LIBRARY 
 
 DO.WTIOX OF 
 
 S A M U K 1. A a N E W , 
 
 
 #■ 
 
 |) Cdse, Diviaon /| 
 
DEFENCE OF "OUR FATHERS," 
 
 AND OF THE 
 
 ORIGINAL ORGANIZATION 
 
 THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 THE REV. ALEXANDER M'CAINE 
 
 AND OTHERS: 
 
 WITH HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL NOTICES OF EARLY AMERICAN 
 METHODISM. 
 
 BY JOHN EMORY, D. D. 
 
 " Multum refert ad retinendam ecclesiarum pacem, inter ea quae jure divino prascepta sunt, 
 et qus non sunt, accurate distinguere."— Gro<ii/.s. 
 
 " When men have caused such lamentable divisions in the church, by their several parties 
 and factions, it concerns them to condemn all others besides themselves, lest they most of all 
 condemn themselves for making unnecessary divisions in the church of God." — Stillingfieet. 
 
 FIFTH EDITION, 
 
 NEW-YORK: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY T. MASON AND G. LANE, 
 
 FOR THE METH0DI8T EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AT THE CONFERENCE OFFICE, 
 
 200 MULBERRY-STREET. 
 
 /. Collord, Printer. 
 1838. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 TO 
 
 A DEFENCE OF "OUR FATHERS." 
 
 Preface ^^S^ ^ 
 
 Sec. I. — Episcopacy 
 
 II.— Sentiments of Bishop White 22 
 
 III.— Mr. Wesley's Opinion 28 
 
 IV.— Ordination ^^ 
 
 v.— Ordination of Dr. Coke ^^ 
 
 VI.— Dr. Coke's Letter to Bishop White 46 
 
 VII.— The Prayer Book of 1784 60 
 
 VIII.— The Prayer Book of 1786 69 
 
 IX.— Bishop Asbury "^^ 
 
 X.— Testimonies of English Methodists 95 
 
 XL— Dr. Coke l^^ 
 
 XII.— Methodist Episcopacy 105 
 
 XIII.— Title Bishop ^ 
 
 XIV.— Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church 116 
 
 XV.— Leaving Mr. Wesley's name off the Minutes 122 
 
 XVI. — Mr. M'Caine's Arithmetical Calculations 133 
 
 XVII. — The Address to General Washington 136 
 
 XVIII.—" History and Mystery" of Mr. M'Caine's Inconsistency 145 
 
 XIX.— Union Society of Baltimore ;— Conclusion 147 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I.— Respecting Dr. Coke's Letter to Bishop White 151 
 
 II.— A Communication from the Rev. N. Bangs 153 
 
 III.— The Mmute to obey Mr. Wesley 154 
 
PREFACE •?h^. />)B,^ ^ ># 
 
 A DEFENCE OF "OUR FATHERS." 
 
 The " fair" and " honourable" fame of " our fathers" is a treasure 
 committed to our common trust ; in which all who bear their name 
 ought to feel an interest ; and to defend which is our common duty. 
 The best construction of which their conduct and motives are susceptible 
 was due to them even while alive, with opportunities and means to 
 explain, and to defend themselves. Much more is it due in instituting 
 an inquiry into their history, now that they are silenced in the grave, 
 and incapable of self-defence. As we would that men should do to us, 
 when death shall have sealed our lips, and stricken from our hand the 
 ready pen, let us do even so to them. For the measure which we 
 mete to others, in the just retributive visitations of Heaven, will be 
 meted to us again. We should take heed, then, how, with rash and 
 wanton rudeness, we trample upon the ashes of deceased fathers. 
 
 In the present discussion, however, we ask not for charity, in the 
 cold sense of that abused terra ; nor that pity shall turn the scale of 
 judgment. We demand simple justice, — sheer justice. By that 
 balance we agree that our fathers shall be tried. In that crucible we 
 consent that both their acts and their motives shall be tested. All that 
 we ask for them, in passing the ordeal, is, the allowance of the frailty 
 inseparablie from humanity ; and from which, with the purest and best 
 intentions, the wisest and the holiest mortals have never been exempted. 
 
 The representation which Mr. M'Caine has given of the account of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church, published in Buck's Theological 
 Dictionary, as it regards myself, is wholly unfounded. The editor of 
 that work never was indebted to me for that account : nor was I aware 
 that it had been imputed to me, till I saw Mr. M'Caine's statement. It 
 had actually been published in a former edition of Buck's Dictionary, 
 and attributed to another hand, before I was " Book Agent," or " Pub- 
 lisher for the Methodist Episcopal Church" at all. This circumstance 
 alone might have rendered the imputation of it to me at least "sus- 
 picious." In some other cases Mr. M'Caine has not deemed it a suffi- 
 cient warrant for the assumption of facts, that he has merely found them 
 stated in print. Had he been equally suspicious in this instance, it 
 might have led him to farther inquiry ; in which case the means of cor- 
 rect and certain information were easily and perfectly within his 
 reach. 
 
6 PREFACE TO A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 A communication from my friend, the Rev. N. Bangs, explanatory of 
 that publication, and of his book on " Methodist Episcopacy," will be 
 found in the Appendix. And in justice to him, as Mr. M'Caine has 
 attacked that book, it ought to be known that Mr. M'Caine himself was 
 one of the committee to whom it was submitted, before its publication, 
 and by whom its publication was recommended. The recommendation 
 stands on record, attested by his own hand. And whatever responsi- 
 bility may exist for its doctrines, or for its official acceptance and pub- 
 lication " for the Methodist Episcopal Church," this " reverend gentle- 
 man," I conceive, is as much concerned in that matter as the author 
 himself. 
 
 The work here presented to the reader is not a party work. It is an 
 attempt to wipe off the foul stains which have been cast on us, through 
 the aspersion of our founders. If Mr. M'Caine's book be true, it is 
 impossible that any Methodist, who is a real friend of the church, and 
 of our fathers, can otherwise than feel himself disgraced. To such, a 
 satisfactory refutation of it cannot fail to be acceptable. Whatever may 
 be the claims of the respective questions of ecclesiastical polity agitated 
 among us, let them stand on their own bases. To attempt to promote 
 any of them by personal attacks on the dead, is an unworthy resort ; 
 and, with the judicious and reflecting, can only be regarded as indi- 
 cating a deficiency of better argument. 
 
 In the little leisure allowed me by other extensive and pressing 
 engagements, I might perhaps be excused for craving some indulgence 
 from the reader, in replying to a work in the preparation of which 
 several years were employed. This, however, I trust, is not neces- 
 sary. All that is asked is a candid examination of the whole of the fol- 
 lowing pages, in their consecutive order. This is the more necessary, 
 as the various sections have a mutual connection and dependance ; — 
 subsequent ones assuming what had been established in the preceding ; 
 nor was it found convenient in all cases, to keep the matter of the 
 respective titles entirely distinct. 
 
 In preparing this Defence the Divine assistance has been asked : — 
 In sending it abroad, the Divine blessing is now implored. 
 
 J. Emory. 
 New -York, November, 1827. 
 

 DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 Section I. — Episcopacy. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine's first inquiry is, "What views do eccle- 
 siastical writers give us of an episcopal form of church 
 government ?" 
 
 In answer to this inquiry, he quotes certain authorities 
 in support of the following positions, viz. : 
 
 That " Episcopalians, in the strict sense of the word, 
 are those who maintain that episcopacy is of apostolic 
 institution, or that the church of Christ has ever been 
 governed by three distinct orders, bishops, presbyters or 
 priests, and deacons ; — that no one has a right to exe- 
 cute the ministerial office without having previously 
 received a divine commission ;^and the exclusive right 
 of granting this commission is vested in the bishops as 
 successors of the apostles." 
 
 That " it is a principle universally established among 
 Episcopalians, that a succession from the apostles in the 
 order of bishops, as an order superior to and distinct from 
 presbyters, is a requisite without which a valid Christian 
 ministry cannot be preserved ; and that such bishops 
 alone possess the power of ordaining and commissioning 
 ministers to feed the flock of Christ." 
 
 That " since the distinction of bishops and presbyters 
 has been of divine appointment, it necessarily follows 
 that the power of ordination, which is the chief mark of 
 this distinction, was reserved to the bishops by the same 
 appointment." 
 <^Mr. M'Caine adds, " We have here some of the most 
 
8 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 prominent features of an episcopal church, as laid down 
 by writers of great celebrity. We would now ask our 
 brethren who say Mr. Wesley recommended the episcopal 
 mode of church government, if there is in any of the let- 
 ters which he wrote a single line that would lead us to 
 suppose that he held any one of the foregoing particu- 
 lars ? Nay, did he not positively say he did not hold 
 them? What kind of an episcopal government then 
 must it be that has not in it a single feature of episco- 
 pacy as described by ecclesiastical writers ?" 
 
 Bi^t did not Mr. M'Caine know that there are " eccle- 
 siastical writers" who describe " episcopacy" with other 
 features?. If he did not, his want of information is 
 greater than we could have imagined. If he did, his 
 argument is not ingenuous. We can scarcely believe 
 that it can have imposed on himself : and it is certainly 
 too glaringly fallacious to be imposed on others. 
 
 '* It ought to be understood," says Dr. Samuel Miller, 
 " that among those who espouse the episcopal side, — 
 there are three classes. 
 
 " The first consists of those who believe that neither 
 Christ nor his apostles laid down any particular form of 
 ecclesiastical government to which the church is bound 
 to adhere in all ages. That every church is free, con- 
 sistently with the divine will, to frame her constitution 
 agreeably to her own views, to the state of society, and 
 to the exigencies of particular times. These prefer the 
 episcopal government, and some of them believe that it 
 v/as the primitive form ; but they consider it as resting 
 on the ground of human expediency alone, and not of 
 divine apfoiniment. This is well known to have been 
 the opinion of Archbishops Cranmer, Grindal, Whitgift, 
 Leighton, and Tillotson ; of Bishops Jewel, Reynolds, 
 Burnet, and Croft ; of Drs. Whitaker and Stillingfleet, 
 and of a long list of the 7nost learned and pious divines 
 of the Church of England, from the reformation down 
 to the present day. 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 9 
 
 ^' Another class of Episcopalians go farther. They 
 suppose that the government of the church by bishops, 
 as a superior order to presbyters, was sanctioned by apos- 
 tolic example, and that it is the duty of all churches to 
 imitate this example. But while they consider episco- 
 pacy as necessary to the perfection of the church, they 
 grant that it is by no means necessary to her existence; 
 and accordingly, without hesitation, acknowledge as true 
 churches of Christ many in which the episcopal doctrine 
 is rejected, and presbyterian principles made the basis 
 of ecclesiastical government. The advocates of this 
 opinion, also, have been numerous and respectable, both 
 among the clerical and lay members of the Episcopal 
 churches in England and the United States. In this 
 list appear the venerable names of Bishop Hall, Bishop 
 Downham, Bishop Bancroft, Bishop Andrews, Arch- 
 bishop Usher, Bishop Forbes, the learned Chilhngworth, 
 Archbishop Wake, Bishop Hoadly, and many more. 
 
 "A third class go much beyond either of the former. 
 While they grant that God has left men at liberty to 
 modify every other kind of government according to cir- 
 cumstances, they contend that one form of government 
 for the church is unalterably fixed by divine appoint- 
 ment; that this form is episcopal ; that it is absolutely 
 essential to the existence of the church ; that, of course, 
 wherever it is wanting, there is no church, no regular 
 ministry, no valid ordinances ; and that all who are 
 united with religious societies not conforming to this 
 order are ' aliens from Christ,' ' out of the appointed way 
 to heaven,' and have no hope but in the ' uncovenanted 
 mercies of God.' 
 
 " It is confidently believed," continues Dr. Miller, "that 
 the two former classes taken together, embrace at least 
 nineteen parts out of twenty of all the Episcopalians in 
 Great Britain and the United States ; while, so far as can 
 be learned from the most respectable writings, and other 
 authentic sources of information, it is only the small 
 
-10 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 remaining proportion who hold the extravagant opinions 
 assigned to the third and last of these classes." 
 
 If we may rely on the researches of Dr. Miller, then, 
 it is so far from being true, that "it is a principle uni- 
 versally established among Episcopalians, that a succes- 
 sion from the apostles in the order of bishops, as an order 
 superior to and distinct from presbyters, is a requisite 
 without which a valid Christian ministry cannot be pre- 
 served ; and that such bishops alone possess the power 
 of ordainino^ and commissionino- ministers to feed the 
 flock of Christ ;" that at least nineteen-twentieths of all 
 the Episcopalians in Great Britain and in the United 
 States hold no such sentiments."^ Neither, as we shall 
 show, were they the sentiments of Dr. Coke, or of Mr. 
 Asbury, any more than of Mr. Wesley : nor do we be- 
 lieve that they are entertained by a single individual 
 among Methodist Episcopalians, either in the ministry 
 or in the laity. 
 
 The Irenicum of Dr. Stillingfleet, subsequently Bishop 
 Stillingfleet, will be admitted to rank among the produc- 
 tions of "ecclesiastical writers" of distinguished "cele- 
 brity." From this work we shall exhibit a view of epis- 
 copacy somewhat different from that of Mr. M'Caine.f 
 
 "I assert," says Dr. Stillingfleet, " any particular form 
 of government agreed on by the governors of the church, 
 consonant to the general rules of Scripture, to be by 
 divine right ; that is, God, by his own laws, hath given 
 men a power and liberty to determine the particular 
 
 * Gisborne also asserts that they are not the sentiments of the Church of 
 England. ^-^Swraey, p. 254, 
 
 fThe object of Stillingfleet, in this work, was to discuss and examine the 
 divine right of the different forms of church government, according to the 
 principles of the law of nature, the positive laws of God, the practice of the 
 apostles and the primitive ciuirch, and the judgment of reformed divines; 
 in order to lay a foundation for the peace of the church, and for the accommo- 
 dation of the differences which then existed. His aim was to moderate the 
 extravagant pretensions of high churchmen^ on the one side, and the intem- 
 perate zeal of those, on the other, who were for destroying episcopacy 
 altogether. With what ability, and excellent temper, and moderation, he 
 performed thjs task will appear in the sequel, 
 
A. DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 11 
 
 form of church government among them. And hence it 
 may appear, that though one form of government be 
 agreeable to the word, it doth not follow that another is 
 not, or because one is lawful, another is unlawful ; but 
 one form may be more agreeable to some parts, places, 
 people, and times, than others are. In w^hich case^ that 
 form of government is to be settled which is most agree- 
 able to the present state of a place, and is most advan- 
 tageously conducible to the promoting the ends of church 
 government in that place or nation." Irenicum, pp. 9, 10, 
 2d edit. Lond. 1662. 
 
 " Matters of fact and mere apostolical practice, may, I 
 freely grant, receive much light from the records of suc- 
 ceeding ages ; but they can never give a man's under- 
 standing sufficient ground to infer any divine law, arising 
 from those facts attested to by the practice or records of 
 succeeding ages." Ihid., p. 151. 
 
 In relation to arguments drawn from the testimony of 
 antiquity, before their authority can be admitted in this 
 controversy, Dr. Stillingfleet affirms, '' these things mast 
 be manifested : — that such things were unquestionably the 
 fractice of those ages and persons ; that their practice rvas 
 the same as that of the apostles ; that rvhat they did was 
 not from any prudential motives, hut hy virtue of a law 
 which did hind them to that practice. Which things are 
 easily passed over by the most eager disputers of the 
 controversy about church government, but how necessary 
 they are to be proved, before any form of government 
 be asserted so necessary, that without it there can be no 
 true church, any weak understanding may discern." lb. 
 p. 152. 
 
 " The reason of apostolical practice binds still, 
 though not the individual action; that as they regulated 
 churches for the best conveniency of governing them, 
 so should the pastors of churches now." Ih., p. 181. 
 
 " Any one particular form of governm.ent in the church 
 13 neither expressed in any direct terms by Christ, nor can 
 
12 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 be deduced by just consequence ; therefore no such 
 form of government is instituted by Christ." Ih., p. 182. 
 
 " But though nothing can be inferred from hence as 
 to the necessity of that office to continue in the church, 
 which Timothy and Titus were invested in ; yet from 
 the superiority of that power which they enjoyed over 
 those churches, whether as evangehsts or as fixed 
 bishops, these two things may be inferred : First, That 
 the superiority of some church officers over others is not 
 contrary to the rule of the gospel: for all parties ac- 
 knov^ledge the superiority of their power above the pres- 
 byters of the several cities ; only the continuance of this 
 power is disputed by many. But if they had any such 
 power at all, it is enough for my present design, viz., 
 that such a superiority is not contrary to the gospel rule : 
 or that the nature of the government of the church doth 
 not imply a accessary equality among the governors of 
 it. Secondly, Hence I infer that it is not repugnant to 
 the constitutions of churches in apostolical times for 
 men to have power over more than one particular con- 
 gregation. For such a power Timothy and Titus had ; 
 which, had it been contrary to the nature of the regiment 
 of churches, we should never have read of in the first- 
 planted churches. So that if those popular arguments of 
 a necessary relation between a pastor and a particular 
 people, of personal knowledge, care, and inspection, did 
 destroy the lawfulness of extending that care or charge 
 to many particular congregations, they would likewise 
 overthrow the nature, end, and design of the office which 
 Timothy and Titus acted in ; which had a relation to a 
 multitude of particular and congregational churches. 
 Whether their power was extraordinary or no, I now 
 dispute not ; but whether such a power be repugnant to 
 the gospel or no, which from their practice it is evident 
 that it is not." Ih., pp. 186, 187. 
 
 The foundation of this power was laid in the -power 
 which the apostles were invested with, which was ex- 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 13 
 
 tended over many, both churches and pastors. " If it be 
 said, The apostolical power, bemg extraordinary, must 
 cease with the persons who enjoyed it; I diTiswQx, first. What 
 was extraordinary did cease ; but all the dispute is what 
 was extraordinary, and what was not. Secondly, By 
 ceasing may be meant either ceasing as to its necessity, 
 or ceasing as to its laivfulness. I say not but that the 
 necessity of the office, as in their persons, for the first 
 preaching and propagating the gospel, did cease with 
 them ; but that after their death it became unlawful for 
 any particular persons to take the care and charge of 
 diocesan churches, I deny. For to m.ake a thing unlaw- 
 ful, which was before lawful, there must be some express 
 prohibition, forbidding any farther use of such a power, 
 which, I suppose, men will not easily produce in the 
 word of God." lb., pp. 194, 5. 
 
 " The extending of any ministerial power is not the 
 appointing of any new office; because every minister of 
 •the gospel hath a relation in actu primd" (primarily) "to 
 the whole church of God ; the restraint and enlargement 
 of which power is subject to positive determinations of 
 prudence and conveniency, — and therefore if the church 
 see it fit for some men to have this power enlarged, for 
 better government in some, and restrained in others, that 
 enlargement is the appointing no new office, but the 
 making use of a power already enjoyed for the benefit 
 of the church of God. This being a foundation tending 
 so fully to clear the lawfulness of that government in 
 the church, which implies a superiority and subordination 
 of the officers of the church to one another; and the 
 church using her prudence in ordering the bounds of her 
 officers, I shall do these two things : First, Show that 
 the power of every minister of the gospel doth primarily 
 and habitually respect the church in common. Secondly, 
 That the church may, in a peculiar manner, single out 
 some of its officers for the due administration of eccle- 
 siastical power." lb., p. 195, 
 
14 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 " The officers of the church may, in a pecuhar man- 
 ner, attribute a larger and more extensive power to 
 some particular persons, for the more convenient exer- 
 cise of their common power — grant to some the executive 
 part of that power, which is originally and fundamentally 
 common to them all. For our better understanding of 
 this, we must consider a twofold power belonging to 
 church officers, a power of order, and a power of jurisdic- 
 tion:' lb. p., 197. 
 
 Under this distinction he show^s, that though every 
 presj)yter, primarily and inherently, as to or<ier possesses 
 a capacity for the highest ministerial acts, yet " some 
 farther authority is necessary in a church co7istituted'' (or 
 organized) " besides the power of order ; and when this 
 power, either by consent of the pastors of the church, or 
 by the appointment of a Christian magistrate, or both, is 
 devolved to some particular persons, though quoad ap- 
 titiidinem:'' (as to the capacity or fitness) " the power 
 remain in every presbyter, yet quoad executionem, (as to 
 the actual discharge or execution of it,) "it belongs to 
 those who are so appointed. And therefore Camero 
 determines that ordination doth not belong to the power 
 of order, but to the power of jurisdiction, and therefore 
 is subject to positive restraints, by prudential determina- 
 tions. By this we may understand how lawful the 
 exercise of an episcopal power may be in the church of 
 God, supposing an equalitij in all church officers as to 
 the power of order. And how incongruously they speak, 
 who, supposing an equality in the presbyters of church- 
 es at first, do cry out that the church takes upon her 
 the office of Christ, if she delegates any to a more pecur 
 liar exercise of the power of jwisdlction.'' lb., pp. 197, 8. 
 
 " Before the jurisdiction of presbyters was restrained 
 by mutual consent, in this instant, doubtless, the presby- 
 ters enjoyed the same liberty that the presbyters among 
 the Jews did, of ordaining other presbyters,, by that 
 power they were invested in at their own ordina 
 
A. DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 15 
 
 tion. In the first primitive church, the presbyters all 
 
 acted in common for the welfare of the church, and 
 either did or might ordain others to the same authority 
 with themselves ; because the intrinsical power of order 
 is equally in them, and in those who were after appoint- 
 ed governors over presbyteries. And the collation of 
 orders doth come from the power of order, and not mere- 
 lij from the power of jurisdiction. It being likewise 
 fulhj acknowledged by the schoolmen, that bishops are 
 not superior above presbyters, as to the power of order. ''^ 
 lb., p. 273. 
 
 '' It is evident Jerome attributes the first original of 
 that exsors potestas,^' [delegated power, or power given 
 by choice,] '' as he calls it elsewhere, in the bishop 
 above presbyters, not to any apostolical institution, but 
 to the free choice of the preshijters themselves : which doth 
 fully explain what he means by consuetudo ecclesice 
 before spoken of, viz., that which came up by a volun- 
 tary act of the governors of churches themselves. 
 
 To which we may add what Eutychius the patriarch of 
 Alexandria saith, in his Origines Ecclesice Ale.xandrinde, 
 published in Arabic by our most learned Selden, who 
 expressly affirms, that the trvelve presbyters coristituted 
 by Mark upon the vacancy of the see, did choose out of 
 their number one to be head over the rest, and the other 
 eleven did lay their hands upon him, and blessed him, and 
 made him patriarch.'" lb., p. 274. 
 
 " Antonius de Rosellis fully expresseth my meaning 
 in this;" — (in the first period of the church.) ''Every 
 presbyter and presbyters did ordain indifferently, and thence 
 arose schisms : thence the liberty was restrained and 
 reserved peculiarly to some persons who did act in the 
 several presbyteries, as the x'l^Jn or Prince of the Sanhe- 
 
 drin, both parties granting that in the church such a 
 
 restraint was laid upon the liberty of ordaining presby- 
 ters : and the exercise of that power may be restrained 
 still, granting it to be radically and intrinsically in them. 
 
16 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 So that this controversy is not such as should divide the 
 church. For those that are for ordinations only by a 
 superior order in the church, acknowledging a radical 
 power for ordination in presbyters, which may be 
 exercised in case of necessity, do thereby make it evi- 
 dent, that none who grant that, do think that any positive 
 law of God hath forbidden presbyters the power of 
 ordination ; for then it must be wholly unlaivful, and so 
 in case of necessity it cannot be valid. Which doctrine 
 I dare with some confidence assert to be a stranger to 
 our Church of England, — on the other side, those who 
 hold ordinations by presbyters lawful, do not therefore 
 hold them necessary, but it being a matter of liberty, and 
 not of necessity — this powder then may be restrained by 
 those who have the care of the church's peace, and mat- 
 ters of liberty being restrained, ought to be submitted 
 to, in order to the church's peace." lb., p. 276. 
 
 "In the matter itself, I believe upon the strictest 
 inquiry Medina's judgment will prove true, that Jerome, 
 Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Aerius's judgment 
 as to the identity of both name and order of bishops 
 and presbyters in the primitive church ; but here lay 
 the difference. Aerius from hence proceeded to sepa- 
 ration from bishops and their churches, because they were 
 bishops. And Blondell well observes, that the main 
 ground why Aerius was condemned was for unnecessary 
 separation from the church of Sebastia ; and those 
 
 bishops, too, who agreed with him in other things, 
 
 whereas Jerome was so far from thinking it necessary 
 to cause a schism in the church, by separating from 
 bishops, that his opinion is clear, thiat the first institution 
 of them was for preventing schisms ; and therefore, for 
 peace and unity, he thought their institution very use- 
 ful in the church of God." lb., pp. 276-7. 
 
 " When the apostles were taken out of the way, who 
 kept the main power in their own hands of ruling their 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 17 
 
 several presbyteries, or delegated some to do it, (who 
 had a main hand in planting churches with the apostles, 
 and thence are called in Scripture, sometimes fellow- 
 labourers in the Lord, and sometimes evangelists, and 
 by Theodoret apostles, but of a second order,) after, I 
 say, these were deceased, and the main power left in. 
 the presbyteries, the several presbyters enjoying an 
 equal powder among themselves, — the wiser and graver 
 sort considered the abuses following the promiscuous 
 use of this power of ordination, and withal having in 
 their minds the excellent frame of the government of 
 the church, under the apostles and their deputies, and for 
 preventing of future schisms and divisions among them- 
 selves, they unanimously agreed to dioose one out of their 
 number who was best quahfied for the management of 
 so great a trust, and to devolve the exercise of the power 
 of ordination and jurisdiction to him ; yet so as that 
 he act nothing of importance rvithout the consent arid 
 'concurrence of the presbyters, who w^ere still to be 
 as the common council to the bishop. This I take 
 to be the true and just account of the original of epis- 
 copacy in the primitive church according to Jerome: 
 which model of government, thus contrived and framed, 
 sets forth to us a most lively character of that great 
 wisdom and moderation wliich then ruled the heads and 
 hearts of the primitive Christians, and which, when men 
 have studied and searched all other ways, (the abuses 
 incident to this government through the corruptions of 
 men and times being retrenched,) willhe found the most 
 agreeable to the primitive form, both as asserting the due 
 interest of the presbyteries, and allowing the due honour 
 of episcopacy, and by the great harmony of both, carrying 
 on the affairs of the church with the greatest unity, con- 
 cord, and peace. Which form of government, I cannot 
 see how any possible reason can be produced by either 
 party why they may not with cheei fulness embrace it:' 
 
18 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 " Thus we have once more cleared Jerome and the 
 truth together ; I only wish that all that are of his judg- 
 ment for the practice of the primitive church, were of his 
 temper for the practice of their own ; and while they own 
 not episcopacy as necessary by a divine right, yet (being 
 duly moderated, and joined with presbyteries) they may 
 embrace it, as not only a lawful, but very useful consti- 
 tution in the church of God. By w^hich we may see 
 what an excellent temper may be found out, most fully 
 consonant to the primitive church for the management 
 of ordinations and church power, viz., by the presi- 
 dency OF the bishop and the concurrence of the 
 
 PRESBYTERY." Ih., p. 283. 
 
 " AH that I have to say then, concerning the course 
 taken by the apostles, in settling the government of the 
 churches, — lies in these three propositions, — viz.. That 
 neither can rve have that certaintij of apostolical practise, 
 which is necessary to constitute a divine right; nor, second- 
 ly, is it prohaUe that the apostles did tie themselves up to 
 any one fixed course in modelling churches; nor, thirdly, 
 if they did, doth it necessarily follow that we must observe 
 the same'' Ih., p. 287. 
 
 "In this place, lib. 4, cap. 43, he" (Irenseus) "not 
 only asserts the succession of presbyters to the apostles, 
 but likewise attributes the successio episcopatus" {the 
 succession of the episcopate) " to these very presbyters." 
 Whence comes then the community of names still, that 
 those who are said to succeed the apostles, are called 
 bishops in one place, but presbyters in another; and 
 the very succession of episcopacy attributed to 
 presbyters?" Ih., p. 307. 
 
 "And great probability there is, that where churches 
 were planted by presbyters, as the Church of France by 
 Andochius and Inignus, that afterward, upon the 
 increase of churches and presbyters to rule them, they 
 did from among themselves choose one to be as the 
 bishop over them, as Pothinus was at Lyons. For we 
 2* 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 19 
 
 nowhere read in those early plantations of churches, that 
 where there were preshyters already, they sent to other 
 churches to desire episcopal ordination from them." lb., 
 p. 375. 
 
 "It is a known mstance, that in the ordination of 
 Pelagius, first bishop of Rome, there were only two 
 bishops concerned and one presbyter ; whereas, accord- 
 ing- to the fourth cano)i of the Nicene council, three 
 bishops are absolutely required for the ordination of a 
 bishop: either, then, Pelagius was no canonical bishop, 
 and so the point of succession thereby fails in the 
 church of Rome : or else a presbyter hath the same 
 intrinsical power of ordination which a bishop hath," 
 [even in ordaining a bishop,] " but it is only restrained 
 by ecclesiastical laws." lb., p. 380. 
 
 " I believe there will, upon the most impartial survey, 
 scarce be one church of the reformation brought which 
 doth embrace any form of government, because it looked 
 ••upon that form as only necessary by an unalterable 
 standing law ; but every one took up that form of govern- 
 ment which was judged most suitable to the state and 
 condition of their several churches r lb., p. 384. 
 
 " I doubt not but to make it evident, that the main 
 ground for settling episcopal government in this nation," 
 (England,) " was not accounted any pretence of divine 
 right, but the conveniency of that form of church govern- 
 ment to the state and condition of the church at the time 
 of its reformation." lb,, p. 385. 
 
 " The first who solemnly appeared in vindication of 
 the Enghsh hierarchy was Archbishop Whitgift : yet he 
 asserts that no kind of government is expressed in the 
 word, or can necessarily be concluded from thence : and 
 again, no form of church goverjiment is by the Scripture 
 prescribed to, or commanded the church of God." lb., p. 394. 
 
 " That great Hght of the German church, Chemnitius, 
 asserts the churches' freedom and liberty as to the orders 
 and degrees of those who superintend the affairs of the 
 
20 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 church ; which he builds on a three-fold foundation : — 
 1. That the word of God nowhere commands 7vhat or 
 hojv many degrees and orders of ministers there shall 
 be. 2. That in the apostles' times there was not the 
 like nimiber in all churches, as is evident from Paul's 
 epistles. 3. That in the apostles' times, in some places, 
 one person did manage the several offices belonging to a 
 church. Which three propositions are the very basis 
 of all our foregoing discourse. — The sum is, it appears 
 by the practice of the apostolical church, that the state, 
 condition, and necessity of every particular church ought 
 to be the standard and measure what offices and degrees 
 of persons ought to be in it." /&., pp. 397, 398. 
 
 Zanchy, an eminent Presbyterian divine, " asserts it 
 to be in the church's power and liberty to add several 
 orders of ministers, according as it judgeth them tend 
 to edification ; and saith he is far from condemning the 
 course of the primitive church, in erecting one as bishop 
 over the presbyters, for better managing church affairs." 
 Ih., p. 399. 
 
 Fregevil, a divine of the French church, (whom the 
 EngUsh bishop Hall calls " wise Fregevil, a deep head,") 
 in his " Politic Reformer," says, " When the apostles 
 first planted churches, the same being small and in 
 affliction, there were not as yet any other bishops, priests, 
 or deacons but themselves : they were the bishops and 
 deacons, and together served the tables. These men, 
 therefore, whom God raiseth up to plant a church, can 
 do no better than, after the exarftple of the apostles, to 
 bear themselves in equal authority." Ih., p. 400. 
 
 Beza, another eminent Presbyterian divine, says, 
 " He was so far from thinking that the human order of 
 episcopacy was brought into the church through rash- 
 ness or ambition, that none can deny it to have been 
 very useful as long as bishops were good. And those 
 that both will and can, let them enjoy it still. — And 
 elsewhere professeth all reverence, esteem, and honour 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 21 
 
 to be due to all such modern bishops, who strive to imi- 
 tate the example of the primitive bishops, in a due 
 reformation of the church of God according to the rule 
 of the word. And looks on it as a most false and impu- 
 dent calumny of some that said as though they" [of 
 Geneva] " intended to prescribe their form of govern- 
 ment to all other churches ; as though they were like 
 some ignorant fellows who think nothing good but what 
 they do themselves." Ih., p. 406. 
 
 To invalidate the authority of Stillingfleet's Ireni- 
 cum, it has been objected by some extravagant assert- 
 ers of the apostolical succession of episcopacy, that it 
 was an indigested work, written when the author was 
 young, and was subsequently retracted. How far this 
 representation is correct, the following facts will show. 
 — After being several years engaged in the composition 
 of that work, the author published it in 1659, at the 
 age of twenty-four. Three years afterward, in 1662, 
 he published a second edition ; and the same year he 
 gave to the world his Origines Sacrse. Soon after these 
 publications he met his diocesan,, the celebrated Bishop 
 Saunderson, at a visitation. The bishop, seeing so 
 young a man, could hardly believe it was Stillingfleet, 
 whom he had hitherto known only by his writings ; and, 
 after having embraced him, said. He much rather ex- 
 pected to have seen one as considerable for his age, as 
 he had already shown himself for his learning. See 
 the Life of Bishop Stillingfleet, pp. 12-16, as quoted 
 by Dr. Miller. — " When a divine of acknowledged 
 talents and learning," adds Dr. Miller, " after spending 
 several years in a composition of moderate length, 
 dehberately commits it to the press ; when, after reflect- 
 ing on the subject, and hearing the remarks of his 
 friends for three years longer, he publishes it a second 
 time ; and when, after this second publication, he is 
 complimented for his great erudition by one of the most 
 abje and learned dignitaries of the age, there seems 
 
22 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 little room for a charge of haste or want of digestion.*' 
 Letters, pp. 270, 271, n. 
 
 " The truth seems to be," continues Dr. Miller, " that 
 Dr. Stilhngfleet, finding that the opinions of a number of 
 influential men in the church were different from those 
 which he had advanced in this work ; and finding- also 
 that a fixed adherence to them might be adverse to the 
 interest of the estabhshed church, in which he sought 
 preferment, he made a kind of vague and feeble recan- 
 tation ; and wrote in favour of the apostolical origin of 
 episcopacy. It is remarkable, however, that this pre- 
 late, in answer to an accusation of inconsistency between 
 his early and his latter writings on this subject, assigned 
 another reason besides a change of opinion, viz., that 
 the former were written ' before the laws were established.^ 
 But in whatever degree his opinion may have been 
 altered, his reasonings and authorities have undergone 
 no change. They remain in all their force, and have 
 never been refuted, either by himself or by others." 
 lb., p. 271. 
 
