The church, however, you say, "let us remember, fell only with the state," from which you seem to hope they always will be co-existent. Should your views on this subject be correct, dissenters in general, being convinced of the excellence of the British constitution, would be ready to exclaim, Let the church of England live forever! But that the existence of the state depends on its alliance with the church, is a fact much more easily asserted than proved. Be this as it may, the church of England, you acknowledge, depends for its existence upon the state: it is "supported by the laws of the land, and connected with the most vital parts of the constitution."* And is that church which is the "most perfect form of Christianity" dependant on human laws for its support? This was not the form of the church in the apostolical age. Then the kingdom of Christ was not of this world; then Christianity, like a stately vessel, with her canvass unfurled, sailed majestically, without being towed along by any human cock-boat; then she was not a compound of iron and clay, like the toes in Nebuchadnezzer's vision, as indeed she is now represented, but a mass of fine gold; then she flourished like the tall cedars of Lebanon, nor needed support or security from the surrounding underwood. To assert the dependance of the Christian church on any human being or institution, is to libel it. Such a church resembles a house built upon the sand, which may be destroyed by the caprice of a tyrant, or by the turbulent clamours of the mob, but bears no resem* Page 2..

blance to that church against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.

But the Puritans, it seems, were hypocrites and fanatics; and as the Methodists in "many respects resemble them," it is but natural to suppose that they also have a little tinge of fanaticism and hypocrisy-not a few of them only, but the body at large; for the Puritans, whom you represent as the archetype of the Methodists, you characterize as hypocrites and fanatics, not in their individual, but in their collective character. But will you seriously undertake to prove these charges against the Methodists? Do this, and they will be execrated by the public. As soon as this is accomplished, Methodism will have reached" its height," and the monster will sicken and die. But if instead of proofs you deal in mere declamation and reiterated assertions, Methodism, instead of coming "to nought," will probably proceed in a ratio equally great with that which has hitherto marked its progress. To say nothing of the increase of Methodism in the late Mr. Whitfield's connexion, what think you of its increase among the followers of Mr. Wesley ? You may rely on the correctness of the following statement, which may perhaps assist you in your conjectures on the probable duration of Methodism. The number of members in society was in the year

The increase during the first ten years was 11348

the second ditto....106

the third ditto.... 60241

the fourth ditto....160C9S

From this statement it appears that the increase du– ring the last ten years exceeds eleven times the numher added daring the first ten: and possibly it is not yet at its height." No: the sun has scarcely risen above the horison: it will continue to shine, and to shine with increasing brightness, until the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord. Few, it is presumed, after reading this statement, will say with you, "that, like other works of man, when it shall have produced its natural effects by natural means, it will come to nought.”*

You appear to approve of the religious plan which was adopted in Oxford by the Wesleys and others. "These begianings, you say, as far as they are recorded, appear to have been very laudable." But you seem to think their zeal led them much too far; for they "soon assumed some outward appearance of formality and rigour, something that made them the subject of public observation and remark, and gave rise to the appellation of Methodist." The fact is, they abstained not only from evil, but from its appearance attended church and sacrament reguJarly-read and studied the scriptures, especially the Greek Testament-fasted and prayed-visited prisoners in the castle-and instructed and relieved the

poor and the afflicted. Yes, these were their compli cated crimes they were "righteous over much;" and therefore were treated with ridicule by other members of the university, against whom no such charges could be substantiated.

"In the year 1735," you say, "John and Charles Wesley had imbibed so much of enthusiastic zeal, that, quitting all prospects in their own country, they embarked for Georgia, to preach the gospel to the American Indians."* Enthusiastic zeal; that is to say, fanatical, irrational zeal. But what are the proofs that their zeal was of this description? O, there are two, and two most potent ones. The first is, their "quitting all prospects in their own country"-all prospects of clerical promotion. They were men of learning and talents, especially John Wesley. He was also a man of much application and perseverance; and it is at least possible that, had he tarried at home, and kept his religion within moderate bounds, he might per chance, by the aid of a patron, have passed through the various gradations of clerical office, till, like you, Sir, he might have been designated The Rev. the Archdeacon. And if in that situation he had affected much zeal, not enthusiastic, but rational zeal, for the established church, and published charges against dissenters, it is not the most improbable conjecture that was ever offered, that in due time he might even have worn the mitre. The second proof of their zeal being enthusiastic is, their embarking "for Georgia,

* Page 6.

Ghost and of faith." Admit bad men into the ministry, and you at once lose all resemblance to the officers of the apostolical church; for these were "patterns of good works in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, and sound speech, that could not be condemned."

As in the apostolical age certain qualifications were essentially necessary to the office of the ministry, without which no one was admitted into that office, it will inevitably follow that in those communities, where such qualifications are not insisted on as at all essential, and where free admission can be obtained without them, there is, at least in this particular, a total want of resemblance. You may call men bishops or deacons, but unless they have the qualifications essential to these offices, they no more resemble apostolical bishops and deacons than an idiot resembles a philosopher, or a knave an honest man. And to suppose that such persons will watch over men for their spiritual edification is as palpable an absurdity as to suppose that a hungry wolf would become the protector of sheep, or a shark the guardian angel of its prey.

St. Paul, in the third chapter of his first epistle to Timothy, has distinctly stated the qualifications necessary for these offices. He has not, indeed, said any thing about the qualifications of Archbishops, Archdeacons, Deans, and the other officers belonging to the English hierarchy. These appear to have been utterly unknown to the "apostolical form of Christianity:" but these, to constitute a resemblance, you