Now, the friends of mutual rights may be few, and the great body of the Methodists may believe, that their exclusion from the law-making department may be, as one speaks, the securing of the privileges of thousands; and yet, the principle of representation may be the true one; and nine-tenths of the citizens of the United States believe it to be so. Things may settle down into this relative state, and if they do, the result will prove very different from the relation already described. When all the people in this great commonwealth, shall view in every travelling preacher an opposer of representation in church legislation; and an asserter of right to absolute government over their own converts, who will be converted by them? Let men be taught to believe, that to join the Methodist Episcopal Church, is the same as to subject themselves to itinerant domination, and will the church increase annually by thousands, or by tens?

But hark! says "One of the Laity," surely I have touched a discordant string. We tell you, brother, you have touched a string that will vibrate harsh thunder, unless you can untone it, or snap it in two-depend upon it, people will not bear to hear of absolute government in this free country; and least of all, will they bear to hear that it is scriptural? O no! they have not so learned Christ. The sons of Columbia have not been so catechised. All the good people of these United States, except the disciples or advocates of certain travelling preachers, think of representation whenever they think of legislation. A word before we conclude, upon Dogmata, and Kekrimena, translated, decree, and ordained. It is well known to lexicographers, that in a number of instances in the writings of the ancients, they admit and even require a free translation. Dogmata is derived from doko, I think; and kekrimena, from krino, to judge, discern, determine. We are persuaded that the words do not imply, that the apostles and elders, considered themselves as a legislative body, or meant to act legislatively; but as arbitrators, or referees; for the dogmata was sent, not to the Jewish, but to the Gentile converts; not every where, but to Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. Now, our elders do not ordain laws for particular persons and places, nor do the elders in one place compose a general or legislative conference. "My sentence is," says James, "that we trouble them not, which, from among the Gentiles, are turned unto God."

If "One of the Laity," is not convinced by our arguments, that his premises will not bear him out in his inference, we will take it kind, if he will give us his thoughts upon "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church," &c.

A FRIEND TO MUTUAL RIGHTS.

No. 51.

Mutual Rights, vol. i. April, 1825, p. 331, part 2, p. 376, part 3, p. 401.

AN ESSAY ON 2 TIM. 1 CH. 7 V.

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power and of love, and of a sound mind."

Some philogers suppose that Declia, from the root of Delios translaned in the text by the word fear, the words die and dead are derived. And we know from experience, that fear can come from, and produce weakness. "God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power;" that is courage. We associate weakness with fear, and strength with courage. In children, the body and mind are weak. In adults, child-like weakness of mind, or ignorance, may exist, while the body is healthy and vigorous. But in all cases, we shall find some kind or degree of weakness, wherever we find fear. The spirit of fear, that is, fear itself, may be said to be given, in the same sense that the effect is said to be given with the cause; or the consequence with its precedent. To believers, the gospel does not give causes or precedents which necessarily produce fear, or are inevitably followed by it. The gospel does not enfeeble either the body or the mind. A spirit of fear, may be given, or superinduced, by a system of education or government.

Entire ignorance upon any subject excludes all fear pertaining to that particular subject; hence the maxim, "they that know nothing fear nothing." It is partial ignorance, or imperfect knowledge, that makes us cowards. This is true in regard to superstition. The kind and degree of knowledge, imparted and imbibed, produce alarm and terror. It may so happen, also, in the afflicting events, which befal us in the order of Providence. These kinds of terrors, as Job calls them, "the terrors of God make me afraid." He could not comprehend the principle of them, nor foresee their issue. The knowledge which the gospel imparts, in

spires confidence and hope, not doubt and despair. But there is a fear of authority, as well as a fear of ignorance or limited and partial knowledge, from which the gospel relieves

us.

These two kinds of fear, however they may have been associated or confounded, are distinct from each other in their origin, and in their nature. An infidel or an atheist, who has no belief in the being of God, no kind of religious fear, may, nevertheless, be a personal, or a political slave ; and tremble before the power of man. And inversely, the subjects of the freest governments may be educated in systems of dark and desperate superstition. A fear of priests and of kings, or of ecclesiastical and civil authority, has then no necessary connection with theological or religious knowledge, properly so called. And though priest-craft, and king-craft, or power, are commonly united under the titles of church and state, they may exist independently of each other. But, inasmuch as a "Divine right" is the best of all rights, when men, under the gospel, seek for a right of control or absolute authority over their fellow men, they will, of course, be led to rest their claims upon the gospel itself.