 Dr. White, now Bishop White of Pennsylvania, was 
 of opinion that that learned prelate, Stillingfleet, was 
 most probably not dissatisfied with that part of the 
 Irenicum which would have been to his (Dr. White's) 
 purpose ; and which of course, as we shall presently 
 show, is to our purpose. Burnet, the contemporary 
 and friend of Stillingfleet, says, (History of his Own 
 Times, anno 1661,) " To avoid the imputation that book 
 brought on him, he went into the humours of a high 
 sort of people beyond what became him, perhaps be- 
 yond his own sense of things." " The book, however," 
 Bishop White adds, "was, it seems, easier retracted than 
 refuted : for though offensive to many of both parties, it 
 was managed, says the same author, [Burnet,] with so 
 much learning and skill, that none of either side ever un- 
 dertook to answer it." See *' The Case of the Episcopal 
 Churches in the United States Considered," page 22. 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 23 
 
 " Luther, and the leading divines of his denomination, 
 supposed that a system" [of church government] " em- 
 bracing some degree of imparity" [among ministers] 
 " was in general expedient ; and, accordingly, in pro- 
 ceeding- to organize their churches, appointed superin- 
 tendents, who enjoyed a kind of pre-eminence, and w^ere 
 vested with pecuhar powers. But they explicitly ac- 
 knowledged this office to be a human, and not a divine 
 institution." Miller's Letters, p. 237. 
 
 The Lutheran churches in Sweden and Denmark are 
 episcopal. See Mosheim, vol. iv, p. 279. Yet all eccle- 
 siastical historians agree that when the Reformation 
 was introduced into Sweden, the first ministers who 
 undertook to ordain w^ere only presbyters. Miller's 
 Letters, p. 240. 
 
 "It is equally certain that in the ordination of a 
 bishop, if the other bishops happen to be absent, the more 
 grave and aged of the ordinary pastors supply their 
 place, and are considered as fully invested rvith the 
 ordaining poYvery lb., p. 24L 
 
 In case of necessity, the same power is recognised 
 by the Methodist Episcopal Church, as fully invested 
 in her body of presbyters. Yet, if by death, expulsion, 
 or otherwise, there should at any time be no bishop 
 remaining among us, even in this case the remaining 
 presbyters would not themselves directly ordain new 
 presbyters, but would first set apart another general 
 superintendent, or superintendents, as their constituted 
 organ for this purpose. 
 
 Section II. — Sentiments of Bishop White. 
 
 In the year 1783 a pamphlet was pubhshed in Phila- 
 delphia entitled, " The Case of the Episcopal Churches 
 in the United States Considered." This work has 
 ^ways been considered as the production of Dr. White, 
 
24 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 now Bishop White, of Pennsylvania. Dr. Miller, in his 
 Letters, published in 1807, p. 270, attributes it to him 
 by name ; and we have not understood that its authen- 
 ticity has ever been denied. A new edition of it has 
 recently been published in Philadelphia, by William 
 Stavely, publisher of the Philadelphia Recorder, a 
 paper edited by a distinguished clergyman of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church. 
 
 It will be seen from this work with what ability 
 Dr. White argued the case of the Episcopal churches in 
 the United States at that period; and how equally 
 strikingly his arguments were adapted to the state of 
 the Methodist societies at the same period. 
 
 In a " Sketch of a Frame of Government" offered by 
 Dr. White, he says, "In each smaller district there 
 should be elected a general vestry or convention, con- ' 
 sisting of a convenient number, (the minister to be one.) 
 — They should elect a clergyman their -permanent presi- 
 dent ; who, in conjunction with other clergymen to be 
 also appointed by the body, may exercise such powers 
 as are purely spiritual, particularly that of admitting to 
 the ministry,'' p. 11. 
 
 Again ; " The conduct meant to be recommended, — 
 is to include in the proposed frame of government a 
 ge?ieral approbation of episcopacy and a declaration of an 
 intention to procure the succession as soon as conve- 
 niently may be ; but in the meantime to carry the plan 
 into effect without waitifigfor the succession."" lb., p. 15. 
 
 " But it will be also said," continues Dr. White, " that 
 the very name of ^ bishop^ is offensive : if so, cha?ige it 
 for another ; let the superior clergyman be a president, a 
 superintendent, or in plain English, and according to the 
 literal translation of the original, an overseer. However, 
 if names are to be reprobated, because the powers 
 annexed to them are abused, there are few appropriated 
 to either civil or ecclesiastical distinctions which would 
 retain their places in our catalogue." J&., p. 17. 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 25 
 
 "The other part of the proposal" of Dr. White, 
 " was an immediate execution of the plan without waiting 
 for the episcopal succession. This is founded on the pre- 
 sumption that the worship of God and the instruction 
 and reformation of the people, are the principal objects 
 of ecclesiastical discipline — ." Ih. 
 
 " It will be said, we ought to continue as we are, 
 with the hope of obtaining it" [the succession] "here- 
 after. But," continues Dr. White, " are the acknow- 
 ledged ordinances of Christ's holy religion to be sus- 
 pended for years, perhaps as long as the present 
 generation shall continue, out of delicacy to a disputed 
 point, and that relating only to externals ? — All the obli- 
 gations of conformity to the divine ordinances, all the 
 arguments which prove the connection between public 
 worship and the morals of a people, combine to urge 
 the adopting of some speedy measures, to provide for 
 the public ministry in these churches. If such as have 
 been above recommended," [viz., ordination by the 
 president clergyman, in conjunction with other clergy- 
 men appointed by the body,] " should be adopted, and 
 the episcopal succession afterward obtained, any sup- 
 posed imperfections of the intermediate ordinations might, 
 if it were judged proper, be supplied, without acknow- 
 ledging their nidlity by a conditional ordination resem- 
 bling that of conditional baptism in the liturgy." Ih. 
 
 But if the " succession" had never been " afterward 
 obtained," there can be little doubt that Dr. White 
 would have maintained the validity of the ordinations 
 on his plan, without the succession. For, as he very 
 justly argues in another place, " If even those who hold 
 episcopacy to be of divine right, conceive the obligation 
 to it to be not binding when that idea would be destruc- 
 tive of public worship, much more must they think so, 
 who indeed venerate and prefer that form as the most 
 ancient and eligible, but without any idea of divine right 
 in the case. This the author believes to be the senti- 
 
26 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 ment of the great body of Episcopalians in America ; 
 in which respect they have in their favour unquestion- 
 ably the sense of the Church of England, and, as he 
 beheves, the opinions of her most distinguished prelates 
 for piety, virtue, and abilities." Ih. p. 25. 
 
 To make any particular form of church government, 
 though adopted by the apostles, unalterably binding, 
 Dr. White maintains, " it must be shown enjoined in 
 positive precept." lb. He remarks farther, "that Dr. 
 Calamy having considered it as the sense of the church," 
 [of England,] " in the preface to the ordinal, that the 
 three orders were of divine appointment, and urged it 
 as a reason for non-conformity; the bishop [Hoadly] 
 with evident propriety, remarks, that the service pro- 
 nounces no such thing ; and that therefore Dr. Calamy 
 created a difficulty where the church had made none ; 
 there being ' some difference,' says he, ' between these 
 two sentences — ^bishops, priests, and deacons, are three 
 distinct orders in the church by divine appointment, — 
 and — -fro7n the apostles'' time there have been in Christ's 
 church, bishops, priests, and deacons." — " The same 
 distinction," says Dr. White, " is accurately drawn and 
 fully proved by Stillingfleet in the Irenicum." lb., p. 22, 
 and note. 
 
 " Now," continues Dr. White, "if the form of church 
 government rest on no other foundation than ancient 
 and apostolical practice, it is humbly submitted to con- 
 sideration, whether Episcopalians will not be thought 
 scarcely deservijig the name of Christians, should they, 
 rather than consent to a temporary deviation, abandon 
 every ordinance of positive and divine appointment." lb. 
 
 The reader will please to observe, that, at the period 
 when the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized, 
 if we had not acted independently of the alleged apos- 
 tolical succession, we must necessarily, for a long time 
 at all events, have abandoned ordinances of positiye and 
 divine appointment. Mr. Wesley, also, as it had been 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 27 
 
 proposed to desire the English bishops to ordain part 
 of our preachers for America, expressly states: 1. "I 
 desired the bishop of London to ordain one only, but 
 could not prevail. 2. If they consented, we know the 
 slowness of their proceeding ; but the matter admits of 
 no delay." Dr. White was of the same opinion in rela- 
 tion to the Episcopal churches ; and was in favour of 
 carrying his plan of ordination, "without waiting for 
 the episcopal succession," into immediate " execution." 
 
 " Bishop Hoadly says, The acceptance of reordination 
 by the dissenting ministers, would not be a dejiial of that 
 right, which (as they conceived) preshjters had to ordain''' 
 lb., p. 23. 
 
 The learned Hooker also admits, that, in " the exigence 
 of necessity, '' or '^ the necessity of the present,^' episcopal 
 ordination, in the line of succession, is not indispen- 
 sable." Ecclesiastical Polity, book 1, sec. 14. 
 
 " Had Mr. Hooker," says Dr. White, (p. 26,) " been 
 asked to define ' the exigence of necessity^ could he have 
 imagined any more urgent than the case in question ?" 
 — the case of the Episcopal churches in this country at 
 that time. — " Or had he been inquired of concerning 
 the ' necessities of 'present times,' could he have men- 
 tioned any in the cases to which he alludes (those of 
 Scotland and Geneva) so strongly pleading for the 
 liberty he allows, as those nov/ existing in America?" — 
 at the period of writing and publishing that pamphlet. 
 The reader has only to change the name, and the just 
 and solid argumentation of Dr. White is as exactly 
 applicable to the case of the Methodist societies in 
 America, at that period, as to " the case of the Episcopal 
 churches." 
 
 " What necessity was there," continues Dr. Wliite, 
 " of the ' reformed churches abroad' equal to ours ? Is 
 not an immediate imitation of the ancient usage ' imprac- 
 ticable V Would not such a plan as has been proposed," 
 "^viz., ordination by a clergyman chosen as a permanent 
 
28 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 president, in conjunction with others appointed by the 
 body,) "be conforming, as far as circumstances allow, 
 to our ideas of ' the apostolic model ?" Ih., p. 27. After 
 quoting Archbishops Usher and Cranmer, with the 
 highest eulogies, in support of this plan, Dr. White thus 
 concludes the argument: — 
 
 " On the credit of the preceding names, the author 
 rests this the last part of his subject ; and if his senti- 
 ments should meet with an unfavourable reception, he 
 will find no small consolation from being in a company 
 so respectable." Ih., p. 29. — So say we ; especially 
 since we have now added the name of Dr. White. 
 More than forty years have elapsed since the publica- 
 tion of that pamphlet, yet we are not aware that it has 
 ever been retracted. If it had been, we presume that 
 some notice would have been given of it in the new 
 edition just published, in the lifetime of the bishop, and 
 at the place of his own residence. And, in any case, 
 we might well say of this production, as Dr. White 
 so appositely remarked of Stillingfleet's Irenicum, — ^it 
 would be " easier retracted than refuted." 
 
 Section III. — Mr. Weslei/s Opinmi. 
 
 " As to my own judgment," says Mr. Wesley, " I still 
 believe the episcopal form of church government to be 
 scriptural and apostolical : I mean, well agreeing with 
 the practice and writings of the apostles. But that it is 
 prescribed in Scripture, I do not believe. This opinion, 
 which I once zealously espoused, I have been heartily 
 ashamed of, ever since I read Bishop Stillingfleet's 
 Irenicum. I thinli he has unanswerably proved, that 
 neither Christ nor his apostles prescribe any particular 
 form of church government ; and that the plea oi divine 
 right for diocesan episcopacy was never heard of in 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 2^ 
 
 the primitive church." Wesley's Works, London edit., 
 1813, vol. xvi, p. 26. 
 
 So far as the judgment of Mr. Wesley is concerned 
 then, it is, on the one hand, decidedly in favour of " the 
 episcopal form of church government ;" and, on the 
 other, as decidedly against the high church pretensions. 
 
 The above extract will also serve to show the opinion 
 which that great master of logic entertained of Stilling- 
 fleet's Irenicum. 
 
 Section IV. — Ordination. 
 
 With the preceding principles and authorities before 
 us, it only remains to consider the origin and force of 
 ordination, and we shall then be prepared to enter into 
 an examination of the original organization of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 " Their custom of ordination," says Dr. Stillingfleet, 
 " w^as evidently taken up by the Christians from a cor- 
 respondency to the synagogue.— That under the syna- 
 gogue was done by laying on of hands. — k. twofold use 
 I find of this symbolical rite, beside the solemn desig- 
 nation of the person on whom the hands are laid. The 
 Jirst is to denote the delivery of the person or thing 
 thus laid hands upon, for the right, use, and peculiar 
 service of God. The second end of the laying on of 
 hands was, the solemn invocation of the Divine pre- 
 sence and assistance to be upon and with the person 
 upon whom the hands were thus laid. — Thence, in 
 all solemn prayers, wherein any person was particu- 
 larly designed, they made use of this custom of impo- 
 sition of hands. From which custom Augustine speaks, 
 Quid aliud est manuum i?jipositio nisi oratio super liomi- 
 nerp.V'' [what is imposition of hands but prayer over a 
 man?] "Thence when Jacob prayed over Joseph's 
 
30 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 children, he laid his hands upon them ; so when Moses 
 prayed over Joshua. The practice likewise our Saviour 
 used in blessing children, healing the sick, and the 
 apostles in conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost ; and 
 from thence it was conveyed into the practice of the 
 primitive church, who used it in any more solemn invo- 
 cation of the name of God in behalf of any particular 
 persons. But the most solemn and peculiar use of this 
 imposition of hands among the Jews, was in the design- 
 ing of any persons for any pubhc employment among 
 them. Not as though the hare imposition of hands did 
 confer any power upon the person — but with that cere- 
 mony they joined those words whereby they did confer 
 that authority upon them. — This custom being so gene- 
 rally in use among the Jews, in the time when the 
 apostles were sent forth with authority for gathering 
 and setthng the churches, we find them accordingly 
 making use of this, according to the former practice, 
 either in any more solemn invocation of the presence of 
 God upon any persons, or designation and appointing them 
 for any pecidiar service or function. For we have no 
 ground to think that the apostles had any peculiar com- 
 mand for laying on their hands upon persons in prayer 
 over them, or ordination of them. But the thing itself 
 being enjoined them, viz., the setting apart some persons 
 for the peculiar work of attendance upon the necessities 
 of the churches by them planted, they took up and 
 made use of a laudable rite and custom, then in use 
 upon such occasions. And so we find the apostles 
 using it in the solemn designation of some persons to 
 the office of deacons ; — afterward upon an occasion not 
 heard of in the synagogue, — for the conferring the gifts 
 of the Holy Ghost. But although the occasion was 
 extraordinary, yet the use of that rite in it was very 
 suitable, inasmuch as those gifts did so much answer 
 to the nrDiy" (Shekinah) "and the i?nipn nn" [the Holy 
 Spirit] " which the Jews conceived did rest upon those 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 31 
 
 who were so ordained by imposition of hands. The 
 next time we meet with this rite was upon a peculiar 
 designation to a ])articular service of persons already 
 appointed hy God for the rvorh of the ministry which is 
 of Paul and Barnabas by the prophets and teachers at 
 Antioch ; whereby God doth set forth the use of that 
 rite of ordination to the Christian churches." Iren. 
 pp. 264-271. 
 
 " Ordination is the solemn setting apart of a person to 
 some public church office." Westminster Assembly of 
 Divines ; examined and approved by the General Assem- 
 bly, of the Church of Scotland. — Neal, vol. v. p. 357 ; 
 appendix. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine has taken pains to show that the vali- 
 dity of Presbyterian ordination was established by 
 Mr. Wesley, and is the principle of the ordination of the 
 British Conference. But who ever denied this ? Is it 
 not expressly and fully declared in our Book of Disci- 
 pline, in answer to the following question : — " If by 
 death, expulsion, or otherwise, there be no bishop 
 remaining in our church, what shall we do ? " 
 
 The answer is; — "The General Conference shall 
 elect a bishop ; and the elders, or any three of them, who 
 shall he appointed hy the General Conference for that 
 purpose, shall ordain him, according to our form of ordi- 
 nation." Chap, i, sec. 4, quest. 2. And this answer 
 shows both the good sense of those who framed it, and 
 their acquaintance with ancient ecclesiastical usage. 
 For, as Stillingfleet, above quoted, says, " Great proba- 
 bility there is that where churches were planted by 
 presbyters," (as the Methodist Episcopal Church was,) 
 " upon the increase of churches and presbyters, they 
 did, from among themselves, choose one to be as the 
 bishop over them. — For we nowhere read in those early 
 plantations of churches, that rvhere there rvere preshyters 
 already, they sent to other churches to desire episcopal 
 ordination from them.'' — It is also in exact accordance 
 
32 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 with the practice of the church of Alexandria, which 
 would not suffer the interference of foreign churches in 
 consecrating their bishops, and of which the patriarch 
 Eutychius, as quoted by Stillingfleet, " expressly affirms 
 that the twelve presbyters constituted by Mark, upon 
 the vacancy of the see, did choose out of their number 
 one to be head over the rest, and the other eleven did 
 lay their hands upon him and blessed him, and made 
 him patriarch.". 
 
 When Mr. M'Caine asserts, that " neither are the 
 ordinations which he" (Mr. Wesley) " conferred, viewed 
 by writers among the English Methodists — as favouring 
 our title of episcopacy," he stops short of the phrase- 
 ology used by the very writers whom he quotes. Their 
 language is, " He" [Mr. Wesley] " gave up episcopal 
 ordination as ufiderstood hy high churchmen^ So do we. 
 And so does our Discipline, clearly and unequivocally. 
 
 Section V. — Ordination of Dr. Coke. 
 
 Having thus cleared our way, we shall now take up 
 the ordination of Dr. Coke. 
 
 "If," says Mr. M'Caine, "Mr. Wesley ordained Dr. 
 Coke a bishop, in the common acceptation of that term, 
 then did he create a church officer greater than himself, 
 and of consequence he brought himself into subjection 
 to Dr. Coke, by making the doctor his superior." Again, 
 "If the doctor was constituted a bishop," ["m the com- 
 mon acceptation of that term^' is here dropped,] "he was 
 raised to a rank above a presbyter, and invested with 
 superior powers. In that case he that was sent was 
 greater than he that sent him" — and " then Mr. Wesley, 
 who was only a presbyter, and consequently inferior to 
 a bishop, assumed the prerogative to send his superior 
 to do a work, in his name, which he himself could not 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 33 
 
 go to do."— And again : " If the doctor, by the imposi- 
 tion of Mr. Wesley's hands, is created a bishop, then 
 the objection of the bishop of Norwich Ues in full force 
 — ' If a presbyter can ordain a bishop, then the greater 
 is blessed of the less,' " &c. 
 
 We have already seen what Mr. M'Caine represents 
 to be " the common acceptation" of the term bishops, 
 (which, by the way, we have shown is not the common 
 acceptation,) viz., an order of ministers distinct from 
 presbyters by divine appointment, to whom the power 
 of ordination is reserved by the same appointment, and is 
 the chief mark of their distinction : — and in whom, as 
 successors of the apostles, is vested the exclusive right 
 of granting the divine commission to execute the minis- 
 terial office. — See History and Mystery, pp. 9, 10.^ — 
 Now if Mr. Wesley ordained Dr. Coke in no such 
 sense ; — if he pretended to no such thing ; — if neither 
 our bishops nor the Methodist Episcopal Church have 
 •ever pretended to any such thing, — w^hat then? Why 
 then it foUow^s that all the smart sayings on this trans- 
 action, which have been repeated and copied from my 
 lord bishop of Norwich down to Mr. M'Caine, are 
 wholly wide of the mark, and are shaken both from Mr. 
 Wesley and from us, as " the lion shakes to air the 
 mists shed on his mane." — They may serve to mislead 
 the ignorant, and such as may be captivated by sound 
 more than by sense. But as to the argument they are 
 perfectly nugatory.— If, say Dr. Whitehead and Mr. 
 Moore, Mr. Wesley's position be true, that bishops and 
 presbyters are the same order, the bishop of Norwich 
 should have first overthrown this position, ii he could, 
 to have established his own. 
 
 But says Mr. M'Caine, " as Mr. Wesley and Dr. Coke 
 
 * One of Mr. M'Caine's authorities is Archbishop Potter, who was the 
 champion of the High-church party ; while Dr. Hoadly, bishop of Win- 
 chester, with great judgment and eloqfience, advocated principles of greater 
 moderation. 
 
34 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 were of the same order, — the doctor had as good a cleri- 
 cal right to ordain Mr. Wesley a bishop, as Mr. Wesley 
 had to ordain the doctor." — As good a clerical right ; — 
 Mr. M'Caine seems to have felt here that his argument 
 was lame. He knows well that the true question is 
 not as to the mere clerical power of ordination, abstractly; 
 but whether in the circumstances then existing, as to 
 acknowledged jurisdiction, and the exigency of the 
 times, Dr. Coke had as good a right to ordain and send 
 Mr. Wesley to superintend the American Methodists, 
 as Mr. Wesley had to summon a council and to ordain 
 and send him ? And whether it was so regarded by the 
 Methodists of that day, either in Europe or in America ? 
 The Methodist societies in America, although under 
 the spiritual direction of the Rev. John Wesley and his 
 assistants, whom, under God, they regarded as their 
 father and founder, yet previously to the revolutionary 
 war were reliorious societies within the Church of Eng- 
 land, without any provision among themselves for the 
 administration of the ordinances. From that church 
 they were separated, let it be carefully observed, not by 
 any schis?n, or faction, or any species of misconduct on 
 their part ; but by the acts of Providence, and by cir- 
 cumstances wholly beyond their control. The Church 
 of England had ceased to exist in America, and the 
 Methodists here were absolutely compelled either to 
 provide for themselves, or to live in neglect of the posi- 
 tive ordinances of Christ. Their case was clearly that 
 of " the exigence of necessity," agreeably to Hooker 
 himself ; and most undeniably so agreeably to the prin- 
 ciples then advocated by Dr. White. Our societies had 
 suffered long, as sheep without shepherds. They had 
 endured the privation of the ordinances till the patience 
 of many had been exhausted, and a serious disunion 
 was threatened ; if not dissolution. A portion of the 
 preachers and societies in the south had resolved on 
 measures for the administration of the ordinances among 
 3^ 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 35 
 
 themselves. This step was strenuously resisted by the 
 conference which met at Baltimore in 1780. That 
 conference unanimously disapproved of the measures 
 adopted by their brethren in Virginia, and resolved that 
 they would not regard them as Methodists in connexion 
 with Mr. Wesley, till they came back ; and Francis 
 Asbury, Freeborn Garrettson, and William Watters 
 were appointed a committee to attend the Virginia con- 
 ference, and inform them of these proceedings, and 
 receive their answer. On that occasion Mr. Asbury 
 exerted his utmost influence to effect a reunion, and, in 
 conjunction with his colleagues, happily succeeded. 
 The proposal by which it was accomplished, after much 
 discussion and distress, originated with him. (See Mr. 
 Snethen's Reply to J. O 'Kelly, p. 8, and Lee's History, 
 p. 73.)'^ It was, that they should consent to bear their 
 privations yet longer ; — to write to Mr. Wesley, and lay 
 their situation before him, and take his advice. This 
 proposal was agreed to ; a division was prevented ; a 
 happy union was restored ; and the preachers departed 
 with thankful hearts, to persuade the people to unite 
 with them in longer forbearance. 
 
 Yet it was not till several years after this ; — not till 
 the Church of England in America was confessedly 
 extinct by the acknowledgment of our independence, 
 and all hope of supplies from that quarter in any reason- 
 able time, if ever, had utterly failed, that Mr. Wesley 
 resolved on the adoption of the measures which, from 
 his relation to the Methodists (under the true Head of 
 the church,) and their urgent solicitations, he had long 
 before believed himself fully authorized to adopt ; but 
 which, /or peace' sake, he had many years forborne. On 
 
 * Mr. -Watters says this proposal was made " by one of their own party." 
 This apparent discrepancy is explained by Mr. Snethen in his " Answer to 
 J. O'Kelly's Vindication." Mr. Asbury originally made the proposal to 
 John Dickens, to whom Mr. Watters alludes. John Dickens reduced it to 
 writing, and proposed it to the conference. 
 
36 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 the same principle, for peace' sake, he had desired the 
 bishop of London to ordain only one preacher for Ame- 
 rica, but could not prevail. Driven to this extremity, vs^ith 
 all his societies and preachers in America, he summoned 
 a council of grave and pious presbyters. These were, 
 in conjunction with him, our body of preshijters, and with 
 their advice he acted. The venerable Fletcher was one 
 of the council, though not present at the subsequent 
 ordinations. Mr. Wesley's scruples were now ended, 
 and he resolved, with the aid of other presbyters, to 
 exercise that authority to which he believed himself 
 called hy the providence of God, and hy the " necessities 
 of the times.'" — Now if the episcopacy of the Church of 
 England, (and consequently of the Protestant Episco- 
 pal Church in this country,) rest on no other foundation 
 than ancient and apostolic ^practice, we humbly submit, 
 (in language similar to that of Bishop White on another 
 occasion,) whether Methodists would scarcely have been 
 deserving the name of Christians, if, rather than con- 
 sent to a temporary (or even to a permanent) deviation 
 from that line of episcopacy, they had abandoned every 
 ordinance of positive and divine appointment. 
 
 Bishop White states, as quoted by Mr. M'Caine, that 
 a union of the Methodists in this country with the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church, was proposed by Dr. Coke 
 in 1791, the terms of which, on the doctor's part, as 
 stated by Bishop White, all will admit were sufficiently 
 humble. Why did that proposal fail ? It is stated, on 
 the same authority, that it failed in consequence of the 
 proceedings of the convention of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church, before whom the subject was laid in 1792. 
 The Rev. Dr. AVyatt of Baltimore published, in 1820, a 
 similar statement. If this statement be correct, then 
 the responsibility for the rendering of our deviation 
 from that line of episcopacy permanent, rests on them. 
 The proposed union by which our " temporary- devia- 
 tion" might have been cured, according to Dr. White's 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 37 
 
 plan of conditional ordinations, on the principle of con- 
 ditional baptisms, was rejected by them. Is it then for 
 them now to reproach us with this deviation, which had 
 been adopted, clearly, in the " exigence of necessity," 
 and which they, as much as in them laid, thus contri- 
 buted to render permanent ? This would be both cruel 
 and unchristian. It is not, we think, in the power of 
 the acute st disputant to impugn the ground on which 
 we stand without equally impugning that assumed by 
 Dr. White in "The Case of the Episcopal Churches 
 Considered :" nor to refute this without refuting that. 
 We shall have occasion to revert again to the state- 
 ment respecting Dr. Coke's proposal to Bishop White, 
 and shall only add here, that, from what we have said, 
 it must plainly appear that the organization of the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church affords no colour of pretext 
 or of countenance to any leaders or authors of schism, 
 faction, disorganization, or disunion. The proceedings 
 of "our fathers" partook of no such character. Nor 
 can the precedent of their example be pleaded by the 
 instigators or abetters of any such disorders. 
 
 The following is a copy of the letters testimonial de^ 
 livered by Mr. Wesley to Dr. Coke, after his ordination, 
 agreeably to the advice of Mr. Fletcher. It was taken 
 by Mr. Drew from the original, in Mr. Wesley's own 
 hand-writing, preserved among the papers of Dr. 
 Coke. 
 
 "To all to whom these presents shall come, John 
 Wesley, late fellow of Lincoln College in Oxford, 
 presbyter of the Church of England, sendeth greeting. 
 " Wliereas many of the people in the southern pro- 
 vinces of North America, who desire to continue under 
 my care, and still adhere to the doctrine and discipline 
 of the Church of England, are greatly distressed for 
 want of ministers to administer the sacraments of bap- 
 tism and the Lord's supper, according to the usage of 
 
38 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 the same church : and whereas there does not appear to 
 be any other way of supplying them with ministers — 
 
 " Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself 
 to be providentially called at this time to set apart some 
 persons for the work of the ministry in America. And 
 therefore, under the protection of Almighty God, and 
 with a single eye to his glory, I have this day set apart 
 as a superintendent, by the imposition of my hands and 
 prayer, (being assisted by other ordained ministers,) 
 Thomas Coke, doctor of civil law, a presbyter of the 
 Church of England, and a man whom I judge to be 
 well qualified for that great work. And I do hereby 
 recommend him to all whom it may concern, as a fit 
 person to preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony 
 whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this 
 second day of September, in the year of our Lord one 
 thousand seven hundred and eighty-four. 
 
 "John Wesley." 
 
 This document leads us to remark ; 1. Mr. M'Caine 
 says, (p. 21,) it is not a letter " of ordination," but of 
 "appointment." — Why? Because "the term 'ordina- 
 tion' is not found in it." And is the term " appointment" 
 found in it ? If it be good logic that because the term 
 " ordination" is not found in it, therefore it is not a letter 
 of ordination ; surely it is equally so that because the 
 term " appointment" is not found in it, therefore it is not 
 a letter of appointment. According to this logic, it may 
 be questioned whether Mr. M'Caine himself has ever 
 been either ordained or appointed an elder ; for we sus- 
 pect that neither the term ordained nor appointed will 
 be found in his credentials. On Mr. M'Caine's prin- 
 ciples of verhality, this document should be called a 
 letter of ^' set apart V for these are the words used by 
 Mr. Wesley. This is a specimen of Mr. M'Caine's 
 logic in the management of documents. A similar one 
 will be found when we come to the term bishop. 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 39 
 
 2. If this were not an ordination, we should be glad 
 to be informed what constitutes one. It was performed 
 as ordinations usually are ; with the usual solemnities ; 
 — by " imposition of hands and prayer ;" with the 
 assistance of " other ordained ministers ;" and " under 
 the protection of Almighty God." If it was not intended 
 as an ordination, it was certainly a very solemn mock- 
 ery ; — a trilling with sacred things, to charge Mr. Wesley 
 with which would be loading his memory wdth " obloquy" 
 indeed. 
 
 3. With what office did Mr. Wesley, by these solem- 
 nities, and by this instrument, intend to invest Dr. Coke ? 
 Not with the ejnscopal office, says Mr. M'Caine. Why ? 
 — Because the term " episcopal " was not used. Let us 
 take the w^ords then that were used. Dr. Coke, who 
 was already a presbyter, was " set apart" by Mr. Wesley, 
 assisted by other presbyters, " as a superintendent — " to 
 preside over the flock of Christ,^'' or, as he expressed it in 
 his letter " to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury," &c., dated a few 
 days subsequently, " over our brethren in North America," 
 — to superintend, and preside over, the whole body of 
 the Methodist preachers on this continent, with hun- 
 dreds, if not thousands of cong-reorations, and tens of 
 thousands of members : — to ordain other ministers, and 
 to exercise all the powers usually considered episcopal. 
 Indeed, the allegation has usually been that the powers 
 with which our superintendents were confessedly in- 
 vested from the com??iencement, — and with Mr. Wesley's 
 sanction, were too great even for an episcopacy. And 
 will Mr. M'Caine, then, yet contend, that Mr. Wesley 
 did not intend that the office of our general superintend- 
 ents in America should be an episcopal office in fact, 
 though under the title of superintendents ? Will he so 
 far jeopard his reputation both for understanding and 
 for candour? To waste time on such a question would 
 really seem to us to be trifling both with ourselves and 
 with our readers. 
 
40 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 4. Mr. Wesley says that those who desired his ad- 
 vice and help " adhered to the doctrine and discipline 
 of the Church of England," and were " greatly dis- 
 tressed for want of ministers to administer the sacra- 
 ments — according to the usage of the same church.''^ 
 Were not the "discipline" and the "usage" of that 
 church episcopal? And does not Mr. Wesley, in this 
 instrument, plainly declare his intention to follow that 
 discipline and usage, so far as he could, without en- 
 tangling us again with the English hierarchy ? 
 
 Mr. M'Caine, indeed, would make out that Mr. Wes- 
 ley's'intention was that we should continue connected 
 with the Church of England. But the contrary is plain. 
 The wide difference between the case of the Methodist 
 societies in England and those in this country, in con- 
 sequence of the revolutionary war, Mr. Wesley himself 
 clearly defines. " The case," he says, " is widely differ- 
 ent between England and North America. Our Ame- 
 rican brethren are now totalhj disentangled — from the 
 English hierarchy — we dare not entangle them again. 
 They are now at full lihertyi simply to follow the Scrip- 
 tures and the primitive church. And we judge it best 
 that they should standfast in that liberty. '^ 
 
 5. Mr. Wesley, in this document, assigns as one of 
 the grounds of his proceeding, precisely that basis of 
 " the exigence of necessity," in which both the propriety 
 and the duty of a similar proceeding on the part of 
 " the Episcopal churches," even at an earlier period, 
 had been so ably advocated by Dr. White. "And 
 whereas," he says, "there does not appear to be any 
 other way of supplying them with ministers." — He had, 
 for peace' sake, previously applied to the bishop of 
 London to ordain one only, but could not prevail. And 
 if the English bishops would even have consented, he 
 knew the slowness of their proceedings ; and the matter 
 admitted of no delay. "^ 
 
 * In 1783, and we think earlier, Dr. White maintained that this "exi- 
 gence of necessity" then existed in " the Episcopal churches." Yet they 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 41 
 
 6. If the ''fuller powers, ^^ whicli Mr. Wesley desired 
 Dr. Coke to meet him in Bristol to receive, were not 
 episcopal mfact, what were they ? Dr. Coke was already 
 a presbyter ; and as to the mere " appointing" of super- 
 intendents, in a lower sense, to take charge of societies 
 as Mr. Wesley's assistants, it would have been a perfect 
 novelty in Methodism to have used such ceremonies 
 barely for that purpose. Mr. Rankin and Mr. Asbury 
 had both been superintendents in America, in this sense, 
 as Mr. Wesley's assistants, without any such ceremo- 
 nies. And, as a conclusive argument against such a 
 view of this transaction, we add, — if Mr. Wesley, by 
 setting apart Dr. Coke, and investing him with " fuller 
 powers," meant barely to " appoint" him a superintend- 
 ent, as his assistant, in the sense in which he had ordi- 
 narily used this term, then it would have been utterly 
 inconsistent with his known principle to have associ- 
 ated Mr. Creighton, Mr. Whatcoat, and Mr. Vasey, 
 with him, in making the appointment. 
 
 7. If Mr. Wesley's preferring the title " superintend- 
 ent," proves that Dr. Coke, under that title, was not 
 intended by Mr. Wesley to be a bishop in fact, it equally 
 follows that his preferring the title " elder" proves that 
 
 did not succeed in obtaining ordination from the English bishops till 1787; 
 and even then not until it was authorized by an act of parliament. Dr. Sea- 
 bury had previously succeeded in obtaining ordination from the nonjuring 
 bishops of Scotland, though he could not from the English bishops. But 
 even this was not till after the ordination of Dr. Coke as a general super- 
 intendent. When some young gentlemen went to England, after the revo- 
 lution, to obtain episcopal ordination, the archbishop of Canterbury was of 
 opinion that no English bishop could ordain them unless they took the oath 
 of allegiance. Mr. Southey says they then applied for advice and assist- 
 ance to Dr. Franklin, who was then our minister in France. He consulted 
 a French clergyman, and found that they could not be ordained in France, 
 unless they vowed obedience to the archbishop of Paris ; and the pope's 
 nuncio, whom he consulted also, informed him that the Romish bishop in 
 America could not lay hands on them unless they turned Catholics. Frank- 
 lin therefore advised them, either that the Episcopalian clergy in America 
 should become Presbyterians, or that they should elect a bishop for them- 
 selves. So true it was, as Mr. Wesley said, he knew the slowness and the 
 entanglingness of iheir proceedings ; and such was Franklin's advice in the 
 ^se. 
 
