.mh ^aH^i' w, ] Mflf'iln " w ; IRf ^M/' -4 ' ^1 A 4i5 i mr'^ '^'"a.^'CpA ^/^^^l^' .^5^5«??'^ MaI § I^^N^^i 'M^m pmor^r' 0^ ^^.^^^■' LIBRARY PRiaJ€ETO«f, K. J. IMlKATIOX 111- S A M IJ K 1. A a N K W , J UK H H I L A ]J !■; L P H 1 V . PA. Letter iVo. ^/ "^1 Ml^^^ ..^..:^.^^x /, ^S-t^ti \^h^f^' C(l: felt it to be a duty I owed to those in the episcopacy, to write to thv;m "before I would commit the result of my investigation to the " press." There is, on the very face of my letter, evidence that it was dictated by a friendly spirit; that I was influenced by a love of truth; and that I was fearful of publishing any thing, which might injuriously, though unintentionally, affect the episcopal office. Although, from these considerations I had reason to ex- pect -an answer, yet not one of them ever condescended to no- tice my letter. As gentlemen, they were under obligations to answer it. It was respectfully written, and was entitled to a respectful consideration. Standing at the head of the connex- ion, and filling the episcopal office, they were under obligations to answer it; because it lelated to subjects of a general interest to the church, and information upon these subjects, was all I required. By their silence, however, they have subjected themselves to the imputation of being iiiditlerent to the truth, and to the welfare of the connexion. Having affixed their sig- natures to the book of discipline, and by so doing, averred it to be a fact, that Mr, Wesley recommended the episcopal form of church government, they were personally, individuady and offi- cially, under the most sacred obligations to say, where that' recommendation could be found; especially when it ^vas called for by a minister of their own church; by one who was older in years and in the ministry, than a majority of themselves; by one who had been twice in the itinerancy, and had filled some of the most important and responsible oflices in the church; and who requested the information in a polite and respectful man- ner. Their silence subjects them to the charge of having af- fixed their signatures to a statement, of the truth of which, they were ignorant, at the time they did it; or now, when the re- commendation is called for, and they cannot produce it, of en- deavouring to impose upon the connexion by keeping up a show of things, deceptions and false. In whatever point of light, therefore,*the silence of the five bishops may be considered, it will not redound to their credit; especially when I inform the read- er, that of all those to whom I have applied for information, whether in the church, or out of the church, from the day I commenced my investigation, down to the present time, they are the only persons, who have withheld an answer, or who have treated my application with contemptuous silence. From the six old preachers, to whom the other circular in the "Appendix" was sent, 1 received prompt and polite an- swers. As gentlemen they knew too well what was due to a respectful application, not to answer my letter. And having no interests to serve, but those which were founded in truth and justice, there was no inducement to withhold a reply. Being confirmed by their answers, and by the silence of the bishops, in the conviction of the truth of the results, to which had been conducted, by collating the documents, which I had ex- amined; and being solicited by many of my friends, I, at length, determined to put my pamphlet to the press. In doing this, I had no wish that a replication should not be made. The contrary was the case; for as truth was my sole object, I had nothing to fear from a development of the truth : inasmuch, as whether my views were confirmed, or proved to be erroneous, I was sure to be a gainer. I did, therefore, wish for a reply, that if I were mistaken, I might know wherein I erred. I did wish for such a reply as would bear an official stamp, by being the pro- duction of some person or persons, appointed by an annual con- ference, or by the general conference. This was the course whir.h I expected would have been taken; as an annual con- ference appointed a committee to prepare an answer to Mr. O'Keily's pamphlet See the preface to Mr Snethen's reply. I did wish such a reply as would embody all the documentary proof thqit could be collected; that thereby the members of the church might be able to judge of the points at issue, and deter- mine for themselves whether my views of Methodist episcopa- cy, and the episcopal form of her church government, were correct or erroneous. Instead, therefore, of pursuing this fair, honourable and Chris- tian course, a very different one was adopted Dr. Thomas E. Boiid, William Wilkins, Andrew Adgate, Chi isfian Keener, and William Browne, drew up an " Address," which " was discuss- ed and adopted by a large meeting of the male members of the Methodist episcopal church" in Baltimore, and ordered " to be sent to their brethren throughout the United States." In this " address" they express themselves in the following manner re- specting me and my work ; " a pamphlet written by a local preacher, in which the whole system of Methodism, is assailed with all the guile and artifice and sophistry of a Jesuit, and with all the malignity of which the human heart is capable. We al- lude to the History and Mystery of Methodist episcopacy, by Alexander M'Caine. A work which for malignity of purpose, shrewd cunning, misrepresentation of facts, and misstatement of circumstances, has no parallel among the productions of modern VI times, on a similar subject, except the far-famed Cobbett's His- tory of tlie Reformation." As these gentlemen have represented me in this odious light, it remains for them to make their assertions good ; otherwise, the inlamy they intended to fix on me. will fall upon themselves. I call on them, therefore, nay, I dejy them to prove what they have said: For, to say nothing of the other parts of their statement, they commence by saying tliat which is not true ; namely that I have "■ assailed the whole system of Method- ism'''' Nor, was the publication of this slanderous address the only means used to destroy my character. Private and -i-andal- ous reports were put in circulation. And this same Dr. Tiiomas E. Bond has since acknowledged to myself, that he said, " if he were to sweep the streets of Baltimore, he could not find a man under the influence of worse motives than I was." And although he has since denied it, the Rev. Mr, - — will affirm that Dr. Bond said to him, " there was not a worse man in the cells of the penitentiary than M'Caine.'"* fn continuation of the plan to destroy my character, and there* by sir)k the credit of my book, charges of "■ slander and false- hood"! were preferred against me, for having, in a district con- •Thatthe reader may know what credit is due to Dr Bond's statements, I subjoin the following letter of recommendation, which I obtained last year, wh. n I was going to the South. " BAtriMOHE, N'JVKMBEH 8th, 1827. *' As the Rev. Alexander M'Caine has it in contemplation to spend the ensuing winter in the Southern States, with rhe view of improving hit health ; and as he has signifit-d to us his intention to employ himself, while on tiie tour, in making arrangements for the sale of books, and in obrainmg subscriptions for useful, literary and scientific works, &c &.c. ; v/e cheer- fully avail ourselves of the occasion, to recommend him to the notice and confidence of such professional gentlemen and other citizens of taste and reading, as m.ay feel desirous to be accommodated by his attentions." JOHN B. DAVIDGE, M. D. ? Profssors in the Un'ver-^ NATHANIEL PO TTEli, M. D. 5 sity ofMaryiaiid. PETKR CHA TARD, M. D. HORATIO G JAUISON, M D^ JA.lK^ H MlLLEk M. D I p /• ■ „ SAMUEi. K JENNINGS M D. '. „. ,°/"^*'"''' /,'' ,.^"'; " SAMUEL ANNAN, M. D. H «,/u;,^..«« »/«/.caf JOHN W. VETHAKE, M. D. ( ^''^^^^'' ^"'"'«'"^^- iV VV. HANDY, M. D. J N BRICE, -} Judges of Baltimorir ALi:X NISBET, $ City Court F.LIAS m.V.^l'i, Judge of the U S- District Court. NATHL. V.ILLIAMS, US District Altorney. JOHN PURVIANGE, Counsellor at Law. W M. WIRT, Jittorney General of the U. S. ' SAML L. SOUTHARD, Secretary of the J^''avy. JOHN M'LE \N, Posmasier General t'TliefoUowii.gare the specilicatioiis furi.ishtd on th.it occasion by Mr. Hanson. "SpF.ciFiCA-iioN I. In iiavingal the distnci iiifeience at tieorgetown, D. C in the year 1821, represented me as a dishonest man, and as having while ir Vll Terence, nearly seven years before, objected to a certain man's obtaining a license to preach. What hand Dr. Bond had in urefing this mavrto prefer these charges,! will not say, though I believe he was at the bottom of it One thing, however, is certain, that on the •trial, the man of copper spike memory sent a person for his " friend Dr. Bond," and when the Doctor came in, his first effort, even before he sat down, was to have Alcaeus B. Wolfe, Esq. my stenographer, turned out of the room. Failing in this, the Doc- tor then sat down beside the prosecutor, and appeared to be very busy in helping him to sustain the charges and carry on the pro- secution. Will the reader believe, that although this man of copper spike memory was told by one of my witnesses on the trial, what I do not think it prudent to write, and was told it too, in the presence of James M. Hanson, Dr. Bond, the committee, and twenty or thirty witnesses, yet (his same man, was in ft Methodist pulpit the next day thereafter, and continues to have access to Methodist pulpits still ; whilst Dr S. K. Jennings and ten other local ministers have been expelled the church on ac- count of their reforming principles ! ! Finding that my pamphlet was working its way, notwith- standing the publication of the above address, signed " William Wilkins chairman," and "John Howland secretary," and that the charges of" slander and falsehood'* could not be sustained, they next brought me to trial for writing the book. The same charges were preferred against me, which were preferred against the other brethren, who had been tried for being re- formers, namely that I was a member of the Union Society, and patronised the Mutual Rights. To these was added, that I was the author of the " History and Mystery of Methodist episco- the employment of Mr. Thomas Kemp on Fell's Point, purchased copper, knowing it to be stolen ; and of having- left that place to avoid the peniten- tiary, or a legal prosecution. Specification 2. Ot having in said conference made such allusion to, am re* presentation of the circumstances which occurred at Fell s Point, as he knew to be untrue, and which made on the minds of the members of the confer- ence, such an impression against me as a dishoricst man, as induced them to reject my application for license to preach, notwithstanding I had the ne- cessary recommendation fron. the quarterly meeting conference of which 1 was a member. Spkcification 3. That the said Alexander M'Caine, did on the 24th day of June last, or thereabouts, at Marcella Chapel,, before the congregation then and there assembled for public worship, make allusion to some person who had been in the habit of holding public worship in thai place and who had been at some former time compelled to flj from justice to avoid the peni- tentiary, (inuendo) meaning thereby me the subscriber, as will appear Pot only from his having made the same allegations in the di.strict confer- ence, but from his private comnmnication myde to Mr. Rezin Wortliington, and to Mr. Nicholas Owings, as will appt a'- by reference to certificates So. 5 and 7." [A true copy,} August 1, 182r. .T- M. HANSON, vm pacy>» How far the other charges may have contributed t& my fxpulsion, I cannot say : but I believe the principal cause was, I he writing of the pamphlet. To try the merits of this book, in the answering of which, I have reason to believe exer- tions were made to obtain the aid of Doctors of Divinity, Mas- ters of Arts, preachers old and young, and even the bishops themselves, Nicholas Harden, Samuel Gore, and Edward Hall, three local preachers, were appointed a committee. These men are as capable of judging of the merits of the work, as they are of Newton's Principia. They know as much, perhaps, of Church History, as they do of algebra or conick sections. They were not, however, disqualified by their ignorance to ansiver Mr. Hanson's purpose, or the purpose of Mr Hanson's masters, if he was directed to these measures by the bishops, or by any one of them. It would seem, that the church authorities and the friends of Methodist episcopacy did not think it safe to rest their cause, upon the attacks made upon my character ; it was, therefore, thought necessary, that something should be done, which, under the semblance of argument, might have the appearance of con- futing my book. To write it down, the Rev. John Emory, D. D. took up his mighty pen ; how far he has succeeded, an en* lightened public will judge. Whether he was stimulated to the undertaking by personal animosity — by vanity — by a hope of agsrrandizement — by the importunity of the friends of Methodist episcopacy — or by higher motives, one thing is .certain : in pre- paring his " Defence, &c." he had every facility, and in ob- taining for it a circulation and a character, he had every advan- tage he could possibly have desired. He tell* us in his preface, that he " asks not for charity, in the cold sense of that abused term " That ail he " demands ia simple justice — sheer justice." In (;onformity with his wishes, I shai! endeavour to do him " sheer justice ;" and, as is my man- ner, 1 shall " use great plainness of speech." The circum- stances under which I write, require that I should be plain. — Thev have left me no alternative. My work has been attacked by so many pens. My character has been assailed from so many quarters. So many base stratagems have been resorted to, with a view of injuring my reputation, weakening my influ- ence, and destroying my temporal interests, that men, who know the value of character, will not, it is hoped, think I have trans- cended the bounds of Christian moderation, in exposing these proceedings. From men who can commend a work which I am compelled to believe was written to etlect these purposes, I cai.not, I do not anticipate any approbation On the contrary, I know they will be exasperated iu proportion as it is found that I am able to repel their attacks, and establ'.>«h the views I have taken of Methodist episcopacy. I write not, therefore, for IX them. 1 neither seek their applause, nor dread their arguments. I write in justification of my own character, and in defence of the truth, and shall leave to an impartial public to pronounce the verdict. In reviewing Mr. E*s book, I have followed the divisions of his work, and have even adopted the titles of his sections. It is respectfully suggested to the reader, that he read a section in the " Defence of our fathers" first, and then read the review of that section in my work. By this means he will be able to keep clear of all entanglement and confusion — ^judge of the merits of the respective works — and determine on which side lies the truth. ALEXANDER M'CAINE. Baltimore, December, 1828. A DEFENCE, &c. Sefore I enter upon a review of Mr. Emory's book, I shall sav a few words respecting its title. It may not be generally known, or remembered, that when the work was first announced, in the " Christian Advocate and Journal," it was announced under the name of the "Theory and History of Methodist epis- copacy." Why was this title changed ? Did the aurhor think, that the work did not correspond with the title ? And that llie public would be induced to expect more from the title, than they would find realized in the book .'' Or, did he think that " Theory and History" was too cold and uninteresting a title, and that to call it " A Defence of our Fathers," was much more likely to promote its sale — awaken the sympathies of the mem- bers of the church, for " the fair and honorable fame of our fathers*' — arouse their indignation against the man who under- took to examine the nature and origin of the episcopacy — and promote the views of the author, by fixing on him, the eyes of all, as being the man, who best deserved to be advanced to the episcopate .