&c. Would it not have been better if he could have said, that, finding the men he had selected were objected to, he tried to get others, but they would not serve? Had he done so, his defence would not have been suppositious. Impartial readers of the Narrative can have but one opinion, and that is, that Mr. Hanson presided over an exparte prosecution, that in Baltimore there were no middle men, or that, he would have none of them on these trials: in either case the trials ought not to have been.

If at any time before these trials, notice had been given to me either verbally, or by letter, or in the Mutual Rights, by any or all of the prosecutors in substance, the same as now appears in the Narrative, no man need have been prosecuted or expelled on my account. I would have taken all

my burden on my own shoulders. As the case now stands, I am not convinced that I have misstated any fact beyond the means of a fair and liberal explanation, or that I have drawn false inferences from any premises.

Of the merits of my essay on church property, it does not become me to speak, as writers are seldom competent to judge of their own productions, but I cannot conceal the complacency I feel in consideration of the lengths of the extracts, which the narrator has given. It is probable, that scarcely five hundred persons had ever read my essay on church property, and it was in the power of this searcher of my heart, and of my words, to have taken only the parts which he has falsely construed, and given a meaning to, of which I had never thought, and which I should have never known, without the aid of his pen. May I not now fairly presume, that his addition of extracts has given a circulation to my thoughts, which they would not otherwise ever have obtained, and that if they possess any measure of the value I have persuaded myself to believe they do, their effect cannot be wholly lost on the public mind. That my arguments have not been refuted, or even attempted to be refuted, I feel morally certain. The object of this extractor was evidently not to reason with me, but to abuse me. has held me up to public view, not only as an object of odium, but of public execration. Still, however, I feel confident that the extracts he has given of my essay, will greatly promote the cause of reform. I even anticipate that these extracts alone, will revolutionize property matters in the Methodist Episcopal Church, and thus lead to the downfall of the Collossus of itinerant power, which is based upon it.

He

Hundreds, yea thousands, have already read my thoughts, to whom they were as new as if they had just fell down from the skies. And many of these, when they wake in the morning, or at some hour of the night, will hear these thoughts speak within them, and feel conviction of their truth-Yes! O yes!! will many a travelling preacher say, it is so, I see it now. Snethen is right. Our boasted title to church property, only ministers to the powers of the bishops, and serves to destroy the independence of the General Conference itself. It is plain, it is evident to demonstration, that we must call in the lay delegates to our aid, or that the power of which we have been so tenacious, will forever react to our own hurt; we ourselves by it must become the most dependant. The people are our truest friends, and to them we must show ourselves friendly. It is amusing to hear Mr. Hanson predicting the rise and success of another row of reformers. There was a time when the enemies of Columbus might have made similar predictions in reference to the discoverer of America; might well have foretold, while he was in a dungeon and in chains, that other voyagers must complete the work he had begun. I cannot but smile at the fond anticipations of this reformer: when the church shall call for reformation, he will still be willing. Has the church any will out of the General Conference, has the church any other tongue or voice? Those who come after me will know who advanced the principles of reform, and who were true to them.

Volume iv. of the Mutual Rights for 1827-28, is most interesting, as finishing the account of the catastrophe of the Baltimore expulsions.

The Mutual Rights was transferred by the Union Society to the Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey, to be published once in two weeks, in a newspaper form, with the addition to its title of Christian Intelligencer. The 1st No. appeared September 5, 1828.

31

No. 62.

Christian Intelligencer, vol. i. September 20, 1828, page 6.

Thoughts on Representation. Dedicated to Young Travelling Preachers.

No. I.

The human mind is not only destitute of the principle of intuition, but it is often incapable of receiving impressions from the plainest and most distinct communications of the senses. Previous conceptions and existing desires or aversions, may not only suspend the operations of our understandings, in regard to what may be passing in our senses, but entirely change the facts presented by the senses to them. At the time of the memorable stir which grew out of the decision of the General Conference of 1792, I was a young man and a young preacher; remote from the scene, and a stranger to the parties concerned. All my information was, of course, derived from the travelling preachers, of whose intelligence and impartiality I had no more doubt, than of their veracity. Concerning things that they had seen and heard, I took it for granted they could not be mistaken; entirely overlooking the fact that much of what they did relate, they could neither see nor hear. For they not only told me what such and such men did and said, but why and wherefore they did and said thus and so. Motives and intentions, thoughts and designs, that were known only to God, were thus transmitted to me, by my seniors and superiors, as facts, and as such I received them, without reflection or examination. It is evident, therefore, that my mind was prejudiced against men I had never seen, not merely because they had done a peculiar act, or held a certain opinion; but I was led to infer from my information that they were bad men, and whatever they might say or do in their vindication, must go for nothing so long as this prejudice against their moral characters existed in my mind. All that those men could have said of the nature and tendency of the existing powers, though its truth might have been as evident as the sun at noon day, would not have convinced me but that they were bad men. And while this prejudice remained, I must needs have thought I did God service, in opposing them. Now it is possible, that the characters of the men might have been as bad as I had prejudged them to be, but if it could have been proved that

