^^^Ji:<<^c!&:r'< ms:< l jt'l ffi JaiHC m^' SI M ^ra i^MH Isidj iih WBff^ m Ur »ii iVi^yi Mil Bi i I pw wi ru ,frr 'yLmF4&i» r 1 1*1 flKSfl l/jVi/fl li J ^M ffi wfi y* l/"^ s m ^\i' i^^^ ;»W^V V . VINDICATION OF THE EPISCOPAL SUCCESSION: BY HENRY MAJOR, Hector of St. 0tepl)ens' (Jlinrcl], HARRISBURG. EDANT EHGO ORICIKHS ECCLESIAUUM SUARUM : EVOIVANT oniirifEM IPIS- COPORUM SUORUM, ITA PER SUCCESSIONES AB INITIO DECURREXTEM, tJT PRIMUS ILLE EPISCOPCS ALIQ.UEM EX APOSTOLIS, VEL APOSTOLICIS TIRIS, ftUI TAMEW CUM APOSTOLIS PERSEVER AVERIXT, HABUERIT AUCTOUKM ET ANTK- €E8SOBEM-, HOC ENIM MOIMJ ECCLEfl^ AP09T0I-ICJE CENSUS 8D0S DErKHUNT. Tertullian. HARRISBURG : IHEO: f'ENN, PRINTER. 1844. r R E F A C E . A small pamphlet has been recently published, entitled " Method- ism Defended, and Prelatical Succession Refuted ; being a Reply to ' Tracts for the People, No. 4,' by Rev. A. Atvvood." This produc- tion has called forth the remarks which follow ; and as Mr. A. has not confined himself to " Prelatical Succession," but attacked the Church upon other points, the author has been compelled to embody in his remarks much that is not embraced under the title which he has adopted. While he has maintained the principles of the Church without compromise, he has endeavored to avoid the use of language which could prove offensive to those of a different persuasion. There are many epithets in Mr. A.'s production, of which he thinks he has a right to complain, but he has passed them over in silence — his wish being, not to defend himself, but the truth. ** It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church : Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same ; and also by public Prayer, with imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by. lawful Authority." [Prayer Book. " O, Holy Jesus !who hast purchased to thyself an universal Church, and hast promised to be with the Ministers of Apostolic Succession to the end of the world ; be graciously pleased," &;c. [Ib. i )^^ ■ • ■ ' '■' CHAPTER I. Remarks upon " Tract No, 4" — Letter of Mr. Wesley to Mr. Jlsbury — Letters of Dr. Coke to Bishops White and Seabury, and to Wm. Wilberforce, Esq, The pamphlet which I am about to review, professes to be a " Reply to * Tracts for the People, No. 4. ' " The true title, however, of the Tract, is this : " Methodism, as held by Wesley." The for- mer, is the general title of a Series — the latter, of No. 4. Who the author is, I know not, nor is it a matter of any consequence. He has exhibited Wesley's opinion of Methodism by copious ex- tracts from his own writings — it is the extracts that renders the Tract valuable and suitable for the times. Wesley was a Clergyman of the Church, and surely the Church has a right to publish his sentiments. Mr. A. has not questioned the accuracy of the quota- tions which the Tract gives from Mr. Wesley's works. He knows they are correct. He charges it, however, with a suppression of the truth, because it did not furnish the document which relates to the appointment of Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, as Superintendents over the Methodists in this country. But why was it not furnished? Because the writer conceived that it could not bear the interpreta- tion which Mr. A. puts upon it. If it means what Mr. A. supposes, to have furnished it would have been no credit to Mr. Wesley, as it would have made him contradict all that he had preached and written for a half a century, (which I think the reader will presently see,) i. e., that he did not wish his followers to leave the Church. The Tract gives us this extract from Wesley's works : " And this is no way contrary to the profession which I have made above these fifty years. I never had any design of separating from the Church. I have no such design now. I do not believe the Methodists in general design it, when I am no more seen. Never- theless, maiiy of them Avill separate from it. These will be so bold and injudicious as to form a separate party, which, consequently, will dwindle away into a dry, dull, separate party. In flat opposition to these, I declare once more, that I live and die a member of the Church of England."— Fo/. 7, p. 326. Now, from this and many similar declarations of Mr. Wesley, the writer infers that Mr. W. could not have intended to establish, by the document under consideration, a separate and independent organization in this country. And this, he thinks, is further evident from the phraseology of the document, and other reasons which he mentions. But whether the writer is correct or not in this inference, is not a matter of much importance, unless it can be proved that Wesley was infallible. Wesley's intending that the Methodists should sepnrate from the Church, did not make it right. A very small por- tion of the Tract, however, is devoted to this point, and if the author has erred with regard to it, it was caused by his very laudable desire to exhibit Mr. Wesley's views as fixed and harmonious throughoin his life. But the document referred to is not the only one which the Tract has withheld. It might have furnished others, which would have either supported his interpretation, or justly exposed Mr. Wes- ley to the charge of the grossest inconsistency and fickleness. And since Mr. A. has thought proper to spread that document before the public, it seems necessary, in order that a correct judgment may be formed of the subject, to exhibit the others likewise. Wesley ap- pointed Ashuvy joint Superintendent with Coke; and a short time after they reached this country, they assumed the title of Bishops, which called forth from Wesley the following letter to Asbury, con- taining a severe rebuke, (to be found in McCaine's History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy ;" pp. 34, 35, where it is said to be extracted from Morse's Life of Wesley, vol. 2, p. 285 :) " London, Sept. 20, 1788. " There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation wherein you stand to the Americans, and the relation wherein I stand to all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Metho- dists; I am, under God, the father of the whole family. Therefore I naturally care for you all, in a manner no other person can do. Therefore, I, in a measure, provide for you all ; for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide were it not for me — were it not that I not only permit him to collect, but support him in so doing. " But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the Dr. and you differ from me. I study to be little, you study to be great ; I creep, you strut along; I found a school, you a college: nay, and call it after your own names ! Oh, beware ! Do not seek to be something ! Let me be nothing, and Christ be all in all. " One instance of this, your greatness, has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be called a Bishop ! *' I shudder, I start at the very thought ! Men may call • me a knave, or 2^ fool, a rascal, a scownf/re/, and I am content; but they shall never, by my consent, call me a Bishop ! For m-y sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this ! Let the Pres- byterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better. '* Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart; and let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely " I am your affectionate friend and brother, "John Wesley." This letter was written nearly four years after the alleged ordina- tion. And therefore, if Wesley had intended to make Coke and Asbury, Bishops, his mind must have undergone another change. If they were Bishops, they had a right to the title — and deserved no such reproofs for assuming it. And therefore it is evident that Wesley did not believe them Bishops at the date of this letter^ whatever he had believed before. But if Wesley's abjections were only to the NAME, if they have so much '-respect for his shades'' why do the still retain it? But 1 shall have occasion to refer to this again. I will now give a copy of a letter wfiich Dr. Coke wrote to Mr. Wesley : " Honored and Dear Sir, "The more maturely 1 consider the subject, the more expedient i! appears to me, that the power of ordaining others, shouli> BE RECEIVED BY ME FROM YOU, by the imposilion of your hands; and that you should lay hands upon brother Whatcoat, and brother Vasey, for the following reasons : 1. It seems to me the most scrip- tural way, and most agreeable to the practice of the PrimitiveChurches. 2. I MAY want all the influence in America, which you can throw into my scale. Mr. Brackenbury informed me at Leeds, that he saw a letter in London, from Mr. Asbury, in which he observed, that he would not receive any person deputed by you with any part of the superintendency of the work invested in him ; or words which evidently implied so much. I do not find any, the least, degree of prejudice in my mind against Mr. Asbury, on the contrary a veiy great love and esteem : and am determined not to stir a finger without his consent, unless mere sheer necessity obliges me, but rather to lie at his feet in all things. But as the journey is long, und you cannot spare me often, and it is well to provide against all EVENTS, and an authority formally received from you, will (I am conscious of it) be fully admitted by the people, and my exercising the office of Ordination without that formal authority may be dis- puted, if there be any opposition in any other account: I could therefore earnestly wish you would extend that power, in this instance, which I have not the shadow of a doubt but God hath in- vested you with for the good of our connexion. I think you have tried me too often to doubt, whether I will in any degree use the power you are pleased to invest me with, further than I believe absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the work. In respect to my breihern (Whatcoat and Vasey) it is very uncertain indeed, whether any of the Clergy mentioned by brother Rankin, will stir a step with me in the work, except Mr. Jarratt ; and it is by no means certain that even he will choose to join me in ordaining: and pro- priety and universal practice make it expedient, that I should have two Presbyters with me in this work. In short it appears to me that every thing should be prepared, and every thing proper to be done, that can possibly be done this side the water. You can do all this in Mr. C — n's house, in your chamber; and afterwards accord- ing to Mr. Fletcher's advice, [Mr. Fletcher advised ordination by u Bishop] give us letters testimonial of the difTerent offices with which you have been pleased to invest us. For the purpose of laying hands on brothers Whatcoat and Vasey, I can bring Mr. C. down 6 with me, by which you will have two Presbyters with you. In respect to brother Rankin's argument, that you will escape a great deal of ODIUM by onnitting this, it is nothing. Eiiher it will be known, or not known ; if not known, then no odtum will arise: butiTknown, you will be obliged to acknowledge that I acted under your direction, or suffer me to sink under the weight of my enemies, with perhaps your brother at the head of them. I shall entreat you to ponder these things. Your most dutiful T. Coke.* It was probably this letter — that persuaded Wesley to " lay his hands" on Coke. It contains, I think, several expressions indicating that the writer was not fully persuaded of the lawfulness of what he was seeking. But here is a letter which throws still more light upon this strange affair — a letter from Dr. Coke to the late Bishop White, of our Church. (This letter is taken from Bishop White's ]>:^emoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church, first edition, jo/?. 424,429:) " Right Rev. Sir, " Permit me to intrude a little on your time upon a subject of great importance. " You, I believe, are conscious that I was brought up in the Church of England, and have been ordained a Presbyter of that Church. For many years I was prejudiced, even I think to bigotry, in favor of it: but through a variety of causes or incidents, to mention which would be tedious and useless, my mind was exceed- ingly biassed on the other side of the question. In consequence of this, I am not sure but I went farther in the separation of our Church in America, than Mr. Wesley, from whom I had received my commission, did intend. He did indeed solemnly invest me, as far as he had a right so to do, with Episcopal autho- rity, but did not intend, I think, that an entire separation should take place. He, being pressed by our friends on this side of the water for Ministers to administer the Sacraments to them, (there being very few Clergy of the Church of England then in the States,) went further, I am sure, than he would have gone, if he had far- seen some events whichfolloived. And this J am certain of — that HE IS NOW SORKY FOR THE SEPARATION. " But what can be done for a re-union, which I much wish for ; and to accomplish which Mr. Wesley, I have no doubt, would use his influence to the utmost ? The affection of a very considerable number of the preachers, and most of the people, is very strong towards him, notwithstanding the excessive ill usage he received from a few. My interest, also, is not small ; and both his and mine *" This letter is taken from an attested copy of the Doctor's letter, in Mr. Charles Wesley's hand-writing, and is to be found in the London edition of Whitehead's Life of Wesley. would readily and to the utmost be used to accomplish that (to us) very desirable object ; if a readiness were shown by the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church to re-unite. "It is even to your Church an object of great importance. We have now about 60,000 adults in our b'ociety in these States, and about 250 travelling Ministers and Preachers ; besides a great number of Local Preachers, very far exceeding the number of travelling Preachers ; and some of these Local Preachers are men of very con- siderable abilities. But if we number the Methodists as most people number the members of their Church, viz : by the families which constantly attend the Divine ordinances in their places of worship, they will make a larger body than you probably conceive. The Society, I believe, may be safely multiplied by five on an average to give us our stated Congregations ; which will then amount to 300,000. And if the calculation which, I think, some eminent wri- ters have made, be just, that three-fifths of mankind are un-adult (if I may use the expression) at any given period, it will follow that all the families, the adults of which form our congregations in these States, amount to 750,000. About one-fifth of these are blacks. The work now extends in length from Boston to the south of Georgia ; and in breadth from the Atlantic to Lake Champlain, Vermont, Aibanv, Redstone, Holstein, Kentucky, Cumberland, &c. " But there are many hindrances in the way. Can they be removed ? " 1. Our ordained Ministers will not, ought not, to give up their right of administering the Sacraments. I don't think that the gene- rality of them, perhaps none of them, wonld refuse to submit to a re-inordination, if other hindrances were removed out of the way. I must here observe that between 60 and 70 only out of the two hun- dred and fifty have been ordained Presbyters, and about 60 Deacons, (only). The Presbyters are the choicest of the whole. *' 2. The other Preachers would hardly submit to a re-union, if the possibility of their rising up to ordination depended on the present Bishops in America. Because, though they are a//, I think I may say, zealous, pious and very useful men, yet they are not acquainted with the learned languages. Besidi^s, they would argue, — If the present Bishops would waive the article of the learned languages, yet their successors might not. " My desire of a re-union is so sincere and earnest that these dif- ficulties almost make me tremble ; and yet something must be done before the death of Mr. Wesley, otherwise I shall despair of success : for though my influence among the Methodists in these States as well as in Europe is, I doubt not, increasing, yet Mr. Asbury, whose influence is very capital, will not easily comply : nay, I know he will be exceedingly averse to it. " In Europe, where some steps had been taken, tending to a sepa- ration, all is at an end. Mr, PVesley is a determined enemy of it, and I have lately borne an open and successful testimony against it. '' Shall I be favored with a private interview with you in Philadel- phia ? I shall be there, God willing, on Tuesday, the 17th of May. If this be agreeable, I'll beg of you just to signify it in a note directed to me, at Mr. Jacob Baker's, merchant, Market street, Philadelphia : or, if you please, by a few lines sent to me by the return of the post a' Philip Rogers', Esq., in Baltimore, from yourself or Dr. Magaw, •dud 1 will wait upon you with my friend Dr. Magaw. We can then enlarge on these subjects. '•I am conscious of it, that secresy is of great importance in the present state of the business, till the minds of you, your brother Bishops, and Mr. Wesley, be circumstantially known. I must there- fore beg that these things be confined to yourself and Dr. Magaw, till I have the honor of seeing you. " Thus, you see, I have made a bold venture on your honor and t-andor, and have opened my whole heart to you on the subject as far as the extent of a small letter will allow me. If you put equal confidence in me, you will find me candid and faithful. " I have, notwithstanding, been guilty of inadvertencies. Very lately I found myself obliged (for the pacifying of my conscience,) to write a penitential letter to the Rev. Mr. Jarratt, which gave him great satisfaction : and for the same reason I must write another to the Rev. Mr. Pettigrew. AVhen I was last in America, I prepared and corrected a great variety of things for our magazines, indeed almost everything that was printed, except some loose hints which I had taken of one of my journeys, and which I left in my hurry with Mr. Asbury, without any correction, entreating that no part of them might be printed which would be improper or offensive. But through great inadvertency (I suppose) he suffered some reflections on the characters of the two above-mentioned gendemen to be inserted in the magazine, for which I am very sorry : and probably shall not rest till I have made my acknowledgment more public ; though Mr. Jarratt does not desire it. "I am not sure whether I have not also ofiended you, sir, by accepting one of the offers made me by you and Dr. Magaw of the use of your churches about six years ago on my first visit to Phila- delphia, without informing you of our plan of separation from tlie Church of England. If I did offend, (as I doubt I did, especially from what you said on the subject to Mr. Richard Dallam, of Abing- ton,) I sincerely beg yours and Dr. Magaw's pardon. I '11 endeavor to amend. But alas ! I am a frail, weak creature. " I will intruJe no longer at present. One thing only I will claim from your candor — that if you have no thoughts of improving this proposal, you will burn this letter, and take no more notice of it, (for it would be a pity to have us entirely alienated from each other, if we cannotunite in the manner my ardent wishes desire.) But if you will further negotiate the business, I will explain my mind still more fully to you on the probabilities of success. ^'In themeantimepermitme, with great respect, to subscribe myself, "•Right Rev. sir, " Your very humble servant in Christ, " Thomas Coke. ''Richmond^ April M, 1791. "The Right Rev. Father in God, Bishop White. '' You must excuse interlineations, &c., as I am just going into the coimtry, and have no time to transcribe." This letter was written nearly seven years after Wesley appointed Coke, Superintendent. And it proves these points : First, That Wesley was urged to take that step by persons in this country, and the preceding letter shows that Coke was one of these persons. •Second^ That Coke went farther than Wesley intended, and that JVesley did not " intend that an entire separation should take placed Thirds That botli Coke and Wesley regretted the separation. Fourth^ That Coke was convinced that he was no Bishop. No man would seek re-ordination, unless conscious of the invalidity of what he has received. But I shall recur to this again. My next document is another letter from Dr. Coke to Bishop Seabury, of our