HISTORY, &C.

SECTION I.

WE hold as incontrovertible truths, that in the different forms of civil government, there are first principles which must be equitable, in order that the government may be secure they must be known, in order that they may be respected: and, they must be properly administered, in order that they may contribute to the happiness of the people. But, when the principles of a government are unjust or oppressive, it becomes necessary to keep them concealed from the eyes of the multitude; for the perpetuity of a government founded on such principles, must depend on the ignorance of the people, or on physical force. Hence the necessity of large standing armies in all monarchical and tyrannical governments to keep the people in awe.

The principles of ecclesiastical government, as laid down in the New Testament, are just; and the divine author of them, has enjoined an examination of them, that their equity may be known. In his word, they stand at an equal distance from ignorance or force; and they are calculated to promote and secure the happiness of every member of the Christian church.

For a considerable time past, we have thought our ecclesiastical polity is susceptible of great improvement; and the more closely we have examined the principles of the government of our church, the more fully we are convinced of the correctness of our opinion. We have, it is true, occasionally taken the liberty of expressing our sentiments upon this important point, and are very conscious, that in doing so, we never intended to give any offence. Actuated by the same motives, we again declare, that we disclaim all intention of giving offence by any of the remarks, we shall make in stating our objections to the present form of church government. And, from the part we have, hitherto, taken in the work of reform, we conceive it is a duty we owe to God and truth-to ourselves and our children-to the church to which we belong-nay to the whole Christian community, to be explicit and candid in stating our objections.

In the year 1784, Dr. Coke received authority from Mr. John Wesley to visit these United States, for the purpose of superintending the societies which were at that time formed, and of ordaining

دو

ministers to administer the sacraments to the same. He was invested by Mr. Wesley, with an authority to superintend the said societies, not to create any new ecclesiastical officer, unknown to the primitive church. As soon as the Doctor arrived in the United States, he hastened to meet Mr. Asbury; and upon their first interview," they consulted together about the plan," by which the church should be governed; (see Rev'd. J. Lee's history of Methodism, page 93) and accordingly, in a short time thereafter, the preachers who met in conference in Baltimore, formed themselves into an episcopal church, and said, that in doing so, they "foll wed the counsel of Mr John Wesley, who recommended the Episcopal mode of church government.' See the minutes of conference for 1785. Where this "counsel" is to be found, or in what official paper this recommendation is contained, we have never yet been able to find out. And after searching for it for thirty-five years, we are no nearer the discovery now than we were when we commenced the search. No such "counsel" is given by Mr. Wesley in his letter to Dr. Coke, nor in that which he addressed to "Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our brethren in North America." So far from this "counsel" being contained in those official papers, the term "episcopal" is not to be found in either of them. Nor is there any expression, coming from Mr. Wesley's pen, which we have ever seen, in those papers, or elsewhere, that would justify us in saying, he "recommended" the Episcopal form of church government to the Methodist societies in the United States.

As it is to our episcopacy we attribute the rupture which took place between Mr. Wesley and the American conference, and as it is to the unscriptural powers claimed and exercised by it, we ascribe the greater part, if not the whole of the troubles and secessions which the church has experienced since it has been organized, it may not be amiss to examine the foundation upon which our episcopal edifice has been erected. And, latterly, our attention has been directed to this point in particular, because the last general conference, in their circular, rested their refusal of representation on prescription; and avowed their determination to support" the institutions of the church as we received them from our fathers." As they denied our right to representation, we deemed it proper to investigate their right to preclude us from it. As they declared they could not comprehend such privileges" as we aspired after; we thought it was highly necessary to examine their title to exclusive legislation. While we were revolving this matter over in our mind, "Moore's life of Wesley" in which Mr. Wesley's letter to Mr. Asbury under date of Sept. 20th 1788, condemning him and Dr. Coke for assuming the title of bishop, was issued from the press; and gave us such a view of the subject as we never had before. This letter we have collated with other documents, and it has produced a conviction in our mind, that our brethren's title to their ecclesiastical estate is not quite so valid as they may have supposed it to be. In making his assertion, we are aware of some of the objections which may be preferred against our sentiments. Indeed, we are