they were so, it would not have justified my prejudice, nor corrected the fallacy of the medium through which it was derived. In this manner, nine out of ten of the young travelling preachers, have derived, or will have derived, their information, respecting reform and reformers. And how can a young preacher doubt what a bishop or presiding elder shall tell him of a reformer. Will it be likely to occur to the youth, that the venerable and holy father is passing off his own conjectures and opinions as facts; or that age and piety give no insight into the motives and intentions of the hearts of those who differ in opinion from them. It seems that there is hardly a besetment of our frail nature, that we are so seldom successful in guarding against, as evil surmisings. To question a man's motives, is, indeed, infinitely easier than to answer his arguments. The toilworn veterans of itinerancy, are not unfrequently heard conversing in the presence of their juniors, upon the motives of reformers, with as much familiarity as though they could see through their breast bones. But they neither suspect themselves, nor are they suspected by their youthful auditors of uttering merely their own suspicions, instead of facts. As soon as I had ascertained that the bishops had taken a stand against church representation, I not only anticipated what has come to pass, but also, how it would come to pass. The question itself, though of all others the most simple and identical, and the most easy of comprehension by American people, would become involved with the motives and characters of men, and with strange and foreign associations and consequences. A writes in favor of reform. He is a man of speculation, a mere theorist. B, also writes in favor of reform. He is a visionary, a mere creature of whim and caprice. C, is indeed a sensible writer, but he is irritable and passionate. As for D, though a well meaning man, he is weak headed. Now all this may be true, and yet have no earthly connection with the principle of representation. But these men are actuated, with selfish and ambitious motives. How has this come to be known, have they whispered their motive in confidence, to some treacherous friend who has betrayed the secret? But motives have no connexion with the question of right. Let the case be fairly stated. A, B, and C, have elected delegates to the General Conference, and they have been elected while they were travelling preachers, and they are now located. Were their motives then suspected?

Or is it suspected that they have changed their motives, in consequence of location ? We will give all the weight to this last suspicion, which can possibly be claimed for it. Give representation to local preachers, and the members, and what possible security can A, B, or C, have, that they shall be elected? However, suppose them to be elected, and to take their seats in General Conference. The time will then have come for them to act out the hypocritical motives and purposes, so often, and so loudly charged upon them. Will A move, and B second the motion, that local preachers may have the right to occupy, exclusively, any pulpit they may choose, and for such a length of time as may suit their interest, or inclination. The President shall then call for the question-"shall this motion be sustained," and call for the ayes and noes. How would the conference divide? Suppose all the local preachers to vote for it, an event by the way not at all likely, would they make a majority of all the delegates present? If not, then all those dreaded motives of the advocates of representation, would vanish into empty air. What a ninny must he be, who shall go into a legislative assembly, composed of represen tatives of the people, in hopes of gaining exclusive privileges. I do not believe, that there is a local preacher in the world, so fool-hardy as to attempt any such thing, and thus expose himself to be laughed to scorn. A General Conference, composed of the representative, travelling and local preachers and laity, will be no place in which to seek monopolies; independence and freedom of speech are formidable adversaries to the seekers of glor

interest.

st their

I have no wish to prejudice young m venerated leaders; but to remove the prejudicich they have imbibed against the friends of represe on. Unless this prejudice can be removed, all argument must be lost upon them. The old preachers, I am persuaded, have not attended to the nature and tendency of impeaching motives, or they would themselves have been shocked at it. They have, on the contrary, as I have said in a former case, overlooked the distinction between motives and facts.

No. II.

When any considerable number of our citizens meet on any political occasion, the public prints announce it in capitals "A meeting of the People." Why are these capitals employed? They are expressive of sovereignty, the