a season i by the sophistical book of King, so as ' to )tiipj)ose bishops and presbyters were the 'same order,' yet now (in ITH^i) he i gives his more mature judgment, that ; tney were not.' This sentence from I Layman contains two false statements, for Wesley did not say he was led to suppose bishops and presV)yters were the same order, but that he said it on Lord King's ' supposition,' which is a i very different thing as I have already 6 "WHY I AM A METHODIST." shown. I have also shown that the word ' supposition ' as there used, according to Layman's own definition in another place, is equivalent to ' unden.ahle proof !' The other incor- rect statement of Layman is to the effect that ' Wesley gives his more mature judgment, that bishops and presVjyters were not the same order.' This is wholly unfounded in fact, and Layman can give no evidence to sup- port it, while on the contrary I have already disproved it. What Layman says in his next two paragraphs requires no more reply than what has aheady been given. It is useless to repeat. A word, however, on ' apostolic succession,' which Lay- man again brings to the front. He some italics and then failed ^o ' observe' them. But I did not use any in all that paragraph to which Layman refers. The only italics there are those used in naming the paper in which the letter was printed, that form of type being commonly used for the purpose. But I have stated that the nninter- rvpted succession theory now denied by Layman is the very kind of succes- sion he formerly upheld. Now I would not charge Lavman with thus flatly contradicting himself for the sake of trying to prove me in error and if possible get himself out of an uncomfortable position, were I not prepared to prove my charge true. Here, then, is the proof : In letter finds fa again try to deceive your readers, giving the impression that I had omitted .somethinii that ouuht to j have been given, but which anyone I can see was not relevant to the subject j then under discussion. Layman him- j self did not give the whole letter, but only two sentences. The fact is it is too long, by far, for either of us to quote in full, even if desirable. Still, as Layman seejus to think I did not j quote enough of it I will give him a ' little more as follows : 'I submit still, though sometimes with a doubting conscience, to mitred infidels. I do indeed vary from them in some points ! of discipline: by preaching abroad, for instance, by praying exteinpore, and by forming societies.' \a his reply : Charles asks, 'might }ou not add, and i by ordaining '? ' From which it is \ clear that Charles Wesley knew that John Wesley had performed the act of ordination, which Layman pretends ; to deny. j And just here it may not be deemed ; out of place to ijuote a few sentences i from one of the Church of England's 8 " WHY I AM A METHOD rST." liighest autliorities, which certainly favor the views of Wesley on Episco- pacy, (!tc. and the course he pursued, far more than the narrow views of Layman on these subjects. Hooker says : — "There may be sometimes very just and sufficient reasons to allow ordina- tion without a Bishop. The whole church visible being the true oriyinal subject of all jiower, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than Bishops alone to ordain. Howbeit, as the ordinary cause is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may be in some cases not unnecessary that we decline from the ordinary ways. Men may be extraordinarily yet allowably two ways admitted into spiritual functions in the Church. One is when God himself doth of liimself raise up a way ; another, when the exigency of necessity dotli constrain to leave the usual ways of the cimrch wiiiclx otlier- wise we would willingly keep." — Ecclesiastical Polity vii.l-i. Again : "Let them [the Bishops] continually bear in mind that it is rather the force of custom whereby the Church having so long found it good to continue tlie regiinent of her virtuous Bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honour them in that respect than that any true and heaven- ly law can be shown by the evidence whereof it niay of a truth appear that the Lord l)i/:^oli hath appointed Presbyters fot..' e • to be under the regiment t; \ .