IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // '^, % 1.0 I.I IIM ilM ilM 2.2 ill 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 -4 6" ► V] (^ /^ /. % m •# ^ / Photographic Sciences Corporation ^ iV « \ \ % V ^ 1^< 6^ C^; ^< 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 1 % Cp. m C/j w \ \ vV :<^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibiiographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 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. L'Institut a microfilmd ie meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale do filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. Q Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D n D D D Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques 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/ Plane iches 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 serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 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 filmdes. D D D D n n 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, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages d^tach^es 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 partiat'y 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 6t(b film^es d nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X tails ', du odifier une mage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of 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. L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grflce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de i'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. 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 ether 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 exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film^s 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 commengant par la premidre 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 symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon ie cas: le symbols — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". 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 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. rrata to pelure, n d n 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^ ± A^INDICATION Of THE V METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN 0^ CANADA THE LTN(JENEKOUS ATTACKS AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF liEV. Bit. CAIIKOLL, BY REV. WILLIAM PIRRITTE, Ok the Ontario Confkhexce. " For who knows not that Truth is stron'j^, next tu the \lrni<,'lity ; she ueetls no jj ])olicie.s, nor strat.iyems, nor licensinj^.s, to mike her victorious ; those are the { sliifts and the defences that error uses ai-ainst her power." Milton. HAMILTON : METHODIST El'ISCOPAL HOOK ROOM, 74 Kino Strekt East. 1871). H \>-] fK>y Rev. Dr. Carroll, in which he professes to " calmly consider" the " claims and allegations of the Canada Episcopals." With some degree of curiosity and interest we proceeded at once to its perusal. We were duly thankful to our reverend friend for his condescension iu considering our " claims " at all. But in our progress through its seventy pages, we confess to a feeling of unpleasant disappointment (1) as to its spirit, and (2) its unfounded assumptions, misrepresentations, and perversion of the facts of history. Its unbrotherly spirit is shown in the frequent use of such epithets as "boastful," "pragmatic" "pretence," " proud," '* would-be-rivals," " wicked," applied to the members and ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada. We were, of course, fully prepaied to find strenuous eflbrts put forth to overthrow any claim the " Episcopal section " might set up to be the original Methodist Church in Canada, but we confess the application of such unsavory adjectives amazed us — especially coming from a brother who, for a few years last past, has been the loudest and [<5] most earnest in his expressions of regard for, and desire of union with us. Dr. Carroll's line of argument and spirit, in this his latest production, reminds us of the dark and bitter days of thirty years ago — days, we had fondly hoped, which would never again return to disgrace and disturb Methodism in Canada. The occasion of this bitter and unjust attack upon his neighbors, we loam from the preface, is, he alleges, certain " innumerable oral and written utterances of the * bishop ' and other mouthpieces " of the M. E. Church. What these are we are not informed. No instances are given, but the public are assured they are all intended to " trumpet them- themselves as the Methodist Church jmr excellence of the country." We have attendevl both Annual and General Conferences since the installation of the new Bishop, and listened very attentively to his utterances on these occasions, but never heard anything of the kind. How does Dr. Carroll know these utterances were made ] He certainly did not hear them, nor can he furnish an instance. Tlie whole attack thus made upon our body is to be regarded as the despicable offspring of envy and jealousy. Our ministers are accused of being influenced by ^* blind prejudices," "unfounded representation," and ** secret plot- tings," to the injury of the Methodist Church of Canada. Where is the proof of all this ? Can Dr. Carroll, or anyone else, produce, from official or unofficial records of the M. E. Church for the last twenty years, one word or expiession that will sustain such an accusation? We challenge the proof, and until it is forthcoming, we shall hold Dr. Carroll guilty of deliberately manufacturing a case for effect. Throughout the entire pamphlet, its author sees nothing ill the denomination against which he hurls his unkind and [7] uncharitable epithets, that ia uaefiil, wise or good. His insulting insinuations, distortion of facts, and imputations of improper and impure motives, must not be allowed to pass unnoticed. They do no honor either to his head or his heart. In the spirit of becoming meekness and Christian charity we propose to answer him. We have no fondness for controversy, and shall never, we hope, be found recklessly provoking it. We challenge all who know us to say if we are disposed to be quarrelsome. Nothing would be more grateful to our feelings than to be in actual and visible fraternal concord with all good men. Our soul I'^iicjs for the return and establishment of a true and loving b jther- hood among all those who bear the family li^. ness and profess the common faith of our beloved Methodism , p nd all men who rejoice in the common hope of the goB^»el. No prayer do we offer more fervently, than for the Epeedy coming of that day which is destined to witness the utter abolition of sectarian jealousies and strifes, and honest, warm-hearted, whole-souled co-operation of all Christ's friends in extending and establishing his kingdom. For years past there has been a growing feeling of concord and fraternity between these two branches of Canadian Methodism. During the past year fraternal courtesies and greetings were passed between the two bodies by the appointment and visit of fraternal messengers. None rejoiced more in this than the writer of these pages. And now, after years of increasing fraternity, in the midst of profound peace, with nothing going before to justify him, Dr. Carroll has suddenly broken forth in a violent assault upon the Methodist Episcopal Church. [8J I: We have not undertaken this task for the mere sake of controversy, and throughout the discussion we trust we shall never lose siglit of the fact that we profess to be a discii)le of the Lord Jesus. And, while we shall fearlessly advocate what we hold to be right and true, we hope never to be tempted to say that which, rightly understood and received, can give just cause of offence to those who differ from us. We shall not, however, hold ourselves accountable for the inferences which others may be pleased to draw. We are not offended with our Wesleyan friends for differ- ing from us. We are not offended with them for being what they are. If it suits them they may adopt any change or set up any claim they please, provided they do not seek to injure and degrade others, and we will engage that their tender sensibilities shall not be wounded by us. Let them adopt moderate and charitable views of others ; let them come down from their high stilts and consent to tread the common earth with their brethren, and we pledge ourselves that they shall never be molested. We will say to them as Abram said to Lot, '* Let there be no strife, I pray theo, between me and thee, between my herdsmen and thy herds- men, for we be brethren. Is not the whole land before thee 1 Separate thyself, I pray thep, from me ; if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right ; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left." We will not consent to be trod upon, nor yield to them exclusive possession of God's footstool. So long as they attempt the former, or claim the latter, we shall feel col strained to show them that the attempt is disagreeable to us and the claim foolish. When we feel the sharp ends of their stilts tramp- ling us, or their elbows jostling us, we shall certainly give them intimations that the operation is not enjoyable. wike of ist we 3 be a xlessly never )d and I differ mtable w. differ- being change )t seek ,t tbeir it them t them ;ad the ir selves hem as y thee, hords- before ou wilt if thou We ^elusive npt the to show e claim tramp- ily give [9] On page twelve of the pamphlet we are reviewing, our author professes to give " The Circumstances which led to the Blending of the British and Canadian Methodipt Churches to be thought of," and an attempt is made to make it appear, that it was in consequence of the appeals of the Canadian Meth- odists to the brethren in England for pecuniary he' p, that induced the English Conference to send missionaries to Canada ; and in pursuance oi this object, Rev. Robert Alder and others visited York (now Toronto), when " the Missionary Board of the Canada Church, consist- ing of a large preponderance of laymen, invited Mr Alder to meet them^ to see if some method could not be devised by which the British and Provincial Methodist bodies might labor in concert. All this appears very plausible. But what are the facts ? Do Dr. Carroll's representations agree with the facts ? Let us see. From the above statements of the case, the reader would be led to infer that the crippled state of Canadian Method- ism, for lack of means to ciiry on the work, required the union with the British Methodists. To show that this is quite untrue, we will give an extract from a letter written by Rev. John Ryerson^ President of the Canadian Mission- ary Board, addressed to the Rev. Mr. Townley, Secretary of the Wesleyan Missionary Committee, London, and dated York, XJ. C, Oct. 4, 1831, in which he states : *'That the success of our Indian Missions, considering the means expended, has, perhaps, not a parallel in the history of modern missions. This extraordinary and con- tinued blessing of God upon the labors of our society is considered a peculiar call of Providence to continue them in B [10] II !i ■^ t HI ) i I' all our mission stations. Indeed, the rapid progress of Methodism in Upper Canada generally appears to indicate most clearly, that our present ecclesiastical arrangements, whilst purely Wesleyan, are remarkably well adapted to the work of ' spreading Scriptural holiness throughout the land,' and that the abandonment of tliem would be stepping aside from the order of Divine Providence." He states also in the same letter : " That there is little doubt but the funds of our own society can be increased to a svfficient sum to meet the wants of all the Indian tribes within the present boundaries of our Conference." That does not indicate a great " lack of funds," which was *' greatly felt," and offered by Dr. C. as the reason for entering into negotiations for union. By their own testimony it is shown to be untrue. The Rev. Mr. Alder did, indeed, visit York, but not until he had " several " interviews with the Governor General — Sir John Colbourne — regarding a scheme by which the Ca- nadian Methodist could be brought under the control of the English Conference. He then had an interview with Rev. John Ryerson, during which it was stated that the Cana- dian Government had offered money to the English Metho- dists to come out and establish societies in Canada, and that if the Canada Church would consent to form an union with their English brethren, the money would be turned over to them, together with a grant from the contingent fund of the English Conference, to supply the deficiencies of poor circuits. In proof of this statement, we give the testimony of the Rev. James Richardson, as given before the committee ap- pointed in 1836 by the Commons House of Assembly on the subject of Government grants made to religious denomi- nations. In answer to a question, Mr. R. stated as follows : [11] '* The first mention made of the union was in the meeting of the Missionary Board in which Mr. J. Ryerson stated that he had an interview with Messrs. Alder and Hick in which they gave him to understand that should a union take place similar to that existing between the English and Irish Conferences, we would probably have a grant of their con- tingent fund, as they were in the habit of granting out of that fund to the Irish Conference to supply the deticiencies of poor circuits ; and again frequent mention was made by Mr. Alder during the discussion of the question in Confer- ence, of the prospect of such a grant ; he gave a statement of the different funds, and of the financial system of the British Conference, and showed that as the contingent fund was for supplying the deficiencies of poor circuits, we might expect something from it." Here was the origin of the disruption. Can our oppo- nents truthfully deny it ] We believed then, and do now, that it originated in a desire, on the part of its leaders, to secure Government grants, and the patronage of adroit poli- ticians. This was in 1832, and shortly afterwards the Guardian gave the first intimittion of the proposed union, and a very general feeling of dissatisfaction was soon apparent. Dr. Carroll says, on page 18: *'I don't remember to have heard myself, or heard of, a single objection among the laity or local preachers to the measures proposed. There certainly were no petitions against them, or outside pres- sure of any kind." And again on page 23 it is asserted : " There was no opposition " to the measure until " during the conference years, 1833-34." Is it not a well known fact, that the opposition to the movement took .shape in July, 1832, at a convention of local preachers, held in Tra- falgar, for the purpose of protesting against it. They passed the following resolution : [12] I i J: i i ^'Besolved, That as it appears from the Christian Guardian that an union between the missionaries from Britain and our church is contemplated, we address our Annual Confer- ence on the subject of our privileges as Local Preachers — and that Bros. Gulp, Pickett, and Brown be the committee to draft such address and forward it for publication." A copy of this address opposing the union was sent to the editor of the Guardian for publication, but its publication was refused. The organ of the church was closed to all who were in opposition to the movement. Freedom of dis- cussion and British fair play were both denied to those who refused to join with the Unionists. This is one reason why Brother Carroll " never heard of but one person opposed to the union, absolutely and on principle, before the conference of 1833." ' ' Again, did Brother Carroll never hear of a document con- taining a series of resolutions — ten in all — strongly protest- ing against the consummation of the union, without con- sulting the people and obtaining their approval in conformity with the Discipline of the