66

us.

prepared to expect something more; but as a candid inquirer after truth,we are determined to follow her whithersoever she may conduct It, surely, would be imposing too heavy a tax on us, for our itinerant brethren to demand a tacit acquiescence in their pretensions, under pain of their displeasure; or to require us, contrary to the dictates of our conscience, to allow them to retain, what we believe belongs to us of right. If they are sure they are able to sustain the high ground they have taken, they may possibly feel a pleasure in being called into open court to substantiate their claims. If they have "a good and sufficient title" they can, and no doubt will produce it. If they decline the call, or are silent upon the subject, the public will be at no loss to perceive to what cause their silence is to be attributed.

In the minutes of conference for 1785, we are told, that in adopting the present form of government, the conference "followed the counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who recommended the episcopal mode of church government." And in the book of discipline, see chapter I. sec. I. we are informed, that this form was adopted because "Mr. Wesley preferred the episcopal mode of church government to any other." Now, these are the only public records of the society; and from the above quotations, it will be perceived, that no previous expression of the wishes of the members of the society, nor any scriptural precedent or authority was offered as a reason for the adop. tion of this particular form; but it was made to rest solely and exclusively on Mr. Wesley's authority. Surely then, it was incumbent on those who gave Mr. Wesley's name as the only sanction for the measure, to have shewn where he gave them such authority. They ought to have told us in what part of his writings he gave the advice, which they say he gave the societies, to adopt the episcopal mode of church government. Unless this is now done, and we are constrained to believe it never can be done, we must demur respecting the authenticity of the fact, and in the meantime we shall proceed to to shew our reasons for so doing.

FIRST. We shall enquire, what views do ecclesiastical writers give us, of an episcopal form of church government?

SECONDLY. Did Mr. Wesley, by appointing Dr. Coke a superintendent over the Methodist societies in America, intend to constitute him a bishop, and institute for those societies an episcopal form of church government?

FIRST. What views do ecclesiastical writers give us of an episcopal form of church government?

1 "Episcopacy is that form of church government in which diocesan bishops are established as distinct from and superior to priests or presbyters." Buck's Theological Dictionary. Art. Episcopacy.

"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 execute 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." R. Adams's Religious World Displayed, vol. 2. Art. Episcopalians. "The question between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians" says the same writer" is not, what degree of power and splendour the primitive bishops enjoyed, or what might be the precise extent of their dioceses? but simply and solely whether they were the same as the Presbyters, or whether they were a distinct order? The Episcopalians contend for this last opinion." vol. 2. page 282.

2. "As bishops and presbyters are distinct officers, so there must be distinct powers appropriated to each of them. For as the notion of an office implies power, so distinct offices do necessarily infer distinct powers." Archbishop Potter on Church Government. page 197.

3. "The lineal succession of bishops from the apostles was a thing undoubted. Ibid. page 154.

And again, "Bishops were ordained in all churches by the apostles, and derived from them in a constant succession." page 155. 4. "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."

5. "There cannot be more than one bishop at the same time in a church; a second bishop is no bishop at all; and they who adhere to him, are schismatics and have no title to the church's communion, or the privileges of the new covenant." Archbishop Potter. page 161.

I shall then lay down as sure, that there was but one supreme bishop in a place, that was the 'o Exicxons the bishop, by way of eminency and propriety. The proper pastor and minister of his parish, to whose care and trust the souls of that church or parish over which he presided are principally and more immediately committed. So saith Cyprian, there is but one bishop in a church at a time." Lord King. page 12.

6. "For 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." Potter. page 260.

7 According to the usage of the church of England," The Archbishop, by the King's direction, confirms the bishop, (elected by the dean and chapter) and afterwards consecrates him by imposition of hands,according to the form laid down in the Common Prayer Book. Hence we see, that a bishop differs from an Archbishop in this, that an Archbishop, with bishops, consecrates a bishop, as a bishop with priests, consecrates a priest." Nicholson's Encyclopedia. Art. Bishop.

We have here some of the most prominent features of an episcopal church, as laid down by writers of great celebrity We would