maintained, more or less, in part or in whole, by every reformed church in the world." Many of these articles are acknowledged to be true, and are ably defended by other churches, equally as much interested in the correctness of their teaching as ours. Others are opposed by some of our sister churches; but the investigation which results from such opposition only attaches us more strongly to our doctrinal peculiarities. And it is worthy of remark, that though the Methodist family has been several times divided upon other points, these divisions still stand on substantially the same doctrinal platform. Our opinion, respecting the soundness of our articles of religion, is scarcely more decided than that with which we endorse the major part of our Discipline. And yet we hope that our attachment to Methodism will not be questioned, if we venture to suggest, in this review, the propriety and importance of, at least, some improvement in this little manual. We have no hesitancy in expressing the opinion, that not a few things, which stand as laws in the present edition of the Discipline, should make their next appearance from our press as a part of the history of Methodist legislation. We refer particularly to such laws as have become wholly obsolete, or fail to represent correctly the practice of our church.

We propose to introduce our specimens of obsolete law by calling the attention of our readers to the subject of "Band Societies." All the knowledge we possess of these societies, is gleaned from the Discipline, and what we have read in the history of the "United Society in Europe," and the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. Although we have been

a member of the Methodist Church about twelve years, and endeavoring to minister at her altars for nearly ten, we have never seen a live band society. It is possible that some of our older ministers and members have been connected with them; but this connection has almost faded from their memory, by reason of the length of time which has recorded its

We believe that nearly

history between those days and these. or quite the last voice of advocacy for these societies has ceased to plead; and by common consent, between the minis

try and membership, they are "numbered with the things that were." We confess, however, that this can only be inferred from our practice. The little book, under consideration, enters its protest. Hear it. Chapter I, section VII, pages 41-45, treats "Of the duties of those who have the charge of circuits and stations." In answer to the question, "What are the duties of the elder, deacon or preacher who has the special charge of a circuit or station?" connected with the requirement, "to meet the stewards and leaders as often as possible; to appoint all the leaders and change them when he sees necessary; to receive, try and expel members according to the form of Discipline; to hold quarterly meetings in the absence of the presiding elder;" all practical rules of our church; he is also directed to "regulate the bands;" a something that has no existence in our economy. Keeping your eye on the same point, and turning over a leaf, in answer to the question, "What other directions shall we give him?" (the preacher in charge,) you may read, "As soon as there are three or four men or women, believers, in any place, to put them into a band," and "to see that every band leader has the rules of the bands." Now who will say, that according to our Discipline, not as it once was, but as it now is, a preacher, in charge of a circuit or station, is not liable to the charge of assuming a law-contravening responsibility when he wholly omits these rules? And is he not guilty of inconsistency, when he closes his quarterly love-feast with the announcement to his membership, that he is required by the Discipline, "to allow no love-feast to last above an hour and a half?" What reason is there for thus discriminating between statutes in our law-book, which are given in answer to the same questions and occur on the same pages? Either these laws should be made to conform to our practice, which has been the result of experience attesting the propriety of some and the impropriety of others, or the preacher in charge should be denied this discriminating license which practically involves all the elements of church legislation. In chapter III., section IX., pages 81-84, we find a prominence given to

band societies which seems incompatible with the fact that they have no existence amongst us. "Rules of the Band Societies, drawn up December 25, 1738," and "Directions given to the Band Societies, December 25, 1744," introduce us to sundry regulations respecting these nominal meetings in the Methodist family. Our Discipline is not more explicit in regard to public worship, and less so respecting class meetings, than this section is upon the minutia of band societies. Are we told that this section is merely a history of these societies? Our reply is, are they of such precious memory amongst us, that their history deserves to be taken from the history of our legislation upon other subjects, and placed with the laws of our church? On pages 47, 48, and 57, the Discipline refers, in some way, to these societies, all of which allusions, to make this little book harmonize with itself and with living Methodism, should share the fate of the rules to which we have already called attention.

