elders, and other nominal officers of the Presbyterian church, were warmly inspired with the belief of the divine origin and superiority of the tithing system, it is due to the great body of said church to say they kicked up at it! Now, if Hopkinsian Calvinists, who possess so much disinterested benevolence, cannot be brought to bow to the tithing system, what ought we to expect of Methodists, who do not believe the doctrine? Will brother Hoyt, please give the public, with his usual freedom, his opinion, in relation to this question? My opinion in relation to this whole matter, is, that those who thus preach and write, are doubtless, reaching after more than their just due. For the effects of the tithing system, we need only look into the present and past history of France, Spain and England. In France, the contingent perquisites, paid to the clergy of the established church, far surpasses the regular salaries allowed them by the French government. In Spain, the regular income of the clergy, is double that of the Spanish government. In England, the doctrine of tithes has existed as long as her political establishment, and has become more and more oppressive; till, of late, there seems to be a desperate struggle to get rid of the evils of the system. And yet, grievous and unrighteous as is this system, the Presbyterians are laboring to new model, and re-organize it in the United States. Therefore, salaries, tithes, &c. &c. are not irrelevant here; and more especially since this editor's introduction of them; for the principle is the same in all countries. Last of all;-our Saviour, when here on earth, neither received tithes, as a preacher himself, nor inculcated the payment of them, upon others. The apostles, it is well known, neither preached the doctrine of tithes nor realized its effects, which they certainly would have done, when they spoke of supporting the ministry, if they had considered the Mosaic economy still in force. The whole scheme, therefore, is the policy of designing clergymen. And the misery is, the great mass of their people, are not only ignorant of this their leading policy, but alas, of their inconsistent doctrines

CHAPTER XII.

A REVIEW OF REV. WIMPY'S CATECHISM ON CHURCH GOV.

ERNMENT

It was my lot to enter on public life at a time when East Tennessee was visited, by what I esteem one of its sorest scourges; I mean, by a revival of the spirit of Calvinistic intolerance and persecution. I almost saw the commencement of those systematic efforts, which have been since developed, for fastening on the community the peculiar dogmas of Hopkinsian Calvinism. Opinions which learned and pious men of other orders thought true and Scriptural, were not only assailed as errors, but branded as crimes. Then began anew, what seems to me, one of the gross immoralities of our times, the practice of aspersing the characters of exemplary men, on the ground of differences of opinion in matters of religious belief.

Then began those assaults on the doctrines, discipline and government, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which, had they succeeded, would have prostrated her, and put an end to the usefulness of her ministry. And although times have changed for the better, still, it is in a measure, perilous to search the scriptures for ourselves, and to speak freely according to the convictions of our own minds-especially in the pulpit.

I verily believe that the Hopkinsians of this country, are the most inveterate and implacable foes that Methodism has to contend with, in this or any other quarter of the globe. Some honorable exceptions no doubt, there are; but as a body, they are the sworn apostles of bigotry, and servility, and slander. The work now under review, justifies me in thus speaking, if there were no other cause for it. And, to me, it is a painful consideration that the spirit and matter of this servile production, requires a plainness of speech, which, under any other circumstances, would seem uncalled for. I would rather persuade than abuse,-I would rather move the judgment than the passions-I would have zeal, but I would have it "according to knowledge." For, those who make the experiment, will doubtless find that it requires no little prayer and watchfulness, to conduct a controversy of this sort, and at the same time, preserve that tranquillity of mind and equanimity of temper so requisite for the impartial investigation of truth, and not less necessary for the peace and

spiritual prosperity of the soul. This consideration howev er, weighty as it is, will not justify us in ceasing to "contend earnestly for the faith." Because, in the variety of sects with which the christian community is divided in our day, it is not to be expected that such an agreement can be effected as to prevent all controversy. Undefiled religion does not yet exert such an influence over the hearts and lives of its professed friends and advocates, as entirely to overcome those foibles which are discoverable in sectarian partialities. But my warfare, I humbly trust, has been directed and influenced. by a trembling sense of my fearful and high responsibility to God.

The work under consideration, is entitled "A short and easy catechism on church government, for the use of Presbyterian Families and Congregations. Printed for J. Wimpy! Printed at Maryville, Tennessee, 1832." The reader will observe, that the title page, in saying "printed for J. Wimpy, authorizes the belief that Mr. W. is the author of the work. But Mr. Wimpy, in every sense, is as far from being the author of this catechism, as I am from being the real author of Tom Paine's Age of Reason. I will venture to predict, however that the day of judgment, will fix the authorship of this malignant little work, upon a reverend gentleman who resides in Maryville, the first letter of whose name is, Isaac Anderson! Wimpy, therefore, in the hands of this man, has permitted himself to be made a cat's paw of--a mere tool or stalking-horse, by which the real writer shelters himself from the notice of the public eye. Poor Wimpy!