Church ? These resolutions were forwarded to Rev. Mr. Case. The document is dated Smith- viile, November, 1832, and signed by David Culp, Elijah A. Warren, David Griffin, Henry Gillmore, John W. Byam, Caleb Swazy, and Arnon C. Seavor. Again, in the London District, the opposition to the measure assumed definitive shape, and a convention was held in Westminster, previous to the Conference of 1833. It will be seen, by these earnest protests against union, that they were made between the months of June, 1832, and October, 1833, and yet Dr. Carroll declares that '* there was no opposition to notice until during the Confer- ence year 1833-4." Is this honorable? Is it honest] Such reckless statements may have a temporary effect with [13] those who know no better, but sensible and good men will turn from them to blush for " the interests of stern historic truthfulness." No man could make such, a statement, and give it to the public, without a consciousness of its inaccu- racy. Let us charitably hope he has forgotten. In our youthful days we were personally acquainted witli hundreds of intelligent and devoted Methodist people who never for one moment consented to the union movement, and in many instances whole societies who opposed the measure from the beginning, and who maintained their class organizations intact through the whole of the stormy period, and even to this day. And if they could have been regularly supplied by M. E. ministers at the time, thou- sands, who were induced to, reluctantly, fall in with the new order of things, would have remained warmly and firmly attached to the old Church until death removed them to the Church above. It is an amazing injustice to historic truth for any man to assert, there was no opposi- tion to the attempt to overthrow the whole government of the Church without consulting the membership. Dr. Carroll knew better when he wrote it. Did he suppose it would be allowed to pass unchallenged 1 Or does he think that the " interests of historic truthfulness" bind none but himself] Not only was there strong opposition to the proposed union, because of the changes made in the government of the Church, but there was very general and widespread dis- satisfaction ^rom another cai se. It was well known that the union involved the surrender of what was called the voluntary principle for the support and spread of religious institutions — a principle to which the Methodi&ts were warmly attached, and on which they entirely relied for support. - '...-.,, J. . ...jifpsmssmmmsm [U] By the proposed union the Canada Conference was re- quired not only to renounce this cherished principle, but positively adopt and defend ^* that principle of the parent body which maintains that it is the duty of civil govern- ments to employ their influences, and a portion of their resources, for the support of the Christian religion." That this produced agitation and intense excitement throughout the whole Church, no one will dare deny. This fact is established beyond controversy by the testimony tf Revs. Ephraim Evans, James Richardson, and William Case, given before a select committee appointed by the Commons House of Assembly in 1836. And in face of all this Dr. Carroll never heard of any one who opposed the union until the year 1833-34 ! We shall be able to show a simi- lar divergence from " historic truthfulness " in many other sections of the " Needed Exposition." Our author proceeds to give the '* Co^'SIDEBATIONS WHICH PREVAILED WITH THE MEMBERS OF Conference to Concur in this Union." Some eight considerations are given ; we shall only notice a few. If the falsity of two or three is established,'! he whole may be regarded with suspicion. Consideration 3rd says : " They were aware that a large proportion of the members of the Church were Old Coun- trymen, with Old Country sympathies, and that hundreds on hundreds of these had been converted by the instru- mentality of Old Country Methodism, who were delighted at the thought of being reunited to their spiritual relatives by a closer tie than of late years." There can be no doubt entertained of the fact that there were many persons in the Church who had bern converted [16] large there Iverted through British Methodism. But is there any evidence to show that these persons were dissatisfied with the disci- pline and economy of the Canada Church 1 In all the dis- cussions on this sul)ject we can remember this reason for union was never urged. It is made to do duty now for a certain purpose. That it had no existence at the time, we can conclusively prove : First. It is a well-known and generally acknowledged fact, that previous to the union, and up to 1832, Canadian Methodism enjoyed extraordinary success, and the mem- bership of the Church throughout Upper Canada were contented and happy with the us.iges and government of the Methodist Episcopal Church established in 1828 ; so much so, that when the English Missionaries made an attempt to establish themselves in the Province they re- ceived little or no encouragement, save in a very few exceptions, from the Canadian Methodists, though thoy were all Old Countrymen ! Will Dr. Carroll deny this 1 Second. To show that Dr. Carroll's statement of it con- tradicts the facts in the case, we will give an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Missionary Board held in Toronto in 1832, relating to this very subject. It reads as follows : " That as a large portion of the Canada Conference con- sists of Europeans, as the members of the Methodist Socie- ties from Great Britain who have generally united with us have uniformly expressed themselves satisfied with the eeonomy of Methodism in Canada, and equally edified by our means of grace as in their native country, the influx of European emigration into this Province does not appear to the Board to render the organization of Methodist Societies distinct from those already established, expedient or advis- able — and more especially as the Board considers the [16J '! I 1 f.- * ;}ii economy of Methodism in Canada to be as truly Wesleyan as that in Great Britain." This \vill, we doubt not, be regarded satisfactory proof that the Canadian Methodists were perfectly contented as they were, and utterly annihilates the reason given by Dr. Carroll for union. Such prevarication merits the con- tempt of all candid men. In the 4th consideration our author says : " They saw that the articles of union propounded guaranteed them against any interference with the lights of themselves or the members of the Church." They saw no such thing. But they saw the very oppo- site of this, and that was the very ground of their opposi- tion to the union. They saw that the " union propounded" interfered with the rights and privileges of local preachers, and also the discontinuance of camp meetings, which God had signally blessed in the conversion of hundreds, and which proved to be a very efficient means of adding to the Church, and spreading the influence and power of Meth- odism in the Province. The simple question of union with British Methodists was not repugnant to the Canadian Church — for Methodists were, and are, loyal to their Gov- ernment and their Sovereign — but the methods employed to bring it about, and the conditions involved, were very obnoxious to the people generally. And no one knowd this better than Dr. Carroll. In the 6 th consideration our author states : " As to Episcopacy, they remembered that we had no experience of a Provincial one, and the people had little knowledge of, or care about, a Bishop. The Conference had failed in all its attempts to secure one, and the ministers began to think [17] that God had purposely set us free from his jurisdiction. The life-long Episcopacy, .they knew, would be an expensive institution." How did they know it would be expensive, when our author asserts they " had little knowledge of, or care about, a Bishop " 1 How can Dr. Carroll's utterances respecting Episcopacy, in the above, be reconciled with the historic fact, that in 1828, only four years before the union took place, the ministers and people unanimously adopted this very form of government 1 Can any man produce the least evidence during these years that the people were dissatisfied with the Episcopal form of government? In all the cor- respondence that took place during the union agitation, is there any intimation, anywhere, that the ministers, even, were tired of Episcopacy 1 No one ever thought of doing away with it until the English Conference made it a condi- tion of union with them. Dr. Carroll would convey the idea that Episcopacy was unpopular with the people, and a more untruthful representation could not very well be made. That the early Methodists of Canada were warmly attached to the Episcopal form of government, is abundantly indi- cated in their great care to guard against its overthrow, by the unanimous adoption of the second Restrictive Rule at the Conference in Ernestown in 1828. This talk about the expensiveness of the Episcopacy is mere ** gush." Who ever heard anything of it in the commencement of Method- ism in Canada 1 The simple manner of life, and economical habits of the Methodist Bishops were well known. And how advantageously did they contrast in these respects with the aristocratic and lordly ministers who were the first Presidents of the new organization 1 These were not con- tent with the usual private hospitality accorded to Method- [18] ist preachers during the sessions of Conference, but must engage rooms at the hotels. And some of us remember well that at the close of the Conference in Hallowell, the hotel bill of these gentlemen amounted to nearly fifty dol- lars. Was the like of this ever known in the history of Episcopal Methodism t Does our friend expect to gain sympathy for himself or for his cause by such misrepresentations 1 "The Opposition which Afterward Arose, and the Form it took." Under this head our author professes to give the reasons which led the " Epiacopals" to " secede." And foremost among these, it is coolly asserted, was the introductioji into the Discipline of 1836 Mr. Wesley's original rule, to the following efiect : " To see that Mr. Wesley's original rule, in regard to weekly and quarterly contributions, be observed in all our Societies as far as possible." This rule required every member " to contribute one penny a week, and one shilling quarterly." Dr. C. goes on to say, " that this was made the occasion of bitter accusations and agitations, and cost the Connexion hundreds of members." And so persistent and fanatical was the opposition of the " new Episcopals " to this rule, that even one of their Delegates to the American General Conference, who happened to find a ticket somewhere, " held it up and asked in a scornful tone, * Who has been purchasing Indulgences ? ' " What a pity he had not given the name of the aforesaid Delegate. Who knows but he might yet be canonized ] It is really amusing to see the wondrous air of meekness, and of inoffensive, child-like [19] amiability assumed by our author, and the appearance of deep surprise, and unaffected pain at the conduct of these naughty " Episcopals." But in all seriousness, we hasten to show that thkj pre- sentation df his case is a gross departure from ** historic truthfulness." This rule, according to his own showing, was not in the Discipline until the year 1836, three years after the union occurred. How, then, could it be urged as an objection at the time the union was formed 1 It is very evident that Dr. C. is more anxious to make out his case than to regard *' the interests of historic truthfulness." The people did not object to any rule requiring them to contribute to the support of the Church — this they were in the habit of doing from the beginning. But they did object, very strongly, to the Conference, of its own motion and authority, changing entirely the form of Church Gov- ernment they all agreed to adopt and preserve in 1828. As we have already shown the members were contented and the Church prosperous, and no good reason could be as- signed for changing the existing order of things. The Dis- cipline adopted at the organization of the Church, moreover, especially provided against interference with the rights of the members until their consent had been asked and obtained by the adoption of i^ ^eventh Restrictive Rule. This rule was adopted at the Ernestown Conference, for the specific purpose of preventing the itinerant preachers from assuming all power in the government of the Church, in revising, repealing, and making laws without the consent of the laity. To show that this was the understanding at the time, and the view sacredly held by the Church, we quote an extract from the report of a ** Committee on Allegations " signed [20] 1^ ' by Thomas Whitehead, Chairman, and adopted by the Con- ference held at Ancaster in 1829. This report says : " The Conference, possessing a disposition directly opposed to despotism, and wishing to recognize and establish in its fullest extent the important, inherent, unalienable principle of natural right, that the * governed of any community should have a voice in making, repealing, and altering those laws by which they are governed,' passed at its last session in Ernestown, 1828, the following resolution, which is an established rule in our Discipline : " * No new rule or regulation, or alteration of any rule or regulation now in force, respecting our temporal economy : such as building of meetmg-houses, the order to be observed in them ; the allowances to the ministers and preachers, their widows and children ; the raising annual supplies for the propagation of the Gospel (the Missions excepted) ; the making up the allowances of the preachers, &c., shall he considered of any force or authority, until such ri le, regulation or alteration shall have been laid before the sev- eral Quarterly Conferences throughout the whole connexion, and shall have received the consent and advice of a majority of the members (who may be present at the time of laying said rule, regulation or alteration before them), of two- thirds of said Conferences. Nor shall any new rule, regulation or alteiation, respecting the doctrines of our Church, the rights and privileges of its members — such as the receiving of persons on trial and into full connexion ; the condition on which they shall retain their membership ; the manner of bringing to trial, finding guilty, and reprov- ing, suspending or excluding disorderly persons from Society and Church privileges — have any force or authority, until laid before the Quarterly Conferences and approved of as aforesajxl.' " These constitutional rights were vested in the several Quarterly Conferences by the solemn enactment of the Church, in the very beginning of her career of independence. [21] These rights of the laity, held so sacred in 1829, were entirely ignored, and the above rule shamefully violated, by the assumption of all power by the " itinerant preachers " at the Conferences of 1832-33. Was the question of union with the English Conference ever submitted to the Quar- terly Conferences, as the Constitution required 1 Who will say that it was ] Were the people ever consulted ? We challenge Dr. Carroll to produce, if he can, any evidence, documentary or personal, to prove that the question was ever submitted to a Quarterly Conference. It was because of this, the union was opposed. The people's rights were inva^'i (\ and their privileges interfered with, by the assumption ot unconstitutional prerogative and power on the part of the preachers. It is simply trifling with important and sacred things for Dr. C. to assert that the opposition of the people, if indeed there was any at all, arose from the imposition of *^ a sort of capitatioi tax on the members for the support of the work." We have already noticed the fact that opposition to the union was developed in the incipient stages of the movement, and no doubt it would soon