you the rich treasures of gospel grace and mercy, and to show you how sufficient and abundant the grounds are for faith, in the divine veracity of the promiser of all spiritual good, together with the modes of that faith. It is possible, indeed, that some peculiarities in my manner of treating this most interesting point in religion, may be misunderstood, and others successfully criticised; but, I trust enough will remain, at once intelligible and unexceptiona-, ble for the purposes of practice and peculiar exigencies.

Need I add, that the only personal interest I have had to induce me to appear in print, is common to the rest of my brethren. I can hope to regain no rights for myself alone. What may be the result of these labors, time alone must determine. Contrary to all human probability, I have been able to follow on to the end of the third volume, and am in better health than when I began.

The period has now come, to bring these essays to a close.

PHILO PISTICUS.

The General Conference met in Baltimore May 1st, 1824, and in consequence of the election of Delegates in the Baltimore Annual Conference turning against the friends of the suspended resolution, the other side had the majority. Some days were spent receiving, reading, and referring petitions in favor of lay representation. The report of the committee disclaimed the right of the principle, and the report passed the General Conference, with the ever memorable words "we know of no such rights" (as lay representation.)

In August, 1824, the first number of vol. i. was published of the Mutual Rights of the ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, edited by a committee of ministers and laymen. Dr. S. K. Jennings, Chairman.

No. 49.

Mutual Rights, vol. i. February, 1825, page 261.

An Essay on Church Property, by the Rev. Nicholas Snethen. In four parts.

PART I.

In the discussions between the friends and enemies of mutual rights, it is curious to observe how predictions are opposed to statements of facts and arguments. Do we affirm that certain things in our church government are wrong

in principle or tendency; we are told, that our plan will lead to greater evils. In this way an attempt is made to induce a belief, that the present system is the best that can be adopted; and, that in the event of a change in the government, it will only be for the worse. With many this passes for argument, and indeed it has more weight with some people than argument itself. But these foretellings and forewarnings are not dictated by the spirit of inspiration; they are predicated upon an assumed knowledge of men and things, and are mere random assertions. Thus far the friends of mutual rights have compromitted no republican nor scriptural principle, and have made no monopoly of property. The right of the book itself is in the public, no individval being permitted to hold the title, and there is no positive or circumstantial evidence to induce a belief or justify a prediction that it will be otherwise. The editorial committee hold it for the reformers. Our church property as well as all power are, in effect, in the hands, or under the control of the superintendents, and should the constitutional test obtain, will destroy all hopes of any legal or regular change for the better. This controlling or disposing power over public property in men who hold an office for life, is one of the essential principles of an absolute government, and by an extension of territory, must continue to increase indefinitely. The disclaiming of all right or pretension to taxation by the General Conference amounts to nothing like a check upon the power of the superintendents over property; but does in fact tend to promote it. Were it in the power of the travelling preachers, by any means, to secure an immediate support from the people, they might use the people's money to control the power of the episcopacy; but in the present state of things they can neither occupy the houses, nor receive the people's voluntary contribution, without an official signification of the executive will.

All the travelling preachers are at the disposal of the superintendents, and so long as there shall be more preachers than there are places to support them, the surplus number must be dependent, and to make this dependence universal, no preacher has any security that his lot to "turn out" may not come next. It avails nothing that the public property is the keeping of trustees or stewards. If the houses cannot be taken from the preachers, the preachers may be taken from the houses. The members of the church have

in reality no church property, and the travelling preachers have none in effect. The latter are tenants at will, and at the end of each year may be removed. Are we not virtually acting over again St. Peter's patrimony, and Peter pence? In monarchies public property is vested in the crown, and of course, in him who wears it; hence we hear of his majesty's arms and armies," and kingdom, &c.—of "we, by the grace of God"-and of "the Pope's bull," (bulla) seal affixed to his official acts. By "the grace of God" is meant the "divine right," &c.