42 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 he did not intend Mr. Whatcoat and Mr. Vasey to be 
 priests, or presbyters, in fact. The argument is as 
 good in the one case as in the other. The forms of 
 ordination prepared for us by Mr. Wesley, for setting 
 apart our superintendents and elders, as we shall here- 
 after show, were merely an abridgment of the forms of 
 the Church of England for setting apart hishops and 
 priests. And as he substituted the term superintendent 
 for bishop, so he also substituted the term elder for 
 priest ; — clearly intending substantially the same eccle- 
 siastical officers in each case, but not the same titles. 
 
 8. 'That in such an " exigence of necessity" as then 
 existed, and at the organization of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church it was admissible for a body of presby- 
 ters to constitute a hishop in fact, in our acceptation of 
 the term, with the title of superintendent, president, 
 inspector, or overseer, as they judged best, we have 
 already supported by abundant evidence. 
 
 9. When Lord King lays it down as the primitive 
 usage that there was " but one supreme bishop in a 
 place," he uses the term expressly in relation to " the 
 proper pastor or minister of a parish, having care of 
 the souls of that church or parish ;" though in some 
 cases there were other ministers subordinately connected 
 with him, and assisting him. In this sense we admit 
 that there ought to be but one bishop, or minister having 
 the pastoral charge, in one place. And this is our usage. 
 But that in the apostles' time there were individuals 
 travelling extensively as superintendents, bishops, in- 
 spectors, or overseers, in a larger sphere, and setting in 
 order the things that were wanting in multitudes of 
 churches, is undeniable. Whether such church officers 
 were extraordinarij, or no, as Stillingfleet says, we now 
 dispute not : but whether they be repugnant to the gos- 
 pel or no ; — which, from their practice, as he adds, it 
 is evident that they are not. That what was epctraor- 
 dinary in the apostolic oversight, and in that of Timothy 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 43 
 
 and Titus, did cease with them, may be admitted. But 
 the question remains, what was extraordinary, and what 
 was not ? For surely not every practice and nsage of 
 the apostles was intended to cease with them. For then 
 the office of preaching itself must cease, for this was 
 their main office. Besides, by ceasing, may be meant, 
 either ceasing as to its necessity, or as to its lawfulness. 
 And to make a thing unlawful, which was before layvful, 
 there ought to be some express prohibition of it : which, 
 in this case, we suppose, with Stillingfleet, men will not 
 easily produce in the word of God. And admitting the 
 lawfulness of our practice in this respect, the expediency 
 and utility of it must be judged by those whose concern 
 it is. That such an itinerant and extensive oversight as 
 was practised by the apostles, and by Timothy and 
 Titus, fell greatly into disuse very shortly after their 
 decease, is true. But surely it cannot be conclusively 
 inferred from this that it is unlawful to revive a similar 
 superintendency in churches which may desire it, and 
 believe it to be both practicable and useful. Such an 
 episcopacy, as Mr. Wesley says of " the episcopal form 
 of church government," we beUeve to be both Scriptural 
 and apostohcal. We mean, as he adds, " well agreeing 
 both with the practice and with the writings of the 
 apostles." 
 
 That " plain John Wesley, the fountain of our epis- 
 copal authority," should be '' improved into father 
 Wesley" is made by Mr. M'Caine, p. 53, a matter of 
 ridicule. But when he wrote this, he probably forgot 
 that, when it suited his purpose, he had himself used 
 the same language. "Mr. Wesley," he says, p. 23, 
 " considered himself, under God, the father of all the 
 Methodists in Europe and America." And again, p. 43, 
 when he wished to represent it as odious in our fathers 
 not to have implicitly obeyed the wish of Mr. Wesley 
 on a particular occasion, then he is careful himself to 
 
44 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 improve "plain John Wesley," into " the father of the 
 Methodist people." 
 
 This relation, however, Mr. Wesley did himself ex- 
 pressly claim; and the claim was recognised by the 
 whole body of Methodists, both in Europe and in Ame- 
 rica. '' You," said he to Mr. Asbury, " are the elder 
 brother of the American Methodists. 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." And 
 in the secondary sense of Theodoret, Fregevil, and Stil- 
 ling&eet, we do not hesitate to denominate him the 
 apostle of the whole Methodist people, obnoxious as 
 that term is to Mr. M'Caine ; and even to assert, that he 
 did mfact claim and exercise episcopal authority among 
 them ; and that both he and they believed that in all 
 this he acted in the order of Divine providence. 
 
 Mr. Wesley did himself assert that he believed him- 
 self to be "a Scriptm-al ETnaKonog, episcopos, as much 
 as any man in England or in Europe." Moore's Life of 
 Wesley, vol. ii, p. 280. And he asserted this with 
 direct reference to his " acting as a bishop,'' in reply to 
 the remarks of his brother Charles. If by episcopos 
 he did not mean to aver himself a hishop in fact, and 
 entitled to '' act as a bishop," in our acceptation of the 
 term, then his reply did not meet his brother's objection, 
 but was a mere evasion ; and one too shallow, though 
 mantled in Greek, to deceive, or to satisfy, so good a 
 scholar as his brother Charles. That he meant that he 
 was an episcopos, merely in the sense of being the 
 proper pastor of a particular congregation or parish, 
 cannot be : for such he was not. Yet, although he did 
 believe himself entitled to exercise episcopal authority 
 among the Methodists ; as much so as any bishop of 
 the Church of England — in the Church of England, it 
 should be carefully noted that for peace' sake, he re- 
 frained from the exercise of it with respect to ordina- 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 45 
 
 tion, till imperiously -urged to it by the " exigence of 
 necessity ;" and until, if he had refused longer, he must 
 have permitted his numerous societies in America, who 
 were loudly calling on him for advice and help, to live 
 in the neglect of imperative ordinances of Christ's posi- 
 tive institution. In any reference to the precedent of 
 Mr. Wesley's example, then, we shall do him great in- 
 justice, if we are not careful always to combine all 
 these various views, relations, and circumstances. In 
 relation to the general church, or to the Church of 
 England, Dr. Coke and Mr. Wesley, as presbyters, were 
 undoubtedly equal in order. Yet that their acknow- 
 ledged jurisdiction, in relation to the Methodist societies, 
 was vastly different in Dr. Coke's own view, and that 
 he knew it to be so regarded by the Methodist people, 
 is manifest from the following extract of a letter which 
 he addressed to Mr. Wesley previously to his coming to 
 America. 
 
 " Honoured and Dear Sir, 
 
 " The more maturely I consider the subject, the more 
 expedient it appears to me that the power of ordaining 
 others" [having reference to the ordination to be esta- 
 blished for the Methodists in America] " should be 
 received by me from you^ by the imposition of your 
 
 hands; 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 with- 
 out that formal authority may be disputed, if there be 
 any opposition on any other account. I could therefore 
 earnestly wish you would exercise that power in this 
 instance, which I have not the shadow of a doubt, 
 but God hath invested you with, for the good of our 
 connection." Moore's Life of Wesley, vol. ii, p. 276.'^ 
 
 * Yet, in the face of this broad declaration, Mr. M'Caine repeatedly 
 endeavours to make out that Dr. Coke xoas doubtful of the validity of his 
 own ordination. 
 
46 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 Section VI. — Dr. Coke's Letter to Bishop White, 
 
 In a letter to Bishop White of Pennsylvania, dated 24th: 
 April, 1791, Dr. Coke says, Mr. Wesley "did indeed 
 solemnly invest me, as far as he had a right so to do, 
 vi^ith episcopal authority." On this phrase, " as far as 
 he had a right so to do," Mr. M'Caine declaims vv^ith 
 great self-gratulation. And connecting with it what he 
 calls Dr. Coke's " proposals to Bishop White, to have 
 the'preachers in the Methodist Episcopal Church reor- 
 dained by Bishop White, and himself and the gentle- 
 man connected with him, consecrated for the episcopal 
 office," he exults in these figments, as if he had con- 
 victed Dr. Coke out of his own mouth, that he did doubt 
 the validity of his own ordination, and consequently his 
 right to ordain others ; although Dr. Coke constantly 
 affirmed that he did not doubt it, nor had a shadow of 
 a douht of it ; and was in the constant practice of ordain- 
 ing others. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine has been careful to collect into his pam- 
 phlet the stale objections of the enemies not only of our 
 episcopacy, but of our whole ministry and order — and, 
 if we are to be governed by his authorities, his own 
 ordination as an elder is not one whit more valid than 
 the episcopal ordination of our bishops. If the reader 
 will turn to p. 10 of "History and Mystery," &c., he 
 will find a passage, which we have already quoted, 
 commencing thus : " It is a principle universally es- 
 tablished among Episcopalians," &c. Mr. M'Caine 
 marks that passage as a quotation, yet gives no author- 
 ity for it ; although in every other instance under that 
 head he names his authority. Why did he not name it 
 in this ? Was it not because he was himself ashamed 
 of it? Because it was taken from an avowed and 
 personal enemy of our whole order ; who denied the 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 47 
 
 validity of every gospel ordinance as administered by 
 us ; and who, with all the effrontery of Rome, asserts 
 in the very next paragraph to that which Mr. M'Caine 
 cites, that "no true church can exist without a true 
 episcopacy, and that no episcopacy can be a true one 
 but that which is derived from the holy apostles in the 
 order of bishops as superior to, and distinct from, the 
 order of presbyters ?" The author of that pamphlet, 
 after having separated himself from the Methodist 
 Church, exerted what skill he had to prove us guilty of 
 schism, and destitute of every valid gospel ordinance. 
 From that pamphlet, if we may judge from their cor- 
 respondence, Mr. M'Caine has drawn his materials on 
 the subject of this section ; but has not had the candour 
 to inform his readers that there has ever been any refu- 
 tation of that author's aspersions. 
 
 The laboured declamation of Mr. M'Caine on this sub- 
 ject, as, indeed, a large portion of his book, is founded 
 on an entire misconception or misrepresentation of 
 Methodist episcopacy. Mr. Wesley invested Dr. Coke 
 with " episcopal authoritif in relation to the Methodists 
 in America. In relation to other churches, Dr. Coke 
 had no " episcopal authority ;" nor did Mr. Wesley claim 
 a right to give him any. In this respect his language 
 was considerate and precise. Neither have the bishops 
 of other churches any " episcopal authority" in relation 
 to us, nor could they confer such authority among us on 
 any individual without our act. 
 
 Had Dr. Coke, for the sake of union with the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church, consented to submit to a 
 second episcopal ordination, or " consecration," it would 
 by no means have proved that he therefore acknow- 
 ledged, or even doubted, the validity of his prior ordi- 
 nation.. It is well known that some Methodist pres- 
 byters, who have joined other churches, have submitted 
 to a second ordination, not for their own satisfactio7i, but 
 for the satisfaction of others, and because it was required 
 
48 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 of them in order to the union. The case would have 
 been analogous, had Dr. Coke submitted to a second 
 episcopal ordination, for the sake of union with the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church. With his views at that 
 time of the probable effects of such a union, he might 
 not have considered it wrong, in such circumstances, to 
 submit to a reordination. That such were the prin- 
 ciples by which he was actuated, we have his own posi- 
 tive declarations. An authenticated copy of a letter 
 which he addressed to Bishop Asbury on the subject is 
 now before us, dated, " Near Leeds, Feb. 2, 1808." In 
 this letter he states that he had heard that there had 
 been a paper war concerning a letter which he wrote, 
 in the year 1791, to Bishop White. He acknowledges 
 that when he wrote that letter he did then believe that 
 the union which he proposed would have a good effect. 
 And particularly that " it would very much enlarge our 
 field of action, and that myriads would, in consequence 
 of it, attend our ministry, who were then much 'preju- 
 diced against us." He adds, however, that he had no 
 idea of "deciding" on any thing; — that such an idea, 
 without the concurrence of Bishop Asbury and of the 
 General Conference, would have been absurd, and that 
 what he did was intended to ascertain the sense of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, preparatory to the Gene- 
 ral Conference ; but at the same time he expressly 
 declares, " I never applied to the convention for recon- 
 secration. I never intended that either you or I should 
 give up our episcopal ordination. My proposals secured 
 our discipline in all points^ And afterward adds, " But 
 I now see that the failure of my plan, which was laid 
 down from the purest motives, was for the best." The 
 Rev. Ezekiel Cooper has in his possession an original 
 letter from Dr. Coke to himself, of the same import. 
 
 Bishop White states that one of the outlines of Dr. 
 Coke's plan, as to *' the Methodist ministers," was " ih^ir 
 continuing under the superinte7idence the?i existing, and on 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 49 
 
 the practices of their peculiar institutions." This coin- 
 cides with Dr. Coke's statement. Bishop White adds, 
 " There was also suggested by him a propriety, but not 
 a condition made, of admitting to the episcopacy him- 
 self and the gentleman associated wdth him in the super- 
 intendence of the Methodist societies." This sug-o^es- 
 tion, so far as w^e can discover, is not to be found in 
 Dr. Coke's letter. It is true, Bishop White says in an- 
 other place, as quoted by Mr. M'Caine in a note, " Or it 
 may have been the consecration -of himself," [Dr. Coke,] 
 " and the gentleman connected with him, for this mea- 
 sure was hinted in a conversation that afterward took 
 place between us." The very terms of this note show 
 doubt on the face of it. And as we shall presently de- 
 monstrate that Bishop White mistook the import of Dr. 
 Coke's letter, it must be admitted to be possible that he 
 might at least equally have misapprehended a hint in 
 conversation. But why does Mr. M'Caine commence 
 his quotation from Bishop White's letter of Sept., 1806, 
 in this broken manner, '' Or it may have been," &c. ? 
 What went before " Or?^' and why w^as it not quoted? 
 If we examine the preceding part of that paragraph in 
 Bishop White's letter, the reason is obvious. It did not 
 suit Mr. M'Caine's purpose. Bishop White was conjec- 
 turing by what means Dr. Coke had probably contem- 
 plated the removal of a difficulty on the part of some 
 of the preachers in rising up to ordination, if it were left 
 dependent on the then bishops of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church. That difficulty respected those preachers 
 who were not acquainted with the learned languages. 
 " What was his intended mean of removal of this diffi- 
 culty," sa3^s Bishop White, " does not appear in the 
 letter. It may have heen a promise, on the part of the 
 bishops, that the ordination of the persons in question 
 should not be prevented by that circumstance. Or it 
 may have been,'' &c., as quoted by Mr. M'Caine. The 
 whole passage, taken together, shows that it was conjec- 
 ^ 4 
 
50 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 tural. As such we leave it. The propensity of the 
 human mind to conjecture what is most accordant with 
 its own habits of thinking, or what is best calculated to 
 support its own views, is too well known to require dis- 
 cussion here. 
 
 But even admitting that Bishop White may havO'been 
 correct in his impression, that Dr. Coke did hint in 
 conversation the propriety of admitting to the episco- 
 pacy himself and the gentleman associated with him, in 
 case of union with the Protestant Episcopal Church, it 
 md^ be easily accounted for on Bishop White's own 
 principles, without supposing Dr. Coke by any means 
 to have intended to admit the nullity of his former epis- 
 copal ordination. Dr. Coke might, at that time, have 
 thought it expedient, if a union took place, in order to 
 gain the more, and to enlarge our field of action, to 
 accommodate himself to the prejudices of those who 
 deemed what they termed the " succession," of import- 
 ance. This was precisely what Bishop White himself 
 had proposed but a few years before, in " The Case of 
 the Episcopal Churches Considered." — " If," said he, 
 " such" [measures] " as have been above recommended 
 should be adopted," [viz., admitting to the ministry by a 
 clergyman elected as permanent president, in conjunc- 
 tion with other clergymen,] " and the episcopal succes- 
 sion afterward obtained, any supposed imperfections of 
 the intermediate ordinations might, if it were judged 
 proper, be supplied witlimit acJcnorvledging their nullity, 
 by a conditional ordination, resembling that of condi- 
 tional baptism." P. 17. 
 
 But 7ve conjecture if Dr. Coke did hint or suggest the 
 propriety of admitting to the episcopacy, in union with 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church, himself and the gen- 
 tleman connected with him, he either meant that they 
 should be so admitted without reconsecration ; or, if 
 with reconsecration, then it was that he would submit 
 to this for the sake of being 77iore extensively useful 
 4* 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 51 
 
 . among those of the Protestant Episcopal Church, who 
 might deem it of importance, in case of such a union, 
 and not at all because he deemed it of any sort of con- 
 sequence, — much less of necessity, either for himself 
 or for the Methodists. 
 
 But we have said that Bishop White mistook the im- 
 port of Dr. Coke's letter, and may possibly have equally 
 mistaken the import of what he considered a hint in 
 conversation. It remains to show this. 
 
 In his letter of July, 1804, Bishop Wliite says, "The 
 general outlines of Dr. Coke's plan were a reordination 
 of the Methodist ministers," &c. In the letter of Sept., 
 1806, he expresses it thus : " His plan" [Dr. Coke's] 
 *' was, that all the ordained ministers then in the Me- 
 thodist connection should receive episcopal ordination." 
 Now let us turn to Dr. Coke's own language, as con- 
 tained in his letter to Bishop White, dated April 24, 
 1791. " Our ordained ministers," says Dr. Coke, '^ will 
 not, OUGHT NOT, to give up their right of administering the 
 sacraments." Here their then existing '''right' to adminis- 
 ter the sacraments is expressly asserted, and also their 
 obligation not to give it up, being a " right'' of a sacred 
 character, already vested. The validity of their ordina- 
 tion is, in this passage, unequivocally averred. Yet Dr. 
 Coke adds, " I don't think that the generality of them, 
 perhaps none of them, would refuse to submit to a reor- 
 dination, if other hinderances were removed out of the 
 way." Now we ask, in the name of candour, if there 
 be no difference between saying it was Dr. Coke's plan, 
 — as if it had been proposed by him as a thing deemed 
 necessary by himself, that all the ordained Methodist 
 ministers should be reordained, — and his averring that 
 they ought not to give up the " right" which they pre- 
 viously possessed of administering the sacraments; 
 though he did not think that most of them, perhaps none 
 of them, would refuse to submit to reordination, if their 
 crnnyliance in that respect should be the only remaining 
 
52 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 hinderance to a union ? — The difference to us is clear. 
 And we believe it will be equally plain to every impar- 
 tial and candid reader. 
 
 But we will go farther, and say, had it even been Dr. 
 Coke's " plan" that all the ordained Methodist ministers 
 should be reordained, in case of a union with the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church, it could not have been because 
 he admitted the nullity of their existing ordination, 
 unless he palpably contradicted himself in the same 
 breath. The principle of such a proposal, had it been 
 made, could have been no other, from the evidence 
 before us, than that above stated, viz., a willingness, for 
 the sake of more extensive usefulness, to accommodate 
 himself to the prejudices of others, when he did not 
 believe that his doing so would be sinful. The justifia- 
 bleness, and even the expediency of such a course, 
 without admitting the nullity of former ordinations, had 
 been previously to that time amply vindicated by Bishop 
 White himself, in the case of the Episcopal churches. 
 That pamphlet Dr. Coke had no doubt seen, and it is 
 highly probable that that very work had a principal 
 influence in inducing him to approach Bishop White 
 particularly on that subject. 
 
 We have only to add here that w^hatever Dr. Coke 
 did in this matter was his own individual act ; and was 
 neither approved of nor known by his colleague, Bishop 
 Asbury, nor, as far as we are acquainted, by a single 
 other Methodist minister in the United States. And 
 that Dr. Coke himself lived long enough to see, and 
 with his characteristic candour, to acknowledge that the 
 failure of his scheme had been for the best.'^ 
 
 * That Dr. Coke was ardent in his temperament, and sometimes hasty and 
 precipitate in his measures, his best friends will admit. But his candour, 
 when convinced of an error, was a trait in his character not less predominantly 
 striking. — At some periods of his life there is no question that he would have 
 been willing to make even undue sacnficcs for the sake of accomplishing a 
 union between the body of Methodists and the Protestant Episcopal Church ; 
 and also with the Church of England. In addition to the prejudices of hi* 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 53 
 
 A statement on this subject, similar to that of Mr. 
 M'Caine, was made by the Rev. Dr. Wyatt, of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church, in a sermon published by 
 that gentleman, in Baltimore, in the year 1820. From 
 the correspondence of their materials, it seems pretty 
 evident that they both drew from the same fountain; 
 which, however, they seem to have been equally 
 ashamed to own. That Dr. Wyatt drew from it, we 
 think there can be little doubt : for he adds to the story 
 a remarkable fabrication of his author, which we believe 
 never before appeared any where else ; and which it 
 might have been well for Dr. Wyatt to have given that 
 author credit for ; since, in not doing so, he has taken 
 upon himself the responsibility of asserting as a fact 
 what we peremptorily deny to be such. 
 
 The author to whom we allude asserts that Dr. Coke's 
 proposal to Bishop White was made " with the sanction, 
 if not actualhj hy the order, of Mr. Wesleij.'" Dr. Wyatt 
 merely varies the phraseology a little, and asserts it 
 was ''with the approbation, if not direction, of Mr. Wes- 
 ley.'' In either shape we demj the statement, and 
 demand the proof The fact is that Mr. Wesley at that 
 time was dead. And if the communication to Bishop 
 White had been made by Dr. Coke with his approba- 
 tion, and much more if by his direction, there can be 
 
 education, as a clergyman o( the Church of England, it is highly probable, 
 too, that, at the time of writing to Bishop White, neither his mind, nor per- 
 haps, as he supposed. Mr. Wesley's, had entirely recovered from the influence 
 of the proceedings of the Conference of 1787, in relation to the appointment 
 of Mr. Whatpoat, and the leaving of Mr. Wesley's name off the Minutes. 
 This state of things, according to Dr. Coke's views, may serve to account for 
 several expressions in his letter to Bishop White, both in relation to Mr. Wesley 
 and to Bishop Asbury. The transactions of that period of our history we 
 shall presently explain more fully. It is sufficient to add here that whatever 
 unfavourable impressions respecting Mr. Asbury had been produced abroad, 
 previously to that time, he outlived them all. The affectionate assurances of 
 confidence and union which passed between Dr. Coke and him, at the General 
 Conference of 1796, are well remembered by several now living, who were 
 then present. And Dr. Coke's letter to him, of Feb. 1808, quoted above, 
 ^undantly attests the same fact. 
 
54 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 no doubt, from the open manner in which Dr. Coke 
 unbosomed himself to Bishop White, and from the use 
 which he did make of Mr. Wesley's name, that he would 
 not have failed to mention so very important a circum- 
 stance, nor Bishop White to communicate it. In fact, 
 justice, in this case, would have required it in Dr. Coke's 
 defence. And we respectfully submit it to the Rev. 
 Professor of Theology in the University of Maryland, 
 whether attempts in this way to wound so large and 
 respectable a body as the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 on such authority, be not more disparaging to his own 
 sacred and elevated character than to them. 
 
 In one colouring of the matter, however, neither Mr. 
 M'Caine nor Dr. Wyatt seems to have had the hardi- 
 hood to follow up his author. That author says :■ " It 
 was a society applying for readmission into the church, 
 and not two equally independent bodies that were to be 
 considered as negotiating." — " The society could and did 
 acknowledge the church she applied to," &c. Now, as 
 it respects any application on this subject from the 
 society, as he here calls the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 all this is wholly false. Though, in our opinion, there 
 is just as much truth in it as in the assertion of the same 
 author that Dr. Coke's proposal was made with the 
 sanction, if not by the order, of Mr. Wesley. — And this 
 tale, we apprehend, will gain but little additional credit 
 when it is known that it originated with one who had 
 deserted the Methodist Episcopal Church, and joined 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church ; and after pronouncing 
 upon that church the most fulsome and high-toned eulo- 
 gies, subsequently abandoned it also, and went where 
 all who hold such principles as he had avowed, to be 
 consistent with themselves, ought to go — to the Papists. 
 And thence, no doubt, looked down on Dr. Wyatt, and 
 the whole " schismaticaV Protestant Episcopal Church, 
 with as much contempt as he had before arrogated to 
 himself the right to bestow, with so much bitter haughti- 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 55 
 
 ness, upon the Methodist Episcopal Church. We mean 
 the Rev. Mr. Kewley. And this gentleman is one of 
 the " writers" passed off on his readers by Mr. M'Caine, 
 among- his ecclesiastical writers of " great celehritij .'""^ 
 
 Dr. Wjatt asserts, farther, that " it has been the faith 
 of the universal church, without exception, until the period 
 of the reformation, that to the order of bishops alone 
 belongs the power of ordaining ministers : and that an 
 ordination performed by the hands of a priest, deacon, 
 or layman, or by any number of either, would be devoid 
 of every degree of validity and efficacy, in conferring 
 spiritual office and power." By bishops in this passage 
 we understand Dr. Wyatt to mean diocesan bishops, in 
 the high-church sense. And as he thought proper to 
 apply his remarks to the " Methodist denomination" by 
 name, whom he acknowledges to be " zealous and de- 
 vout," whilst he excludes our whole order from any 
 part or lot in the Christian ministry, he will excuse us 
 for saying a few words in self-defence. Acjitiir de vita 
 et sanguine Tumi. 
 
 Dr. Wyatt has not even excepted the " exigence of 
 necessity," which even Hooker says may " constrain to 
 leave the usual ways of the church." The same Mr. 
 Hooker adds, " Wher« the church must needs have 
 some ordained, and neither hath nor can have possibly 
 a bishop to ordain ; in case of such necessity, the ordi- 
 nary institution hath given oftentimes, and may give, 
 
 * Dr. Bowden, another high-church \%T:iter, in his letters to Dr. Miller, 
 aflBrms that John Wesley was evidently persuaded by Coke, and two or three 
 others, to take the step of ordaining bishops for America ; and that it did not 
 originate with himself. This will be sufficiently refuted in our section of 
 "Testimonies of English Methodists." Dr. Bowden asserts also that Coke 
 offered to Bishop White " to give up their spurious episcopacy," and insinuates 
 that John Wesley acted " absolutely in contradiction to his own conviction." 
 Dr. Bowden, however, wrote evidently in too great wrath to treat even the 
 names of John Wesley and of Coke with common decency. Nor will the 
 reader be surprised at his saying any thing that suited the purpose of abusing 
 the Methodists, when informed that he copied Mr. Kewley, whose authority 
 he had the prudence to cite. — Mr. Kewley adopted the maxim, " Throw dirt 
 ^nough and some will stick ;" and Dr. Bowden followed his example. 
 
56 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 place. And therefore, we are not simply without excep- 
 tion, to urge a lineal descent of power from the apostles 
 by continued succession of bishops, in every effectual 
 ordination. Ecclesiastical Polity, book vii, sect. 14. 
 
 The authority of Mr. Hooker has always been ranked 
 in the first class by high churchmen themselves ; and 
 Dr. White, as we have before shown, asserted that the 
 necessity of the churches in this country, about the close 
 of the revolutionary war, was even greater than the exi- 
 gence of those foreign churches to which Hooker alluded. 
 
 In the reign of Edward VI., about the year 1547, a 
 very grave and learned assembly of select divines was 
 called by the king's special order, for debating the set- 
 tlement of things according to the word of God, and the 
 practice of the primitive church. It consisted of Oan- 
 mer, archbishop of Canterbury, the archbishop of York, 
 and many other prelates and divines of the first distinc- 
 tion. The account of their proceedings Dr. Stillingfleet 
 assures us he took himself from the authentic manu- 
 script of Archbishop Cranmer, then first published. To 
 the questions propounded to the assembly by order of 
 the king, those eminent divines gave in their answers 
 severally, on paper ; which were all accurately summed 
 up and set down by the archbishop of Canterbury him- 
 self The following were some of the questions and 
 answers. 
 
 Quest. 10. "Whether bishops or priests were first ; and 
 if the priest were first, then the priest made the bishop ?" 
 
 Ans. " The bishops and priests were at one time, and 
 were not two things, but both one office in the begin- 
 ning of Christ's religion." 
 
 Quest. 13. " Whether (if it fortuned a prince Chris- 
 tien, lemed, to conquer certen domynyons of infidells, 
 having none but the temporal lemed men with him) it 
 be defended by God's law, that he and they should 
 preche and teche the word of God there or no, .and also 
 make and constitute priests or no ?" 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 57 
 
 Ans. " It is not against God's law, but contrary they 
 ought indede so to do, and there he history es that witnesseth 
 that some Christien princes and other laymen unconse- 
 crate have done the same." — Observe, " there he histories 
 that witness" — certainly before " the reformation," which 
 was then but just begun. 
 
 Quest. 14. " Whether it be forfended by God's law, 
 that if it so fortuned that all the bishopps and priests 
 were dedde, and that the word of God shuld there un- 
 preached, the sacrament of baptisme and others unmi- 
 nistred, the king of that region shulde make bishoppes 
 and priests to supply the same or no ? " 
 
 Ans. " It is not forbidden by God's law."^ 
 
 Iren. pp. 386-393. 
 
 "If we may believe the great antiquaries of the 
 Church of Scotland, that church was governed by their 
 culdei, as they called their presbyters, without any bishop 
 over them, for a long time. — Johannes Fordoniis (De 
 gestis Scot. lib. ii, ch. 2,) is clear and full as to their 
 government from the time of their conversion about 
 A. D. 263, to the coming of Palladius, A. D. 430, that 
 they were only governed by presbyters and monks. 
 Ante Palladii adventum habebant Scoti fidei doctores 
 ac sacramentorum ministratores preshyteros solummodo, 
 vel monachos ritum sequentes Ecclesite primitivse." 
 Ibid. p. 375. 
 
 " It is no w^ay sufficient," says Stillingfleet, " to say 
 that these presbyters did derive their authority from 
 some bishops — if they had any they were only chosen 
 from their culdei,'' (as they called their presbyters,) 
 
 * Of Archbishop Cranmer, Dr. Warner, as cited with approbation by Bishop 
 White, says, " His equal was never yet seen in the see of Canterbury, and I 
 will take upon me to say that his superior never will." — The two last questions 
 and answers above are cited by Bishop White also, who adds respecting- them, 
 " The above may be offered as the opinions of not only Cranmer, but also of 
 most of the eminent bishops and other clergy of that period." Episcopal 
 Churches Considered, p. 28. 
 
58 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 " much after the custom of the church at Alexandria, 
 as Hector Boethius cloth imply. And if we believe 
 Philostorgius, the Gothic churches were planted and 
 governed by presbyters for above seventy years ; for so 
 long it was from their first conversion to the time of 
 Ulphhilas, w^hom he makes their first bishop." Ibid. 
 
 For another instance, about the year 390, see Ireni- 
 cum, p. 379, — and others in the year 452, after stating 
 and arguing which, Dr. Stillingfleet tlius concludes : — " It 
 appears then that this power" [of ordination by pres- 
 byters] " was restrained by the laws of the church, for 
 preserving unity in itself; but yet so that in case of 
 necessity what was done by presbyters was not looked 
 on as invalid." Ibid. p. 381. 
 
 We have already referred to the practice of the 
 church in Alexandria in making their bishops, for more 
 than two hundred years. The mode in which some 
 high-church writers attempt to explain Jerome's account 
 of that matter we are not unapprized of. It would be 
 easy to show that their explanation by no means deprives 
 us, in this case, of the authority even of Jerome : and 
 those learned doctors, to use the language of Stilling- 
 fleet, who would persuade us that the presbyters did 
 only make choice of the person, but the ordination was 
 performed by other bishops, would do well first to tell 
 us who and where those bishops were, — especially while 
 Egypt remained but one province under the Praefectus 
 Augustalis. But in proof of the correctness of our un- 
 derstanding of the case, we adduce the testimony of the 
 patriarch of Alexandria himself, w^ho expressly affirms, 
 as we have before quoted, " That the twelve presbyters 
 constituted by Mark, upon the vacancy of the see, did 
 choose out of their number one to be head over the rest, 
 and the other eleven did lay their hands upo7i him and 
 blessed him, and made him patriarch.'''' The patriarch, 
 or bishop of Alexandria, who states this, was Eutychius, 
 whose annals, with several other productions of his 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 59 
 
 learned pen, are still extant, and whom Mosheim men- 
 tions as the chief example of those Egyptian writers of 
 the tenth century, " who in genius and learning were 
 nowise inferior to the most eminent of the Grecian 
 literati." Mosh., vol. ii, 383, 404. 
 
 Stillingfleet understood this case as published by the 
 most learned Selden, precisely in the same sense ; and 
 it is evident that Archbishop Usher did also ; for when 
 he says King Charles the First asked him at the Isle 
 of Wight, whether he found in antiquity that presbyters 
 alone ordained any, he replied, Yes ; and that he could 
 show his majesty more, even where presbyters alone 
 successively ordained bishops, and brought, as an instance 
 of this, the presbyters of Alexandria choosing and 
 making their own bishops, from the days of Mark till 
 Heraclas and Dionysius, a space of more than 200 
 years. 
 
 But after all that Dr. Wyatt has said, it is not a httle 
 remarkable that he recognises the Lutheran Church 
 of Sweden as a regular and valid episcopal church ; 
 although, if Dr. Miller be correct, it is notorious that the 
 first ministers who undertook to ordain in Sweden, after 
 the introduction of the Reformation, were only presby- 
 ters; and the Lutheran church does not scruple to 
 admit the ordination even of bishops by presbyters, and 
 indisputably disclaims any pretence of an apostolical 
 and " divinely protected succession" of bishops, for the 
 validity of episcopacy. 
 
 The burden of proof in this matter was not properly 
 incumbent on us ; yet we have now adduced cases suffi- 
 cient to form at least some exceptions to Dr. Wyatt's 
 sweeping universal affirmative. When he shall have 
 satisfactorily disoosed of these, we may perhaps produce 
 more. . 
 
60 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 Section Yll.—The Praijer Book o/1784. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine says, " The distinction between bishops 
 and presbyters being the foundation of the episcopal 
 form of government, and this distinction having no 
 existence in fact, nor in Mr. Wesley's creed, our epis- 
 copal superstructure falls to the ground," p. 19. Now 
 we have abundantly proved, according to ecclesiastical 
 writers of the most distinguished celebrity, that an epis- 
 copal form of government is perfectly consistent with 
 the admission that bishops and presbyters were prima- 
 marily and inherently the same order. And we have 
 especially proved that this was Mr. Wesley's view in 
 particular. It was ten years after he was convinced 
 that bishops and presbyters were the same order, that 
 he declared that he still believed the episcopal form of 
 church government to be Scriptural and apostolical ; 
 that is, w^ell agreeing with the practice and writings of 
 the apostles. So far as this argument is concerned, 
 therefore, our " episcopal superstructure" may still stand. 
 