have made itself felt, in a very powerful manner, throughout the entire con- nexion, had not the editor of the Guardian refused to allow the opponents of the measure to speak through its columns. Dr. C. says letters favouring the union " were published in the GuardiaUf and no contradiction given." Why were they not contradicted ? Let the editor for that year answer. We extract the following from an editorial : '* As we expected a variety of opinions, among a body of people so numerous as the members and friends of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church in Canada, in relation to the meas- ures of our late Conference to obtain a union with the English Conference — and considering the discussion of the [22] i'': question in the Guardian might lead to at least unpleasant results, we resolved to avoid it, if possible ; and, therefore, refused admittance to some communications from those who manifested a disposition opposed to those measures." Dr. Carroll knew this at the time, and it is disingenuous in him to say it was not opposed in the Guardian. The same artful duplicity is used by our author, on page 18, where he says : " There certainly were no petitions against union, or outside pressure of any kind." " Petitions, we all know, were drawn up and forwarded, but lest they should embarrass the scheme, and prevent its consummation, they were suppressed or destroyed. We know that petitions against union were put into the hands of the President, Kev. W. Case, previous to that very Conference, and yet Dr. C. asserts there were none. To us this is something strange and monstrous. If neither his reason nor his piety revolts at such a course, we wonder that his pride does not. It is to this sort of a spirit — this want of Christian candor and frankness — we are to charge the unpleasant feelings, bitterness and strife, which grew out of the union agitation, and which unhappily exists in some places to-day. All this might have been avoided, in a large degree, had the measures proposed and adopted to bring it about been advisable, ex- pedient, and wise. The movement was altogether too revo- lutionary, and the means by which its friends sought to accomplish it were too questionable to meet general approval, while the conditions involved really demanded the surrender of cherished rights, and the violation of conscientious con- victions. The opposition was not based on the frivolous objections enumerated by Dr. C. Great stress is laid upon the asserted fact, by our author, that there was no opposition expressed at Conference, nor through the Guardian, We have already [23] noticed one very important reason why the opposition was not known and felt — namely, the ever-present remedy with tyrants, a fettered press, and denial of the rights of freemen. There are other reasons we all well remember : First. There were constant and systematic efforts n.^de to keep the members of the Church in ignorance respecting the nature of the union and the conditions involved in it. When- ever and wherever the least murmur or discontent were no- ticed, it was promptly sought to be suppressed by telling the people no change was going to be made of any importance, and the classes were exhorted to be still until Mr. Ryerson should return from England, and all would be explained. The people were kept in a state of uncertainty and confusion. If they objected to the union, its bad features were explained away, and in this way they were exhorted, advised, cajoled, and frightened, as circumstances required and occasion offered. They waited in this state of alternate hope and fear for months. The spell was then broken, and their eyes opened by the preachers at the close of class meeting, handing them all tickets, headed " Wesley an Methodist Church," and all who received these tickets were not only regarded and reported as consenting to the "union," but were by the same means and method actually made mejnbers of the "Wesleyan Church." Secondly. Had it been known then that the M. E. Church would have been still preserved amid the wreck and ruin, there would have been thousands of those who reluctantly decided to remain in the enjoyment of the only religious services they then knew of, who would have continued firm in their attachment to the old Church, and waited patiently until they could have been supplied with religious privileges by the ministers ol their own choice. Many of them ac- [24] quiesced in the new arrangement under the impression they had no other alternative. They had no assurance that an attempt would be made to perpetuate the M. E. Church of 1828. As soon as they received this assurance, many of them promptly returned their tickets and returned to the old fold* And on this Dr. Carroll bases his accusation — " That those opposed to the union exemplified a most tireless industry to inoculate as many as possible with their own disaffection ; and many persons were brought to think their rights had been invaded, who, but for these persistent efforts, would not have suspected they had been injured at all." What pro- found ignorance he supposed them to be in. It was soon ascertained, however, that there were men ready to grasp the falling banner, and with brave hearts, and faith in God, carry it forward to future triumphs. Is there any room to doubt the righteousness of their cause 1 Everlasting honor is due them, for the integrity of their convictions and the uprightness of their principles. Again, on page 29, our author says : ** After much atten- tion oo the subject, first and last, he is now persuaded that Mr. Gulp was the great originator of the Episcopal division. That he hated British Methodism with a perfect hatred." Here it is more than insinuated that we opposed the " union" because we hated British Methodism. We had the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with Rev. Mr. Culp for many years, but never discovered that he hated British institutions, or British Methodism. We know the charge is quite untrue. Mr. Culp was one of the men, who, amid reproach, contumely, and much personal privation, preserved to Canada Episco- pal Methodism. ** Next to him," our author says " was Mr. Bailey y who was bound to be a traveling minister at any hazard ; and was apparently unscrupulous of the means,*' .J> [25] Those who knew " Father Bailey" will be surprised to learn from Dr. C. that he was an unscrupulous man. By this we suppose is meant, that he was not particular or honest in the use of means to attain his object. By the minutes of Conference we learn he was admitted on trial, and appointed to the town of Goderich. Certainly a strange action upon the part of the Conference^ if he was not believed to be a worthy man. All these uncharitable attacks upon the character and standing of men who at the time were re- garded as worthy and pious men, are intended only to help the author of them to make out a case. If these had gone with the unionists, the world would never have heard a breath of suspicion against them. It is uncharitable enough for our opp )nts to hurl their anathemas against the living ; but what must be the feelings of every Christian, and especially of every Methodist, when he sees the ashes of the departed disturbed in their silent repose, and their characters forced through the ordeal of insulting accusation — and that by per- sons who might count it an honor to sit at their feet and learn the fii*st lessons of humility, charity, and gratitude ! Brother Carroll, give us the facts, but do not slander the dead. On page 35 Dr. Carroll professes to give what he calls the ," Objections to the Identity of the Wesley an Meth- odist Church in Canada with the Original Meth- odist Episcopal Church in Canada." These shall now receive our attention. He says they have been implied and acted upon when courage to announce them was wanting. We thought the general complaint of our opponents was that they Wf;re announced quite too often. They are thus presented : [26] "1. Abolishing Episcopacy. (I) According to this, there is no Methodist Church in England, South Africa, or Aus- tralia, because they are not Episcopal. That is the fair, logical eduction, and it is amazingly modest and charitable !" . We cannot tell where the Dr. studied logic, but it must be acknowledged he has made amazing discoveries in the science. Because we charge them with " abolishing Episco- pacy" in Canada, the world mu^t infer that there is no Methodist Church in any part of the world ! This cer- tainly is a species of logic to a knowledge of which we make no claim. Who ever heard an Episcopal Methodist assert, or even hint, that there was no Methodist Church in England, Africa, or anywhere else, because they are not Episcopal in form 1 This is certainly a good specimen of the redactio ad absurdum. We recognize legitimate Meth- odist Churches in Eagland, South Africa, the United States, and Canada, and heartily and sincerely rejoice in their great success. His representation of the case does the Methodist Episcopal Church in Cinada a very great injustice. His illogical reasoning is only surpassed by his want of candor and truth. With similar sophistry and equal unfairness, he proceeds to quote letters from certain ministers in the United States, written in response to a request by Rev. E. Ryerson for their opinion as to the powers of the General Conference of the M. E. Church in the United States, under certain cir- cumstances. The note sent by Mr. Ryerson to the minis- tera whose letters are produced, proposed the following questions : "1. In organizing your Church, had your General Con- ference power to adopt any other name for your Church than that which it adopted ? [27] " 2. Had your General Conference power to adopt what form of Church Government it pleased i " 3. Had your General Conference power, after the adoption of Episcopacy, to dispense with the ceremony of ordination in the appointment to the Episcopal office 1 " 4. Has it always been your understanding, that the General Conference h id the power to make the Episco[)al office periodically elective, or to abolish altogether, if it judged it expedient to do so?" In noticing the above, we beg to call attention to the fact they proceed on — the assumption that the Discipline of the American Church and that of the Canadian M. E. Church were precisely alike — an assumption entirely untiue. By the provisions of the American Discipline, their General Conference was competent, on the joint recommendation of all the Annual Conferences, by a two-third vote, to alter any, or all, of their Restrictive Rules. But we have already shown how carefully our fathers guarded the Church from such unlimited power by the adoption, at her organization, of the 6th and 7th Restrictive Rules, which appeared in the Discipline for the first time in 1829. It was no doubt con- venient at the time, and answered their purpose, for Drs. Ryerson and Carroll to forget or ignore this important diflference in the respective Disciplines. And, moreover, we must hasten to point out to the reader the sophistry employed, and the unfairness attempted in proposing these questions. The cases ate not at all paral- lel. Nobody ever doubted the power of the American Church, at its organization, to adopt any name they chose. They were just organizing a new Church. The Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada was bom and baptized four years before the union was thought of, and at the time of the union it was a healthy, vigorous, and prosperous child [28] of American Methodism. It was not a new Church, for the first time looking about for a name and a form of gov- ernment : both of these had been adopted and mrtured. The questions, therefore, put to these American ministers by Mr. Ryerson, so far as they were intended to indicate the circumstances of the M. E. Church in Canada, were mis- leading and deceptive. This being the case, the answers these ministers returned have no relevancy to the question with which we are now dealing. But, again, says our author on page 47 : " Did not the original Canada Discipline provide for the doing away of the Episcopacy]" And it is strongly hinted in the same paragraph that there was no such thing in Canada as Episcopacy. The manner of doing away with it is what we object to just now. Let us examine the course pursued. We have already seen that the union was first spoken of at a meeting of the Missionary Board in Toronto, at which Mr. Alder made his proposals. He was invited to attend the ensuing Annual Conference to meet at Hallo- well, August 18, 1832. On the first day of the Confer- ence, certain documents containing communications between the Wesleyan Missionary Committee in London and the Board of Missions of the Canada Church were presented, and a committee of nine appointed to consider them and report. This committee a few days afterwards reported a series of resolutions — twelve in all — for the consideration of the Confer- ence. The Confer'-'i '• oceeded at once to discuss and adopt them, and in a ' , -x. \ riinutes the whole ecclesiastioul edifice erected bj t mous consent of preachers and people in 1828 would have been demolished without reference to the constitution or the people, had not the President ar- rested proceedings by deciding they had no power as an An- [29] nual Conference to abolish Episcopacy. Such was the haste of these men to accomplish their pet scheme. The decision of the chair b Dught proceedings to a stand for a time. But in order that no time should be lost, it was suggested that a special General Conference should be convened immediately, and just two days after this we find the same men, in the same place, assembled in General Conference at 6 o'clock a. m. It was needful to hurry up lest the people should take the alarm. From the discussions in the Annual Conference two days before, respecting the abolishing of Episcopacy, it was doubted if they could carry the third resolution in Gene- ral Conference, and to guard against any possibility of failure they resorted to another stratagem. The Discipline provided that " The General Conference shall be composed of all the travelling elders who have travelled four full calendar years last past, and have been received into full connexion." This shut out some of the very men they wanted on that particu- lar occasion. To overcome this little difiiculty it was shrewdly suggested that the rule be changed, and as soon as they had organized they hastened to pass the following resolution : " Resolvedy That the first answer to the second ques- tion of the third section of the Discipline be expunged, and the following inserted in its place : * The Gen- eral Conference shall be composed of all the Elders and Elders elect who are members of the Annual Conference.' " This, it was said, opened the door for the admission of seventeen who were ineligible. With this addition to their numbers, they proceeded at once to pass the third resolution — " That Episcopacy be relinquished (unless it will jeopard our Church property, or as soon as it can be legally secured), and superseded by an annual Presidency." If everything was fair and unanimous, as Dr, C. is fond of ^seertin^, why [30] all this haste 1 Why rush in these seventeen men, who had no right there by the Discipline of the Church ? There were thirty-four members without these : why not let them decide the question 1 If they all were agreed, why call in o hers who had no legal right to vote 1 If these thirty -four ministers were competent to change the rule, they were certainly competent to pass the third resolution. The fact is, the promoters of the union scheme believed they could not get the required majority without recourse to this irregular means. We have frequently heard several of these men de- clare they never voted for this resolution, — and they were as much entitled to credence as Dr. C. But it cannot be doubted that those attending that Conference, and who looked with