the simplicity and purity of primitive christianity. When once the mind of man, ever fruitful in experiments, especially when they flatter his pride and ambition, breaks loose from the restraints of Scripture authority, one cannot tell where it will stop." Most true; and for this very reason, many stand aloof from the Methodist church.

In chapter ninth, page 142, Mr. B. speaking of the apostles and elders who assembled at Jerusalem, omits the "brethren," (Acts xv. 23) in whose name that decree passed, as much as in the name of the apostles and elders. Yet Mr. B. has the confidence to say, "Whatever may be pleaded from the usages of other churches in favor of associating lay members with the body of elders in making rules of discipline for the government of the church, it is certain, I think, that no precedent for this practice can be found in the holy Scriptures." Did Mr. B. suppose his readers never had, nor ever would read the 15th chapter of the Acts? This part of sacred history, stands in direct opposition to his assertion.

In page 145, Mr. B. says, "every part of our government is elective." But who are the voters? Are they the private members of the church? No! No! Who then? The reverend clergy. Yes, and the Pope is elected by his reverend cardinals. Will it satisfy the people of these United States, to tell them, "You ought to be content with the government, for although we the clergy rule you, and you have no voice or vote for your rulers, yet we among ourselves choose who shall be greatest among us?"

In page 143, Mr. B. tells us of "a majority of votes." Votes of whom, Mr. Bangs? The clergy. Yet there are two exceptions to this; for Mr. B. immediately adds, "except a class leader," and slips down in a note, "Unless we also except a presiding elder." I can suppose that Mr. B. had so much republicanism, from his being an American, that he secretly wished this note would be overlooked.

In page 145, Mr. B. tells us, that elders compose the General Conference. The laity are jostled out of every Conference; and in the true spirit of Episcopacy, not only the laity are jostled out of the only Conference that makes laws, but all the orders of ministers except the higher dignitaries.

After travelling through nine chapters of this writer, disappointed almost at every page, I at length arrive at the tenth, entitled, "Privileges of the members of our church." Here I was all attention, wondering what privileges could be given to a people denied the right of having representatives in all conferences, or of choosing their own officers, or their own pastors; and of having a vote in any

of the temporal or spiritual concerns of the church. And what has Mr. B. made out on this subject? A solemn nothing. 1st. A menber has a right to be tried before a select number of his brethren, and to appeal to a quarterly Conference. Page 150, 151. 2d. He has a right, in case of dispute, to choose part of the arbitrators, and appeal to quarterly Conference. 3d. He cannot be censured for not contributing to the support of the ministry.

A splendid bill of rights indeed!! What heart so full of ideas of liberty and equality, as not to be perfectly satisfied? Who would not be willing to surrender his right to have a voice in making rules and canons relating to government, and worship; or his right to vote for church officers-to choose his own pastor-in order to have these far more important and sacred rights secured? But after all, are not these privileges, which Mr. B. says belong to the members of the church, just such as any monarch would grant to his subjects, without feeling that he had parted with any power that would dimin. ish kingly authority? But these privileges may appear entirely sufficient to a man who views the people in the light he does. Speaking of a local ministry, he says, "But a ministry, entirely local, and so much under the control, and at the mercy of the people, is not likely to be sufficiently independent to be plain and energetic, nor sufficiently diffusive for a general spread of the gospel." P. 153.This passage needs no comment. This is not the only place in which Mr. B. seems to think that it is dangerous to place freedom and power in the hands of the people. In page 160, he says, "And it is equally certain, that if the execution of this discipline is wholly in the hands of the people, especially if the majority of them are become corrupt, the guilty will often escape with impunity. But Mr. Bangs ought to know, that the people of a church are not the first to become corrupt. The ministry have always taken the lead in this matter. And the guilty are as little likely to escape where the people have that share in the execution of discipline to which they are entitled, as where the ministry usurp all the authority.

Mr. B. alleges the "Methodist Episcopal church tends to preserve the whole body "in the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace." "The many divisions and subdivisions witnessed among those denominations whose government is according to the congregationa! plan, which puts an overbalancing power into the hands of the people, are no small evidence of some defect in the principle of govern ment." P. 161, 162.

It is a characteristic of monarchy, not to allow the people to ex press freely, opinions respecting the principles of government, or

respecting its administration. All monarchtes may boast unity of opinion. But in republics, where men are free to discuss every sub ject, difference of opinion will prevail. But are we to take almost all power and liberty from the people, whom God and his word have made free, lest there might be difference of opinion? or are we to say the people have an overbalance of power, because difference of opinion exists? Such sentiments might become the subjects of kingly governments; but they come with an ill grace from an American, and will sound harshly in the ears of the American people.

The state in which the apostles left the church, was with stated pastors, who were resident among the people. This state of things remained for some time. And Mr. B. acknowledges, that even in the days of Ignatius, "Bishops, instead of resembling the Bishops of our day, were more like the stated pastors of Presbyterian congregations." Yet Mr. B. is an advocate for setting aside this order of things, for an itinerant plan, and for the following reason, with others: There are but few men possessed of that fund of knowledge necessary to afford that variety which seems necessary to keep up the attention of the people for any great length of time. P. 158.— This, in Mr. B's opinion, is one of the disadvantages of a ministry entirely local, which should make us set it aside, although he grants it was the plan of the primitive church, for the sake of an itinerant plan. Ignorance in the ministry, then, is one of Mr. B's reasons for setting aside the apostolic plan of settled pastors; and yet this Mr. B. has a whole chapter to shew that learning is not essential to a gospel minister. Is not this strange inconsistency? We must depart from an apostolic regulation, because few ministers have knowledge enough to be edifying on that plan, and yet classical learning (or knowledge) is not essential to a gospel minister. Mr. Bangs, your cause requires this kind of logic.

In the 10th chapter, entitled, "The privileges of the members of our church," Mr. B. has introduced an account of the provision made for the ministers, which is is follows:

Allowance to married men: house rent-table expences-and fuel-by an act of the General Conference in 1816. "By this act," says Mr. B. "the General Conference have transferred to the people the right of saying what the allowance of their preachers shall be; and the stewards are at liberty to raise the amount necessary

to meet such demand, in any way they may judge expedient." P. 155. This account is introduced, I suppose, for the purpose of tell ing of one of the great privileges of the members of the church, namely, that the people have the right of saying what the allowance the people shall be, and that the stewards may raise it in the way they judge expedient. This is, to be sure, a great privilege! I sup pose we are to hear no more that Methodist preachers are not to be paid as the preachers of other denominations. But how does this account agree with what is said on page 154, "The General Con ference possess the right of fixing the salary of the preachers?"

We have now taken a very brief review of Mr. Bangs's Vindication. His only argument to justify the existence of ministers of different grades in office and power is, that deacons were an order of ministers below elders or bishops, which are two names for the same office; and that evangelists were superior to elders. But Mr. B. has failed to shew, that a deacon was a minister of the word in consequence of his being a deacon. Some of the men who were deacons, are afterwards spoken of as being ministers, but they might have become ministers by an extraordinary appointment, or in the ordinary way. But one of them at least is said to be an evangelist. Acts xxi. 8. Might not Mr. B. from this fact, have said, the deacons, in consequence of being deacons, were also evangelists, and thus a deacon would have been an officer superior to an elder, because he was an evangelist; but a deacon is also below an Elder. Then the argument seems equally good for proving that a deacon is both inferior to an Elder, and also superior. The only argument for an officer superior to an elder, is taken from the office of evangelists, who, Mr. B. says, were the successors of the Apostles. But the candid reader must have seen, that this argument is not valid, for the office of apostle was necessarily temporary. Thus Mr. B. has failed entirely to prove that there is any Scripture authority for different orders or grades among the ministers who were to be permanent officers in the church. And Mr. B. has equally failed to clear the government of the Methodist church from the charge of monar chy in its principles and form of government. He has also failed to shew, that the people possess the rights guaranteed to them by the word of God. An artful, designing man, of profound policy, has obtained the power over a large estate, which belongs to numerous heirs. He enjoys the estate while he lives; at his death, he puts his friends and colleagues in possession of the power he had assumed and retained. Some of the heirs, and many others, begin to speak freely, that the heirs are kept out of their rights, and instead of real

estate and other valuable property, they have nothing but flowers and pebbles. One of the possessors rises, and addresses the true heirs, with all his arts of logic and eloquence, to convince them that they ought to be content with their flowers and pebbles; for, if they got the real estate, they would have an overbalance of power, and the guilty among them might escape with impunity; and beside the present possessors might be too much under their control, and at their mercy. But, if things remain as they are, the heirs can be governed with ease, and unity, and despatch. The heirs hear the address with applause, and are satisfied. This is easily applied to the subject before us. Wesley, a man of profound policy, and, in many respects, a great and good man-establishes a plan of church government, of which he is the head, but which withholds from the people, their inheritance, namely, the right of voting on all subjects relating to the government of the church-for their officers and pastorsand also the sacred right of equality among ministers. But, to make amends for this, the ministers possess great power over the people. At his death, the clergy determine to maintain the same order of things. The people complain, but are overruled. Mr. Bangs at length writes a book to convince the people, that they are as free as they ought to be; for had they more rights and power, the ministers would be too much at their mercy.

STATISTICAL REPORT

A.

OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, IN THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA.

Prepared by the Rev. E. S. Ely, D. D. Stated Clerk of the General Assembly The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, on the first of June, A. D. 1828, had under its care SIXTEEN SYNODS, viz.

I. The Synod of Albany, containing the Presbyteries of 1. Londonderry, 2. Newburyport, 3. Champlain, 4. St. Lawrence, 5. Ogdensburg, 6. Oswego, 7. Oneida, 8. Otsego, 9. Albany, 10. Troy, 11. Columbia.

II. The Synod of New-York, containing the Presbyteries of 1. Hudson, 2. North River, 3. Long Island, 4. New-York, 5. NewYork Second.

III. The Synod of New-Jersey, containing the Presbyteries of 1. Newark, 2. Elizabethtown, 3. New-Brunswick, 4. Newton, 5. Susquehanna.

IV. The Synod of Geneva, containing the Presbyteries of 1. Chenango, 2. Cortland, 3. Onondaga, 4. Cayuga, 5. Geneva, 6. Bath. VOL. II.

31