It behooves us, therefore, by the most careful and critical examination, to ascertain whether God has or has not given us the spirit of fear to religious superiors or masters. For the consequence is unavoidable, if the ministers of religion are made absolute, and not responsible governors, a spirit of fear is given to the church;-for the former must needs engender the latter. There can be no error in the proposition. When all is given, nothing remains;-or when nothing remains, there can be no farther division. If all ecclesiastical power be vested in the ministers of religion, they are the heads, the sovereigns of the church; and the church has no power at all. Again, if all ecclesiastical power be vested in one of the ministers of religion, none remains to be divided among the rest; and one will be the head and sovereign of the church, and of the ministers too. The points in particular to be inquired into, seem to be these how did Jesus Christ teach his apostles-and how did they understand his instructions? Did he teach them the principles of a hierarchy-and did they reduce these principles to practice? To answer the first of these inquiries, we must needs have recourse to the gospels. One of the relations which obtained between our Saviour and his disciples, was that of teacher and scholars. He reminded

them, again and again, of the necessity of learning of him, as little children. Their former knowledge was, in no case, to prejudice their minds or their dispositions. On the supposition, that all the powers and prerogatives of the ancient priesthood were to be transferred to them, no satisfactory reason can be assigned, why they were required to be so docile to their new teacher.

But let us hear the master speak-"Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great, exercise authority among them; but it shall not be so among you. Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as the son of man came not to be ministered unto; but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many."-Matth. xx. 25-28. "But do ye not after their works, for they say and do not, for they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne-but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers and love to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi! But be ye not called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ, and ye are all brethren. And neither call any man father upon the earth, for one is your father, which is in heaven; neither be ye called master, for one is your master, even Christ; but he that is greatest among you, shall be your servant.”—Mat. xxiii. 3-12. "They were disputing among themselves, who should be greatest; and he saith unto them, if a man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.”Mark ix. 34-36. "And he saith unto them, the kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them, are called benefactors—but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve."-Luke xxii. 25-26.

On some of the medals of the ancient kings of Syria, besides the portraits of the kings themselves, we have on the reverse, an archer, sitting on a throne, holding out his bow, with the mottos-"king of kings;" "benefactor;" "just;" "illustrious;" " great king." Now it is somewhat remarkable, that our Lord should have selected from among these titles "benefactor"-euergetes. Has this term any relation to the Hehrew? (shadi.) Did the assumption of it convey an idea of obligation on the part of the governed? As, for instance, "this right to govern is in us." "We do you a favor, in condescending to govern you." Then said our Lord, "Ye shall not be called benefactors"-doers of favors

-conferers of benefits-any more than masters or fathers. Observe how these titles are calculated to inspire fear. They would not only be feared as masters, (Kathegetai,) Duces viæ, leaders of the way, institutors, or Hodegoi, preceptors; but as euergetai, as it were, gods. What calamities were not to be dreaded, if the benefactors were displeased, and should refuse to govern!-or if their government should be usurped! Although our Lord says, expressly, it shall not be so among you; yet, is it not most commonly so, among hierarchical ministers? Is it an unusual thing, to hear dignified ecclesiastics, in a style somewhat peevish, broadly intimating, that they are conferring favors on ungrateful, if not unworthy subjects? This feeling is manifest in not a few of the writings of their defenders and panygerists. What a favor!-what a benefit, that such an one should condescend to exercise authority over us! All this would be true, upon the supposition that the church has no right except that of being governed. Is this meaning included in the phrase "securing the rights of thousands"—that is, governing them!

We see, then, what our Lord taught his disciples to do, and what he forbid them to do. If there was no equality in all this, in what language can it be conveyed? "All ye are brethren"-" one is your master, even Christ"-your dux viæ, leader of the way. We may not, however, trust our own judgment, but inquire how the apostles themselves understood these instructions. And, first, let us hear Peter

upon this point: "The elders which are among you, I

exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory which shall be revealed; feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but as examples to the flock."—i. Pet. v. 1, 2, 3. This Katakurieuontes tōn klerōn, lording it over the heritage, is an echo, as will be perceived, by the texts already quoted out of the gospels. Three things seem here to be guarded against: 1. Indolence. 2. Avarice. 3. Ambition. The last, in particular, was incompatible with the setting of an example to the flock, as appears from the 5th verse- "Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility." Next let us hear James; "My brethren, be not many masters." My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with