disfavor on the pro- posed union, were thrown off their guard in some degree by the Conference adopting the following : ** That noth- ing contained in the foregoing resolutions shall be under- stood or construed so as to affect the rights of our Gen- eral Conference, or the standing and privileges of our itin- erant and local preachers." This had the effect, for a time, of modifying the opposi- tion and allaying suspicions. Mr. E. Ryereon was appointed delegate to the English Conference, to represent the Cana- dian Church, and during the year the above resolution was constantly cited as a proof that the rights and privileges of the laity were to be preserved inviolate. The people knew, of course, that the union was contemplated ; but, respecting the conditions involved, they were kept in profound ignor- ance until after it was finally ratified at the Conference of 1833. This Conference met at York, the 2nd day of Octo- ber, 1833. On the very first day the question of union with the British Conference was taken up. Mr. Ryerson reported the result of his mission to England, and after dia^ cussion it was " Reaolvedy That this Conference cordially concurs in the adoption of the resolutions agreed to by the British Conference, dated Manchester, August 7th, 1833, as the basis of union between the two Conferences." The next day, October 3rd, they coolly proceeded to appoint a com- mittee to revise the Discipline. This was all done, let it be observed, by an Annual Conference — simply an executive body, having no legislative authority whatever. Then, to give their acts an appearance of authority, these same men formed themselves into a General Conference " forth- with" — or, in other words, went into committee of the whole, to formally pass what had already been decided upon. Episcopacy was abolished, a new Church polity was adopted, and private members and local preachers were transferred en masses without their consent, to a foreign ecclesiastical body. Then the storm broke forth, and there was no longer any room to doubt the dissatisfaction o. the people. This occurred, bo it remembered, in October, 1833, and was the consummation of the union. The societies were thrown into consternation and confusion. Thousands knew not where to look, or what to do. Soon, however, it was ascertained that there were left a few ministers to re-form the broken ranks of the remaining membership. All available ministerial help was utilized in supplying the societies with pleaching — not proselyting, as our opponents are fond of charging — and in the short space of eight montJis after the union was carried in the York Conference, they met in a regularly called Conference in Cummer's Chapel, on Yonge street, on the 25th day of June, 1834. At this Conference, fourteen ministers were stationed, and the Canada Confer- [32] ence of the M. E. Church in Canada perpetuated and con- tinued, under the Discipline of 1828 — deny it who can. After this brief review of the manner in which the union was brought about, the question seems to resolve itself into this : Had the Conference of 1833, that confirmed and finally ratified the union measures, authority to make the change which they did make — that of abolishing Episcopacy — and are their decisions the laws of the Church, by which all the members are bound 1 or, did the Conference exceed its authority, and had no right to abolish Episcopacy ; or, supposing they had the right, was it accomplished in ac- cordance with the Discipline of 1829 1 Our answer is an emphatic NO ! — and for the following reasons : First. We believe it to be a fundamental principle in ec- clesiastical government, and recognized by the Apostles, that the people were the^r^^ in authority. Many proofs of the recognition and prevalence of this principle could be pro- duced from Church history, did our limited space permit. It has always been regarded a wise proceeding on the part of reformers, either in civil or ecclesiastical things, to seek to change the opinions of men before we venture to remodel their forms of government or their worship. Every revolu- tion should be wrought out in men's minds before it takes the shape of action. Mankind need time to accommodate themselves to great changes. This principle, it will not be denied, was recognized and acted upon by the very first Christian Churches. As the subjects of Chiist's kingdom, they were invested with rights, and were the subjects of corresponding responsibilities ; that they were entitled to require the administration of government according to law, and were bound to obedience only within those limits ; and that, so far from having only to learn what their pastors 5 [33] might be disposed to do or command, they themselves were to prove all things, and to hold fast that only which their judgment approved. The government of the Church was in its pastors, to be conducted with the concurrence of the people. Tliese representations are fully sustained by the New Testament. Let us now see if we can discover the prevalence of the same principle in the organization of the Methodist Episco- pal Church. On page 87 of Stevens' " Essay on C^hurch Polity" we are told that Mr. Wesley *' ordained and sent over Dr. Coke with Episcopal powers," &c., &c. He also sent a liturgy, " Articles of Religion," a collection of hymns, " and a circular letter in which he " states as a reason for these new measures, that " some thouscmds of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice ; and in com- pliance with their desire I have drawn up a little sketch," (fee The adoption of the appointments and arrange- ments thus made by the father of Methodism at the re- quest of " some thousands," is what is called "the organiza- tion of the Methodist Episcopal Church." By and with the consent of the people the Church was first started, and with them W3S the original authority. Was this the view entertained by the American General Conference 1 We undertake to show that it was, and for that purpose we shall cite as our authority Dr. Emory, who at the General Conference of 1828 was made Chairman of the C/ommittee on Reform, and presented as the result of his labors the celebrated " Report on Petitions and Memorials." This document, while it maintains the prerogatives of the divinely instituted ministry, is also an invaluable bill of rights for the membership. It is therein declared *' that the General Conference has no strictly legislative powers— that it can [34] make no laws affecting life, limb, or property of the mem- bership — that the laity have full liberty of speech and of the press, subject only to the restrictions imposed by the laws of the land, of the Gospel, and of Methodism — and, in short, that the ministry assumes no authoritative control whatever over the membership — governing no man without his consent." (See the 11th chapter of the Life of Br. Emory.) The adoption of this Report by the General Conference, and the universal consent of the Church, has given it the authority of law. It establishes beyond all doubt the prin- ciple, " That all the members of a Church should have an equal right in making the laws of a Church." This prin- ciple was sacredly held and observed in the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada in 1828. The people were consulted and approved of the government and economy then adopted. The restrictions imposed on the ministry plainly indicated the wish and purpose of the laity to preserve the organization as it was. The preroga- tives bestowed on the General Conference were plainly meant for purposes of administration and development — not revolution. Is not this the plain common sense meaning of the Restrictive Rules 1 It is clear, therefore, that the General Conference, of its own motion, without the consent of the people, in undertaking to overthrow the entire government of the Church, exceeded its authority and the powers with which it was invested, and its action is therefore utterly indefensible. Such was the decision of the jury in the Belleville Chapel property case, and the opinion of Judges Macauley and Sherwood in the trial for the recovery of the Waterloo Chapel. Our opponents may sneer at our " claims," but sneers and ridicule cannot upset the stern conclusions of logic, nor set aside established facts. [35] Second. The Constitution of the Church gave no such powers to either Annual or General Conferences as were assumed by their action in regard to *' union" with the English Conference in the Conference of 1833. But it is asserted by our author with the air of demonstration, that the General Conference of 1833 had ( onstitutional authority to pass the resolution abolishing Episcopacy and adopting an annual Presidency, by virtue of the ** full powers" granted to the General Conference at the time of its insti- tution, " to make all necessary rules and regulations for our Church." It is added, however — and this we think is fatal to his pretension — *' under the following limitations and restrictions.^^ Ot these limitations and restrictions we shall show that two of them, at least, are violated by the action of 1833. But leaving out of view the restrictions for the present, the question is : Does the power to make " rules and regulations for our Church" — that is, the Methodist Episcopal Church then existing — grant or even imply the power to overthrow the government of the Church, and organize another of an entirely different polity 1 This, after all, is the real question to be determined. We unhesitat- ingly answer in the negative. Can any man for one moment suppose that the framers of the Constitution of the Church adopted in 1828 had the least idea or intention to confer such powers upon the General Conference 1 Does any man suppose they ever had other thought than to continue the Episcopal form for all time to come'? It is easy to see what was the intent in framing these enactments of the Discipline of 1829, and they should be so construed as to give effect to the intent. There are two methods employed in legal practice in ascertaining the meaning of laws — namely, interpretation [36] and construction. The first is understood to mean the sense of the writer as included within his language, and applies esp-nally to penal laws. The second allows us to inquire whether topics that were not expressed in the writ- ings were included within the general intent of the author. We have the highest judicial authority for saying, " A thing which is within the intention of the makers of a statute, is as much within the statute as if it were with- in tne letter ; and a thing which is within the letter of the statute is not within the statute unless it be with the inten- tion of the makers, and such construction ought to be put upon it as does not suffer it to be eluded." It has been well said that *' the intention of the law- maker is the pole-star in the construction of statutes." No man doubts the intention of the framers of the Discipline of 1829. We therefore conclude that the pretension of our author, that the Discipline authorized the act of the Con- ference of 1833, ib inadmissible and utterly absurd. How the "full power" given to the General Conference in 1828, and limited specifically by the same power which conferred it, can be without limitation or restriction, we cannot under" stand. The absurdity of their position is admitted im- pliedly by our opponents themselves, hence it is sought to be covered and presented decked in meretricious ornaments. In order to do this it is argued that there is not another Church, but the very same, because it is constructed of the same materials — the same ministers and the same members ; only it has a different name and a different government. This to us is a mystical mystery. It reminds one of the reported decision of an Irish Court, who determined that " the county should build a new jail ; that the new struc- ture should be built with the materials of tLe old one ; and [37] that the old jail should stand until the new one was built." This idea of identity between two communities entirely distinct and independent of each other, may in the estima- tion of our author be very clear and profound, but to us it is absolutely incomprehensible. " But," continues our author, " it was anticipated that this very objection would be made." And " the Conference of 1832 ordered the consultation of Messrs. Bidwell ami Rolphy an eminent legal firm of that day." This firm, in answer to the questions proposed to them, sent the following letter, which, says he, " speaks for itself" : ** York, 5th Januarv, 1833. " Gentlemen : We had the honor to receive last evening your note of this month, in which you state that the Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada desired us to give our opinion on the question, * Whether the abolishing of the Episcopal form of Church Government from among them would jeopard their Church property 1 ' ** We are not aware that there has been any adjudication exactly in point ; but it has been decided that, it a coi pora- tion hold lands by grant or prescription, and afterwards they are again incorporated by another name — as where they were Bailiffs and Burgesses before and now are Mayor and Com- monality, or were Prior and Convent before, and afterwards are translated into a Dean and Chapter — although the quality and name of their corporation are altered, yet the new body shall enjoy all the right and property of the old (4 Co. 87, 3 Bun., Rep. 1866). Judging from the analagy of this case, as well as from other considerations, we are of the opinion that if Episcopacy should be abolished in your Church and some other form of Church Government should be established in the manner mentioned in your book of Discipline, the rights and interests of the Conference in any Church proper- [38] ty, whether they were legal or only equitable rights and in- terests, would not be impaired or affected by such change. " We have the honor to be, reverend gentlemen, " Your obedient humble j-ervants, " Marshall S. Bidwell, *^ John Rolph. " Revs. Messrs. J. Richardson and A. Irvine." There was a postscript attached to this letter, which Dr. Carroll found convenient to suppress. He says the letter ** speaks for itself"; so it would, if he would allow it. But lest it should speak too much he keeps back a part. Why was this ? Is this a fair and honest representation of his case 1 In this matter Dr. C. is guilty of practising deception upon his readers. The postscript is as follows : " P. S. — Since the foregoing was written it has occurred to us that there might be cases (although we are not aware of any) in which property has been given to the Conference, or to Trustees for their use, on the express condition that their interest should continue only while the Episcopal form of Church Government was retained. It will be understood, of course, that we have not intended to express our opinion re- specting property held either upon these terms, or upon other special or peculiar conditions ; as the rights of the Confer- ence in such instances, if there be any, must depend on the particular circumstances of epch case. (Signed) "Marshall S. Bidwell, " John Rolph." It will be seen by the observing reader that this postscript touches the very point for which we are contending — that property ** given to the Conference or to Trustees for their use on the express condition that their interest should continue only [39] while the Episcopal form of Church Government was retain- ed." Can any one doubt that this was the ** express condition" on which all Church property was given previous to 1833] The form of deed as given in the Discipline of 1829 puts this beyond any possibility of doubt. It conveys the *' tract or parcel of land, with the building or buildings erected, or to be erected thereon, and all the appurtenances and privi- leges thereof to them the said Trustees and their successors in the said trust forever , for the site of