I will commence with the 38th question, on page 7th. "Who is the supreme visible head of the Catholic church? Ans. The Pope.

39. Who is the supreme visible head of the Church of England?

Ans. The King.

41. Who is the supreme visible head of the Methodist church in America?

Ans. Their Bishops!!!

42. Who is the supreme visible head of the Congregational, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches!

Ans. They acknowledge no visible head. They say an invisible head, the Lord Jesus Christ, is sufficient without any visible head.

43. Which of all the Episcopal churches are the most monarchial in their form of government, in these United States?

Ans. The Methodist. On which account many have broken off and formed a new church.

44. ment?

What is the Presbyterian form of church govern

Ans. A representative republic."

While this Catechism was in manuscript, "John Wesley and the bishops" were declared by it to be the head of the Methodist church, and the phrase "supreme visible head" was not in it. But before it went to the press, it was deemed proper to make these alterations. And still, it needs to be revised again, and again, and again; for it certainly abounds with false statements, and false insinuations. That the Methodists do not regard John Wesley or their bishops, in the same light in which the Congregationalists, Baptists, and Presbyterians do the Lord Jesus Christ, neither this slanderous writer, or any other person of common sense, will presume to deny.

But because of Methodist despotism, "many have broken off and formed a new church!"

That a certain set of malcontents, called Protestant Methodists, who were "conceived in sin," "shapen in iniquity," and "born out of due time," have left us, and "formed a new church," is even so.

But so far from the Methodist Episcopal church having sustained any injury from this secession, she has actually been benefited by it. Nor is this a plausible objection to the government of any church. If it were, it would lie with equal weight against the government of the Presbyterian church, inasmuch as a sect called the CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIANS, seceded from the general Presbyterian church, in 1810. Recollect, ye our friends, that two and two make four in France, as well as in England! Again: Is the government of South Carolina "monarchial" because a set of fanatics called nullifiers were unwilling to submit to it? Certainly not. What contemptuous sneering might be hurled against such sophistry! As to the republicanism of the Presbyterian church, I will give it a respectful notice before I close this review.

74. Is there then but one order of ministers according to the New Testament?

Ans. But one.

75. What then are we to think of the grades of ministers called Popes, Arch-Bishops, Metropolitan Bishops, Diocesan Bishops, Bishop, Presiding Elder, Deacon, Priest, CircuitRider,&c.

Ans. They are the invention of man, and without any warrant from the word of God." Page 11th.

Among Presbyterian and Congregational churches, a minister is ordained but once, and this ceremony constitutes him an elder or bishop, as they use these terms synonymously. And because we as Methodists, have more ordinations than one, and designate our ministers by different titles, our Presbyterian friends labor to make it appear, that we have different orders of ministers, and that our bishops and presiding elders are looked upon by us as a higher order, which they know is a mistake, charity forbiding me to say a falsehood. You beat the air gentlemen, and evince an amazing want of acquaintance with our economy, or else a lamentable want of candor in stating it. We believe that bishops and presbyters, are the same orders, and consequently have the same right to ordain. Gentlemen, I presume you are aware that the name bishop is Scriptural, and was applied to some of the first ministers of the gospel in the same sense that we apply it. But, learned as you are, I presume that many of you are so ignorant as to need to be informed, that the word bishop, comes from the Greek word which signifies an overseer, inspector, or superintendent. It is in this sense precisely, that we apply this term to those men whom we have ordained bishops. Mr. Wesley well knew the difference between the office and the title. He knew and felt the arduous duties and high responsibility which attaches to the one, and the comparative nothingness of the other. He gave to those whom he ordained bishops, the modest, but highly expressive title of superintendents, and desired that no other might be used. See Moore's life of Wesley, vol. ii, p. 280.

The profoundly learned Dr. Adam Clarke, and that most able and eloquent divine, the Rev. Richard Watson, publicly declared, in the British conference held in Liverpool, in 1820, that our Episcopacy, is a true, actual, scriptural Episcopacy, of the most genuine and apostolical character. The same is also true, according to the writings of Dr. Stillingfleet.

In further consideration of the ministry, (so far as the Methodist Episcopal church is concerned) I will subjoin the following extract from a report of the general conference of 1828, on "petitions and memorials:""The great Head of the church himself has imposed on us the duty of preaching the gospel, of administering its ordinances, and of maintaining its moral discipline among those over whom the Holy Ghost, in these respects, has made us overseers. Of these also, namely, of gospel doctrines, ordinances, and moral dis