In Europe where some steps had been taken, tending to a separa tion, all is at an end. Mr. Wesley is a determined enemy of it, and I have lately borne an open and successful testimony against it.

Shall I be favoured with a private interview with you in Philadelphia? I shall be there, God willing, on Tuesday the 17th of May. If this be agreeable, I'll beg of you just to signify it in a note directed to me at Mr. Jacob Baker's, merchant, Market street, Philadelphia or if you please by a few lines sent me by the return of the post, at Philip Rogers' Esq. in Baltimore, from yourself or Dr. Magaw and I will wait upon you with my friend Dr. Magaw. We can then enlarge on the subjects.

I am conscious of it that secrecy is of great importance in the present state of the business, till the minds of you, your brother bishops and Mr. Wesley be circumstantially known. I must therefore beg that these things be confined to yourself and Dr. Magaw, till I have the honor of seeing you.

Thus you see that I have made a bold venture on your honor and candour, and have opened my whole heart to you on the subject as far as the extent of a small letter will allow me. If you put equal confidence in me, you will find me candid and faithful.

I have, notwithstanding, been guilty of inadvertencies. Very lately I found myself obliged (for the pacifying of my conscience) to write a penitential letter to the Rev. Mr. Jarratt, which gave him great satisfaction: and for the same reason I must write another to the Rev. Mr. Pettigrew.

When I was last in America, I prepared and corrected a great variety of things for our Magazine, indeed almost every thing that was printed, except some loose hints which I had taken of one of my journeys, and which I left in my hurry with Mr. Asbury, without any correction, entreating him that no part of them might be printed which could be improper or offensive. But through great inadvertency (I suppose) he suffered some reflections on the characters of the two above mentioned gentlemen to be inserted in the Magazine, for which I am very sorry: and probably shall not rest till I have made my acknowledgments more public; though Mr. Jarrat does not desire it.

I am not sure, whether I have not also offended you, sir, by accepting one of the offers made me by you and Dr. Magaw of the use of your churches, about six years ago, on my first visit to Philadelphia, without informing you of our plan of separation from the Church of England. If I did offend, [as I doubt I did, especially from what you said to Mr. Richard Dallam of Abingdon] I sincerely beg yours and Dr. Magaw's pardon. I'll endeavor to amend. But alas! I am a frail, weak creature.

I will intrude no longer at present. One thing only I will claim from your candour-that if you have no thought of improving this proposal, you will burn this letter, and take no more notice of it, (for it would be a pity to have us entirely alienated from each other, if we cannot unite in the manner my ardent wishes desire) but if you will further negocitate the business, I will explain my mind still more fully to you on the probabilities of success.

In the mean time permit me, with great respect, to subscribe myself, Right Reverend Sir,

Your very humble servant in Christ,
[Signed]

The Right Reverend Father in God,
BISHOP WHITE.

Richmond, April 24th, 1791.

THOMAS COKE.

P. S. You must excuse interlineations, &c. I am just going into the country and have no time to transcribe."

The Doctor, having, in this letter proposed "a private interview" with bishop White, "if agreeable," waited on him upon his arrival at Philadelphia. The following extract of a letter from the bishop to one of his friends contains the substance of the conversation which passed at the time between himseif, Dr. Magaw, and Dr. Coke.

"Reverend Sir:

Philadelphia, July 30th, 1804.

In the spring of the year 1791, I received a letter from Dr. Coke, on the subject of uniting the Methodist Society with the Protestant Episcopal Church. An answer was returned. In consequence of which, Dr. Coke, on his coming to town made me a visit, having not then received my letter, but having heard that I had written. Our conversation turned chiefly on the aforesaid subject. The general outlines of Dr. Coke's plan were, a re-ordination of the Methodist ministers, and their continuing under the superintendence then existing, and on the practices of their peculiar institutions. There was also suggested by him, a propriety, but not a condition made of admitting to the Episcopacy, himself and the gentleman associated with him in the superintendence of the Methodist societies. This intercourse was communicated at the time from Dr. Coke to Dr. Magaw. I do not know of any other person then informed of it, unless I may except the gentleman above alluded to, by whom, i I have been rightly informed, my letter to Dr. Coke was opened in bis absence; such a freedom being understood, as I supposed, to arise out of the connexion between the two gentlemen. But for this part of the statement I cannot vouch. It was understood between Dr. Coke and me, that the proposal should be communicated to the bishops of the Episcopal Church at the next convention, which was to be in September 1792, in New York. This was accordingly done. After which I perceived no use of further communication on the subject; and I have not since seen Dr. Coke, nor heard from him, nor written to him.