a church, meeting- house, and burying ground for the use of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada." {See Discipline 1829, page 123.) Now if it be correct, as we have already shown, that the intention of the framers of the law should guide us in its construction, then it follows that all deeds previous to the " Union" were given on the " express condition" that the Episcopal form of Church government should be retained, and that by the unconstitutional act of the " Unionists" in 1833, they forfeited all claim to the property. No man whose reputation for common sense and honesty is worth preserv- ing, in view of all the facts, will affirm the opposite. And there is no reasonable room to doubt that had the scattered and impoverished Church possessed the means to have car- ried their case to the English Courts, the result would have been entirely diflferent. A NOVEL ARGUMENT. On page 57 of his pamphlet, Dr. Carroll gives us a new and novel argument to prove the identity of his Church with the original Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada. Hear him : '*A General Superintendent from England, or who re- Bided principally or wholly in England, did not destroy the [40 J identity, autonomy or even independence of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, and by consequence did not destroy that of the Canada Church. Observe the following rf*adiny^ of the American Minutes in 1789 : " ' Ques. 7. Who are the persons who exercise the Episco- pal Office in the Methodist Church in Europe and America 1 ** ^ Ans. John Wesley f Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury.' " The intelligent reader does not require to be tcld that Wesley resided wholly in England, and Coke principally ; yet they belonged to both connexions." Here, our author assumes that both Mr. Wesley and Dr. Coke were members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. If this is not what is meant, then his argument is without force. But, admit- ting for a moment for the sake of argument that his assamption is correct (which we do not believe), let us see if there are any points of resemblance between the two cases. Dr. Coke was sent out to represent Mr. Wesley in organizing a new Church in America, and continued for some time to be regarded as joint Superintendent with Mr. Asbury. He was there at the request of " some thousands " of the people. He assisted in governing by and with the consent of the governs^. But Presidents sent out by the English Conference, were not asked, desired, nor wanted by the people at the time of the Union. But were Mr. Wesley and Dr. Coke actually regarded as belonging i,o the American Church 1 The reading of the Minutes of 1789 conveys no such idea in the sense in which Dr. C. would have us understand. Observe the reading again : " Who are the persons who exercise the Episcopal office in the Methodist Church in Europe and Americs ] **Ans. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury" — the two former in Uurope, and the latter in America. [41j .» In point of fact, the names of Mr. Wesley and Dr. Coke were retained in the early minutes for a few years as a mere matter of courtesy, and they were not regarded as belonging to the Church in the sense intimated by Dr. C. The American Church at one time earnestly desired Dr. Coke to become one of them, and settle permanently in the States, and to accom- plish this end the Conference of 179G formally invited him to do so. He promised them to do so, providi;ig his English brethien would consent. The English Conference declined to comply with the request of the American biethren, and at the Conference of 1797 they sent an address to the American Church, in which they request them to cancel Dr. Cokes engagement to continue among them, that he might permanently abide in England. If he belonged to the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, why ask the English Conference for permission to remain in the Church where he belonged ? That Dr. Coke was not regarded by Mr. Asbury as belong- ing to the American Church appears clear from an official letter written by that venerable man, dated Nov. 29, 1797, and addressed to the members of the British Conference, in which he says : *' We have perhaps from 1,000 to 1,200 travelling and local preachers. Local preachers are daily rising up and coming forward to receive ordination, beside the regulation and ordination of the yearly Conferences .... and we have only one worn-out Supo'lntendeat." J^ Again he says : " We have to lament that our Super- intendency is so weak, and that it cannot constitutionally be strengthened till the ensuing General Conference." {Dean\^ Life of Coke, page 281.) Does not every student of Methodist History know how Dr. Coke was censured by his English brethren in 1785, be- F [42] cause he, being "a British subject," and " a member of the Methodist Society in England," signed an address with Mr. Asbury to General Washington 'i In the exuberance of their gratitude and their warm love for these men their names were retained for a few years in the printed Minutes, simply through courtesy and affection, and at the General Conference of 1808 Coke's name was dropped and his Episcopal authority ignored among them by a simple resolution, which could not have been done had he belonged to their (jonnexion. At the same Conference they repealed a minute on their records which removed Mr. Wesley's name as one of the Superintendents. This, it will be admitted, effectually disposes of the argu- ment Dr. Carroll seeks to draw to seive iaa purpose. A cause that requires such support must i^vle^d be shaky. Dr. C. has an axe to grind, and he does not seem to care very much by what means the stone is turned. ** Who Originated the Body Now Claiming to be the True Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada]" This question our author proposes, and then proceeds to answer it as follows : ** One located Elder — one who was once a travelling preacher but who had been out of the connexion twenty- two or twenty- three years — (some say expelled) — two that had been on trial two or three years, but were never received into full connexion — one who had attai' ed deacon's orders as a travelling preacher, but had been located twenty years at the time of the union of 1833 — one super- annuated preacher — one who located to escape notification of location for inefiiciency, alter the union was effected — and a few local preachers, one or two of whom had been hired by a Presiding Elder to travel on circuits for short periods — some exhorters — and a few dissatisfied oflficials and private members, and an augmentation in succeeding months and [43] years of other adherents, not dissimilar to those who wen j to David in the cave of Adullum." This, it must be confessed, is a very summary way of dis- posing of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is not enough to say we are illegitimate, but this saintly author must make us out. to be reckless, lawless, and free hooters. Can sectarian bigotry carry a man much farther 1 What a character to ascribe to at least a respectable reli- gious denomination ! And yet can any one doubt that this whole multitude of brigands, absconders and thieves would be to-day a welcome and joyful accession to the Canada Methodist Church, if they would consent to go ? Let us drop a tear for the frailties of humanity and pass on. We can stand it, if brother Carroll can. Now it will not be denied, that at least three of the men who met in the Conference at Yonge Street eight months after the union, were regularly ordained Elders. Whether they were or were not just at that time itinerants cannot aflfect the fact of their being in orders. When a preacher is compelled by circumsta^^oes to cease travelling, his status as a minister is not at all affected by this. Is not this the view held by the Methodist Church generally ] If this be true, then it must be admitted there was perpetuated with these three regularly ordained Elders, if none oUiers had been pre- sent, the legitimate Methodist Episcopal Church. Does Dr. Carroll deny this 1 We refer him to the em- phatic declaration of Tertullian : — " Sed ubi tres ecclesia est^ licet laica — moreover, where there are three there is a Church, although they be laymen." We could easily add other au- thorities, did space permit. We can only commend to Dr. Carroll and those who think with him, Bishop Jewell's " Defense of the Apology," and Mr. Good's " Divine Rule of [ii] Faith." Until they study these, their opinions will be en- titled to very little respect from the students of Church his- tory. Let us have argument — not slander ; facts, but not ridicule. . . , ' • ' If Dr. Carroll's view of the question can be sustained by argument, why does he indulge in vituperation and abuse 1 If his contention were capable of being made clear, it would be the easiest thiiig in the world to annihilate for ever the claims of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada. Why asperse the character of men who were respected, revered and loved by the communities in which they lived and died, be- cause, impelled by their conscientious convictions, i hey chose to differ from him ] Such language and such a spirit is entirely inconsistent in a man who claims to be an ambas- sador of the meek and lowly Jesus. We felt the blush of honest shame more than once mantle the cheek while reading his uncharitable and uachristian utterances. We are happy to know that his latest effusion is not generally acceptable even to his own denomination. The men, also, whose char- acters he attempts to smut, are now beyond the reach of /ds venom and our defense. And the Church they helped to preserve at such a cost of personal comfort, reputation, and fortune, commands the respect and support of the people of Canada to-day where her services are established and her institutions exist. And it may be safely affirmed, were it not for the gradual growth, increasing influence, and accum- ulated power of the M. E. Church in this Dominion to-day, we would rec-ive no recognition of any kind from Dr. Carroll and those he is supposed to represent. But, to return to his pamphlet, we notice on page 67 the following : , " Was it kind and Christian-like in a very small minority to try to force their views on the majority? or to reud [45] the peace and unity of an otherwise prosperous Church because their views could not be met? Did they not justly lay themselves open to the suspicion that their opposition was founded in prejudice, bigotry, vanity, ambition, want of humility, and love of ascendancy and notoriety ]" Such an aggregation of vices one would think were sufficient to sink any ordinary Church. But our author has not yet fin- ished the terrible catalogue of sin. He adds that he has always been of opinion, and is still, " that their stand was unwarranted and wicked." This crowns the climax of his fulminations. All this and still we live ! He declines debate upon the sub- ject by saying that he chooses ** to treat this matter in the judicial rather than in the controversial manner." If he will peisist in being the judge, may we not ask for the facts on which he bas s his judgment. Where is the proof of all this ? Is it sustained by facts ? Nay, verily. If he could lay hands on them, they would be made to do duty double quick. It is more convenient to indulge in generalities than in particulars. It is far easier to charge one's neighbors with dishonesty than to prove them to be guilty. In this case we demand the proof. It is a principle in law that a man is deemed innocent until he is proved guilty. He was always of opinion that the M. E. Church was "un- warranted and wicked," and yet this same " John Carroll " for the past ten years has been making persistent and per- severing efforts to induce this *' wicked " Church to unite with his own. We have been flattered, petted and hugged by this very man, and others, with the view of bringing us over to them. It was the embrace of the anaconda prepa,r- atory to swallowing his victim. The confessions of Dr. C. in this pamphlet shed much light on the sincerity of our friends in their recent loving talk about uniop with our body, [46] We do not propose to follow our author through the dis- graceful process in which he seems inclined to indulge, of casting dirt either upon the living or the dead ; nor do we feel it necessary to make any attempt here to vindicate the moral and Christian characters of the men he vili- fies. Their moral virtues and heroic deeds are embalmed in the memory of a grateful public. We shall, however, under- take to rescue the standing of one or two of them from the ungenerous and unb. coming reflections and accusations of Dr. Carroll. And first we take the case cf Hev. Daniel Pickett, whom our author declares '* had earned no right to be listened to with respect." This certainly is placing him very low ; and yet, in the top line of the very next page, he says he was " considered reliable as a preacher" ! We will leave the reader to reconcile these two statements, and pass on. Dr. C. again says that the " report wis current," when he be- came a Methodist in 1824, that Pickett '* had been ex- pelled." Without a tittle of evidence to prove the " report" true, he proceeds to dispose of him in the usual summary way, an(7, after an attempt to blur his character, exclaims with well-afFected indignation, " A pretty man was he to fly in the face of the unanimous action of sixty of God's ser- vants ! " Now to show the reader the animus of our author, we will give another picture of this same Bev. Daniel Picketty drawn by this same Dr. Carroll in his '* Case and His Co- temporaries" (Vol. 1. page 26) : " He (Pickett) was received on trial, as we have seen, in 1800, along with Ryan and some others. His first circuit was the Grand River — another name for the Ottawa, where he travelled also in 1803. He^must have been an acceptable preacher from the first, as the writer knows him to have [47] been twenty-eiglit years afterwards. We can confirm Mr. Playter's account from personal knowledge — namely, that * he was well spoken of thirty years after by the settlers ' on the Ottawa. In 1801 he travelled the Bay Qiiinte, as the assistant of Keeler ; and, in 1802, Niagara, as John Robin- son's assistant. Again, in 1804, he travelled the Niagara, with Long Point attached, having Luther Bishop for his assistant. He is, at our present date (1805), on the Yonge Street Circuit alone. The writer saw Mr. Pickett twenty- three years afterwards ; he was then middle-sized and spare, sharp-featured, aqtiiline-nosed, and ba d-headed. He must have been keen and sprightly when young, although a slow- spoken preacher when we knew him." The above was written in 1867, and no doubt embodies the real sentiments of the author res[)ecting Daniel Pickett. Dr. C. was then giving facts of history, and had some regard for " the stern interests of historic truthfulness ;' but in the "Needed Exposition" written just ten years afterwards, when his object, doubtless, was to damage, if possible, another body of Christians in the estimation of the Canadian public, he tells us Mr. Pickett " had earned no right to be he ird with respect." Such a writer forfeits the respect and confi- dence of candid and intelligent men. The writer of these pages was personally acquainted with Mr. Pickett, and is in a position to know that the " report' of his expulsion from the Church is utterly untrue. The facts are, he did leave the Church voluntaiily, and identified himself for a time with what was at that time called the Ryanite movement; but afterward reunited himself with the M. E. Church, and was restored to his former standing in the Church. In proof of this we give the following ex- tract from the Journals of the Niagara District Conference for 1832 : [48] " Daniel Pickett, restored to his former standing in the Local Connexion, " James