Church, upon the same subject. (The autograph of this letter is in the possession of Bishop Seabury's son. Dr. Seabury, of the city of New York :) '^ The Right Rev. Father in God, Bishop Seabury : "Right Rev. Sir,— From your well known character I am going to open my mind to you on a subject of very great moment. " Being educated a member of the CInirch of England from my earliest infancy, being ordained of that Church, and having taken two degrees in arts, and two degrees in civil law, in the University of Oxford, which is entirely under the patronage of the Church of England, I was almost a bigot in its favor when I first joined that great and good man, Mr. John Wesley, which is fourteen years ago. For five or six years after my union with Mr. Wesley, I remained fixed in my attachments to the ('hurch of England : but afterwards, for many reasons which it would be tedious and useless to mention, I changed my sentiments, and promoted a separation from it as far as my influence reached. Within these two years J am come back- again: my love for the Church of England has returned. I think I am attached to it on a ground much more rational, and conse- quently much less likely to be shaken than formerly. I have many a time run into error ; but to be ashamed of confessing my error when convinced of it, has never been one of my defects. There- fore, when I was fully convinced of my error in the steps I took to bring about a separation from the Church of England in Europe, 1 delivered before a congregation of about 3000 people, in our largest chapel in Dublin, on a Sunday evening, after preaching, an exhorta- tion, which, in fact, amounted to a recantation of my error. Some time afterward, I repeated tlie same in our largest chapels in London, and in several other parts of England, and Ireland : and I have reason 10 to believe that my proceedings in this respect have given a death- Wow to all the hopes of separation which may exist in the minds of any in those kingdoms. " On the same principles I most cordially wish for a reunion of the Protectant Episcopal and the Methodist Churches, in these States. The object is of vast magnitude. Our work now reaches to Boston, northward ; to Wilkes county, in Georgia, southward ; and to Albany, Vermont, Lake Champlain, Redstone, and Kentucky, westward : a length of about 1300 or 1400 miles, and a breadth of between 500 and 1000. Our Society in the States amounts to up- wards of 60,000. These, I am persuaded, may, with safety, be multiplied by five to give us our regular Sunday's congregations, which will make 300,000. If the calculations of some great writers be just, three-fifths of any given country consists of im-adults ; so that the families, the adults of which regularly attend Divine Service among us, amount, according to this mode of calculation, to 750,000; about a fifth part of these are blacks. How great, then, would be the strength of our Church (will you give me leave to call it so ? I mean the Protestant Episcopal) if the two sticks were made one ? "But hov/ can this be done? The magnitude of the object would justify considerable sacrifices. A solemn engagement to use your prayer-book in all our places of worship on the Lord's Day would, of course, be a sine qua non, a concession we should be obliged to make on our part, (if it may be called a concession ;) and there would be, I doubt not, other concessions to be made by us. But what concessions would it be necessary for you to make ? For the opening of this subject with all possible candor, it will be neces- sary to take a view of the present state of the Ministry in the Methodist Church, in these States. " We have about 250 travelling Preachers, and a vastly greater number of Local Preachers, I mean Preachers who live on their plan- tations, or are occupied in the exercise of trades or professions, and confined to a small sphere of action, in respect to their ministerial labors. About seventy of our travelling Preachers are Elders (as we call them) or Presbvters. These are the most eminentaud most approved of the whole body ; and a very excellent set of Clergy I really believe they are. We have about the same number of Dea- cons among the travelling Preachers, who exercise the office of Deacon according to the plan of the Church of England. These Ministers, both Presbyters and Deacons, must be elected by a majority of the Conference before they can be ordained. A Superintendent only or- dains the Deacons, and a Superintendent must make one of the Pres- bytery for the ordination of a Priest or Elder; and the Superintend- ents are invested with a negative voice in respect to the ordination of any person that has been elected for the office either of Elder or Deacon. Among the local Preachers there is no higher office than that of a Deacon. The local Preacher does not pass through an election for this office ; but if he bring a testimonial, signed by three Elders, one of whom must be what we call a Presiding Elder, one 11 who has the government of a district, i. e. several circuits joined together, three Deacons, three unordained Preachers, and the majority of the class of which he is a member, or the stewards and leaders of the whole society of which he is a member, a Superintendent may then, if he please, ordain him ; and a great many of the oldest and wisest of the local preachers have been ordained Deacons on this plan. " Now, on a re-union taking place, our Ministers, both Elders and Deacons, would expect to have, and ought to have, the same autho- rity they have at present, of administering the ordinances according to the respective powers already invested in them for this purpose. / well know that they must submit to a re-ordination, which I believe might be easily brought about if every other hindrance was removed out of the way. But the grand objection would arise from the want of confidence which the Deacons and unordained Preachers would experience. The present Bishops might give them such assurances as would perhaps remove all their fears concerning Mew, but they could give no security for their successors, or lor any new Bishops who may be consecrated for the Episcopal Church in those States which have not at present an Episcopal Minister. The requi- sition of learning for the ministry (I mean the knowledge of the New Testament in the original, and of the Latin tongue,) would be an •insuperable objection on this ground, as the present Bishops, and the present members of the General Convention, can give no sufficient security for their successors. And the Preachers could never, I be- lieve, be induced to give up the full confidence they have in their present Superintendents, that they shall in due time rise to the higher offices of the Church, according to their respective merits, for any change of situation in which the confidence they should then possess would not be equivalent. **But what can be done to gain tliis confidence on the plan of a re- union of the two Churches ? I will answer this important question with all simplicity, plainness, and boldness ; and the more so, be- cause, 1st, I am addressing myself, I have no doubt, to a person of perfect candor ; 2dly, I have a re-union so much at heart, that I would omit nothing that may, according to the best of my judgment, throw light on the subject ; 3dly, Because I think I am not in dan- ger from your charitable spirit, to be suspected in the present instance, of pressing after worldly honor; as it is likely I shall be elected President of the European Methodists, and shall not, I believe, re- ceive greater marks of respect from the Methodists in these States, supposing I ever to be a Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, than they are at present so kind as to show me. " Mr.Asbury, our resident Superintendent, is a great and good man. He possesses, and justly, the esteem of most of the Preachers, and most of the people. Now if the Gcnerrd Convention of the Clergy consented that he should be consecrated a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the supposition of a re-union, a very capital hindrance would be removed out of the wav. ^' Again, I love the Methodists in America, and could nc?t think of. leaving them entirely, whatever might happen to me in Europe. The Preachers and People also love me. Many have a peculiar regard for- me. Bnt I could not, with propriety, visit the American Methodists . possessing in our Church on this side o^f the water an office inferior to that of Mr. Asbury. " But if the two houses of the Convention of the Clergy would consent to your consecration of Mr. Asbury and me as Bishops of the Methodist Society in the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States, (or by any other title, if that be not proper,) on the supposition of a re-union of the two Churches, under proper mutual stipulations ; and engage that the Methodist Society shall have a re- gular supply, on the death oftheir Bishops, and so, ad perpetuwn the grand difficulty in respect to the Preachers would be removed — they would have the same men to confide in whom they have at present, and all other mutual stipulations would soon be settled. "1 said, in respect to Preachers, for I do not fully know Mr, Asbury 's mind on the subject. I have my fears in respect to his sentiments ; and if he do not accede to the union, it will not take place so completely as I could wish. I wish you could see my sin- ful heart, but that is impossible. '' I think I need not observe that, if things were brought to a happy issue, we should still expect to enjoy all our rights as a Society in the most exclusive sense, as we do now in Europe : I mean the receiving or rejecting membei-s in or fnim our classes, bands, lovefeasts, &c. " I have had the honor of three interviews with Bishop White on this subject, and some correspondence. In the present state of things I must entreat you to lay this business only before your confidential friends ; and if you honor me with a letter by the June packet, di- rected to the Rev. Dr. Coke, at the new chapel. City road, London, I will write to you again immediately after the English Conference, which will commence in Manchester on the last Tuesday in next July, The importance of the subject on which I have now written to you, will, I think, prevent the necessity of an apology for th« liberty I have taken in writing to you. " Permit me to subscribe myself, with great respect, Right Rev. Sir, your very humble and obedient servant, " Thomas Coxic. ''Philadelphia, May 14, 1791." This letter was written a few weeks after the one to Bishop White. It is another proof of the Doctor's repentance — of his earnest desire to return (together with his people) into the bosom of the Church — and that neither he nor Asbury had any title to the office of Bishop ; for let the reader note that what he especially requests is, that they might both be consecrated Bishops. But the Doctor was very persevering. He made a third applica- tion to obtain the Episcopal office, as appears from the following letter to Wm. Wilberforce, Esq. (This may be found in the " Cor- respondence of Wilberforce," vol. 2, pp. 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 i' 13 ^^ Jit Samuel Hague's, Esq., Leeds^ Jpril 14, 1813. '•■* Dear and highly respected Sir, " A subject which appears to me of great moraeiit lies much upon my mind ; and yet it is a subject of such a delicate nature, that I vtannot venture to open my mind upon it to any one, of whose can- dor, piety, delicacy, and honor, I have not the highest opinion. Such a character I do indubitably esteem you, sir ; and as such, I will run the risk of opening my whole heartjo you upon the point. " For at least twelve years, sir, the interests of our Indian empire have lain very near my heart. In several instances I have made attempts to open a way for missions in that <;ountry, and even for mv going over there myself. But every thing proved abortive. " The prominent desire of my soul, even from my infancy, (I may almost say) has been to be useful. Even when I was a Deist for •part of my time at Oxford, (what a miracle of grace !) usefulness was my most darling object. The Lord has been pleased to fix me for about thirty-seven years on a point of great usefulness. My in- fluence in the large Wesleyan connexion, the introduction and super- intendence of our missions in different parts of the globe, and the wide spfiere opened to me for the preaching of the Gospel to almost innumerable large and attentive congregations, have opened to me a a very extensive field for usefulness. And yet I could give up all for India. Could I but close my life in being the means of raising a spiritual Church in India, it would satisfy the utmost ambition of my soul here below. " I am not so much wanted in our comi^xion at home as I once was. Our Committee of Privileges, as we term it, can watch over the interests of the body, in respect to laws and government, as well in my absence, as if I was with them. Our Missionary Committee in London can do the same in respect to missions ; and my absence would only make them feel their duty more incumbent upon them. Auxilliary committees through the nation, which we have now in contemplation, will amply supply my place, in respect to raising mo- ney. There is nothing to influence me much against going to India, but my extensive sphere for preaching the Gospel. But this, I do assure you, sir, sinks crrnsiderably in my calculation, in comparison of the high honor (if the Lord was to confer it upon me in His Pro- vidence and Grace) of beginning or reviving a genuine work of religion in the immense regions of Asia. " Impressed with these views, I wrote a letter about a fortnight ago to the Earl of Liverpool. I have either mislaid the copy of it, or des.troyed it at the time, for fear of its falling into improper hands. After an introduction, drawn up in the most delicate mannrr in my power, I took notice of the observations made by Lord Castlereagh in the House of Commons, concerning a religious establishment in {ndia connected with the Established Church at home. I tlien sim- ply opened my situation in the Wesleyan connexion, as I have stated it to you, sir, above. I enlarged on the earnest desire I had of closing fiuy life in India, observing that if his Royal Highness the Prince 14 Regent and the Government should think proper to appoint me their Bishop in India, I should most cheerfully and most gratefully accept the offer. I am sorry I have lost the copy of the letter. In my let- ter to Lord Liverpool, I observed, that I should, in case of my ap- pointment to the Episcopacy of India, return most fully and faithfully into the bosom of the EstabUshed Church, and do every thing in my power to promote its interest, and would submit to all such restrictions in the fulfilment of my office, as the Government and the Bench of Bishops at home should think necessary— that my prime motive was to be useful to the Europeans in India ; and that my second, though not the least, was to introduce the Christian religion among the Hin- does by the preaching of the Gospel, and peihaps, also, by the sstablishment of schools. " I have not, sir, received an answer. Did I think that the answer was withheld, because Lord Liverpool considered me as acting very improperly by making the request, I should take no further step in the business. This may be the case ; but his Lordship's silence may arise from other motives : on the one hand, because he did not choose to send me an absolute refusal; and, on the other hand, because he did not see it proper, at least just now, to give me any encouragement. When I was in some doubt this morning whether I ought to take the liberty of writing to yoii, my mind became deter- mined on my being informed about three hours ago, that in a letter received from you by iMr. Hey, you observed that the generahty of the House of Commons were set against granting anything of an imperative kind to the Dissenters or Methodists in favor of sending Missionaries to India. Probably I may err in respect to the exac« words which you used. " I am not conscious, my dear respected sir, that the least degree of ambition influences me in this business. I possess a fortune of about 1200/. a-year, which is sufficient to bear my travelling expen- ses, and to enable me to make many charitable donations. I have lost two dear wives, and am now a widower. Our leading friends through the connexion receive me and treat me with . the utmost respect and hospitality. I am quite surrounded with friends who greatly love me ; but India still cleaves to my heart. I sincerely believe that my strong inclination to spend the remainder of my life in India originates in the Divine Will, whilst lam called upon to use the secondary means to obtain the end. " I have formed an intimate acquaintance with Dr. Buchanan, and have written to him to inform him that I shall make him a visit within a few days, if it be convenient. From his house I intend, Deo volente^ to return to Leeds, for a day, and then to set off next week for London. The latter end of last November I visited him before, at Moat Hall, his place of residence, and a most pleasant visit it was to me, and also to him, I have reason to think. He has been, since I saw him, drinking of the same bitter cup of which I have been drinking, by the loss of a beloved wife. 15 ** 1 would just observe, sir, that a hot climate peculiarly agrees with me. I was never better in my life than in the West Indies, during the four visits I made to that archipelago, and should now prefer the torrid zone, as a climate, to any other part of the world. Indeed, I enjoy in this country, though sixty-five years of age, such an uninterrupted flow of health and strength as astonishes all my acquaititance. They commonly observe that they have perceived no difi'erence in me for these last twenty years. " I would observe, sir, as I did at the commencement of my letter, that I ilirow myself on your candor, piety, and honor. If I do not succeed in ray views of India, and it were known among the Preach- ers that I had been taking the steps that I am now taking, (though from a persuasion that I am in the Divine Will in so doing,) it might more or less affect my usefulness in the vineyard of my Lord, and that would very much afflict me. And yet, notwithstanding this, I cannot satisfy myself without making some advances in the business. I consider, sir, your brother-in-law, Mr. Stephen, to be a man of eminent worth. I have a very high esteem for him. I know that his yea is yea, and what he promises he certainly will perform. Without some promise of confidence he might, if he were acquainted with the present business, mention it to Mr. , with whom, I know, Mr. Stephen is acquainted. If Mr. were acquainted with the steps I am taking, he would, I am nearly sure, call immedi- ately a meeting of our Committee of Privileges, and the consequence might be unfavorable to my influence, and consequently to my useful- ness among the Methodists. But my mind must be eased. I must venture this letter, and leave the whole to God, and under Him, sir, to you. "I have reason to believe that Lord Eldon had, (indeed I am sure of it,) and probably now has, an esteem for me. Lord Sidmouth I do think loves me. Lord Castlereagh once expressed to Mr. Alexan- der Knox, then his private Secretary in Ireland, his very high regard for me: since that time I have had one interview with his lordship in London. I have been favored on various occasions with public and private interviev^^s with Lord Bathurst, I shall be glad to have your advice whether I should write letters to those noblemen : particularly to the two first, on the present subject; or whether I had not better suspend every thing, and have the pleasure of seeing you in London. I hope I shall have that honor. I shall be glad to receive three or four lines from you, (don't write unless you think it may be of some immediate importance,) signifying that I may wait on you immedi- ately on my arrival in London. " I have the honor to be, with very high respect, " My dear Sir, your very much obliged, "very humble, and very faithful servant, "T. Coke." I shall now leave this subject for the present, intending to recur to it again. Mr. A. has committed several mistakes with regard to our Church, 16 in that portion of his Tract which relates to this subject. He says that at the time of the pseudo-ordination by Wesley, (1784) " Pro- testant Episcopalians, as such, did not exist in this country." Epis- copalians at that time, were the same body as previously existed before the Revolution. They always maintained this principle, and our General Convention declared the same. And according to those principles, which have governed the Church in all ages, the Metho- dists were bound to continue with them, especially alter we obtained valid Bishops. Again, he says: "Their Church was not formed till some years after. And then, with much difficulty, did they obtain ordination of an English Bishop." I have already said that our Church, after the Revolution, was the same body that existed previ- ously. Some modification, however, became necessary. But that was arranged, 7iot " several years ajter,^'' but some time before Wes- ley "laid ms iands on Coke." And our first Bishop was consecrated, not "several )^ears after," but the very same year. Again : he says that Episcopalians, as well as the Methodists, had to set up for themselves." Episcopalians did not set up for themselves. They were " set up" by those who had authority — by the successors of the Apostles. Our Church is not a recent creation, such as Metho- dism. It is an extension of the " One Catholic and Apostolic Church,"* " against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail." CHAPTER H. The Principle of Succession not Uncharitable — Scripture Proofs Considered — Quotations from the Fathers Examined — Their Testimony in favor of Episcopacy. Mr. A. endeavors at the outset, to excite prejudice against the doctrine of Succession, by representing it as "uncharitable," " ex- clusive," and " consigning all others to the uncovenanted mercies of God." But this is not argument. It is a begging of the question. The question is, whether the commission to ordain others, which the Saviour gave to his Apostles, has been transmitted to our times in the line of Bishops. If it has, then the doctrine of Apostolical Succession is true. And, if true, it cannot be uncharitable to main- tain it; for Truth and Charity can never be opposed to one another. They always go hand in hand. Truth is invariably beneficial to Man — and, therefore, to embrace, maintain and defend it, is the very essence of Charity. And as to its being exclusive — Truth is neces- sarily exclusive of what is false. Christianity itself is exclusive — it excludes all other Religions. The doctrine of the Trinity is exclusive — it excludes a large community of professing Christians, and yet, Mr. A. holds and preaches it. And as to its " consigning all others to the uncovenanted mercies of God," (though we have * The Second General Council, held at Constantinople, A.D. 391, applied this term to the Church. 