Page 161 of our Discipline affords another instance of the class of laws to which we object. "Ques. 2. Is there any exception to the rule, Let the men and women sit apart? Ans. There is no exception. Let them sit apart in all our churches." Let us observe here, that nothing is said about selling or renting pews; it is solely a question of seating. Is this rule allowed to control our universal action as a church? Are there not a number of congregations, in our bounds, where no attention is paid to it? But are not these disobedient congregations placed under the censure of the church judicature for such a gross departure from Methodism? So far as we have any knowledge of general conference legislation, or Episcopal execution of law, there is no such censure. What then? Will we, as a church, professing to serve a God of truth, continue to publish to our people, and the world generally, that there is "no exception" to a rule of discipline that we all know is, every sabbath, publicly violated by thousands of our people, with the advice and consent of many of our ministers, and with the tacit endorsement of our legislative and executive fathers in Israel? Let us pause for a mo

ment, ere we reply. We respectfully submit the suggestion, that one of three things should be done, namely; the families in a number of our churches be scattered from their seats to different parts of the house; the churches that persist in this infraction of law be placed under some suitable censure; or the present rule changed for one that will correctly represent us. We do not see how all of these can be avoided, without continuing us in the unenviable attitude before the world and ourselves, of making the declaration that "there is no exception," when there are many exceptions. It is not our purpose to defend what we consider the best course to adopt under existing circumstances. The question of appropriating family seats has two sides, each sustained by arguments that deserve the respectful attention of all concerned. We are not prepared to break up the order which has been established, by consent of the congregation, in those churches filled with family groups to hear the minister of Christ point them to the great family of heaven, where saints shall meet their Heavenly Father, and Jesus Christ their elder brother. Nor would we be willing to see those churches, who make or continue this arrangement, placed under the ban of the church authority. We are consequently left to choose a change of this sweeping statute for one that shall entrust this subject with our people, who erect and occupy our houses of worship, accompanying such change with the advice of our church legislature to stick to the old land-marks of Methodism, and thus extend an unrestricted invitation to the poor and stranger to occupy a place in the sanctuary of God. But we prefer either course objected to, rather than allow the little book, which is sent out from our own press and under our own authority, to misrepresent us before other churches, and before the world. it is contended that the rule is already nothing more than the advice of the church, and therefore what we seek now exists; let us, at least, so express ourselves that we may not be misunderstood by nine-tenths of our readers in and out of the church.

If

A third instance of inoperative law is selected from the

76th page of the Discipline. It has reference to administering the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to such Christians as are not connected with our church. The question is asked, "Are there any directions to be given concerning the administration of the Lord's Supper?" The second answer is, "Let no person that is not a member of our church be admitted to the communion without examination, and some token given by an elder or deacon." It is not our business to show the difficulty of complying with this rule. It is objected to in this article upon wholly different grounds. So far as we know, it is no where practised in our church; and the silence of our church legislature and church executive affords proof, that this universal omission of the ministry receives their sanction. From our boyhood we have been accustomed to hear presiding elders and preachers in charge of circuits and stations, invite to the communion table the members of other churches, without proposing to carry out this rule by instituting an examination, or supplying the applicant with any "token." We have followed the example of seniors in age, and superiors in knowledge, piety and office, but not without, at least, a silent wish that they who read our Discipline, after communion, had less reason to accuse us of inconsistency between our law and practice on so solemn a subject. not meet the case to say, "the spirit of the Discipline is carried out in our practice." Would it not be an easy matter to make the letter express the spirit, and thus avoid the objections to which the present rule, as it stands related to our practice, is liable? All we ask is, that our church substitute for this dead letter an invitation to the uncensured and uncensurable members of all the orthodox churches to participate with us in this solemn duty. Is this the spirit of our present law? Is it the practice of the church? Then let it be both the spirit and letter of our future law and usage. We shall have occasion to allude again to this point in our article before we close.

It does

We are aware that in the last selection of law that fails to correctly represent Southern Methodism, we shall subject our