In a letter which, a few months past, I took the liberty of writing to your lordship, on the business of our societies in Jersey, (island) I observed that for a little time I had been warped from my attachment to the church of England, in consequence of my visiting the states of America; but, like a bow too much bent, I have again returned. But I return with a full conviction that our numerous societies in America would have been a regular Presbyterian church, if Mr. Wesley and myself had not taken the steps which we judged it necessary to adopt.*

If this point be worthy of your lordship's consideration,I could wish that something might be done as soon as convenient; as some of my most intimate friends, to whom I have ventured to disclose this plan, are far advanced in years. These are men of long standing, and of great influence in our connexion. The plan meets their decided approbation and cordial wishes for success; and I have no doubt they would lay down their lives with joy, if they could see so happy a plan accomplished as I have now proposed. If an interview shall be thought necessary, on your lordship's signifying it, I will visit London for the purpose next month.

I did myself the honor, about a year ago, to lay this whole plan before the Attorney General, with whom I had the honour of being acquainted at Oxford ; and so far as a cursory view of the business could enabable him to speak, he greatly approved of it, and some months past, encouraged me to lay the whole at the feet of your lordship. This I have now done; and I pray you, my lord, whatever be your lordship's judgment, to forgive, at all events the liberty I have now taken. I have the honor to be, My Lord, &c. &c.

Manchester, March 29th, 1799.

T. COKE.".

As Mr. Wesley no where explicitly declared that by appointing the Doctor and Mr. Asbury superintendents, an order of bishops was contemplated, or an episcopal form of church government recommended, neither are the ordinations which he conferred viewed by writers among the English Methodists, who wrote in justification of Mr. Wesley's right to ordain, as favouring our title of episcopacy. "Mr. Wesley suffered not the ecclesiastical authorities to interfere with the internal management of his societies: he would not suffer them to be controlled by any parochial clergyman in the three

*The Doctor refers to church government, not to doctrines contrary to those of the church of England, which he held to be Arminian. 2. He intimates that the " numerous societies in America" preferred a presbyterian form of government, to an episcopal one. 3. That to prevent the societies from becoming a regular Presbyterian church, he and Mr Wesley took the steps they did. (How far Mr. Wesley was in reality concerned will be seen in this work). And 4. from the whole we infer, that the episcopal form of church government was not such as the people would have adopted, if it had been submitted to their choice; but in consequence of certain measures, it was imposed upon them contrary to their inclination and without their con

sent.

kingdoms; he gave the Lord's supper himself in unconsecrated chapels, and employed clergymen to do this: he gave up episcopal ordination as understood by high churchmen; and in pursuance of his belief in the validity of presbyterian ordination, he ordained preachers to give the sacraments; so that according to strict church notions, he sanctioned what some would call lay administration.

The great principle of the validity of presbyterian ordination, which is the ordination of the conference, was established by Mr Wesley, who himself acted upon this principle by giving ordination;* and thus he renounced entirely the notion of bishops and presbyters being distinct orders." English Methodist Magazine for July, 1825. page 464, 465.

"The ordination or appointment of preachers among us more nearly assimilates to the Presbyterian form, than any other. But what do the high ecclesiastics say to all this? They deny that any ordination is valid but episcopal ordination, and in this, they assimilate to the Romish church. We give them their opinion with all its benefits." ibid, page 467.

The preceeding pertinent and lucid remarks, on the ordinations conferred by Mr. Wesley, will not be called in question by any one, who credits what Mr. Wesley has said, respecting the parity of bishops and presbyters; nor will they be contradicted by any who is acquainted with primitive ecclesiastical usage. And, with this view of the subject, coincide the opinions of the great body of the ministers and members of our church. These remarks were drawn up, we believe, by the book committee of the British connexion, and may be cousidered as an expression of the opinion of the British conference. Besides, they were republished by our book agents, as conveying correct information for our members; and yet, notwithstanding all this, a contrary statement coming from our book agents, has been published in one of the most popular works in this country. A work which is highly and deservedly appreciated by the different religious denominations of Protestant Christians; we mean Buck's Theological Dictionary. In the last edition of this work, published in 1825, by Mr. W. Woodward of Philadelphia, there is an "Appendix, being an account of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States; for which the editor of this complete edition of Buck's Dictionary is indebted to Messrs. N. Bangs and J. Emory, publish-. ers for the Methodist Episcopal Church." In the account furnish