17 never said so,) Christianity does the same. What would Mr. A, think of an Infidel who should begin to " refute " Christianity by urging such objections? But if this doctrine be not true, it is a nnistake of the judgment, and, even then it is not uncharitable — for Charity is an affection of the heart. There is but one condition in which these offensive epithets of Mr. A. would be correctly applicable, and that is, if we claimed the Succession without believing in it ourselves. But this he does not assert, or even intimate, nor could he do so, having no proof, without a gross violation of Charity. For these reasons his introductory re- marks, upon this point, are wholly irrelevant, and, indeed, unfair ; for they are calculated to excite prejudice, both against the doctrine and those who hold it. All men, and especially Christian Ministers, should seek to promote Truth and Love — both of which are always obstructed by Prejudice. This mode of attack, I am sorry to have to say, has become very common ; but, though it succeed for a time, it must ultimately recoil upon those who adopt it. I will now proceed to examine Mr. A's. argument. He says : "We are prepared to show that the New Testament, and all the Fathers, for the first three hundred years of the Christian era, and almost all subsequent Divines, unite in declaring that Bishops and Presbyters are the same. That neither Jesus Christ nor His Apostles ever appointed a third Order of Ministers." In support of this position, he adduces several passages of Scripture. But, all that these passages prove, (which is all that he intends,) is, that in the New Testament, the terms Bishop and Presbyter are applied to the same order. And, after drawing this inference, and uttering a few expres- sions of triumph, he dismisses the Scriptural argument in the most abrupt and summary manner. But he surely has read very little upon the subject, if he does not know (as it seems) that Episcopa- lians grant all this. The terms Presbyter, Elder and Bishop are indifferently applied in Scripture to the same Order of Ministers. But what does this avail him ? The question is not one of words and names, but of office, rank and authority. In New Testament language, all Christians are called " Saints.'^ But now, only those of extraordinary piety. The word Sabbath means only the seventh day of the week — whereas, now it is very commonly applied to the Jirst. Thus, in these and other instances which might be specified, we now use words in a sense very different from what they bear in the New Testament. The terms Presbyter and Elder are perfecUy synonymous ; the former being a Greek word with an English termination, but possessing the same signification as the P.'nglish word Elder. The term Bishop is a translation of the Greek word Episcopos, which signifies Overseer or Superintendent. As the Pastor of a Congregation was generally, though not invariably, a man somewhat advanced in life, he was called an Ekler ; and as one having the superintendence of a flock, he was called a Bishop or Overseer. These terms, then, as the reader may infer from their 2* 18 meaning, were not invented in the days of the New Testament writers, and applied exclusively to the office of the Ministry. They had been in use long before. And, since the terms were not peculiar to the office to which they were applied, we cannot expect them to indicate, precisely, the rank of the office. Time and long usage are generally necessary to give words a distinct aad fixed meaning in a system. "^Accordingly, the terms applied in the New Testament to the various orders of the Ministry, were not then fully settled. This is evident from the very passages of Scripture quoted by Mr. A. and from others that might be adduced. He affirms, and very correctly, that the terms Bishop and Presbyter, in these passages, signify one and the same order of men. And obviously, if two different words were applied to the same office, the specific title of the office could not have been settled. The term Deacon is as often applied in the New Testament to Apostles and Presbyters, as to the office which it now exclusively designates. See I Cor. 3 : 5 : " Who then is Paul, and who Apollos, but Ministers (the original is Deacons, literally translated) by whom ye believed?" And 2 Cor. 3 : 6: " Who also hath made us able Mmisters (Deacons) of the New Testament?" See, also, 2 Cor. 6 : 4, 1 Thess. 3: 2. Where the word Minister signifies Deacon, Mr.A's. argument is, that since the New Testa- ment applies the terms Bishop and Presbyter to one Order, therefore, there was no higher Order than that of Presbyter. According to this mode of reasoning, it would follow that there was no higher order than Deacon, since that term is applied to the Apostles and other Ministers, indiscriminately- This alone, conclusively proves that nothing can be inferred from names— that they were not then fixed. Episcopalians maintain that the Apostles occupied the first or highest grade in the Ministry, and those called Bishops and Presbyters the second, and those called Deacons, the third. And that the Apostles bestowed the power of ordination and superintendence upon some of these Presbyters, who towards the close of the Apostolic Age, obtained exclusively the title of Bishop, and the other Presbyters exclusively the title of Presbyters, and thus the terms became fixed. This is admitted by Videlius,-'^ a non-Episcopal writer. He says of Clemens Romanus : (mentioned by St. Panl, Phil, 4:3:) "Clemens solus Episcopii nomen retinuitquiajam invaluerat distinctio Episcopii et Presbyterii." Clemens alone retained the name of Bishop, because there had now grown into use the distinction between Bishop and Presbyter; i. e. that it had then become common to apply these terms to different orders of men. And since Clemens became Bishop of Rome, a few years before the death of St. John, this " distinction" was made within, though, as before said, towards the close of, the Apostolic Age. In support of this change in the application of the term Bishop, we have the testimony of several Primitive writers. Theodoret says: "The same persons were anciently called pro- * See the answer of Charles I. to the Divines who argued with him in the Isle of Wight, p. \l. 19 miscLioiisly both Bishops and Presbyters, whilst those who are now called Bishops, were called Apostles. But shortly after, the name of Apostles were appropriated to such only as were Apostles, indeed ; and then the name of Bishop was given to those who before were called Apostles." (Theodoret, Com. on 1 Tim.d: 1.) St. Hilary says : " They who are now called Bishops, were originally called Apostles ; but, the holy Apostles being dead, those who were ordained after them, could not arrive at the excellency of the first, therefore, they thought it not becoming to assume the name of Apostle. But, dividing the name Presbyter and Bishop, they left the Presbytery the name Presbyter, and they themselves were called Bishops." {See Bingham'' s Orig. Ecdes. Lib. 2:2: Sec. 1.) Here, surely, is a full and satisfactory explanation. That a change has occurred, no one will dispute. According to Mr. A. the terms Bishop and Presbyter, in the New Testament, are applied to the same office. But every one knows that they are not now used indiscriminately, either by us or our non-Episcopal brethren. Mr. A. himself is called Presbyter or Elder, but not Bishop — whereas, in the New Testament, our Elder is called a Bishop. I know he thinks himself a Bishop, but, he is not called so. Among several thousand Methodist Preachers, there are but six or eight who are designated by this title. Hence, even among them this word is employed differently from what it is in the New Testa- ment. If Mr. A. had endeavored to prove that these Bishops and Presbyters of the New Testament, occupied the highest grade of the Ministry, instead of attempting to prove what no one denies — his remarks might have been, at least, relevant. Episcopalians maintain that tnere was a distinct and higher order of men, who alone possessed the power of ordination, and who have transmitted it to our times — the Aposdes of our Lord. Under the Mosaic IJispensa- tion, we find a three-fold Ministry with these titles: High Priest, Priests, and Levites ; in the days of our Saviour, Christ himself, the twelve Apostles, and the seventy Disciples ; after the Ascension, the twelve Apostles, the Bishops, Presbyters and the Deacons. Towards the close of the Apostolic age, the names became finally settled, as they now are: Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. We maintain, then, that the Apostles alone ordained — and those called Elders, never — that the Apostles invested Timothy, Titus and others with the ordaining power, and thus it has descended to the present time. But, as Mr. A. has not even assailed this point, and as it would occupy much more space than we can spare to exhibit the proofs of it, I must content myself with referring the reader who wishes to examine it, to full treatises upon Episcopacy. Testimony of the Fathers. Mr. A. begins with a quotation from a writer who lived in the fourth century — Jerome — passing over some thirty or forty who flourished between him and the Aposdes. Besides, he neglected to tell us in what part of Jerome's writings the quotation is to be found. 20 However, since the passage is wholly irrelevant, we will excuse him. If the reader will turn to it, he will perceive that like the Scripture quotations which Mr. A. adduces, it only asserts (what no one denies) that at first, the terras Bishop and Presbyter v/ere applied to one order. •' This was the case," he says, " before the devil incited men to make divisions in Religion, and one was led to say "7 om of Paul, and I of Apollo s.'''' Now, I need not inform my readers when this was, as there is an obvious reference to the contentions among the Corinthian converts, which St. Paul so sharply rebukes in one of his Epistles ; and, consequently, it was long before the close of the Apostolic age. And that at that time they were one, is not disputed. Jerome continues : "But afterward when any one in Baptizing, rather made Proselytes to himself than to Christ, it icas every where decreed that one person elected from the rest of the Presbyters in each Church, should be placed over the others — that the chief care of the Church devolving upon him, the seeds of division might be taken away." This does not, in the least, conflict with the claims of Episcopalians, but, rather sustains them— because, if Jerome means that a new order of Ministers was set over the Elders, his language is perfectly consistent with — yea, favors the supposition that it was done by the Apostles — since he represents the divisions referred to by St. Paul as the cause. And therefore it does not invalidate, (as Mr. A. insinuates,) but confirms the " Di- vine right" of the superior order — for an order created by the Apostles must have been by " Divine right." Mr. A. has italicised the word elected, as if those placed over the Presbyters were only elected, which by no means follows. Jerome merely asserts that these chief officers were chosen from among the Presbyters, which is the practice in our Church to this day. Ordination, of course, followed Election, according to the invariable regulations of the Church. But Mr. A. says it was merely a measure of expediency, not of law. And is not every positive institution a measure of expe- diency ? Whatever God institutes — whether directly, or by the agency of inspired men — must be both a matter of expediency and a matter of law. It further must be of perpetual obligation, unless obviously temporary in its nature, or repealed by the same authority — neither of which is the case in this instance. But it is useless to multiply words upon a passage whicb is perfectly consistent with our claims. When our opposers resort to such passages, their intel- ligent readers cannot fail to suspect that proof is very scarce. Jerome maintains all that we want — that an order superior to that of Presby- ter was established in the days of the Apostles. His writings contain several passages in support of three Orders of the Ministry. He says: "Without the Bishop's license, neither Presbyter nor , Deacon has a right to baptise." Again, he says : " For what does a Bishop, which a Presbyter may not do, excepting ordination i^"* This shows clearly that Presbyters, according to Jerome, have no right to ordain. He further testifies in our favor, that the Bishops ■^ Epistle to Evangelus. 21 are the successors of the Apostles : addressing the Church, he says: " The Apostles were thy fathers, because that they begat thee. But now that they have left the world, thou hast in their stead their sons, the Bishops." Once more : " It is the custom of the Church for Bishops to go and invoke the Holy b^pirit, by imposition of liands, on such as were baptised by Presbyters and Deacons." " Do you ask," says he, "where this is written? In the Acts of the Apos- tles." (Dialog, adv. Lucif.) This passage is important, not only as maintahiing the three orders, but also the Scripturalness of the right of Confirmation, which Methodism has set aside.* Mr. A. next quotes Clemens Romanus. But unfortunately, the passage is as irrelevant as that from Jerome — it merely asserts that the Apostles " appointed the first fruits of their conversion to be Bishops and Deacons." Clemens lived in the days of the Apostles, when the Presbyters were often called Bishops, as before remarked ; hence he gives them that title. The Apostles themselves were the Bishops in the sense in which the word is now used. As they ga- thered Congregations, they ordained for them Presbyters and Deacons, which were sufficient for some time — as they themselves exercised a superintendence over them until, by the increase of their numbers, a settled Bishop became necessary. But farther comment is unneces- ry, as the following passage from Clemens exhibits his opinions fully: " It will behoove us, looking into the depth of Divine knowledge, to do all things in order whatsoever our Lord has commanded us to do. He has ordained, by His Supreme will and authority, both where and by what persons they (the sacred services) are to be per- formed. For the Chief Priest has his proper services ; and to the Priests their proper place is appointed : and to the Levites appertain their proper Ministries ; and the laymen is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen," [Epis, Cor. § 40.) Here he calls the three orders of the Ministry, by the names of the old Priesthood — a practice very common with the Fathers. Mr. A.'s next witness is Ignatius. This Father, according to the *Dr. Adam Clarke's Views of Confikmation. — In the first vol. of the Life of Dr. Clarke, as published by the Methodist Book Con- cern of New York, in i833, the Doctor gives the following account {p. 94) of his own confirmation : " It was at this time that the Bishop of Bristol held a Confirmation in the Collegiate Church. I had never been confirmed, and as I had a high respect for all the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, I wished to embrace this opportunity to get the blessing of that amia- ble and Apostolic-looking Prelate, Dr. Lewis Bagot. I asked per- mission ; several of the Preacher's sons went with me, and I felt mnch satisHiction in this ordinance ; to me it was very solemn, and the whole was well conducted. Mrs. S., who was a Presbyterian, pitied my being " so long held in the oldness of the letter." I have lived nearly forty years since, and upon this point my sentiments are not changed.^^ 22 records of antiquity, Avas made Bishop of Antioch by the Apostle St. Peter, A. D. 66 — over which he presided until A. D. 106 — when he suffered martyrdom under Trajan.*^ It was while on his way to Rome to lay down his life for Christ, that he wrote those charming Epistles which have been handed down to our times. And having occupied so conspicuous a position in the Church for forty years, during most of which time he was conversant with the Apostles, (hav- ing survived the last one, St. John, only four years,) his testimony is of the greatest importance. Now let us examine the quotations from his writings which Mr. A. has furnished his readers. It is this : " Presbyters (Elders) preside in the place of the Council of the Apos- tles. Be ye subject to your Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope. Let all reverence the Presbyters (Elders) as the Sanhedrim of God, and College of Apostles." As usual, Mr. A. has given no reference. But after some some search I succeeded in finding the words quoted, in Ignatius' Epistle to the Trallians. And I am sorry to have to state, that the passage is most shamefully gar- bled. Mr. A. has here evinced either the most inexcusable ignorance, or the most culpable unfairness. The passage, with its context, affords the most conclusive evidence in favor of Episcopacy, or, as Mr. A. calls it, Prelacy. That the reader may judge, I will quote the whole paragraph, precisely as it stands in the Epistle. Ignatius says to the Trallians : "For in that you are subject to your Bishops as to Jesus Christ, you seem to me to be living not after the way of men, but according to Jesus Christ: who died for your sakes, that by believing in His death, ye may from death escape. It is there- fore your bounden duty, as it also is your practice, to do nothing apart from the Bishcp. Be subject, moreover, to the Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope ; may we be found to have had our conversation in Him. It is requisite, too, that they who are Deacons (Ministers) of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should be obliging to all men in every manner; for they are not Ministers (Deacons) of meat and drink, but servants of God's Church: they must therefore guard against reproach, as against fire. Like\vise let all men give heed to the Deacons, as to an institution of Jesus Christ ; and to the Bishops, as to the image of God : and to the Presbyters as to the Sanhedrim of God and the College of Apostles. Without these there is no Church."" {Epis. to TralL)i Let the reader compare this with Mr. A.'s extract, and he will perceive that sentences, picked out here and there, have been combined together, ?vhile those enjoining submission to the Bishops are omitted ! It is surely a desperate case when such means are resorted to. This pas- sage not only proves that in the days of Ignatius (who was cotempo- * It is said that Ignatius was one of the little children that our Saviour took in his arms and blessed. 