 In another place, p. 14, Mr. M'Caine says, " It is 
 upon the prayer hook our episcopal mode of government 
 is made to rest, and this is the only authority which is 
 attempted to be produced for it." Were we disposed to 
 adopt Mr. M'Caine's language, and to give our remarks 
 a " serious moral bearing," we might ask, Is this truth ? 
 
 "But although it is very far from being true that the 
 prayer book is the only authority which is at least 
 attempted to be produced for our episcopal mode of 
 government, yet, so far as Mr. Wesley's recommend- 
 ation is concerned, we shall probably make a little 
 more out of the prayer book than the silly witness 
 " brought into court" by Mr. M'Caine, who was careful 
 both to choose his witness, and to put such- answers 
 into his mouth as were to his own purpose. Such a 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 61 
 
 process a good cause cannot need. A bad one it might 
 serve. 
 
 Dr. Coke's letters of ordination as a superintendent 
 were dated Sept. 2, 1784. Mr. Wesley's preface to the 
 first edition of his abridgment of the prayer book was 
 dated Sept. 9, 1784, and his letter '' to Dr. Coke, Mr. 
 Asbury, and our brethren in North America," bore date 
 Sept. 10, of the same year. These documents, there- 
 fore, so nearly synchronous, are to be regarded, with 
 the prayer book, as parts of one whole ; and as consti- 
 tuting together the " little sketch" which Mr. Wesley 
 says he had drawn up hi comphance with the desire of 
 some thousands of the inhabitants of these States. This 
 " sketch" had direct reference to the " ecclesiastical 
 authority" to be exercised among " our brethren in 
 North America ;" where, as he says in the sentence 
 immediately preceding, no one then " either exercised 
 or claimed any ecclesiastical authority at all." 
 
 Mr. M'Caine admits that the prayer book of 1784, 
 entitled " The Sunday service of the Methodists in 
 North America, with other occasional services,'' was 
 printed at Mr. Wesley's own press, and sent to us by 
 the hands of Dr. Coke. We ask, then, was not the 
 abridging, and printing, and sending this book to us a 
 " recommendation," even if it had contained no preface, 
 and the term " recommend" had never been used ? And 
 was it not a recommendation of those " other occasional 
 services" as well as " the Sunday service ?' And for 
 what were those other occasional services sent to us, if 
 not to be used as a pattern in the orderijiy of our minis- 
 try? To be able to answer these questions satisfac- 
 torily, it will be necessary to observe carefully what 
 those " other occasional services" were. It is not 
 necessary here to name those for baptism, matrimony, 
 the burial of the dead, &c. The following are sufficient 
 for our purpose. At page 280 we find the forms for 
 ordaining our ministers thus headed : " The form and 
 
62 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 manner of making and ordaining of superintendents, 
 ELDERS, and deacons." 
 
 The first office following is entitled, " The form and 
 manner of making of deacons." And the running title 
 at the head of the page is, " The ordainifig of deacons" 
 
 The second office is, " The form and manner of or- 
 daining of ELDERS." The running title is, " The ordain- 
 ing of elders. ^^ 
 
 The third is, " The form of ordaining of a superin- 
 tendent." The running title is, " The ordination of 
 swperintendentsr 
 
 On these facts we remark : — 1. It is a fair presump- 
 tion that when Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey were set 
 apart as elders, and Dr. Coke as a superintendent, the 
 same forms were used by Mr. Wesley himself which he 
 abridged for us. 
 
 2. He himself expressly calls these acts " ordaining," 
 and " ordination." The reader will notice that Mr. 
 "Wesley undeniably intended that our setting apart 
 superintendents in America should be called " ordaining" 
 superintendents ; and " the ordination of superintend- 
 ents." Yet when Dr. Coke was solemnly set apart by 
 him, assisted by three other presbyters, Mr. M'Caine 
 thinks we ought not to call it an ordination, and that 
 Mr. Wesley meant no such thing ! 
 
 3. If the setting apart of superintendents, as such, 
 was not intended by Mr. Wesley to establish the ordi- 
 nation of such an order of ministers among us, neither 
 was the setting apart of deacons and elders intended to 
 establish those orders. Similar forms and solemnities 
 were recommended for the former as for the latter. In 
 this case, if Mr. M'Caine's arguments be conclusive, it 
 follows as clearly that Mr. M'Caine's eldership has been 
 " saddled" upon the people contrary to Mr. Wesley's 
 intention, as that our episcopacy has been. We assert 
 with confidence that any intelligent, candid, and impar- 
 tial man, who shall examine this prayer book, will say, 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 63 
 
 either that Mr. Wesley intended to estabhsh the ordi- 
 nation of an order of superintendents, to act as bishops 
 in fact, though with the title of superintendents ; or, 
 that he did not intend to establish the ordination of any 
 orders of ministers at all ; and that " our fathers" utterly 
 mistook "the whole affair."^ 
 
 4. The preceding remark is confirmed by this fact. 
 The forms recommended to us by Mr. Wesley for " or- 
 daining of superintendents, elders, and deacons," are pre- 
 cisely similar to those used by the Church of England, 
 and by the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country, 
 for ordaining of " bishojys, priests, and deacons." The 
 only difference is, that Mr. Wesley somewhat abridged 
 the forms, with a few verbal alterations, and substituted 
 the title " superintendent" for " bishop," just as he did 
 that of "elder" for "priest." So that it is plain, if by 
 " superintendent" he did not mean that order of minis- 
 ters denominated by those churches " bishops," neither 
 by " elder" did he mean that order of ministers deno- 
 minated by those churches " priests." 
 
 5. In wdiatever sense distinct ordinations constitute 
 distinct orders, in the same sense Mr. Wesley certainly 
 intended that we should have three orders. For he 
 undeniably instituted three distinct ordinations. All the 
 forms and solemnities requisite for the constituting of 
 any one order, in this sense, were equally prepared and 
 recommended by him to us for the constituting of three 
 orders. The term " ordain'' is derived from the Latin 
 ordino, to order, to create or commission one to be a 
 
 * Mr. M'Caine's proceeding reminds us of the old Greek apologue of the 
 eagle, which we will give in an ancient English version. 
 
 " The eagle saw her breast was wounded sore : 
 See stood, and weeped much, but grieved more. 
 But when she saw the dart w^s feathered, said, 
 Wo 's me ! for my own kind hath me destroy'd." 
 
 But had the eagle known that it was not only her own " kind," but her own 
 
 otFspring, who for the sake of winging a dart to wound his parent, had actually 
 
 ^ plucked himself to death, she would doubtless have weeped and grieved more. 
 
64 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 public officer. — And this from ordo, order. And hence 
 persons ordained are said to be persons in " holy, orders." 
 And the degree of ordination stated in the "commis- 
 sion," or letters of ordination, shows the degree of the 
 orders. At the same time we maintain that a third 
 degree of ordination is perfectly compatible with the 
 doctrine of two orders, if the term " order" be used as 
 implying divi7ie right. This Mr. M'Caine admits. And 
 it will appear still more clearly if we consider the nature 
 and origin of ordination, as above stated. Lord King 
 maintains that bishops and presbyters, in the primitive 
 church, were the same order. Yet he expressly says 
 that the bishops, wdien chosen such from among the 
 presbyters, were ordained, as bishops, by imposition of 
 hands. Constitution and Discipline of the Primitive 
 Church, p. 49. In this respect, both Mr. Wesley's usage 
 and ours exactly correspond with that of the primitive 
 church, according to Lord King, even on the principle 
 of two orders. 
 
 6. The extension of the jurisdiction of the bishop, in 
 consequence of the extension of the church, is not the 
 creating of any new office, as we have shown from 
 Stillingfieet, and certainly cannot make it less proper 
 that he should be solemnly ordained by imposition of 
 hands, and furnished with suitable credentials. The 
 revival of such an itinerant, extensive personal over- 
 sight and inspection is the revival of the apostolic prac- 
 tice, and, as Mr. Wesley says, well agrees both with 
 their practice and with their writings. 
 
 7. The idea that equals cannot from among them- 
 selves constitute an officer, who, as an officer, shall be 
 superior to any of those by whom he w^as constituted, 
 is contradicted by all experience and history, both civil 
 and ecclesiastical ; and equally so by common sense. 
 The contrary is too plain to require illustration. It 
 should be remembered, too, that Dr. Coke was ordained 
 a superintendent, not by Mr. Wesley only, but by four 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 65 
 
 presbyters ; — two of them indisputably acknowledged 
 as such by the whole of the Church of England, and 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church; and all of them 
 by us, and by all others, both in those and in other 
 churches, who admit the vahdity of ordination by pres- 
 byters in such an exigency as that in which Mr. What- 
 coat and Mr. Vasey were ordained such. — It is to be 
 remembered also that Dr. Coke was afterward authori- 
 tatively and unanimously received in this office, by the 
 body of preachers over whom he was to preside ; and 
 that all these acts, in the peculiar circumstances in 
 which Mr. Wesley's advice and help were asked, are to 
 be taken together, as investing Dr. Coke with his " epis- 
 copal authority" am.ong us. A similar statement might 
 be made with respect to Mr. Asbury, only substituting 
 his unanimous election for unanimous reception. These 
 church officers, after they were thus constituted and 
 commissioned were superior, as our officers, in the actual 
 exercise of certain executive powers among us, to any 
 individual of those by whom they were constituted. — 
 Even Mr. Wesley could not actually station the preach- 
 ers in America, after we had superintendents of our 
 own, agreeably to his own advice ; yet Dr. Coke and 
 Mr. Asbury could. We shall hereafter prove that Mr, 
 Wesley did not reserve to himself even the appoint- 
 ment of our superintendents ; and that neither did the 
 General Conference of 1784 so understand him; nor 
 was he, in consequence of any act of theirs, thereafter 
 to exercise this power. 
 
 We turn now to the preface of this prayer book. 
 
 This preface is signed " John Wesley," and dated, 
 "Bristol, Sept. 9, 1784," — only seven days after the or- 
 dination of Dr. Coke ; and was plainly intended as a 
 preface to the rvliole hook. In the first paragraph Mr. 
 Wesley speaks in high terms of the ''Liturgy'' or 
 " Common Prayer of the Church of England." He then 
 states that he had made " little alteration" in this edition 
 # 5 
 
66 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 of it, except omitting most of the hohj days so called ; 
 shortening the service of the Lord^s day; omitting some 
 sentences in the offices of baptism, and for the burial of 
 the dead ; and leaving out many of the psalms, and parts 
 of others. The enumeration of these particulars proves 
 that by his edition of the " Liturgy" or " Common 
 Prayer," he meant the whole book, with all the offices 
 and forms contained in it, as well as the Sunday service 
 and psalms. With this evident meaning, he says, *' The 
 following edition of it I recommend to our societies in 
 America." Now this edition contained a form for " the 
 ordination of superintendents'^ among us, in the same 
 manner as bishops are ordained in the Church of Eng- 
 land ; with the same solemnities, and for the same pur- 
 poses ; viz., to preside over the flock of Christ, including 
 the presbijters and deacons; and to ordain others. Now 
 does it comport with good sense to say, that Mr. Wesley 
 recommended the fo7'm, but not the thing which that 
 form imports ? And will any intelligent man pronounce 
 that that thing is not an episcopal order of ministers, and 
 an episcopacy in fact, by whatever names they may 
 have been called ? This point is so plain that we are 
 really ashamed to dwell on it. 
 
 That we are not mistaken in the comprehensive im- 
 port of the terms " Liturgy," and " Common Prayer," 
 as above asserted, will appear from the following lan- 
 guage of the convention of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, by which the liturgy of that church was rati- 
 fied, on the 16th of October, in the year 1789 ; and also 
 from the language of Bishops White and Brownell. 
 
 " This convention, having in this present session set 
 
 forth ' A BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER AND ADMINISTRATION 
 OF THE SACRAMENTS AND OTHER RITES AND CEREMO- 
 NIES OF THE CHURCH,' do hereby establish said book: 
 and they declare it to be the liturgy of this church ; 
 and require that it be received as such by all the mem- 
 bers of the same." 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 67 
 
 *^The principal act of this session," says Bishop 
 White, in his Memoirs of the Church, " was the pre- 
 paring of the Book of Common Prayer^ as now the esta- 
 bhshed Liturgy of the church." 
 
 "At the convention of 1808," (says Bishop Brownell, 
 in the introduction to the ' Family Prayer Book, or Book 
 of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacra- 
 ments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church,') 
 "thirty hymns were added to the Book of j)salms and 
 hymns. Since which time no changes have been made 
 in our Liturgy T All which proves that by "the 
 Liturgy," is to be understood the whole Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, with all the forms, rites, ceremonies, orders, 
 offices, and administrations therein set forth and recom- 
 mended. 
 
 A writer in another work lately suggested an inquiry 
 whether our articles of religion also were not "surrep- 
 titiously" introduced originally, and imposed on us by 
 the bishops. We have not the work at hand to quote 
 verbatim, but give the sentiment as we recollect it. 
 
 If our brother will look into this prayer book of 
 1784, he will find our articles of religion, abridged from 
 the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England by 
 Mr. Wesley, printed and recommended by him in this 
 book, and adopted, as Mr. M'Caine admits this edition 
 of the prayer book was, by the conference of 1784. It 
 is true the articles are not named in the preface. But 
 will any one contend that therefore Mr. Wesley did not 
 mean to recommend them to us, although they are a part 
 of the hook which he prepared, and printed, and sent, 
 and recommended? Yet most certainly it would be 
 just as rational to assert this, as that he did not mean 
 to recommend to us the institution of an episcopal order 
 of ministers, although he did prepare, and print, and 
 send, and recommend to us a solemn form for the setting 
 apart and ordaining of such an order. 
 
 In this prayer book, however, but twenty-four articles 
 # 
 
68 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 will be found ; whereas we now have twenty-five. The 
 additional one, inserted by the conference of 1784, is 
 that now numbered the twenty-third, " Of the rulers of 
 the United States of America." In the Sunday service 
 Mr. Wesley inserted the form of " a prayer for the su- 
 preme rulers of these United States." But it is pro- 
 bable that he did not consider himself sufficiently well 
 acquainted with our civil institutions, at that early 
 period, to frame an " article" under this head ; and 
 hence the addition of this article, by the conference of 
 1784, in conformity with the prayer of the Sunday 
 service. 
 
 That no investigation of this sort, however strict, if 
 conducted with a sj^irit of candour and fairness, can 
 ever bring any stain on the fair escutcheon of our 
 fathers, we are well persuaded. But if, coming from 
 such sources, the challenging of such inquiries be con- 
 nected with darkling insinuations of imposition and 
 fraud, it cannot fail to furnish occasion to the ignorant, 
 the disaffected, the bigoted, and the malevolent, who 
 seek occasion against the defenceless manes of our 
 venerated fathers ; at whose feet, while on earth, it 
 would have been an honour to any of us, their sons, to 
 sit ; and may yet be in heaven. On this ground, and 
 on this only, the time, and place, and manner of these 
 things, we cannot but regret. 
 
 The prayer book of 1784 was brought to America 
 in sheets. In those copies of it which have come under 
 our inspection, the Mi7iutes of the General Conference 
 of 1784 are bound with it. The proper place and 
 weight of those Minutes, in this argument, will be con- 
 sidered in the ensuing section, in which we shall dis- 
 cuss the prayer book of 1786. 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 69 
 
 Section Ylll.—The Prayer Book of 1786. 
 
 This prayer book is entitled, " The Sunday Service 
 of the Methodists in the United States of America, with 
 other Occasional Services." It was printed London, 1786, 
 at the press of " Frys and Couchman." In this edition 
 we find the twenty-five articles of religion, including 
 that of "the rulers of the United States of America;" 
 and also, " The General Minutes of the Conferences of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church in America." — Those 
 Minutes were first printed in Philadelphia, by Charles 
 Cist, in 1785, and were bound up with the volume of 
 the prayer book which was brought from England, in 
 sheets, in 1784. But in the edition of 1786 they are 
 regularly printed as a pari of the book. It is demon- 
 strable on the face of the book, that the Minutes, as 
 they appear in this edition, could not have been printed 
 in America, and the rest of the book in England. This 
 any printer will attest. 
 
 We have now before us a small volume, entitled 
 "Minutes of several Conversations between the Rev. 
 Mr. Wesley and others, from the year 1744 to the year 
 1789. — London; printed by G. Paramore, North Green, 
 Worship-street, and sold by G. Whitfield at the Chapel, 
 City Road, and at all the Methodist preaching-houses 
 in town and country, 1791."- By a careful comparison 
 of these Minutes with those of the General Conference 
 of 1784, it will be found that the latter are nearly a copy 
 of the former, so far as they had then been drawn up 
 and published by Mr. Wesley ; with some occasional 
 alterations adapted to our circumstances in this country ; 
 together with the insertion of some few original minutes. 
 There is plain internal evidence in the two publications, 
 that the Minutes previously prepared by Mr. Wesley 
 were made the basis of those of the General Confer- 
 ence of 1784, and that the latter were drawn up from 
 
70 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 the former, with such aUerations, abridgments, modifica- 
 tions, or additions, as that conference thought neces- 
 sary. And such, we are informed, was the fact. These 
 Minutes, thus prepared from Mr. Wesley's, were the 
 groundwork of our " Form of Disciphne." 
 
 The General Conference of 1784 commenced its ses- 
 sion on the 24th of December; and closed on the 1st of 
 January, 1785. On the 3d of January Dr. Coke left 
 Baltimore. From the 8th to the 19th he was in Phila- 
 delphia, and there published the Minutes of that confer- 
 ence, the title of which was, " The General Minutes of 
 the Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
 America." And in the answer to the third question, it 
 was declared that they had formed themselves into an 
 " episcopal church." See Dr. Coke's Journal of the 
 above dates, and January 22, 1785. On the 2d of June 
 following. Dr. Coke sailed from Baltimore for England, 
 and was present at the ensuing British Conference, 
 which commenced in London on the 26th of July of 
 that year. His name is signed first to an instrument 
 which was drawn up at that conference, and which bears 
 date July 30, 1785, and may be seen in the British 
 Minutes of that year. Mr. Wesley was also present at 
 that conference. — Now let the reader put all these facts 
 together, and then candidly consider the following 
 questions : — 
 
 1. If Dr. Coke and Mr.* Asbury were conscious that 
 they had been guilty of duplicity, imposition, and fraud, 
 or of violating Mr. Wesley's instructions, in the organi- 
 zation of the Methodist Episcopal Church, is it probable 
 that they would immediately after have printed and 
 published these Minutes with this title, and with an ex- 
 plicit statement of what had been done, and thus have 
 exposed their acts in the face of Mr. Wesley, and of 
 the world ? Is it probable that Dr. Coke, particularly, 
 who had the Minutes printed, would have done this, 
 knowing that he was so soon to return to England 1 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 71 
 
 2. Is it not rationally presumable that a copy of these 
 Minutes had reached Mr. Wesley, in the interval be- 
 tween their publication in the middle of January and 
 the last of July of that year, before the close of the 
 British conference ? 
 
 3. Is it not at least certain that Mr. Wesley must 
 have felt sufficient interest in this matter, to have re- 
 quired from Dr. Coke a particular account of what had 
 been done in America ? 
 
 4. Is it not presumable that Dr. Coke carried with 
 him a copy of the printed Minutes ? 
 
 5. Is it not presumable that Mr. Wesley would have 
 inquired of him whether minutes were not taken, know- 
 ing our custom to take minutes at all our conferences, 
 and also have requested to see them ? 
 
 6. Could Dr. Coke have declined to show them, or 
 have concealed from Mr. Wesley what had been done, 
 without the grossest duplicity and positive falsehood ? 
 
 7. Is it probable that Dr. Coke was not only so kna- 
 vish but so stupid, as to hazard his reputation, charac- 
 ter, standing, and even his salvation, thus cheaply and 
 foolishly, when he must have anticipated with certainty 
 that Mr. Wesley would at some future time obtain a 
 knowledge of what had been done, if he did not then ? 
 
 8. If Dr. Coke could have been guilty of such base- 
 ness, is it not probable that Mr. Wesley w^ould have 
 received information of it from some other quarter ; at 
 least before his death, which did not take place till nearly 
 six years afterward I 
 
 9. If Mr. Wesley had ever discovered that Dr. Coke 
 had so grossly betrayed his trust, and imposed both on 
 him and on us, could he have continued afterward so 
 highly to esteem and honour him, as he notoriously did, 
 even to the day of his death ? 
 
 We know that Mr. M'Caine has represented that Mr. 
 Wesley did punish Dr. Coke for his proceedings at this 
 period by leaving his name off the Minutes for one year. 
 
72 A DEFENCE OF OUU FATHEES. 
 
 But this is an entire mistake. At this very conference 
 of 1785, Dr. Coke's name appears in the British Minutes 
 in London, next after John and Charles Wesley them- 
 selves. In 1786 he was appointed by Mr. Wesley, as 
 Mr. Crowther and Mr. Myles both state, to visit the 
 societies in British America. And his name appears in 
 the Mmutes published hj Mr. Wesley in the Arminian 
 Magazine for that year, under the head ''America.'' 
 The reason why it did not appear for that year in Lon- 
 don, as -Qsual, was probably because it was not expected 
 that he would return to England till the ensuing confer- 
 ence, as we know he did not. Yet previously to his 
 leaving England for America, he attended and presided 
 in the Irish conference in the year 1786, by Mr. Wes- 
 ley's direction, and as Ms representative. See Myles's 
 Chronological History. Does this look like being then 
 " under censure T 
 
 In 1787 and 1788 he was again stationed in London 
 with John and Charles Wesley. In 1789 his name was 
 left off the Minutes ; but for reasons, as we shall here- 
 after show, which had no shadow of connection either 
 with his proceedings at the conference of 1784, or with 
 his assuming the title of bishop, as Mr. M'Caine asserts. 
 In 1790 he was again stationed in London with John 
 and Charles Wesley ; and in 1791, at the conference 
 succeeding Mr. Wesley's death. Dr. Coke stood first in 
 London. 
 
 In February, 1789, Mr. Wesley made his last will 
 and testament. In that will he constituted five import- 
 ant trusteeships, in all of which he named Dr. Coke 
 first, except one, and in that he named him second. 
 That will Mr. Wesley kept by him for two years, and 
 left it unaltered to the day of his death. It is surely 
 needless to say more to prove the high estimation in 
 which, to his last moments, he continued to hold Dr. 
 Coke. Nor could any testimony be more honourable to 
 the memory of Dr. Coke than such a one as this, from 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 73 
 
 a man of so much intelligence, and close and accurate 
 observation as Mr. Wesley ; and who had means of 
 knowing Dr. Coke certainly ten thousand times more 
 ample than Mr. M'Caine has ever had. 
 
 10. If Dr. Coke, on his return to England in 1785, 
 had succeeded in deceiving Mr. Wesley, and in conceal- 
 ing from him the proceedings in America, is it at least 
 probable that he would have hazarded his own expo- 
 sure and utter disgrace, by reprinting in London the 
 Minutes of the conference of 1784, only one year after 
 his return, and while Mr. Wesley was on the spot ? Yet 
 this he did do, retaining in those Minutes the title of 
 " The Methodist Episcopal Church," and declaring that 
 our societies here had been formed into an " episcopal 
 church." Our question here is, not whether Mr. Wes- 
 ley ever did actually see these Minutes, or not. This 
 we will consider presently. But whether Dr. Coke, on 
 the supposition that he had so grossly imposed on Mr. 
 Wesley, as above stated, could have been both so daring 
 and so stupid as even to hazard his seeing them, by 
 causing them to be repubhshed in London during Mr. 
 Wesley's hfetime ? 
 
 11. Is it probable that this edition of the prayer book, 
 with these Minutes in it, after being thus published in 
 London, should have continued in existence five years, 
 till the death of Mr. Wesley, without ever coming to his 
 knowledge ? Such a complicated machinery of fraud 
 and villany must have been kept in operation on the 
 part of Dr. Coke ; such a combination and collusion of 
 all parties against Mr. Wesley must have been carried 
 on for so long a time ; and such surprising ignorance 
 must have existed on his part, for the accomplishment 
 of all this, as is, we must confess, beyond the reach of 
 our highest credulity. 
 
 Under all these circumstances we feel warranted in 
 asserting that Mr. Wesley must have been acquainted 
 with these Minutes, and consequently did know that the 
 
74 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 societies here had been formed into an " episcopal 
 church," with the title of "The Methodist Episcopal 
 Church." And if he did know it, and did not promptly 
 and explicitly state his disapprobation of it, as we affirm 
 he never did, we have a rig-ht to reg-ard it as conclusive 
 proof of his sanction. 
 
 But there is yet stronger proof In the Arminian 
 Magazine for 1785, published by Mr. Wesley himself, 
 we find the following minutes : " An extract from the 
 minutes of a conference held at London, July, 1785, 
 between the Rev. John Wesley and others." In this 
 extract, after giving the stations of the preachers in 
 England, Mr. Wesley, in a distinct place, adds the sta- 
 tions in America. In these Thomas Coke and Francis 
 Asbury are mentioned as superintendents ; and the 
 names of all the elders who had been elected and or- 
 dained at the conference of 1784 are then severally 
 stated, together with those of Mr. Whatcoat and Mr. 
 Vasey. 
 
 In connection with these Minutes, and in answer to 
 the question, ''What is the state of our societies in 
 North America ?" Mr. Wesley inserted also in this place 
 the letter "' To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren 
 in North America ;" as showing their state ; and on 
 doing so, makes this remarkable note : — " If any one is 
 minded to dispute concerning diocesan episcopacy he 
 may dispute ; but I have better work." See Arminian 
 Magazine, vol. viii, pp. 600-602. From the terms and 
 connection of this note it is highly probable that he had 
 been charged with having instituted such an episcopacy 
 in America, and refused to disjmte about it ; preferring 
 rather to go on with his 7V07^k. But if he knew that he 
 had done no such thing, and intended no such thing ; — 
 and much more, if he had been indignant at such an 
 idea, as Mr. M'Caine would represent, he would simply 
 and flatly have denied the charge, and repelled the 
 statement. And with tliis charge agamst him too, there 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 75 
 
 is the greater certainty that it was then known there 
 through Dr. Coke, or the minutes of the conference of 
 1784, that such an episcopacy had actually been esta- 
 blished in America.^ 
 
 Assuming the fact then that Mr. Wesley did, at some 
 time and in some way, become acquainted with the 
 acts and proceedings of Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, and 
 of the conference of 1784, in the organization of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, we ask, Where is the evi- 
 dence that he ever disavowed them? or ever declared 
 that in so doing they had gone contrary to his instruc- 
 tions? Where is the evidence that he ever objected 
 to that title of the church, or to the terms " episcopal " 
 and " episcopacy ?" Where is the evidence that he ever 
 protested or remonstrated against either of these, or 
 against our adoption of the " episcopal " form of church 
 government, under the direction of superintendents, 
 elders, and deacons ? If Mr. Wesley knew that all this 
 had been done " surreptitiously" and fraudulently ; and 
 much more, if he knew that it had been imposed and 
 " saddled" on the societies against his intentions, and 
 under the cloak and sanction of his name, would he not 
 have declared it ? Would it not have been his dutij to 
 declare it ? and may we not be well assured that he 
 would have done so, from the plainness and decision 
 with which we know that he w^as accustomed to speak ; 
 and particularly at a time wheii he was personally 
 charged and pressed by his brother Charles and others, 
 for having thus " acted as a bishop," as we know he 
 was. Yet we deny that one syllable of such evidence 
 has ever yet been produced. To the terms " episcopal" 
 and " episcopacy," — to our being called the " Methodist 
 Episcopal Church," or having adopted the " episcopal " 
 form of church government, Mr. Wesley never did 
 
 * A diocesan episcopacy is simply an episcopacy extending beyond the 
 superintendence of a single congregation. A diocess is a circuit or a 
 bishop's jurisdiction, whether large or small. 
 
76 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 object; and we challenge the production of one par- 
 ticle of testimony to show that he ever did. — What Mr. 
 M'Caine has said with regard to his letter to Bishop 
 Asbury respecting the title " bishop," we shall distinctly 
 discuss in another place, and shall prove that it does 
 not in the slightest degree impugn what we have now 
 asserted. 
 
 But Mr. M'Caine says, p. 17, " The circumstance" of 
 this edition of the prayer book " being printed by Frys 
 and Couchman, and not by Mr. Wesley, renders the 
 whole affair suspicious." That "it was printed for 
 somebody — perhaps for Dr. Coke, who in 1786 was 
 under censure by Mr. Wesley for the address he pre- 
 sented to General Washington," — " and contains an 
 article of religion not contained in Mr. Wesley's prayer 
 book." 
 
 It is really surprising with what uniformity Mr. 
 M'Caine persists in the plainest errors ; familiarizing his 
 mind with "suspicion" in the utter absence of proof; 
 withholding circumstances which would explain what 
 he wraps in " mystery ;" and exposing himself to a se- 
 verity of criticism from which, did justice to our subject 
 and to the dead permit, we would fain forbear. 
 
 The address to Washington we shall notice hereafter. 
 The article of religion contained in the prayer book of 
 1786 which was not in that of 1784 is that now num- 
 bered the 23d,—" Of the Rulers of the United States of 
 America," which had been adopted by the General Con- 
 ference of 1784, and was most properly inserted in the 
 ensuing edition of the prayer book of 1786. Had Mr. 
 M'Caine stated this, all mystery respecting the addition 
 of this article would have been dissipated. — It was not 
 necessary that this prayer book should have been 
 printed at Mr. Wesley's press. It was not printed for 
 Mr. Wesley, nor for the Methodists in England ; but for 
 those in the United States, of whom Dr. Coke was a 
 superintendent. Dr. Coke was possessed of an ample 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 77 
 
 fortune, and with a liberality amounting almost to pro- 
 fuseness, devoted his fortune to such expenses, and to 
 any others which he believed calculated to serve the 
 cause in which he was engaged. He had procured the 
 printing of the Minutes previously in Philadelphia, and 
 now pubhshed another edition of this prayer book, with 
 the minutes and articles of religion included, for the 
 Methodists in America. Frys and Couchman had been 
 in the habit of printing for Mr. Wesley, and were the 
 printers of the second volume of the Arminian Maga- 
 zine. And we can perceive nothing in this whole 
 affair calculated to render it in the least degree " sus- 
 picious" to any but a mind habituated to a suspicious- 
 ness which spares not the characters even of men who 
 have been among' the brightest ornaments of the Chris- 
 tian church, and as distinguished for their high sense 
 of honour and propriety as for their liberality and deep 
 devotion. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine adds, "After the publication of the 
 prayer book of 1786, a rule was passed in the confer- 
 ence that no book should be sold among his societies" 
 [Mr. Wesley's] " which was not printed at his press. 
 But whether this rule was passed with special reference 
 to the prayer book of 1786, or not," he adds, " we can- 
 not say." That is, a prayer book for the Methodists 
 "in the United States of America," with a prayer for 
 " the Rulers of the United States of America," and an 
 article of religion acknowledging these rulers, and Mr. 
 M'Caine could not say whether it was not intended for 
 sale among the societies in England ; and whether Mr. 
 Wesley and the British conference did not find it neces- 
 sary gravely to pass a resolution prohibiting the sale of 
 it there ! 
 
 But on this point Mr. M'Caine has suffered his spe- 
 culations to carry him beyond his mark. He " cannot 
 say" that this resolution was not " passed with special 
 reference to the prayer book of 1786." If it were, 
 
78 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 Mr. Wesley must have had knowledge of that prayer 
 book. And if he had, then all the inferences which we 
 have drawn above are amply confirmed and stand in full 
 force. 
 
 Section IX. — Bishop Ashury. 
 
 Our reverence for the name and for the character of 
 Mr. Wesley is unfeigned and profound. We have never 
 felt free, however, to claim for him absolute infalli- 
 bility ; or an incapableness of being led, on any occa- 
 sion, or in any circumstances, to use evfen too strong an 
 expression. 
 
 That his letter to Mr. Asbury, on suffering himself 
 to be called bishop, contains expressions too severe, will 
 be admitted, we think, by his warmest friends. Mr. 
 M'Caine, indeed, rejoices over it as one who has found 
 great spoil. He seems delighted with it. Yet the dis- 
 cerning reader will perceive that, after all, in summing 
 up in his " conclusion," he has wholly misrepresented 
 its import. " Let the name of bishop and the episcopal 
 office as it now exists among us," says he, '' be put 
 away for ever. In doing this, we shall comply with 
 Mr. Wesley's advice to Mr. Asbury. For my sake, for 
 God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this." 
 To what ? — To " the episcopal office r We deny that 
 Mr. Wesley ever advised any such thing, or ever meant, 
 or intended so to be understood. It was to the term 
 ''bishop" solely that he objected, from the associations or- 
 dinarily connected wdth it in the public mind, especially 
 in England. To the " office" he never did object ; nor to 
 the terms " episcopacy" or " episcopal." The office was of 
 his own creation, and he intended it to be perpetuated. 
 And will Mr. M'Caine contend that if the " office," as it 
 now exists, or was originally instituted, had been con- 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 79 
 
 tiimed from the beginning, as it was for several years, 
 with the title of superintendent, that the church would 
 have been any less episcopal, in form or in fact, or its 
 superintendents any less bishops ? The logic by which 
 this should be made out would be a curiosity."^ 
 
 That our views of this letter correspond with those 
 of Mr. Wesley's biographer, and his intimate companion 
 and friend, the venerable Henry Moore, who gave 
 publicity to the letter, will appear from the following 
 quotations. 
 
 " Mr. Wesley," says Mr. Moore, " well knew the dif- 
 ference between the office and the title. He knew and 
 felt the arduous duties and the high responsibility which 
 attach to the one, and the comparative nothingness of 
 the other." Life of Wesley, vol. ii, p. 278. 
 
 "He gave to those ETnaKonot,''^ [episcopoi, bishops,] 
 " whom he ordained, the modest, but highly expressive 
 title of superintendents, and desired that no other might 
 be used." Ibid., p. 280. His objection to the title 
 " bishop," Mr. Moore adds, " arose from his hatred of 
 all display." 
 
 Mr. Asbury was of opinion that the " unpleasant ex- 
 pressions" in some of the letters which he received from 
 his venerable friend were " occasioned by the misrepre- 
 
 * On Dr. Coke's return to England after the organization of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, he was attacked by an anonymous writer, supposed to have 
 been Mr. Charles Wesley. In his defence he affirmed, that in his proceedings 
 in America, " he did nothing but by a delegated power which he received 
 from Mr. Wesley." This he affirmed publicly, under Mr. Wesley's eye ; 
 and at a time when there is every reason to believe that Mr. Wesley had 
 seen the Minutes of the conference of 1784. "On this ground," says 
 Mr. Drew, "it cannot be denied, that his plea of delegated authority is valid, 
 Mr. Wesley and himself being identified together." Life of Dr. Coke, p. 101. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine asserts, p. 16, that in the progress of his work "documents 
 will be found, which unequivocally declare his" [Mr. "Wesley's] " disappro- 
 bation of the proceedings of the conference" [of 1784] " in relation to every 
 thing appertaining to episcopacy." This assertion we wholly deny. Not 
 one such document is found in his whole work. The mere title of bishop, 
 to which Mr. Wesley did object, was not the act of the conference of 1784 ; 
 nor is it at all necessary to the existence of " episcopacy," which might 
 exist as well without as with it ; and did bo exist for several years. 
 