-* Be the reason what it may, the name of the work was changed, and it is now circulated through the country, by the travelling preachers and others, under the imposing title of *' A Defence of our Fathers." And who does the author mean by " our fathers" ? It has been universally admitted, that Messrs. John and Chailes Wes- ley were the founders of that religious denomination of people, called Methodists. To them the name was originally applied. Iheir names were appended to the general rules, by which the societies are governed. Mr. John Wesley claimed the title of " Father" for himself, and says, in a letter addi'essed to Mv. Asbury, dated London, September 20th, 1788, "You are the elder brother of the American Methodists I am, under God, the father of the whole family." Although these were the fathers and founders of Methodism, yet neither of them h^s any share in Mr. E's "Defence." Of Mr. Charles Wesley nothing is said, only in an incidental way ; and how Mr. John Wesley has been defended, will be seen hereafter. As the " fathers'* of the Methodists are passed over in silence, it is probable Mr. E. intended that Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, the latter of whom Mr. Wesley calls the " elder brother,"' should be considered as "our fathers," I must be permitted, here to supply the omission of their names, as 1 do not find thai the local preachers who first formed societies in Amei'ica — 12 ihe travelling preachers who came over from England — the preachers who composed the conference of 1784 — Mr. What- coat who was elected the first bishop, after the church had been organized — Mr. McKendree, now the senior bishop, or any of the gentlemen associated with him in the episcopacy, receive any notice, or partake in the slightest degree, of any advantage from Mr. E's " masterly defence." But why does Mr. E. more than any other man out of one thousand five hundred travelling preachers, to say nothing of the numerous personal friends that Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury had, among local preachers and laymen, enter the lists in ' de- fence of our fathers " .? Was it in consequence of a vote of any of the annual conferences .'* Was it because there was no man competent to the undertaking but himself.? Was it because he was so long, and so intimately acquainted with these gentle- men, whose " defence'' as he calls it, he undertakes ? Was it because his attachment to them was so strong, that any at- tack, real or imaginary, made on their " fair fame" would stir the blood within him to espouse their cause, and induce him to engage in a controversy, for which, from disposition and habit, he had such a settled and inveterate aversion ? Nothing of all this.' For, although Mr. E. writes as if he was the greatest, if not the only personal friend, that Dr. Coke or Mr. Asbury ever liad ; yet, I believe, he never saw Dr Coke or received a line from his pen. And as for Mr. Asbury, if he had any acquaint- ance with him, it must have been very superficial. There was nothing that could'be called an intimacy : — there was, perhaps, not even any correspondence. As there could be nothing, of a strong personal nature, to interest Mr. E. more than any other man, we must look for some other reason for writing the " De- fence of our Fathers," than what grows out of personal esteem, and disinterested friendship. He tells us, however, that 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." This, to be sure, is very- specious : but it will admit of some doubt, with those who are inlirnatdy acquainted w'kh Mr. E. if, notwithstanding all he says about "duty," he would not have left the " duty" unperformed, if he had not thought, that the present occasion furnished a most happy opportunity, of indulging his vanity — gratifying his malig- nity — and promoting his views of ambition and aggrandizement. At the general conference in 1824, Mr. E. had been put in nomination for a bishop. At that conference he received sever- al votes for the office. His prospects of arriving at the episco- pate, at some future, perhaps at no distant day, were as favor- able as were those of his rival. The hope, therefore, of being raised to that elevated station, may have had a great influence 13 in inciting him to perform this " duty." And as the " History and Mystery" might gradually and effectually sap the founda- tions of Methodist ei)is^copacy, if suffered to pass without an at- tack, it became necessary to make a show of defence, to pre- vent, if possible, such an event. Mr. E. knew also, that he would be obliged to relinquish the book agency, to which he had been appointed by the general conference; and in view of this relinquishment, a" Defence of our fathers" could be under- taken, which, under the appearance of vindicating the char- acters of the dead, might effectually promote the views and in- terests of the living. Besides, there is in the view of a proud man, so much honor in being a bishop ; —there is in the view of an ambitious man, so much power and so many privileges con- nected with the office, that it is no wonder if Mr. E was trans- ported with the idea of being exalted to that station. To a man of his disposhion, the very term is capable of producing such a train of pleasing ideas in the head, and so many delightful sen- sations in the heart, that to wish to be a bishop was too power- ful a temptation to be resisted. Who can tell, what thrilling emotions he would feel, when he would hear, or read an ap- pointment announced in these words; ''Bishop Emory will preach in Light street church next Sunday morning at 10 o''clk." What ecstacy to see his likeness, executed by Longacre in his best style of engraving, put in the Magazine, placed in the windows of print shops, or hung up in the parlors of the wealthy Methodists, with this inscription, " John Emory, D D. one of the bishops of the Methodist episcopal church." In addition to the influence which the love of honor, and the love of power may have had, the love of money may also have had a share, in bringing forth the " Defence of our Fathers." — For when a bishop in the Methodist episcopal church is elected, he is elected a bishop for life. His support, and the support of his family, is no longer precarious or uncertain, depending on the stewards, or on the voluntary contributions ot the members. It is from the book concern that he draws his support ; and this support is commensurate with all his wants, of whatever nature, and to whatever extent, they may be. This is an ob- ject worth seeking. This is a " treasure" for which some would not be unwilling to write a " Defence ;" a " treasure," which it is pretty plain, is more prized, than " the fair and ho- nourable fame of our fathers." I o make his " Defence" popular, Mr. E. has taken great pains to make his readers believe, that I am the personal enemy of Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury ; that I have written my "• History and Mystery" " with all the malignity of which the human heart is capable ;" and that with great '' unkindness I pursue Mr. Asbury in his grave."* Def. p. 36. I must be allowed, *Mr. Wesley had the same charge preferred against him. «' His sacrile- 14 however to say, that there is not one word of truth in all this : so fiir from it, that I possessed the confidence and friendsiiip of both these gentlemen as long as they lived. With Dr Coke, it is true, I was not so intimate, as I was with Mr. Asbury ; owing to the Doctor's residing, principally, in Europe. Nevertheless, I corresponded with him, until he sailed for India. But with Mr. Asbury I was particularly intimate, and have good reason to believe, that there were (ew men, for whom he enlertained a greater affection, than he did for me. It is therefore, a gra- tuitous assertion for Mr. E to make, that I " have taken advan- tage of the lapse of time and the silence which death has im- posed on the accused, to impute to them unheard of frauds and forgeries, which in their life time, no man living, had tlie effron- tery even to insinuate." Def p. 54. If, by this assertion, Mr. E. means, that I would not have published the views I now en- tertain, of the origin of Methodist episcopacy, if Dr. Coke or Mr. Asbury were alive, he must allow me to tell him, he is very much mistaken. Had I, before their death, the light on the subject, which I now have, I cannot conceive any reason why I should have been deterred from giving publicity to my views: but I had not. For, I never examined the subject until lately, always receiving as true, the statements published in the book of Discipline and Minutes of conference. If he means that I did not, or would not tell^Mr Asbury, at any time, what I thought to be wrong, he is again mistaken. On every subject, on which I expressed an opinion, 1 did it according to my apprehensions of inith ; sometimes of himself, sometimes of his administra- tion, and sometimes of his colleague ; and never received a word of censure from him, for doing so. Indeed it never was my manner, or disposition to avail myself o! the absence of men, to say of them what I believed it to be my duty to say. And if the reader will pardon the appearance of egotism, I will tell him, that since God was pleased to convert my soul, I have made it a rule not to say any thing of a man in his absence, that I would not say in his presence ; — that frum^hat period to this, my heart has been free from the fear of man ; — and that I am not now conscious, of having flattered a man in all that time. — This is not the smooth way to heaven, but as far as I under- stand the principles and precepts of the New Testament, it is the way that is prescribed ; and this is the way I choose to walk in. To sliew the reader, that I am not the man, that Mr. E. would fain make his readers believe me to be, and to prove, that I possessed Mr. Asbury's confidence and friendship in a very high des^ree, I shall submit a few extracts from some of his letters. giuus i.i4 :d violates the ashes of the dead, and traduces the character of Mr. W hitefield." " Wuh ungoijly craft he claws up the ashes of the dead."— '^Vesley's Works, vol. x. p. 484. 15 JVorfolk, March 29lh, 1799. •* My very dear Brother, I had an impression upon my knees, that you would be the most acceptable person, to take a station in Norfolk in Virgin- ia for the present year. My confidence in you as a man ofpety, conscience, and honor is hereby signified &c. Thy soul's real friend, Francis Asbury." Baltimore, July I6th, 1806. *' My dear Son, II I loved thee less, I should not put myself to pain and scrib- bling. I love you, you know. I have always manifested it. — Your honest hluntness I approve &c. As ever, F. Asbury." In order that the reader may understand the import of the following request, it may be proper to inform him, that for sev- eral years, before Mr, Asbury's death, he had frequent conver- sations with me about undertaking the compilation of a work, to be extracted from the writings of the most pious and practi- cal commentators on the Holy Scriptures. This work he fre- quently urged me to undertake ; and in his peculiarly sen- tentious, and emphatic manner of expressing himself, he used to call it a " focus." The following extract refers to this sub- ject. Philadelphia, April 20th, 1815. " Dear M'Calne, This following I write, highly momentous. The focus upon the great book. Have you begun ? Keep your book always by you. Begin book after book ; general history and contents : mind, mind, mind. I stir up your pure mind ; make the best of every moment. A small introduction, of a £ew pages, will tell what stations the author hath filled. It hath been upon my mind for years ; but w^ho I should fix upon, it is Alexander M Caine. I must as your bishop, father and brother bind it upon you. As formerly and as ever thme, Francis Asbury." Shortly after the date of the above letter, and not long before his death, having heard that I had lost my companion, he wrote to me, pressing me to enter into the travelling connexion again, and to commence the work which he had so often urged me to begin, Philadelphia, July 1st, 1 81 5. " My dear Son, You cannot ride a district or circuit ; you are past the meri- dian Still we have work enough. Should you return to your moMier's house, the chambers of her that bore you, perhaps you might be employed orderly and quarterly in Augusta, Sa- 16 yannah, Columbia, Charleston, Camden, Fayette, Georgetown, Wilmington, Nevvbern, Norfolk. You could not be too much confined. You are very positive about the key ; but where materials can be had of the very best kind, you can do it, if you give up your time and mind, and only be called off to preach. Those leisure hours might be well spent for future generations. 1 have been reading these fifty years, and have never seen what meeteth my mind, I mean an universal focus taken from all authors worthy of notice. Thine the same, Francis Asbury." I will not ask Mr. E. if he can produce any thing like the above. 1 am sure he cannot. These extracts, therefore re- fute the bitter, calumnious charges which he has scattered through his book ; and furnish testimony from Mr. Asbury's own hand that he " loved me'* — that I possessed his " confi- dence as a man o( piety ^ conscience and /lonor' — that he "ap- proved of my honest bluntness" — that he made choice of me for executing " a highly momentous" work — and that he was very solicitous to have me again in the travelling connexion. — How could he do all this, if he believed me to be such a man as Mr, E. has represented me to be. In Mr. E's efforts to black- en me, he spots Mr. Asbury ; and wounds him, with the same weapon, with which he strikes at me. Such is the way that this champion wields his weapons in his " miansioerable and masterly defence of our fathers." There is only one way in which he can avoid this conclusion, which is, to prove that I have changed. This I challenge him to do. He would be glad if he could fix this imputation upon me. But the reader will allow me to tell him, I have not changed. I entertain the same love of truth that I always did. 1 have the same hatred for falsehood that I always had. I detest loic cunning and in- trigue as much as 1 ever did. And as for my " honest blunt- ness," which Mr. Asbury approved, but which some men hate, I think it is very likely it will go with me down to my grave. Having said this much respecting the title of the book, and the motives of the author, it may not be amiss to make a pass- jug remark on the style of the work, or the manner in which the " duty'' has been performed. This is the more necessary, as I have heard it said, " the Defence of our Fathers" is a " mas- fcrly and unanswerable production." I was not surprised at this declaration, considering the quarter from which it came, and the persons, by whom it was made. For there are many, very many, who are ready to applaud what they do not under- stand. That Mr. E. as a writer, is deficient, in what critics consider the first and most essential quality of good writing, I mean perspicuity, no man, who has read his " Defence," and 17 who is capable of jufl£?ing, will deny. Without gteppiug to ac^. connf: for tfiis defect, I will say, if in any place, in the follow* ing- review, I have misappreliended his meaning, it must be at- tributed to the obscurity of his style. This obscurity renders him. as he himself said of bishop White in his controversy with that gentleman, "hard to be understood, and of course, hard to be answered." — e^s^— Section I. — On Episcopaey. In my "History and Mystery," I inquire, page 9, "what views, do ecclesiastical writers give us, of an episcopal form of church government.-*" Which form of government, it is said in the minutes of conference, was " recommended'''' to the Amer- ican Methodists by Mr. Wesley, and was adopted in conse- quence of his '■'■counsel.'''' In answer to this question, I collect- ed and presented the views of dilFerent classes of ecclesiasti- cal vv)'iters upon the subject. I did this, conceiving it would be |)roper, at the very outset, to ascertain the meaning of the phrase, " the episcopal form of government," that my readers might know the point of my inquiry, and understand, precisely, the subject of my investigation. The first of the writers from whom 1 quoted defines it thus; "Episcopacy is that form of oliurch government, in w hich diocesan bishops are established, as distinct from and superior to presbyters*'' And all the aa* thorities which I gave, although they differ upon other mat- ters, agree in this cardinal point, that bishops are a distinct order from presbyters and superior to them. The reader is re* quested to bear in mind, that it constituted no part of my in» quiry, whether episcopacy is of "divine appointment;" or whether bishops are a "distinct order*' from presbyters, by " divine right,''^ or " apostolic succession.''