*At the conference of 1785, says Mr. Miles, in his History of the Methodists, page 168, Mr Wesley "set apart three of our well tried preachers, John Pawson, Thomas Hanby, and Joseph Taylor, to minister in Scotland. He also recommended to the Scotch Methodists the use of the Abridged Common Prayer. This latter they declined; the former they were thankful for." Also, at the conference of 1787 Mr. Wesley "set apart for the sacred office by the imposition of his hands and prayer, Messrs Alexander Mather, Thomas Rankin and Henry Moore, without sending them out of England; strongly advising them at the same time, that according to his example, they thould continue united to the established church, so far as the blessed work in which they were engaged would permit. The former of these brethren Mr. Mather, he ordained a bishop or superintendent." page 175.

ed by these gentlemen, is the following sentence. "As to the gov ernment, the title sufficiently ascertains its distinctive character, it being in fact and name episcopal. Three orders of ministers are recognized, and the duties peculiar to each are clearly defined." "Three orders of ministers!" What a pity we have not been told what these "three orders" are. One of these gentlemen (Mr. N. Bangs) has published a book entitled "A Vindication of Methodist Episcopacy," in which, after treating of the order of deacons, he has "demonstrated" the identity of presbyters and bishops; and to make out the third order, he says, a Methodist bishop "very much resembles a primitive evangelist!"* Whether this is the " third order" which is here alluded to, or not, we cannot say. But waiving this, we may be permitted to ask, who authorised these Rev. gentlemen to furnish the editor of Buck's Dictionary, with such an impos ing account of the Methodist episcopal church? And if we and the public are obliged to receive their statement of " three orders" as a fact," because they have said so? We believe no man, nor body of men, except the general conference, is competent to pronounce judgment in this matter for the church and even if the general conference had made the assertion, and had not supported it by better proof than we have yet seen, we would continue to believe that our "episcopal government" has nothing of episcopacy in it, as understood by episcopalians, but the "name."

In opposition to the doctrine of " three orders," so pompously laid down by the" publishers for the Methodist episcopal church," we shall present our readers with an extract of a letter, from one of those old preachers who was a member of the general conference of 1784 and who is still in the itinerant connexion,received in answer to our letter, marked No. 2 in the Appendix. Speaking of Mr. Wesley's appointing Dr. Coke a superintendent, he says" but that he did not consider it to be a third order, is evident from his own declaration of his full belief that bishops and presbyters were the same order in the primitive church, and had the same right to ordain. He could not, therefore, give any counsel or order to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, or any person to ordain a third order of ministers in our church, that is to say, an order of bishops distinct from, and superior to, an order of presbyters. There was therefore, I am bold to say, no such letter or paper in existence as you enquire for." Here, then, is the opinion of one who was a member of the conference when the church was organized, who does not" recognise three orders of ministers ;" and farther argues,that Mr.W.himself did not recognise three orders because he declared his belief in the identity of bishops and presbyters. Nor is this venerable brother singular in his opinion, respecting two orders only. For, whatever pains may have been taken, to impress the public mind with the belief, that our church recognises three orders, it must be evident, that the conference of 1789 did not recognise three; or if they did, they acted a most inconsistent part, by placing Mr. Wesley's name on their minutes, as a bishop. The first question on those minutes is as follows:

* The same doctrine seems to have been advanced in the Methodist Magazine for Jan. and Feb. of the present year, and perhaps, by the same hand.

Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal office in the Methodist church in Europe and America ?

the

Ans. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury.