80 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 sentations of others. Yet he bore them with a meek- 
 ness which has obtained for him the commendation of 
 Mr. Wesley's own biographer, who was satisfied that 
 Mr. Asbury " was not convinced that he had acted 
 wrong, and lost none of his veneration for his father in 
 the gospel [Mr. Wesley] on this occasion." It is mani- 
 fest, indeed, that Mr. Moore himself was of opinion that 
 Mr. Wesley, in this affair, had expressed himself too 
 strongly, and rather inconsistently with his former ad- 
 missions. " But did he not," says Mr. Moore, " upon 
 this occasion, a little forget what he had written in his 
 addr-ess to the societies in America after their separa- 
 tion from the mother country : ' They are now at full 
 liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive 
 church ; and we judge it best that they should stand fast 
 in the liberty wherewith God has so strangely made 
 them free.' But the association in his mind between 
 the assumed title and the display connected with it in 
 the latter ages of the church, w^as too strong. He 
 could not, at that moment, separate the plain, laborious 
 bishops of the American societies, where there is no 
 legal establishment, from the dignified prelates of the 
 mighty empire of Great Britain. 
 
 " That our brethren who are in that office," continues 
 Mr. Moore, '' are true Scriptural bishops, I have no doubt 
 at all: nor do I wish that the title should be relin- 
 quished, as it is grown into use, and is known by every 
 person in the United States, to designate men distin- 
 guished only by their simpHcity and abundant labours." 
 Life of Wesley, vol. ii, pp. 286, 287. 
 
 These extracts are full to our purpose, and surely 
 have as much weight as any thing that has been said 
 by Mr. M'Caine. 
 
 At the British conference held in Liverpool, in 1820, 
 we heard the profoundly learned Dr. Adam Clarke, and 
 that most able and eloquent divine, the Rev. Richard 
 Watson, express themselves publicly before the confer- 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 81 
 
 ence in relation to our episcopacy, to the same effect, as 
 a true, actual. Scriptural episcopacy, of the most genu- 
 ine and apostolical character. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine protests against loading the name and 
 memory of Mr. Wesley with the obloquy of intending 
 the episcopal form of church government for the Ameri- 
 can societies, while he so strongly opposed the use of 
 the title bishop. But we put the question to every man 
 of candour : — Did not Mr. Wesley recommend and insti- 
 tute for the American societies a general superintend- 
 ency, by ministers solemnly set apart for the purpose, 
 with imposition of hands and prayer, and all the usual 
 solemnities of ordination, and possessing the powers of 
 ordination, and all others usually considered episcopal ? 
 And will any man deny that such a form of govern- 
 ment would have been episcopal, and such general 
 superintendents bishops, though the title bishop and 
 episcopal had never been used ? 
 
 Mr. Wesley's biographer, Mr. Moore, clearly held this 
 view of the subject ; and certainly considered the asser- 
 tion of it as far from loading Mr. Wesley's name or cha- 
 racter with obloquy. We aver then that Mr. Wesley 
 did intend the " thing'' episcopacy, for the American 
 societies, but not the title bishop. We do not say he 
 "secrethf intended it. This is a term used by Mr. 
 M'Caine, not by us. There was neither secret nor 
 " mystery" in it. Mr. Wesley plainly and openly de- 
 clared it, and solemnly confirmed it by his act and deed, 
 attested by his hand and seal, and published to the 
 world. ■^ 
 
 We have maintained the position that Mr. Wesley did 
 
 * When the title " bishop" was introduced into the Minutes, it was sanctioned 
 by the conference, as meaning precisely the same thing with superintendent. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine says, (p. 38,) " It is somewhat remarkable, that as soon as 
 Mr. Weslei/s name u-as left out of the Minutes, the term bishop was intro- 
 duced into them." Now he.had just said, (p. 36,) " his name was left off the 
 Minutes of 1785." Yet the title bishop was not introduced into the Minutes 
 till 1788. Why this inconsistency in the course of two pages * 
 
 6 
 
82 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 in fact intend and recommend for the American socie- 
 ties the episcopal form of church government. Mr. 
 M'Caine admits that Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our 
 fathers, so asserted. If so, then he must also admit 
 that they so understood Mr. Wesley ; and in that case 
 they cannot be blamed for acting and speaking accord- 
 ing to their understanding. Or, if he will not admit 
 this, then he must charge them either with a " myste- 
 rious" stupidity, or with knowingly asserting wilful 
 falsehoods, and " surreptitiously" introducing, for the 
 gratification of their ambition, a form of government, 
 " imposed upon the societies under the sanction of Mr. 
 Wesley's name," though they themselves did not under- 
 stand Mr. Wesley to intend or to recommend any such 
 thing ! Yet Mr. M'Caine says, (p. 56,) that Mr. Asbury 
 " was a great, wise, good, and useful minister of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, having few to equal him." How is 
 all this to be reconciled ? And if we believe all that 
 Mr. M'Caine has either directly imputed to Dr. Coke 
 and Mr. Asbury, or plainly enough insinuated, of their 
 fraudulent practices, for the concealment and the esta- 
 blishment of their forgeries and impositions, who can 
 envy either their wisdom or their goodness ? 
 
 Mr. M'Caine seems determined, in fact, to involve the 
 whole of the proceedings of those times in a charge 
 of disingenuousness and duplicity, irreconcilable with 
 either wisdom or goodness ; and such as could spring 
 from nothing but corrupt and bad motives. '' Indeed," 
 he says, p. 36, " there is a mystery hanging over the 
 whole of the proceedings of those times, if there is not 
 a studied obscurity and evasion in the records of the 
 church." And he does not stop short of insinuating, if 
 not of roundly asserting, that records and dates were 
 altered and falsified for the accomplishment of the same 
 base purposes. 
 
 Alas ! what a friend have the venerable dead found 
 in Mr. M'Caine. He has ''great veneratioif -for their 
 6^ 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 83 
 
 memory ! Yet, while he salutes, he stabs them. He 
 kisses, and straightway leads them to be crucified. 
 
 If by such means they did indeed introduce into the 
 church an " illegitimate episcopacy," hazarding every 
 thing fair and honourable for the sake of the title of 
 " Methodist bishops," they must indeed, to use Mr. 
 M'Caine's language, have been " strongly infected with 
 an episcopal mania." And nothing but mania, on such 
 a supposition, can afford a solution of their wickedness 
 and folly. 
 
 In the conclusion of Mr. Wesley's letter to Mr. As- 
 bury on assuming the title of bishop, Mr. M'Caine 
 thinks there is a ''mystery" unintelligible without an 
 explanatory key ; which he of course furnishes to suit 
 his purpose. Mr. Wesley says, " Let the Presbyte- 
 rians do what they please, but let the Methodists know 
 their calling better." Now, says Mr. M'Caine, " What 
 connection has this sentence with the rest of his letter ? 
 We perceive none." But ?ve perceive a very plain con- 
 nection ; and one perfectly " intelligible," without any 
 other " explanatory key" than that of a simple attention 
 to the subject, and a knowledge of the views of the 
 Presbyterians in relation to it. The subject was a Me- 
 thodist minister's allowing himself to be called bishop — 
 Now the Presbyterians do allow this. " In the form of 
 government of the Presbyterian Church the pastors of 
 churches are expressly styled bishops, and this title is 
 recommended to be retained as both Scriptural and ap- 
 propriate." Miller's Letters, p. 9. " Let the Presbyte- i 
 rians," says Mr. Wesley, " do what they please, but let 
 the Methodists know their calling better." — Who does 
 not perceive the plain connection ? 
 
 Again, Mr. M'Caine says, pp. 39, 40, " Mr. Asbury 
 had said he would not receive any person deputed by 
 Mr. Wesley to take any part of the superintendency of 
 the work intrusted to him. Yet neither he nor the con- 
 ference refused to receive Dr. Coke. Indeed to have 
 
84 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 shown the least symptom of opposition either to Mr. 
 Wesley or to Dr. Coke, at this juncture, would have 
 been to prevent the accomplishment of the most ardent 
 wishes of Mr. Asbmy and the preachers. It would 
 have been to dash the cup from their lips when they 
 were upon the very point of tasting its sweets. No 
 opposition, therefore, was made. No resistance was 
 offered. Every thing went on smoothly ; and whether . 
 from prudence or policy, inclination or interest, Dr. 
 Coke was received as a superintendent, and Mr. Wes- 
 ley's authority acknowledged and respected. Bat — 
 scarcely had Mr. Asbury begun to exercise the func- 
 tions of his new office, when Mr. Wesley's authority was 
 rejected, and his name left out of the Minutes."— What 
 ideas Mr. M'Caine attaches to the terms " wise" and 
 " good," w^e do not certainly know. But how he can 
 call Mr. Asbury wise and good, in the very same work 
 in which he contumally paints him in such colours, upon 
 any principles of ethics which we have ever studied, is 
 beyond our comprehension. 
 
 When the conference of 1784 said they judged it 
 expedient to form themselves into a separate and inde- 
 pendent church, Mr. M'Caine affirms that they meant that 
 they did then " separate from Mr. Wesley and the English 
 Methodists ;" and adds, " in accordance with this declara- 
 tion his name was struck off the Minutes of conference." 
 Yet the fact is, that that same conference acknowledged 
 themselves Mr. Wesley's sons in the gospel, ready in 
 matters belonging to church government to obey his 
 commands ; and recorded his name on their Minutes 
 with this declaration, and left it so recorded : and in the 
 face of this Mr. M'Caine makes the above assertion.* 
 
 * We had imagined that these singular ideas were perfectly novel ones of 
 Mr. M'Caine's ; till we discovered the same in one of Mr. Hammett's 
 pamphlets. 
 
 It was more than two years after the organization of tlie Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church before Mr. Wesley's name was left off the Minutes, in the 
 proper sense of that phrase ; and it was not done by Mr. Asbury, nor by the 
 conference of 1781. This will be explained hereaXter. 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 85 
 
 The absurdity of his interpretation of this subject, and 
 the true meaning- of the phrase " separate and indepen- 
 dent church," as used bj the conference of 1784, will 
 farther appear from the following testimonies. 
 
 The first native American travelling preacher was 
 the late venerable Wm. Watters. In his memoirs writ- 
 ten by himself, under the date 1777, he says, ''In fact 
 we considered ourselves at this time as belonging to the 
 Church of England, it being before our separation, and 
 our becoming a regularly formed church,'' p. 57. Again : 
 ''Dec. 25, 1784. — We became, instead of a religious 
 society, a separate church under the name of the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church." Ibid., p. 102. 
 
 "From the year 1769 to the year 1784 the Method- 
 ists were regular members of the Church of England. 
 Since 1784 the Methodists in America have been inde- 
 pendent of the English Church, and have had an epis- 
 copacy of their own." Rev. Nicholas Snethen's Reply 
 to J. O'Kelly's ApoL, p. 61. 
 
 Dr. Coke, in the sermon which he preached in Balti- 
 more, on the ordination of Bishop Asbury, expressed 
 the same sentiments, in these terins, " The Church of ' 
 England, of which the society of Methodists in general 
 have till lately professed themselves a part." — And in 
 his letter to Bishop White he expressly calls the sepa- 
 ration spoken of " our plan of separation from the 
 Church of England." 
 
 The Rev. Ezekiel Cooper was present at the first 
 meeting of Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury in America ; one 
 of " the most solemn, interesting, and affectionate meet- 
 ings," he declares, " which he has ever witnessed." At 
 that meeting the sacrament of the Lord's supper was 
 first administered among the Methodists in this country 
 by their own ministers. At that meeting he first par- 
 took of that ordinance, and then first consented to enter 
 into the itinerant connection. And from that time to the 
 present, no man among us, probably, has ever more 
 
 V V 
 
86 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 studiously and thoroughly acquainted himself with every 
 thing relating to Methodism, and to its origin and his- 
 tory, and especially to the origin and history of the 
 Methodist episcopacy, than Mr. Cooper. It will pro- 
 bably be admitted, too, that few, if any, among us are 
 more capable of investigating such subjects ; or have 
 had more ample opportunities and means of searching 
 into them critically and closely. "We shall, therefore, 
 avail ourselves of his testimony with confidence : and 
 the more so, as it is well known that he did not in all 
 things agree with Mr. Asbury on some points of eccle- 
 siastical polity. Yet he had, notwithstanding, a heart, 
 as well as a head, to appreciate and to honour both his 
 conduct and his motives. 
 
 " The conference met," says Mr. Cooper, " Dec, 1784. 
 It was unanimously agreed that circumstances made it 
 expedient for the Methodist societies in America to be- 
 come a separate body from the Church of England, of 
 which, until then, they had been considered as mem- 
 bers." Cooper on Asbury, p. 108.'^ 
 
 " From that time," (UthNov., 1784,) says Mr. Cooper 
 again, " I have had a particular and intimate knowledge 
 of Francis Asbury, and the manner of his life. We 
 have had a confidential intercourse, an intimate friend- 
 ship, and union of heart. I am confidently persuaded, to 
 take him all and in all, that no man in America ever came 
 up to his standard. I have known him rvell, and I have 
 known him long. Most excellent man; who can but 
 admire him with reverence ? His eye appeared to be 
 always single, and his whole body, soul, and example 
 
 * It will be observed that what was considered the Episcopal Church, in 
 this country, both during and for some tinne after the revolutionary war, was 
 still usually spoken of as the Church of England ; although, strictly speaking, 
 the Church of England had ceased to exist in the United States from the 
 time of the declaration of our independence. It was in this common ac- 
 ceptation of the phrase that all the writers of those times whom we quote, 
 used it. And even to this day it is known that the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church is sometimes called the Church of England. 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 87 
 
 full of light. The purpose of man is essentially con- 
 nected with his manner of life. The word purpose sig- 
 nifies the design and motive of the heart in our actions. 
 Now what was the design, the motive, the object, the 
 end, or the purpose of the venerable Bishop Asbury ? 
 Examine his whole deportment and conduct — retro- 
 spect and investigate his pubhc and private life. Look 
 into all his movements and transactions. We have had 
 the most indubitable evidences of the honest sincerity 
 and strict integrity of his soul, and the purity and up- 
 rightness of his designs, intentions, and motives. Next 
 to his brother Charles, no man stood higher in the 
 esteem and confidence of Mr. Wesley than Dr. Coke ; 
 and in America no man stood so high with him as Mr. 
 Asbury." Ibid., pp. 134, 135. 
 
 This is the testimony of no sycophant, flatterer, or 
 dependant. It is the honourable and faithful testimony 
 of one intimately acquainted with the parties ; who had 
 nothing to hope or to fear ; and who rendered his tes- 
 timony after their death ; whose only object was truth, 
 and justice to the dead ; and who was himself well ac- 
 quainted with the mind of Mr. Wesley, having been one 
 of his correspondents, and received from him the last 
 letter that he ever wrote to America. 
 
 Had the conduct of Mr. Asbury been regarded by 
 Mr. Wesley in the serious moral bearing in which Mr. 
 M'Caine has represented it, it is impossible that a man 
 of Mr. Wesley's discernment, and high sense of honour 
 and propriety, could have continued to hold him in the 
 high esteem in which we have the most satisfactory 
 evidence that he did. 
 
 Mr. Asbury always believed that some things respect- 
 ing him had been unfairly represented to Mr. Wesley ; 
 and we think that Mr. M'Caine himself has furnished 
 documents (though for a very diflTerent purpose) which 
 tend strongly to confirm this impression. He quotes a 
 letter from Dr. Coke to Mr. Wesley, dated August 9, 
 
88- A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 1784, in which are these words, " Mr. Brackenbury m- 
 formed 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 to take any part 
 of the superintendency of the work invested in him, or 
 words evidently implying so much.' " Now we think 
 this account is sufficiently refuted by the unhesitating, 
 the open, and the exceedingly affectionate manner in 
 which Mr. Asbury did receive and welcome Dr. Coke, 
 immediately on his arrival. This has been attested by 
 Mr. Cooper, who was an eye and ear witness. Indeed, 
 Mr. Cooper affirms that so touchingly tender and affect- 
 ing was the scene, that he can never forget it. It was 
 in full view of a large concourse of people, — a crowded 
 congregation at a quarterly meeting, — and the whole 
 assembly, as if divinely struck, burst into a flood of 
 tears. If all this, on the part of Mr. Asbury, was dis- 
 simulation and hypocrisy, concealing under such a show 
 the internal resistance which he felt to the reception 
 of a coadjutor from Mr. Wesley, lest he should " dash 
 the cup from his lips, when upon the point of tasting its 
 sweets," then, indeed, does his memory deserve to be 
 branded with infamy. Mr. Brackenbury doubtless said 
 w^hat he thought, — yet how easily might he have been 
 mistaken in the recollection of the expressions of a 
 letter, when undertaking to recite them from memory 
 at such a distance ? How easily might he have mistaken 
 their meaning ? Indeed, he himself gives evidence of a 
 want of clearness of recollection as to the exact expres- 
 sions of that letter ; for he adds, " or words evidently 
 implying so much.'' And we know well that a very 
 small, and even undesigned variation of expression, may 
 very materially alter the sense. We have already seen 
 an instance of this in the case of Dr. Coke's letter to 
 Bishop White. The import of that letter has been, 
 clearly misunderstood, though with the letter itself in 
 hand. Had we before us, also, the letter of Mr. Asbury, 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 89 
 
 to which Mr. Brackenbuiy alluded, we might perhaps 
 be able to show some equal mistake. We object, 
 therefore, to this parol, third-handed report ; and unless 
 the document itself be produced, we protest against 
 the statement. 
 
 In another letter, dated Oct. 31, 1789, Mr. M'Caine 
 (p. 47) represents Mr. Wesley as saying of Mr. Asbury, 
 " He flatly refused to receive Mr. Whatcoat in the cha- 
 racter I sent him." Now this could not have been. — 
 Mr. Asbury had no power, of himself, to refuse to receive 
 Mr. Whatcoat. It was the conference that refused to 
 receive him. If the conference had received him, Mr. 
 Asbury would have been obliged to do so also, or him- 
 self to have left the superintendency.'^ 
 
 Again ; in this same letter Mr. Wesley is represented 
 as saying, "He" [Mr. Asbury] "told George Shadford, 
 Mr. Wesley and I are like Cesar and Pompey — he will 
 bear no equal, and I will bear no superior." Now let 
 it be remembered that George Shadford left America 
 early in 1778. At that time Mr. Asbury had been in 
 this country himself but a few years, and was then in 
 the most critical and perilous circumstances in the heat 
 of the revolutionary struggle, doubtful of his own 
 safety, and of the fate of the Methodist societies. And 
 can we believe that even then, or at any period still 
 earlier, he seriously made such a speech to George 
 Shadford, declaring himself the rival of Mr. Wesley, 
 and not brooking even his superiority, as Pompey would 
 not brook Cesar's ? — Credat Judceus Apelles. It was 
 known and acknowledged, both by Mr. Asbury and 
 every other preacher, that his place and office at that 
 time was not that of Mr. Wesley's equal or rival, but 
 
 * That Mr. Asbury did not refuse to receive Mr. Whatcoat, we shall, ia 
 another place, demonstrate by the most mdubitable evidence. It is proper, 
 however, to add here, that it was not from personal objections to Mr. What- 
 coat that the conference did not then receive him as a superintendent ; but 
 for reasons which will be hereafter stated. They did at a subsequent con- 
 ference elect him. 
 
90 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 of his assistant. Or, if this speech is alleged to have 
 been made before Mr. Rankin left America, then at that 
 period he was not even Mr. Wesley's assistant, but sub- 
 ject also to Mr. Rankin. 
 
 But how happens it that Mr. M'Caine has told us 
 nothing more about this letter ? Why did he not state 
 to whom it was written, and from what authority he 
 received it? Had he not sufficient ground to be "sus- 
 picious" of this "whole affair?" Did he not derive it 
 from one whom he knew to have been an avowed, bitter, 
 and personal enermj of Bishop Asbury ; — one who 
 laboured to distract and rend our infant church ; — who 
 was formally expelled from the British connection ; and 
 was directly charged by Dr. Coke with the grossest 
 calumny and falsehood ? The documents in proof of 
 all this are in our possession. Yet it is from such 
 sources that Mr. M'Caine has picked up, and, after the 
 parties are all dead, has published calumnies which had 
 been long since silenced and buried in merited oblivion. 
 And we here assert, that if his publication be stripped 
 of the materials which he has derived from such sources, 
 and from the obsolete pamphlets of Mr. Kewley, Mr. 
 Hammett, Mr. O'Kelly, and other separatists, and trou- 
 blers of our Israel, very little original matter will be 
 found in his whole production ; except, indeed, the am- 
 plifications and the deeper tincture which their long 
 refuted aspersions have received from his pen ; and the 
 advantage which he has taken of the lapse of time and 
 the silence which death has imposed on the accused, to 
 impute to them unheard-of frauds and forgeries, which 
 in their lifetime no man living had the effrontery even 
 to insinuate. The aforesaid noted letter bears on the 
 face of it marks of corruption or of fabrication. And 
 until better authority is produced for it, or the docu- 
 ment itself, we hold it unentitled to one particle of 
 credit. 
 
 Again, in the letter with which Mr. M'Caine seems to 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS 91 
 
 be SO much pleased, Mr. Wesley says to Mr. Asbury, 
 " I study to be little, you study to be gixat ; I creep, 
 you strut along. I found a school, you a college." It 
 will be recollected that this letter was written in the 
 year after what has been called the leaving of Mr. 
 Wesley's name off the Minutes ; and at a period when 
 even his great and excellent mind had not, perhaps, 
 entirely recovered from that occurrence. It is known, 
 too, that there were individuals unfriendly to Mr. Asbury, 
 who represented him unfairly to Mr. Wesley. The 
 Rev. Ezekiel Cooper himself intimated to Mr. Wesley 
 the injustice of such representations ; and he thinks Mr, 
 Wesley had allusion to this in the last letter which he 
 wrote to him, just before his death. But had Mr. Wes- 
 ley been in America, and himself witnessed Mr. Asbury's 
 manner of life, from the commencement of his ministry 
 among us to its close, would he have expressed him- 
 self thus ? We believe he would not. The testimony 
 of the most intelUgent, observing, and competent eye- 
 witnesses, who watched him narrowly, and saw him and 
 knew him intimately, in all situations and circumstances, 
 in private and in public, for more than thirty years, is 
 vastly different. 
 
 To the testimony of Mr. Cooper, already adduced, 
 we add the following : — 
 
 " It is scarcely necessary to mention, what must be 
 so obvious, that in performing his astonishing annual 
 tours, and in attending to all the vast variety of his 
 Christian, ministerial, and episcopal duties and callings, 
 he must have been almost continually on the move. 
 Flying, as it were, like the angel through the earth, 
 preaching the everlasting gospel, no season, no weather 
 stopped him. Through winter's cold and summer's heat 
 he pressed on. He was often in the tempest and the 
 storm; in rain, snow, and hail; in hunger, thirst, weari- 
 ness, and afflictions. Sometimes uncomfortable enter- 
 tainment, with hard lodging, and unkind treatment. 
 
92 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 ' I soar,' said Mr. Asbury himself, ' but it is over the tops 
 of the highest mountains.' — Then to the distant and re- 
 mote settlements, traversing solitary and gloomy valleys; 
 crossing and recrossing dangerous waters ; administer- 
 ing the vi^ord of life in lonely cottages, to the poor and 
 destitute ; sleeping upon the floor, or on beds of straw, 
 or not much better, in houses of logs, covered with barks 
 of trees, or wooden slabs ; sometimes lodging in the 
 wilderness and open air, with the earth for his bed and 
 the sky for his canopy, surrounded by ravenous beasts 
 and fierce savages. He knew how to abound among 
 the wealthy, and how to endure hardship and want 
 among the poor. This was his manner of life, to spend 
 and be spent, in going about from place to place, like 
 his Master and the disciples of old, in doing good. He 
 cheerfully and wiUinghj condescended to men of low 
 estate. Even the poor African race, in bondage and 
 wretchedness, were not neglected by him. He attended 
 to their forlorn conditio'n, and taught them the way of 
 life and salvation. When among the great, the honour- 
 able, and the rich, he manifested humility in prosperity ; 
 maintaining, at the same time, a dignified independence 
 of spirit, witliout exaltation. When among the poor and 
 lower classes of society, he showed a courteous conde- 
 scension, and manifested content and patience in adver- 
 sity. He went on through good report and through evil 
 report, among the rich, the poor, the wise, and the un- 
 wise : — at all times, among all people, in all places, and 
 upon all occasions, his aim was to promote the cause of 
 God ; to be instrumental to the good of man, and to the 
 salvation of precious souls." — Cooper on Asbury, pp. 
 113-117. 
 
 Such is the testimony of Mr. Cooper. And who that 
 reads it, and venerates the memory of the departed 
 Asbury, will not exclaim, 0, thou man of God, who 
 could so have abused the ear of the aged Wesley, thy 
 venerable friend, as to have induced from hifn such 
 
A DEFENCE OP OUR FATHERS. 93 
 
 reproof? But the meekness of conscious innocence 
 with which Mr. Asbury received it, excites our admira- 
 tion, not less than the mingled emotions which must be 
 produced in every generous breast at the unkindness 
 with which Mr. M'Caine yet pursues him in the grave. 
 
 With regard to the part which Mr. Asbury acted in 
 founding a " college,'' Mr. Wesley was equally misin- 
 formed. This matter has been placed in its true light 
 by Mr. Asbury himself, as Mr. M'Caine might have 
 seen in his Journal. After the college was founded, he 
 certainly did all in his power to support it. And when 
 it was burned in December, 1795, he remarks, "Would 
 any man give me £10,000 per year, to do and suffer 
 again what I have done for that house, I w^ould not do 
 it." But that it was not founded by Mm, he exphcitly 
 affirms in these words, " I ?vished only for schools:' It 
 is true, Dr. Coke w^anted a college. And the w^hole 
 head and front of Mr. Asbury's offending is, that he 
 yielded to the wishes of his colleague and his senior in 
 office, and co-operated with him. 
 
 Mr. Asbury's favourite plan w^as that of" district schools:'' 
 These he recommended to the members of the Method- 
 ist Episcopal Church: and, in the year 1791, prepared 
 an address recommending them. Mr. Lee represents 
 this address as having been drawn up in 1793. This, 
 how^ever, is a mistake It may be found in the Minutes 
 for 1791, and is dated, " Near Salem, New- Jersey, Sept. 
 16, 1791." Had this plan been generally adopted, the 
 great wisdom and excellence of it w^ould have been 
 felt to this day. 
 
 With regard to the naming of Cokesbury College, 
 we believe Mr. Asbury had no hand in it. It w^as done 
 at the conference held in Baltimore, in June, 1785. 
 When it was proposed to name the college, different 
 names were proposed, such as New Kingswood, and 
 others, after places in England. Some proposed to call 
 it Coke College, and others Asbury College. On which 
 
94 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 Dr. Coke, to end the discussion, suggested that they 
 might unite those names, and call it Cokesbury ; which 
 was done. These facts we have derived from persons 
 who were present at that conference. He that can 
 make a crime out of them must use his pleasure. 
 
 The fact is, that Cokesbury College, so called, w^as 
 really no more than a school, on the plan of Kingswood. 
 This was the plan agreed on between Dr. Coke and 
 Mr. Asbury, and is so stated by Dr. Coke in his Journal 
 of Nov. 14, 1784. The institution never was incorpo- 
 rated as a college. This was in contemplation; but 
 before a charter was obtained, the destruction of the 
 building by fire terminated the existence of the whole 
 establishment. 
 
 We may well say then with the late Rev. John Dick- 
 ens : " Mr. Asbury does not bear a character like many 
 others, so superficial as not to admit of examination 
 beneath its surface ; but, like fine gold, the more it is 
 scrutinized, the more its intrinsic worth appears : there- 
 fore they who have most thoroughly investigated his 
 character, both as a Christian and a minister, admire it 
 most." Remarks on W. Hammett, p. 6. 
 
 The following is the testimony of the Rev. Nicholas 
 Snethen : — 
 
 " For nearly thirty years, he" [Mr. Asbury] " has 
 travelled, with a delicate and disordered constitution, 
 through almost all the inhabited parts of the United 
 States. Nothing but the wild, uncultivated wilderness 
 could fix his bounds. Wherever there were souls to be 
 saved, he has endeavoured to extend his labours. But 
 they have not been such as are endured by the ordinary 
 minister. He has not only laboured incessantly in the 
 word and doctrine, he has been in perils in the wilder- 
 ness, — in perils among false hrethren — in journeyings 
 often — in weariness and painfulness — in watchings 
 often — in hunger and thirst — in fastings often — in cold 
 and nakedness. From the first day he set foot upon 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 95 
 
 American ground, unto the present hour, he has never heen 
 Iraown to seek the honour that cometh from men; nor can 
 any man accuse him of indulging the flesh, or seeking 
 the pomp and vanity of this world. We have never 
 known him to spend one day more than was strictly 
 necessary in any city or town upon the continent. We 
 have observed that he never waits for a solicitation to 
 visit the frontiers : but we have frequently, after we 
 have endeavoured to dissuade him from these painful 
 and hazardous journeys, looked after him with anxious 
 solicitude, expecting never to see his face again.- If 
 Mr. O 'Kelly and Mr. H. wish to know what it is that 
 disposes the Methodist preachers to give such a prefer- 
 ence to this Englishman, we answer : " It is not his 
 native country, — it is not merely because he is a bishop ; 
 we think nothing of hare titles ; but our preference is 
 founded in a knowledge of the man, and his communi- 
 cation. We have tried him in all things, and we have 
 alrvays found him faithful to the trust reposed in him by 
 us. In him we see an example of daily labour, suffer- 
 ing, and self-denial worthy the imitation of the young 
 preacher. In a word, we have every reason to esteem 
 him as 2l father, and not one reason to suspect or discard 
 him as a tyrant or despot^ R,eply to Mr. O'Kelly, p. 51. 
 
 Section X. — Testi?nonies of English Methodists. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine says, p. 31, "Neither are the ordina- 
 tions which he" [Mr. Wesley] " conferred, viewed by 
 writers among the English Methodists, who wrote in 
 justification of Mr. Wesley's right to ordain, as favour- 
 ing our title to episcopacy." And in support of this 
 assertion, he quotes a passage from the English Method- 
 ist Magazine for 1825, which states that Mr. Wesley 
 
96 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 "gave up episcopal ordination as imderstood by high 
 churchmen,'" and established the " validity of presbyte- 
 rian ordination." But who ever disputed this ? Are not 
 both these propositions as clearly maintained by the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church as by our brethren of the 
 British Connection? That any " contrary statement 
 coming from our book agents" in this country, has ever 
 been made or published, is an assertion wholly un- 
 founded. 
 
 On the character of our episcopacy we have already 
 stated the sentiments of Dr. Adam Clarke, and of the 
 K,ev< Richard Watson. We have also quoted a passage 
 from the Rev. Henry Moore, the intimate friend of Mr. 
 Wesley, and his faithful biographer, in which he says 
 of our bishops : '' That our brethren who are in that 
 office are true Scriptural bishops, / have no doubt at all; 
 nor do I wish that the title should be relinquished." 
 Life of Wesley, vol. ii, p. 287. 
 
 To these testimonies we add the following, from the 
 Rev. Jonathan Crowther, author of the Portraiture of 
 Methodism. 
 
 " Peace being now established with the United States ; 
 and Mr. Asbury and the other preachers having been 
 instrumental of a great revival during the w^ar, solicited" 
 [Mr. Wesley] " to send them help. Hence, in February 
 this year" [1784] " he called Dr. Coke into his chamber, 
 and spoke to him nearly as follows : That as the Ame- 
 rican brethren wanted a form of discipline, and minis- 
 terial aid; and as he ever wished to keep to the 
 Bible, and as near to primitive Christianity as he 
 could, he had always admired the Alexandrian mode of 
 ordaining bishops. The presbyters of that great apos- 
 tolical church would never allow any foreign bishop to 
 interfere in their ordinations : but on the death of a 
 bishop, for two hundred years, till the time of Diony- 
 sius, they ordained one of their own body, and by the 
 imposition of their own hands. Adding withalj that he 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 97 
 
 wished the doctor to go over and estabhsh that mode 
 ^mong the American Methodists. 
 
 " All this was quite new to the doctor. The idea of 
 an Alexandrian ordination was at first somewhat re- 
 volting to his prejudices. However, being about to set 
 out for Scotland, he weighed the subject for two months, 
 and then wrote his entire approbation of the plan. Ac- 
 cordingly, he was ordained bishop, and brothers What- 
 coat and Vasey presbyters." Second English edition, 
 pp. 412, 413. 
 
 The same statement is made by the Rev. Joseph 
 Sutcliffe, an eminent Wesleyan Methodist minister, in 
 his " Short Memoirs of Thomas Coke, LL. D." This 
 work was republished by Daniel Hitt and Thomas 
 Ware, in 1815. 
 
 But Mr. M'Caine relies on the English Wesleyan 
 Methodist Magazine, and quotes the volume for 1825. 
 Let us see, then, how this work supports him. That 
 same volume contains a " Review of the Rev. Henry 
 Moore's Life of Rev. John Wesley," in which we think 
 we recognise the style of one of the most eminent men 
 in the British connection. The following interesting 
 passages, extracted from it, are a-s clearly and as fully 
 to our purpose as if they had been written for us. 
 
 " The author," says the reviewer of Mr. Moore, " has 
 spent some time in showing that episcopacy, by name^ 
 was not introduced into the American Methodist society 
 by the sanction of Mr. Wesley, who, though he in point 
 oi fact did ordain Uslioips for the American societies, 
 intended them to be called 'superintendents' To the 
 statement of this as an historical fact, no objection cer- 
 tainly hes ; but the way in which it is enlarged upon, 
 and the insertion of an objurgatory letter from Mr. Wes- 
 ley to Mr. Asbury on the subject, — can have no tend- 
 ency but to convey to the reader an impression some- 
 what unfavourable to Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, as 
 though they were ambitious of show and title. Mr. 
 7 
 
98 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 Moore, indeed, candidly enough relieves this, by admit- 
 ting that, on Mr. Wesleifs pri7iciple itself, and in his own 
 view, they were true Scriptural episcopoi, and that Mr. 
 Wesley's objection to the name, in fact, arose from its 
 association in his mind rather with the adventitious 
 honours which accompany it in church establishments, 
 than with the simplicity and pre-eminence of labour, 
 care, and privation, which it has from the first exhibited 
 in America, and from which it could not from circum- 
 stances depart. According to this showing, the objec- 
 tion was grounded upon no principle, and was a mere 
 matter of taste or expediency. — Whether the name had 
 or had not the sanction of Mr. Wesley, is now of the 
 least possible consequeyice, as the episcopacy itself was of 
 HIS CREATING." English Wesleyan Methodist Magazine 
 for 1825, p. 183. 
 
 Clearer testimonies from the most eminent English 
 Methodists, we could not desire : and we cheerfully 
 submit it to the reader whether such men as these were 
 not likely to be as well acquainted with the subject as 
 Mr M'Caine ; and whether their judgment be not a 
 sufficient counterpoise to his ? 
 
 In addition to the above, however, we have now 
 before us a London edition of Dr. Coke's Journal, with 
 a preface dated, " City Road, London, Jan. 25, 1790 ;" 
 accompanied wdth a dedication " To the Rev. Mr. Wes- 
 ley." In this dedication Dr. Coke states that he had 
 found in Mr. Wesley " a father and a friend for thirteen 
 years." If we compare this with the period at which 
 Dr. Coke became connected w^ith Mr. Wesley, which 
 was between Aug. 1776 and Aug. 1777, it will just bring 
 us down to the date of the preface ; and this date, too, 
 is in that very year [conference year] in which Dr. 
 Coke's name was left off the British Minutes. It is 
 hardly to be presumed, then, that Dr. Coke would, at 
 that period particularly, have published and dedicated to 
 Mr. Wesley, as his father and friend, what he -knew to 
 7^ 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 99 
 
 be denied by Mr. Wesley, and to be peculiarly offen- 
 sive to him. Yet in these very Journals, page 106, 
 Dr. Coke says, und said it to Mr. Wesleij, '' On the 9th 
 of March" [1789] " we began our conference in Georgia. 
 Here we agreed (as we have ever since in each of the 
 conferences) that Mr. Wesley's name should be inserted 
 at the head of our Small Minutes, and also in our Form 
 of Discipline. — In the Small Minutes as the fountain of 
 our EPISCOPAL office ; and in the Form of Discipline as 
 the father of the whole work, under the Divine guid- 
 ance. To this all the conferences have cheerfully and 
 unanimously agreed." Now where is the evidence that 
 Mr. Wesley ever "remonstrated" against this, or ex- 
 pressed the slightest displeasure at it 1 On the contrary, 
 considering the circumstances then existing, is it not 
 absolutely preposterous to believe that Dr. Coke would 
 have dedicated such a statement to him, if he had not 
 had the best reasons to believe that it would meet his 
 approbation ? This statement also completely refutes the 
 insinuation that the American conferences possessed any 
 disposition to treat Mr. Wesley with disrespect or " con- 
 tempt ;" much less to " excommunicate" him ! It may 
 serve to satisfy another writer, also, what is meant in the 
 Minutes of 1789, by saying that Mr. Wesley, Dr. Coke, 
 and Mr. Asbury exercised the episcopal office " by regu- 
 lar order and succession." The intention was simply to 
 acknowledge Mr. Wesley's precedence. To guard against 
 any other construction, a note is added to that observa- 
 tion in the Minutes, referring to another place, in which 
 the idea of the fabulous apostolical succession is ex- 
 pressly resisted by the bishops themselves. 
 
100 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 Section XI. — Dr. Coke. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine states that the manner in which the 
 doctor discharged the duties of the new office he was 
 appointed to fill, and the title of bishop which he as- 
 sumed, in connection with Mr. Asbury in their joint 
 address to General Washington, "president of the Ame- 
 rican congress," involved him in difficulties with Mr. 
 Wesley and the British conference ; and that Mr. 
 Wesley called him to an account for his conduct, and 
 punished him by leaving his name out of the Minutes 
 for one year. 
 
 As Mr. M'Caine professes to make the authority of 
 Mr. Drew the basis of his account of this affair, we shall 
 first take it up on his own ground, and shall show, from 
 his own authority, that had he presented the subject 
 fully, as Mr. Drew has done, instead of exposing Dr. 
 Coke to reproach, it would demand for him, from us, 
 both our admiration and our veneration. 
 
 According to Mr. Drew, the charge alleged against 
 Dr. Coke in the British conference, was neither " the 
 manner in which he discharged the duties of the new 
 office he was appointed to fill," nor his having assumed 
 " the title of bishop :" but simply, that he, being a British 
 subject, had expressed to General Washington senti- 
 ments, m relatio7i to the American revolution, which, as 
 a British subject, they conceived he ought not to have 
 expressed. Mr. Drew, though himself a British subject, 
 has vindicated both the conduct and the motives of Dr. 
 Coke on that occasion, with a triumphant ability which 
 leaves us nothing to add. A few fuller extracts from 
 the same pages from which Mr. M'Caine took his, 
 will place the subject in the fair and candid light in 
 which it is regarded by Dr. Coke's more magnanimous 
 biographer. 
 
 "It is well known," says Mr. Drew, ''that in the 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 101 
 
 unhappy contest between Great Britain and America, 
 Mr. Wesley very warmly espoused the cause of England, 
 and reprobated the conduct of the colonists. This cir- 
 cumstance placed the Methodists in a very suspicious 
 light in the eyes of the Americans. The contest was 
 indeed now brought to an issue. But although the tem- 
 pest had subsided, the agitation which it occasioned still 
 continued, and the waves were occasionally heard to 
 beat upon the shore. The suspicions, therefore, which 
 the Methodists incurred, it was incumbent on them to 
 wipe away. The citizens thought it their duty to rally 
 around the infant government, and to express their ap- 
 probation of the principles which had been adopted. 
 Among these citizens the different religious sects pre- 
 sented their addresses. Amidst these examples, and 
 under the peculiar circumstances in which the Method- 
 ists were placed, it was scarcely possible for them to 
 avoid making a similar acknowledg'ment without incur- 
 ring the vengeance of their foes. Dr. Coke and Mr. 
 Asbury having assumed the character of bishops, were 
 in the eyes of all the acknowledged head of the Ameri- 
 can Methodists : and no address could be considered as 
 official unless it bore their signatures, as the orocan of 
 the body. Thus circumstanced, an address was drawn 
 up, and signed by Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, in behalf 
 of the American Methodists, and presented to General 
 Washington. 
 
 " Dr. Coke had both a private and a public consist- 
 ency of character to sustain. As a subject of Great 
 Britain, tenacious of the consistency of his personal 
 actions, prudence would have directed him not to sign. 
 But as a minister of Jesus Christ, as filling an official 
 station in the Methodist societies, and as a superintend- 
 ent in America, the welfare of the gospel commanded 
 him to promote its interests, and to leave all private con- 
 siderations as unworthy of bearing the name of rival. 
 Between these alternatives he made a noble choice, and 
 
102 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 acted upon an exalted principle, to which none but su- 
 perior spirits can aspire. He has taught us by his 
 magnanimous example that 
 
 ' Private respects to public weal must yield,' 
 
 and that personal reputation was no longer his when 
 the interests of Christianity demanded the costly sacri- 
 fice. By walking on this vast and comprehensive circle, 
 he has encircled his name with wreaths of laurel, which 
 will continue to flourish, when the sigh of smiling pity, 
 and^of sneering condolence can be no longer heard. 
 Those who still continue to censure his conduct on the 
 present occasion, now the mists of prejudice are done 
 away, and all the consequences of each alternative 
 appear in their proper bearings, plainly tell us how they 
 would have acted under similar circumstances, if, like 
 him, they had been called to feel the touch of Ithuriel's 
 spear. 
 
 "A copy of this address was introduced" [into the 
 British conference] " as a ground of censure against the 
 doctor. It was urged against him, that, as a subject of 
 Great Britain, it was inconsistent with his character to 
 sign the address. That several expressions therein 
 contained, in favour of the American government, im- 
 plied a severe reflection on our own," [the British,] " and 
 could not justly have been used by a British subject. — 
 That, as a member of the Methodist society in England, 
 and a leading character in the connection, his conduct 
 was calculated to provoke the indignation of government, 
 — and finally, that the address itself was a tacit im- 
 peachment of Mr. Wesleifs political sentiments, and tended 
 to place the whole body of Methodists" [in England] 
 " in a very equivocal and suspicious light. 
 
 "Dr. Coke heard these charges urged against him 
 
 IN PROFOUND SILENCE. 
 
 " Under these circumstances, as some decisive steps 
 were necessary to be taken in this critical affair, it was 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 103 
 
 finally determined that the name of Dr. Coke should be 
 omitted in the Minutes for the succeeding year. This 
 prudent resolution had the desired effect, and the busi- 
 ness of conference proceeded and terminated in peace. 
 
 " But this silent mark of disapprobation, as was evi- 
 dent from the effects which followed, was on the whole 
 more nominal than real. The doctor still maintained his 
 rank in Mr. Wesleifs affectionate regard, and continued to 
 retain those offices rvhich he had hitherto filled. At the 
 conclusion of the conference he proceeded as though 
 nothing disagreeable had occurred, travelling through 
 the societies in the same manner as he had travelled 
 before he went to America." Drew's Life of Dr. Coke, 
 pp. 102-145. 
 
 Such was the " punishment" then of Dr. Coke. Such 
 the cause that led to it. Such the " profound silence" 
 with which he heard the charge, and the Regulus-like 
 magnanimity and self-devotion with which he acted, for 
 the sake of beloved America and of American Methodists. 
 And shall they forget him ; or now remember him only 
 to stain him with dishonour ! '' O tell this not in Gath." 
 
 It will be observed that Mr. M'Caine repeatedly 
 asserts that the address to General Washington, by Dr. 
 Coke and Mr. Asbury, was presented in the year 1785, 
 Now in that address they styled themselves bishops. 
 We ask then, according to Mr. M'Caine's dates, why 
 was it that neither Mr. Wesley nor the British confer- 
 ence did then object to that title, or censure Dr. Coke 
 for it? Mr. M'Caine, indeed, says his assuming that title 
 in that address was a ground of the omission of his 
 name in the British Minutes. This we deny. It is an 
 assertion wholly gratuitous, and iinsupported by one 
 particle of testimony. But if that address was presented 
 to General Washington in 1785, it follows that Dr. 
 Coke and Mr. Asbury had taken the title of bishops 
 three years previously to the introduction of it into the 
 Minutes, and without censure. This title was not intro- 
 
104 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 duced into the Minutes till 1788 ; nor was Mr. Wesley's 
 objurgatory letter to Mr. Asbury written till September^ 
 1788. And though Dr. Coke was completely in Mr. 
 "Wesley's power during this interval, yet it does not 
 appear that he inflicted on him the smallest penalty. 
 Can Mr. M'Caine explain all this, and still assert that 
 the address was presented to General Washington in 
 1785 ■? 
 
 But, on the hypothesis of Mr. M'Caine's dates, there 
 is something still more curious in this affair. He main- 
 tains that the address to General Washington was pre- 
 sented before Dr. Coke left the United States in 1785 ; 
 that it was published in the newspapers; and that a 
 copy of it was introduced into the British conference, 
 as a ground of censure against the doctor, on his return 
 to England in that same year. 
 
 Now, supposing these facts, is it not a singular con- 
 jecture that Mr. Asbury or his friends, in order to 
 screen him also from " punishment," or with any other 
 motive, should have " changed the date of this address," 
 and pubhshed it with an "altered" date, four years 
 later than the true one, if it had been published in the 
 newspapers four years before with its true date, carried 
 across the Atlantic, and laid before Mr. Wesley, the 
 British conference, and the world ! In other words, 
 that Mr. Asbury or his friends, from any motive, should 
 have committed such a stupid forgery in the falsification 
 of an official document, when both he and they must 
 have known that the means of their exposure were so 
 notorious that their detection and conviction would be 
 inevitable ? For it will be recollected that the parties 
 were then all living, and the circumstances all recent ; 
 and matters of pubhc notoriety. From what principle 
 so vile an insinuation could proceed, on ground not only 
 so futile, but so perfectly and manifestly absurd, the 
 reader must form his own conclusion. 
 
 It will by no means excuse Mr. M'Caine to say that 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHER^. 105 
 
 he does not directly assert " by whom this thing was 
 done." Every reader of his work cannot but consider 
 Mr. Asbury, or his friends, or both, as imphcated. The 
 " History and Mystery" of the " Episcopacy" of those 
 days was his subject ; and the appHcation is so plain 
 that he who runs may read. Besides, by whomsoever 
 it was done, Mr. Asbury must either have been privy 
 to it, or certainly have known it afterward, and Dr. 
 Coke also. And on. this ground, at all events, they 
 stand implicated by this insinuation, in the guilt of 
 having at least countenanced and concealed an act of 
 such criminahty and baseness. 
 
 Section XII. — Methodist Episcopacy. 
 
 The following views of our episcopacy were those of 
 the bishops themselves, as contained in the notes of the 
 Discipline prepared by Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, at 
 the request of the General Conference. 
 
 "The most bigoted devotees to religious establish- 
 ments (the clergy of the church of Rome excepted^) 
 are now ashamed to support the doctrine of the apos- 
 tolic, uninterrupted succession of bishops, — and yet 
 nothing but an apostolic, uninterrupted succession can 
 possibly confine the right of episcopacy to any particu- 
 lar church." And " the idea of an apostolic succession 
 being exploded, it follows that the Methodist Church 
 has every thing which is Scriptural and essential to jus-. 
 tify its episcopacy." Ed. 1798, pp. 6, 7. 
 
 " Nor must we omit to observe" [speaking of primi- 
 tive episcopacy] "that each diocess had a college of 
 elders or presbyters, in which the bishop presided. So 
 
 * Perhaps a few others, who still claim a very near relationship to Rome, 
 ought to have been included in this exception. 
 
106 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 that the bishop by no means superintended his diocess 
 in a despotic manner, but was rather the chief execu- 
 tor of those regulations which were made in the college 
 of presbyters." Ibid., 8. 
 
 Nothing has been introduced into Methodism by the 
 present episcopal form of government which was not 
 before fully exercised by Mr. Wesley. — But the autho- 
 rity of Mr. Wesley and that of the bishops in America 
 differ in the following points : 
 
 " 1. Mr. Wesley was the patron of all the Methodist 
 pulpits in Great Britain and Ireland for life, the sole 
 right of nomination being invested in him by all the 
 deeds of settlement. — But the bishops in America pos- 
 sess no such power. The property of the preaching 
 houses is invested in the trustees, and the right of nomi- 
 nation to the pulpits in the General Conference, and in 
 such as the General Conference shall from time to time 
 appoint.^ Here, then, lies the grand difference between 
 Mr. Wesley's authority, in the present instance, and that 
 of our American bishops. The former, as (under God) 
 the father of the connection, was allowed to have the 
 sole, legal, independent nomination of preachers to all the 
 chapels ; the latter are entirely dependant on the Gene- 
 ral Conference." Ibid., 40, 41. 
 
 ''But why does the General Conference lodge the 
 power of stationing the preachers in the episcopacy? 
 We answer, On account of their entire confidence in it. 
 If ever, through improper conduct, it loses that confi- 
 dence in any considerable degree, the General Confer- 
 ence will, upon evidence given, in a proportionable 
 degree, take from it this branch of its authority. But 
 if ever it betrays a spirit of tyranny or partiality, and 
 this can be proved before the General Conference, the 
 whole will be taken from it : and we pray God that in 
 
 * With this before our eyes, is it not strange that any candid writer should 
 attempt to excite odium against the bishops, by representing our churches as 
 " bishops' property 1" 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 107 
 
 such case the power may be invested in other hands." 
 Ibid., 41. 
 
 " And we verily beheve, that if our episcopacy should 
 at any time, through tyrannical or immoral conduct, 
 come under the severe censure of the General Confer- 
 ence, the members thereof would see it iiighly for the 
 glory of God to preserve the present form, and only to 
 change the men." Ibid., 42. 
 
 " 2. Mr. Wesley, as the venerable founder (under 
 God) of the whole Methodist society, governed without 
 any responsibility whatever ; — but the American bishops 
 are as responsible as any of the preachers. They are 
 perfectlij subject to the General Conference." Ibid., 42. 
 The words " entirely dependant'^ and ''perfectly subjecf 
 are printed in Italics by the bishops themselves, to invite 
 our particular attention to this acknowledged fact. 
 
 After naming one other point of comparison between 
 the powers of Mr. Wesley and those of our bishops, 
 viz., in the entire management of all the conference 
 funds, which he possessed, and they do not; the 
 bishops thus conclude : — 
 
 " We have drawn this comparison between our vene- 
 rable father and the American bishops, to show to the 
 world that they possess not, and, we may add, they aim 
 not to possess, that power which he exercised, and had 
 a right to exercise, as the father of the connection; — that, 
 on the contrary, they are perfectly dependant ; that their 
 power, their usefulness, themselves, are entirely at the 
 mercy of the General Conference." Ibid., 43, 44. 
 
 Now what more can we desire than such acknowledg- 
 ments and declarations, freely and voluntarily made by 
 the bishops themselves ? And with what propriety, in 
 the face of them, can our episcopacy be denominated 
 ian " absolute episcopacy ;" or the bishops our " masters." 
 
 The power of stationing the preachers is certainly a 
 great and weighty power, for the due and faithful exer- 
 cise of which the bishops should be carefully and watch- 
 
108 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 fully held to a strict responsibility. But it is a power 
 vested in them by the preachers themselves, and as 
 liable to be modified, or to be wholly taken from them, 
 whenever the body of preachers shall judge such a 
 measure expedient or necessary. The weight of this 
 power rests upon the itinerant preachers. But surely, 
 they of all men have the least right to complain of it, 
 since the vesting of it, and the continuing of it in the 
 bishops, is their own voluntary act and choice. They 
 have submitted, and continue to submit to it, often, 
 doubtless, with many and great inconveniences and 
 sacrifices, because they have beheved it most efficient, 
 with an itinerant ministry, for the spread of the gospel 
 and for the good of the church. And it is believed that 
 our members, with very few exceptions, have always 
 been of the same opinion. 
 
 The bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church have 
 no control w^hatever over the decisions of either a erene- 
 ral or an annual conference. Whereas the bishops of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church have an absolute nega- 
 tive in their general conventions, and no act whatever 
 can be passed in their church without the consent of the 
 house of bishops, though it might even be unanimously 
 agreed to, and ardently desired by the whole body, both 
 of the clergy and laity ; a power certainly greatly su- 
 perior to any power possessed by the bishops of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 Another evidence of the dependance of our bishops 
 on the General Conference is, that if they cease to travel 
 without the consent of that body, they become imme- 
 diately incapable of exercising among us any episcopal 
 or other ministerial function. In other words, as the 
 bishops in their notes interpret this part of our Disci- 
 pline, they " are obliged to travel till the General Con- 
 ference pronounces them worn out or superannuated ;" 
 a restriction which, as they justly remark, is not to be 
 found in any other episcopal church. 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 109 
 
 Again : a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 cannot ordain a single individual, except in the mode 
 prescribed by the General Conference, by the vote and 
 direction of an annual conference. 
 
 In the notes on the Discipline, Dr. Coke and Mr. 
 Asbury did indeed claim the right, on their responsibility 
 to God, binding them to " lay hands suddenly on no 
 man," to " suspend the ordination of an elected person," 
 if such reasons appeared clearly against it that they 
 could not loroceed with a good conscience. But they, at 
 the same time, acknowledged the necessity and the 
 obligation of great caution in the exercise of this claim. 
 And we are not aware that a single instance of the 
 actual exercise of it has ever yet occurred since the 
 organization of our church. That cases might occur, 
 and that facts might take place or come to light, even 
 after the election of individuals for orders, in which it 
 would be the conscientious duty of a bishop to suspend 
 proceeding in the ordination, there can be few persons 
 so unreasonable as not to admit. And how the claim 
 of this right to '' suspend" an ordination in such a case 
 can be represented as censurable on the part of the 
 bishops, as it has been by a late writer, we do not un- 
 derstand. It is, in fact, expressly required of them by 
 the Discipline : — " If any crime or impediment be ob- 
 jected, the bishop shall surcease from ordaining that 
 person, until such time as the party accused shall be 
 found clear of the crime." — See the form of ordainino- 
 both deacons and elders. 
 
 The late Rev. John Dickens, in his remarks on the 
 proceedings of Mr. Hammett, says, in relation to the 
 superiority of our bishops, as derived not from their 
 " separate ordination," but from the suffrages of the 
 body of ministers, — " Pray, when was it otherwise ?" — 
 and " how can the conference have power to remove 
 Mr. Asbury and ordain another to fill his place, if they 
 see it necessary, on any other ground V Mr. Hammett 
 
110 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 had said, " Let your superintendents know therefore,— 
 that their superiority is derived from your suffrages, and 
 not by virtue of a separate ordination. Gain and esta- 
 bhsh this point, and you sap the foundation of all arbi- 
 trary poMAer in your church, for ever." Mr. Dickens 
 rephes, '' Now who ever said the superiority of the 
 bishops was by virtue of a separate ordination? If 
 this gave them their superiority, how came they to be 
 removable by the conference ? If then what you there 
 plead for will sap the foundation of all arbitrary power, 
 it has been sapped in our connection from the first esta- 
 bUshment of our constitution," p. 31. Again he remarks, 
 p. 32, " We all know Mr. Asbury derived his official 
 power from the conference, and therefore his office is 
 at their disposal." " Mr. Asbury," he says in another 
 place, " was thus chosen by the conference, both before 
 and after he was ordained a bishop ; and he is still con- 
 sidered as the person of their choice, by being respon- 
 sible to the conference, who have power to remove him, 
 and fill his place with another, if they see it necessary. 
 And as he is liable every year to be removed, he may 
 be considered as their annual choice," p. 15. The high 
 standing of John Dickens is too well known to need 
 any statement of it here. He was also the particular 
 and most intimate friend of Bishop Asbury. And the 
 pamphlet containing the above sentiments was published 
 by the unanimous request of the conference held at Phi- 
 ladelphia, Sept. 5, 1792; and may be therefore consi- 
 dered as expressing the views both of that conference 
 and of Bishop Asbury in relation to the true and origi- 
 nal character of Methodist episcopacy. It may be con- 
 fidently affirmed then, that the Methodist episcopacy, if 
 preserved on its original basis, as it ever should be, has 
 as little independent power as the episcopacy of any 
 other episcopal church whatever. 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. Ill 
 
 Section XIII. — Title Bishop. 
 
 Episcopos, (Greek,) — episcopus, (Latin,) — a bishop, 
 or overseer. The Hebrew paked, as the Greek epis- 
 copos, whence the Anglo-Saxon bischop, and our 
 Enghsh word bishop, — is any man that hath a charge 
 and office for any business, civil or ecclesiastical. It is 
 derived from etvl, (epi,) super, and aKo^eiv, (skopein,) inien- 
 dere, supemitendere, to superintend. And hence superin- 
 tendent, from the Latin, is of precisely the same import 
 as bishop from the Greek. — " Inter iipeaiSvTepov, tamen, et 
 EmcKOKov, hoc interest : UpecrjSvrepog uomon est ordinis : Ema- 
 Konos nomen in illo ordine officii." Between bishop and 
 presbyter there is nevertheless this difference. Presby- 
 ter is the name of an order. Bishop is the name of an 
 office in that order. See Leigh's Critica Sacra. 
 
 Originally, " the name EmffKOKoi," [episcopoi, bishops,] 
 given " to the governors of the church under the gos- 
 pel," was "a name importing Jw^y more ths^n honour ; 
 and not a title above presbyter.''^ Irenicum, p. 286. 
 
 We say then, with the Rev. Asa Shinn, that " intelli- 
 gent Christians, before they either vindicate or vilify a 
 simple name, will inquire into its precise signification." 
 We have done so with regard to our term bishop. And 
 the inquiry conducts us to the conclusion, that it may 
 be vindicated, but cannot be justly vilified. 
 
 The following is the Rev. Nicholas Snethen's account 
 of the introduction of the term bishop, in addressing our 
 superintendents. 
 
 Mr. O'Kelly had asserted that " about the year 1787, 
 Francis directed the preachers, whenever they wrote to 
 him, to title him bishop." Mr. Snethen replies, that 
 among Mr. Asbury's acquaintance the assertion suffi- 
 ciently refutes itself, and that no one who has ever 
 known the man can possibly give it credit for a moment ; 
 and adds, 
 
112 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 " Some time after ordination was introduced among 
 us, several of the ministers altered the inscription of 
 their letters to each other from ' Mr.' to ' Rev.' Some 
 ■were dissatisfied: they thought that it savoured more 
 of pride than of piety ; others had more serious scru- 
 ples, and even doubted whether it were not impious to 
 address men in a style and title given to Jehovah him- 
 self, as in Psalm cxi, 9 : ' Holy and reverend is his 
 name.' In the conference for 1787, this was made a 
 subject of conversation, for the sake of those of scrupu- 
 lous consciences. The conference advised that every one 
 should use his own choice ; and that those who doubted 
 the propriety of Reverend might give the simple name, 
 with the official character, as bishop, elder, or deacon. It 
 was not thought proper to expose this little circum- 
 stance in print." Reply to James O'Kelly, pp. 10, 11. 
 
 The same liberty still exists. No man is obliged to 
 style our general superintendents bishops. Any that 
 choose to retain the original title of superintendent are 
 perfectly at liberty to do so, whether in writing or other- 
 wise. By some the latter title is still most generally 
 ■used ; and by most, if not by all of us, it is frequently 
 used, without scruple, as synonymous with bishop ; and 
 not only equally proper but equally respectful. Indeed, 
 according to Mr. Snethen's statement, the conference of 
 1787 seem to have considered the title bishop less ex- 
 ceptionable to scrupulous consciences than that of 
 Reverend ; and advised the use of the former by those 
 who scrupled the propriety of using the latter. Yet 
 this title Reverend, we have not understood that Mr. 
 M'Caine himself has ever declined; nor some other 
 gentlemen of our modern days, who war with titles 
 much less august. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine, p. 42, quotes " a writer," who states that, 
 " in 1786 Mr. Asbury proposed to Mr. Wesley three 
 persons to be appointed bishops for the United States, 
 to act under Mr. Asbury." Mr. Wesley's answer, he 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 113 
 
 says, is worthy to be engraven in characters of gold. 
 It was, he states, — " Daring my Hfe there shall be no 
 archbishops in the Methodist Church. But send me the 
 man of your choice, and I shall have him appointed 
 joint superintendent with you." Now, admitting this 
 .statement, we ask, in the name of common sense, if 
 what we maintain is not here confessed : viz., that Mr. 
 Wesley himself considered the term " superintendent" 
 as synonymous with bishop ? Why did he refuse to 
 appoint a superintendent to act under Mr. Asbury ? Be- 
 cause this would have been making Mr. Asbury an 
 <a!7-cAbishop ; that is, a bishop over bishops. Of course 
 the superintendent under him would have been a bishop. 
 According to this statement, then, as <2rc/isuperintendent 
 means archbishop, it necessarily follows, that '' johit 
 superintendent" means joint bishop, and superintendent 
 simply bishop. 
 
 The following extract of a letter from the late Rev. 
 and venerable Wm. Watters, will shed farther light on 
 this subject. 
 
 "My Dear Brother, 
 
 " That there should be those who through prejudice 
 think the Methodists, since they have had bishops 
 among them, are quite a different people, is not strange. 
 But is it not strange that those who have known them 
 from the beginning should admit such a thought, till 
 they have investigated the matter thoroughly ? All must 
 know that names do not alter the nature of things. We 
 have from the beginning had one among us who has 
 superintended the whole work. At first this person was 
 solely appointed by Mr. Wesley, and called the gene- 
 ral assistant : at a time when there were none but Euro- 
 pean preachers on the continent. But why was the 
 name of general assistant ever changed ? All that will 
 open their eyes may know why. The Methodists in 
 England and in America formerly did not call them- 
 8 
 
114 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 selves a particular church ; but a religious society in 
 connection with different churches, but mostly with the 
 Episcopal Church. After the revolutionary war the 
 Episcopal clergy became very scarce, and in far the 
 greatest number of our societies we had no way of 
 receiving the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's 
 supper. It was this that led many of our preachers, as 
 you well know, to take upon them the administration 
 of the ordinances. Mr. Rankin, who was our first 
 general assistant, after staying the time in this country 
 he came for, returned home. This was at a time when 
 we- had no intercourse with England, and Mr. Asbury, 
 the only old preacher that determined (in those perilous 
 times) to give up his parents, country, and all his natu- 
 ral connections, was finally and unanimously chosen 
 by the preachers (assembled in conference) our general 
 assistant. He continued such until the year 1784, when 
 the doctor came over, and not only the name of gene- 
 ral assistant was changed to that of superintendent, but 
 we formed ourselves into a separate church. This 
 change was proposed to us by Mr. Wesley, after we 
 had craved his advice on the subject ; but could not take 
 effect till adopted by us ; which was done in a delibe- 
 rate, formal manner, at a conference called for that 
 purpose, in which there was not one dissenting voice. 
 Every one of any discernment must see from Mr. Wes- 
 ley's circular letter on this occasion, as well as from 
 every part of our mode of church government, that we 
 openly and avowedly declared ourselves episcopahans ; 
 though the doctor and Mr. Asbury were called super- 
 intendents. After a few years the name, from superin- 
 tendent, was changed to bishop. But from first to last, 
 the business of general assistant, superintendent, or 
 bishop has been the same ; only since we have become 
 a distinct church, he has, with the assistance of two or 
 three elders, ordained our ministers ; whose business it 
 is to preside in our conferences, and in case of an equal 
 8^ 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 116 
 
 division on a question, he has the casting vote ; but in 
 no instance whatever has he a negative, as you are told. 
 He has also the stationing of all the travelling preach- 
 ers, under certain limitations ; which power, as it is 
 given him by the General Conference, so it can be 
 lessened or taken from him at any time conference sees 
 fit."^ But while he superintends the whole w^ork, he 
 cannot interfere with the particular charge of any of the 
 preachers in their stations. To see that the preachers 
 fill their places with propriety, and to understand the 
 state of every station or circuit, that he may the better 
 make the appointment of the preachers is, no doubt, no 
 small part of his duty ; but he has nothing to do with 
 receiving, censuring, or excluding members ; this be- 
 longs wholly to the stationed preacher and members." 
 Memoirs, p. 103. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine, p. 34, reproaches our fathers with enter- 
 ing Mr. Wesley in the Minutes of 1789 as a "bishop," 
 — " after it was known that the very term was so ex- 
 tremely offensive to him." This is not correct. They 
 did enter him as exercising '' the episcopal office'' But 
 they did not entitle him "bishop." The former was 
 not offensive to him. He well knew the distinction be- 
 tween the title and the office. The latter he did exer- 
 cise, and asserted his right to exercise it. And w^e have 
 already shown, from the extract of Dr. Coke's Journals, 
 that the statement of his having been so entered in the 
 American Minutes w^as published in England in Mr. 
 Wesley's lifetime, and dedicated to himself. This gave 
 him no offence. On the contrary, when pressed con- 
 cexning his " acting as a bishop," he did not deny, but 
 justified it, and answered, " I firmly beheve that I am a 
 
 * As our General Conferences were originally constituted, they possessed 
 the power of our whole hedy of ministers. Whenever the powers of the 
 present delegated General Conference are spoken of in this work, it is of 
 course to be understood agreeably to the principles of the restrictive limit- 
 ations. 
 
116 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 Scriptural episcopos, as much as any man in England 
 or in Europe. For the uninterrupted succession I know- 
 to be a fable, which no man ever did or can prove." 
 
 Letter to the Rev. on the Church. Works, vol. 
 
 xvi, English edition. 
 
 Section XIV. — Organization of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church. 
 
 Our argument has hitherto been conducted on the 
 ground that Mr. Wesley did institute, and did intend to 
 institute, under the title of superintendents, an episco- 
 pacy for the American Methodists ; and that by Dr. 
 Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our fathers, it was so, honestly 
 and in good faith, understood. And in this we are w^ell 
 satisfied that the candid and intellig-ent reader will agree. 
 
 But leaving out of view, for argument's sake, the re- 
 commendation of Mr. Wesley altogether, w^e are still 
 prepared, in the circumstances which then existed, to 
 defend the organization of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. 
 
 Had Mr. Asbury been actuated by the dishonourable 
 motives of ambition and self-aggrandizement imputed to 
 him, how^ easy had it been for him to have accomplished 
 his purpose, and to have organized a church in Ame- 
 rica, with himself at its head, independently of Mr. Wes- 
 ley and of the w^hole European connection. And what 
 plausible pretext or occasion did he want? Early in 
 the revolutionary struggle every other English preacher 
 had fled. He alone, through the contest, devoted him- 
 self to American Methodism, at the risk and hazard of 
 every thing dear. Mr. Wesley himself had openly and 
 publicly espoused the royal cause against the colonies. 
 This greatly embarrassed the American Methodists, and 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 117 
 
 especially the preachers, who were watched, and hunted, 
 and imprisoned, and beaten, as his emissaries ; and, 
 through him, as the disguised emissaries of Great Britain. 
 The societies, except in very few instances, were desti- 
 tute of the sacraments. They could neither obtain bap- 
 tism for their children, nor the Lord's supper for them- 
 selves. On this account, as early as 1778, Mr. Asbury 
 was earnestly importuned to take measures that the 
 Methodists might enjoy the same privileges as other 
 churches. He resisted the proposal. Yet so serious 
 was the crisis, that a large number of the preachers, to 
 satisfy the urgent necessities of the societies, chose from 
 among themselves three senior brethren, who ordained 
 others by the imposition of their hands. Among these 
 were some of the ablest and most influential men then 
 in the connection. Surely no man ever had a fairer or 
 a more plausible opportunity than Mr. Asbury then had, 
 to organize and to place himself at the head of the Me- 
 thodist Church in America, independently of Mr. Wesley. 
 Yet it was he who, with the late venerable Watters, : 
 Garrettson, and others, resolutely remained in connec- \ 
 tion with Mr. Wesley ; and rested not till by his inde- j 
 fatigable labours the whole of the seceding body were i 
 brought back, to await and to abide by Mr. Wesley's I 
 advice. And this is the same man who, after his death, ' 
 is now charged with the vilest dissimulation and hypo- 
 crisy, and with violating the obligations both of" honour" 
 and of "truth," for the sake of organizing a church, 
 separate from and independent of Mr. Wesley, with 
 himself at its head in conjunction with another ! 
 
 Dr. Coke was appointed and set apart by Mr. Wesley, 
 aided by other presbyters, as a general superintendent 
 of the American Methodists. In that character he was 
 unanimously received by the American conference, and 
 with their consent was to exercise episcopal powers 
 among them, and to act as a bishop, though called a 
 superintendent. 
 
118 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 Mr. Asbury was unanimously chosen by the same 
 conference, to be a general superintendent conjointly 
 with Dr. Coke. He was first ordained deacon and 
 elder, and then superintendent, agreeably to the unani- 
 mous voice of the conference, by Dr. Coke, a presbyter 
 of the Church of England, and Richard Whatcoat and 
 Thomas Vasey, who had been previously ordained pres- 
 byters by Mr. Wesley, Dr. Coke, and Mr. Creighton, 
 presbyters of the Church of England ; with the assist- 
 ance of Mr. Otterbine, a presbyter of the German Re- 
 formed Church. 
 
 T-he intention of the conference was, that Mr. Asbur}' 
 also should exercise episcopal powers, and act as a 
 bishop, though to be called a superintendent ; and the 
 church was then, and thenceforth, called the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. 
 
 Admitting the validity of ordination by presbyters, 
 and that, in such an exigency, they may even ordain 
 bishops, such as are contended for in these pages, as 
 we have shown they may, on what ground is the Me- 
 thodist episcopacy, thus understood, and thus instituted, 
 in such circumstances to be pronounced " illegitimate," 
 unlawful? It is true Mr. M'Caine persuades himself 
 " that the impartial, intelligent, and pious of other deno- 
 minations" will so pronounce it. And he has certainly 
 done all in his power to induce them to do so ; and not 
 only " the intelligent and pious" of other denominations, 
 but the bigoted and prejudiced of every description, and 
 especially the avowed enemies of the Methodist Church ; 
 separatists, and such as have been expelled from her 
 communion ; the restless and dissatisfied within it ; and 
 the enemies of Christianity in general. To such Mr. 
 M'Caine's book has doubtless afforded a high gratifica- 
 tion. But if there be any law, divine or human, prohi- 
 biting or proscribing such an episcopacy, let it be pro- 
 duced. Let the edict itself be shown, and let not any 
 man think us impertinent if, in demanding the produc- 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 119 
 
 tion of it, we require that the terms of the edict be very- 
 express and positive. 
 
 If this matter be pressed still farther, we then insist 
 that the unanimous election and appointing of the first 
 Methodist bishops was of itself sufficient, in the circum- 
 stances then existing, to constitute a valid episcopacy, 
 according to the judgment of Archbishop Cranmer, and 
 those divines who concurred with him, as stated by 
 Stillingfleet. And let those who maintain that any other 
 authority was indispensable to its legitimacy, produce 
 their warrant. And let them remember beforehand that 
 we are not to be governed by tradition. 
 
 If it be objected that those proceedings took place 
 among the preachers only, we answer : This was unde- 
 niably in accordance with the original principle on 
 which the Methodist societies had been gathered, and 
 united by the preachers, who determined on what prin- 
 ciples of discipline and of administration they would 
 devote themselves to take charge of, to guide, and to 
 serve those who, upon these principles, chose to place 
 themselves under their care, and especially upon what 
 principles they could feel themselves at liberty to admi- 
 nister to them the ordinances. 
 
 If there were any law of God or man making this 
 " illegitimate," unlawful, on the part of the preachers, 
 let this edict also be produced. In the days of "the 
 fathers''' and of the founders of Methodism, at all events, 
 both in Europe and in America, we hazard the assertion 
 that these were principles recognised and acquiesced in 
 by the Methodist people also. That it necessarily fol- 
 lows, however, from these premises, that any modifica- 
 tion of this system in all after time, and in any change 
 of circumstances, is absolutely precluded, is what we 
 do not here mean to say. Nor is that a field into which 
 our present subject requires us at all to enter. 
 
 But leaving out of view, for the present, any circum- 
 stances which might be collected of the divine appro- 
 
120 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 bation of the proceedings of the conference of 1784, 
 from the great and signal blessings which followed upon 
 the labours of the preachers, and the special prosperity 
 of the work from that time, we will conclude this part 
 of our subject with an argument which, with some of 
 our opponents, perhaps, may have more weight. 
 
 We maintain, then, that the proceedings of that con- 
 ference in organizing the " Methodist Episcopal Church," 
 with general superintendents, vested with episcopal 
 powers, and intended to act as bishops, were in fact, if 
 not mform, approved and sanctioned by the people, the 
 Methodist people, of that day. And that the preachers 
 set apart at that conference, in their appropriate and 
 respective characters, as deacons, elders, and superin- 
 tendents or bishops, were freely and cordially received 
 and greeted by the people as such ; and the sacraments 
 gladly accepted, as they had long been urgently de- 
 manded, at their hands. Our proofs follow. 
 
 " The Methodists were pretty generally pleased at 
 our becoming a church ; and heartikj united together, in 
 the plan which the conference had adopted. And from 
 ^A^^me religion greatly revived." Lee's History, p. 107. 
 
 " 25th December, 1784. We became, instead of a reli- 
 gious society, a separate church, under the name of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. This change gave great 
 satisfaction through all our societies^ William Watters' 
 Memoirs, by Himself, p. 102. 
 
 "The conference met December, 1784. It was una- 
 nimously agreed that circumstances made it expedient 
 for the Methodist societies in America to become a sepa- 
 rate body from the Church of England. They also 
 resolved to take the title, and to be known in future by 
 the name of The Methodist Episcopal Church. They 
 made the episcopal office elective, — Mr. Asbury was 
 unanimously elected, and Dr. Coke w^as also unani- 
 mously received, jointly with him, to be the superintend- 
 ents, or bishops, of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 121 
 
 From that time the Methodist societies in the United 
 States became an independent church, under the epis- 
 copal mode and form of government. This step met 
 with general apyrohation, both among the preachers and 
 the members. Perhaps we shall seldom find such una- 
 nimity of sentiment upon any question of such magni- 
 tude." Rev. Ezekiel Cooper on Asbury, pp. 108, 109. 
 
 Of those who w^ere members of the church at that 
 period, very few are now living. And of such as are, 
 these are not they who now complain of that act. That 
 those who have voluntarily united themselves to this 
 church since, knowing it to be thus constituted ; — and 
 some perhaps who have left other churches to join it ; 
 — or boys of yesterday, who but a few days ago soli- 
 cited admission into it, thus organized ; — ^that these 
 should now represent the government of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church as a tyrannical usurpation over them, 
 is an abuse of language so gross that we marvel how 
 men of common intellect or conscience can allow them- 
 selves in it. 
 
 The following is a copy of a letter from Mr. Wesley 
 to Mr. Asbury, transcribed from the original. Its con- 
 tents are in all respects highly interesting. But it is 
 introduced here to show. that, though written so recently 
 after the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 and at a period when Mr. Wesley could not but have 
 known that event, it does not contain one syllable of 
 censure or of disapprobation. It is dated, 
 
 " Bristol, Sept. 30, 1785. 
 
 " My Dear Brother, — It gives me pleasure to hear 
 that God prospers your labours even in the barren soil 
 of South Carolina. Near fifty years ago I preached in 
 the church at Charleston, and in a few other places ; 
 and deep attention sat on every face. But I am afraid 
 few received any lasting impressions. 
 
 " At the next conference it will be worth your while 
 
122 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 to consider deeply whether any preacher should stay in 
 one place three years together. I startle at this. It is 
 a vehement alteration in the Methodist discipline. We 
 have no such custom in England, Scotland, or Ireland. 
 
 " I myself may perhaps have as much variety of matter 
 as many of our preachers. Yet I am well assured, 
 were I to preach three years together in one place, both 
 the people and myself would grow as dead as stones. 
 Indeed this is quite contrary to the whole economy of 
 Methodism ; God has always wrought among us by a 
 constant change of preachers. 
 
 " Newly awakened people should, if it were possible, 
 be plentifully supplied with books. Hereby the awaken- 
 ing is both continued and increased. 
 
 " In two or three days I expect to be in London. I 
 will then talk with Mr. Atlay on the head. Be all in 
 earnest for God. 
 
 " I am your affectionate friend and brother, 
 " J. Wesley." 
 
 Section XV. — Leaving Mr. Wesleifs name off the 
 Minutes. 
 
 The meaning of this phrase seems not to have been 
 correctly understood. In some cases Mr. M'Caine as- 
 serts that Mr. Wesley's name was left off in 1785 ; and 
 then expresses surprise that he, notwithstanding, by 
 his letter of September, 1786, attempted " to exercise 
 his authority as formerly, by desiring that Mr. What- 
 coat should be appointed a superintendent." In other 
 places he represents this event as having taken place in 
 1787. The confusion was in Mr. M'Caine's own mind, 
 not in the subject. This is easily explained. 
 
A. DEFENCE OP OUR FATHERS. 123 
 
 In the Minutes of the conference of 1784, in answer 
 to the second question it was said, " During the Hfe of 
 the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his 
 sons in the gospel, ready in matters belonging to church 
 government to obey his commands." This minute re- 
 mained unaltered till the conference of 1787. At that 
 conference it was resolved to omit it. This act, and 
 this only, is what is properly meant by leaving Mr. Wes- 
 ley's name off the Minutes. 
 
 With regard to that minute, the conference of 1787 
 did not consider it in the light of a contract with Mr. 
 Wesley. It had no such character. It was a mere 
 voluntary declaration on the part of the conference of 
 1784, and one which had neither been required of them, 
 nor was unalterably binding on their successors ; w^ho 
 were as free to judge and act for themselves as their 
 predecessors had been. If there was any thing impro- 
 per in that business, Mr. Lee contends, it was in origi- 
 nally adopting the minute, and not in rescinding it. 
 History, p. 127. 
 
 The declaration of the conference of 1784 was, that 
 " during the hfe of Mr. Wesley they were ready to obey 
 his commands in matters belonging to church government. 
 That it was not understood or intended, however, from 
 the commencement of our organization as a church, that 
 Mr. Wesley should thereafter personally appoint our 
 church officers, is susceptible of clear proof In the form 
 for " the ordination of superintendents," prepared for 
 us by Mr. Wesley himself, and " recommended" to us 
 in the prayer book of 1784, are these words : " After 
 the gospel and the sermon are ended, the elected person 
 shall be presented by two elders unto the superintend- 
 ent, saying," &c. Again, in the same form: "Then 
 the superintendent and elders present shall lay their 
 hands upon the head of the elected person kneeling be- 
 fore them," &c. These passages indisputably prove, 
 that Mr. Wesley himself at that time contemplated the 
 
124 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 future election of our superintendents, and not that they 
 were to be appointed by him. 
 
 On this principle Mr. Asbury acted from the com- 
 mencement. When the design of organizing the Me- 
 thodists in America into an independent episcopal 
 church was first opened to the preachers then present, 
 by Dr. Coke and Mr. Whatcoat, at their first meeting at 
 Barratt's chapel, in Delaware, on the 15th of November, 
 1784, Mr. Asbury frankly declared, " If the preachers 
 unanimously choose me, I shall not act in the capacity 
 I have hitherto done by Mr. Wesley's appointment." 
 Joifrnal, vol. i, p. 376. This frank avowal, at that early 
 period, is a full refutation of Mr. M'Caine's unworthy 
 insinuation that Mr. Asbury hypocritically pretended 
 subjection to Mr. Wesley's authority " at that juncture," 
 lest by doing otherwise he should dash from his lips 
 the cup of sweets. As soon as the plan was opened 
 to him, and not long before his election or ordination, he 
 explicitly stated that if placed in the office of superin- 
 tendent it must be by the voice of his brethren. When 
 the conference was convened he made the same decla- 
 ration, and declined to serve on any other ground. Nor 
 was he ordained, nor was Dr. Coke received as a super- 
 intendent, until they were severally elected by the 
 conference. This proves that the conference concurred 
 in the same view. It is demonstrable that the confer- 
 ence of 1784 could not have viewed this subject in any 
 other light ; for in the same Minutes, in answer to the 
 twenty-sixth question, they expressly said, " N. B. No 
 person shall be ordained a superintendent, elder, or dea- 
 con, without the consent of a majority of the conference^ 
 In the case of Mr. Whatcoat, Mr. Lee says, " Most of 
 the preachers objected, and would not consent." History, 
 p. 126. This they certainly had a right to do, agreeably 
 to the original Minutes. 
 
 It will be observed farther, that the design of organ- 
 izing the Methodists in America into " an independent 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 125 
 
 episcopal church," was first opened by Dr. Coke to Mr. 
 Asbury and the preachers present, in the presence of 
 Richard Whatcoat. Now there is every reason to be- 
 lieve that Mr. Whatcoat had a correct acquaintance 
 with the intentions of Mr. Wesley : and when Dr. Coke 
 stated the design of forming the Methodists in America 
 into an " independent episcopal church," if Mr. What- 
 coat knew that this was contrary to Mr. Wesley's inten- 
 tions, it was his duty to express it. The universally 
 admitted character of Mr. Wliatcoat is a sufficient guaran- 
 tee that he would have done so. A man of greater sim- 
 plicity, guilelessness, and honesty, probably never lived. 
 Mr. M'Caine must therefore involve Mr. Whatcoat also 
 in the guilt of this knavish conspiracy, or else set him 
 down as an ignorant tool. Yet Mr. Wesley, who knew 
 him well, thought him not unworthy, two years after, to 
 be recommended for the office of general superintend- 
 ent. Such are the consequences continually involved in 
 Mr. M'Caine's hypotheses. 
 
 In a letter dated " London, September 6, 1786," ad- 
 dressed to Dr. Coke, Mr. Wesley says, 
 
 " Dear Sir, — ^I desire that you would appoint a 
 General Conference of all our preachers in the United 
 States, to meet at Baltimore on May the first, 1787. 
 And that Mr. Richard Whatcoat may be appointed su- 
 perintendent with Mr. Francis Asbury." 
 
 The calling of this conference, by Dr. Coke, by the 
 direction of Mr. Wesley, at a time and place unauthor- 
 ized by any previous conference, was the first ground 
 of dissatisfaction in the conference of 1787. The time 
 fixed for it being much earlier than had been antici- 
 pated, subjected many of the preachers to considerable 
 inconvenience ; and some, in consequence of the de- 
 rangement of their plans, did not attend at all. Among 
 these were Ezekiel Cooper, and John M'Claskey, who 
 then travelled in Jersey. This proceeding was one of 
 the chief causes which led to the signing of the instru- 
 
1S6 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 ment given by Dr. Coke at that conference, in which he 
 promised not to exercise any government in the Method- 
 ist Episcopal Church when absent from the United States- 
 The subsequent part of Mr. Wesley's note does not 
 seem to us at present, however it may have been in- 
 tended, as an absolute appointment of Mr. Whatcoat. 
 In one place, p. 43, Mr. M'Caine himself says, " It will 
 be seen then that he does not ' appoint' Mr. Whatcoat 
 a superintendent, but simply expresses a ' desire' that 
 he 'may be appointed' one." Yet only one page before 
 he expressly says, " Mr. Wesley accordingly appointed 
 Mr.^Whatcoat." So that, according to Mr. M'Caine, 
 we have both assertions, — he did appoint him, and he 
 did not. It is certain, however, that Dr. Coke con- 
 tended that this letter of Mr. Wesley's was an appoint- 
 ment of Mr. Whatcoat ; and that the conference were 
 therefore " obliged" to receive him, in consequence of 
 the minute of 1784 to obey Mr. Wesley's commands in 
 matters relating to church government. And had the 
 conference considered themselves obhged, as Dr. Coke 
 contended, to receive Mr. Whatcoat merely by virtue of 
 Mr. Wesley's authority, they might have been equally re- 
 quired by the same authority to submit to the recall of 
 Mr. Asbury. Considering it therefore as their right, agree- 
 ably to the form of ordination, and to the rule adopted 
 by the conference of 1784, to elect their superintend- 
 ents ; and finding that the minute respecting obeying 
 Mr. Wesley in matters belonging to church government, 
 was likely to become a source of contention, and to be 
 construed in a sense which the conference of 1784 
 never intended, so as to deprive them of that right, they 
 resolved to rescind it; and accordingly did so. But 
 this act did not in any degree proceed from want of per- 
 sonal respect or regard for Mr. Wesley. At the very 
 same time they addressed an affectionate letter to him, 
 expressing their attachment, and their desire, if it were 
 practicable, that he could visit them, and become per- 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 127 
 
 sonally acquainted with their affairs. For they did not 
 beheve it possible for him, at the distance of three thou- 
 sand miles, to judge as correctly respecting their super- 
 intendents as they could who were on the spot. They 
 did believe also that unjust representations of Mr. As- 
 bury had been made to him, by some person or persons 
 unfriendly to Mr. Asbury ; and that, if they accepted of 
 Mr. Whatcoat merely by his authority, in these circum- 
 stances, it might probably lead to Mr. Asbury's recalL 
 They therefore declined to receive Mr. Whatcoat But 
 it was the conference that declined, as Mr. Lee states, 
 and not Mr. Asbury, as we shall now farther prove. ^ 
 
 As Mr. M'Caine, on this subject, has only revived 
 and new dressed the old charges of Mr. O'Kelly, — to 
 refute them we have only to adopt the former refutation 
 of Mr. O'Kelly by Mr. Snethen. 
 
 Mr. O'Kelly had asserted, " Francis was opposed to 
 a joint superintendent." — "For a refutation of this 
 charge," says Mr. Snethen, "see the following testi- 
 mony." — The certificates of Dr. Coke, of Philip Bruce, 
 and of Mr. Whatcoat himself 
 
 " When Thomas Coke and Mr. Asbury met in Charles- 
 ton, Thomas Coke informed him that Mr. Wesley had 
 
 * One of Mr. M'Caine's unnamed authorities says, " About this time there 
 was a great rumour in London concerning the strides taken by Mr. Asbury 
 for the extent of power, and one elderly gentleman, the Rev. T. R.," [Thomas 
 Rankin, we presume,] " said it would be right to recall a man of that ambitious 
 turn. Mrs. Asbunf [the mother of Bishop Asbury] " heard of this saying, 
 and intimated to her son she hoped to see him shortly in England." 
 
 Mr. Snethen says also, "Mr. Asbury was the only English preacher that 
 adopted the American country, and was determined to stand or fall with the 
 cause of independence ; all the rest returned, and one at least was not very 
 well affected toward him : and Mr. Asbury's intentions were questioned, and 
 Mr. Wesley was advised to keep a watchful eye over the great water." 
 Answer to J. O'Kelly's Vindication, page 18. 
 
 It appears, too, from Mr. Snethen's account, that a preacher who was 
 expelled in 1792 had been misrepresenting Mr. Asbury, and imposing on 
 Mr. Wesley: Through his aid Mr. Hammett endeavoured to stab the cha- 
 racter of Mr. Asbury. Mr. O'Kelly used the materials which they had pre- 
 pared to his hand ; and Mr. M'Caine has availed himself of them all, with 
 the addition of Mr. Kewley's productions, but without naming his authorities. 
 
128 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 appointed Richard Whatcoat as a joint superintendent, 
 and Mr. Asbury acquiesced in the appointment, as did 
 the Charleston conference when it was laid before them. 
 Thomas Coke proposed the appointment to the Virginia 
 conference, and, to his great pain and disappointment, 
 James O'Kelly most strenuously opposed it ; but con- 
 sented that the Baltimore conference might decide it, 
 upon condition that the Virginia conference might send 
 a deputy to explain their sentiments. 
 
 " Jan. 7, 1796. (Signed) Thomas Coke." 
 
 "J perfectly remember that Mr. O'Kelly opposed the 
 appointment of Mr. Whatcoat; and that Mr. Asbury 
 said enough to him and me to convince us that he was 
 not opposed to the appointment. 
 
 "Norfolk, Nov. 30,1796. (Signed) Philip Bruce." 
 
 " Mr. Asbury was not opposed to my being joint super- 
 intendent with himself. After receiving Mr. V^esley's 
 letter he wrote to me from Charleston upon the subject. 
 As I have not the letter by me at present, I cannot give 
 the contents verbatim : but, as well as I recollect, the 
 conclusion was : ' And if so, you must meet me at the 
 Warm Springs, and we will make out a plan for your 
 route through the continent. 
 
 '' (Signed) R. Whatcoat."* 
 
 " How could he" (Mr. O'Kelly) says Mr. Snethen, 
 " publish such an idea ? Had he forgotten the conversa- 
 tion which passed between himself and Mr. Asbury, at 
 Dick's Ferry, upon Dan River ? in which Mr. Asbury 
 told him it would be best to accept Richard Whatcoat." 
 
 * Let the reader compare these certificates with the letter of the 3 1st of 
 Oct., 1789, which Mr. M'Caine, p. 47, imputes to Mr. Wesley, in which it 
 is stated that Mr. Asbury " flatly refused to receive Mr. Whatcoat." From 
 this comparison it is certain, either that Mr. Wesley never wrote that letter 
 as it is j^iven to us ; or if he did, that he had been imposed on by false 
 information^ 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 129 
 
 Rev. N. Snethen's Reply to James O'Kelly's Apology, 
 pp. 9, 10. 
 
 We may add, also, that Mr. Snethen has as triumph- 
 antly vindicated Mr. Asbury from '' the smallest blame" 
 in relation to the leaving of Mr. Wesley's name off the 
 Minutes. Mr. O 'Kelly had asserted that " Francis took 
 with him a few chosen men, and in a clandestine 
 manner expelled John, whose surname was Wesley, 
 from the Methodist Episcopal Church." Mr. Snethen 
 rephes, 
 
 " Surely an author that w^ill publish such a slander 
 against an innocent man, is but little better than he who 
 would be guilty of the charge. Mr. Asbury has given 
 the compiler a particular detail of every circumstance 
 relative to himself, that had the most remote relation to 
 the leaving Mr. Wesley's name out of the American 
 Minutes ; which makes it appear that Mr. Ashury was 
 not deserving of the smallest blame in the whole business ; 
 and the compiler," Mr. Snethen, " is certain that Dr. Coke 
 and all the preachers then living, 7vho were at that time 
 members of the conference, were perfectly satisfied that 
 Mr. Asbury was entirely innocent of the charge." Reply 
 to Mr. O'Kelly's Apology, p. 12.* 
 
 On the whole, viewing this subject with a candid and 
 affectionate reverence for all parties, we do not say that 
 a gentler and more conciliatory course on the part of 
 that conference, in relation to Mr. Wesley personally, 
 might not have been, perhaps, the more excellent way. 
 But this is submitted with all our added light, and when 
 
 * Since writing the above we have seen a statement from Mr. Snethen of 
 the circumstances in which his publications respecting Mr. O'Kelly were 
 compiled. — It does not appear, however, to require any alteration of what 
 we have written. The facts and documents remain the same. We are 
 well satisfied also that Mr. Snethen would never, even as a member of 
 a committee, have published any thing which he did not himself believe. 
 And we are equally satisfied that he always had, and still has, too high an 
 opinion of Bishop Asbury's personal moral worth, to believe for a moment 
 that he would have furnished either documents, or any statement of facts, 
 even in his own defence, which he knew to be either forged or false. 
 
 9 
 
130 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 the excitements, the apprehensions, and the embarrass- 
 ments of that day are wholly gone. Yet we do say, 
 that had we lived in the days of '^ our fathers," it is 
 highly probable that a majority of us would have felt, 
 and judged, and acted, as a majority of them did ; and 
 very doubtful whether we, or their censors, would have 
 done better. 
 
 At one time, Mr. Wesley's name, to use the common 
 phrase, was left off the A?nerican Minutes. At another, 
 Dr. Coke's was omitted in the English Minutes. And 
 at yet another, (1778,) Mr. Asbury's name also was 
 omitted in the American Minutes. In each case it was 
 done from what were then deemed prudential con- 
 siderations. With our present lights we may doubt, 
 perhaps, the real necessity of either of them. Yet are 
 we prepared to assert, with confidence, w-hat might, and 
 would have been the effects, if these measures had not 
 been adopted ?^ 
 
 Mr. M'Caine is also displeased that, at the death of 
 Mr. Wesley, no account was given of him in the Ameri- 
 can Minutes. We wish this had been otherwise. But 
 if he can believe that the omission resulted from " con- 
 
 *With respect to the "rejecting of Mr. Wesley," or leaving his name 
 off the Minutes, the following is Mr. Asbury's statement : — 
 
 " I was amazed to hear that my dear ajjed friend, Benjamin Evans, (now 
 gone to glory,) was converted to the new side by being told by J. O'Kelly 
 that I had offended Mr. Wesley, and that he being about calling me to ac- 
 count, I cast him off altogether. But, quere, did not J. O'K. set aside the 
 appointment of Richard Whatcoat 1 and did not the conference in Baltimore 
 strike that minute out of our Discipline which was called a rejecting of Mr. 
 Wesley ? and now does J. O'K. lay all the blame on me. It is true, I never 
 approved of that binding minute. I did not think it practical expediency to 
 obey Mr. Wesley, at three thousand miles' distance, in all matters relative 
 to church government ; neither did Brother Whatcoat, nor several others. 
 At the first General Conference I was mute and modest when it passed, and 
 I was mute when it was expunged. For this Mr. Wesley blamed me, and 
 was displeased that I did not rather reject the whole connection, or leave 
 them, if they did not comply. But I could not give up the connection so 
 easily, after labouring and suffering so many years with and for them." 
 Journal, vol. ii, p. 270. 
 
 9* 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 131 
 
 tempt'' of Mr. Wesley, we must leave him to enjoy his 
 opinion. The adoption of such a sentiment requires a 
 strong predisposition and desire to believe it.'^ 
 
 The truth seems to be, that, as the deaths of Ameri- 
 can preachers are not mentioned in the British Minutes, 
 so the deaths of the European preachers are not men- 
 tioned in the American Minutes ; although, in a general 
 sense, we are all regarded as one body. In the case of 
 Mr. Wesley an exception to this general mode of pro- 
 ceeding might doubtless have been made with great 
 propriety. But that not a particle of any thing like 
 " cold neglect" or '•' contempt" of Mr. Wesley had place 
 in the mind of Mr. Asbury on that occasion, we have 
 the explicit testimony of Mr. Moore. Even on receiving 
 from Mr. Wesley the letter of Sept., 1788, Mr. Moore 
 says, " Mr. Asbury lost none of his veneration for his 
 father in the gospel," Mr. Wesley : and as a proof of 
 this he cites the entry which Mr. Asbury made in his 
 journal, on the occasion of the death " of that dear man 
 of God ;" in which, after expressing himself in the high- 
 est terms of Mr. Wesley's character and attainments, 
 Mr. Asbury adds : " I conclude his equal is not to be 
 found among all the sons he hath brought up, nor his 
 superior among all the sons of Adam'' Life of Wesley, 
 vol. ii, p. 286. With what face, after this, can Mr. As- 
 bury, at least, be involved in the insinuation of treating 
 the memory of Mr. Wesley with " cold neglect, if not 
 contempt ?' 
 
 Even in the British Minutes the notice of Mr. Wes- 
 ley's death was extremely short: for the conference 
 declared that they found themselves " utterly inadequate 
 to express their ideas and feelings on that awful and 
 affecting: event." 
 
 * When the great Fletcher died, the account of him in the English Mi- 
 nutes was contained in oUe line and a quarter. That line and a quarter, 
 however, from the pen of Mr. Wesley, expressed, we confess, as much as 
 some of our modern pages. 
 
132 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 That Mr. Wesley before his death became satisfied 
 of the continued affection and attachment of the Ame- 
 rican Methodists, appears from his correspondence. 
 
 In a letter to the Rev. Ezekiel Cooper, written only 
 twenty-nine days before his death, after mentioning his 
 growing infirmities, he says, " Probably I should not be 
 able to do so much, did not many of you assist me by 
 your prayers. See that you never give place to one 
 thought of separating from your brethren in Europe. 
 Lose no opportunity of declaring to all men that the 
 Methodists are one people in all the world, and that it 
 is their full determination so to continue, 
 
 'Though mountains rise, and oceans roll, 
 To sever us in vain,' " 
 
 This proves that he did not then consider us as sepa- 
 rated from himself, or from our European brethren. 
 
 The same sentiment has been since officially avowed 
 both by the British and American conferences. The 
 credentials furnished by our brethren in Europe, either 
 to their ministers or members, are recognised and 
 honoured by us here, as entitling them to every privi- 
 lege of our church. The credentials which we furnish 
 are also acknowledged by them. And of late years the 
 two connections have mutually exchanged delegates, as 
 the representatives of each other, in our respective con- 
 ferences. Of this state of unity and affection every 
 friend of this great work will cordially say — May it be 
 perpetual.^ 
 
 * On the proceedings of the conference of 1787, Dr. Coke in his Journal 
 of that date remarks, — 
 
 " Never surely was more external peace and liberty enjoyed by the church 
 of God, or any part of it, since the fall of man, than we enjoy in America : 
 and every thing seems to be falling before the power of the word. What 
 then remained for the infernal serpent, but to sow the seeds of schism and 
 division among ourselves'? But, glory be to God, yea, glory for ever be 
 ascribed to his sacred name, the devil was completely defeated. Our pain- 
 ful contests, I trust, have produced the most indissoluble union between my 
 brethren and me. We thoroughly perceived the mutual parity of each 
 other's intentions in respect to the points in dispute. We mutually yielded, 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 133 
 
 Section XVI. — Mr. M'Caine's Arithmetical 
 Calculations. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine states, page 65, that the "appeal" 
 proposed by Mr. O'Kelly in the conference of 1792 
 '' was the origin and cause of a secession from the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church, of such great extent, that in 
 less than five years the Minutes of Conference exhibit 
 a decrease of 20,000 members." 
 
 Now how does he make this out 'I The conference 
 at which Mr. O'Kelly proposed his appeal was in No- 
 vember, 1792. The first return of numbers thereafter 
 was in 1793. The total number of members, white and 
 coloured, on the face of the Minutes then was 67,643. 
 In 1798, five years afterward, the total number was 
 60,169 ; making a decrease of only 7,474. Or, if we 
 take it in 1797, four years from 1793, the total number 
 then was 58,663 ; making a decrease of 8,980. If we 
 make the calculations from 1792, the decrease, accord- 
 ing to the Minutes, in 1796 was 9,316; and in 1797 it 
 was 7,317. 
 
 But did not Mr. M'Caine, in order to show so large a 
 decrease, go back to 1791 ? If he did, why did he do 
 so ? In 1792 the aggregate numbers on the face of the 
 Minutes was 65,980 ; and it was subsequently to that 
 return that the General Conference of 1792, at which 
 Mr. O'Kelly proposed his appeal, was held. Of course, 
 the numbers as returned for 1791 could not justly be 
 made the starting place for this calculation. Besides, 
 from 1791 to 1792 there was in reality an increase of 
 more than 2,000 members ; which farther shows the 
 
 and mutually submitted ; and the silken cords of love and affection were tied 
 to the horns of the altar for ever and ever." 
 
 We shall be most truly rejoiced to find that as much purity of intention, 
 and sincerity of affection, and of " the wisdom that is from above," exists 
 among us at the present day, as actuated the hearts of our excellent 
 " fathers." 
 
13'4 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 impropriety of beginning the calculation of a decrease 
 from 1791. It happens, however, that in 1791 the face 
 of the Minutes exhibits so very large an aggregate that 
 it suited Mr. M'Caine's purpose excellently well to begin 
 his calculation from that date. But in that ag-orreofate, 
 as exhibited by the Minutes, did Mr. M'Caine discover no 
 mistake 1 If he did not, his examination was extremely 
 superficial. If he did, it was a great want of candour, 
 and great injustice to his readers, not to state it. On 
 either ground we submit whether this specimen affords 
 us any very great encouragement to rely implicitly 
 on Mr. M'Caine's diligent investigation, and accurate 
 report of documents? Whoever will examine the Mi- 
 nutes of 1791 will find that there is an error in the 
 aggregate of the numbers stated for that year of between 
 twelve and thirteen thoicsand too many. The whole num- 
 ber, of both whites and coloured, is first given at the 
 foot of the column headed " Whites ;" and then the num- 
 ber of the coloured is given besides, which makes an 
 error equal to the whole number of the coloured mem- 
 bers, which must be deducted from the total aggregate 
 of the two columns, to ascertain the true aggregate. 
 
 In this calculation Mr. M'Caine is the more inexcusa- 
 ble, as he had before him Mr. Lee's History, in which 
 the increase and decrease are regularly stated from year 
 to year. This might have led any careful investigator 
 to an easy discovery of the error in the Minutes. In 
 1794 the first decrease took place that had occurred for 
 fourteen years. The largest decrease was in 1795. In 
 1796 there was still a decrease. But in 1797 there 
 was again an increase, nearly 2,000 having been added 
 to the numbers. 
 
 In the simple addition and subtraction of figures, we 
 should have supposed that Mr. M'Caine would have 
 been peculiarly accurate. And if he has so palpably 
 erred in a case so plain, and so perfectly susceptible of 
 investigation and correction, it can be no want of charity 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 135 
 
 to believe that he may have equally erred in matters 
 much more difficult and intricate, in which he has be- 
 wildered himself in the mazes of " mystery," where the 
 certain science of mathematics could afford no aid. 
 
 But we have a few other cases of arithmetical logic 
 to propose in bar of Mr. M'Caine's. If the " decrease" 
 stated by Mr. M'Caine, and the " secessions since that 
 period in different parts of the United States," be a fair 
 argument against our " episcopal form of church govern- 
 ment," are the increase and the accessions since no argu- 
 ment in its favour ? We put then the following cases 
 for Mr. M'Caine's calculation. 
 
 In the year 1784, when the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church was first organized, the number of members in 
 our societies was 14,988. In forty-three years, under 
 our episcopal form of church government, the increase 
 has been 367,009 ; the total number of members now 
 being 381,997. 
 
 In less than five years, at one period, Mr. M'Caine 
 says there was a decrease of 20,000 members ; though 
 the true decrease, during that period, was not half that 
 number. In 07ie year (1827) we have had an i?icrease 
 of 21,197. 
 
 The secession which caused the decrease which Mr. 
 M'Caine names, soon came to naught : and scarcely a 
 wreck or a vestige of it now remains ; while Episcopal 
 Methodism, from which that secession drew off, has 
 been graciously and divinely prospered, to an extent 
 even beyond the anticipations of its most sanguine and 
 devoted friends. Now the answer required is, taking 
 all these cases together, what is the sum of the arith- 
 metical argument ; — on which side is the true balance ; 
 and to what amount ? 
 
136 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 Section XVII. — The Address to Geyieral Washington. 
 
 Of all Mr. M'Caine's book, those parts which respect 
 the address to General Washington are the most extra- 
 ordinary. " It is evident," he asserts, p. 46, " that the 
 date of this address was altered." That he does not in 
 direct terms charge Mr. Asbury with the alteration, and 
 for the base purposes named, as we have before shown, 
 cannot excuse him. The implication is too clear to be 
 mistaken. If a false date were forged, and imposed on 
 the ^public, Mr. Asbury could not have been innocent. 
 He could not have been ignorant of the truth in the 
 case, nor of his duty respecting it. We have therefore 
 examined this subject minutely ; and the result has 
 amply repaid our pains."^ 
 
 Mr. Drew does not give the address itself ; nor state 
 expressly what its precise date was. He seems, indeed, 
 to have been left in peculiar embarrassment with regard 
 to dates, in consequence of the death of Dr. Coke at 
 sea, before he had arranged his papers in chronological 
 order, for his anticipated biographer, as he had intended. 
 This is intimated in Mr. Drew's dedication. Admitting, 
 however, from the course of his narrative, that it was 
 
 * Mr. M'Caine asserts also, pp. 37 and 38, that the Minutes of Confer- 
 ence '■'■were altered,''^ — "to make them quadrate with subsequent proceed- 
 ings." In proof of this, and showing the application to Mr. Asbury, he 
 rfefers to Lee's History. Now Mr. Lee says, " In the course of this year" 
 [1787] " Mr. Asbury reprinted the General Minutes, but in a different form 
 from what they were before," p. 127. The Minutes had been printed before 
 in one general body of consecutive questions and answers. Mr. Asbury 
 " methodized and arranged them under proper heads." So also Mr. Lee 
 says in another place, p. 68, " The form of the Annual Minutes was changed 
 this year" [1779] " in a few points ; and the first question stands thus, ' Who 
 are admitted on trial V The first question used to be, ' Who are admitted 
 into connection'?' " It is evident, therefore, that Mr. Lee had reference 
 simply to \he. form in which the Minutes were methodized and printed. And 
 has not their form been repeatedly altered since i Has it not been altered, 
 and, as some think, improved, several times within the last few years ■? If 
 this be deemed any crime, those considered guilty would be much obliged 
 if the accusation may be made in their lifetime, that they may have an oppor- 
 tunity to answer for themselves. 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 137 
 
 his impression that the address was presented in 1785, 
 this mistake can be much more readily excused in Mr. 
 Drew than in Mr. M'Caine. Mr. Drew was a foreigner, 
 writing in a foreign country. Mr. M'Caine was here on 
 the spot, writing in reference to prominent and well- 
 known events in our history, and where the most ample 
 and accurate sources of information were perfectly open 
 to him. The two dates, 1785 and 1789, were hoth before 
 him. Both were subjected to his deliberate investiga- 
 tion. He cJiose that of 1785 ; and went so far as to 
 charge that of 1789 with being an " altered" date, and 
 consequently forged. Nothing could be more delibe- 
 rate, and at the same time more grossly erroneous. Any 
 former publisher might have overlooked an error in the 
 narrative, as a court in the ordinary routine of business, 
 without investigation or argument, or having the atten- 
 tion directed to the points of a case. But Mr. M'Caine's 
 error is that of a court solemnly deliberating, hearing 
 the arguments of counsel, taking time to advise, and 
 then pronouncing a most glaringly unfounded and inju- 
 rious decision, against all evidence and reason, and all 
 justice and truth. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine repeatedly states that the address was 
 made to General Washington, " President of the Ame- 
 rican congress." He does this not only when quoting 
 Mr. Drew, but when he has no reference to Mr. Drew. 
 See particularly page 62. Now did he not know, or 
 ought he not to have known, that General Washington 
 never was president of the American congress ? and that 
 in 1785 he was in no official situation whatever, but a 
 mere private citizen attending to his farms. In fact 
 Washington was a private citizen during the whole 
 period from the resignation of his command of the Ame- 
 rican armies in 1783, till his election to the presidency 
 in 1789 ; except only during the few months in which 
 he was a member and president of the convention for 
 the formation of the constitution of the United States, 
 
138 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 in 1787. These facts and dates are contained in our 
 common school looks. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine, however, did know that Washington, 
 was not president of the United States till after the adop- 
 tion of the constitution in 1788. This he states, p. 46. 
 Why then, in the name of consistency, did he still insist 
 that the true date of the address was in 1785? Do not 
 both the address and the answer contain perfect inter- 
 nal evidence that their proper date must have been after 
 the adoption of the constitution, and the election of 
 General Washington to the presidency ? Unless we 
 adrmt this, we must allege a forgery not only in the 
 date, but in the body and matter both of the address and 
 answer. The address commences thus : — 
 
 " To the President of the United States^ It then pro- 
 ceeds to express the congratulations of the bishops on 
 the general's " appointment to the preside^itship of these 
 States." And in the ensuing paragraph, their most 
 grateful satisfaction at his course respecting " the most 
 excellent constitution of these States." 
 
 The president in his reply returns his thanks for their 
 demonstrations of affection, and expressions of joy '' on 
 his late appointment." Now can any one tell what 
 " late appointment" General Washington had received 
 in 1785 1 or how any sense can be made out of this 
 whole business, if its date be fixed at any time anterior 
 to 1789? 
 
 But we will not detain the reader longer with reason- 
 ing on the subject, though our reasoning alone would 
 be conclusive. We will present him with the evidence 
 of documents which shall put this matter to rest. The 
 following is an 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Thomas Morrell, 
 to the Rev. Ezekiel Cooper, dated, " Elizabethtown, 
 N. J., Aug. 26, 1827." 
 
 " With regard to the information you request concern- 
 ing the address to General Washington, I can furnish 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 139 
 
 you with every material circumstance respecting it, 
 having acted as a sub-agent in the transaction, and 
 havino- a distinct recollection of the whole business. 
 The history of it is, That Mr. x^sbury, hi the New-York 
 conference in 1789, offered for the consideration of the 
 conference the following proposal : — Whether it would 
 not be proper for us, as a church, to present a congra- 
 tulatory address to General Washington, who had been 
 lately inaugurated president of the United States, in 
 which should be embodied our approbation of the con- 
 stitution, and professing our allegiance to the govern- 
 ment. The conference unanimously approved, and 
 warmly recommended the measure ; and appointed the 
 two bishops, Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, to draw up the 
 address. It was finished that day, and read to the con- 
 ference, who evinced great satisfaction in its recital. 
 Brother Dickens and myself were delegated to wait on 
 the president with a copy of the address, and request 
 him to appoint a day and hour when he would receive 
 the bishops, one of whom was to read it to him, and 
 receive his answer. It was concluded that although 
 Dr. Coke was the senior bishop, yet not being an Ame- 
 rican citizen, there would be an impropriety in his pre- 
 senting and reading the address ; the duty devolved of 
 course on Bishop Asbury. Mr. Dickens and myself 
 waited on the general; and as I had some personal 
 acquaintance with him, I was desired to present him 
 with the copy, and request his reception of the ori- 
 ginal by the hands of the bishops. The president 
 appointed the fourth succeeding day, at twelve o'clock, 
 to receive the bishops. They went at the appointed 
 hour, accompanied by Brother Dickens and Thomas 
 Morrell. Mr. Asbury, with great self-possession, read 
 the address in an impressive manner. The president 
 read his reply with fluency and animation. They in- 
 terchanged their respective addresses ; and, after sitting 
 a few minutes, we departed. The address and the 
 
140 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 answer, in a few days were inserted in the public prints ; 
 and some of the ministers and members of the other 
 churches appeared dissatisfied that the Methodists should 
 take the lead. In a few days the other denominations 
 successively followed our example. 
 
 " The next week a number of questions were pub- 
 lished, in the public papers, concerning Dr. Coke's sign- 
 ing the address. Who was he ? How came he to be 
 a bishop ? Who consecrated him, &c., accompanied 
 with severe strictures on the impropriety of a British 
 subject signing an address approving of the government 
 of the United States ; charging him with duplicity, and 
 that he was an enemy to the independence of x4.merica ; 
 for they affirmed he had written, during our revolution- 
 ary war, an inflammatory address to the people of Great 
 Britain, condemning, in bitter language, our efforts to 
 obtain our independence ; and other charges tending to 
 depreciate the doctor's character, and bringing him into 
 contempt with the people of our country, ks I did not 
 believe the assertion of the doctor's writing the address 
 above-mentioned, I applied to a gentleman who was in 
 England at the time, to know the truth of the charge ; 
 he assured me the doctor had published no such senti- 
 ments in England during the revolutionary war, or at 
 any other period, or he should have certainly had some 
 knowledge of it. And this was the fact, for the doctor 
 had written no such thing. As there was no other per- 
 son in New- York, at that time, in our connection, who 
 could meet these charges, and satisfactorily answer 
 these queries, I undertook the task, and in my weak 
 manner endeavoured to rebut the charges and answer 
 the questions. A second piece appeared, and a second 
 answer was promptly published. No more was written 
 on the subject in New-York. The doctor afterward 
 gave me his thanks for defending his character. 
 
 " Such are the material circumstances that occurred 
 concerning the address to General Washington, and his 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 141 
 
 reply : which you are at hberty to make use of in any 
 way you think proper, — and if you judge it necessary 
 may put my name to it. 
 
 "Thomas Morrell." 
 
 I certify that the above is a true extract of an original 
 letter of the Rev. Thomas Morrell, addressed to me, 
 bearing the above date, and now in my possession. 
 
 EzEKiEL Cooper. 
 
 New-York, September 7, 1827. 
 
 To this we add the following copy of a letter from the 
 Rev. Mr. Sparks, of Boston, to whom the papers of 
 General Washington have been intrusted, for the pur- 
 pose of making such selections for publication as he 
 shall deem proper ; in which important work this gen- 
 tleman is now engaged. And for this polite and prompt 
 reply to our inquiries, we here tender to Mr. Sparks 
 our most respectful thanks. 
 
 " Bosto7i, Septemler 1, 1827. 
 
 "Dear Sir, — Your favour of the 26th ultimo has 
 been received, and I am happy to be able to furnish 
 you with the information you desire. The ' date^ of 
 the address presented by Bishops Coke and Asbury to 
 General Washington is May twenty-ninth, 1789. It is 
 proper to inform you, however, that I do not find the 
 original paper on the files, but take the date as it is re- 
 corded in one of the volumes of ' Addresses.' It is 
 barely possible that there may be a mistake in the 
 record, but not at all probable. 
 
 " It is not likely that any address from any quarter 
 was presented to Washington in 1785. I have never 
 seen any of that year. He was then a private man, 
 wholly employed with his farms. 
 
 " I am, sir, very respectfully, 
 
 "Your obedient servant, 
 
 Mr. J. Emory. " Jared Sparks." 
 
142 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 To complete this investigation, we have examined the 
 newspapers pubhshed in this city (New- York) in 1789, 
 of which files are preserved in the New- York Library. 
 The address of Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury was published 
 in the Gazette of the United States, on the 3d of June, 
 1789 ; and is dated May 29, of that year ; exactly cor- 
 responding with the date stated by Mr. Sparks, from 
 the Washington records. The same address may be 
 found in the Arminian Magazine for June, 1789, pub- 
 lished in Philadelphia by John Dickens. It is there 
 dated May 19, 17S9. This seems either to have been 
 a typographical error of 19 for 29 ; or, probably, the 
 original draught of an address was prepared about the 
 19th, — and this date, then put to it, was inadvertently 
 left uncorrected when placed in the hands of the printer. 
 This difference of a few days, however, cannot now be 
 of any possible moment, as it is placed beyond all dis- 
 pute, that the true date of the address, as presented to 
 Washmgton, was May 29, 1789.-^ 
 
 The visit of Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury to General 
 Washington, at Mount Vernon, in 1785, was merely to 
 solicit his influence in favour of a petition which they had 
 it in contemplation to present to the general assembly 
 of Virginia on the subject of slavery. They dined with 
 the general, and had a personal mterview on the subject, 
 but made no particular address. A circumstantial ac- 
 count of that visit, and the politeness with which the 
 general received them, may be seen in Dr. Coke's 
 journal of May, 1785.1 
 
 *At the British conference in 1820 an address was adopted on the oc- 
 casion of the death of George III., and the accession of George IV. to the 
 throne of Great Britain. The original draught of that address was pre- 
 pared by Dr. Adam Clarke previously to the conference. It was read by 
 him and submitted to the conference on the first day of the session, and 
 dated on that day, though not finally acted on till some days after, nor pre- 
 sented till still later. 
 
 t In the account which Mr. Drew gives of Dr. Coke's and Mr. Asbury's 
 address to General Washington, he states that " various addresses" of other 
 denominations about the same time found their way into the American news- 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 143 
 
 Since writingf the above, we have received a letter 
 from the Rev. Ezekiel Cooper ; of wliich the following 
 is an extract : — 
 
 " Trenton, N. J., Oct. 16, 1S27. 
 "Rev. John Emory, 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I have a book, now lying before me, 
 entitled, ' A Collection of the Speeches of the President 
 of the United States to both Houses of Congress at the 
 opening of every Session, with their Ansivers. — Also, the 
 Addresses to the President, ivith his Ansivers, from the 
 time of his Election. Printed at Boston, by Manning & 
 Loring, for Solomon Cotton, 1796.' In which book, at 
 pages 133, 134, is the address of the bishops of the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church to the president, and his 
 answer. The address is dated New-York, May 29, 
 1789. This agrees with the information you have 
 from Mr. Jared Sparks, as to the time when the address 
 was presented. 
 
 *' It is now to be hoped that neither the author of the 
 History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy, nor his 
 friends or advocates, will be so bold, I am almost ready 
 to say so presumptuous, as to believe the reproachful 
 or slanderous charge of altering the date of the said 
 address, to answer some unworthy and falsely supposed 
 purpose. For in so doing, it will implicate Washing- 
 ton himself, who has left it on record among his papers, 
 
 papers, and across the Atlantic ; among which, none so much attracted the 
 attention of the English Methodists as that which bore the signature of Dr. 
 Coke and .Air. Asbury. — Life of Dr. Coke, pp. 147, 148. Of these other 
 addresses, that of the Presbyterian Church was dated May 26, 1789, and 
 presented June 5; — of the German Reformed, June 10, 1789; — of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, dated August 7, and presented August 19, 
 1789. These were all published in the Gazette of the United States of 
 that year. That of the Protestant Episcopal Church was also published in 
 the New- York Daily Gazette. The president's answer to each of them 
 bears no date ; except that to the Protestant Episcopal Church, as published 
 in the Gazette of the United States, is dated August 19. But as published 
 in the New- York Daily Gazette this also is not dated. And we believe the 
 president did not usually date his answers to addresses at that period. 
 
144 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 that the said address was received by him May 29, 
 1789. Also Mr. Sparks, who is in possession of Wash- 
 ington's papers, and testifies, in the communication to 
 you that it there stands dated May 29, 1789. And also 
 the compiler or editor of the book before me, above-men- 
 tioned, in which the address and answer are published, 
 bearing the same date, May 29, 1789. Surely every 
 one must be fully convinced and satisfied of the false 
 and unworthy charge. 
 
 " The answers of Washington to the addresses are 
 generally without date : scarcely an instance of date. 
 Some of the addresses and answers are both without 
 date. 
 
 " As to the difference of the date of Bishops Coke 
 and Asbury's address, as published in the Arminian 
 Magazine, May 19, and as published in the above-men- 
 tioned book, &c.. May 29, it might have been a typo- 
 graphical error, otherwise the original draught might 
 have been written in Philadelphia, where the conference 
 sat the 18th of May — and the conference sat in New- 
 York the 2Sth. At New- York they probably dated it 
 the 29th, and Brother Dickens might have printed from 
 the draught made in Philadelphia, dated the 19th. The 
 Magazine was published in Philadelphia. 
 "Yours, &c., 
 
 "EzEKiEL Cooper."* 
 
 *We take pleasure in adding, that having had frequent interviews with 
 Mr. Cooper, and free conversations on the subjects of this work, we beheve 
 we are warranted in saying that he concurs in our views. To this intelli- 
 gent and able man, one of the most aged of our itinerant ministry now living, 
 we here also tender our thanks for several interesting facts derived from the 
 treasures of his well-stored memory ; and also from some private manuscript 
 notes of his own. The concurrence of Mr. Cooper on the topics here dis- 
 cussed is the more valued, as all who are acquainted with him know that, 
 as no man among us is more capable of forming a correct judgment respect- 
 ing them, or has paid more minute and constant attention to them, so no one 
 is less disposed unduly to exalt the episcopacy, or would be more free and 
 fearless to expose any imposition or fraud, if discovered. 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 145 
 
 Section XVIII. — " History and Mystenf of 
 Mr. M'Caine's Inconsistency. 
 
 After all Mr. M'Caine's denunciations of the name 
 of bishop, and of the episcopal office among us, he thus 
 concludes, pp. 70-72. 
 
 " Let the local ministers and the laity be represented 
 in the legislative department of the church. On the 
 other points which we have mentioned above, w^e place, 
 comparatively, no stress. We are not tenacious of 
 them. We are willing, if it should be thought best, to 
 relinquish any, or all of them. But representation from 
 the local ministry and laity, by the help of God, we will 
 never rehnquish." Now one of " the other 'points'' men- 
 tioned above was, — " Let the name of bishop, and the 
 episcopal office as it now exists among us, be put away 
 for ever." Yet, founded in falsehood, in imposture, and 
 in fraud, as he represents these to have been, and dis- 
 graceful and contemptible almost beyond expression, he 
 is nevertheless "not tenacious" of their being "put 
 away," provided the laity and the local ministry, of 
 whom he is one, may be admitted into a higher state 
 of participation with this base concern ! Is Mr. M'Caine 
 sincere ? Does he really mean, after all he has said, 
 that if admitted into the General Conference, he w^ould 
 not be " tenacious" of " doing away the name of bishop 
 and the episcopal office, as it now exists among us" — or 
 does he say this, lest by saying otherwise " at this junc- 
 ture" he might " dash from" Ms "lips the cup of sweets?"* 
 
 * This part of Mr. M'Caine's work has been noticed by another writer, in 
 the following terms of strong rebuke : — " We must say, that if he believes all 
 that he has written in the previous part of his book, and would be satisfied 
 with this, he oflfers a base and disgraceful compromise. If we believed, as 
 he asserts, that the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church origin- 
 ated in falsehood, and has been perpetuated by fraud and forgery, we would 
 disdain to make any compromise at all witJi the authors of it : we would be 
 satisfied with nothing which did not go lo overthrow the whole establish- 
 ment, and wipe from the remembrance of all men, this foul blot on the charac- 
 ter of Methodism." — Dr. T. E. Bond's Appeal. 
 
 10 
 
146 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 But a still more extraordinary " mystery" of incon- 
 sistency remains to be developed. Mr. M'Caine states 
 in his preface, page 5, as one of the reasons for his pub- 
 lication, that he thinks the " exposure" he has made 
 " will tend much to lessen, if it will not totally over- 
 come, the opposition of travelling preachers to repre- 
 sentation." That is, to the representation of the local 
 preachers and laity in the General Conference. 
 
 Now the reader will please to observe, that for many 
 years past, a large portion of the travelling preachers 
 have been desirous to effect some diminution of the 
 episcopal prerogative, by vesting in the annual confer- 
 ences some voice in the selection of the presiding elders. 
 This Mr. M'Caine knew. Yet during the very period 
 in which he was engaged in preparing his book, in 
 order, it would seem, to " lessen, if not totally to over- 
 come," episcopal opposition, too, to the representation 
 of the local preachers, he made a communication, in a 
 way to reach episcopal ears, that if he might take the 
 liberty of expressing all his mind, the probability would 
 be greater for the continua?ice of the exercise of this 
 prerogative from a local representation than without it. 
 And why ? Because, in his opinion, affectio7i and vene- 
 ration for EPISCOPAL men might, and no doubt would, 
 lead a local representation to swpiiort a measure which 
 they had no immediate and direct interest in opposing ! 
 Thus, by " exposure" of episcopacy and of episcopal 
 men, Mr. M'Caine exerts himself on one side, (" can- 
 didly" too, he assures us,) to lessen, if not totally to 
 overcome, the opposition of travelling preachers to the 
 representation of local preachers. And, at the same 
 time, on the other side, he endeavours to convince epis- 
 copal men that the representation of local preachers 
 will tend to confirm and to perpetuate their prerogative : 
 and this, too, not on the ground of reason or argument, 
 but from the affection and veneration of the local preach- 
 ers for episcopal men. So that, in the opinion of Mr. 
 10-^ 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 147 
 
 M'Caine, this was the return which those said travelling 
 preachers would, " no doubt'' receive from those same 
 local brethren who had been labouring to induce them 
 to assist the said local brethren to get into General 
 Conference. On all this we shall leave the reader to 
 make his own comments. The facts, we apprehend, 
 will not be denied. But if Mr. M'Caine's opinion be 
 correct, how it is calculated to " lessen, if not totally to 
 overcome," opposition to the representation of local 
 preachers, on the part of those travelling preachers, at 
 least, who have been desirous of effecting some diminu- 
 tion of this episcopal prerogative, is to us, we confess, 
 a " mystery." 
 
 Section XIX. — Union Society of Baltimore ; Conclusion. 
 
 Mr. M'Caine states, p. 4, that " the result of his in- 
 vestigation was read before the Union Society of reform- 
 ers in Baltimore, and the writer was requested to print 
 it for the information of his brethren." Of what num- 
 ber or persons the Union Society of Baltimore consists, 
 we are not informed. Some of the individuals who com- 
 pose it we know. And we are unwilling to believe that 
 they could have deliberately and understandingly sanc- 
 tioned and recommended such a publication. Our hope 
 therefore is, either that the members of that society 
 were not all present when Mr. M'Caine's manuscript 
 was read ; — or they did not hear the whole of it ;— or 
 they did not all approve of it ; — or they had not a fair 
 opportunity of weighing and examining it, and have 
 thought differently of it since it was printed : but if dis- 
 appointed in all these hopes, then we persuade ourselves 
 that they will at least give this defence a fair and candid 
 consideration ; and if convinced that Mr. M'Caine has 
 
148 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 led them into error, that they will frankly and honour- 
 ably declare it. 
 
 Have the Union Society of Baltimore forgotten that 
 the remains of Bishop Asbury were disinterred, and re- 
 moved from Virginia, and deposited in their city, as a 
 place peculiarly dear to him ? Have they forgotten the 
 solemn rites with which, by the joint act of the General 
 Conference, and of the Baltimore Society, they were 
 placed under the pulpit of the Eutaw church, as in a 
 sacred and chosen asylum, where his ashes might rest 
 in honoured peace, under their affectionate and gene- 
 rous protection 1 With what feelings then could such 
 of our brethren as may have sanctioned the pubhca- 
 tion of Mr. M'Caine's book stand in that very pulpit, 
 over those ashes, to preach to those whom they know 
 to hold the name of that venerable man in so much 
 fiHal love and reverence? Can it be supposed that 
 their hearers could avoid the association of the book 
 the preacher, and the injured ''father V And could such 
 an association be either agreeable or profitable ? Ought 
 not the ashes of that father first to be taken up and 
 given to the winds: or be sent to the Potter's field, 
 where strangers lie in peace ? Or at least be returned 
 to their resting place in Virginia, whence they were 
 solicited ? And will not a voice from his tomb be other- 
 wise continually reproaching the Union Society of 
 Baltimore ; or their proceeding be a standing reproach 
 to him ?^ 
 
 * Since the above was prepared for the press, we have seen a publication 
 in which it is stated that no vote of recommendation to publish Mr. M'Caine's 
 work had passed the Union Society. This is stated on the authority of 
 the president and secretary ; and it is added, that Mr. M'Caine also " declared 
 that he had no allusion to a vote of the Union Society." We will not charge 
 Mr. M'Caine with a design to mislead his readers, or to give currency to 
 his book by representing it as sanctioned by the Union Society of Baltimore. 
 Nor will we impute to the officers of that society the littleness of descending 
 to the quibble that no such " vote" passed the society, if the work had been 
 in any manner sanctioned by that body. But that such of Mr. M'Caine's 
 readers as were not in the secret have understood him to allude to the Union 
 Society before whom the result of his investigations was read, as requesting 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 149 
 
 We have now performed in some respects a painful, 
 in others a pleasurable task. The investigations to 
 which it has led us have occupied our close and prayer- 
 ful attention. If the result be as satisfactory to others 
 as it has been to our own mind, the Methodist reader 
 will continue to bless God that his name has been asso- 
 ciated with those of Wesley, of Coke, and of Asbury ; 
 and with the names of those excellent " fathers," through 
 whose labours, and the "institutions received from" 
 them, with the Divine blessing, the foundations were 
 laid of that great work of God which has been spread 
 over these lands. And with regard to our own Asbury, 
 particularly, he will confidently and triumphantly con- 
 clude, in the language of Mr. Snethen on the occasion 
 of his death, — " Whatever of scandal may hereafter 
 attach to us, neither we nor our children shall have to 
 bear the reproach of crimes in our human leader. Few 
 among those who have followed in the same track, 
 have excelled him in any of the qualities which consti- 
 tute a good man; — in the union of them all none have 
 
 SURPASSED HIM." 
 
 him to print it, there can be no doubt. Indeed we do not see how any other 
 rational construction can be put on the sentence : " The result of his investi- 
 gation was read before the Union Society of reformers in Baltimore ; and the 
 writer was requested to print it for the information of his brethren," page 4. 
 If in this, however, we have been mistaken, and there be no " mystery" in 
 this thing, then our remarks are to be applied, not to the society as such, 
 but to the individuals concerned. 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 151 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 RESPECTING DR. COKe's LETTER TO BISHOP WHITE. 
 
 Having received an extract from Dr. Coke's letter to the Rev. Ezekiel 
 Cooper on this subject, but too late for insertion in the body of this work, we 
 introduce it here. 
 
 For two years or more, previously to 1792, Mr. O'Kelly had excited 
 much disaffection in Virginia ; particularly in the important and extensive 
 district over which he then presided. It was, indeed, a matter of contro- 
 versy at that period, whether he and the preachers who adhered to him 
 were in " the union," as he expressed it ; although his name was regularly 
 continued on the Minutes as a presiding elder till 1792, when he withdrew. 
 In 1792 our General Conferences were first established. Previously to that 
 time we had none, except that of 1784. Dr. Coke was of opinion that some 
 general and permanent bond of union was imperiously needed. Mr. Asbury 
 was of the same opinion. The " council" was proposed as an expedient ; 
 but not being found to answer the purpose it was discontinued, after only two 
 sessions, in 1789 and 1790. In that measure Dr. Coke did not concur. 
 The proceedings of Mr. O'Kelly produced great agitation. Special pains 
 were taken to enlist Dr. Colte in his views, and to produce disaffection be- 
 tween him and Bishop Asbury. Dr. Coke became alarmed for the safety 
 of the connection ; and in that state of mind, without consulting his col- 
 league, resolved to ascertain whether a union could be effected with the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church, on such terms as he conceived would secure the 
 integrity and the rights of the Methodist Episcopal Church. He was also 
 under an impression, as before stated, that such a junction would greatly en- 
 large our field of action ; and that myriads would attend our ministry in con- 
 sequence of it who were at that time much prejudiced against us. All these 
 things, "unitedly considered," led him to write to Bishop White in 1791, 
 and to meet him and Dr. Magaw in Philadelphia. This he states in his 
 letter to Mr. Cooper. An extract of that letter is now before us. It is 
 dated "Near Leeds, Yorkshire, Jan. 29, 1808;" and is in the form of an 
 address to the General Conference. The correctness of the extract is cer- 
 tified by Mr. Cooper, as taken by himself from the original, in Dr. Coke's 
 hand-writing. In this letter, after adverting to the circumstances above 
 named, and to the labour and fatigue with which, a short time before he 
 wrote to Bishop White, he had prevailed on James O'Kelly and the preach- 
 ers who adhered to him, to submit to the decision of a General Conference, 
 Dr. Coke replies to the following question : " If he did not believe the epis- 
 copal ordination of Mr. Asbury valid, why he had ordained him ?" To this, 
 he says, " I answer : 
 
 " 1. I never, since I could reason on those things, considered the doctrine 
 of the uninterrupted apostolical succession of bishops as at all valid or true. 
 
152 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 " 2, I am of our late venerable father, Mr. Wesley's opinion, that the 
 order of bishops and presbyters is one and the same. 
 
 " 3, I believe that the episcopal form of church government is the best in 
 the world, when the episcopal power is under due regulations and responsi- 
 bility. 
 
 " 4. I believe that it is well to follow the example of the primitive church, 
 as exemplified in the word of God, by setting apart persons for great minis- 
 terial purposes by the imposition of hands : but especially those who are 
 appointed for offices of the first rank in the church. 
 
 " From all I have advanced, you may easily perceive, my dear brethren, 
 that I do not consider the imposition of hands on the one hand, as essentially 
 necessary for any office in the church ; nor do I, on the other hand, think 
 that the repetition of the imposition of hands for the same office, when im- 
 portant circumstances require it, is at all improper. 
 
 " If it be granted that my plan of union with the old Episcopal Church 
 was desirable, {which now I think was not so, though I most sincerely be- 
 lieved it to be so at that time,) then, if the plan could not have been accom- 
 plished without a repetition of the imposition of hands for the same office, I 
 did believe, and do now believe, and have no doubt, that the repetition of the 
 imposition of hands would have been perfectly justifiable for the enlargement 
 of the field of action, &c., and would not, by any means, have invalidated 
 the former consecration or imposition of hands. 
 
 " Therefore I have no doubt but my consecration of Bishop Asbury was 
 perfectly valid, and would have been so even if he had been reconsecrated. 
 
 " I never did apply to the General Convention, or any other convention, 
 for reconsecration. I never intended that either Bishop Asbury or myself 
 should give up our episcopal office, if the junction were to take place ! but I 
 should have had no scruple then, nor should I now, if the junction luere de- 
 sirable, to have submitted to, or to submit to, a reimposition of hands, in 
 order to accomplish a great object : but I do say again, I do not now believe 
 such a junction desirable. 
 
 " I have thus, simply and candidly, though in few words, told you my 
 whole mind on this subject. I do not consider my solemn engagements to 
 you invalidated by any thing that I have done, or you have done. But I 
 charge you by the glory of God, and by every tie of love, gratitude, and 
 candour, that you take no step which may injure my character. And now 
 I conclude with assuring you that I greatly love and esteem you ; that it is 
 a delight to me to pray for your prosperity : and that I am, with unfeigned 
 esteem, your very affectionate brother and faithful friend, 
 
 " T. Coke." 
 
 We hope, after this, to hear no more of Dr. Coke's " doubt'''' of the validity 
 of his episcopal ordination, or of that of Bishop Asbury ; unless our modern 
 race of writers can persuade us that they are better acquainted with the 
 mind of Dr. Coke than he was himself. The assertion is as unfounded as 
 that " the introduction of episcopacy among the Methodists in the United 
 States was expressly disapproved and forbidden by Mr. Wesley ;" or that 
 " the formation of the present plan of government among us was the undi- 
 vulged project of a few, who, meeting in secret conclave, excluded the junior 
 members even of their own body;" or that the bishops of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church have ever founded their episcopacy on the ground of " unin- 
 terrupted succession from the apostles ;" or that the rejection of that doctrine 
 
A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 153 
 
 has ever been " struck out" of our Discipline. Such assertions only serve 
 to show how superficially those who make them have examined the subject ; 
 or how servilely they copy others. We should regret that the repeti- 
 tion of them should oblige us to give back the " modest" imputation either of 
 " ignorance, or want of candour." 
 
 No. II. 
 
 A COMMUNICATION FROM THE REV. N. BANGS. 
 
 Mv Dear Brother, 
 
 Having had the pleasure of hearing you read your manuscript in the 
 " Defence of our Fathers," &c., against the attacks of the Rev. Alexander 
 M'Caine, I take this opportunity of expressing to you my views of the orders 
 of our ministry. This I can do the more readily, because I have already 
 published them in my little book on " Methodist Episcopacy," and it will 
 also give me an opportunity of correcting some mistaken opinions which 
 have been circulated, not much to the credit of the authors of them, respect- 
 ing my views on this subject. Indeed, I have been represented as holding 
 that a third order in the church is jure divino, or of divine right, without 
 which, of course, there can be no valid ordinances. That this is an entire 
 misrepresentation of my views, will appear manifest to every impartial mind, 
 from the following quotations from my book on the subject of our episcopacy. 
 
 In chapter ii, which treats of " Elders and of their duty," p. 35, is the 
 following sentence : " I shall undertake to prove that the body of elders, in 
 their collective capacity, had the right of consecrating ministers, and of esta- 
 blishing ordinances for the government of the church." It will be perceived 
 that this sentence contains the main proposition which I set myself to prove 
 and to sustain throughout that chapter ; and among other proofs cited in 
 support of this doctrine, is the following from Stillingfleet : " Before the 
 jurisdiction of presbyters was restrained by mutual consent, the presbyters 
 enjoyed the same liberty that the presbyters among the Jews did, of ordain- 
 ing other presbyters, by that power they were invested in or with, at their 
 own ordination," p. 40. And the whole reasoning in this chapter is de- 
 signed to show that consecration by presbyters is Scriptural, with a view to 
 vindicate Mr. Wesley's ordination of Dr. Coke as a superintendent, and 
 others as elders, for the Methodist Episcopal Church. How, then, I may 
 ask, could I have held at the same time that a third order was essential to 
 constitute a gospel church ■? I appeal to every man that has read my book 
 ■with candour, that has consulted the pieces on this subject subsequently pub- 
 lished in the Methodist Magazine, of which I acknowledge myself the author, 
 for the correctness of the above statement. 
 
 It is true I did believe, as I believe still, that in the primitive church, in 
 the age immediately succeeding the apostles, there was an order — (I use the 
 word order merely for convenience, to avoid circumlocution, meaning thereby 
 nothing more than that they were invested by consent of the eldership with 
 a power to preside over the flock of Christ, and to discharge other duties 
 not so convenient for the presbyters to discharge) — of ministers denomi- 
 nated evangelists ; that these were itinerating superintendents, (or bishops, 
 if any like the term better,) having a general oversight of the whole church ; 
 
154 A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS. 
 
 and that these are very nearly resembled by the bishops of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. But that these were an order of ministers by divine 
 appointment, so essential that there can be no valid ordination or ordinances 
 without them, is a sentiment I neither noio nor ever believed. In proof of 
 this, see " Methodist Episcopacy," p. 56, where are the following words : 
 " It moreover appears highly probable, that whatever authority these itine- 
 rating evangelists possessed, they derived it by delegation from the body of 
 presbyters ; to whom belonged the original right of modifying the govern- 
 ment of the church, as they saw it expedient for the benefit of the commu- 
 nity, provided they did not transcend the bounds of their authority by trans- 
 gressing a known precept of Christ." 
 
 As to the account of the Methodist Episcopal Church, published first in 
 Martindale's Dictionary, and afterward in Buck's Theological Dictionary, 
 which I prepared under the sanction of the Book Committee before you were 
 associated with me in the Book Concern, I consider it a simple statement of 
 a matter of fact, that the Methodist Episcopal Church acknowledges three 
 orders of ministers, deacons, elders, and bishops, which fact certamly no one 
 can contradict, still understanding the word order, when applied to bishops, 
 as above defined. If any choose to say that we acknowledge two orders 
 only, and a superior minister possessing a delegated jurisdiction, chiefly of 
 an executive character, he has my full consent ; I will not dispute about 
 words. That Mr. Wesley did, with the aid of other presbyters, invest Dr. 
 Coke with fuller powers, as a Methodist superintendent, than he did those 
 whom he denominated elders, and that he intended to establish a Methodist 
 Episcopal Church among the Methodists in America, I think you have fully 
 proved ; and I heartily wish you success in your undertaking : for I think it 
 a sacred duty we owe to the " venerable dead" to vindicate them against 
 such invidious, unprovoked, and unmanly attacks, as those of the author of 
 the " History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy ;" a title as quaint as 
 the contents of the book are manifestly unjust and erroneous. 
 
 New-York, Nov., 1827. N. Bangs. 
 
 No. III. 
 
 THE MINUTE TO OBEY MR. WESLEY. 
 
 We have shown that by leaving Mr. Wesley's name off the Minutes, was 
 simply meant the rescinding of the minute of the conference of 1784, to 
 obey him in matters belonging to church government ; and also the peculiar 
 circumstances in which that act took place. With regard to the conference 
 of 1787, by whom that minute was rescinded, Mr. Snethen said, if he might 
 be permitted to show his opinion, he should " applaud them for renouncing 
 the obligation." Answer to J. O'Kelly, p. 18. 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,«««»«««»^ 
 
 mm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' '^'"'mmffsm 
 
 k 
 
 
 
 ,„,«--.«««*«^ 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 imsmmm 
 
 
 
 
 ^gfins^sm 
 
 P**' 
 
 
 
 -w«V!iS»M«»W 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f