^ My inquiry was, CI) whether bishops are a distinct order from presbyters.'' And (2) if bishops in the Methodist episcopal church, are a distinct order from presbyters and superior to them, by whose ap- pointment were they made.? These are the points to which my inquiry was directed, and to them, I confined myself, in my letter to the bisliops. I asked them, " whether there is any pa- per to be found, in which, Mr. Wesley gave "coMn.se/" to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury or any other person or persons, to ordain a third order of ministers in our church, meaning by that phrase, an order of bishops, distinct from and superior to presbyters? His. and Mys p. 74. The same question was proposed in my letter addressed to each of the six preachers, who were members of the general conference in 1784. From this plain and simple statement, every one will perceive tlie matter of inquiry, and must acknowledge, that the question 18 is to free from all abstruseness, that in the judgement of common sense, there could have been no great difficulty in giving an answer. But to avoid coming fairly to the question, Mr. E. finds himself under a necessity, to entangle the subject, by in- troducing it in alliance with ''divine right?'' This is unfair; and although it shews the ingenuity of the man, in forming this holy alliance^ it will not escape the attention and censure of the intelligent and the pious. He says, " Mr. M'Caine repre- sents the common acceptation of the term bishops to be an order of ministers distinct from presbyters by divine appointment^ to whom the power of ordination is reserved, by the same appoint- ment, and is the chief mark of their distinction; and in whom, as successors to the apostles, is vested the exclusive right of granting the divine commission to execute the ministerial of- fice." Def p. 20, Now this is a misrepresentation; for I say no such thing. I neither gave " divine appointment &c." as my own sentiments, nor as the common acceptation of the term. I did not believe that these sentiments were the sentiments of even a majority of episcopalians. That I quoted them as the opin- ions oi some ecclesiastical writers, I admit. So did Mr. E. when he gave the same opinions from Dr. Miller. Would it be fair in me to say, that Mr. E. and Dr Miller represented the " common acceptation,'''' of the term bishops, to be an order of ministers distinct from presbyters, by "■divine appointment'''' &c., because some quotations from Dr, Miller, who giv^es (he difl'erent views of ecclesiastical writers, respecting an episcopal form of church government, contain these sentiments.'' Surely not; especially, when not more than one out of twenty of the episcopalians, hold these sentiments. The fact is, I made no inquiry respecting bishops being a distinct order by "divine appointment; divine right," or " apostolic succession" Mr. E. knew very well that my questions had no reference to these things. 1 consider his statement as a specimen of his artifice to jnislead his readers; but it is certainly too glaringly fallacious. lo escape detection, and too palpable to be imposed on men of gense. Long before I wrote my "History and Mystery," ^ I knew there were some writers, who use the words bishops and presbyteTS synonymously: that there were others, who make a distinction in the orders, representing the bishops to be su- perior to presbyters; yet this distinction and superiority, they represent as only of human appointment.* Whilst others con- sider bishops to be an order of ministers superior to presbyters, not by human appointment and expediency, but by " divine ap- * " The form of ecclesiastical government established in Eng-land, was ©ne of the first grie\ances of whicli the Puritans complained. This contro« versv was not carried on with animosity and zeal, as long as the English bishops pretended to derive their dignity from no other source than the 19 point menC — " divine right^"^ and " apostolic succession^ I wished, therefore, to knew, in what sense a bishop in the Methodist ej)isc opal church is to be considered; whether as a dis- tinct order fiom presbyters and superior to them ; and if supe- rior to them, bj what appointment, " human,"" or "divine." But, Mr. E. says, I ought to have known, " that there are ecclesiastical writers who describe episcopacy with other fea- troTS." Dei p. 5. Here his language is equivocal. If by the phrase " other features," he means, that there are "other fea- tures" belonging to episcopacy, which I have omitted to give, his "other features" are to be superadded, to those which I have presented, to make the likeness complete. To supply this omission was his design, I suppose, in making his numer- ous extracts. But, notwithstanding he draws so largely on Dr. Miller and bishop Stil'ingfleet, will it not be somewhat of a curiosity to tind, that although nine pages of his book are filled •with extracts to prove, that "other features" ought to be added to what 1 have given ; yet these " other features" are identi- cally the same, with those which were given by me. Only let the reader attend to what I have extracted, and he will find this to be the case. My authorities represent episcopacy in the following points of light. 1. " Episcopacy is that form of church government, in which diocesan bishops are established, as distinct from, and superior to presbyters." Buck's Theo. Die. Art. episcopacy. 2. "Episcopalians, in the strict sense of the word, are those, who maintain, that episcopacy is of apos- tolic institution ; or that the church of Christ has ever been governed by three distinct orders, bishops, presbyters or priests, and deacons." R. Adams's Religious World, vol. ^, Art. Episcopalians. 3. " Bishops were ordained in all church- es by the apostles, and derived from them, in a constant succes- sion." Arch-bishop Potter p. 155. Again, "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 commission' ing ministers to feed the flock of Christ.''' The reader is requested to notice, that iiere are three difler ent views of episcopacy, all agreeing in one point, and yet uif fering in others. The point in which they all agree is this : that bishops are a distinct order fiom presbyters, and superior to them. This is the light in which all episcopalian.s, strictly, speaking, consider this order of ministers; and this is what I laws of their country, and pleaded a rig'ht purely human, to the r»nk they held in the clmrcli; ' Wesley's Church History, A'ol 8. p. 247. See, rIsb, Buck's Theo. Die. Art. Bisliop. 20 consider the common acceptation of llic term. But, in m Mr. E's quotations, so in mine, episcopalians ditTer amon,^^ tlienp selves, with respect to the origin of episcopacv, sor-xic consid- ering it of " human institution ;'" and others, of '• divine apnoint-^ ment." ' ' But if, hy the phrase " otlier features," Mr. E. means tliat the features of episcopacy wfiicli I gave, are not true and cor- rect ones ; — (hat I have drawn a caricature instead of a perfect likeness ; and that I have misrepresented the subject ahoge- ther ; then, I suppose, he means by an exhibition of kis " otiser features," to correct my mistake, and set me, and my reader.-.', right. But what, if Mr. E. shoukl fail to accomplish tliis * What, if after all his vapouring, it shall be found, that Ids " other features" of episcopacy are the very same which I gave, only set out in a different dress.? It' this* be the case, w!io is guilty Qf'-'misrepresenlation''^ ? He purports to give his readers "other features," differing from those which 1 gave, and then gives them precisely the same. The reader wiU now hear Mr. E. and then compare his statement and mine together. "It ought to be understood, says Dr. Samuel Miller, that among those who espouse the episcopal side, there are tliree classes. The first consist of those who believe, that neither Christ nor his apostles laid down any particular form of eccle- siastical government, to which the church is bou[!d to adhere in all ages. That every church is free, consistently vviih the di- vine will, to frame her constitution, agreeably to her own views, to the state of society, and the exigence of particular times. — ■ These prefer the episcopal government, and some of them be- lieve it was the primitive form ; hut they consider it as resting on the ground of hximan expediency alone, and not of divine ap- pointment. This is well known to have been the o[)inion of arch-bishops Cranmer, Grindal and AVhitgift, of bisliop Loigi:- lon, of bishop Jewel, of Dr. Whittaker, of bishop Reyiiolds, of archbishop Tillotson,of bisliop Burnet, of bishop Croft, of Dr. Stillingfleet, and of a long list of the most learned and pious di- vines of the church of England, from the reformation down to the present day." Def p. 6. Before I proceed to make farther extracts, I must be allowed to otlier two remarks on this passage. First. I have asserted in the first volume of the " Mutual Rights," under the signature of " Nehcmiah,'' that "neither Christ nor his apostles laid down any jiarticular form of ecclesiastical government." Se- cond. I never doubted nor denied " that every church is free, consistently with the divine will, to frame her constitution, agreeably to her own views, to the slate of society, and the exi- gence of particular times." On these points, there is no dilfer- encc betucen Mr. E's authorities and myself; nor are these the points at issue. The subject of inquiry is this ; if the societies. 21 CGW consjiluling the Metboclist episcopal church, in the exer- ei-^e of liiPir ligtu t(» frame their constilutlon, preferred, at their orivanization, the episcopal government^ in what light are the bisliops of that church to be considered ? As mere presbyters, or as ail Older of ministers distinct from and superior to pres- byters ? 'J'his is the inquiry under consideration, and Mr. E. knows it; and aUhough he may wish to avoid it, he must be kept to this point. Now I say, that episcopalians in the strict sense of the word, maintain thai bishops are distinct from and superior to presbyters. It remains foi Mr E. to prove, tliat the four arch-bishops, the five bishops, and the two doctors, whose names are found in the above paragrapli, together with along nameless "list of the most learned and pious divines of the church of England" lieM the parUif of bishops and presby- ters, otherwise 1 shall cJaim them all as witnesses in favor of my position. " Anotlier class of episcopalians go farther. They suppose that the government of the church by bishops^ as a superior or- der to presbyters, was sanctioned by aposloiic example, and that it is the duty of ail cliurches to imitate this example But while (hey consider episcopacy as necessary to the perfection of the eburch, they grant it is, by no means, necessary to her exis- ttnce ; and accoidiiigly, xvithoiU hesitation, acknowledge as true churches of Chi'ist, nuiny, in which the episcopal doctrine is re- jected, ancfprcsbyterian principles made the basis of ecclesias- tical government." " A third class go much beyond either of the former. While (hey grant that God has left men at liberty to modify every other kind cf government according to circumstances, they con- fend that one form of government of the church is unalterably fixed by divine appointment ; ihat ibis form is episcopal ; that it is absolutely csstnliul to the existence of the church ; that of course, wbere\er it is wanting, there is no church, no regular ministry, no valid ordinances." ib. Now, wherein do those " other features" as Mr. E. calls them, diiler from the features which 1 presented in my book ,'' In no respect whatever. They arc identically the same, as may be seen by the following parallelism. " History and JSlysleryP " JJcjence of our Fathers.'''' 1. " Episcopacy is that form 1. "These prefer the cpis- of government in which bish- copal government, and some of ops are established as distinct them believe that it was the from and superior to presby- primitive form ; but they con- ' (ers.'' p. 9. fider it as resting on the ground of bun'.an ex[)»'diency alone, and not on divine appoiptment.'' '22 2. "Episcopalians in the 2. "Another class of episco- strict sense of the word are palians suppose, that the gov- those, who maintain, that epis- emmeni of the churcli by bish- copacy is of apostolic inslitu- ops as a superior order to pi es- tion; or that the church of b}ters was sanctioned by apos- Christ has ever been governed tolic example, and that it is the by three distinct orders, bish- ops, presbyters or priests and deacons." ib. 3. "• Bishops were ordained in all churches by the apostles, and derived from them in a constant succession.'' Again, ^' It is a principle universally established among episcopa- lians, that a succession from duty of all churches to imitate this example." ih. 3. " A tJiird class go much beyond either of tl>e former. They contend that one form of government is unalterably fixed by divine appointment ; that this form is^ episcopal ; that it is absolutely essential to the the apostles in the order of existence of the church ; that bishops, as an order superior of course wherever it is want- to, and distinct from presby- ing, there is no church, no reg- ters, is a requisite, without ular ministry, no valid ordi- which,avalic? Christian minis- nances." il>, try cannot be preserved, and that such bishops alone^ pos- sess the power of ordaining and commissioning ministers to feed tne flock of Christ." p. 10. In a two- penny pamphlet, called an " Address" written hf Dr. Thomas E. Bond, and signed by " William Willdns chair- man and John Rowland secretary," it i^ said that I have " mis- represented facts'''' in my "Histoiy and Mystery ;" but these gen- tlemen have taken good care to furnish no specifications, or olfer any proof of their charge. I will ask them, and all others con- cerned in that address, if I have '■'■ misrepresenieiP the sentiments of ecclesiastical writers respecting episcopacy. If they know any thing of the subject, they know i have not. For ail the writers, whom I have quoted, represent bishops as a distinct order from presbyters and superior to them. This is the com- mon acceptation of the term bishops, and as such I gave it, when I expressed myself thus : " The distinction between bishops and presbyters being the foundation of episcopal government, and this distinction having no existence in fact, nor in Mr. Wes- ley's creed, our episcopal superstructure falls to the ground.'"' But can 1 say that Mr. E. is guiltless of the charge of misrepre- sentation ? I cannot. For he not only maliesme say, that " the common acceptation of the term bisho])s is an order of ministers distinct from presbyters, by divine appointment &c." but he strives to make his readers believe, that I represent these as ■'the sentiments of Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury" Def. p. 7. With 2^ kdroitness he fastens upon the opinions of the third or last class of episcopalians, and represents these sentiments as mine. — "With more truth and propriety might I attribute tiiem to him: for I am arguing throughout my book against the imparity of bishops and presbyters. Whereas Mr. E.if he means any thing by his laboured production, must be understood as holding the opposite sentiment The only reason he can assign for ascrib- ing the sentiments of this third class to me is, that they are to be found as a quotation in my book. On this ground they are attributable to i\lr. E. also ; and not to him only, but in a quali- fied sense, to all who applaud and receive his book. But why did Mr. E. select the sentiments of this class of epis- copalians and give them as mine, in preference to the senti- ments of the other two classes? It was not because they were the sentiments of the majority; for he tells us *' tha* nineteen twentieths^ of all the episcopalians in Great Britain and in the United States, hold no such opinions." Perhaps he thought, if he could succeed in directing the attention of hi = readers to opinions so " extravagant" and offensive, he wouh be able to keep the imparity of bishops and presbyters out o sight. Excellent device!! To have given the sentiments o such an overwhelming majority, as the common acceptation o the term bishops, would, however, have been more fair. Bu* alas! Mr. E. too well knew, that neither truth nor fair dealing could help his cause. In sundry places in his work, Mr. E. censures me severely for not giving tlie name of an author, from whose work I made one of the foregoing extracts; and asks, " was it not because he was ashamed of it.^" Mr. E. may not be better pleasecJ with me now, for giving the name, than he was because I for- merly omitted it. Be that as it may, I do not know that I have any greater reason to be ashamed of giving Dr. John Kevvlev as my author, than I would have, were I to have occasion > to give the name of Dr. John Emory. 1 . Dr. John Kevvley was born 1 . Dr. John Emory was born in Europe; received a liberal on the Eastern Shore of Ma- and classical education, being ryland, received a classical intended for a Roman Priest. education, being intended for the law. 2. Dr. John Kewley declin- 2. Dr. John Emory studied €d entering into holy orders, law, was admitted to the bar, studied medicine, and became and became a practitioner on a practitioner of physic, first the Eastern Shore. in the West Indies, afterwards in the United States. 3. Dr. John Kewley joined S. Dr John Emory joined the Methodist Episcopal the Methodist episcopal 24 cfaQrcb, relinquished the prac- Hcf. of medicine, and after some lime, was received as a preacher, into the travelling connexion. 4. Dr John Kewley "deser- ted the Methodist episcopal church, and joined tlie Protect- ant Episcopal church 'jand after pronouncing upon tiiat church, the most tulsotne and high ton- ed eulogies, subsequently a- bandoned it also, and went where all who hold such prin- ciples as he had avowed, to be GOnsistent with themselves ought to go — to the Papists." Def. p. 33. 5. Dr. John Kewley profes- sed to be converted under my ministry. He travelled round the circuit with me; I had, therefore, a good opportunity of conversing with him daily, and of noticing his deep piety and devotedness t© God. church, relinquished the prac- tice of the law, and was re- ceived as a preacher into the travelling connexion. 