Richardson, President, « Peter Kerr, ^Secretary" The late Bishop Richardson assured me that " Bro. Pickett stood high in the estimation of the people, and he had heard nothing against him." On the Journals of the same District Conference for the next year (1833) — Franklin Metcalfe, President — we find Daniel Pickett's name associ- ated with two others, to draft an address to the Annual Conference. This settles the question of his standing, and contradicts the representations of Dr. C. Let us now examine our author's reference to the Rev. Joseph Gatchell. He says : *' Poor weak-minded old Mr. Gatchell ! He was more their dupe than anything else, and was persuaded by them to do duty as the impersonation and embodiment of the original Canada Conference ! A woiidrous rep- resentative, truly ! " And on page 64, where he professes to give the " veritable history" of Mr. Gatchell, he says that, after the year 1834, ''he is not mentioned in any form — neither * located,' ' withdrawn,' or * expelled ' in the Wes- leyan Minutes." Is this not enough to bury him out of sight forever 1 If it had not been to serve a party purpose, his name would not have appeared in their Minutes for 1834 either. The point sought to be made by Dr. C. is that Mr. Gatchell was a member of the Wesleyan Conference in 1833-34. The only proof of this he gives is, that Gatchell " received his superannuated allowance from Conference funds for the year 1833, and is duly charged with it in the printed Minutes of 1834, one year after the union was ratified." , . . [«] rep- Now, be it remembered, Dr. Carroll admits that Mr. Gat- chell was *' opposed to the union" throughout, " and when the final vote was put in 1833, he withdrew from the General Conference, in order to avoid voting either way." This circumstance of Mr. Gatohell receiving the superannu- ated mo^^'^v mentioned in the Wesleyan Minutes for 1834 ha oeen paraded so often, to show that he was still a member of said Conference up to 1834, that we shall take the trouble to inquire into the facts. They are these : Kev. Josepli Gatchell was, during the Conference year — from August, 1832, until October, 1833 — a superannuated preacher in connection with the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, and as such was entitled to a claii on the Conference funds of $200. This sum should have been paid to h \t the Conference of 1833. This was not all paid at the time, and Mr. Gatchell never applied after 1833 for any funds to the Canada Conference. Between the Conferences, however, of 1833-34, a certain sum of money was sent to him, and he^ — regarding it as a part of the claim due him the year before — retained it, and henceforth he is trumpeted as a voluntary claimant on the funds of the Wesleyan Conference. No man having the least regard for truth could make such an assertion in view of the facts. "We have a letter now lying before us, written by the Rev. Joseph Gatchell, and dated Blenheim, March 17, 1843, in which he declares that " I did not vote for the union, and I never went with them at all." And again — *' I stood uni- formly in opposition to the union." I think enough has been said to vindicate the character and standing of the Rev. Joseph Gatchell. [50] A MOST EMBARRASSING OUTLOOK. On page 68, Dr. Carroll tells us that the most embarrass- ing aspect of this whole matter is the fact that our Church has been recognised by the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. That this should now be an accom- plished fact, alter their earnest and successful efforts to pre- vent it in 1836 and 1844, is absolutely unendurable ! But our author seems to find a little consolation in the fact that " it was carried in the sense of a quasi acknowledgment." And even this was done " before our delegates arrived." This evidently is the cause of the tribulation of many of our ** Wesleyan" friends, and the ill-concealed agony of Dr. Carroll. We pity them, but have no remedy to suggest. Not so, however, with our author : he suggests a specific. If the A iGerican General Conference cannot induce their proteges to conduct themselves with decency, then our Canada Methodists would consult their dignity best by sending no delegates to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church ! We know not that our Ameri- can brethren have ever seen or heard of this terrible threat of Dr. Carroll, but we rest in hope they will not take a scare. " But," continues Dr. C, ** if they had worn their honors meekly, it might not be worthy of remark ; but the use they make of it in this country" is not, we are assured, what ** the American ministers intended at the time." Exactly ! There is just where the shoe pinches — the use made of that recognition in this country. Before it was granted at all, the refusal was made use of by our opponents with untiring industry to damage us everywhere. But now, if we are heard expressing our satisfaction and gratitude for this favor, we are, forsooth, " flaunting a pseudo-Methodist Episcopacy in their faces." The only remedy we can sug- [51] )arrass- Church irch in accom- to pre- ! But ict that gment." rrived." y of our of Dr. suggest, specific, ce their len our best by of the r Ameri" ie threat I a scare. r honors the use -ed, what -the use e it was pponents But now, itude for Methodist can sug- gest is for them to keep their faces out of the way. They have had their day of exhilaration and triumph — why envy us our turn ] When recognition was refused us by the American Church, they used the fact as a scorpion whip to ]ash us for years ; but now, the whip having changed hands, they are extremely tender and cry out. We have heard of a little story which has a moral for those who arro- gate to themselves scrupulous tenderness, when they fancy that other men make use of weapons with which they scarify : A gentleman was seated upon the box by the side of the driver of a worn-out pair of horses, who were slowly drag- ging after them a loaded omnibus. Being in a hurry, our traveller took the whip and applied it vigorously. His efforts produced no effect until by chance he touched severely a raw spot on the flank of one of the animals, when he started off, furiously dragging his mate with him. *' Stop, stop !" cried Jehu. " None of that ! I reserves that sore for my own special use on Sunday arternoons !" It is very embarrassing, no doubt, to our " Wesleyan" friends that we are recognized, and that they have to meet with us *' in the largest court of Methodism on the con- tinent." But, says Dr. Carroll, it was only " a qvasi acknowledg- ment." By this, I suppose, is meant it was,, on the part of the American Church, a pretence, a make-believe. Let us see. Here is the resolution of that General Conference : " Resolved, That we have been highly gratified with the presence and fraternal greeting of the delegates of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada. We recognize in the Church they represent a legitimate branch of the Metho- dist family, and we pray that God may help and prosper it in the fulfillment of that mission upon which it has so suc- cessfully eiitered," [62] The term *' quasi acknowledgment" may sound very scholarly, but it is entirely inapplicable in this case. The very fact that the recognition of our denomination by the American M. E. Church has produced such unhappy feel- ings on the part of Dr. Carroll and some of his brethren, indicates pretty clearly that in their own estimation it is something more than ''quasi." He tells us on page 69, that he, " as the senior representative " of the Canada Methodist Church, appeared before the committee appointed by the General Conference in Philadelphia in 1864, to prevent, if possible, the dreaded recognition. He " pleaded in vain." Why plead at all, if the recognition amounted to nothing ^ If the Dr. believes it to be a mere sham, why does he exhibit such sensitiveness on that particular point 1 Verily, their sensitiveness betrays their real convictions. We beg also, just here, to call attention to another mis- statement on the same page. The question before the committee was, says our author, *' Whether it was intended to give them [the M. E. Church] such a recognition as endorsed the regu- larity of their origin and standing," and then adds, " the committee adjourned, and at a subsequent session of the Con- ference, the committee itself was discharged." Now this as- sertion that '' the committee was discharged" is very ingeni- ously inserted, in order to make the impression that the question was left unsettled, and that no action was taken. That this is entirely untrue, the Journals of that Conference abundantly testify. The Discipline of 1864, moreover, re- cognizes the regularity of our origin and standing. Of course, after the failure of his frantic efforts in Philadelphia, and all his special pleadings before the committee to prevent our re- cognition, we are quite prepared to believe that Dr. C. and his friends feel very much embarrassed, and perhaps some- >> [53J thing far worse. An envious disposition indicates a narrow mind. But why, after all, one is tempted to ask, all these un- charitable accusations and bitter fee'ings over the simple fact of recognition 1 If it be real, it cannot possibly do our Wes- leyan friends any harm, and it it is understood in the sense of a ^^ quasi acknowledgment," as Dr. C. would have all believe, then it is not worth their notice at all. The Canada Methodist Church claims — and we will not dispute the claim -to possess and control the aristocracy of Canadian Metho- dism, but surely they will not ask us to endorse the preten- sion that they are the only true " Israelites, to whom per- taineth the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God, and the promises : whose are the fathers," — and whatever else may be thought requisite to constitute the true Methodistic succession and superiority. It looks very much like this, when we hear them calling other people seoeders, schismatics, and aliens — and their Churches mere " societies," whose right to live and labor in this country is not admitted, save and except on certam con- ditions they desire to impose. This claim we have heard put forth with the utmost seriousness. Such a claim is imposing. It is grand. Its very extravagance attracts some people, and with certain minds it takes. We are apt to determine the relative merits of conflicting claims by the audacity and positiveness with which they are maintained. People think that where there is most smoke there is most fire, and that the biggest thunder comes from the biggest cloud. They may have all the advanta.o;e of this, and we envy them not. The Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada claims to be a part of the great Methodist family. Providence, we believei [54] brought it into existence and has given it a glorious work to perform in this Dominion. During successive years we have continued to grow in intelligence, pecuniary resources, ac- commodation for public worship, and in numbers. Manifold are our reasons for joyfulness and thanksgiving. When we were few and feeble, and had many enemies, we were kept in the hollow of Jehovah's hand and preserved as the apple of His eye. Under His guidance and favor, difficulties were gradually overcome ; gainsayers were put to silence ; institu- tions were formed ; places of worship were multiplied ; and the little one became a thousand, and the small one a thriv- ing people. Our difficulties and poverty developed our energies, and our increasing influence brought us recognition and public sympathy. Whatever misrepresentation may have said, or prejudice still refuse to believe, our history proves that we have kept " the faith once delivered to the saints." We have sought to niaintain the accredited stan- dards of faith. We have never sold our birthiight. Metho- dism, we trust, has not been dishonored by us. We have all the constituents of a Christian Church, and the unmistakable seal of God's gracious favor. It is therefore the sheerest fol- ly, to say the least of it, for others to desire our failure or interrupt our career. We now dismiss the redoubtable pamphlet of the Doctor, and proceed to state SOME FACTS WHICH OUGHT TO BE MADE KNOWN. In doing so let us speak the truth in love. 1. The Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada has honestly striven to live in fraternal relations with other denomina- tions. This is emphatically true in respect to the Methodist Church of Canada. We fearlessly appeal to the public of Ontario in support of this claim. We have always welcomed to our pulpits and our Conferences, ministers of all the Evangelical Churches, and reciprocated their visits where we knew they were desired. We have steadfastly avoided and denounced all forms of proselyting, from the very beginning. We have had no controversy with any section of the Chris- tian Church in this country, save with our Wesley an friends and then always on the defensive. We have no desire, God is our witness, to either provoke or perpetuate strife among brethren. We know that a few of the leaders of the Canada Metho- dist Church accuse us of the very opposite of all this, but the accusation is not only ungenerous, but entirely untrue. There is not a rural appointment, village, town, or city in this Dominion that can furnish the least evidence to support the accusation. We challenge the proof. [56] The usual ministerial courtesies are very frequently, and in many places continuously, exchanged between their min- isters and ours ; and were it not for such ill-natured attacks upon our ministers and people by Drs. Carroll and Ryerson, these pulpit exchanges and expressions of fraternal regard would ere long mature in holy bonds of an abiding Christian brotherhood. Ministers of the Canada Methodist Church frequently visit our Conferences, and none are more warmly welcomed than they. Do they ever hear anything in the transaction of our business, or in the warmest Conference debates, offensive to thf^mselves or their denomination 1 Numbers of these brethren can testify to the heartiness of their reception, and the genuineness of our friendship. Very many instances personally known to us can be cited where Wesleyan ministers have for years occupied our churches, conducted revival services, organized classes, and enjoyed all desired accommodation for religious worship, through the generosity of our trustees and ministers. Does this prove a lack of brotherly love ? Truth and candor, however, compel us to say, that cases where such denomi- national courtesies were reciprocated are few and far be- tween. ^ Our press, also, has joyfully noted tlie prosperity and en- largement of sister Churches, and gratefully and honorably recognized the evangelistic labors and religious triumphs of the Canada Methodist Church. We speak not of these things in a boastful spirit ; far from it ; we feel ourselves under solemn obligations to do good to all men, especially to those who are of the household of faith. The policy of our Wes- leyan neighbors for years past has been the very opposite to all this, in regard especially to our denomination. There are, we are glad to believe, individual exceptions in their [57] ministry ; men of liberal minds, of broad and generous views, men whose charity, intelligence, and personal piety lift them out of the narrow grooves of sectarian bigotry and denomi- national jert^ousy. With such ministers we delight to as- associate, and to honor. Thousands, also, of the members of that Church command our admiration because of their broad views of Christian charity, and ready recos^nition of all who love the Lord Jesus. Against these we have no word of complaint to utter ; we write simply to defend ourselves and our people from the mean insinuations, unkind allusions, and false accusations of such small-souled men as Dr. Carroll, whom we regard with feelings of equal pity and contempt. o The Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada has been compelled for many years to suffer persecution at home and misrepresentation abroad. When at the time the union was effected in 1833 it was found that a considerable portion of the Methodist people in thi« country refused to fall in with the measure, efforts were immediately organized to whip them into compliance. At first it took the form of terrorism, and all who persisted in the refusal were threatened with excommunication. And there are Methodists living to-day who were solemnly read out of society, without trial, and for no other crime but a re- fusal to consent to a measure, against which their honest convictions of duty and right alike protested. This method having expended its force without accom- plishing its purpose, gave place to another. They were every- where held up before the public as ignorant pretender, sschis- matics and rebels. Without means and destitute of sufficient ministerial help, and without the aid of the press to explain or defend their position, they suffered much from these mis- It , [58] representations. The Churches they had helped to build with their own scanty means were locked in their faces, and where Wesleyan influence could exercise any control over the trus- tees of a school section, they were denied the privilege of worshiping even in the log school -houses. The writer of these pages has had personal experience in all this : ** What we have felt and seen With confidence we tell." These facts are known to thousands outside of our own de- nomination, and many an M. E. minister on reading these lines will recognize a portraiture on which they have often looked with humiliation and pain. f We had fondly hoped that these days of narrowness, bigo- try and strife had passed away forever, and we certainly would have been the last to "revive old issues" and make war upon our neighbors. These were the " days of unleaven- ed bread," and no genuine Christian can desire to precipitate their return. We regret, tor his own sake, that Dr. Carroll has allowed himself to interrupt the growing friendship of the past ten years between these two religious bodies by is- suing this waspish pamphlet, in which he not only " revives old issues," but sounds the clarion of war. Are hostilities to be renewed between these two sections of Canadian Method- ism % God forbid. Dr. C. may desire such a state of things, but in this we are bound to believe he will not succeed to any great extent. If such a conflict, however, is thrust upon us, we shall defend ourselves with vigor, especially when our character is assailed. But, perhaps the most baseless and the most cruel charge that has ever been uttered against our Church is that of dis- loyalty. This, we know, has been a very favorite cry with [59] Dr. Carroll and a few others. Never was there a more unjust accusation uttered against any people. The falsity of the cry would occasionally force itself upon the honest convic- tions of those who indulged in it, hence the adroit manner in which it was used. Amongst the early settlers and the native population of the country it was not believed, but wherever there was known to be a settlement or township composed in whole, or in part, of people from the old country, and who, therefore, were strangers to the antecedent facts of our history, it was made to do duty with remarkable ardor and considerable effectiveness. And among this class of persons only does it harm us to- day, and that only for a time. In making use of this Dr. Carroll must know ho is uttering a foul slander upon as law- abiding and loyal a people as is to be found in this country to- day, and were it not to gratify a feeling of petty revenge he is pleased to indulge in his heart, by attempting to damage the character and standing of others, we would hear no more of a charge that has been proved to be false a thousand times. As an individual, the writer can endure with meekness and composure the charge of being a seceder, schismatic or alien, in an ecclesiastical sense ; but the impeachment of his loyalty to his country and his Queen will be resented with unaffected scorn and indignation. His father spent twenty years on the continent, in the army of the Duke of Welling- ton, defending the glorious old flag, and in upholding the dignity, and honor, and power of the l^ritish Empire. Could the charge of disloyalty against the M. E. Church be proved true, in any sense, we would not minister at her altar another week. [60! This charge, it would seem, is one of the " old issues '» revived by Dr. Carroll, and hence there has appeared quite recently, a letter in the Christian Guardian^ asserting that the M. E. Church " is realiy steeped to the li})s in treason and rebellion.'' From certain peculiarities in composition and expression, together with the animus displayed in the two productions, there is very little, if any, difficulty in recognizing the same paternity in each. There is this differ- ence, however : in the pamphlet which bears his name he exhibits a little more caution in his accusations than in the anonymous letter. In the latter, like the midnight assassin the stab is made in the dark. But whoever the author may be, we meet the charge with an emphatic denial. We have personal knowledge of what we affirm, and we solemnly declare the assertion in the letter signed "One That Knows," in regard to the connection of the M. E. Church with the rebellion of 1837, is false in every particular. It is there declared, (I) That the Episcopal preachers advised their people to join in rebellion; (2) That some of them were arrested and tried for high tieason ; (3) That some of them were condemned to die ; and (4) That some of the preachers acted as chaplains tor the rebel army. The writer of these pages lived at the time of the Mackenzie rebellion on the Yonge Street Circuit, a few miles north from Toronto, and very near the scene of excitement. We were, moreover, ia the habit of attending Methodist Ej>iscopal services, and if ever any such advice was ever given, we certainly must have heard it. The ministers traveling our Circuit were Revs. George Turner and Carrol Sutherland, and will any man say that either of these men incited the people to rebellion, or acted as Chaplains for the rebel army 1 It is a vile slander upon two very worthy men. These men are both now with God, >> [61] but there are men living to-day, men as truly loyal us anv Church can furnish, who were personally acquainted with them, and who know it to be both slanderous and false. Let some one make this charge over their bona-Jide signature, and we will undertake to meet it. We return the same answer to the second charge, and ask who among our preachers or people were arrested, tried and sentenced to death for high treason ? If any were, let us know who ; it is no more indelicate to announce their names than to make the base accusation. Let the names be pub- lished by all means. Does any one doubt that Dr. Carroll and his coadjutors in this base business ^ould hesitate a moment in publishing the name or names of any Episcopal Methodist in such a condition, did they know of any real bona-Jide cases'? That some members of the Methodist Episcopal Church were arrested, we will not attempt to deny. We knew a number of both Episcopal and Wesleyan members who were arrested and taken to Toronto jail, but only detained there a few days, and then allowed to return to their homes. The facts are these : During the winter of the rebellion, the whole populace was in a very high state of excitement, party feeling was running high, and immediately after the defeat of the insurgents and the flight of Mackenzie, officers were sent out by the viovernment to scour the country in search of persons who had been in any way engaged in the uprising. Many persons were arrested who were entirely innocent of any participation in the revolt. Many men who were known to be identified with the Reform party in politics were arrested and taken to jail. But of those either sentenced to death or banished for life, there were none who were members of the M. E. Church. We personally witnessed A [62] many of these scenes, and if any Episcopal Methodists had been numbered with those thus sentenced, we surely would have known something about it. We pronounce the whole thing an ntter fabrication, gotten up for a specific purpose, and that of the most dislioijorable character. Many of the men who served for years in our ministry fought and bled during these troublous times in defending and u[)holding British rule in this country, and some of them went halting through the remainder of their lives, and carried their lionorable scars to the grave. It is due to the memory of these brave men that we defend their characters from the foul aspersions cast upon them in our day. One of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada iOst an arm in the defence of his native land, and in upholding British interests and British rule in this country. Fancy treason or rebellion lifting their horrid heads in any Confer- ence or Convention where Bishop Richardson presided ! But before dismissing this unscrupulous charge we would like to ask Dr. Carroll a few questions : First. Has Dr. Carroll anv knowled^je or recollection of the arrrest of a farmer, living at that time a short distance from Toronto, on the charge of having been associated with the rebellion, and conveyed to the Toronto jail ? Second. Has Dr. Carroll any knowledge of, or any acquaintance with a Canada Methodist minister, who by let- ter, or personally, or both, urged the aforesaid farmer to make " a clean matter of it, and say to the Government that the Episcopal preacher led him into this trouble, by advising him to join Mackenzie's standard" 1 Third. Did not the prisoner indignantly reject the advice thus tendered and refuse to bear false witness against his brethren] [63J Since Dr. C. knows so much about these very exciting times and occurrences, lie will doubtless be able to give us information on these points. . We would very much like to hear his answer. If he is not able to call these things up readily, we miglit furnish some scraps of information to aid him. At all events, we greatly desire to have the names of all those who were condenined to death, or banishment, who were Episcopal Methodists. We are also charged wdth proselytism. He asserts of our ministers, that '' wherever they heard of a dissatisfied or sus- ceptible class-leader, they visited him and tried to secure the adhesion of him and his class to their measures." This is another gratuitous assertion which we entirely deny. We cannot, probably, do better than to re-feather this shaft, and send it back. We are firmly of the opinion that it will fly as well in that direction as in this, and stick there as well as here. But, as we intimated on a previous page, we have been mis- represented abroad. We have sometimes been much amused to see the diflerent forms this took on. In this country we were called rebels, republicans, and Yankees. But when our opponents visited a Conference in the United States, we were represented as without character or influence — real Ishmael- ites. At o ^ ^'" times, when American Methodists would maV« '' ^iiiries respecting our Church, its very existence was igi . d, and tL / were told with an air of sublime innocency thac I her' was no such Church. From the year 1836 ^o 1860, everybody knows that sys- tematic and continuous eflbrts were made to prejudice the American Church against us, and the means sometimes re- sorted to in order to ac ^nmplish this object might well make good men blush for truth and religion. The writer hereof [64] > has a very distinct recollection of meeting a few years ago with a number of Wesleyan ministers from Canada at an American Conference. Previous to this we had no personal acquaintance whatever vrith tl em. They supposed that we belonged to the American Church, and therefore they spoke out without let or hinderance. One afternoon during the Conference, at an informal meet- ing of the ministers and visitors, the spokesman of tlie Cana- dian party delivered himself in the following strain : " Brethren, I notice that the party in Canada calling themselves Episcopal Methodists, and who often visit your Church, are misleading your ministers and people by their falsehoods. That old man with the one arm — I don't remem- ber his name (meaning Bishop Bicliardson) — who spoke at your General Conference, just lied ! The facts are, as we know, the people calling themselves an M. E. Church have been only about twenty- three j^eai'S in existence. They have no influence in the country, their ministers can't preach — the fact is they pick up everything that can talk and make a preacl; ?r of it. Their members are the poor and ignorant rabble of the Canadian population." The above may not be the exact and literal wording of his speech, but we vouch for the substance of it, and generally the very words used, which we noted at the time. This minister is ir. the itinerancy of the Canada Methodist Church to-aay, and was personally acquainted with the late Bishop Richardson at the time, notwithstanding his pretend- ed ignorance of him in the above paragraph. Our oppoiii-nts put on an air of injured innocence, and would fain make it appear that they are the only people who have been made to sutler. And they exhibit the appearance of deep surprise that any one should feel himself injured or agrieved by what they say or do. 'S ago at an irsonal lat we spoke I meet- 1 Caria- calling t your y their •emem- >oke at , as we h have jy have ih— the oaake a ^norant 2 of his jnerally sthodist jhe kite ^retend- poii&nts make it made to surprise by what [65] 3. That the recent attacks upon the members and ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, by Drs. Carroll and Ryerson, were unprovoked a7id unjustifiable. Dr Ryerson claims to see a causa belli in the address read by Bishop Carman before our late General Conference in Belleville. Let us examine this document, and see if his claim is well founded. In that address it is stated, that " But for perturbations and irregularities, this were the Thirteenth Regular General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada." Is not this a simple truism ] If there had been no change or disturbance of the oi^^iginal order of things, as established in 1828, would it nol* hive been precisely as the Bishop stated 1 How in the name of common sense can offence be taken at any such statement 1 The address also declares, that in the arrangements made in 1828, and in the Discipline of 1829, " It was ordained that the first General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada shall be held the last Wednesday in August, 1830, in Belleville, and henceforward once in four years, at such times and in such •places as shall be fixed on by the General Conference." Had that rule been carried out, and the Discipline of 1829 duly observed, it is easily seen this had been the thirteenth regular session of our General Conference." This is simply stating a fact in Canadian Methodist history admitted by all parties. The address goes on still farther to say, that " After the events of 1833, the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, ^ such as it was,^ held a session at Trafalgar (now Palermo), in June, 1835, at which John Reynolds was elected and ordained Bishop, the first General Superintendent or Bishop consecrated under the compact of 1828." And that that was the General Conference of the ■ - S [66] Methodist Episcopal Churcli in Canada ; that is, if there ever was one, or if there is one to-day. Where is the attack upon the Canada Methodist Church in all this 1 But even should Bishop Carman in some of his addresses, somewhere or sometime, give utterance to something not pleasing to Dr. Bjerson, is that any reason why he should denounce the whole M. E. Church and call its ministers illegitimate and