No. 6. Wesleyan Repository, vol. i. December 20,1821, No. xviii. page 289. "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." We do not remember to have seen a discourse on this explicit declaration of the origin, and positive nature of relegious freedom, in which its social, as well as individual bearing is brought fairly into view. The commentators and the preachers mostly treat of it in reference to experimental religion, as a freedom from the guilt, the power, and the principles of sin; and it is certain, that he who is under the power of either of these, is not morally or religiously free indeed. Upon this plan the nature of church freedom is seldom brought under consideration; but the difference between private and social freedom is of importance, and involves consequences of the most interesting nature. If, as is generally believed, Jesus Christ intended that his disciples and followers should exist together in a social state as fellow subjects of his kingdom, or members of his church, we cannot forbear the inquiry, whether he meant that they should be socially free indeed, or whether they should pass under the yoke to ecclesiastical masters. As such masters are not fond to be called by their right names, it is probable that no one will be forward to assert, that this latter condition of the church, is agreeable to the will of its founder. Should any one, however, be found bold enough to attempt to father either the principles, or the practices of religious bondage in the church, upon the authority of Jesus Christ, we hold that he may be effectually refuted by these words, "If the son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed," for they imply no doubt of his readiness and willingness to make us free; but of our acceptance of his glorious and substantial freedom. Let us enquire into the nature of church freedom, as distinct from personal and civil freedom, for it is evident that neither of the latter necessarily involve the former. The very essence of church freedom, consists in having a voice personally, or by our representatives, in and over the laws by which we are to be governed, and in being judged by our peers. If one man or any set of men, who have no dependence upon the church or legislative responsibility to it, may or can make its laws, it has not the shadow of freedom any more than the substance; all church powers and privileges are thus cut off at their fountain head. Nor would the church be at all benefited, if the by-laws and written forms were dispensed with, and all church proceedings referred to the letter of the New Testament, if men of the same irresponsibility were to be interpreters and executors of the sacred authority; the danger on the contrary would be increased, as without precedents they might add caprice to injustice. It is certain, that the letter of no institution can execute itself, and it would be an idle waste of time to attempt to prove that implicit confidence in men with absolute power, is utterly fallacious. There is not a a man living, who can foresee how power will effect him before he make the trial, and it is well known how often the most sagacious judges of human nature, are disappointed in their anticipations of religious as well as civil officers. Judges of courts of justice, who are made as independent as possible of other branches of civil government, are only appointed during good behaviour, but such a latitude is found to be by no means safe in the office of law makers; those who are invested with the legislative authority in free communities, are held under the perpetual responsibility of periodical elections. The priestcraft of which we have heard reiterated complaints, is nothing more than a modification of human ambition, or a vice of nature converted into a vice of office. It is seldom if ever, that we find on the pages of ecclesiastical history, a fair and correct developement of the principles of social freedom. The struggle between the great contending parties, when the priesthood was concerned, was, who should be the greatest, not how powers should be equalized and balanced. When violence and force were resorted to, it was natural, and indeed unavoidable, for the weaker party to have recourse to artifice. The boasted advantages of separating the church from the state, are neutralized to the members of the latter; if there is no balance of power between them and their officers; and it may also happen, that their condition may be thus changed for the worse; as the political power may have an interest in protecting the church from the unlimited influence of the priesthood, though it must be confessed that they have most frequently combined their force, and made the people a common prey. We do not profess to be competent judges of the actual state of religious freedom among other denominations in our country, but if we may trust to appearances we should be led to conjecture, that in some in stances, where the greatest zeal for liberty is expressed, the check giving principles are either not well understood or steadily carried into practical operation. The reformers themselves seem not to have understood the principles of church freedom as well as the founders of our republic did those of civil freedom. Though nothing can be more hostile to our views and feelings than a union of church and state, yet as human nature is the same, and, like gravity, acts by uniform laws, we are fully persuaded that any means which are found, on experiment, sufficient to check and control the natural ambition of the human heart in one case, has strong claims to our attention in the other. As the American doctrine, that tyranny consists in undivided power being in the same hands, is as fully demonstrated by the priestcraft of ecclesiastical history, as the kingcraft and aristocratical policy of civil history, why may not the converse of the case hold true. Men who have the same interests will be prone to act alike; and as long as they perceive that their interests are mutual, they will act together. It would be a miracle, that is, an event contrary to the course of nature, if either priests or preachers, with the legislative and executive