4. Dr. John Emory was I formerly announced as a lie-\ former,! see Dr. Jcnnings'^s third | letter to Mr Diu auey " Mu- \^ tual Rights," vol. 1 ) wiiich re- ' presentation Mr. E. never con- tradicted. In conjunction with ■ Waugh, Morgan and Griliith, he published a pamphlet a- gainst the tremendous power of the bishops * But since he received a few votes to be a bishop, he has " deserted" the reformers, and become one oi' their most bitter opposers. 5. Dr. John Emory was sta- tioned in Philadelphia, when I became acquainted with him. Being his colleague that year, I had an opportunity of con- versing with him daily, and of healing the sentiments of the people of his charge concern- ing hiin. And from the inti- mate knowledge I [lave had of the two men, I do not hesitate to iid\ , that as a scholar, a Chrisiiun and a man of princi- ple and honor. Dr. John Kea-- ley is greatly to be preferred to Dr. JohnEmorv. • "A scrupulous and 7)reci.se adlierence to all the minutia: ofthe present inode of appointing' piesi iiiJ' elders, is so far i\ot episco- pacy? or, to demonstrate, that bishops, in the iMetliodist epis- copal church, are truly and really an order of ministers, dis- tinct fioni and superior to presbyters? That could not have been Mr E's object. They are introduced, osfei-'sibly, to prove what I never denied, and what 1 thought, no man, pos- sessed of common sense, having a proper regard for his own character, and for public opinion in these Ignited States, would deny; namely, that every church has a right, not only to choose her own particular form of government, at the commencement of her existence; but to alter, change or amend it, alter it has been adopted. Are these Mr E's sentiments? If they are, why did he express himself in opposition to tliem, in tiie answer to the memorial from "reformers" to the late gen- eral conference? If they are not, v\hy attempt to pass oft the sentiments of bishop White, who, according to the 34th Article of the church of England, allows the right of every church to alter and change things " ordained only by man's au- thority," as favouritig Methodist episcopacy? This is another instance of Mr E"s disingenuousness; and it was done for no otiicr reason it uould seem, but to blind the reader, by throw- ing a little more dust in his eyes; or to pave the way for epis- copal succession. To shew that there is no relevancy in tlie sentiments of bishop White, to the subject under discussion, it will be proper to state the circumstances which elicited these sentiments trom the rev. autlior. "After the connexion, which had been formed between the spiritual authoiity in England, and tite ep;sco[)al churches in America, had been dissolved by the revoluiion," Dr. White, now bishop White, published a pamphlet entitled "the case of the Episcopal ci)urches in the United Slates considered." In this pamphlet he remarks, " all former jurisdiction over the churches being withdrawn, and the chain which held them to- gether being broken, it would seem, that their iuturc continu- ance can be provided for, only by voluntary associations for union and good government;" p. 7. It being "generaiiy under- stood that the st(ccession, supposed necessary, to constitute the episcopal character of these churches cannot be obtained at the present, the conduct meant to be recomended, is to include in the proposed frame of government, a general approbation of upon for generations yet unborn," p 7. " Remember the tenacious grasp with wliicli power is held, when once acquired lis march is onward, any irs tremendous tendency is to accumulate." p. 12. " Manners with fc-rtunes; humou;s turn with climeS; '.rejiets witli hooks, and principles with times." 20 episcopacy and a declaration of an intention to procure tlie suc- cession as soon as conveniently may be; but in the m.'.an time, t» carry the plan into effect, without waiting for the succession." P* *^: .^'"''^'^ this extract, and from other parts in the pamphlet ofa similar import, it may be fairly inferred, that the sentiments of bishop White are I, " The succession is supposed necessary lo constitute the episcopal character of the episcopal church.'" 2, " That the succession cannot at present, be obtained." 3, " That efforts should be made to procure the succession as soon as possible." 4, That in the mean time " voluntary associations for union and good governmeni'' be formed. And 5, that " any supposed imperfections of the intermediate ordinations might, if it were judged proper, be supplied, without acknovvledginj? their nullity, by a conditioned ordination resembling that of con- ditional baptism in the liturgy." And are these the sentiments, on which so much reliance is placed to help on the cause of Methodist episcopacy.? Are these the sentiments with which Mr. E. is so much delighted, that he declares, he " finds no small consolation from being in company so respectable".? They are consistent enough, to be sure, com- ing from ihe pen of an Episcopalian, who maintains the imparity of bishops and presbyters, and who holds the doctrine of " suc- cession;'' but for a Methodist preacher, who would be under- stood to reject these sentiments, to cry out, " so say toe," is strange, passing strange, indeed. However, as the former ground on which Methodist episcopacy was made to rest, has been remov- ed, and as Mr. E. has said the " march of power is onward" he may have intended, as was intimated above, that the intro- duction of these "sentiments'' should serve as an entering wedge for the " succession" in the Metliodist episcopal church; and that the " episcopal succession" being obtained, " any sup- posed imperfections of the intermediate ordinations, might, if it were judged proper, be supplied without acknowledging their nullity by a conditional ordination." That Mr. E. may have had some squinting towards the " suc- cession,'' as being introduced, at some future day, to subserve the interests of Methodist episcopacy, is probable: else why condemn the Protestant Episcopal church for the failure of the proposals, which had been made by Dr. Coke to bishop Whitef Hear what he says. "If tlii-^ statement be correct, then the res- fonsibiliiy for the rendering of our deviation from that line of epis- copacy, permanent, rests on them.'''' Dei. p. 22. Had there been no disposition, no desire, no " proposal'' to go back to " that line of episcopacy'*'' in which " the succession is supposed necessary to constitute the episcopal character," why blame the Protestant Episcopal church for the failure of the proposed union .? But ^!r. E. goes on. " The proposed union, by which our temporary deviation might have been cured, according to Dr. "VVIiite's plan of conditional ordinations^ on the principle ofcoii- ditional baptisms, was rejected by them.'''' So then, " the tempo- rary deviation might have been cured," ''*?. E. being judge, had it not been that the proposals made by doctor Coke to bishop White failed. What now is to be done? How shall this evil be •remedied ? Very easily, if Mr. EV principles be adopted and his reasoning be acted on. He thinks it is not " Unlawful to re- vive," what formerly, in the apostles' days, had an existence: that " admitting the lawfulness of our practice in this respect,** ( lo revive what was formerly in existence) " the expediency and utility of it must be judged by those, whose concern it is," that is, the Methodist episcopal church. That " to make a thing un- laxcful which was before lawful^ there ought to be some express prohibition of it; which in this case we suppose, with Stilling- fleet, men will not easily produce from the word of Qod As such an itinerant and extensive oversight, a*, was practiced by the apostles, and by Timothy and Titus, fell greatly into dis- use, very shortly after their decease, it cannot be conclusively inferred, that it is unlawful to revive a similar superintendency in churches that may desire it." Def p. 26. That the Methodist episcopal church may "revive such a Superintendency as was practised by the apostles and by Timo- thy and Titus," Mr. E. strives to get rid of one very formida- ble obstacle, which, he clearly saw, stood directly in his way : that is, the character of those church officers who were emplo}'- ed by Christ, in planting churches in the days of the apostles. — Mr. Wesley says " The extraordinary teachers, whom Christ employed to lay the foundation of his kingdom, were the twelve apostles, and the seventy disciples. To these the evangelists are to be added, by which title those were distinguished, whom the apostles sent to instruct the nations." Wesley's Church History, vol. I p. 55. Now let ihe reader attend to the meth- od which Mr E. takes to dispose of the difficulty growing out of the " extraordinary'''' character of those early " church offi- cers.'' who " practised such a superintendency" as he wishes to "revive." He says l. " That, in the apostles' times there were individuals travelling extensively as superintendents, bishops, inspectors, or overseers, in a larger sphere, and setting in order the things that were wanting in multitudes of churches, is unde- niable." 2. " Whether such church officers were extraordinary, or not, as Stillingfleet says, we now dispute «oJ." 3. " It is not unlawful to revive a similar superintendency in churches which siay desire it." 4. " To make a thing unlawful which was be- fore lauful, there ought to be some express prohibition* of it. •Stillingfleet saiJ, " the constitution of our church stands upon this sin- gla point, all things are lawful which are not forbidden." Allow this "single pnint,'' and " brother Peter ' will ask no more. It vvill also ierve the pur- •2.6 As there were "apostles and evangelists employed by Christ in planting churches," and the "superintendency" of these " church officers fell greatly into disuse ;" and as there is no " express prohibition,'" making that " unhnvful uhich was before Imcfui;' Jt may be inferred, that it is Mr. E's wish '^ to revive such a superintendency as was practised by the apostles, and by Tim- o!hy and Titus." This being the case, when Mr. E. is bishop, there will be another aposlle John, and his presiding elders will be ranked with the cvangelisls Timothy and Titus. These apostJe.s, though not of the old school, will be divindxj inspired, as the itinerant preachers are now the " divinely cmthorized''^ ex- })ounders of God's word. They will have, also, the "gift of tongues," and be endued with power to work miracles. The " apostle John" will then be able to say with propriety, when l)e is about to ordain a man, " receive the Holy Ghost ;" and all this must be admitted, if it should be "-judged expedient to revive it," by the Metiiodist episcopal church, " whose concern it is ;'' because there is " no express prohibition'''' to the coutra- yy. Although these things may not be considered very modest, yet if Mr E. can persuade the people not to "dispute" about them, or if he can induce the people to allow these pretensions, it may not be long before they will be asserted by the "divine- ly authorized" expounders of God's word, and the " divinely authorized" administrators " of moral disciplme." Section lil. — JMr. Weskxfs opinion. "As to my own judgment, says Mr. Wesley, I still believe the episcopal form of cliurch government to be scriptural and apostolical, 1 mean, well agreeing with the practice and writings of the apostles. But that it is prescribed in scripture, I do not believe." Def. p. 17. As Mr. \V'e.sley's opinion is introduced by Mr. E. into his book, which was written expressly to vindi- cate " our Fathers," in lelation to their having organized the 5:e!hodist episcopal church, and adopted the episcopal form of church government, it is submitted to the candid, whether com- njon readers will not' suppose, that ^ir. Wesley expressed this pose oi'tlie gamester, as well as the pope. There is no "express prohibi- llou' siivs tlie j.'aii.blcr agiiinst billuiuia, baclcg^amnion. cards, dice or any of lliese g-AHii'S of play. JSu " cxjirtss priihibition'" a}^aln^t da: ces, theatres, races, or piijjjjei siiows, S-c One of Stillingflret's opponents said, "the point on whicii his church stood woulii ntake a pure i'lcasec of religion, it. would justify the additioji of oil, cieam, spittl., and salt in baptism and it would as miicli au'borize a minister lo preach the gt spel^With a helmet on his heau, and a sword and buckler >n his hand as signs of cur spiriuial war- fltre as the cyt'oasM baptism ii .snot eiioui^h in rehgLon that tilings are •AGi fbrbidtltii,4i^y must be coinmundeil." Op'.niuu ^vilh rclV^renee to tliis very snV.jeet. But, tbe followiog ciicumstniices which i^ave rise to liie expression of lliis opiiiii)!! veil! show, that an occasion, very (iitlereut from that with which Mr. E. has coiiiiccted it, produced it. Mr Wesley puhlisiied a sermon entitled a "Catholic Spirit,'' hi wl'ich arc to be found the followiDa; expressions. "1 dare, not [)iesume to impose my mode of worship on any other. I ask not, iheiefore, of him with whom I would uniie in love, arc you of my church f of my congregation ? Do you receive the* same form of church g-overnrpent, and allow the same church officers with me .'' Let all these things stand by &c." Mr. VVes- ley infoims us, that he " sent tiiis sei-moa to Rev. Mr. Clarke v/ith no particular vieu^ : but as a testimony of love to a fellow labourer." Wesley's Works, Am. Ed. vol. x p. :231. Mr. Clarke, with ''openness and candor," wrote to Mr. Wesley, in which letter he gave "a very fair explication" of the text, to which, Mr. Wesley says, he had "no objection at all.'' At\er this, Mr. Wesley addressed a letter to Mr. Clarke, from which, Mr. E. extracted the above " opinion." It ought to be farther slated, that Mr. Wesley's letter to Mr. Clarke, which contains the above "opinion," is dated " Castlebar, July 3, 1756," twenty eight years before the organization of the Methodi:st epis- copal church, upon which subject it is intended to have a bearing. This is another instance of Mr. E's disingenuousness. It will not escape the attention, of the intelligcni reader, that Mr. Wesley has given no defmition of an "episcopal form of church government ;" nor desjrilied tho.se " church officers," wliom he received. He merely refers to some opinion which he had expressed on a former occasion. Indeed the circum- stances, under Avhich he wrote, did not require him to be more explicit, inasmuch as he introduced those subjects incidentally. Mad he been writing a "Defence" of episcopacy, or of an epis- copal form of church goverimient, " this great master of logic" would have settled the meaning of these phrases. He certain- ly would have told us, what he meant by " episcopacy" — what by " bishop,s" — v/hat by an "episcopal form of church govern- ment." Has Mr. E. done this .? He !ias not. It may, there- fore, be inferred, that ke is not a "great master Oi logic ;" or that he has studiously avoided giving a defiaiiion of any of the subjects upon which he writes ; knowing, that defiinlion would be destruction to ins cause. The reader will please keep in mind, that in all his book, Mr. E. has not explicitly stated what he means by "a Methodist bishop?'' T at he leaves it undeter- mined, whether he meant to represent this church officer as a '• third order," distinct from a presbyter; or wiiether he intended that a bishop and a presbyter should be considered as of the same order. When the reader meets the term " bishop," " episcopacy," or "an episcopal form of church govet-nmcnt," 20 m tlie " Det'eaee of our Fathers," he will bear thiscircumstavice in mind, and ask himself, does Mr. E. moan that a bishop in the Methodist episcopal church is a third order o[ m'xnisiers distinct from a [)re8byter ? I do not add by " divine appointment," " di- vine right" or "apostolic succession," as he does ; but simply, whether "our" bishops are a distinct order from and superior to presbyters ? This is the point ; and I shall insist, that Mr. E. ought to have confined himself to it. In the foregoing extract, Mr. Wesley's judgment is given, with reference to some opinion which he had previously ex- pressed. When did he express that opinion, and where is it to be found ? Turning to his Notes on the New Testament, I find them dated " Brrstol Hot Wells, January 4th, 1754." Be- tween the date of these Notes and the date of the abovel etter to Mr. Clarke, there are just eighteen months. If we consult the Notes, they will enable us to comprehend, precisely, what Mr. Wesley meant, when he said, " I believe the episcopal form of government to be scriptural and apostolical." We shall then understand to what order those "church officers" belong- ed, whom he received ; and we shall perceive at the first glance the hrelevancy of this quotation, and its inapphcabiliiy to Methodist episcopacy. Mr. Wesley expresses himself in the following manner in his Notes, " The word bishops here includes all the presbyters at Phil- lippi, as well as the ruling presbyters : the name bishop and pes- byter or elder being promiscuously used in the first ages." Phil. 1 ch. i ver. " Ji bishop, or pastor of a congregation." I Tim iii ch. 2 v. " Likewise the deacons must be serious. But where are the presbyters .'' Were this order essentially distinct from that of bishops could the apostle have past it over in silence .''" I Tim. iii ch. 8 v. " 1 read over Lord King's account of the primitive church. In spite of the vehemewt prejudices of my education, I was ready to believe that this is a fair and impartial draught. But if so, it would follow, that bishops and presbyters are essentially of one order ; and that every Christian congregation was a church independent on all others." Wesley's Journal, January20, 1 746. " Bishops and presbyters are the same order and consequent- ly have the same right to ordain." See his letter of September 10, 1784. " 1 firmly believe I am a 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." Wesley's Works, Am Ed. vol. x. p. 94. " When I said I con- sider myself a scriptural bishop, as much as any man in England or in Europe, 1 spoke on Lord King's supposition that bishops and presbyters are the same order." 