1 1 have two editions of this Epistle, and they agree exactly in the above quotation. 23 rary with the Apostles,) there were three distinct orders in the Minis- try, but also sustains our position, that although in the New Testa- ment the terms Bishop and Presbyter are applied to the same order, that a distinction was made about the close of the Apostolic Age — by which the term Bishop ceased to be applied to Presbyters, and was appropriated exclusively to a superior order of men, who inherited the ordaining and governing authority of the Apostles. For when Ignatius exhorted the Trallians to obey their Bishop, and afterwards exhorts them to obey their Presbyters, it is obvious that the terms were then no longer synonymous, but represented two distinct orders. After testimony so clear and positive in favor of a three-fold Ministry, it seems almost superfluous to furnish more from Ignatius. But I cannot forbear to add a few more extracts from this Martyred witness of Apostolic Order. To the Magnesians he says : " Seeing now it is my privilege to behold you, through Damus, your most holy Bishop, and your wor- thy Presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and your Deacon, my fellow- laborer, Sotion, toward whom I am tenderly affectioned, because he IS SUBJECT TO HIS BisHOP as to a GKAcious GIFT FROM GoD, and to the Presbyters as to an institution of Jesus Christ, I determined to write unto you. Your duty likewise is it, not to bear yourself toward your Bishop with a freedom proportioned to his youth, but according to the power of God the Father, to concede to him all homage, as I am aware the holy Presbyters do." [Epis. to Magnes.) Once more : warning them against Heretics, he says : " From such men keep your- selves guarded And guarded ye will be, if ye are not puffed up, nor separated from Jesus Christ our Lord, and from the Bishop, and from the rules laid down by the Apostles. He that is within the altar is pure : he that is without, whoever, viz : acts independent of the Bishop, the Presbyters and the Deacons, is a man of unclean CONSCIENCE." [Epis. to Trail.) Again : "For there is but one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of his blood ; one altar ; as also there is one Bishop,* togethkk with his Presbytery, and the Deacons, my fellow Skrvants : that so, whatsoever ye may do, ye may do it according to the will of God.'' " Now if ye be willing, it is not impossible for you to do this for the sake of God ; as also the other neighboring Churches have sent them, S03IE Bishops, some Priests, and Deacons." (Epist. Philad.} I pass on to the last Father that Mr. A. quotes — Polycarp, from whose writings he gives this extract : " Polycarp, and Presbyters that are with him, to the Church of God, which is at Phillippi." " Be subject to the Presbyters (Elders) and Deacons, as unto God and Christ." The first sentence I find in Polycarp's Epistle to the Phillippians ; but like the other quotation of Mr. A, instead of oppos- ing Prelacy, sustains it. Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna. Ignatius, Jtie father before quoted, wrote him an Epistle, (which is now before me,) commencing with these words : " Ignatius, who is also called ^Anciently, as now, there was generally but one Bishop in a Diocese. 24 Tlieophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the SmyrnjEAns." He also wrote an Epistle to the Smyrnasans, in which I find this passage : " See that ye all follow your Bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father ; and the Presbyters as the Apostles. And reverence the Deacons as the command of God. Let no man do anything of what belongs to the Church, separately from the Bishops." Thus it is evident that Polycarp was Bishop of the Smyrna^ans, and of a distinct and supe- rior Order — although he associates his Presbyters with himself in ad- dressing the Phillippians. In acts 15: 23, we find Apostles and Elders and Brethren coupled together in a similar manner. The other passage which Mr. A. quotes from Polycarp, can prove nothing to his purpose. Polycarp writes an Epistle to the Phillippians, in which he mentions only Presbyters and Deacons,, therefore Mr. A. infers, not only that there was no Bishop over THEM, BUT NO BiSHOP IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD. Is tllis SOUnd logic? Since Polycarp mentions no Bishop, I admit that it is there- fore PROBABLE that there was no Bishop at Phillippi at the time HE WROTE. This is all that can be reasonably inferred. In the State of Indiana, and some others, we have a number of Presbyters and Deacons, but no Bishop. Now suppose one of our Bishops were to write an Episde to the membersof the Church in Indiana, contain- ing this passage : "Be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons, as unto God and Christ ;" but making of course no mention of a Bishop, how delusive would be the inference, that there are no Bishops at all in the Church. Besides, we have already proved from the testimony of Ignatius, that at 'Smyrna there were not only Deacons and Presbyters, but also a Bishop at their head — this very same Polycarp, that Mr. A. quotes to prove that in his days there were but two Orders in the Church ! We have now reviewed the quotations which Mr. A. has made from the Fathers. He tells us that similar quotations might be made from Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, Tertullian and Clemens Alexandrinus.'* Perhaps they might, but certainly my readers will agree that "similar quotations" would avail but little. But since he has not favored us with any passages from their writings, of course, it is not necessary for me to examine their testimony — however, I will set before the reader the testimony of at least two of them. Tertullian, who was only a Presbyter, and, therefore, could have had no wish to magnify the powers of the Bishop, says — "The right of administering this ordinance, (Baptism) belongs to the Chief Priest, which is the Bishop, next to him, the Presbyters, and the Deacons have the right to administer it, but not without the Bishop's authority, in regard to the honor of the Church, which being kept inviolate, peace is safe." (Tertul. de Baptism, § 17, Ed. Paris, A. D. 1695, p, 230.) From this passage, we learn these things : First, since Tertullian calls the Bishop the Chief Priest, that the analogy between the Jewish Priesthood and the Christian Priesthood was understood in the first century. Second, that not only Presbyters, but the Deacons also, Baptised. Thirdly, that neither Presbyters nor 25 Deacons could Baptise, except by virtue of authority derived FROM THE Bishop in ordination. Again, writing against the heretics of his day, he says: "But if they dare to insert themselves into the Apostolic Age, in order that they may appear to have been handed down from the Apostles, inasmuch as they subsistedin their time, we may say : let them show the o?>igixals of their Churches : let them unroll the list of their Bishops descending by succession from the beginning, and prove that their first Bishop had his author and predecessor, either among the Apostles, or from those Apostolic men who labored with the Apostles. For in this ma>ner, the Apostolic Churches prove their authority. Thus the Church of the Smyrnaeans declare that Polycarp was placed there by John, (Tertul. de Paerscript. Haeretic. §31, §32, ib. p. 213.) What does Mr. A. say to this test ? I presume he would rather resort to his plausible but fallacious argument of "success." Now let us hear Clemens Alexandrinus, who was born about the time of the death of the Apostle John. Having mentioned some of the rules of conduct contained in Scripture, he says; "There are other precepts without number which concern men, in particular capacities : some which relate to Presbyters ; others which belong to Bishops; others respecting Deacons." (Peddag. Lib. 3, c. 12.) Such was the opinion of one who had conversed with those who had conversed with the Apostles, respecting the contents of Holy Scripture. Yet Mr. A., seventeen centuries afterwards, writes, "Her Great Head has laid down no special form of Church Government." (jD, 20.) This remark casts such dishonor upon God, that I shudder to notice it. God, the Head and Founder of the Church, and yet has left it without any special form of Government ! ! Has short sighted man ever founded a community or society without a form of government? But I am anticipating. Another passage from Clemens. He says: " In the Church, the orders of Bishops, Pres- byters, and Deacons, are, I think, imitations of the angelic glory." (Strom. Lib. 6.) And now I will summon from among the ancient worthies too or three, not mentioned by Mr, A. Origen, Catechist of the Church of Alexandria, in Egypt, A. D., 230, says : "Shall I not be subject to my Bishop, who is ordained of God to be my Father? Shall I not be subject to the Presbyter, who by the Divine condescension, is placed over me?" — (20th Homily on ^t. Mathew.) Cypriun, Bishop of Carthage, A. D. 250,) says, "This, brother, is and ought to be, our principal labor and study, to the utmost of our power, to take care that the unity may still obtain which was de- livered BY our Lord and by his Apostles to us their successors." (Epistle to Cornelius, Bishop of Rome.) In another place he says, "From thence, through the course of times and successions, the ordination of Bishops, and the frame of the Church, is transmitted, so that the Church is built upon the Bishops, and all her aff;urs are ordered by the Chief Rulers ; and, therefore, seeing this is God's appointment, I must needs wonder at the audacious daring of some who have chosen to write to me as if in the name oi' a Church, 26 whereas a Church is only constituted in the Bishop, Clergy, and faithful Christians." — (Epistle to the Lapsed.) But I will not lire my reader's patience by giving additional testimony, being wiling that he should now judge whether Mr. A. is correct in stating that we have "none" of the Fathers in our favor. CHAPTER III. PowelVs Argument Examined — Wesley^s Ordination of Coke — Coke's Efforts to obtain Consecration — Methodist Organi- zation — Church Government Instituted in Scripture — Some Passages of Presley's and Coke's Letters Reviewed — Schism Forbidden in Scripture — 7 he Secession oj the Methodists Unjustifiable—Divisions, and other Evil Fruits of Methodism.. The argument which Mr, A. borrows from Powell, may influence those who already think with him, and even perplex some who do not — but a little reflection will enable the candid mind to see that it is a fallacy. This is the argument : — "The two Sacraments of Bap- tism and the Lord's Supper, are the greatest Ritual Ordinances in the Church. Ordination is not a Sacrament; it is therefore less than a Sacrament ; and Presbyters have authority to administer the Sacra- ments ; therefore, they have power to confer Orders." First, then, I remark, that this argument m,ust be a sophism — for if it be sound, it proves too much — which is shown in this way. Baptism is greater than Ordination ; therefore, he who has authority to Baptise, has authority to confer Ordination, Deacons have authority to Baptise; therefore, Deacons have authority to confer Ordination. Now, this last conclusion, is contrary not only to the principles of the Church — but also to the principles of Methodism and Presby- terianism. Mr. A., as well as we, denies that a Deacon has the right to ordain, though it is evident that he has, according to the premises contained in the argument above stated. But inaa:much as he has not this authority, the conclusion being false, the premises from which it is logically deduced, must be false also. And since the premises are manifestly false, the conclusion which Mr. Powell and Mr. A. draw, viz. that Presbyters have the right to Ordain, is false too. This is a sufficient refutation — but 1 wfll add the great question is, whether Presbyters have the authority to Ordain : i. e. the authority to commission other men to ordain and administer the Sacraments. And whether a Sacrament be greater than Ordination, i.e., the act of Ordination is irrelevant. The authority to commission others, both to Ordain and to administer the Sacraments, is obviously greater than the authority to administer only the Sacraments, Be- sides, a Presbyter, as an officer of the Church, can possess no authority but what the Church has given him, and if the Church has never given him the ordaining commission, he cannot exercise it, even if it 27 be less than the act which he is empowered to perform. A Judge can preside in a Court of Justice, and give sentence according to the prescribed regulations ; but he cannot commission another man to do so, neither can he perform the far inferior functions of a Constable. Yet it is by such reasoning that Mr. A. maintains that Mr. Wesley had authority to ordain others ! Reasoning that proves (if it proves any thing) that even Deacons can ordain ! Such is the reasoning by which Mr. A. proves himself in the succession ! But he not only claims for Mr. Wesley this authority upon such false reasoning — but also makes Mr. W. exercise it in the must absurd way imaginable. He says that Wesley ''did ordain Dr. Coke!" (p. 13.^ Now since both of these men were Presbyters of the Church — one Presbyter ordains another Presbyter ! According to Mr. A., Wesley had authority to ordain, because he was a Presbyter : if so, Coke being a Presbyter, possessed the same authority — and therefore, had as much right to ordain Wesley as Wesley had to ordain him. Mr. A. maintains that a Presbyter has as much authority as a Bishop, indeed that they are one and the same. This is true or false. If true, then Coke needed no further ordination. If false, JVesley could notconfer it. By the former, Coke's pretended ordination by Wesley would be sacrilege : by the latter a nullity. Mr. A. says (p. 13) "From him (Dr. Coke,) all Methodist Ministers have received their ordinations, and with it, they are perfectly satisfied. Nor would they give a fig to have the authority of their orders heightened by the imposition of the hands of the Primate of England." But it seems Dr. Coke (who ought to have understood the matter) thought dif- ferendy. In 1784, Mr. Wesley "appointed him a Superintendent," over the Methodists in this country. After he had been here a shor: time, he assumed the title of Bishop, for which Mr. Wesley in 1788 most severly rebukes him. In April, 1791, he writes to Bishop White, proposing to return to the bosom of the Church, and stating that, 'Hhe generality of the Methodist Preachers, perhaps none of them, would refuse to submit to a re-ordination f^ though this, o{ course, could not be done without acknowledging the nullity of the ordination which Dr. Coke had given them. Again: a little later he writes to Bishop Seabury, proposing the return of the Methodists to the Church, and stating, ''I well know that they {the Preachers^) must submit to a re-ordination''^ — "//ie magnitude of the object would justify considerable sacrifices'''' — and suggesting that he and Mr. Asbury should be consecrated Bishops — although they had been claiming the authority of Bishops several years. Once more: Dr, Coke was so fully convinced that he was no Bishop, and so anxious to be made one, that in 1813 he writes to Wilberforce, promising to "return, most fully and faithfully into the bosom of the established Church," if they \vould make him Bishop of India! Thus, wha. Mr. A. is satisfied with — the man to whom he traces it, was sodissc-isfied with, that he requests, humiliating as it must iiave been, at three distinct times, and of three different persons. Episco- pal Ordination ! What Mr. A. would not "give a fig for," his 28 ^'First Bishop''^ repeatedly and most humbly begged and esteemed worthy of "considerable sacrifices." If a Churchman now dares to intimate that Methodist Orders are invalid, it is termed *'slander," bigotry" and "persecution." Although the mayi ivho conferred them, again and again acknowledged their insufficiency. Mr. A's tirade against Bishops, and expressions in favor of minis- terial parity would lead one to suppose that there is but one Order or rank of Ministers in the Methodist organization ; whereas, in this particular, it resembles the Church as nearly as the shadow can resemble the substance: it is nominally Episcopal In the Methodist Book of Discipline, the reader will find three different offices or forms — the first for ordaining Deacons — the second for ordaining Presbyters, and the third /or ordaining Bishops — all copied (with a few slight omissions) verbatim et literatim., from our Prayer Book. Among the Methodists, as in the Church, a man cannot baptise until he has been ordained a Deacon — he cannot administer the Lord's Supper alone, until he has been ordained a Presbyter, and he cannot administer ordination (unless all the Bishops fail) until he has been ordained Bishop. Is this ministerial parity ? Is this con- sistent with their theory, that Presbyter and Bishop are the same in rank and authority ? If a Presbyter is a Bishop, as Mr. Wesley professed to have been convinced, and as Mr. A. contends — why do the Methodists ordain a Presbyter, again, before he can receive the litle, and perform the functions of a Bishop? Is not this absurd? Thus the principle and theory upon which they forsook the Church, though sii\\ professed, is practically abandoned. If Mr. A. were to act as Mr. Wesley is said to have done, undertake to confer ordina- tion, he would be "expelled from the connection." And yet, if a Churchman calls in question the propriety of Wesley's act, he is accused of " exclusiveness, intolerance," &;c. If Mr. Wesley did ordain Dr. Coke, how is such an act to be reconciled with Mr. Wesley's obligation to the Church ? Before God's Holy Altar, he had solemnly promised to obey the Bishops, and to conform to the regulations and principles of the English Church. According to these principles and regulations, 07ily the Bishops were authorized to admit men to the Ministry, and yet while a Clergyman of the Church, and therefore bound to submit to its regulations — he per- forms an act which was in its nature and tendency subversive of order and government, and also a direct violation of his ordination vows. Mr. Wesley was of course at liberty to separate from the Church, bztt while he remained in it, he was morally bound to acquiesce in its established arrangements, supposing that they were merely human, and especially in one of so much moment as this. No society, religious or civil, could exist, if its m.embers were permitted to perform whatever functions they might choose. I know the reverential reat^rd which our Methodist brethren enter- tain for the memory of Wesley, and I am sorry to make remarks which may give them pain. But let them impartially consider the relation and obligations of Wesley to the Church, and surely they 29 cannot but adrr.it, either, that Wesley did not undertake to ordain and to organize a distinct sect, or that his conduct was utterly un- justifiable. As long as they are Methodists, they feel bound, Preachers and People, to conform to the regulations of their DiscipUne. And was not Wesley, as long as he continued in the Church, (which he did to the day of his death) equally bound to conform to its regulations? Let Mr. Wesley's relation to the Church be candidly considered, and the view taken by "Tract No. 4" that he did 7iot intend to ordain, whether correct or not, must appear charitable at least. I have mentioned that the Methodists have nominal Episcopacy — the only "plea" that they make for it, however, is "expediency," says Mr. A. Episcopacy then is expedient, i. e., the best adapted to the nature and design of the Church. But does not that very fact render it probable that it is the Divinely Appointed mode of Ecclesi- astical Organization ? Since the Divine Wisdom is perfect — the plan which is best, would certainly have been instituted. And that some plan was instituted, is admitted by nearly all Christians.