It appears to me that the above comprehends either explicitly or by implication, all the points to which your letter leads. It would have been more agreeable to me, if no occasion of this testimony had occurred; and it is now given, merely to prevent the matter being understood otherwise than it really is.

:

The above is what I have written to Mr. McClaskey and I remain, &c. &c.

Your affectionate brother,

WILLIAM WHITE.”

Upon this correspondence, we shall make a few remarks. The first is this: The Doctor declares that Mr. W. " did indeed solemnly invest me, as far as he had a right so to do, with episcopal authority." If we remember correctly, this is the only place that we have seen, in which the Doctor explicitly states that Mr. Wesley "did invest him with episcopal authority." But whether he considered this investiture to grow out of the letter of appointment, or as he calls it, the "commission" which he received from Mr. Wesley, or the imposition of Mr. Wesley's hands, or both, he does not say. Let him, however, ascribe it to what he may, the declaration is attended with one most extraordinary qualifying phrase, namely," AS FAR AS HE HAD A RIGHT SO TO DO." Why this limitation ? Was the Doctor unacquainted with ecclesiastical usage in consecrating a bishop? Was he ignorant of the nature of the office or meaning of the word? No. Did he not know that "wherever a bishop be, whether at Rome, or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis; he is of the same worth, and of the same priesthood: the force of wealth, or lowness of poverty doth not render a bishop more high or more low. That one bishop might exceed another in splendour, in wealth, in reputation, in extent of jurisdiction, as one king may surpass another in amplitude of territory; but as all kings, so all bishops are equal in office, and essentials of power."* Why then, in writing to a bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, who knew these things as well as he did, did he use this language, " as far as he had a right so to do ?" Must he not have known, that this Rev'd gentleman would construe these words into an acknowledgement, that Mr. Wesley, who was only a presbyter of the church of England, had no right to ordain another presbyter a bishop, or "invest him with episcopal authority?" Even common readers must be struck with surprise at such a sentence, and would be ready to reason on the subject in the following manner. Mr. W. had right to ordain Dr. Coke a bishop, or he had not. If he had this right, why did the Doctor express himself in such a way as to make this right questionable? If he had not, why did he say "Mr. Wesley did indeed solemnly invest me with episcopal authority" It is pretty obvious, we think, that the Doctor was conscious of being in a strait. Six years had elapsed, since, in his letter to General Washington, he had assumed the title of bishop. Wishing now to become connected with another church, he feels the embarrassing situation in which the assumption of that title had placed him. To relinquish his claim to it, he does not seem to have been disposed; and to support it, he is obliged to make Mr. W. act in a ridiculous manner, and himself to speak a language that is not reconcileable with common sense. For what is the plain meaning of the words under consideration? That Mr. W. did a complete act, for which he had only a partial right. To us indeed they seem to contemplate his right as only a fractional part of an entire whole. A right, but not an entire right to ordain a bishop!!

*St. Jerome, quoted by Dr. Barrow on the Pope's supremacy. page 151. and Archbishop Potter, page 182.

Who can understand this? and even if it were intelligible, it would be necessary to ascertain how " far" he had a right to go, or what proportion of the whole right this part was, whether one quarter, one half, three quarters or seven-eighths. We feel no inclination to pursue this subject farther, for really, it will not bear a serious investigation.