5' 31 No writer can express the parity of bishops and presbyters more clearly and unequivocally than Mr. Wesley did in the above extracts. No one was farther from advocating a third order of ministers, no matter by what name it is called,. whether bishop or superintendent, than he was. And yet i\3r. E. offers Mr. Wesley's opinion to support Methodist episcopacy, and her episcopal form of church government, although it is as clear as a sun beam, that '--r. Wesley believed "bishops and presbyters are the same order ;'' and that the " episcopal form of govern- ment which he believed to be scriptural and apostolical, that is, well agreeing with the practice and writings of the apostles,'' was a government by presbyters, and an ordination by presby- tere. — ^®»— Section IV. — Ordinalion. Mr. E. intimates pretty strongly, that I am a down right simpleton, for having brought a " silly witness" into court, and having put such answers into his mouth as would suit my pur- pose." Def. p. 37. Had I done this, I must have been a fool indeed ; to rest my cause upon the testimony of such a " wit- ness," when I knew, at the time 1 was framing those answers, that this " silly" creature would be liable to be cro.ss examined by such a " profoundly learned" lawyer and doctor of divinity as Mr. E. " Silly," however, as this " witness" is, Mr. E. with all his pretensions to superior wisdom and learning, has j)ast over these very questions and answers without a remark, thereby tacitly acknowledging, that they are too knotty for his mighty powers, or too self-evident to be confuted. To keep clear of such an imputation hereafter, Mr. E. shall be permitted to choose the witnesses, and put such answers into their mouths as he thinks will suit his purpose. The subject on which they shall be examined, stands as the title of this section, and all the answers, one only excepted, are taken from his own book, and from the book of discipline. Now, let Mr. E. through his wit- nesses answer for himself. Q. What is ordination .? A. " Ordination is the solemn setting apart of a person to some public church office." Def. p. 19. Q. Whence did Christians derive the "custom of ordina- tion" ? A. " Their custom of ordination was evidently taken up, by the Christians from a correspondency to the synagogue." p. 18. Q. In what manner, did the Jews, " under the synagogue," perform this ceremony.-* A. " That under the synagogue was done by laying on of hands." ib. Q What use was lliere for performing this ceremony by the itnposition of hands? A. "A tvi'O fold use I find of this symbolical rite, beside the solemn designation of the person, on whom the hand'* are laid. The first is to denote the delivery of llie 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 presence and assistance, to be upon and with the person, upon whom the hands '.vere laid.'" ib Q. Did '' (he bare hnposhion of hayids confer any potcer upon the person" upon whom iliey weie laid.^ A No: "but with that ceremony, they joined those vvordg whereby they did confer that authority upon them." ib. Q. If imposition ol hands conferred no authority, in what light was it considered ? A. '' What is imposition of hands but prayer over a man." ib. Q. If no authority was conferred by the imposition of hands, why was this rite practised ? A. " The practice our Saviour used in blessing children, heal- ing the sick, and the apostles in conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost ; and from thence it was conveyed into tlie practice ol the primitive church, who used it in any more solemn invocation of the name of God in behalf of any particular persons." ib. Q. Had the apostles any express command for laying their hands upon persons .'' A. " We have no ground to think that the apostles bad any peculiar command for laying on their hands upon persons in prayer over them, or ordination of them." p. 19. Q. Why then did they do it ? A. '' The setting apart some persons for tbe peculiar work cf attendance upon the necessities of the churches by them planted, being enjoined, they took up and made use of a laudable custom, then in use upon such occasions." ib. Will Mr. E. pronounce these witnesses " silly" > Will he object to the answers which they, together with himself, have i;iven ^ I presume not. Then, let the testimony otiered, by iiimself, be received and what follows ? That the imposition of /lanrfs does not constii lite ordination ; does not impart any au- thority, does not create a new order; does not, in one word, make a bishop. These concessions and statements ought to be distinctly noticed, for it undeniably follows from the foregoing testimony, tiiat Dr. Coke was not ordained a bishop by ui\ Wesley, nor did the bare imposition of his hands confer any authority. Q. What was Dr. Coke's opinion, respecting the imposition of hands.'' A. " I do not think the imposition of hands, on the one hand, as essentially necessarn for any office in the church; nor do Ij u Oil tlie other hand, think that the repetition of the imposition of hands for the same office, when important circumstances re- quire it, is at all improper." Def. p. 90. Q. As " the imposition of hands is not necessary for any of- fice;" and as it imparts no authority, whence is " the superiority •four bishops" derived? A. " The late Rev. John Dickins says, in relation to the su- periority of our bishops, as derived, not from their separate ordination, but from the suffraa;es of the body of ministers. Pray when was it otherwise?" Def p. 65. Again: *' now who ever said the superiority of the bishops was by virtue of a aep- arate ordination}"'' ib. And again: " we all know Mr. Asbury derived his official power from the conference." ib. And in another place, " Mr. Asbury was thus chosen by the conference both bejore and after he was ordained a bishop."* From the testimony of Rev. John Dickins, it is plain, that ^^ separate ordination^'' does not constitute a bishop. For the superiority of " our bishops," is derived, not from ordination, but *rom the suffrages of the body of ministers. It will follow, therefore, that Dr. Coke was no bishop; for he was not elected by the body of the ministers to that office. If he was one at all, he was one before he crossed the Atlantic. Mr. E goe» on: " The pamphlet containing the above sentiments, was pub- lished by the unanimous request of the conference held at Philadelphia, September 5, 1792; and may be, therefore, con- sidered, as expressing the views, both of that conference and of bishop Asbury, in relation to the true and original character of Methodist episcopacy." Def p. 66. As the Rev. John Dickins's sentiments are considered " the sentiments of the Philadelphia conference, and of bishop Asbu- ry in 1792," and as these sentiments are said to afford a very correct view of "the true and original character of Methodist episcopacy." Q. Which of these methods, "separate ordination," or " the suffrages of the body of ministers" is now used in constitutinjj a Methodist bishop ? A. Neither, singly. Q. How is a bishop constituted now } A. " By the election of the general conference, and the layinj on of the hands of three bishops, or at least of one bishop and two elders." Book of Dis. ch. I. sec. 4. Q. " If by death, expulsion, or otherwise, there be no bishop remaining in our church what shall we do ?" * The superiority of Methodist bishops consisted of two elections; the one , hef'ire, the other after he was mane a bishop, Solomon, who said there is no new thing' under the sun. did not live long enough to see this new sort •€ ** tuptriority" of a Methodist bishop« 3 34 A. " The general conference shall elect a bishop ; and the elders, or any three of them, who shall be appointed by the gen- eral conference for that purpose, shall ordain him according to our form of ordination." Q. " What is our form of ordination ?'' A. " After the gospel and the sermon are ended, the elected person shall be presented by two elders unto the bishop, saying. We present unto you this holy man to be ordained a bishop." Aftf^r being interrogated upon several points, "the bishops and eldprs present, shall lay their hands upon the head of the elected person, kneeling before them upon his knees, the bishop saying, Hec^ive the Holv Ghost for the office and work of a bishop in the church of God, now committed unto thee, by the imposi- tion of ot«r hands in the name of the F'ather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Jlmen. And remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is given thee, by the imposition of our hands ; for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness" This quotation is of too important a character, to be passed over without bemg noticed : I shall therefore make two remarks on it. 1.. It does not agree with Mr. E's testimony above, where it is asserted that " imposition of hands confers no authority, im- parts no power ;" because it is affirmed here, that the Holy Ghost is conveyed, by the imposilivn of hands for the office and work of a bishop And the elected person is exhorted to " stir up the grace of God which is given him,- by the imposition of the hands " oJ'the ordainers. " Silly'' as my witness was, he did not conlradict himself; for it is a property of tnith to be consistent. 2. There is not a man in the whole connexion, who believes, that it is in the power of the bishops to impart the Holy Ghost, the third per.>*on in the ever blessed Trinity, to the elected person, about to be ordained. Does the bishop himself believe, that it is his prerogative to do so, by the imposition of his hands? Do the elders, who are associated with him, in the performance of this rite, believe that they can do it .-* Does the person, who re- mains upon his knees believe, tha; he receives the Holy Ghost by the imj)Osition of their hands upon his head? I will venture to affirm, without fear of contradiction ; that neither the bishop who ordains, the elders who assist, the man upon his knees, nor the members who are eyewitnesses of the ceremony, believe that it is in the power of a poor, sinful worm of the earth, to impart the Holy Ghost, by the imposition of his hands. Why then, are the e words ever used, when those who use them, do not believe the r plain and obvious meaning? Why are they to be found in the book of discipline of the Methodist episcopal church? These words, with others of a similar import, may have been originally inserted in the orduiation service ad captandum vulgus, and to fa- vour the design of ambitious men ; but in the mouths of Method- 35 ists, who, when they use them, do not believe one'word of what they say, they are vt-ry improper. Havinij^ presented the testimony of Mr E. and his witnesses, on the subject of ordination, the reader is now prepared to estimate, as he on!^ht, what is said respecting "both the good sense of those wiio framed it" (tiie answer to ques 2. ch. I. sec. 4. in the book of discipline) ''-and their acquaintance with ancient eccle- siastical usage " Respecting the good sense of those who fram- ed that ansvver, I shall say nothing. But it Mr. E. says, that tiie manner of constituting a bishop, in the Methodist episcopal church, agrees with the form of constituting a bishop, in the primitive church, for the first three hundred years- after Christ ; or if he would be understood to say, that Methodist bishops are of the same rank, or are made in the same manner that bisliops were then made, \ must say Mr. E. himself knows nothing of an- cient ecclesiastical usage '1 hat there is a great discrepancy in the testimony of Mr. E's witnesses, is very obvious. At one time, although the imposi- tion of hands is "not necessary," yet certain words, which are used at the time of their imposition, coivey '• authority,'' and constitute the person upon whose head the hands are laid, a bish- op. At another time, we are told, 'Mhe superiority of our bishops is not derived from their separate ordinalion^ but from the suf- fiages of the body of ministers." And yet, in the face of this as- sertion, the Rev. Joshua Soule, who was elected a bishop in the geneial conference of 18^0, "by the suffrages of the body of ministers," derived no "■ superiority " from his election ; nor would he be allowed to exercise the pffice of a bishop without the " imposition of hands : " theieby making the imposition ot hands " essentially necessary," the testimony of Dr. Coke, Rev. John Dickins, the conference held at Philadelphia Sep. 5. 179i, bishop Asbury, and I may add Mr. E himself, to the contrary notwith- standing. At another time, Mr. E. differs from the preceding witnesses, and from himself: for he affirms that *■' Dr. Coke's ordinalian (as a bishop) was performed as ordinations usually are-^with the usual solemiiities ; by tlie imposition of hands and prayer with the assistance of other ordained mi:iisters, and under the protec- tion of Almighty God." Def p. ^4. Now, how does this ac- count agree with the testimony in the former part of this section ; wherein it s affirmed that imposition of hands imparts no auihori- ty .'' How does it agree with the sentiments of Rev. John tJickins ; oi the Philadelphia conference held Sep. 5. ildZ; and of Dish- op Asbury, all of whom make "the suffrages of the body of . ministers'* the source of the superiority ot our bishops.'' how does it agree with Mr. E's own sentiments, who sa} s, res[)ecting' "the sutiiage of the body of ministers,'' that it constitutes " the tniQ and original character of Methodist episco^jacy r" How 36 ^es it agree with ch. 1. sec. 4 of the book of disscipline? Kot at all. Nor does any one of these views, nor do all oi them put togeher agree with the " ancient ecclesiastical usage *■ in cot.sti- tuting a bishop. For, in every instance, where a bishop was con- stituted in the primitive church, let the meaning of the term bish- op, be what it may, he was always elected by the suffrage of the people^ as well as by the " body of ministers." Yes, i say the people had a voice in the election of their bishop ; and 1 defy Mr. E. to produce a single writer, on church history, who denies this to be the fact. The truth is, Methodist episcopacy has no precedent in "ancient ecclesiastical usage." It is a perfect anomaly. And from the above specimen of inconsistencies and contradictions, the writers in " defence" of Methodist epssco- pacy are at as great a loss to settle the form of ordination and define the term, as they are, to tell us what a Methodist bishop is. Before I dismiss the subject of "■ ordination," i must make a few remarks upon a sentence, in the section under considera- tion, which, I think, is not a fair representation of the case of which it treats. It is this : " Great probability there is, that where churches were planted by presbyters, (as the Methodist episcopal church was) upon the increase of churches and pres- byters, they did, from among themselves choose on.e to be as a bishop over them. For we no where read, in those early planta- tions of churches, that where there were presbyters already^ they sent to other churches to desire episcopal ordination for them," Def. p. 19, This purports to be a quotation from Stillingfieet, but where it is to be found in his works, I am not told. Nor, while I am noticing this omission, is this the only quotation which Mr. E. gives, without making the proper reference to the page &c. This is the more reprehensible in him, because he is so lavish of his abuse of me, tor having once failed to give the name of an author from whom I made an extract. But allowing the fairness of the extract, the representation, which it makes, is not true. I. It asserts that " the Methodist episcopal church was planted by presbyters," Not so ; for long before this church was organized, the societies which constituted it, were " planted," not by pres- byters, but by lay preachers. 2. It intimates ttiat there was no bishop until after the church had been organized, and that then, *' upon an increase of churches and presbyters ^'^^ those "presby- ters did, from among themselves, choose one to be a bishop over them." This is not correct ; for the creation of presbyters, the creation of bishops, and the organization of the church, all took place at the same conference. 