-^i ^j,s.-— Ibid vii.5. I w^i' i^' v.|i. oLe tlie whole of Layma ! - > ^'^ pai.;graph, which is as follows : "Taui. i-u • , so far as we have proceeded, VV es ley's testimony leaves modern Methodism not only without a leg to stand on, but without any leys at all." I have reproduced this as a literary curiosity. Let the reader notice Layman's italics which are just as I have given them. He fancies he has left modern Methodism not only without a leg to stand on, but without any leys at all ! 1 venture the opinion that no living writer (but Layman) would undertake tiie task of trying to explain the difference between being left 'without a leg' and being left '•without auy leys at all.' 'One other matter,' says Layman, 'and I am through with Mr. L.' He reters to the parable of the tares to prove that the Methodist discipline is wrong in describing the church as composed of 'men having the form and seeking the power of godluiess.' Layman contends that this is a 'de- lusion and directly contrary to the Scriptures,' and that the parable of the tares shows that the church is composed of a n.ixture, of good and bad. I reminded him that God's people are called in the bible 'a peculiar people,' a 'separated' people, 'washed,' 'holy,' 'sanctified,' and, that in the parable of the tares, notwith- standing that our friend Layman says the field is the church, our Saviour said 'the field is the world.' Layman does not like this and so tells your readers I was 'unable to grapple at close quarters with the fact that God intended His church to be a mixed body — to be composed of the wicked as well as the good,' ifec. Novy, as I have 'grappled,' as Lay- man iepeatedly styles it, at such 'close quar ers' with nearly all of his two long letters in repl)r to mine, I have had to be more brief toward the end ; still, I must 'grapple' a little with this matter, as it is of more importance than some of those points already dis- cussed. First, I will enquire of Layman, 'What is a church V Doubtless he will allow me to quote what John Wesley gives as 'a true, logical defini- tion,' the twentieth article, namely, "A particular church is 'a congregation of faithful people among whom the /} WHY i AM A METHODIST." word of God in preached, and the sacraments duly administered.'" Now will our friend say that *faithful people' are 'composed of the wicked as well as the goodV But what does GoJ say about His church ] He calls it His 'body,' Eph. 1. 22-23. Will 'my critic' dare to criticise God's word and say, the 'body of Christ' is 'composed of the wicked as well as the good 1* Would not that be blasphemy 1 Is it not God's will that His church should be 'a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; but that it should be holy and without blemish V So he declares in Eph. 5:27. Many other passages of similar import might V>e given if necessary. But if the church is to be composed of the 'wicked as well as the good' why did the Saviour give directions for the treatment of a sinning member, and in case of his refusing to hear the church to 'let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican V Matt. 18:17. Surely He did not mean that 'heathens and publicans' were to be members of the church, or it would be the same as saying 'let him be unto thee as a church member !' I wonder if that would suit 'my critic' In 1 Cor. 5:13 St. Paul writes to the Corinthian church, 'Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.' Will Layman dare to say, 'No, let him stay in the church, #hich is to be composed of the wicked as well as the good V I was just about to quote the passage in 2 Cor. 6:17 18, but as there are many such why add more 1 If the church is to be 'composed of 'the wicked as well as the good' as Layman states, then the whole human