peace and safety of the state-are recognized and protected by the supreme law of the land.

6. And this leads us to an inference of great importance to the peace and har mony of the Church, which is, that no board of trustees, however constituted, whether by a special act of incorporation, or holding their authority under a general state law for the incorporation of religious societies, have any authority to interfere with, or in any way to violate the discipline of their own Church; for if the legislature itself is prohibited by a constitutional provision to abridge the religious liberties of the people, much less can they empower a board of trustees to do such an act. That this is a sound and correct conclusion, from which no sophisty can drive us, we are farther assured, by the decisions of some of the first law characters in the states of Vermont, New-York, and Pennsylvania; and they founded their decision on the known and acknowledged principles of constitutional law, which protect all religious denominations in all their peculiar rights and privileges.

That this is the settled policy of our government, as defined in the constitution of the United States, and the constitutions of the several states composing the union, we are fully satisfied. And the state of New-York has provided against any such infringement, by a board of trustees, by an express statute. The following is the statute to which we refer :

'And be it farther enacted, &c, That nothing herein contained shall be construed, adjudged, or taken to abridge, or affect the rights of conscience, or private judgment, or in the least to alter or change the religious institutions or governments of either of the Churches, congregations, or societies, so far as it respects, or in any wise concerns the doctrine, discipline, or worship thereof.'

And this was enacted in direct reference to the powers of trustees. It is, therefore, a most important provision, as it completely guards the doctrine and discipline of the Church from any and all infringements by a board of trustees, or from being in any way controlled by them, their duties being altogether of a temporal, and not of a spiritual character.

Now let us examine into some of the peculiarities of the disciplinary regulations and usages of our Church.

1. An itinerant ministry. Is it supposed that either a legislature, or a board of trustees created by them, can in any way abridge the free exercise of this ministry, or prevent them from occupying the houses of worship which were built for the use of the Methodist Episcopal Church?

2. Holding love-feasts, class and society meetings. An attempt to restrain the free exercise of worship in these meetings would be an infraction of our constitutional rights as above recited.

3. The appointment of class leaders, and stewards, to receive and disburse the money collected for the support of the ministers and poor members of the Church, being an essential feature in our Church economy, cannot be affected, done away, nor the exercise of this right and usage at all abridged, either by a state legislature, or any board of trustees. We allow that there may be a discrepancy between the provisions of particular statutes which define the duties and limit the powers of trustees, and the regulations of our Discipline in regard to the appointment of stewards and their duties; but as the constitutions of all the states in the union, as well as the constitution of the United States, guarantee to all denominations of Christians, without preference of one above another, the ‘free exercise' of all their rights and privileges, it follows most conclusively that all such particular statutes are unconstitutional, and would of course be set aside as such by every impartial tribunal in the country.

Let us suppose a particular case. Suppose a legislature should pass an act mak

ing it criminal to hold class meetings, and of course to appoint class leaders to meet classes and to receive the class collections:-is it to be supposed that such a law would be enforced in this country? Equally unconstitutional would be a statute forbidding the appointment of stewards, or any other officer, or of abridging his duties, so long as the discharge of them does not 'endanger the peace and safety of the state. Our friends, therefore, may every where rest satisfied that they are protected in the free exercise' of all their rights and privileges, as members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so long as they behave as peaceable and orderly members of the civil community, inasmuch as they have thrown around them the broad shield of constitutional law and privilege.

Our remarks, so far, have been founded on the supposition that the deed of settlement, as printed in the Discipline, is generally used. This, however, is not the case, nor did the general conference ever intend that it should be. In the quotations we have already made from the Discipline, it will be perceived that the Discipline itself provides for settling the Church property legally, wherever the laws of the state have passed enactments for the incorporation of religious societies. This our adversaries in this controversy know perfectly well, though they have not the honesty and magnanimity to avow it. They choose rather to entrench themselves behind a mere temporary provision, made for the benevolent purpose of aiding our brethren in those places where no statute law has provided for the manner in which religious societies shall hold their property, that they may thereby sound an alarm for the mere gratification of a mischievous disposition; for we can see no other reason for thus disturbing the peace and harmony of a religious body of people, who are simply and honestly striving to do all the good in their power to their fellow men. But what we contend for is, that in whatever way the trustees are appointed, whether by the nomination of the preacher, and the election of a quarterly meeting conference, or, as in case of vacancies, by the election of the remaining trustees, or in the manner prescribed by a state law, these trustees, when so appointed, have no authority to interfere in the spiritual concerns of the Churches; and indeed, in the state of New-York, they are expressly forbidden such interference; their powers being by law restricted to the temporal affairs of the Church, not being allowed to have even a voice, as trustees, in fixing the amount of salary which may be allowed to the preachers. By what authority, then, do they undertake to regulate the spiritual concerns of the Church? If at all, by an usurped authority-for they certainly cannot derive it cither from the law of the state or from the Discipline of their Church.