3. It conveys the idea ihat the bishop was chosen by the churches and presbyters ;" or that the " churches^'' as well as the presbyters, had a voice in electing- the bishop. Nor was this the case, i'he ••' c/u«rc/ies," socie-.. ties, congregations, or members had no voice in the organiza- 37 iion of the cTiurch, or in the election of tVie bishop. 4. It suju, posps that 'Mhere were presbyters ahead)" in the Methodist Episcopal church ; and theiefore, there was no necessity to send to other churches to have them ordained. Nor does this stato? ment accord with matter of fact. For the societies sent to Mr. .Wesley, requesting him to send them ordained ministers. 5. And after all, the whole pioceeding, to which Stillingfleet al» ludes, is represented hy him, only as a matter of "great proha" bility ;" and yet Mr. E. transfers it to the account of Methodist episcopacy — ^O^— Section V. — Ordination of Dr. Coke. \ said in a former part of this work, that Mr. E. has misrep.* resented me, by making me say, that the common acceptation ot the term bishop is '*■ an order of ministers distinct from presby» ters by divine appointment, and is thechief mark of their distinc- tion ; and in whom, as successors, of the apostles, is vested the exclusive right of granting the divine commission to execute the miiiisferial office." Def. p. 20. How he could have made this assertion is the more surprising ; as in the paragraph immediate* ly preceding this sentence, there are several quotations from my book, in which I distinctly state the common acceptation of the term bishop. " It Mr. Wesley ordained Dr. Coke a bishop io the common acceptation of that term, then he created a church officer greater than himself; and of consequence, he brought him* self into subjection to Dr Coke, by making the doctor his supe* rior. Again, " If the doctor was constituted a bishop" (in the common acceptation of the term is here dropped, * says Mr,. E. " he was raided to a rank above a presbyter, and invested with superior powers . In that case, he that was sent, was great- er 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 si*pej-ior to do a vvoik in his name, which he himself could not go and do." And again, " If the doctor by the imposition of Mr. Wesley's hands is created a bishop, then the objection of the bishop of Norwich lies in full force; if a presbyter can ordain a bishop, then the greater is blessed oi the less." Now, in the name of common sense, is there any thing like divine appointment in any of tliese extracts .'' 1 merely stated •What if it is ? Will any scholar say it was necessary, or that it would be elegant to insert the phrase *' common acceptation" ag^ain, after it had ' been inserted in the preceding sentence, which related to the same subject } He will not. Mr E's censure proves, that lie is ignorant of the rules of composition, or that he carps unnecessarily, with a design to mislead hi^ readers . 38 the common acceptation of the term "bishop" to be a " rank above* piesb}feis," "superior to presbyleis," 'greater thai) presbyters" &;r. and this distinction wili admit the addition oi*- kwnan expedien-. cy'" with more propriety, than it will " divine appointment." For Mr. E. to have added *"divine appointmeni'' to this distinction, T^ hen nothing was said upon which this addition could be founded, is utterly unju-tiliable ; and moreover, it wouid lead a person, to believe that Mr. E. did not much regard what he said, so tl at he could only make his cause appear good. " All the smart savings,'' therefore, which he has uttered here and elseuh-re respecting ^'divine appointment ,"^ vanish into thin air ; and, Ti'hen he writes again, he must consider the common acccplalion of the term bishop to be, an order of ministers "distinct from ami superior to presbyters." , On page 23 of" His. and Mys." I expressed myself thus ; "As Mr. Wesley and Dr Coke were of tiie same order, to wit, the order of presbyters, the doctor had as good a clerical right to ordain Mr. Wesley a bishop, as Mr. Wesley had to ordain the doctor. This was the case according to Mr. Wesley's views of ecclesiastical usage, and this is the opinion of the Rev, Mr. Mooi-e, i- r. esley's biographer." Upon which Vr. E. remarks, '• As good a clerical right ; Mr. -Ni'Caine seems to have felt, here, that his argument w^as lame." Def p. 2h Lame ! No indeed, I did not feel it was " lame ;" and upon farther and closer examination, i find nothing like lameness in it. I find it strengthened and supported' by ^r. Wesley's and ^"r. Moore's auliiority ; and the only fault Mr. E. can find with it, is, that it is but too well adapted to produce conviction, of the invalidity of Dr. Coke's ordination, as a bishop. But let us examine it more closely. Whence had Mr. Wesley" any right to ordain.^ From his being a clergyman of the church oi England. According to A^r. Wesley's own account, " bishops and presbyters are the same order^ and consequently have the same right to ordain.'' His right to ordain, grew out of his be- ing a clergyman, and of couise, was a " cier?'ca/ right.'' And as Dr. Coke was a presbyter, as well as Mr. Wesley, the doctor had as good a clerical right to ordain Mr. Wesley a bishop, as Mr. Wesley had to ordain the doctor a bishop. It was not, how- ever, upon his " al)Stiact '' clerical right to oidain, that I ground- ed Mr. Wesley's nght to appoint Dr. Coke a superintendent over the American Viethodists, but upon an acn^nowiedgedjurisuic- tion, then existing, in respect of Mr. W^esley. This is the very- point upon which I insist, in the same paragraph from which Mr. E. made the above extract. This is the circumstance which justifies Mr. Wesley, and explains the whole of his proceedings. I say, "Mr. Wesley considered himself, under God, tlie father of all the Viethodists in Europe and America. He considered that he had a right to govern those societies, which had been 39 raised by his insiTumentality, and had put themselves " under his care." He considered it to be his prero,:i;ative, to transfer the power of governing the societies, which he could not per- sonally superintend, to Dr. Coke or any other person, he might see tit to appoint." " His and Mys." p. 23. From these state- •nients I argue, if Mr. Wesley had been in America, he could have personally superintended the Methodist societies, without being ordained a bishop : in like manner Dr. Coke being ap- pointed a superintendent, could have governed those societies without being created a hishop. There was no necessity in the one case, that a third order of ministers should be crrated, any mare than in the other. All that was necessary was, to transfer the right of governing to tiie delegated person ; with a view to over- come the ohjections which might, possibly, be ottered, if any at- tempt was made to govern them without Mr. Wesley's consent. This transfer of power, is called by ,M r. Wesley, an investing of the doctor with " fuller powers j" and Dr. Coke, who is there- by appointed a superintendent, is made a bishop, hy the fiiends of ecclesiastical power, contrary to Mr. Wesley ""s design. I could not pioceed with my observations upon the supposed ordination of Dr Coke, without having tiret replied to Mr. E's misrepresentations and criticisms 1 snail now take up that sub- ject, and notice the circumstances which gave rise to it; and then treat of the different parts of it, in their consecutive order. First. That wliich gave rise to it, was the distressed state of the societies. The Methodist societies in America, at the close of the revolutionary war, ''were very much distre-^sed for want of minisiers to adniinister the sacraments of baptism and the Lord\s supper, accoiding to the usage of the churcli of England." There were preachers, who were in connexion with Mr. VV^sley, but they were not ordained or authorised to administer the ordi- nances. "• For hundreds of miles together^" says Mr. Wesley, "there was none, either to baptize or to administer the Lord's supper." This is a brief account of the state of the societies ; and upon it I shall make two remarks. 1. i hat it was the du»y of those societies, in their then distressed state, to take all pro- per steps to obtain the administration of the ordinances. 2, That there was none, to whom they could apply for a supply, with more propriety, than they could to Mr. Wesley. His ac- knowledged piety and usefulness — his age and experience — and above all, the relation in which he stood to the Methodists, as the "father of the whole family," made it reasonable, that they should submit their case to him, ask his advice, and seek to be supplied through his agency. There was, besides, another rea-, son, why he should be made acquainted with their state. "As early as 1778, a considerable number of the preachers earnestly importuned Mr. Asbury to take proper measures, that th<' peo- ple might enjoy the privileges of all other churches, and no iouj^er he deprived of the Christian sacraments. Mr. Asbury's attach- ment to the church of England, was at that time exceedingly strong: he, therefore, refused them any redress. On this, the majority of the preachers withdrew from him, and consequently from Mr. Wesley, and chose, out of themselves, three senior brethren, who ordained others by the imposition of their hands. The preachers, thus set apart, administered the sacraments to those they judged proper to receive them, in every place where they came. floweveV, Mr. Asbury, by indeiangable labour and attention, and by all the address in his power, brought them back one after another, and by a vote of the conference, the ordination was declared invalid." Coke and More's life of Wesley, p. 350-1 Mr. E. has paid a very flattering compliment to the "good sense" of those preachers, who " tiamed the answer, to ques. 2. iec. 4. ch, I. of the book of discipline." Whether any of those, who framed that answer, were of the number of those who de- clared the above ordination " invalid," I know not. If they were, notwithstanding all " their acquaintance with ancient eccle- siastical usage," they voted that this -'ordination was invalid." Now, either their "acquaintance " &c. was not as extensive as Mr. E. would represent it ; or some of his authorities are not entitled to all the credit, he would claim for them. For he tells us, after Stillingfleet, that in the reign of Edward VI. about the year 1547,* a very grave and learned assembly of select divities, was called by the king's special order, for debating the settlement of things according to the word of God, and the practice of the primiiive church. It consisted of Cranmer, arch-bishop of Cant- erbury, the arch-bishop of York, and many other prelates and divines of the first distinction. To the questions propounded to the assembly, by order of the king, those eminent divines gave in their answers, severally on paper. The following are some of the questions and answers. Q. 1 3. "Whether, (if it fortuned a prince Chrislien lerned, to conquer certin domynyons of infidells, having none but the tem- poral lerned 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. " It is not against God's law, but contrary, they ought in* deed so to do, and there be historyes that witnesseth, that some Chnstien princes and laymen unconsecrate have done the same.*' Q. 1 4. ^' Whether it be forfended by God's law, that if it so for- tuned that all the bishopps and priests were dedde, and that the word of God shuld there unpreched, the sacrament of baptisme md others unministered, the king of that region shoulde make hishopps and priests to supply the same or nor" • Bishop Burnet, in his «• History/* gays " Stillingfleet was mistaken as to tfe® date,'* 4i A. " It is not forbidden by God's law." Dcf. p. 84-5. Second. Of Mr. Wesley's right to ordain. As tkere seems to be no difference of opinion between Mr. E. and myself, on this topic, it will not be necessary to enlarge That Mr. Wesley had a right to ordain, is unequivocally asserted in his letter of Sep. 10, 1784, amply supported by proof in the "-History and Mystery," p. 61. — allowed in the "Defence of our Fa- thers' passim^ and acknowledged by the Methodist episcopal church. Third. The causes which induced Mr. Wesley, to exercise this right. I. The distressed situation of the societies, mentioned above. 2. The persuasion and entreaty of Mr. Asbury and others. Mr. Wesley rei'ers to these two topics, in his letter of Sep. 10, 1784. He says *' In this peculiar situation some thous- ands of the inhabitants of these states desire my advice ; and in compliance mlh their desire., I have drawn up a little sketch." Agam, ''For many years I have been importuned from time to time to exercise this right, by ordaining part of our travelling preachers.'' A similar account is given in " Drew's life of Dr, Coke." Eng. Ed. p. 62. And Mr. Moore in his life of Wesley, inserts a letter written by Dr. Coke to Mr. Wesley, in which h« solicits Mr. Wesley to exercise his right of ordaining. "The more maturely I consider the subject, the more expedient it ap- pears 10 me, that the power of ordaining others should be receiv- ed by me from you, by the in'position of your hands. As the journey is long, and you cannot spare me often, and it is well to provide against all events., and an authority /ojma//(/ received from you, will (I am conscious of it) be fully admitted by the people ; and my exercising the office of ordination,* without that lormal authority, may be disputed, if there be any opposition on any other account ; I could, therefore earnestly wish you would ex- ercise that power, in this instance, which I have not the shadow of a donbt,t but God hath invested you with for the good of our connexion." Moore's life of W esley. Vol. 2. p. 276. The Rev. James Creighton, in a letter addressed to Mr. Samuel Bradburn, London printed 1793, says, "You take notice of a meeting which Mr. Wesley had, with some clergymen, at Leeds, in August 1784, at which he consulted them, concerning the ordination of preachers for America. Mr. Fletcher was present, and 1 believe Mr. Sellon, and two or three others. They did not approve of the scheme^ because it seemed inconsist- * •♦ 1 am of our lute venerable father Mr Wesley's opinion, that the order of bishops and presbyters is one and the same : nor do 1 think that the repe- tition ot the imposition of iiands for the same office, when important circum'- Oiances require it, is at all improper-'' Dr. Coke- t Mr E. considers the words, " I have not the shadow of a doubt," to be of so much importance, as to be entitled to be put in capital letters. Def, p. 28. He remarks, also, at the bottom of that page " Yet in the face of this oroad declaration,, Mr. M'Cainc repeatedly endeavours to make out, that Dr. 42 ettt with Mr. Wpsley's former professions respecting tbecliurch. Ur»on this the meeting was abruptly broken up, by Mr. WeSiCy's goir.g'out '' p. 10. Fovrih. Of the persons who assisted Mr. Wesley. From the testimony of the Rev. Mr Creighton it will be seen, that the Rev. Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Sellon and two or three other clergy- men had been consulted, concerning the ordination of preachers for America ; but they did not approve of the scheme. The only clergymen present at the ordination of Mr. VVhatcoat and Mr. Vasey were the Rev. James Creighton and Dr. Coke. Whether Mr. Wesley ordained Mr. Whatcoat and Mr. Vasey deacons first, and immediately afterwards ordained them elders, I cannot tell. But Mr. VVhatcoat and Mr. Vasey being ordain- ed elders, immediately turned round, and with Mr. Creighton, assisted af the setting apart Dr. Coke a superintendent: and these three gentlemen (Coke, Whatcoat and Vasey,) are the " three regularly ordained clergy " as they are called in the book of discipline, who were sent over by Mr. Wesley * ! ! Fifth. The time and place. Mr Wesley says in his Jour- nal. Wednesday, Sept. i, 1784 " 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." And Dr. Coke's letter of appoint- ment is dated Sep. 2, 1784. The place where the ceremony- was performed was Bristol, and from an expression in Dr. Coke's letter, it may be inferred, that it was done in Mr. Wes- ley's private chamber. And yet Mr. E. says, "Dr. Coke's or- dination was performed as ordinations usually are." i»2xth. To what rank or order was Dr. Coke raised ; or with what authority or " powers" was he invested, by the impositiors of Mr. Wesley's hands and prayer .'' It will, no doubt, be no- Coke was cloulilful of the validity of his own ordination." Yes; and I say so still; nor v\lll this "broad declaration," notwitlistand ng it is put in capital letters, prove to the contrary. 