* Mr. A. denies this in one part o( his pamphlet, but he certainly contradicts himself, as in another part he endeavours to prove that his theory is contained in the Scriptures. It is surprising to me, that any one with the New Testament before him, should assert thai Ood has instituted "no special form of Church Government." Let the reader first remember how often the Gospel system is called a kingdom, both in the Old and New Testament. And can there be a kingdom without a "Form of Government?" Let him then consider the commission which the Saviour gave to his Apostles, "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." "I appoint unto you a kingdom as my Father appointed unto me." "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven." Does not this imply a "Form of Government?" Again, "Upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Could a Church be built without a "Form of Government?" Let him further consider the many passages in the Book of Acts, and in * "The visible Church, which is also Catholic or Universal under the Gospel * * * * is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation^ Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. 25, sec. 2. "Jesus Christ, who is now exalted far above all, principality and power, hath erected in this world a Kingdom which is his Church." Presbyterian Form of Gov., chap. 1, sec. 1. In a report to the late General Assembly, by a Committee of which the Rev. Robt. J. Breckenridge, D. D., was Chairman, they say of the famous Westminister Assembly of Divines, tliat with all the differences in that body on other subjects, "they were entirely of one mind in asserting Church Government to he jure divino.^^ See also the Dutch Reformed Formularies. 30 the Epistles which relate to ordination and to the administration of discipline — all of which imply a Form of Government. Surely no one will deny that there was a Church in the days of the Apostles, instituted by the Saviour, either in person or by the agency of the Apostles. But it is obvious that a Church could not have existed, any more than any other association or society, without a Form of Government. If then, there was a Church, it must have had a Form of Government, coeval with it. And since the Church was founded by the Saviour through his Apostles, i.e., by "Divine Right" or authority — the form of government, which was necessarily a part of it, must be by "Divine Right" also. But has not Mr. A. contradicted his own standards also ? In the "form" of ordaining Deacons, con- tained in the Methodist Discipline, there is a prayer containing these words : " Almighty God, who by thy Divine Providence hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church, and didst inspire thy Apostles to choose into the Order of Deacons, thy first Martyr St. Stephen, with others." Here then, is a recognition of the Divine institution of the Christian Ministry, by the Methodist Discipline ; which Mr. A. has denied, by asserting that God "has laid down no special form of Chuich Government" — for in the phrase, "Church Government" — he must of course refer chiefly, if not exclusively to the Ministry, otherwise his remark is irrelevant — that being the great matter in dispute. Let the reader note in this quotation from the Discipline, the phrase, '-^divers orders^^ — which implies that this Divine Ministry embraces various Orders by Divine arrangement. The word "divers" cannot mean less than two. Consequently, the doctrine of the Discipline is,that God has instituted at least two Orders of Ministers — which is inconsistent with *'Minis- terial parity" also. Thus it seems, the Discipline claims "Divine Right" for two Orders — notwithstanding Mr. A. asserts that to this claim can be "traced every drop of Protestant blood which has been shed from the first!" (p. 23.; The Discipline being judge, then, God has instituted a Ministry in the Church. And according to the principle before mentioned, if an Episcopal Ministry be expedient (as Mr. A. concedes) i. e., the best, the Ministry 'which God instituted, must have been Episcopal, for of course God must have instituted the best. But further, Mr. A. has also contradicted Mr. Wesley, although Wesley's writings are acknowledged to be the authoritative exposi- tions of the Methodist creed.* The Prayer Book asserts, that "from the Apostles'' tirnes^'' there have been these Orders of men in * We find the following in the Christian Advocate (Methodist Organ) of Feb. 8th, 1843. "The Bible is the supreme authority in matter and manner for a Methodist Minister, Next to it, are the articles of Faith of our Church, and Mr. Wesley's Notes, and four volumes of Sermons.''^ Let the reader compare the Discipline with the Prayer Book and he will find that these "Articles of Faith" are likewise borrowed from the latter, almost word for word. Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons." And to this doctrine Mr. Wesley subscribed, ex animo. And as a Clergymen of the Church, he professed it to the day of his death. And he not only professed it — but taught it In his sermon on the "Catholic Spirit," he says : "I believe the Episcopal form of Church Government to be Scriptural and Apostolical.'^'' Thus it is proved that Mr. Wesley believed that God has appointed a form of Church Government, and further, that that form is the Epis- copal one. Consequently, Mr. A. has contradicted Wesley, and Wesley maintained, as well as we, the "Divine Right" of Episcopacy, so that all Mr. A's harsh epithets and uncharitable insinuations of "arrogance" "intolerance," &;c. apply to the "shade of Mr. Wesley" too. But perhaps he will say, that Mr. Wesley thought differently later in life. Why then did he continue in a Church which held that Episcopacy, (consisting of three distinct Orders) was Scriptual? And haw could he consistently use this language, "I declare once more that I live and die a member of the Church of England; and that none who regard my judgment or advice, will ever separate from it,^^ which he published in the "Arminian Magazine" for April, 1790, only a kw months before his death. Again,his letter to Mr. Asbury (see p. 4 J evidently implies, tliat if his faith in the "Divine Right of Bishops" failed at the moment of his alleged Ordination of Coke, it had returned in full vigor —for he writes thus : "One instance of this your greatness, has given me great concern. How ca7i you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be called a Bishop?''^ "For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this.'''' Here it will be said that Mr. Wesley objected only to the name of Bishop. But this is utterly improbable. It is not to be supposed that a mere name would have called foi'th such a solemn and earnest protest. Besides, if Wesley was still of the opinion that "Bishops and Presbyters were the same order," as he had stated in the document authorizing Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury to act as Superinten- dents — he certainly would not have rebuked him, for calling himself what he really was, according to Mr. Wesley's own admissions. The only ground upon which Mr. Wesley could have reproved Asbury with so much severity was, that he did not possess the rank and authority of a Bishop. While at the same time I admit that that ground is inconsistent with Mr. Wesley's profession, that he had been convinced by King's book* that Bishops and Presbyters were one order, but this profession also is inconsistent with his position as a Clergyman of the Church, and with his views, as set forth in his sermons and addresses, both before and after the alleged Ordination. '* This work was written by Sir Peter King, when about 22 years of age ! Mr. Slater wrote a reply to it, which was so complete a refutation of its errors as to convince Sir Peter himself. And when he became Lord Chancellor, he presented Mr. Slater a very desirable benefice. 83 I know of but one way to harnnonize all these conflictincr d( cu-- ments, professions, actions, &c., which is by supposing that Wesley hastily yielded to the solicitations of Coke and others, in opposition to his deliberate convictions. Here let the reader turn back to Dr. Coke's letter to Wesley, (p. 5,) and Coke's letter to Bishop White, in which he thus remarks: — "He (Wesley) he'mg pressed by our friends on this side of the water for Ministers to administer the Sacraments, * * * * went further^ I am sure, than he ivnulcl have gone, if he had foreseen some events which followed. And THIS I AM CERTAIN OF THAT HE IS NOW SORRY FOR THE SEPARA- TION." And in this letter Dr. Coke also asserts that Wesley "did not intend, I think, that an entire separation should take place." Surely Dr. Coke must have understood Mr. Wesley's intention. And he tells us that Wesley "did not intend an entire separation should take place," And yet Mr. A. accuses the author of "Tract No. 4,'' of "false-witness" and "slander," for having maintained the same opinion ! The reader has now seen that Mr. Wesley believed and taufht the Scripturalness of Episcopacy — that his dying advise* to the Metho- dists was that they should never leave the Church — that (Dr. Coke being witness) he did not intend an "entire separation" — that he "went further then he would have gone, if he had forseen some events which followed" — that he was afterward " sorry for the separation," and that Dr. Coke likewise repented of the proceedurCy and repeatedly sought re-ordination for himself, and for those whom he had undertaken to ordain. The question may now be asked why did they separate-^ — or rather,, why do the Methodists of the present day persist in the separation? Is there no sin in schism ? Did not our Lord repeatedly pray (John 17th ch.) that his Disciples might be one, as a proof of his Divine Mission? Says St. Paul to the Romans, (chap. 16, v. 17, 18,) "Now I beseech you brethern, mark them which cause divisions and offen- ces contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned ; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly ; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." Again, with similar earnestness — "Now 1 beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you." (1 Cor, ch. 1, v. 10,) "For whereas, there is among you envying, strife and divisions ; are ye not carnal and walk as men? For while one saiih I am of Paul, and another, I am of ApoUos ; are ye not carnal?"" (1 Cor. ch. 2, V. 4.) In making these quotations, I do not wish to insinuate that the Methodists in separating from the Church, were actuated by bad motives — on the contrary, I believe they were sincere and upright in their designs — but only to show that the word of God forbid divisions. Dpon this point, a late number of the *This advice has within the last few years been disregared by the Methodists in England, too. Methodist Christian Advocate, takes the true Scriptural ground. The "Senior editor," (remonstrating with those who have recently withdrawn from the Methodist Society, and formed another sect, says : " Such an act (separation) is always either a duty or a sin. It is a duty when we are required to believe what we think to be untrue, or to do what we believe to be sin, as a condition of membership; and it is a sin to do so, for any lighter reason"* Did the Church require such a "condition of membership ?" Wesley is the witness that it did not. And here, we might easily furnish many proofs from his writings, but the one solemn declaration already given is sufficient: '■'I declare once more that I live and die a member of the Church of England; and that none who regard my judgment or advice ivill ever separate from it " Fletcher, who is also high authority with our Methodist brethren, is another witness — for he, too, lived and died in the Church. Wesley was a Clergyman of the Church for more than half a century, and died in its bosom; beseeching his followers never to forsake it. Therefore, there could have been no such "condition of membership" in his day. And there have been no other terms of communion imposed by the Church since ; they are precisely the same now, as when Wesley published the above declaration. According, then, to the principle laid down by the editor of the Methodist Advocate, and the testimony and conduct of Wesley, there was no cause sufficient to justify a separation. And if so, is it right to persist in that separation ? Is it not an utter disregard of the dying wishes of Wesley — and of the solemn prohibitions of the Bible? I freely admit that Methodtism has done much good. But did it not do as much good when con- nected with the Church ? Might it not have done much more if they had continued with us ?t Until they prove the contrary (which is impossible,) I see not how they can be satisfied with this mode of reasoning, admitting it to be legitimate. Wesley always considered it the " peculiar glory" of Methodism, that it produced no schism, as other systems had done. "This is a new thing in the world," says he : " this is the peculiar glory of the people called Methodists. In spite of all manner of temptations, they will not separate from the Church. What many, so earnestly covet, they abhor: they will not be a distinct body.' (Vol. 7, p, 320, 21.) * Wesley takes the same ground in opposition to those who wished to leave the Church — See his Sermon "On Schism." t At the time of Wesley's death, the Methodists in the British Dominions, (who were still in the Church) amounted to 76,968 — whereas, in the United States, at the same pariod, and after they had been separated from the Church seven years, there were but 57,621. Southey's Life of Wesley, (vol. 2, p. 409.) Since Wesley's death, the Methodists of England have also separated from the Church — and a year or two ago the annual report showed a decrease of more than 2000. Again — says he, " When the great Reformation began, what moun 3* 34 tainous offences lay in the way of even the sincere members of the Church of Rome ! They saw such failings in those great men, Luther and Calvin. The grand stumbling block of all was their open, avowed separation from the Church." " The same occasion (in England) of offence was given by the Presbyterians and Independents ; for they also spent great part of their time and strength concerning the circumstantials of religion ; and, for the sake of these, separated from the Church. " How wide then is the difference between our case and the case of any of those that are above mentioned ! They avowedly separated from the Church: we utterly disavow any such design. They severally, and almost continually, inveighed against the Doctrines and Discipline of the Church they left; we approve both the Doctrine and Biscipilne of our Church. (He 'speaks to a member of the Church of England.) They spent a great part of their time and strength in contending about externals and circumstantials: we agree with you in both. We were born and bred up in your own Church, and desrre to die therein." — Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion^ part 3,v, ^p. 171." But alas ! Their "peculiar glory" has departed. They have long ago deserted the mother that gave them birth ! And has not the result proved the truth of "Wesley's declarations? Among other reasons which he assigned against separating from the Church are these: "God has, since the Reformation, raised up from time to time, many witnesses of pure Religion. But if, upon any provocation or consi- deration whatever, they separated, and founded distinct parties, their influence was more and more confined: they grew less and less useful to others, and generally lost the spirit of religion themselves, in the spirit of controversy. Because, we have many instances of this, even now before our eyes. Many have, in our memory, left the Church, and formed themselves into distinct bodies. And certainly some of them, from a real persuasion that they should do God more service. But have any separated themselves and prospered ? Have they been either more holy, or more useful than they were before ?" I know that the Methodists have increased in numbers. But have not "divisions" increased in proportion? An English author states that in England, " the Methodists are subdivided into an immense variety of sects — the chief are Wesleyans, AVhitfieldians, Ranters, Brianites, Protestant Methodists, Tent Methodists, Independent Methodists and Kilhamites," Here, then, are named e\g\\i principal divisions : how many subdivisions make up the " immense variety," I know not.* In this country, Methodism is much younger — but liere too, division has followed multiplication at a fearful rate. After Mr. Asbury had succeeded in healing the first schism by persuading the preachers to renounce their pretended power to * According to the statistics of last year, or the year before, Wes- leyanism in England, was on the wane. " The Watchman," its organ, stated, " that in the Home Stations, the decrease this year, has been 2065." Another English paper states, " during the last 95 administer the Sacraments, and wait until they had received Presby- terian Ordination through Mr. Wesley, the first troublesome spirit who arose was Mr. William Hammett, of Charleston, S. C,, who in 1785, became the founder of a separate sect called ^'"Primitive Methodists:' In 1792, Mr. James O'Kelly, of Virginia, started another, with greater prospects of success, called " Republican Methodists:'' Next came Mr. Pliney Brett, of Massachusetts, who in 1813, became the leader of the ''^Reformed Methodists:^ In 1827, commenced another offshoot, denominated the ''-Methodist Protestants:'' headed by Messrs. McCaine, Jennings, Shinn, and others ; which appears to be increasing, Lastly, in 1842, Messrs, Sutherland, Scott and Co., laid the foundation of a new body called " TVesleyan Methodists:'' which held a Convention recently at Utica, N. Y., attended by about one hundred Preachers, and one hundred and seventy-five lay delegates from ten States. With this body, it is said that from six to eight hundred members, with one hundred and fifty Preachers, have united, having seceded from the Old Methodists. And according to a late number of the Christian Advocate, a great disturbance was caused among the Preachers at a recent Conference in New England, upon the absurd dream of Millerism. A number of the Preachers maintained, not only that Miller's theory is in the Bible, but worse still — that God had ac- tually revealed it to them by direct inspiration. Judging of the future by the past, and by present indications, I cannot doubt that the whole 'connection' will ere long split into numberless fragments. In- deed, the Methodists themselves are looking to the future withdeadful apprehensions. A late number of the Richmond Christian Advocate, (Methodist paper) says : "In many respects, and for many reasons, the next General Conference will be the most important one, to the peace, unity, and prosperity of the Church, that has ever assem- bled. A variety of circumstances, long passing before our mind, and constantly impressing us, have united to work out this conviction. For months we have been silent spectators of scenes, and plans, and propositions, rife with the distraction of all that is excellent or valuable in our prized, and heretofore blessed Ecclesiastial Union. We write to forewarn our brethren, to show them the gathering of the elements, the coming on of the storm, before they are called to con- template the disasters of its spent fury." year eight Methodists Preachers at Bolton, Lancashire, have been received into communion with the Church. A building in Bolton, late a Preai^hing-house of New Methodists, is now a Licensed Chapel^ and Mr. Berry, the late Preacher, is now the Rev. Thomas Berry ; he, and n< .irly all his Congregation, having relinquished dissent. His coadj'.i'or had previously determined to leave the connection and go to the University. Six Local Preachers, all the Trustees, who had been dissatisfied for some time, and the greater part of the Teachers and Scholars, are now united to the Church, under their former Teacher, now an Ordained Minister of Christ, and the building will hereafter be Consecrated, having been conveyed for that purpose." In England, before the death of Wesley, the good fruits of Me- thodism were marred by much evil. Wesley himself furnishes- testimony in this point. Speaking of Methodistism, he says : ''It brought forth error in ten thousand shapcsr turning many of the simple out of the way. It brought forth enthusiasm, imagi- nary inspiration, ascribing to the all-wise Qod all the wild ^ aOs'f'rdj self-inconsistent dreams of an heated imagination. It brought forth pride, robbing the Giver of every good gift of the honor due to His name,. It brouglit forth prejudice, evil-surmising, censoriousness, judging and condemning one another; all totally subversive of that brotherly love vi^hich is the very badge of the Christian profession ; without which whosoever liveth is counted, dead before God. It brought foEth anger, hatred, malice, revenge, and every evil word and work ; all direful fruits, not of the Holy Spirit^, but of the bottomless pit,^* — Wesley's Sermons, VoL VI., p. 66. See also Bis^hop Manl's Bampton Lectures,/). 