This may lead us to notice the precise limits of the right which the trustees, and the right which the preachers have in the houses of worship. The trustees hold the property in trust, for the use of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the place where the house is built. The property, therefore, does not belong to the trustees; it belongs to the members of the Church, and is simply held in trust by the trustees, for certain uses, pointed out and defined by the Discipline, under whose authority, and according to whose regulations, they are recognized as trustees in membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church. And so sacred is this property considered both by the law of the state, and the Discipline of their Church, that these trustees cannot sell the property, if deeded as the Discipline directs, where no statute law exists on the subject, except for the purpose of liquidating a debt, but if held according to the law of the state, without either a special act of the legislature, or a decree of the court of chancery. Here, then, the power of the trustees ends. Well, can they appropriate it to any other use than that for which the house was built? Certainly not. Can they prevent the 'free exercise' of the disciplinary rights and privileges of the Church to which they belong? Certainly not-unless you suppose them to possess the authority to trample upon the constitution of the

ring evil, and cleaving to that which is good; and the sense of God's approbation in his conscience lasts no longer than he acts under the spirit of obedience: God continuing the evidence of His approbation to his conscience while he walks in newness of life. Has imagination ever produced a life of piety? Now, multitudes are found who have had this testimony uninterruptedly for many years together. Could imagination produce this? If so, it is a unique case; for there is none other in which an excitement of the imagination has sustained the impression with any such permanence. And all the operations of this faculty prove, that, to an effect of this kind, it is wholly inadequate. If, then, it can sustain impressions in spiritual matters for years together, this must be totally preternatural, and the effect of a miraculous operation; and thus miracle must be resorted to, to explain away a doctrine, which some men, because they themselves do not experience it, deny that any others can.

. But might I, without offence, speak a word concerning myself? A great necessity alone would vindicate to my own mind the introduction, in this public way, of any thing relative to myself. But you will bear with my folly, should any of you think it such. I, also, have professed to know that God, for Christ's sake, hath forgiven me all my sins; and being thus converted, I am come forth to strengthen my brethren, and preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ. Most of you know that I am no enthusiast,—that I have given no evidences of a strong imagination,—that I am far from being the subject of sudden hopes or fears, that it requires strong reasons and clear argumentation to convince me of the truth of any proposition, not previously known. Now, I do profess to have received, through God's eternal mercy, a clear evidence of my acceptance with God; and it was given me after a sore night of spiritual affliction; and precisely in that way in which the scriptures, already quoted, promise this blessing. It has also been accompanied with power over sin; and it is now upward of seven years since I received it, and I hold it, through the same mercy, as explicitly, as clearly, and as satisfactorily as ever. No work of imagination could have ever produced or maintained any feeling like this. I am, therefore, safe in affirming, for all these reasons, that we have neither misunderstood nor misapplied the scriptures in question."

The subsequent experience of A. C. equally verified the truth of the preceding statements.'

From this happy era of his life he commenced those labors of love in which he continued to the close of his earthly pilgrimage, not indeed publicly at first, but privately among his friends, and from house to house, and sometimes from one village to another. In this work he was evidently blessed, his mind gradually enlarged, and his desires for the salvation of his fellow men greatly increased. Contrary to the wishes of those of his friends who were acquainted with his mental exercises and conflicts, and who could appreciate his youthful talents, his father apprenticed him to a linen merchant. He entered upon his new employment with conscientious diligence, redeem

the hands of the stewards, to be appropriated for the support of the ministry and the poor. The proper revenues of the Church are those moneys arising from house rents, burials, rents of slips-where such a practice prevails, and where it does not the cent collections supply their place and subscriptions which are received for purchasing land and building houses of worship. Over these moneys, which are the only proper revenues of the Church, the trustees have exclusive control, and also over the property belonging to the Church, to keep it in trust for the uses intended.

Now suppose a board of trustees were to attempt to seize upon the moneys which are given voluntarily for the support of the ministry and the poor, and which, according to our regulations, go into the hands of the stewards to be appropriated for that purpose; does any man in his senses believe that they would be sustained in such a usurpation of power? Have not the stewards as good a right to claim from the trustees the proper revenues of the Church, as the latter have to claim those voluntary collections which were made for specific purposes?