By this answer, Mr. Wesley is announced as one of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church. But every body who knows any thing of the matter, knows that Mr Wesley was no more than a presbyter of the church of E gand. The conference having asserted the identity of their offices respectively, it follows of course, that if Mr. Wesley was not bishop, neither were the other two; and that the episcopal office, in the Methodist episcopal church, is filled by mere presbyters. Or, in other words, that in our church, there are not three orders,” or an order of bishops dis'inct from and superior to an order of presbyters. But we cannot dismiss this subject without making some further remarks; for considerations here present themselves which emphatically claim attention. In year 1787, two years before the date of the minutes, of which the above question and answer is a part, Mr. Wesley's name had been left off the American minutes In the interim, he had written the letter printed in "Moore's Life of Wesley," in which this great and good man had said to Mr. Asbury," men may call me a fool or a knave, a rascal, or scoundrel, and I am content, but they shall never by my consent call me a bishop" And yet, after it was known that the very term was so extremely offensive to him, his name was fixed at the head of the American minutes as one of their bishops! Nor was this all. The conference had declared themselves "independen" of Mr. Wesley, because, as we have been told, they considered it improper in him, to attempt to exercise any authority, by appointing a superintendent over the preachers on this side the Atlantic; and yet, the conference not only entered him a bishop on their minutes for the American Methodists, in opposition to his most pos. itive disapprobation of the term,but they entered him a bishop for the Methodist Church in Europe! These, it will be allowed, are strange acis; and, although some may feel themselves unable fully to un derstand them, yet we are very unwilling to attempt an explanation.

Had Mr. Wesley, however, been misunderstood as to his design in recommending the Liturgy, and appointing Dr. Coke a superintendent, or had the conference reasoned differently upon these subjects, from what we have done, there was no possibility of mistaking him in the following letter which he wrote to Mr. Asbury in little more than three years after the episcopal mode of government went into operation. See Moore's Life of Wesley, voł 2, p. 285. "London, Sept. 20th 1788.

"There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation wherein you stand to the Americans, and the relation wherein I stand to all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American 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, rovide for you all; for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide, were it not for me were it or, that I not only permit him to collect, but support him in so doing,

ts

But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the Doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little, you study to be great, I creep; you strut along. I found a school, you a college. Nay, and call it after your own names ! O beware! Do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, and Christ be all in all.

One instance of this your greatness, has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called a bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought. Men may call me a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never, by my consent, call me a bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this! Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better. Thus my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart, and let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely I am your affectionate friend and brother, JOHN WESLEY."

Having in this letter* expressed himself so pointedly against the title of bishop, which the Doctor and Mr. Asbury had assumed; it was most assuredly incumbent on them and on the American conference, if the latter were made acquainted with all the circum stances of the case, to have done Mr. Wesley justice, by honestly stating in their minutes, that he was opposed to the very name of bishop, and thus have taken upon themselves all the responsibilities of creating an episcopal form of government. This, however, was never done. The above letter was suppressed. Its contents were never suffered to transpire. But Mr. Wesley was made to speak a language, we believe he never spoke. His name was used to give a degree of sanction to their measures, which, it was thought would disarm resistance, if any were offered; and by this means was an episcopal government established; the name of the Rev'd. John Wesley being offered as a passport to all the contemplated ecclesiastical honours.

SECTION III.

Among the resolutions entered into at the conference of 1784, the preachers made the following solemn declaration" During the life of the Rev'd. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves ready in matters belonging to church government, to obey his commands." Yet when he expressed a wish that Mr. Whatcoat should be appointed a superintendent with Mr. Asbury, the conference objected to the appointment, and would not receive him.

*"1789. South Carolina, March 15th. We reached the city, having rode two hundred miles in about five days and two hours. Here I received a bitter pill from one of my greatest friends." Asbury's Journal, vol. II, pa. 45. Query. Could this bitter pill be the above letter?