The second point, upon which we shall bestow a few thoughts, relates to the "separation of our church in America." The Doctor says, 1. "I am sure that he (Mr. W.) went farther than he would have gone, if he had foreseen some events which followed." 2. That "he is now sorry for the separation." And 3. "that he would use his influence to the utmost to accomplish a re-union." In speaking of a separation, the Dr. could not mean a separation from the present Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, to which he here proposed to be united. Because, 1. neither Mr. W. nor the Methodist Episcopal Church had ever been united with her. Indeed, she had no organised existence until some time after the Methodist Episcopal Church was organised. Nor 2. could he allude to the church of England, considered abstractly from Mr. W.; for our American brethren were totally disentangled from the state and the English hierarchy before Mr. W. was applied to for his advice. "The English government," says he, " had no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the states of Holland." From which it is evident, that all connexion between the Methodists in America and the church of England had ceased before Mr. Wesley took any steps to supply us with ministers.

The separation, then, to which the Dr. refers, is a separation from Mr. W. himself and the Methodists in Great Britain as a compcnent part of the established church. And that Mr. W. was sorry that the societies here had thrown off all connexion with himself we readily believe: especially as he was induced to ordain ministers for them, in consequence of their representations, and expressing a "desire to continue under his care, and still to adhere to the doctrines and discipline of the church of England." Nor, is it difficult to suppose that he went farther than he would have gone, if he had. foreseen" the separation which followed " Farther, we believe he was sorry, extremely sorry, that both Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury transcended the limits of their authority, and assumed to themselves the title of bishops, contrary to his express directions. The Rev. Henry Moore, Mr.Wesley's biographer, speaks out plainly upon this subject. "With respect to the title of bishop, I know that Mr. Wesley enjoined the Doctor and his associates, and in the most solemn manner, that it should not be taken. In a letter to Mrs. Gilbert, the widow of the excellent Nathaniel Gilbert, Esq. of Antigua, a copy of which now lies before me, he states this in the strongest manner. In this and in every deviation, I cannot be the apologist of Dr. Coke; and I can state, in contradiction to all that Dr. Whitehead and Mr. Hampson have said, that Mr. Wesley never gave his sanction to any of these things; nor was he the author of one line of all that Dr. Coke published in America on this subject.

His views, on these points, were very different from those of his zealous son in the gospel. He knew that a work of God neither needed, nor could be aided, nor could recommend itself to pious minds by such additions." Moore's life of Wesley, vol. 2. page

279. 280.

The third thing which we shall notice, relates to the proposed union of the Methodist Episcopal Church with the Portestant; the re-ordi. nation of the preachers, and " the propriety of admitting to the episcopacy, himself and the gentleman who was associated with him in the superintendence of the Methodist Societies." Upon this point we shall say but little, but that little shall be to express our astonishment that the Doctor should have stooped to make such an offer, on the supposition that he considered himself a bishop. As we believe his heart was free, in every part of his public life, from the love of ease and the love of money, we can see no other reason for the overtures he made to Bishop White, than that he did not conceive he was in the common ecclesiastical sense of the word, a bishop

Fourthly and lastly. Had this union taken place, and had Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, the superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, not been admitted to the episcopacy, what would then have been the name of our church and the nature of our government? But we may be told, the proposed union failed. Granted. But what prevented it? The subject was proposed to the next Protestant Episcopal Convention, held in New York, Sept. 1792. And had it not been for the death of Mr. Wesley, it is difficult now to say what would have been the results.

About eight years after the above proposition was made to Bishop White, Dr. Coke made a similar one to the Bishop of London, requesting him to ordain "a given number" of preachers of the Mcthodist connexion in England, as may be seen by referring to his letter, published in " Drew's Life of Dr. Coke," page 288. An extract of which is here given.

"May it please your Lordship,

I have felt a strong inclination for more than twelve months past, to take the liberty of writing to your lordship on a subject which appears to me of vast importance; I mean the necessity of securing the great body of Methodists, in connexion with the late Rev. John Wesley to the church of England. ******* A considerable number of our body have deviated in this instance," [receiving the Lord's Supper from their own preachers] "from the established church; and I plainly perceive, that this deviation, unless prevented, will in time, bring about an universal separation from the establish

ment.

But how can this be prevented? I am inclined to think that if a given number of our leading preachers, proposed by our general conference, were to be ordained and permitted to travel through our connexion, to administer the sacraments to those societies who have been thus prejudiced as above; every difficulty would be removed. I have no doubt that the people would be universally satisfied. The men of greatest influence in the connexion would, I am sure, unite with me; and every deviation from the church of England would be done away.