We might, with equal justice, contend that a board of trustees have a right to claim the moneys collected for our missionary, Bible, and tract societies, or for the chartered and publishing funds. But what right have the trustees over these moneys? They were given for specific purposes; and therefore no man, nor set of men, has any right to divert them from the objects for which they were given. In all these cases, the proper officers appointed to receive and disburse these moneys have a right to claim them, to appropriate them, and account for them as the several constitutions under which they act prescribe. We are certain that these remarks, being founded on the principles of common justice, must commend themselves to the good sense of every reader.

We might here inquire why it is that so many hard things have been uttered and published on this subject? Why so much pains taken to render the Methodist ministry odious, by striving to make an impression that they either do or wish to possess themselves of the Church property? Is any good to be accomplished by misrepresentation? We have, indeed, no objection that the truth should be stated. We have no objections that our whole economy should be scanned, if it be done in a candid, dispassionate, and Christian manner; so that if any part of it is wrong, unscriptural, or oppressive to the people, it may be altered, and thereby made better. But we very much doubt whether slander and misrepresentation are likely to produce this desirable result.

We recollect that it was asserted not long since, and attempted to be proved, in a periodical publication, that our houses of worship were owned by the bishops! And how did the writer attempt to prove his assertion? Why from that clause in the Discipline which enumerates among the duties of a bishop that of 'overseeing the spiritual and temporal business of the Church.' Who could have believed that such a monstrous conclusion would have been deduced from such premises! The president of these United States is the constitutional overseer of the affairs of this nation; hence it follows, by necessary consequence, that he owns all the property of the United States! A wealthy farmer commits his flocks to the care of a shepherd, and says to him, you must have a special oversight of all the sheep committed to your charge; up jumps an enemy, stretches his throat, and cries out in the hearing of all the neighboring farmers and shepherds, That shepherd is the owner of all these sheep; have an eye over him or he will rob his master of his property, and corrupt all the honest shepherds in the country! Who does not admire the logical acuteness of this guardian of his neighbor's property? And what shall we say of those, whose pious souls are burning with such love to the Methodist flock, that they must warn them of the danger of being robbed of their Church property, merely because their appointed shepherds are commanded to 'oversee their spiritual and temporal concerns!' Is not their labor truly worthy of them?

It is somewhat strange, that these keen-sighted reasoners should never dream that it is possible that rogues and knaves may be found in the ranks of laymen as well as in the ranks of clergymen. It is to be hoped, at any rate, for the honor of the Christian ministry, that none of these public defamers are to be found in their ranks. Whatever may have been the case formerly, we believe that among those. who are now warning the people of their danger from ministerial encroachments upon their property, there is none under the garb of a minister. This disgrace, therefore, we mean the disgrace of vile misrepresentation and slander, will not lie at the door of the ministry; and whether laymen who can descend to such pitiful artifice are to be trusted in preference to those whose honesty and zeal provoke their wrath, we shall leave for each man to determine for himself.

What has given origin to all this vituperation? Has there ever been a single case in which the ministry have seized upon Church property and converted it to their use? We say again, that we defy the most rigid scrutiny to detect a single instance of the kind. Have they ever attempted it? Never! But we could produce hundreds of cases in which the ministry have gone through the country from city to city, and from one town to another, and literally begged money from door to door, to aid small and poor societies either to build houses of worship, or to liquidate the debts on those already built, to save them from the sheriff's sale. And were these houses deeded to the conference? Never in a single instance. But they were secured firmly by deed to the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church. And is it for this disinterested conduct that these devoted servants of Jesus Christ are accused of wishing to possess themselves of the people's property? O malevolence! when wilt thou be satiated! Shall thy slanderous appetite devour the dead and the living to satisfy thy longings for defamation!

But we dismiss this subject, already protracted much beyond our intention when we commenced writing, by inviting all our readers to examine it for themselves, and then act in the premises according to the dictates of truth and a good conscience.

REESE ON QUAKERISM.

Quakerism versus Calvinism; being a reply to Quakerism not Christianity, or Reasons for renouncing the Doctrine of Friends; by Samuel Hanson Cox, D. D., Pastor of Laight-street Presbyterian Church, and for twenty years a member of the Society of Friends.' By DAVID MEREDITH REESE, M. D., of the Methodist Episcopal

Church.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun.'

So spake the man who had given his heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven.' And although his words should be understood with some restriction as it respects a few things which have been 'done under the sun,' it is, nevertheless, literally true in regard to most others, that they have been already of old time, which was before us.' Ever since the introduction of sin into our world, there has been a constant strife between truth and error, between darkness and light. This has given rise to many sharp controversies, which have been carried on from that time to the present, and which, it is more than probable, will continue until time shall be no more.

That some of these controversies have been productive of good, there can be no