bastards 1 There are men among them who were born and reared amid as much respectability, social rank and wealth as ever Dr. E,. could boast of, to say the least. Such language and such a spirit indicate neither piety nor good breeding. Dr. Byerson professes to disco v^er in the address of Bishop Carman ** a bold pretension to annihilate the Methodist Church of Canada, with its Annual Conferences and General Conference." We fancy it would very much puzzle any candid reader to discover the least trace of any such purpose in the address referred to, unless it should be the men of the Byerson and Carroll type, who, like the wolf i i the fable, are ready to invent an excuse for an attack upon the object of their traditional hate. Dr. Byerson himself has no shadow of a reason for saying that any one connected with the M. E. Church desire, t^s annihilation of the Methodist Church, or any one in any way connected with it. There is no truth in the assertion. It may be regarded as one of the usual reck- less and flighty utterances for which the pugnacious doctor is distinguished. The growing influence of the M. E. Church in Canada is galling to her inveterate assailant, and the circumstances and the audience at Montreal afiorded in his opinion an excellent opportunity to strike a telling blow at the hateful **progeny." Calling names and casting dirt was Dr. Byerson'a whole stock-in-trade during the discussions which followed the Union movement for fi few velars. We are not at all surprised now at his inexousablii diatribes. The Church he has defamed for j'ears, and employed all his power to crush, is still, not only in existence^ but increasing in efficiency and power, for the successful prosecution of her divine mission in the Dominion. She has the confidence of the government and the sympathy of the people among whom she labors. The wrath of Drs. Ryerson and Carroll is doubtless very great, but why should the ministers of the M. E. Church be made a burnt offering to appease it 1 To those who are familiar with Dr. Ryerson's career since 1833, in respect both to political and ecclesiastical matters, it is amusing to hear him lecture other people upon the regularity of their standing and the consistency of their practice. He himself, during the last forty years, has been identified with nearly all political parties, and the advocate of opinions and principles of the most opposite cha> ^cter, in things pertaining to both Church and State. His abilities we freely admit and properly estimate, but his erratic course has deprived him in a great measure of the confidence of the Canadian public. His strong predilections and extravagant '-animosities toward those who might happen to agree or difivir with him, make him an unsafe authority to follow. He has exhibited a keen ability as a controversialist, and developed a very remarkable facility ** To turn about, and wheel about, And jump Jim Crow," when occasion offered or circumstances required. ANOTHER SERIOUS OFFENCE. The pusillanimous author of the letter published in the Guardian of Dec. 25, under the caption of ** An Unfounded [68] Claim," and signed by " One That Knows," charges our Church with " effrontery and impudence," because our ad- dress to his Excellency the Marquis of Lorno, states that the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada was founded early in the history of the country. This simple utterance of the ad- dress is made the pretext for a series of accusations, which for vileness and falseness, we venture to affirm, is unparalleled in the literature of Canadian Methodism. The writer de- clares, " a greater falsehood could not have been presented." In what respect is it false 1 Supposing we take Dr. Carroll's statement as to the origin of the M. E. Church, it was in existence in 1833-34. Now it will be admitted generally, we think, that 1833 was an early period in the history of this country, and therefore the statement of the address is perfectly true, according to his own adQiissions. But in all seriousness we ask, what is there in the humble address we had the honor to present to His Excellency to excite all this choler and unbridled wrath ] Can any candid man in any Church, or of any creed, discover anything that could be regarded in any sense offensive to any Church ? We entertain a \ery strong suspicion that if the real truth was known, the fact would be clear to all, that the real cause of the agony of " One That Knows," is not to be found in the language of the address, but in the circumstances attend- ing its presentation. The deputation representing the M. E. Church was called by command of His Excellency, and their address and themselves presented before the depu- tation from the Canada Methodist Church was called. This was a sore grievance to those who, in all things Methodistic at least, " love the pre-eminence". The address of the Methodist Episcopal Church, it was easily seen, made a very favorable impression, and the Bishop [69] and some of the ministers associated with him were in- vited by His Excellency for an hour's conversation, in which kind enquiries were made respecting our history and our work ill this country. These circumstances kindled the jeal- ousy of *' One That Knows," and in order to counteract and and if possible destroy the effect of all this on the public mind, he pours out this vial of mingled foam and fury. This whole exhibition of bad feeling toward our body, is, we fear, the legitimate offspring of the ** green-eyed monster." Such questionable means and methods employed to injure other people are sure to react upon those who employ them, and not infrequently promote the cause it is sought to overthrow. Certain we are these wholesale and gratuitous attacks upon our denomination serve only to increase public sym- pathy for us, and strengthen the attachment of our own people to the government and polity of their own com- munion. But, again, the author of this slanderous letter disputes our claim to loyalty, and says " it is a well-known fact that the preachers of that party advised their people to connect themselves with the insurgents that were led by William Lyon Mackenzie, to separate this country from British rule and establish a republican govern- ment." If this were true, is it not surprisingly strange that none of them were ever arrested for their disloyalty and treason ] Orders were issued for the immediate arrest of all persons suspected of having any knowledge of or connection with the insurrection. If the M. E. preachers were guilty of treason, as this writer asserts, how did they escape arrest 1 They continued in their own proper work, on their several circuits through the whole excitement, and not one of them was disturbed. This is in itself prima facia evidence •mm wnammm rnPH [70] of their entii-e freedom from any complicity with the rebellion. ..v . . • , - > ;•, The official records of the country show that there were arrested from the 5th of December, 1837, to the Ist of November, 1838, eight hundred and eight-five pensons, and of this number there was only one Methodist preacher, and we were informed he belonged to the Wesleyan Methodist Church. We copied his name and can furnish it at any time. It is due to his memory to state also, in this con- nection, that he was discharged by the magistrate, after a detention of three days. We have also the names of those who were sentenced to banishment or death, and there is not an Episcopal Methodist amongst the number. What a fine specimen of " historic truthfulness " is here furnished by " One That Knows," Our charity forbids the designation of such efi'usions by their appropriate and deserved epithets. We only wonder that the liberal minded and generous hearted editor of the Guardian did not refuse it insertion. We have taken special pains to collect the facts on which we base our statements. They are not made at random, nor do we make use of them to disparage or injnre others. We have undertaken the defense of the Methodist Episcopal Church against the aspersions of unscrupulous enemies ; we have the proofs at hand to fortify the positions we have taken. We trust we have shown the utter baselessness of the accusations of disloyalty made against our ministers and people. They are the creations of an imaginatj on, disordered by long continued hatred to our Church. They are quite as fanciful as that famous vine, of which we have an indistinct recollection in the old nursery tale, that grew up to the moon, upon which an aspiring young English gentleman it is t71J said once ascended, till his progress was cut short by the severe and awful voice of a huge giant growling from above, t ' " "Fe, fi, fo, fum,"etc. Let us charitably hope that this modern Jack-the-Giant- Killer may not terminate his career so unfortunately. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. Having briefly explained the facts connected with the origin and formation of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada ; explained and defended the position taken by our fathers in 1833, and proved it to be sound, constitutional and wise ; we are now prepared to claim that we be consid- ered a real part of the universal Church of Christ. We are not a schismatical faction. There is not amongst us either the fact or the temper of schism. The men who opposed the union measures of 1832-33 were not restless agitators, as Dr. Carroll pretends, but men of enlightened and sober judgments, and actuated by as disinterested and devout regard for the peace and prosperity of the Church as those whom they opposed, and judging from their spirit and conduct since the unhappy strife, far more so. Our position to-day is substantially the same it was in 1833, and the obligation rests upon us with undiminished force, to be the faithful expositors, defenders and examplers of the distinctive principles of Episcopal Methodism. The circumstances surrounding us at present are very different from those which existed at the re-organization of the Conference in 1833-34. Then we had a scattered and disheartened membership, limited means, and unprincipled and relentless persecutors. In view of the obstacles which beset the attempt to preserve and perpetuate the Church and Government of 1828, the stoutest hearts might well tremble [73] L the jh in your jional jnsid- We rht US 1 who ?stless itened d and ch as it and Dsition id the De the nctive very ion of d and icipled h beset h and remble for the issue. But God. who presides over the birth of principles, promotes their growth and makes them a blessing, protected and nourished the tender vine. To Him be the glory and praise for ever. History has dispersed the clouds which enveloped the future, and our constitutional principles have already devel- oped their capacity of producing all that their first defenders affirmed. There has been no failure thus far. As the experiment of the chemist ofttimes confirms the antecedent conjecture, so here the history illustrates and establishes the previous reasoning, and both strengthen our faith and encourage our hearts. Under these circumstances, and with this history, we fear not the future. Our work is to save souls ; may it never be forgotten. Of course a scriptural constitution, government, and order in the Church are important ; we shall always be ready to expound and enforce them. But even these are not to be named among us in competition with the salvation of souls. This shall be our work. We deprecate controversy, and desire to live in peace and amity with all Churches and with all men. We sincerely regret that necessity is laid upon us to defend ourselves and our people from spurious and reck- less accusations. But we fear this sort of warfare is to be revived. Dr. Carroll has entered upon the war path again. In the last pamphlet written by him he opened upon us, he thinks, a double-flanked battery, and we are told his a ^mu- nition is not yet exhausted. He is good enough to give us warning, for he says he is on his " watch tower," and the first opportunity that offers he can wheel into position guna of greater calibre than any he has yet employed. So ye " mouthpieces " of the M. E. Church and " others " take heed to your sayings, for henceforth the point of every paragraph [74] must be a pistol — every personality is likely to involve powder — the slightest slip of the pen or tongue may be followed by a shot — and the best intended " oral and written utterances of the Bishop " may be rewarded with percussion caps and ball cartridges. Under the circumstances, it may be our duty, like the first and last Napoleon, to wear secret armor. To be forewarned, according to the old adage, is to be forearmed. As for ourselves, if the threat is carried out and actual hostilities are henceforth to be the order, we shall, in addition to barricades and armor, always keep two bull dogs, with the squarest chops and shortest tails, lying at the door, and with these precautions ^ e shall be in a position to say to Dr. Carroll and his fellow warriors. Walk in. We earnestly trust, however, that in the future there will be wisdom and piety enough in these two branches of Canadian Methodism to prevent all unseemly wrangling and strife, and that all in each of them will be consecrated to the work of promoting " Scriptural holiness in this land." Soon the noise and smoke of battle shall have passed away, and the active participants in the strife shall have gone to their final reckoning with God. Then may there come down upon a united Methodism in Canada the fullness of the blessings of peace and of power from God. There is room enough in this Dominion for all of us ; the fields are white unto the harvest, the motives for increased activity are rapidly multiplying each year. God wants both more laborers and more devotion to the work. Methodism has a fine field to cultivate in this Dominion : we challenge our Canada Methodist brethren to earnest toil and heroic deeds for Christ and His cause. Let us strive to make men not sectaries, but Christians ; not to win them to us and our to [75] • body, but to Jesus Christ and His Church. Let us separate our conceptions of Christianity from all that is circum- stantial, sectarian, and human. Neither body have surplus time or energies to devote to the perpetuation of sectarian strife or denominational squabbles. The seal of our apos- tleship, after all, is not to be found in priority of establish- ment, but in adaptation, efficiency, and success in the Mas ter's work. People generally are not so much interested as to the precise date of the planting of the tree, as in the quality of the fruit it bears. The existence of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Ca- nada is now a fixed fact. We have a hold upon the sympa- thies of the people that neither misrepresentation nor per- secutions can sever. We devoutly pray that contention may speedily cease, and that the happy day may ere long dawn upon our common Methodism, when Ephraim shall cease to vex Judah, and Judah Ephraim, and ministers and people in both communions shall see eye to eye. The task we have undertaken is now completed, and in taking leave of Dr. Carroll we beg to state that, in accord- ance with our promise at the outset, we have had no pur- pose in what we have said to wound his feelings or reflect upon the large and influential denomination to which he belongs, many of whose members and ministers are our cherished personal friends. We have written honestly and earnestly, because we felt it our duty, and we are ready to admit that sometimes we may have expressed ourselves with a degree of sharpness which, for the success of our argument, it might have been better to restrain. We entertain no feelings of personal hatred toward Dr. Carroll or his Church ; and, as a proof of the truthfulness of this declara- tion, we now cordially offer him our hand. , •■ * , I .T >, .=.'S . i ,- ' •i' <; •;..• ' • ; ,1 x ... -i ■ . ..■..! ... :f 'i? :!,)>: