is one church which claims the succession, though it rejects the principal component parts of which this succession has been continued, viz., the supremacy of the English kings, and the sovereignty of the English parliament in all ecclesiastical matters; even so as to alter, in any manner, the established religion of the land. The Methodist societies, in consequence of their entire separation from the English Church, not by their deed, but the deed of that church, occasioned by her unsound church-polity, applied to Mr. Wesley to provide for them, according to his best judgment, a plan of government and church officers; and that, taking his outlines, they would then adapt it to their circumstances, and follow the Scriptures and the primitive church. Accordingly, Mr. Wesley complied with their wishes, and provided for them in the way he judged best and Scriptural. This plan is known to our readers generally, and we need not dwell in giving details.

(1.) A few things may be here premised as data, on which we may proceed in the treatment of this point of our discussion.

In the first place, Mr. Wesley was the acknowledged bishop, overseer, superintendent, or chief presbyter in the whole Wesleyan connection, both in England and the United States. He was the father of them all, who cared for them, and to whom they looked as their only proper ecclesiastical head or superior, placed over them by the providence of God. Thus far must be admitted, there was then no body of men, nor any individual, to whom the American Methodists could look for assistance and counsel, but to the British conference and Mr. Wesley. The bishop of London, in whose charge America was, refused to act; nor could he act in the case, as is plain from the application of the American Protestant Episcopalians, to which the bishop of London could pay no attention. He could not ordain for them-he did not ordain for them. The parliament authorized the king, and the king empowered the archbishops of York and Canterbury. The consecration, too, received by Bishops White and Provost, was itself a nullity; and the Protestant Episcopal Church received from the British parliament her ministerial authority through their executive head the king, and by their servants or ministers the bishops. The American Methodists would have been just as much defeated had they applied to their former nominal ordinary, the bishop of London, as Mr. Wesley was, and as Bishop Seabury was, and as Bishops White and Provost were. The bishop of London could not, were he inclined, do any thing for them; and to whom could the American Methodists apply in the United States? Not, surely, to those ministers of the Church of England who left them as they did their own flocks, without caring for them, and returned to England. Nor could they apply to the scattered clergy who remained, as some of them cared not for the flock, and the others had enough to do in minding their own flocks. To suppose they would look to what was not then in being, and what was afterwards called the Protestant Episcopal Church, would be absurd; because, 1. It was not in existence. 2. It was as great a deviation from THE CHURCH as Methodism was in England, or the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. 3. The ordination of the Protestant Episcopal Church was, (1.) Null and defective in itself. (2.) Originated in a wrong source, the par

liament. (3.) Was executed by the wrong ecclesiastic; i. e., the king. (4.) Was administered by persons unscripturally appointed, the bishops of England, who were made by the king, without the consent of the presbyters or people.

Secondly, The American Methodists, both preachers and people, earnestly requested Mr. Wesley to provide for them, not only in regard to the appointment of ministers, but in the peculiar organization of their church. The Methodist preachers, or the body of pastors, chose this plan. The people were equally agreed and consenting.

Thirdly, The acts of Mr. Wesley, in this case, were duly recognized by the American preachers and people.

Fourthly, The American Methodists, as a body, have subsequently followed Scripture and the primitive church, under the guidance of Scripture.

(2.) Mr. Wesley was providentially, Scripturally, and ecclesiastically called to ordain for the American Methodists.

In this light Mr. Wesley considered the matter himself. In his communicating his thoughts to Dr. Coke, respecting his plan and mode of ordination, he says, "He had invariably endeavored, in every step he had taken, to keep as closely to the Bible as possible: so, on the present occasion, he hoped he was not about to deviate from it."* In his letter of ordination to Dr. Coke, he says, "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." In his letter to the American Methodists, speaking of his rights as a presbyter, to which belonged the right of ordaining, he declares, "For many years I have been importuned, from time to time, to exercise this right, by ordaining part of our travelling preachers. But I have still refused, not only for peace's sake, but because I was determined, as little as possible, to violate the established order of the national church, to which I belonged." This letter, bearing date Sept. 10th, 1784, is introduced in the minutes in the following manner :- "What is the state of our societies in North America? A. It may best appear by the following letter: If any one is minded to dispute concerning diocesan episcopacy, he may; but I have better work." He also declares in this letter, in referring to America, "Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end; and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order, and invade no man's right, by appointing and sending laborers into the harvest." We find the following note in Mr. Wesley's Journal of 1784:-" Wednesday, Sept. 1. Being now clear in my own mind, I took a step which I had long weighed in my mind, and appointed Mr. Whatcoat and Mr. Vasey to go and serve the desolate sheep in America. Thursday, Sept. 2. I added to them three more, which, I verily believe, will be much to the glory of God." In the minutes of the conference of 1786, speaking of the societies in America, Mr. Wesley says, "Judging this to be a case of real necessity, I took a step which, for peace and quietness, I had refrained from taking for many years. I exercised that power which I am fully persuaded the great Shepherd and Bishop of the church has given me. I appoint

* Coke's Life, p. 63. + Idem, p. 66.

Wesley's Works, vol. vii, p. 311.

ed three of our laborers to go and help them, by not only preaching the word of God, but likewise administering the Lord's supper and baptizing their children, throughout that vast tract of land a thousand miles long and some hundreds broad."*

Such is the true history of Mr. Wesley's opinions and reasons in reference to the American ordinations. The comment, however, of Protestant Episcopalians is very different. They represent Mr. Wesley as having had misgivings in his mind respecting this affair; and, we believe, not through kindness, but vexation, apologize for him by saying it was an act of his advanced age, contrary to his better judgment. Now all we will say is this, that the history contradicts the comment; and it were as just to charge Mr. Wesley with blasphemy as the crime they lay to his charge. If these gentlemen would inform themselves, they would find reason to retract their misrepresentations of Mr. Wesley. But they are pressed on this point; as they have neither Scripture, antiquity, nor reason on their side.

Mr. Wesley, we maintain, was providentially called to ordain for the American Methodists, as well as for the whole Methodist family. He was the father of them all. He was qualified for the duty; he was evidently called of God; and all the circumstances of the case pointed out him, and no other, to be the leading agent in the work.

He was Scripturally appointed, inasmuch as he possessed all those qualifications for such a work which the Scriptures require, and he followed Scripture throughout the whole; though this came frequently in opposition to the provisions of the parliamentary and regal church-government of England.

He was also ecclesiastically called to the episcopal office. He was a presbyter, and therefore of the same rank with bishops, as to order. He was chosen or recognized as a bishop, overseer, or chief presbyter, by the body of pastors and people for whom he acted. He invaded no right of any bishop, body of presbyters, or body of people under heaven. He was, therefore, according to exact ecclesiastical rule, called to act the part of bishop; not for the Church of England, and therefore he did not act for them; but for the Wesleyan Church in Europe and America, of which he was the founder and the acknowledged head or overseer. It is worse than vain for high churchmen to object against the Methodists' want of regularity or ecclesiastical order, because, 1. These same churchmen have little or no Scriptural ecclesiastical order among themselves, seeing the parliament is their chief ecclesiastical synod. The king governs the church, the convocation is without power, the people have no voice in church matters, the presbyters are not allowed or required to do the duties of pastors, discipline does not exist at all, &c. Therefore, for such to object a want of order, is absurd in the extreme. 2. The Methodists do most strictly adhere to Scriptural ecclesiastical order in all its parts.

The position, therefore, we consider amply sustained, That Mr. Wesley was providentially, Scripturally, and ecclesiastically called upon to ordain for the American Methodists.

(3.) The conduct of Mr. Wesley, in the ordination of Dr. Coke

* Miles, p. 162.

and others, was rather a deviation from modern practice than from the usage of the primitive church.

The practice of the Alexandrian Church was the model which Mr. Wesley selected for imitation among the various primitive churches. This church, in order to preserve its purity, would never suffer the interference of a foreign bishop in any of their ordinations. Accordingly, their presbyters, on the death of a bishop, exercised the right of ordaining another from their own body by the laying on of their own hands; and this practice continued among them for two hundred years, to the death of Dionysius. It is susceptible of absolute proof, that in the primitive church the presbyters, with the people, chose the bishops; and the plan of the Church of England, already placed before the reader, is not only without Scripture, but contrary thereto. The Protestant Episcopal Church, as well as the Methodists, have deviated altogether from the English Church, as well in the appointment of bishops as in other things. The presbyters and lay delegates in this church elect the bishops.

(4.) It is frequently objected against Mr. Wesley, that it was absurd for him, as a priest, to ordain a bishop. To this we answer, 1. That bishops and elders, according to Scripture, are of the same order. This principle Mr. Wesley adopted, and it has been received by the Methodist Episcopal Church. Their episcopacy is founded on the principle of bishops and presbyters being of the same degree or order; a more extended office, only, being assigned to the former, as in the primitive church. Two offices in the primitive church, as in the Methodist, were grafted upon the same order. Our travelling episcopacy, or superintendency, is an extension of the office of elder, but creates no other distinction; and our bishops have in practice exemplified the primitive spirit, as they have in principle been conformed to the primitive discipline. 2. Mr. Wesley never did ordain such bishops, nor did he approve of such as our objectors call by this name. Indeed, he preferred to be called by any ignominious name rather than a European or other bishop, who was such according to the figment of succession.

(5.) But the principal objection to Mr. Wesley was, though mostly overlooked, that a clergyman of the Church of England should ordain in any form without separating from that church, and formally disavowing its authority.

To persons accustomed to the exercise of discipline, this whole affair will appear strange, that Mr. Wesley should continue in the establishment, and depart, as he did, from many of the usages of his church; and, on the other hand, that the bishops should not censure him or deprive him. Now this whole matter may be explained as follows:

The Church of England has properly no discipline, particularly of a moral kind, or what would affect unbeneficed clergymen. They have, it is true, some canons, some of which are obsolete, others are inapplicable, so that many cases occur where no canon will apply. The old canon-law has a kind of undefined authority in the ecclesiastical courts. There are also rubrics that are partly observed, and partly overlooked by the clergy. There are many ecclesiastical laws, derived from acts of parliament, which throw church matters into confusion. Indeed, the civil power is also chief in the church;

so that what the church would otherwise do, the state interferes so as to frustrate every step in sober ecclesiastical discipline. The convocation, too, which has not met for more than a hundred years, was not in session from the time Mr. Wesley commenced his career till this day. In the ecclesiastical courts, causes of a civil nature for the most part are tried; and as Mr. Wesley committed no political or no ecclesiastical offence that came under the cognizance of these courts, they could have no jurisdiction over him. The deposition of the bishop could be of little avail in regard to pure spiritual offences, as the convocation had no active being, and could not be appealed to without throwing the cause out of the jurisdiction of the bishop. And any ecclesiastical law that could be well enforced, referred principally to benefices, bishoprics, curates, parsons, vicars, &c.; and to such offences, too, as Mr. Wesley was not guilty of.

Besides, Mr. Wesley was not a beneficed clergyman, and therefore could not be held accountable as one who had a benefice. He had no parish, deanery, prebend, &c., and could not be accountable for not conforming to those canons and rubrics which respected clergymen only who were parsons. It would have been difficult to have brought a suit against Mr. Wesley as an unbeneficed clerk, for preaching in the fields and streets, praying and preaching extempore, forming societies, &c., when he was not pastor in any parish, and therefore did not disturb the regular services of the church.

But he did actually observe the canons, rubrics, &c., of the church, as far as he was connected with it, to an extent beyond most others. And few clergymen of his day were more observant of the church's regulations than he was. In his Appeal, he shows that he did observe the ecclesiastical laws with more exactness than those who complained of his irregularity; and he so triumphantly confuted his opponents in this very case that they were glad to get off, on the condition he would let them alone for the future. He had this great

principle of the article on his side in reference to his own course : viz., that Scripture is the only rule of conduct; and he had conscience, also, to plead for his interpretation. Wherein he varied, too, from the church, was not any interference with her internal regulations; as his societies and their rules were independent of, and separate from, the church, as far as any disturbance of her doctrines, worship, order, &c., were concerned within her proper precincts, whether bishops, deans, parsons, &c., or churches, sacraments, &c. It would then have been a difficult matter to have brought Mr. Wesley to an account before any superior; perhaps it would have been impossible, seeing he was not amenable to any particular bishop. In short, he observed every thing of importance better than they did themselves; and for those things in which he dissented, he was beyond their reach.

Add to this, Mr. Wesley did belong to the Church of England in as full a sense as any of its church members, or any of its unbeneficed clergy. But what was it to belong to the Church of England? Why, almost nothing at all. Thousands belonged to it who were notoriously wicked, and who rarely attended church or sacraments. But the strictest sense in which a man could belong to the church was, to receive her doctrines, attend her worship, and partake of her sacraments. All this Mr. Wesley did; and both he and the MethodVOL. IX.-January, 1838. 4