To whom did all the Methodist chapels and houses for the preachers in England belong? Why, to the Rev. John Wesley, this is evident from his deed of settlement. By what right did he hold them? Was it by a divine right? Perhaps not, for it seems they were all given to him by the people; and the laws of England recognize deeds of gifts, and other kinds of donations. It appears to Dr. Armistead, that the hundred on whom this property was settled by its original holder, though they "at this day pursue the very spirit and genius of the Wesleyan organization," have no superintendency and no ordination. Is it not wonderful that an hundred superintendents and perpetual members of the conference, and holders of millions of public property, which is every day accumulating on their hands, should have no superintendency; no one of their own body vested with an absolute supremacy over the remaining ninety and nine brethren for life! Verily this looks a little suspicious. Query. Have these "fathers" of ours, as it respects themselves personally, a faint and confused notion of what would in America be called mutual rights? We will make you president this year, brother, and you shall station us-next year you shall fall into the ranks again, and some one of us will station you. O, these cautious old Englishmen! The doctor is paying them a left handed compliment, which he himself does not understand. We marvel most of all to learn, that these elder brethren of ours can find it in their hearts to hold this precious legacy, and use and enjoy it in their own behoof without ordination, a thing which we hold so sacred, that we can confide it to none but the hands of our bishops; and in case it should ever happen, that there shall be none in our church, there shall be no more ordinations until the elders shall ordain a bishop. "The European church," says this wonderful writer, (he should have said itinerant preachers) in the present day has pursued, and

again "the European societies" (itinerant preachers) have no ordination, &c.

Ah, this property, this property! The hundred itinerant preachers "are never known to locate," it seems "they sustain their high mission, detached from worldly lucre and professional pelf of a monied monopoly, in order to keep sacred the holy ministry." The learned Dr. in his profound lucubrations about monarchy and aristocracy, has not told us yet, whether the right to this church property comes through "the Wesleys as from the fountain of God." Doubtless, if there be any jure divino, (divine right) in this business, it ought in all reason to be extended to these more solid and substantial matters, which are so peculiarly liable to be affected by conflicting earthly claims. The value of the divine right to these visible and tangible goods, must have been very apparent to the Jesuits when all their immense wealth in Europe and both the Indies were confiscated.

The hundred successors of Mr. Wesley, who compose the British conference, unite in themselves all the powers and functions that are exercised by our General Conference and superintendents. They are all bishops de facto. Our ordination conveys nothing which Mr. Wesley did not give to them. He was not a partial father, much less did he disinherit his fist born; we congratulate our British brethren in this thing, that they have good sense enough not to run after names and shadows. There is neither divine nor human obligation binding on our General Conference to confer a life office on any man. We know to a certainty that Mr. Wesley never meant to confer any power for life upon the superintendents which he and Dr. Coke ordained, for he actually had it in contemplation to recall Mr. Asbury; of such an event Mr. Asbury was so well aware, that he took special care to prevent it, by getting himself elected superintendent by the American preachers.

PART II.

We may not say any thing concerning Mr. Wesley's power least we should involve ourselves in Dr. Armstead's charge of blasphemy; fortunately for us, the plan of this essay does not make it necessary that we should interfere with his mode of government or any other. Our subject is church property, rather than church polity. It is matter of some surprise, that the writers upon primitive church government

should have said so little concerning the primitive church property. In whom was the right and title then vested? In the church or in the ministry? And if in the latter, was it in the many, the few, or in one? Property and power in civil governments, are apt to go hand in hand. What examples of this kind are to be found in church history? The poverty of the apostles was proverbial; they had no certain dwelling place, and sometimes wanted means to procure food and raiment. The man who was not a whit behind the chiefest among them, could not "keep sacred the holy ministry" from "professional pelf" but had occasionally to "locate" long enough to work with his own hands at the trade of tent-making to supply his bodily wants.

Who had the greatest possessions during his life time, Simon whose surname was Peter, or John, whose surname was Wesley? Have we any evidence in the New Testament that the former made any deed of settlement of chapels, preachers' houses, &c.? Perhaps the Jews were not as generous as the English.-But Mr. Wesley was a most liberal and disinterested man'-Be it so. On this point we make no question, Still however, did he not hold a title to more property, and exercise more power than any plebian subject in England! Now admitting that both were given to him, and in some instances almost forced upon him, and that he did not dare to renounce his title to the premises, any more than to part with his power, all we mean to infer is, that even under these circumstances he was not a poor man. When any one has a right and title to property, it makes him rich. Mr. Wesley was rich in church property, and he knew and felt that he was so. If he had been a poor man he would have felt differently, and others would have felt differently towards him. To say that he was not extravagant, or luxurious, not given to Nepotism, or the enriching of the children of his brothers and sisters; or that he was no miser, &c. is not to demonstrate that he was not rich, and did not feel like a rich man. Numbers of rich men have been free from those vices. Mr. Wesley was a man of like passions with us, and could it be proved that he was ever heard to say he felt like a man without property or power, we might question his word without impeaching his veracity. He might think he felt so, not knowing exactly how poor and dependent poor men feel; or might labor under some degree of misapprehension respect ing his own feelings. Is it in the power of any man to sus