310, 311. Sixth edition." (Southey's Life of Wesley, Vol. a, p, 383.) Here I repeat, that II have no wish to wound the feelings of our Methodist brethren. From, the moment they separated from the Church to the present time, the^ propriety and expediency of the separation have been legitimate and. important subjects of discussion. Mr. A. and others may attempt to smother such discussion by terming it the "mad cry of persecu- tion," biat in vain. The only weapons which Churchmen wield or wish to wield are Light and Truth. And these they will never cease^ to wieldl We well know that there are thousands among the Methodists who only require a little more information upon this point to lead them to return to the fold from whieh they have un- consciously strayed. It is for their benefit, and from Christian love, that we endeavourto diffuse through every community the knowledge which is so much needed;. So far from being enemies to the Methodists (as Mr. A. \ery unfairly rcrpresents us,) we are their friends— we seek to do them good — we seek to bring them back to the good "old path" in which Wesley, Whitfield and Fletcher walked. When we consider the numberless divisions, and other "direful evils" which haiJe resulted from the first separation, we canwot but ques^on its propriety — because, (if there were no other reason,) there are no good results to counterbalance these evils — for the good which has been done, would have been done (and probably muidi miore) without separatton. CHAPTER IV. Testimony of English Divines Examined — They held the ^^Divinf Right'*'' of Episcopacy — Their Opinions ^ whatever they were, are- to be Judged by Scripture and Ancient Authors, I will now examine the testimony which Mr. A. claims against Episcopacy from English Divines. He first gives us an extract from WickUffe — thouglfc, as usual, without rejference— which in substances. 37 is only this, that in "the time of St. Paul, two Orders (a Priest and iDeacon) were sufficient, and that, then. Bishop and Presbyter were snames of the same office." The latter sentence is irrelevant — as it ■is not disputed. The former is ambiguous. It may be fairly inter- ipreted, so as to harmonise with Episcopacy. Wickliffe probably means that two Orders besides the Apostles were at first sufficient. M so, then he is not against us — l^ut if not, then he contradicts the New Testament — -every reader of which must know that the Apostles, 3iot only ordained those called Presbyters, but, also, exercised a superintendence over them. He contradicts the Fathers who lived in the days of the Apostles and immediately after — and he contradicts ^is own Church. Wickliffe believed in purgatory, and many other things which are nowrejected. But here letme remind the reader that the question is respecting the organization of the Church in the First Age, and therefore, it is to be decided by the New Testament, and the testimony of the Fathers, men who lived in the days of the Apostles, or soon after. Consequently that the o|}inions of modern writers possess no authority. Wickliffe did not live until the fourteenth century, and therefore, is not a competemt witness. Mr. A. next gives an extract from Burnet's History of the Re- formation. That history- embraces three large volumes, and yet Mr. A, has given (as usual) ro reference ! When a writer attempts to prove ■a position by authorities, surely he should direct his reader where to ifind his quotations. Otherwise, it amounts to no more than his own assertion. And he might as well content himself with a simple affirmation or denial of the proposition discussed. Of course, Mr. A would NOT iNTENiiONALLY misrepresent a writer, but every man is liable to make mistakes : besides, persons often meet with extracts at second hand, which they press into their service, supposing them to be accurate. Mr. A. asserts that Burnet gives an account of a convocation, " In which near forty of the principal Bishops, and Clergymen of England, on considering this very subject, declare that Bishops, and Presbyters or Elders, are the same office." *' That their power, authority and commission under Christ, are equal. That they have equal power and authority to Ordain and con- secrate others in the same room, order and office, whereunto they be "Called and admitted themselves." After a considerable research, I found the " account" referred to. But the statement of Mr. A. is ESSENTIALLY INACCURATE. In the first placc, these Divines were not engaged in '^considering this very subject" — (whether there is an equality between Presbyter and Bishop) but the authority and •duties of the Ministry in general. Burnet gives the whole of the document containing the declaration set forth by these Divines. It is aimed against the assumption of the power of the sword by the Pope, and the numerous inferior Orders, as sub-Deacon, Lecter, &c. I will here quote the first paragraph of this document entire : "As touching the Sacrament of Holy Orders, we will, that all Bishops and Preachers shall instruct, and teach our people, committed by us, -unto their spiritual charge. — First, how, that Christ and his 38 Apostles did institute and ordain in the New Testament : that besides the civil powers and governance of Kings and Princes, which is called in Scripture potestas gladii, the power of the sword, there should be also continually in the Churcii militant, certain other MINISTERS OR OFFICERS, which should havo spiritual power, au- thority, AND COMMISSION UNDER Christ, to prcach and teach the word of God unto his people, and to dispense and administer the Sacraments of God unto them, and by the same to confer and give the Grace of the Holy Ghost to consecrate the blessed body of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, to loose and absolve from sin, all per- sons which be truly penitent and sorry for the same ; to bind and excommunicate such as be guilty in manifest crimes and sins, and will not amend their defaults ; to order and consecrate others IN the same room, order and office whreeunto they be called AND admitted THEMSELVES ; aud finally, to feed Christ's people like Pastors and Rectors, as the Apostles calleth them, with their wholesome doctrine, and by their continual exhortations and moni- tions to redeem them from sin and iniquity, so much as in them lieth ; and to bring them unto the perfect knowledge, and perfect love, and dread of God, and unto the perfect charity of their neigh- bours." (Burnet's History of Reformation, part 1, Addend, to Record, p. 321.) Let the reader compare this quotation with Mr. A's statement, and he will perceive that the words in small caps^ are all that Mr. A. has given; consequently, that his extracts are garbled. Those few words have been cut out, here and there, from this large paragraph, and placed by the side of words with which they have no connection, and which are found in no part of the document ! The reader sees for himself that the portion of the document given above, and in which only the words quoted by Mr. A. occur, describes the duties, not of any particular Order of Ministers, but of the Ministry in general, as a Divine Institution. And, there- fore, to represent the document as declaring that the power "to order and consecrate others" belongs equally to Presbyters and Bishops, is erroneous. He might with as much fairness represent it as ascribing this power to the Deacons, since they are a part of the Ministry. Is this a candid and upright course ? Is it by such means that the theory of ordination by Presbyters is to be maintained ? What could be a stronger proof of conscious weakness, than a resort to such reprehensible and contemptible artifices 1 The only plausible pretence for the first part of Mr. A's statement, viz. that they declared that Bishops and Presbyters, or Elders, are the same office, is found in the latter part of the document, which is, that the Christian Ministry was committed by the Apostles, *'to certain persons only, that is to say, unto Priests or Bishops," and that " in the New Testament, there is no mention made of any degrees and distinctions in Orders ; but only of Deacons, or Minis- ters, and Priests, or Bishops." But another extract from it, and a few remarks from Burnet will set this right. "It was also ordained (says the document) and commanded by the Apostles, that the 39 SAME Sacrament of Orders should be applied and ministered 3Y THE Bishop [not Priest] from time to time, unto such other persons as had the qualities, &c." These extracts being put to- gether, it is evident that these Divines had adopted a theory then very prevalent, that is, that Bishops and Presbyters make up the Christian Priesthood — the former possessing superiority in this respect — as having the exclusive right to Ordain. Just as in the Old Testament, which is the model, the Priesthood was composed of Priests and High Priests — the latter possessing certain superior rights. The theory is perfectly consistent with Episcopacy, and equally irreconcilable with Presbyterian Ordination. Under the Mosaic Dispensation, the High Priest was over all the other Priesst, and he only could enter the Holy of Holies. And yet he is repeatedly called Priest, (see Ex. 29, 30 and Neh. 7, 65.) In the same manner it was sometimes customary to speak of the Bishop as a part of the one Priesthood, and to class both him and his Presbyters under the same term of "Priests." A Bishop is a Priest, but a Priest is not necessarily a Bishop — the latter being the specific title of those Priests who have inherited from the Aposdes the power of Ordination and Government. Burnet gives the following explanation : Says he, '* It was then [in the Primitive times] thought enough, that a Bishop was to be dedicated to his function by a new inposition of hands, and that several offices could not be performed without Bishops, such as Ordination, Confirmation, &c., but they did not refine in these matters, so much as to inquire whether Bishops and Priests differed in Order and Office, or only in Degree." He says in later times, the Schoolmen and Canonists, though from different motives, " studied to make Bishops and Priests seem very near one another.'' " The Schoolmen having set up the grand mystery of Transubstantiation," wished to exalt the Priests, as much as possible, seeing they turned the bread and wine (in the Sacrament) into God. And that the Ca- nonists, endeavoured to depress the Bishops, in order to elevate the Popes. Hence it became common to speak of Bishops and Priests as the same office. Burnet adds, " It is no wonder if at this time [of the Reformation] the Clergy of this Church, the greatest part of them BEING still leavened with the old superstition, and the rest of them not having enough of spare time to examine lesser matters, retained still the former phrases in this particular. "For these [notions of the Schoolmen] are the very dregs of Popery, the one raising the Priests higher, for the sake of Transubstantiation, the other pulling the Bishops lower, for the sake of the Popes' Supremacy." (Hist, of Ref. Part, 4 page 366.) When it is remembered that some of these Divines, being Bishops, had been Consecrated, or in other words been Ordained, to a higher rank after they had received the Priest- hood, and that they were in the habit of Ordaining other Priests to the same rank, it must be evident they could not have intended to assert that all Priests have the right to Ordain by virtue of their second or Priestly ordination. And if they did not mean that, the document 40 contains nothing to Mr. A's. purpose. But even supposing that Mr. A. has correctly represented their opinions on this point, it avails^ nothing — they are but opinions. All the proof in this controversy must be drawn from the New Testament, and patristic writings. Besides, of all modern Divines these were at that time* least qualified to form a correct judgment — for the reason mentioned in Burnet's explanation. They were ],ust beginning to emerge from the darkness of the age. Their knowledge of Scripture must then have been comparatively limited. Mr. A. would not be willing to take their opinions, as set forth in this document, upon some other points. For instance they call "Orders" a Sacrament — and not only call it so — but endeavor to ]drove it so by Scripture. Thus in thi& matter they have contradicted the doctrine of the Prayer Booky (which was not completed until more than fifty years after) and therefore,it would be no matter of surprise, if, in their circumstances^ they had erred as to Episcopacy. Again : they declared that one func- tion of the Ministry was "to consecrate the blessed body of Christ, in the Sacrament of the Altar." Does not Mr. A. regard these a& serious errors? Does he not believe them contrary to the New Testament? Yet these divines believe that they were contained in the New Testament. And if they misinterpieted the New Testa^ ment in these particulars, surely it would not be surprising if they had misinterpreted it as to Episcopacy. These men were not the founders of the Church, nor were they the writers of the New Tes- lament, consequently their opinions, like those of other men, must be tried by Scripture, and the Primitive Church. The passage from Cranmer (withotU reference, too,) is entirely irrelevant. We allow all that it states, that at first Bishops and Presbyters were names of one office — which has been explained, I trust to the reader's satisfaction. It is certainly queer that Mr. A.,. after stating that the Prayer Book, which maintains the three Orders Jure Divino, proceeded from Cranmer, should aittempt to represent him as opposed to Episcopacy. Cranmer^s real sentiments may be learned from the following statement put forth by his authority in 1558, in a Sermon on the Power of the Keys : " The ministration of God's word, which our Lord Jesus Christ himself at first did in- stitute, WAS derived from the Apostles unto others after THEM, BY IMPOSITION OF HANDS. AND GIVING THE HoLY GoST, FROM the Aposules' TIME TO OUR DAYS. And ihis was the Consecration, Orders and unction of the Apostles, whereby they, at the beginning, made Bishops and Priests, and this shall continue in the Church even to the world^s f ?>d." In 15.58-9, the following eminent Divines,. Sury, Grindal, Cox, Elmer, Great, Jewell and Horn, all of whom were Bishops, either at that time or subsequently, selected to conduct the Protestant controversy with the Romanists, maintain this asser- tion — "The Apostles' authority is derived upon after ages,. AND conveyed TO THE BiSHOPS THEIR SUCCESSORS.'^ (Collier*^S 1537 or 1538, according to Burnet. 41 Eccles. Hist. 2, 414, 418.) He next gives us a passage from " The Bishop of London.' There have been a great many Bishops of London— yet Mr. A. gives no name, date, or'reference of any kind ! ! I shall therefore pass it over; for, upon the principle before stated, if any Bishop of London ever used such language, it proves nothing, except that he contradicts the Creed of his Church ; and, a man who denies what he professes to believe, is unworthy of credence. But his last testimony is the strangest of all. He gives us a passage from "Bishop Hooker!!" No man of that name has ever filled an English See ! Quotations from Modern authors, if accurate, as before remarked, ;>roi;e nothing; but after such a blunder as this, the reader must perceive that Mr. A. is far from being infallible. CHAPTER V. Testimony of non-Episcopalians in Favor of Episcopacy Univer- sality of Episcopacy — Statements of Dr. Buchanan and Dr. Grant — Ml the Ancient Churches Episcopal. Now I will set before the reader testimony in favor of Episcopacy from writers who were not Episcopalians. And thoutrh it proves nothing positively — if the reader should not be satisfied with the reply which has been made to Mr. A's quotations from modern author?, it will at any rate neutralize any weight which they may possess. Dr. Adam Clarke, the Methodist Commentator, says : "Episcopacy, in the Church of God, is of Divine Appointment : and should be maintained and respected." '* Deacon, Presbyter and Bishop, ex- isted in the Apostolic Church ; and therefore may be considered of Divine Origin.''' (Notes on 1 Tim. 3: 1, 13.) Here is language pertinent and unequivocal. Here is the *' Divine Right of Bishops" asserted by the most learned man that was ever connected with Methodism — a man who had every temptation to believe the contrary. John Calvin, the Father of the Presbyterians, says — "Thus as we have said that a three-fold Ministry is commended to us in Scripture, in like manner, whatever the ancient Church had of the Ministry, it distinguished into three Orders (in tres ordines distinxit.) "For of the Order of Presbyters, part were appointed Pastors and Teachers, the other part presided over the regulation and correction of conduct." *' Therefore, Jerome, where he speaks of five Orders in the Church, enumerates Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, the Believers and the Catechumens." (Calvin's Institutes, Book 4, chap. 4, sec 1.) Again : " Whence the ancient writers often mention this, that the Presbyter differed from the Bishop in nothing, unless in his ?iot possessing the power of Ordaining.'^ (lb. sec. 15.) John Le Clerc. — "But now there are two forms of Church Go- vernment, of which the one is, that where the Church acts under a 42 single Bishop, who alone has the right of Ordaining Presbyters, and the other inferior Orders of Evangelical Ministers : and the other where the Church is governed by equal Presbyters, to whom are joined from the people, certain men of some prudence and irreproacha- ble conduct. Those who have read without prejudice the remains of the most ancient Christian writers, know well that the first form of Discipline, which is called Episcopal, such as we see in the southern part of Great Britain, was every where established in the very next age after the Apostles ; from whence it is reasonable to conclude that it was of Apostolic constitution. But the other which they call Presbyterian, was instituted iu many parts of France, Switzerland, Germany and Holland, by those who in the sixteenth CENTURY seceeded from the Church of Rome." "Those who have read attentively ihe histories of that age," con- tinues the writer, "know perfectly well that this latter form of Church Government was introduced only because the Bishops refused to grant any reformation in those points of Christian doctrine and manners which were complained of as being corruptions. For otherwise, if the Bishops (of the Cliurch of Rome) of that day had been willing to do every where, that which was shortly afterwards done in England, that same Church Government would have obtained at this day amon^ all who seceeded from the Church of Rome, and thus innumerable calamities which have happened from the con- fusions and convulsions of Ecclesiastical affairs, might have been avoided. And a little farther on he says, that "whoever has read the writings of that most eminent man, Hugo Grotius, knows that he vehemently applauded the Episcopal Form of Government^ such as obtained in England, " because, when he had studiously ex- amined the writings of Christian antiquity, he found it to be the primeval form." (Jo. Cler. de Eligendi inter dissent. Christ, sent. § 11, 12.) Again : Hugo Grotius recommended the Episcopal system to the Remonstrants (the Arminians) in Holland. "I advised them, (says he,) to select some amongst themselves for a more eminent grade, as Bishops, and to receive the imposition of hands from the Arch- bishop of Ireland, who is there, that so being Ordained, they might Ordain others" (Grotius de Veritate Religionis Christianas p, 310: Lon. edit. 1813,) Le Clerc, was a Minister of the Dutch Church, and Grotius was a Presbyterian — two of the most famous scholars of the seventeenth contury.