the _Guardian_ by
corroborating the statement of that clamour? Can Brother James Evans
consistently or conscientiously ask an individual to take, or continue
to take the _Guardian_, when he or you publish to the world the belief
that its principles are changed? Will this quiet the "clamour?" Will
this reconcile the members? Will this unite the preachers? Will this
promote the harmony of the Church? Will it not be a fire-brand rather
than the "seeds of commotion?" One or two others here got a meeting of
the male members of the York Society, and proposed resolutions similar
in substance to yours, which were opposed and reprobated by brother
Richardson, on the very disciplinary and prudential ground of which I
speak, and rejected by the Society. In your declaration you say (not on
account of "clamour," or accusations of editors or others, but on
account of editorial remarks in the _Guardian_), "you express your
sentiments to save your character from aspersion." In this you imply
that the editor of the _Guardian_ has misrepresented your sentiments,
and aspersed your character; and, if so, has he not changed his
principles? And, if he has changed his principles, is he not guilty of
falsehood, since he has positively declared to the reverse? You
therefore virtually charge him with inconsistency, misrepresentation,
and deliberate falsehood. Is this the fruit of brotherly love? Again,
you say that "our political sentiments are the same as before the visit
of the editor of the _Guardian_ to England." Is not this equal to
asserting that the editor's sentiments are not the same? You therefore
say that you love me; that you desire the peace of the Church, and the
interests of the _Guardian_, yet you propose a course which will confirm
the slanders of my enemies--to implicate me with inconsistency and
falsehood--to injure the _Guardian_, and deprive yourselves of the
power, as men of honour and truth, to recommend it--to kindle and
sanction dissatisfaction among our Church members--to arm preacher
against preacher--and to criminate a brother before the public, without
a disciplinary trial. You say "our friends are looking out for it." Is
this the way, my brother, that you have quieted their minds, by telling
them that you also were going to criminate the editor? If this be so, I
am not surprised that there is dissatisfaction on your circuit. Brother
Evans said that nothing but a denial of having changed my opinions, and
an explicit