power of the church in their own hands, should not manage the interests of others, so as to promote their own. The security of a church against the tyranny of its own officers is out of the question, so long as its members remain ignorant of, or inattentive to those constitutional principles, on whose reaction the health of social, as well as natural bodies depend. The causes and effects of a fever in the human body are in many points analogous to tyranny in the body social. Both proceed from some derangement in the parts and powers of the system, and both by an excess of circulation to the head, if not corrected, eventuate in death. Ambition, as we have said, is like gravity, and can only be overcome by opposing force to force, and resistance to resistance. If the interests of the church could be placed upon one end of a beam or lever, and the interests of priests or preachers at the other, though the former might be much the more weighty, yet the balancing of the two would not depend upon that circumstance, but upon the position of the rest or fulcrum. There is not, nor can there be, a form of religious government devised, that may not become tyrannical by deranging the balance of power; and this we conceive to be the reason why the scriptures are so silent upon the forms and modes of church government, and also why so little has been gained by changing its modes and names, in order to bring it more near to the scripture plan. The eagerness with which some men search for precedents of religious governments, seems to us to be of no more importance than that of a mechanic, who ransacks every country, in order to find models for steelyards, or should prefer the ancient Roman one to any other. No model would be of any use, if he should not know how to construct this kind of balance scientifically, or by experiment. The tenacity with which the different denominations cleave to their different modes of goverment on account of their supposed conformity to the primitive church government, betrays a want of science and a neglect of experiment. Among the churches which have adopted the episcopal form, there are no two who have given the same division of power to their episcopal officers; and an indefinite number more might differ among themselves, and from all the rest. The same thing might happen to a presbyterian, or congregational, or any form of government, and probably has happened. If any one will prove to us that the primitive church was not free indeed, we can prove that it is no precedent for us, and that in this respect we ought not to follow its example. Any government which is founded on principles, which secure to the preachers and the members of the church their mutual rights and privileges, is scriptural enough for our faith and practice. Is it not remarkable that the American people who have a government sui generis of their own originating and making, should be so tenacious of the religious polity of the European churches from which their ancestors sprung? Could this difference in the influence of the prejudice of educacation have existed, if the principles of religious government were as well understood as those of civil liberty? We are inclined to think that much of the asperity which exists among different sects, is to be traced to the want of some guiding and directing principle, which though it might direct men through different roads, could hardly fail, if steadily followed, to conduct them to the same end. Our church which has neither legislative voice nor will, with the millstone of the absolute power of the preachers about her neck, can never see the pleasant light, or breathe the vital air of freedom. The waves and billows of despotic government must roll eternally over her head, unless by some means she can extricate herself from this dead weight. ADYNASIUS. Wesleyan Repository, vol. i. December 20th, 1821, No. xix. page 299. Methodist History-Letters to a Young Preacher, No. II. MY DEAR YOUNG FRIEND: In every collection of men, who exist in community, or social relation, all the diversity of the human character may be expected to disclose itself, and some leading principle, either by art or accident, to modify and direct the whole. As the young men began to be advanced to the executive offices, it was interesting to observe, how the influence of power operated upon the minds of some, in transforming the simple loving brother into a man of consequence; and how the presiding genius selected and moulded the subordinate agents and ministers of discipline. Though nothing, or next to nothing, was attempted in a way of instruction, so as to make the elder preachers the teachers of the younger ones; yet no preacher of any grade or station was ever left a day without a superior. The principles and the germs of a hierarchy were thus incorporated in the very foundation of our primitive existence. Instances are not wanting, in our recollection of early times, of high handed measures over inferior preachers and societies, which would not now be attempted, and if attempted, not submitted to; such as suspending preachers, and tearing class papers, &c. The dictatorial manner in which some of these seconds and thirds in command ruled, furnishes melancholy evidence of the tendency of undefined power to supplant brotherly love; and proves undeniably, that in our church there is no place to extol the primitive liberties. The choice of all executive men was then, as now, exclusively in the hands of the supreme head. The principles of the hierarchy, as they were constituted in 1784, were, with a steady and undeviating hand, carried into practice, and guarded with the utmost vigilance. The primitive Methodist preachers transmitted to us what they themselves possessed, with the single exception of trying and excluding members without the judgment of the church. They had the legislative and executive power solely in their own hands. I trust you will agree with me, that more learning and less power would have been better for them, better adapted to the genius of the American people, and to the prosperity and happiness of the church. But you will bear in mind, that in those times the principles of |