* Thus I have given the testimony of *I here add that Mosheim — the learned Church Historian of the Lutheran Persuasion, acknowledges that in the first century^ a person presided in the council of Presbyters to whom the name of Angel and afterwards that of a Bishop, was applied. (Eccles. History, 1st. Cent, part 2, ch. 2.) In the Book of Revelation, the Bishop of Ephesus, Sardis, &c., are addressed under the tide of Angel. (Rev. 2 and 3, chs.) In the Book of Acts (chap. 20,) we learn that there were divers "Elders" at Ephesus. And therefore when St. John 43 four of the most celebrated non-Episcopalians that have ever lived. I have also giverx ample references to the passages quoted, which Mr, A.^has not done in a single instance. I see not how any one can re- sist such testimony, who is governed, at all, by modern authorities. I would especially and respectfully commend to the notice of our Methodist brethren, with whom Dr. Clarke is high authority, the extracts from his learned Commentary. I have now furnished the most decisive testimony from the earliest Christian writers, (some of whom were cotemporary with the Apos- tles,) and from some of the highest authorities among non-Episcopa- lians, that Episcopacy is Apostolical and Divine. As we descend from the third century to modern times, the proofs of its existence co-extensive with Christianity, multiply with the increase of the re- cords and documents of Ecclesiastical history. The writings of ancient authors, and the Canons and Decrees of the Councils, afibrd an amount of evidence which even the most sceptical or most preju- diced cannot resist. And hence our ablest opponents in this contro- versy are compelled to admit that Episcopacy has prevailed at least ever since the second or third century. And yet from that very ad- mission, it follows to a moral certainty, that it is Apostolical. At the beginning of the third century, there must have been many Christians who had conversed with those who had lived within the Apostolic age. Consequently every one must have been familiar with the con- stitution and usages of the Apostolic Church — as much so as we are with the condition of the American Colonies previous to the Revolu- tion. And if Presbyters at first possessed the Ordaining power, they must have been deprived of it within, or very nearly within, the memory of those then living. And as it would have been an extra- ordinary change, and a matter of great interest, it is reasonable to suppose that some writer would have mentioned it : and yet all the ancient writers are wholly silent — not one mentions, or alludes to, such a change !* Consequently, when we ask our opponents for testimony that such a change occurred, they adduce some ambiguous or irrelevent passage, (such as Mr. A. quoted from Jerome,) while we can place against it half a dozen from the same writer, clearly and fully sustaining the Divine Origin of Episcopacy. And when we ask them to specify the date of this great change, (which every one must have known, if it had occurred,) we have this most satisfactory answer: " Some time in the second or third century" ! ! ! Again : Men, all the world over, and in every age, are exceedingly tenacious is commanded to write unto the Angel of the Church at Ephesus (Rev, 2,) the term must designate some one superior officer, such as a Bishop — so the ancient Fathers declares. Some suppose, and very reasonably, that those who inherited the ordaining commission from the Apostles were for a while denominated Angels. * I have already shown that the change mentioned in the quotation from Jerome, occurred in the days of the Apostles, and by their authority, 44 of their rights. To resign authority and power, to which they have been accustomed, is what they will not quietly and tamely consent to. At the close of the Apostolic Age, there must have an immense number of Presbyters scattered nearly all over the then known world — all of whom, according to the theory of our opponents, possessed the high and inestimable right of conferring Orders. And yet, in the course of one century after, they resign ihat right, although a most precious inheritance received from the inspired Apostles, with the solemn injunction to hold it fast, and exercise it " until the ap- pearing of Jesus Christ" — I say, they resign that right without a struggle, and without a murmur, and quietly submit to the domination of a few ambitious usurpers ! ! 1 Can any one believe this ? Here is a question, not to " mathematicians," but to all who are in the smallest degree acquainted with history and human nature — " How much faith does it require to be" no *' Churchman" ?* History faithfully records the encroachments of Tyrants in every age, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, and the mighty resistance which they called forth ; but here hundreds of men, in almost every part of the world, are deprived of a Divine Right and most sacred depositum, and aba- sed to a lower grade, and yet History says not a word respecting the tremendous revolution — records not the protest — not even the lamen- tation^ of one of these many deeply injured men ! Surely it must be obvious to any candid mind, that if such a change had occurred, there would be some notice of it in History — and since there is no such notice, it is morally certain that no such change occurred — that the regimen of the third century was the same as the Apostles instituted. Episcopacy now, as ever, is co-extensive with the Christian religion. All the oldest and largest Churches are Episcopal ; and in remote and secluded portions of the earth, modern travellers have discovered ancient Churches, with their Bishops, Priests and Dea- cons. Thus, on the coast of Malabar, in the south of India, Dr. Buchanan found multitudes of Episcopalians, who had from the earli- * '* When (says Chillingworth, the great champion of Protestant- ism,) I shall see all the Democracies and Aristocracies in the world lie down and sleep, and awake into Monarchies, then will I begin to believe, that Presbyterial Government, having continued in the Church during the Apostles' times, should presently after (against the Apos- tles' doctrine and the will of Christ) be whirled about, like a scene in a masque, and transformed into Episcopacy. In the meantime, while these things remain thus incredible, and in human reason im- possible, I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus : Episcopal government is acknowledged to have been universally received in the Church presently after the Apostles' times. Between the Apostles' times and this *' presently after," there was not time enough /or, nor possibility of, so great an alteration. * * * * * And therefore there was no such alteration as is pretended ; and therefore Episcopacy, being confessed to be so ancient and Catholic, must be granted also to be Apostolic." 45 est times been cut off from all intercourse with other parts of Chris- tendom. In modern times, this people were first visited by the Por- tuguese in 1503. " When the Portuguese arrived," says Dr. Bucha- nan, " they were agreeably surprised to find upwards of a hundred Christian Churches on the coast of Malabar. But when they became acquainted with the purity and simplicity of their worship, they were offended. ' These Churches,' said the f^ortiiguese, ' belong to the Pope.' * Who is the Pope ?' said the natives ; ' we never heard of him.' The European Priests were yet more alarmed when they found that these Hindoo Christians maintained the order and disci- pline of a regular Church, under Episcopal Jurisdiction : and that for 1300 years past they had enjoyed a succssion of Bishps, op- pointed by the Patriarch of Antioch. * We,' said they, ' are of the true faith, whatever you from the West may be ; for we come from the place where the followers of Christ were first called ( hrislians.* (Antioch.) These Portuguese Romanists ' accused them of the fol- lowing practices and opinions :' ' That they had married wives ; that they owned but two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper; that they neither invoked Saints, nor worshipped Images, nor believed in Purgatory ; and that they had no other Orders, or names of dig- nity in the Church, than Bishop, Priest and Deacon.'"'^ — (Christie Researches in Asia, p. 56.) Dr. Buchanan states, that one of the Bishops " was desirous to know something of the other Churches which had separated from Rome. I was ashamed to tell him how- many there were. I mentioned that there was a Kasheesha, or Presbyter Church, in our own Kingdom, in which every Kasheesha (Presbyter) was equal to another. ' Are there no Shimshanas V (Deacons in Holy Orders.) None. 'And what! is there nobody to overlook the Kasheeshas V Not one. ' There must be some- thing imperfect there,"* said he. * * * * * I see it is with you, as it was in the first ages : new sects were produced by true piety, but it was piety founded on ignorance.' (lb., page 69.) Again : "These people, who still retain their ancient creed and usa- ges, consider themselves as the descendants of the flock established oy St. Thomas, who is generally esteemed the Apostle of the East." {lb., page 96.) We have another similar instance, in the case of the Nestorian Christians, who, from time immemorial, have been secluded among the mountains of Koordistan, (Ancient Assyria.) Dr. Grant, a Mis- sionary of the American Board, has recently published a work, ia which he gives an account of their manners and customs — in which the reader will find the following statements : " God has in great mer- cy preserved me through many perils, and brought me among a peo- ple who had received the Gospel from the Apostles, and immediate Disciples of our Saviour, and had preserved its doctrines with a great deal of purity." {Page 79.) '* Their form of Church govern- ment is essentially ^/jisco/jo/." (Pa^e 105.) '• Nestorian Churches and Prelates have flourished in an uninterrupted succession in the same places where they were founded by the Apostles^ among the 46 Israelites." (Page 273.) "And all this while (since the com- mencement of the Christian ere) there has been a regular uninter- rupted SUCCESSION OF BiSHOPs, Priests, Deacons, and Churches from the Apostolic times to the present day !" (Page 278.) This, reader, is the testimony of a non-Episcopalian.* If Episcopacy had not been instituted by the Apostles, is it not marvellous that various communities of Christians, tracing their descent from the Apostles, and secluded from other portions of the word, should have adopted it ? Is it not marvellous that modern travellers have never discovered an ANCIENT "Kasheesha, or Presbyter Church?" According to Hasselthe Christian Population of the Globe amounts to 251 millions; of these 223 millions adhere to Episcopacy and Apostolical Succession — leaving only 28 millions who do not. Thus more than six-sevenths of Christendom are Episcopalians in Church Government. Let it be remembered, that these six-sevenths embrace the oldest Churches on earth — the English Church — the Greek Churcht — the Roman Church — the Swedish Church, and many smaller, but equally ancient in various parts of Asia. On the * Hear what Dr. Grant says respecting a custom of the Nestorians of kissing the Cross, as an expression of affection towards Him who died upon it, — "I must confess there is something affecting in this simple outward expression as practised by the Nestorians." "May it not be, that the abuse of such symbols by the votaries of the Ro- man See, has carried us Protestants to the other extreme, when we utterly condemn the simple memento of the cross?" (P. 68.) If a Churchman had given utterance to these sentiments, they would have been trumpeted through the country as indicative of a most *'alarming tendency." Dr. Grant, speaking of the Nestorians of Ooroomiah (^p. \1) says *' They abhor image worship, auricular confession, and the doctrine of Purgatory, &c. so that, not inappropriately, they have been called the Protestants of Asia." The Bishop of Ooroomiah, when in this country recently, stated to a congregation of our Church in Boston : "Our Prayer-Books are like your Prayer Books." "We keep Christmas on the same day as you. We keep the forty days of Lent. We keep the day when Christ was Crucified — the day of his Ascension, &c." t The Greek Church protested against the Pope many Centuries before Luther. This Church in Russia alone, has 47 millions of members among whom the Scriptures are freely circulated. Sweden has between two and three millions, with 3500 Bishops Priests and Deacons. No country has been kept so free from Re- ligious dissent — none can show a more quiet, or more happy popula- tion— -none posseses a more generally diffused education ; which is under the control of the Church. Denmark and Norway have a nominal Episcopacy — though, like the Methodists, they have lost the Succession. But even the shadow is better than nothinof. 47 other hand, let it be remembered that the remaining one-seventh is composed wholly of innumerable sects that have sprung up only SINCE THE 16th Century — that they have been deprived of Episco- pacy by accident, rather than otherwise, and that some of their most distinguished leaders have given the most decided testimony in favor of Episcopacy : — let all this be remembered, and surely no one can hesitate as to which side is more likely to be right. Certainly it is not very modest, not very reasonable, for so small a minority of Christians of modern origin to demand that we should give up what we believe to be Scriptural, merely because they are destitute of it — especially when we cannot conscientiously adopt any other Ministry, while they admit the validity of ours. CHAPTER VI. Apostolic Succession not denied through the Popes — Calvin Endeavored to Obtain an Episcopal Ministry — Parker'' s Conse- cration — Introduction of Christainity into Britain. Apostolical Succession. Upon this point Mr. A. has committed the egregious, but very common, mistake of supposing that it depends upon the succession of the Popes. And therefore, has merely attempted to prove (or rather only asserted) that there is no certainty who were first Bishops of Rome* — that many of the Popes were not Bishops at all — and * I feel it my duty here to correct a mistake which Mr. A. has committed with regard to Eusebius. He says : " Eusebius (A. D. 320) undertook to collect evidence on this point, yet he declares he had to tread an almost untrodden path with scarce any lights to direct him. All with him was uncertainty and doubt." The first paragraph in Eusebius, sets forth the subjects upon which he designs to treat, some of which I will mention in his own words. "It is my purpose, says he, to record the successions of the Holy Apostles, * * * * * to descrbe the calamities that swiftly overwhelmed the whole Jewish nation, in consequence of their plots against our Saviour * * * how often, by what means, and in what times, the word of God has encountered the hostility of the natives." From this, the reader at once sees that if Eusebius was in- volved in " uncertainty and doubt," then not only the Doctrine of Succession — but some of the most [important proofs of the truth of Christianity are uncertain — for if Eusebius expresses any doubt, it is not with regard to the Succession only — but witli regard to the subjects of his work in general. But he has expressed no doubt as to the certainty of the facts which he records. He merely offers an apology for the want of greater detail. It is true, he states that he was " attempting a kind of trackless and unbeaten path." But by this, he merely means, (as the context shows) that he was the only individual who had undertaken to compose a regular history from 48 many of them very wicked men. All that he says upon these points, whether true or false, is entirely irrelevant. He has heaped together numerous quotations from various writers, and as usual, without a single reference, and by this time I think the reader has too many proofs of his want of accuracy to place much confidence in them. If all his alleged facts were true, they would not invalidate the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. We can clearly trace it without the intervention of a single Pope. He makes one assertion, however, which, to one not acquainted with the subject, may seem to be an exception — " that many who were merely Presbyters, were never- theless elected to the Popedom, and Ordained sevealW the English Bishops and Archbishops." That Presbyters have been elected to the Popedom, I do not dispute. But were they not Consecrated before they performed its functions ? Mr. A. does not assert the contrary — though he assumes it — so that he virtually asserts that Presbyters ordained English Bishops — now if this were true, it would not be decisive, for there have always been various Bishops in the English Church, and a Consecration is never allowed without the assistance of two or three Bishops. And it invariably happens that the three Consecrating Bishops have been Consecrated themselves at distant intervals, and on various places and by different Bishops. And if it had happened that one of the consecrators in any particular instance had been Ordained by a Presbeter — the other two or even other one, might have transmitted the Succession unimpaired. But more of this anon. But this assertion though not essential, is an important one. And I submit to the candid reader, whether it should have been made without names or dates, or even authorities. I repeat the begining to his own times. He states expressly that " some had transmitted partial narratives of the times in which they lived." — *'We have collected," says he, " the materials that have been scattered by our predecessors, and culled as from some intellectual meadows, the appropriate extracts from ancient autliors.^^ Again : Eusebius, says, *• Many learned men of the Church also flourished in these times of whom we may easily find epistles which they wrote to one another, still extant. These have been also preserved for us in the Library of Aelia, which was built by Alexander, who was Bishop there. From this, we have also been able to collect materials for our 'present work.'''' (Book 6, ch. 20 ) It is fevident/then,that he had lights to direct him — the same lights which other historians have — " materials" contained in preceding writers. As to the truth of these materials, he does not express even a suspicion. He records with perfect confidence the Succession of Bishops at Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and other principal cities. iTusebius regarded the Succession (as did all ancient authors) as of the utmost impor- tance. (See his 1st chap.) I shall take no notice of Mr. A*$ short extracts from Pearson, Cave, Comber and others — for two reasons ; first, he has given no references, though their writings are very voluminous ; second, what they say relates only to the Papal Succession, which is a different thing. 49 it, Mr. A. might as well have spared himself the trouble of stringing together so many words, and contented himself with a simple denial of our claim — as to make unsupported assertions on a historical question.* It was not customary, at all, for the Popes to Consecrate Bishops. Besides, it could not have been done without the assistance of two other Bishops— d^s this was required by a Canon of the Council of Nice. And if the Pope had been only a Presbyter, the other Bishops were sufficient. Even St. Augustin, although he was sent to England by Pope Gregory, and by him appointed Archbishop of England, was not Consecrated by him — but by French Bishops. But Mr. A's unsupported assertion is an utter mistake. He may believe it, but he has been imposed upon by some ignorant or unprincipled author. An alleged fact of such moment, should never have been published without authorities — historical, impartial authorities; and not merely opinions of modern, interested Controversialists.! He has stated that " Calvin required Ministers coming from Roman Churches, to renounce their former Ordination.'