family is the church, or at least the same as the church, for all are either 'wicked or good.' But a word on the parable. Lay- man, instead of 'grappling' with it himself, applies for help to a renegade Methodist, 'now a churchman.' Now I may say that since Layman's sneer at my own opinion on the parable, I have also consulted 'learned commen- tators,' and oat of eleven, four took his view and serT«n took mine. And, strange as it may appear to some, I noticed this peculiarity about the mat- ter, namely, all those four who main- tained that the Church is 'composed of the wicked as well as the good' were Episcopalians ! Can it be that they find it necessary in view ot facts, that is, tho actual state of the Church, to take refuge and comfort in this un- scriptural view of the meaning of this parable 1 Let the church of God be pure. Indeed the true church of God is pure, for it is 'she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, &c.' (Sol. Song 6:10.) I could wish to say more on this last subject, but my letter is growing long. I unite with Layman, Mr. Editor, in thanking you for your kind- ness in affording space for these letters. Long as they have been I would have asked for more space had I not teen aware of the fact that your readers are now to have the privilege of hearing again from 'Presbyter.' But for this I would have enlarged on several points, whereas I have thought best to confine ray remarks almost exclusively to a direct answer to Layman. If in doing so I have written anything which has had the appearance of harsh- ness or severity it has not been from any unkind personal feeling, bat simply because I believed the facts of the case demanded it. Truth often cuts with a keen edgei. Layman bade me farewell in his last letter to me, but having referred to me so often in his letters to Presbyter, in concluding them he thovght well to say, 'Again, Mr. Lawson, Farewell 1' I shall not trifle with Lyman's feel - ings nor IboM ol Toar readers ! I 10 WHY J AM A METHODIST." shall not conclude with anything so )aiiifully like a 'farewell' or 'funeral iddress' as those affecting and touch- ing! y pathetic sentences at the conclu- sion of f ri»»nd Layman's last letter. Nor shall I take time or space to recapitu- late, but hope, if spared, and necessity should arise, to again find time to write, and that you, Mr. Editor, will afiord space to print my letters in the columns of your excellent journal. Meantime I remain, Yours sincerely, James Lawson. Methodist Parsonage, Oobden, Out. • V ERRATA. In letter No. 2, page 4, fifth line from bottom of first column, for eight Iread eighth. "^^,' ■ .,..., luuq jjjui ^u*jtljj;;f»n' Page t, second column, line 21 from bottom, for ordinarily' i r6»dt^i((ii!')i(i ordinarily,' and for refer read reteF8.J*> ■-■ ^». • . «• ..... . >i ._>••><- ,j. .ii> : uij •>«! ..,,( "5t] O"* /'0(l 'f^llLl'V/ ] 11 Iread different. !i t Page 5, first columnj^-Jw^eiiM'frain top,; for attend read attends. ;k- hluuv/ ij (' i '; " iVM^i-'..')i(U* '>Vilri ,'•,.1.-.. i M,: .,• , '.■• ;..,'! '-' I.; r. .-(oD I In letter Noi^joplag©/2Qtticwi f 4i^^^9Pn{:i r-ho^ Page3y8eQon(},GoJwtian,.li!;iff l^frQm,tQp,i|or.wprl^8 7;eW,v?9ifa^ ^,^1 ^.{y,' ,xi>:^. ..t lir- tj;r i' J >)i.irUi.»;u li Dtl// i'l/* 'ivv •»(!,! I(. |i,-)rt.'-. I iUOfl 0<1 Oi) isJ dr.li([l% i(«./i^ .-jwd :)<)a <-«H cfi Voiiev *r no ^^-^'iii ,tr-.ii( aajw 1 1 booj; B(i;t f!£ ili»v/ «ij 7 lifui ifc iiid .j^jiibfii I;!no<'.i9q bii>lf(;j ^(llii .•<<)!) L' iii sjiwusKCf adi '»lc'nj) 8v)o/i^ advl f^vo)i»y(^ ii';jj« vnjui) 'Hii fTodi «« .toti ,>5l T1:0 'tfiM ii'>;Jlo d-tyiT .di bebn.jnieb '^?irj 9ii ol >^i ilo-ii/dn yrfcJ H f eioar bb« vd-w 'iuj olnuJ njitn'^Bkl .9gb<» .'i- •»>! >; riiiv/ ^r, liyv^ r-.ij jiTJjr/' ^mIj* Im by*-.oqiiioj Jud ,'»ffi Git leijel dsflf aid ai l!ov/ei6'i , -idi u'ldt ^gM^l^jR uisinvfiJ aa 'boo>^ 91I.J iiiri iu fiHiJio OB QUI o^ bsno'i »'f xjnivwrf ; ^d;)'iod*) oiit hi vjifoj^'i a/jntud f)lori'« ^nihuio/too ni ,io;t^d*3eT'i >} ai^iJ'jl I moI ,((-j'iudy orb ;