1 would remark however, that Mr, E's lan- g.iuge is ambiguous Of what does Dr. Coke speak so confidently? Not of ordination The subject to which he refers, and of which he says, he has " not the shadow of a doubt " is not his own episcopal ordination ; althouijli Mr. E. would make his readers believe it was ; but the potoer which Mr. Wesley possessed as a presbyter of the church of England, to ordain min- isters for America. The doctor Iiad " not the shadow of a doubt," but Mr. Wesley was invested with ifds po-wer. But surely he could not sa\ , he had •• not the shadow of a doubt" ofhis own ordnation as abishop, when at the tinu he penned these words, he had not even been set apart as a superin- tendent. *i btheve this is the only place, in all the writings of the Methodists, where Methodist preachers are called " clergy." • r Wesley never ap- pliec^ the tein> to anv ot his preachers, unless they were ministei-s of the Church ot England. ' The writer of the first section in the book of disci- pline was not satisfied with Mr W esley's calling them '' ordained ministers '' but must improve tliem into " three regula ly ordained clerg>.'' A little paint will set off an ugly face, and give a freshness and bloom to a sickly countenance. ticecl, that 1 do not use the phrase, " by his ordination ;" for^' notwithstanding Mr. E's cynical remarks, I contend, the impo- sition of hands was not an ordination, nor was it considered by Mr. Wesley in that point of light. In my "■ History and Mys- tery," I stated, that the letter, which Dr. Coke received from "Mr. Wesley on that occasion, was " a letter of appointment, not of ordination." Upon which Mr. E. remarks, "on Mr. M'Caine's principles of verbality, this document should be call- ed a letter of set apart^ for these are the icords used by Mr, Wesley. This is a specimen of M'Caine's logic in the man- agement of documents." Def. p. 23. Perhaps I ought to thank Mr. E. for this compliment to my logical accuracy, though he may not thank me tor exposing what is involved in his criti- cism. He censures me for adhering to what he calls the " prin- ciples of verbality ;" clearly implying that he does not. Well, then, let him reject them. But, as words are only the represent- atives of ideas or things, I shall use the words that stand for those things ; and shall call things by their proper names. Con- temptuously as he may treat my " principles of verbality," he ought to know, that an infinitely more important thing than Meth- odist episcopacy, has been critically, a-id ably defended, by a *' principle" of seemingly far less importance. Mr E. pio- feses to be a Greek scholar ; if he is, he cannot be ignorant of the force of tiie ' r ek a. tide. If he will look into Dr. Middle- ton on the Greek article, he will see how that article is used to prove the divinity of Jesus Christ. Or if he will read Dr. Clarke's remarks at the end of his Commentary on the epistle to the Ephcsians, he will learn '' that the principal design of the•^e writers" (Mr. Grenville Sharp, Rev. Mr. VVordsuorth, and Dr. Middeleton)" was to exhibit a new and substantial mode of proving the divinity ol our Lord and Saviour." Was I not correct in calling this letter, a leiier of appoint" ment, not of ordination .-• i think 1 was. For, 1. If the iniposi- ' tion of hands had been considered by Mr. Wesley an ordina- tion^ no doubt he would have used that term in the written doc- imient. 2 He used the word '^ordained," with reference to the other ministers, who assisted him m that ceremony, two oi whom were Mr. Wnatcoat and Mr, Vasey. " 1 have this day set apart as a superintendent, by the imposition of my hands and prayer, (being assisted by other ordained ministers) rhomas Coke, &c." Why this studied difference in the choice of woids, if the transactions were ot the same character ? Why does he use the phrase '' set apart as a superintendent," when speaking of Dr. Coke ; and then use the term "ordained," when speak- ing of the ordination of Mr. Whatcoat and Mr. Vasey, il the one was an oi'dination as well as the oilier .-* 3. He makes no diileience in their order^ but expresses himself in the same language, when speaking of the worK, which they were ap- 44 pointed to perform. Tn the minutes of conference for 1786, he says ; " I appointed three of our labourers to go and help them, by not only preaching the word of God, but likewise adminis- tering the Lord's supper and baptizing their children." 4. Mr, Wesley himself used the term '■'■ appointed'"' in the letter which Dr. Coke brought over with him, dated Bristol, Sep. 10th, 1784. *' I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis As- bury to be joint-sunerintendents &c." As Mr. Wesley did not ordain Mr. Asbury, but merely appointedh'im a superintendent ; neither did he ordain Dr. Coke a superintendent, but appointed him. Their names were coupled together in the same sentence, and both, alike, are said to be appointed. The autliority vvith which they were invested was the same ; and the source whence that authority emanated, was the same also. 5 And even, Mr. E. notwithstanding his hypercritical remarks, forgets himself, or does not scruple to call it an " appointment,^^ and an " appoint' ing'>'> when speaking of Dr. Coke's being commissioned to super- intend the American societies. Although I thought it necessary to put down this puerile criticism, it is of greater moment to ascertain, to what rank the doctor was raised, in virtue of his appointment to the office of a superintendent. The reader, no doubt, will bestow all his at- tention on this part of the subject ; because it is upon this point, the whole of the controversy turns ; and indeed, it may be truly aaid, upon it, the whole of the episcopal edifice rests. I shall therefore, in the first place, collect some of Mr. E's authorities, and present his views upon the subject, as far as I am able to as- certain them : and then " I, also, will shew my opinion.'' Upon a cursory perusal of the "Defence of our Fathers," the reader might take up the idea, that Mr. E. had somewhere stated, what he meant by an episcopal form of church govern- ment, and what, by the term bishop ; for he talks about " our acceptation of the term." Def. p. 27. If he has any where de- fined the episcopal form of government, I ha\ e not been able to find it : nor to learn, by any thmg which he has written, what is bis acceptation of " a Methodist bishop." Some times he re- presents a bishop, as of the same order as a presbyter. Dg^. p. 10 and 34. At other times, he says, " In whatever sense distinct erdination constitutes distinct orders, in the same sense, Mr. Wesley certainly intended that we should have three orders.''''* *Tiie following anecdote will illustrate the manner by which Mr. E. makes three orders ' out of two " A certain gentleman had a son whom he sent to a distant school. The boy, m tead ot applying himself to his studies, spent his time in idleness. At the time of vacation, he returned to his fa. ther, who inq lired ot him h .w no ha.l spent lus time at school, the boy, with a great deal of smartness replied, 1 have been learning chop»Iogic, sir. Cliop-logic! saidthe oldman in surprse, what is that.' Why father don't you know what chop-logic is? No indeed my son, 1 do not. Well that;, said the boy, 1 can explain it to you. At that moment, the servant happen- 45 Def. p. 38. In seme places in his book, he attempts to draw a distincTion between an " episcopacy in facl,'' and an episcopacy under the name of superintendency ; between the " title" o( bish- op and the " episcopal office." As if such a distinction is recon- cilable with common honesty or common sense ; and by attri- .buting these things to Mr. Wesley, he makes hmi out a fool or a knave. I ask the reader, in the name of the God of truth, of him who " requireth truth in the inward parts,' if he can believe, that the Rev. John Wesley, this holy and good man, who was without guile, and who was accustomed to speak with unparalleled per- spicuity and precision, intended to impose the present form of episcopal government on the American Methodists ; and if his opposition and objection were merely to the " title" of bishop? I ask him if he can believe, what Mr. E. has asserted of this aged minister of Christ } If he can believe this of a man, who, for sixty five years, withstood undismayed, the united strata- gems of men and fiends : a man whom some of the dignitaries of the church, and of the right honourable of the land, had vilified, called a fool, a knave, a fellow not fit to live ? Can he believe that such a man would appear before the world as recommend- ing the episcopal form of government " in fact," but objecting in the strongest manner possible to the title of bishop .'' Can he really believe this of a man who would say '* Idis})ute not about words .?" I think it is not possible that any candid person can believe this of him, who could, ex animo, expi-ess himself in the following manner. " And is not truth as well as justice fallen in our streets .'' For whospeaketh i/ie Truth as it is? Who is there that makes a conscience of speaking the thing as it is? Who scruples telling officious lies ? The varying Irom Truth in order to do good .f"' And it is this man that Mr. E. represents as guiltv of the most pitiful quibbling " about words." 1 would entreat all who would honour God ; promote his cause ; respect the ti uth ; recommend religion ; exemplify in their conduct the principles of the New Testament ; or venerate the name and memory of the Rev. John Wesley, to banish, fiom their mind* forever, the unfounded and injurious distinctions on the above ed to bring' in a dish, upon which were two fowls. Father, said the boj'j how many tow's are there upon that dish? Two, my son Now, father,' I can demonstrate to you that there are three. The son, taking up a knife, and pointing to one of them, asked, how many is that father f One, saia the old man Then placing liis knife upon the other fowl, he asked the same question ; to whicl) the father answered two. Now father, said the son, do not o?je and rwo make three P I have, ihns, demonstrated to you, by the rules of chop-logic, that there are three fowls upon that dish However conclusive such an argument miglit be to the son, -the father thought he could demonstrate the fallacy of it. Accordingly, taking up one fowl, he placed it on lus wife's plate, as he said, for her dinner. I'he second fo^' 1 he would take for himself. And the third he would leave the son for his chop- toirici 46 lop"ics, laid down in the " Defence of our Fathers." Tf suck double dealing ; such prevaricalion ; sucli mental reservaiion ; such deception, would vitiate and nullify a policy of insura.ice, or any civil contract (and I am confident they would) how, in the- name of Heaven, can they promote the cause of righteousness and truth ? Such doctrines may make deists, or confirm infidels in their opposition to the New Testament ; but they can never secure the approbation of the intelligent and pious, or ODtain their esteem for the men who broach them. I shall now " show my opinion," and in doing this, I shall first eJ^amine the account given by Mr. Wesley. He says, *•' I have this day set apart as a superintendent, &c.'" The first thing to be ascertained is, the meaning of the word superintendent. And what is a supermtendent ? " A superintendent." says Dr. John- son, '* is one who overlooks others authoritatively." This is the plain meaning of the word, and in its common application, it is used to denote the person who oversees others with authori- ty. Hence, we frequently read of superintendents of public works ; superintendents of loads ; superintendents of cotton fac- tories and such like establishments ; superintendents of public schools ; superintendents of female charitable institutions, &c. &c. But, says one, Mr. Wesley used the word in an ecclesias- tical sense by applying it to a church officer. And suppose he did, what other meaning did he, or could he convey by it, than what is given in the above definition ? It was because this was the very work for which he made choice of Dr. Coke, that he designated him by this title. There were several societies and preachers in America, when Mr. Wesley appointed Dr. Coke to superintend them. When he invested him with authority to overlook those societies and preachers ; and in his name, and as his delegate, to exercise the "powers" which he deputed to him. There was, therefore, no reason to suppose, that Mr. Wes- ley, by setting apart Dr. Coke as a superintendent, ordained him a bishop. There was not then, nor is there now, any just ground to depart from the common acceptation of the term. For whe- ther we use it in reference to civil transactions, or ecclesiastical affairs, the meaning is the same : a superintendent being one who over-looks others authoritatively This being the meaning of the term, it follows, that every presiding elder of a district is, from the very nature of his office and the work he is appointed to do, a superintendent. For, in the book of discipline, in answer to the second question in the section which treats of his office, it is stated to be his duty, " in the absence of the bishop, to take charge of all the elders and deacons, travelling and local preachers, and exhorters in his district." And what is all this, but overlooking others authoritatively ? Does he not do it by the appointnmit of the bishop ? Does he not do it in his name ? Is he not responsible to him alone ? And does he not overlook 47 those preachers with authority ? Now, although this is the duty of a presidin est India Nova-Scotia, and Newfoundland missions :" a. d yet nobody ever said that Dr. Coke by virtue of that appointment, was a bishop. 1 he Kev. V\ illmm Fosse is entered a " general superintendent tor the Guernsey District for ldi20:" yet Mr. Fosse is no bishop- tl have written to Rev. Henry Moore, Mr. "Wesley's birgrapher, for a co])y of tins letter; and for information upon other matters: but, as yet I have received no answer. 51 and in every similar deviation^ I cannot be the apolos^ist of Dr. CoU'-- ; audi can state, in contradiction to all that Dr. VVhiiclifad an--!e) explained " his views," of this transaction, to Dr. Coke at the time he "scf him " apart'''' as a superintendent? That he pointed out to him the nature of the office he was to fill, and the paiticular work he was to perform? Ttiat he enlarged on these topics, so as to be perlectly understood by the doctor? That he enjoined him " and his associates in the most solemn manner that the ti'le of bishop should not be taken ;" and yet, in the face of all tiiis exj)lanation, in despite of all this entreaty, in defiance of all this sacred and most " solemn" injunction. Dr. Coke assumed the title of bishop, tbrmed the societies into an independent chuich, with the episcopal form of government, republished the Prayer Book, in which were the minutes of conference of this episcopal church, at his own expense, all of which were contrary to Mr. Wesley's ''views'' and wishes. It matters not with me, nor will it weigh a feather with any uiipartial man, what were Mr. Weslej's reasons for the abhorrence he felt to the title of bish- op; (whether it was "because of the associations ordinarily connected with it in the public mind in England," Def p. 47; as if the sphere of the doctor's ministrations, w^as to be England and not America, where there were no bishops at the time,) it was enough, that the doctor knew Mr, Wesley was opposed to it. I contend, therefore, let the reasons be what they may, that Dr. Coke was under the most solemn and sacred obligations to re- gard Mr. Wesley's advice. That he was bound by every prin- ciple of lionor and honesty, in all good faith, rigidly to adhere to the instructions he had received. That in departing from them, he violated a most solemn injunction. That in doing this he rendered himself extremely culpable, and that his conduct therein, cannot be defended by Mr. E. or a thousand such apol- ogists. If Mr. Wesley intended to impose the present episcopal form \ of government on the American Methodists; and if his opposi- tion was merely to the title of" bishop," 1 ask, would a trifling , objection to a mere title have been consistent with his life and published opinions? If he considered the terms superintendent and bisho)) synonymous, let the term " superintendent" be substitut- ed for "bishop," and let his letter to Mr. Asbury be read with this change, " Do not seek to be something. One instance of S2 this your greatness has given me great concern. How can you. how dare you suffer yourself to be called a superintendent '? 