* He has, of course, given no proof. But if Calvin did so, it is no wonder, since he had no Ordination himself. That a man pretending to no Ordination, should make light of it, is perfectly consistent; but that one who professes to have been Ordained and exhibits so much indignation at the slightest intimation of the invalidity of his orders — should employ arguments, which, if they possess any force, * He says : " Omitting to name my authorities for the sake of brevity !" A single page would have held them all. t Since the above was written, I have been enabled to account for the mistakes which Mr. A. has made. He states, that "in his facts, he has principally followed Mr. Powell on Succession." One of our Periodicals which has just come to hand, gives the following account of Mr. Powell and his work: " Mr. Powell is an English Preacher in the Wesleyan Society, who has recently published an Essay on Apostolical Succession, which has been lauded to the skies by Dissenters of every class, and is already triumphantly republished by the Methodist Book Concern at New York, who are labouring to give it the widest circulation. In all its references to ancient authors, it proves to be a most shameless tissue of perversion and falsehood, and we are glad to find that it has been unmasked in a valuable little publication entitled " The Weapons of Schism," by the Rev. Edward A. Stopford, a Clergymen of the Church of Ireland. For our know- ledge of this work, we are indebted to The Church, the Editor of which, after reading its complete exposure of Mr. Powell's wicked misrepresentations, justly characterizes the Essay as "an imposture unparalleled, perhaps, in the annals of literary dishonesty and political legerdemain." Our contemporary gives copious extracts from Mr. Stopford's Review, exposing no less than eighteen absolute forgeries, nineteen studied misrepresentations, and we know not how many other con- 4* 50 prove his own claims a nullity, also, is a very suspicious indication. It appears as if he were conscious that his own claims are untenable^ and therefore, induced to attempt to prove those of others equally so. Mr. A., in the first part of his pamphlet, has striven very hard to prove the validity of Methodist Orders, upon the ground that they have been derived from an Ordained Clerygman of the Church of England^ (Mr. Wesley.) And in the latter part, he attempts to prove, not only that the Orders of the Church of Rome are invalid, but those of the English Church, also ! Would a man who is fully persuaded of the legitimacy of his commission, attempt to nullify the authority that conferred it ? Mr. A. has asserted, that in the view of Calvin and others, the Ordination of the English Church was spurious, on the ground that it was derived from the Church of Rome. That this is another mis- take, is evident' from the following authentic statement : " How Cal- vin stood affected in the said point of Episcopacy, and how readily and gladly he, and other heads oj the Reformed Churches, woidd have received it, is evident enough from his writings and epistles." (Strype's Life of Bishop Parker, pp. 60, 70.) " They (the foreign Protestants) took such great joy and satisfaction in this King, (Ed- ward VI.) and his establishment of Religion, that Bullinger, and Calvin, and others, in a letter to him, offered to make him their De- fender, and to have Bishops in their Churches, as there were in England: with a tender of their service to assist and unite together." (Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, p. 270.) Mr. A. asserts that Bishop Barlow was the only Consecrator of Bi- shop Parker. Here is another serious mistake. Parker was Conse- crated by four Bishops. Burnet says : " On the 17th December, 1559, Parker was Consecrated in the Chapel at Lambeth, by Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins." — (Hist, of Ref., part 2, p. 403.) Burnet states that the original instrument recording the Consecration, trivances of deceit ; and he well observes, that such an attempt to despoil Episcopacy of the precious testimony of the Primitive Fathers should but confirm us in our estimation of the strength and justice of our cause ; "for it may reasonably be considered strong presump- tive evidence of the truth of any doctrine, fact, or opinion, that false- hood must be brought to bear upon it, in order to counteract its in- fluence or disturb its foundations." ( "Banner of the Cross" Dec. 16th, 1843.) Such is the work which Mr. A. has followed, and which he says : '' should be in the hands of every man who desires full information !" I have not seen Mr. Powell's work, nor Mr. Stopford's answer. But as Mr. A. has ' followed' the former, I suppose I have to perform the same duty as the latter. Here let the reader note that Mr. A's " facts," as he calls them, are derived, not from original sources, but from a Methodist Preacher of the 19th Century ! No wonder he has " omitted his authorities." He pretends to '' Re- fute Prelatical Succession !" And what are the proofs ? The asser- tions of a Methodist Preacher ! ! 51 s in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. He gives a copy of it, which may be found among his " Collection of Records," part 2, p. 263. And of Barlow's Consecration, (which Mr. A, says cannot be proved,) I have the most indubitable evidence now before me ; but as Parker had three other Consecrators, it is unne- cessary to spread it before the reader — especially as Mr. A. has not furnished even the shadow of a proof to the contrary. He under* took to " refute'' " Prelatical Succession," and yet he has given us nothing but his own groundless suspicions, and empty assertions ! He lias also committed several errors respecting the early intro- duction of the Gospel into Britain. He represents this position as a "device of recent origin," invented on account of the " enormous wickedness of the Papal Bishops." Here are two mistakes. This *' device," as he calls it, is an historical fact, abundantly proved by the testimony of writers who flourished hundreds of years before the ** enormous wickedness" of the Popes existed. There is the most conclusive evidence that Christianity was introduced into Britian du- ring the first century — or within the Apostolic Age. I shall not, however, trouble the reader with the statemsnts of ancient authors upon this point, but give the testimony of one whose learning and position render him, in this particular, a most suitable witness — I mean that most distinguished Methodist, Dr. Adam Clarke. This gentleman delivered an address, or essay, upon this very point in 1814, at the formation of a Methodist Missionary Society in London, In this address, he has collected and examined most of the evidence bearing upon this subject. He has furnished extracts from Tertul- Jian, Origen, Athanasius and Chrysostom in its favor — besides proofs from other sources, which the reader may examine for himself. I will only give the conclusion to which the Doctor arrives. " It would be easy," says he, " to increase the number of such testimo- nies : no fact is better proved^ than that the British Isles have re- ceived the Gospel of Christ from the very remotest Christian Antiquity^ nor is there found any writer of credit from the first cen- tury downwards, who states that the British Isles had not, in his time, received the doctrine of Christ. I conclude, therefore, that the Gospel was established here as early as even our traditions state ; and, very probably, by the ^ipostles themselves, ov by persons fmmc- diaiely deputed by them''' Again : " From yll that i have said, it will, i hope, fully appear, that we have received our Religion from the Apostolic times.'' — (Dr. Clarke's Address on the " Introduction •of the Gospel into \\\q British Isles ;" appended to ** Brown's History of Missions," vol. 2, pp. 565, 569.)* Let any one examine the * For the convei^ience of our own citizens, who may wish to exa- mine my quotation>\ I add, that this work maybe found in the Penn^ •sylvania State Libr rry, together with the following works, which I have also referred to : Southey's Life of Wesley ; Buchanan's Re- searches ; Dr. Grant's " Nestorians ;" Burnet's History of the Reform mation; Eusebius' Church History ; Calvin's Institutes ; Dr, Henry's History of England ; Wilberforce's Life. 52 proofs which Dr. Clarke has collected, (though, as he says, many more might be given,) and he will feel satisfied that this conclu- sion is irresistible. But when Churchmen maintain this fact, it is- not for the purpose of tracing the Succession, (as Mr. A. ought to have known,) but to sustain the roiginal independence of the British Church of the Pope, Dr. Clarke, then, being witness, " the obscurity resting on the early history of the British Islands," is all in Mr. A.'s own head — at least as to this point. It is true, the precise year cannot be told with certainty, nor the person who first introduced it — ihough it is highly probable that it was St. Paul — but it is indubitably clear that it was as early as the beginning of the second century. Upon this point Mr. A. has said nothing which essentially affects " Prelatical Succes- sion." But it is due to Truth to rectify his mistakes, of which there is scarcely any end. Here is another : " There is no mention of Bishops in Great Britain until the middle of the fourth century," (A. D. 350.) Three British Bishops were present at the Council of Aries, in France, A. D. 314. This is stated by Dr. Robert Henry^ a Presbyterian Divine, in his History of England, (vol. 1, p. 218> 4th London edition.) " We are assured (says Dr. A. Clarke, in the address before quoted,) that there were three British Bishops present at the Council of Aries, held A. D. 314." Consequently, the Church in Britain must have then been fully organized, and probably long before. But beyond the sixth century, our Succession can be traced, not only through British Bishops, but also through those of Europe and Asia» If Mr. A. had paid that attention to the subject which he should have given it, he would have known this, and would have avoided the blunder of asserting that the Succession cannot be traced higher than the fourth century, because there were no Bishops {?i England before that time ! He says again : " But at that time, (A. D. 350) and long subse- qently, Bishops and Presbyters, or Elders, were titles of the same office." This is disproved by my quotations from Ignatius, Tertul- lian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen — all of whom wrote long before the fourth century. It is also contradicted by Mosheim, (a Lutheran.) He states that in the second century, a Bishop presided in every Assembly, assisted by a Council of Presbyters, who were aided by the Deacons. — (Church History, 2d Cent., part 2, chap. 2.) Mr. A. says : '' The Abbot who first Preached in Britain, with success, was a Presbyter; and Aidan, who succeeded him, was ap- pointed and ordained Bishopby a company of Presbyters or Elders"!!! I have already furnished sufficient evidence that the Gospel was preached in Britain,within,or very nearly within,the age of the Apostles,, consequently, it was not by an Jibbot, for such an Order of men had no existence until long after that time. I have also proved that three Bishops^ from Britain, attended the Council of Aries, A. D. 314 ; and I will here add, that Dr. ( larke, in the Address before quoted,, also states (and gives authorities, as every writer should upon such 53 subjects,) "that there were several British Bishops at the Council of Ariminium, (Rimini) held A. D. 359." He further states, that Eccle- siastical Councils were held in England at these different periods : A. D. 446, 449, 465, 512, 516, (at this one, he says, all the Jirch- bishops. Bishops, Abbots and Clergy of Britain were present,) and 519. It would be easy to furnish proof in support of these statements of Dr. Clarke, but it is deemed unnecessary, as his Address, and authorities are probably as accessible to my readers as any others I might name. Moreover, it is a well known fact, that there were sundry Bishops in Britain at the time of the arrival of St. Augus- tin, A.' D. 596.— (See Henry's History of England, vol. 3, p. 195.) Augustin held a conference with them, and made several proposals, which they steadfastly refused. These facts clearly show that, from the beginning to that time, there had been in Britain an independent Episcopal Church. Once more. Mr. A. says : *' Bede, who wrote A. D. 731, is said io be the only historian on whose statements the least reliance can be placed." He does not tell us by ivhom this " is saidy But it is Mr. Powell, I suppose, since he has " principally followed" hira. It is, however, another error. There is a British historian of unques- tionable authority, wiio wrote about 200 years before Bede — Gildas, surnaraed the Wise — a most excellent man, and faithful Preacher of the Gospel. Mosheim places him among the celebrated writers of •the sixth century. — (Church History.) The pretended quotation (without references) from Bede, about *' one Wini,'' is too absurd to require notice — besides, if it had been true, it does not affect the truth of the Succession, as one " rightly Consecrated Bishop" could have transmitted th-e Apostolical Com- mission ; or the candidate could have gone to the Continent for Con- secration, as did Augustin. I have now examined the statements which Mr. A. has made, and shown, I trust, to the satisfaction of my readers, that they avail no- thing. It must be remembered that this (doctrine of Succession,) is an historical question — a question to be decided by historical facts—- and yet Mr. A. has not proved a single fact that has any direct bearing upon ito CHAPTER VII. Succession no Neiv Doctrine — Held by Non-Episcopalians — Trut Statement of It — Scrip'ural Proofs of It — Historical Proofs. S'ome persons may imagine that this is a new doctrine — a claim just put forth by modem Episcopalians — a Puseyite invention. But this is a great mistake. It is neither new nor peculiar to the Episco- pal Church. It is as old as Christianity. We find it in the New Testament, and in numberless authors, of tlie first piety and learning, in every subsequent xVge. It has been in the Prayer Book from its formation. In common with Episcopacy, it is held by six-sevenths 54 of Christendom. And moreover, it has been advocate<3, until re- cently, with as much zeal by the most distinguished individuals and communions rejecting Episcopacy — not, of course, Episcopal Suc- cession, but Presbyterian Succession — that is, that there has been an» uninterrupted Succession of Presbyters from the days of the Apos- tles — a doctrine exposed to the same objections now urged against 4he Succession in the Episcopal line, and some others much stronger —yea, absolutely unanswerable. I will begin with John Calvin. *' Whoever, therefore," says he, " either aims to abolish or undervalue this Order of which we are treating, (the Ministry) and this species of government, attempts to disorganize the Church, or rather, to subvert and destroy it altogether. For light and heat are not so essential to the Stsrij nor any meat and drink so necessary to the nourishment and sustenance of the present hfe^ as the Apostolical Office is to the preservation of the Church of the World,*' — (Calvin's Inst. lib. 4, chap. 3, sec. 2.) Here the Apostolical Ministry is declared to be absolutely necessary to the preservation of the Church. Such language as this, used by a Churchman, would now be called " Puseyism." Again : " Our Lord, when he sent forth his Apostles, commissionetl Jhem to Preach the Gospel, and to Baptise all believers, for the re- mission of sins. He had already commanded them to distribute the Sacred Symbols of His Body and Blood, according to • his own example. Behold the sacred, inviolable, and perpetual law imposed ajpon those who succeed in the place of the Apostles^ (qui in Aposto-* iorum locum succedunt ;) it commands them to Preach the Gospel^ and to administer the Sacraments. ("lb.. Book 4, eh. 3, sec. 6.) While quoting Calvin on the Ministry, I cannot forbear to add a few znore passages, that the reader may know the views of standard pub- lications among Dissenters. " In the communion of Saints, sins are remitted to us by the Ministry of the Church, when the Presbyters or Bishops, to whom this office is committed, confirm pious con- sciences by the promise of the Gospel, in the hope of pardon and remission." '' This benefit belongs to the Church, so that we can- not enjoy it, unless we continue in its communion. Thirdly, that at is dispensed to us by the Ministers and Pastors of the Church, either in the Preaching of the Gospel, or in the administration of the Sacraments ; and that this is the principal exercise of the power of the Keys, which the Lord has conferred on the society of the Faith- ful. Let every one of us, therefore, consider it his duty not to seek remission of sins any where but where the Lord has placed it.'' (Calvin's Institutes, Book 4, chap. 1, sec. 22.) The Presbyterian Confession of Faith declares, " Tliat neither of the Sacraments may be dispensed by any but a Minister of the wohd, laavfully Or- dained." (Confession of Faith, chap. 27, sec. 4.) " To these offi- cers (of the Church) the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are COMMITTED. By virtue thereof, they have power respectively to re- tain AND REMIT SINS ; to shut that Kingdom against the impenitent," &c. (lb. chap. 30, sec. 2.) Again, with regard to the Lord's Sup- 55 per : " The body and blood of Christ being then not corporally and carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine, yet as really but SPIRITUALLY PRESENT to the faith of believers in that Ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." (Chap. 29, sec. 7.) It would puzzle one to find stronger language upon any of these points in the Prayer Book, or even in the Oxford Tracts. An intelligent Presbyterian lady was asked what she thought of Dr. Pu- sey's Sermon on the Eucharist. She replied : " Before I can answer that question intelligently, I must first learn what our own doctrine is upon the subject." Let the Standards of the various Denomina- tions be investigated with regard to the points now so much contro- verted, and it will be seen that they contain a great deal of what is cried down as " Puseyism." Here I will subjoin an extract from No. 27 of the Oxford Tracts, respecting the presence of Christ in the Eucharist : " Hence it is most evident that the Bread and Wine are neither changed as to their substance, nor vanished, nor reduced to nothing, but are solemnly Consecrated by the words of Christ, that by them His Blessed Body and Blood may be communicated to us. And further, it appears from the same words, that the expressions of Christ and the Apostles are to be understood in a Sacramental and mystic sense, and that no gross and carnal presence of Body and Blood can be maintained." Does not this fully accord with the extract from the Presbyterian Confession of Faith ? It certainly is not Transubstan- tiation, for Transubstantiation implies a change of the substance of the elements, into the Body and Blood of Christ — so that the sub- stance NO longer exists, but only the appearance. Such a change, I add, is also denied by Dr. Pusey, in the preface to his celebrated Sermon on the Eucharist. Many Protestants, as is well known, have charged that Sermon with Transubstantiation, but the periodi- cals of the Romanists, in this country, declared that it contained no such thing ! I have no wish to defend all the views contained in those Tracts : like other human compositions, they contain excep- tionable passages, but their errors hav© been greatly exaggerated. Again : The Commentary of the Westminster General Assembly of Divines, commonly known as the Assembly's Annotations, makes these observations upon John, 20th chap., 24th verse : " As my Fa- ther hath sent me, : iM;5x>::^8i^ 833- '^^'-:^m^ °»siai- »^:>"»^!S> JfS^'^t ■"^m^