1 fffaW, I shudder at the very thought of your being called superin." tendent ! Men may call me a knave or a Jool^ a rascal a scown- dre/, and I am content ; but they shall never, with my consent, call me a superintendent V In what light would such a letter be considered, it addressed to the person who had been ordain- ed a bishop by the writer, on the supposition that the writer considered the terms " superintendent" and " bishop" synony- jnous ? It would have been, not only an insult to common sense, but it would have been downright wickedness. But " the letter coiitains expressions too severed Def p. 47. So says a v^ould-be-bish()p. As I intend to take up these severe expressions again; I shall, in the mean time, only remark, that the severity of the expressions is a clear pioof thai Mr. W esley knew the otience to be great. He knew what explanations he had given to Dr. Coke. He knew what objections he had to the episcopal form of government, and the title bishop^ He knew the injunctions which had been solemnly imposed. On the sup- position, that one term had only been substituted tor another, of precisely the same import, the severity of the expressions are perfectly unjustifiable. Not so, however, if Mr Wesley attri- buted the change to ambition^ a desire to be "girca^;" " to a de- viation from the simplicity which was in Christ;" to adisposition to "strut;" to a departure from his explicit instructions; to a Ti"la= tion o! his ^'■most solemn inj unctions" and commands Had such in- structions been delivered by a sovereign to his minister pleni- potentiary at a foreign court, and had such instructions been vi- olated, would not the violation of them have subjected t^^ucb minister plenipotentiary, to something moie than "severe ex-' pressions," in reproof? Or if such commands had been deliver- ed, by the commander in chief of an army, to any of his generals, or to any inferior officer, what would have been the sentence of a court martial, upon proof of the violation of those orders, I leave to military m^n to say. That Mr. Wesley considered the offence to be great, may be argued from his using similar entreaties on another impoiianli occasion. At a certain time, some of the English Methodists were greatly liarassed by persecutors. The benefits intended by the act of toleration were denied them. Mr. Wesley saw this with a degree of pain he seldom experienced. Consider^ ing it to be his duty to expostulate with those who were niosl zealous in this work, he wrote a letter to a prelate, in whose diocess this persecution most abounded ; in which he says, " O my Lord, for God^s sake, for Clirist''s sake, for pity's sake, suffer *he poor people to enjoy their religious, as well as civil liberty." Mr. Moore says, Mr. Wesley's letter to Mr. Asbury, "clearly »hows hotv muck he felt that deviation from the siaiplicity which is in Christ," in the assumption of the title of bishop vol. 2 p, 285. The occasion in both instances vyas alarming ; and he used nearly the very terrtis in the case of the [jorsecution that he did respecting tfte title of bishop. Was the language to the persecuting bishop too strong } Was he opposed to persecu- tion ouly in name ? If this can be believed, then it may be be- lieved, that all the objection he had to episcopacy, was to the title of bishop ! ! The last thing to be noticed, is the performance of the cere- mony of " setting apart" Dr. Coke to the office of a superintend- ent, which Mr. E. says was an ordination. " It this was 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 sanction of Almighty God. It it was not intended as an ordination, it was certainly a very solemn mockery ; a trifling with sacred things, to charge iMr. Wesley with which, would be loading his memo- ry with obloquy indeed." Def. p 24. To this I answer, f 1) that the precise meaning of ordination, according to Mr. Wes- ley's own declaration, is to be determined by the ordainer, not the ordained. Speaking of " the oath" he took, when he was ordained, he says, " The true sense of the words of an oath, and the mode and extent of its obligation, are not to be determined by him who takes it, but by him who requires it." Moore"'s Life of Wesley, vol. 1 p. 193. (2) Dr. Coke says, " nor do I think that the repetition of the imposition of hands for the same office, when important circumstances require it, is at all impro- per.'' Def p. 90. He says farther, on the same page, " I am of our late venerable father Mr. Wesley's opinion, that the order of bishops and presbyters are one and the samey If Mr. Wes- ley had placed his hands upon the head of Dr. Coke five thous- and times, he could not have raised him, by that ceremony, to any higher order than a presbyter ; tor according to Dr. Coke and Mr. Wesley's doctrine, a bishop and presbyter is " one and the same " (3) It was nof " performed as ordinations usually are " Because, if Dr. Coke was ordained at all, he was ordain- ed a bishop ; a bishop and a superintendent, in the judgment of the advocates of Methodist episcopacy, being the same order. Not to repeat, what has been advanced already, upon the signi- fication of these terms, and their respective use and application by ecclesiastical writers, I think Mr. E. cannot produce an in- stance of any bishop among episcopalians being ordained in the same manner that Dr. Coke was. The ceremony was perform- ed in a private "chamber," by Mr. We-sley and another presby- ter of the church of England, and by Mr. Whatcoat and Mr. Vasey, who, I believe, had l)een ordained elders, a few minutes previously, in the same "chamber." And yet Mr. ii. has the te- 54 uiprity to flay, Dr. Coke's ordination "was performed, as ordi- nafioris usuaUy are." \ir. E. ought to luMnv, that accoidjn^ to the nsage of the churc of Enerland, when a bishop is ordained^ Lis ordination is not performed in a private " chamber ;''' nor are there umully less tlsan three bisliops eni^atfed in the perform- anre of the ceremony. Nor was this ordination " performe;! as ordinations usuallj" were among the ancients. For, no bishop, taking the word as synonymous with presbyter as it respects order^ but superior as it respecis office^ was 'inducted into (hat office, unless it were, by the sutt'rati^es of the clergy and laity, o£ that particular church, of which he was to have the immediate anf! pastoral care Besides, it was necessarv to have " the con- current assent of the neighbouring bishops, and the imposition of tl e hands of al least three bishops." t>ee Lord King, p. 46.7. So that Dr. Coke's ordination was not performed accordmg to ei ler ancient or modern usage. Mr. E. says farther, " it was performed by the imposition of hnds and prayer" And suppose it was; will that constiiu'p it an ordination .'' The reader will recollect that his attention vvas called to this subj<>ct in a former part of this work. He was told, from Mr E's own authorities, that "imposition of liands does not confer any power on the person upon whom they are laid ;" or in other words, that imposition ol' hands dues not con- stitute ordination. If the imposition of hands does not constitute ordination, how could the imposition of -r. Wesley's hands up- on Dr. Coke constitute ordination, or create the doctor a bishop f And if Mr. V\esle)'s hands, who was the ordainer, m this cer- emony, if any one was, did not constitute it an ordination, how could the handsofMr. Creighton, Mr, Wliatcoat, or Mr. Vasey make it an ordination ? The thing is absurd ; for a thousand noughts will not make an unit. Nor is there the least reason for considering the "setting apart" of Dr. Coke, an ordination : no, not even the " exigence of necessity," which Mr. E. says, " Mr. W esiey assigned as one oi the grounds of his proceeding." Def p. 25. Surely Mr. E. does not understand the subject upon v\ hich he writes, or he confounds things which ought ^o be kept separate. Let the reader only distinguish between these two things. The supplying tr.e American societies with ministers, to administer the oidi- nances of baptism and the Lord's supper; and the supposed cre- ation of Dr. Coke a bishop. If the reader will distinguish be- tween these two things, all that Mr. E. has said, or can say on the subject of the ordination ol the doctor, is perfectly nugatoiy. Surely it was not necessary for Mr. W esley to ordain Dr. Coke a bishop to authorise him to preach the gospel in America. It w as not necessary to ordain him a bishop, in order to enable him to adm mister the ordinances to theMet hod ist societies in this couniiy. It \- as not necessarh tooidain hirp a bishop, to authorise him loor- dam ministers to uuminister baptism auU the Lord's supper in the 55 Uniterl Statesi The two rormer the doctor had done in Eng- land ; and the latter he had as good a clerical right to do, as Mr. Wesley himself. For Mr. Wesley declared that bishops and presbyters are equal, and consequently have the sameright to •ordain. The validity of the ordination of Mr. Whaicoat and Mr. Vasey being allowed, on the ground set up by Mr. Wesley as a justification of his own conduct, namely that -presbyters have a rijfht to ordain ; these three gentlemen could certainly oi^lain others, without supposing one of them to be a third order, dis- tinct from and superior to presbyters ; and thus they could have supplied the societies with ministers. The only dilFculty which presented itself in the case, grew out of the great affec- tion which the American societies cherished for Mr. Wesley ; and the objections they had to receive any person, whose ap- pointment did not come from him, as " the father of the whole Methodist family." To overcome this difficulty, and to induce them to receive Dr. Coke, Mr. Wesley thought proper to" set apart"" Dr. Coke as a superintendent, by the imposition of his hands and prayer, and this is what Mr. E. has magnified into an *' ordination" of a bishop. To put this matter to rest, T shall offer Mr. Wesley's opin- ion of a transaction exactly similar in all its parts. I allude to that which is recorded in Acts XIII. ch. 2, 3 verses. " As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, tlie Holy Ghost said, sepa- rate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have call- ed them. And when they bad fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." Now, the transaction in Acts so much resembles the one under consideiation, that neith- er Mr, E. nor any one else can point out any material differ- ence. The one was intended for a special purpose ; so was the other. The one was performed " hy the imposition of hands and prayer ;'''' so was the otiier. The one was performed by *' ordained ministers ;" so was the other. The one " icas done under the protection of Almighty God ;" so was the other. Before 1 offer Mr. Wesley's opinion, I shall repeat what I said in my History and Mystery in reply to Rev. Mr. Bansts's sentiments on this passage. This Rev. gentleman in his " Vindi- cation of JNIethodist episcopacy?'* p. 42. has these words : •' But * In the Methodist Magazine for Septemb^^r, 1827, p, 396; Mr. Bangs says "how cliaiiged is the author of ihe History and Mystery of Methodist Epis- copacy, from wl'.ai he was when he heard read, approved and recommend- ed for publication, at the Methodist book room, the " Vindication of Meth- odist Episcopacy." He need- not attempt to deny this fact, because it stands attested by his own signature, as secretary of tlie book committee." Ml E makes pretty much, the same statement, in the preface to his book' Kaowiiig these statements to be untrue, I wrote to a friend in New Vork, to procure me a copy ot the records of tlie book committee in the case. The following is certified to be a true copy "September 8, 1820. •' Brother Bangs, this day closed I'eading beiore the commit'ee, <»n essax entitled A Viiuhcaiioii of Methodist Episcopacy 56 says the objector, have presbyters authority to constitute a mio- irter superior to themselves ? Undoubtedly. It will be ad- mitted that the apostles were a grade of ministers superior to the elders ; and yet St. Paul was ordained by a body ofeldeis." From this answer we are justified in supposing that the author of the Vindication of Methodist episcopacy thought St. Paul was not an apostle before this transaction : and thlit he was rais- 1. On motion,it was resolved, that the committee approve of its publication 2. Resolved that the above work be recommended to the book agents tor publication. Aii;xAWDER M Caixe " I \¥ill now give a brief history of this affair, according to the best of my recollection When Mr- Bangs first mentioned his contemplated work to the breihien who composed the book committee, 1 understood him to mention it to them, not in their official capacity as the book committee; but as individuals, of whose presence he said he w(;uld avail himself, and upon whose judgement be could rely. Having mentioned it just as they were about to disperse; I had no knowledge, that Mr. Bangs had previous- ly submitted his views upon this subject, to Mr. Soule, his predecessor in the book room, for publication; nor was the slightest intimation given of the fact, that his former piece had been rejectv-d As Mr. Bangs produced only a few sheets of his manuscript, (say three or four,) 1 thought that this was the first time he had w ritten any thing on the subject. One of the brethren upon hearing him read what lie had produced, observed, he could form no opinion of the merits of the work from a few sheets He teld Mr. Bangs, he had better go on with it, and when he had finished it, he could then tell hini what he thought of it. The next time any pori ion of it v'p.s read, I considered the matter in the same point of light; and consefjuently, as I did not suppose that it was submitted to the committee, in their official caparA. iy, or tiiat they would be responsible for its doctrines 1 did not make a stern opposition to many things, of which I did not approve. Ucvv many times Mr. Bangs read portions of his manuscript, 1 cannot say 1 liave no recollection ot being present more than twice or thrice. Having finished reading his paper the above resolutions were then submitted to the commit' tee, which it became my duty, as secretary, to record. But surely it will not follow, because I entered them on the book, that I approved of, or re= commended the work. As well njight Mr. Bangs say, that I 'recommend* ed" tlie resolutions he offered at the general conference of 1820, because I was secretary to that body. Or that Mr Enior) " approved' of every thing done at the general conference of 1824. because he was sfcrrfar^ to that conference. I'he fact is; Mr Bangs deceived me in the way he intro- duced his work to the brethren. He deceived me in holding back the in- y formation, that this work had been rejected by Mr. Soule, his predecessor: a, circumstance which 1 did noi know for years afterw ids. H dfceived rr.e in the manner in which he obtained a vote for its publication, and now he sajs 1 "approved and recommended it." He must allow me to tell him this IS not true. He also says, "this is not mentioned to criminate him " For what other purpose is it mentioned.'' Notwithstanding what he says, I must believe that Mr. Bangs did mention it to criminate me. and for no other purjjose. Keaily, 1 once thought Mr. Bangs was above such dirty little tricks as these; but I find I have been mistaken in the man Perhaps he wd! next say, 1 vot^dthat he siiould tiave the hundred dolia s whicli h« received from Ins colleague, Fiiomas Mason, for the copy right of " a Vin- dication of Methodist Episcopacy. ' ! I ! In my conscience, 1 think, he ought to return ttiat sum to the book room, for the work, for which he ob. turned it, *ip-it is not worth a dollar. Help^ brethren, help. The /)re/?r» of ti»c book room jfo to the spread of the Gospel. 67 td to be an apostle by the imposition of the hands of those p'O- plieta and teachers^ whom he c&Ws elders. All this, however, is in flat contradiction to what St. Paul himself tells us. He says, he was an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father. Gal. 1 ch, 1 ver. Dr. McNight in his comment on the text says, *" St. Paul was first made an apostle by Christ, when he appeared to him in the way to Damascus, Acts iX. 1-5. And three years after that, his apostolic commis- sion was renewed. Acts XXII 20. So that he was first sent forth, reither by the church at Jerusalem, nor by that at Anticch. The Holy Ghost, indeed, ordered the phroplietsat Antioch(Acts XI 1 J. 2) to separate Paul and Barnabas; but it was to the work whereunto he had called them formerly. This separation was simply a recommending them to the grace of God by prayer. And in fact it is so termed. Acts XIV. 26 " So that in Dr. McNigHit s opinion, the • setting apart ' by tiie imposition of hands and prayer is no ordination, but simply a recommendingof those, on whom they were placed to the grace of God by pray- er. Now for Mr. Wesley's opinion. •'I believe several who are no\ episeopallyordaineih^reca]]- ed ol" God to preach the gospel. Yet I have no objection to the twenty third article, though I judge there are exempt cases." '■ That the seven deacons weie outwardly ordained, even to that low office cannot be denied. But when St. Paul and Bar- nabas were separated for the work to which they were called, this was not ordaining them. St. Paul was ordained long be- fore, and that not of man nor by man. It was only inducting him to the province for which our Lord had appointed him from the beginning. For this end, the prophets and teachers fasted, prayed, and laid their hands upon them: a rite which was used not in ordination only, but in blessing, and on many other occa- sions.'''' Wesley's works, vol. X. p. 237. See also his Notes on the New Testament in loc. and on the Acts XIV. 26. If Mr. E. should exclaim respecting this transaction, as he has done re- specting the 'imposition" of Mr. Wesley's " /joju/s" upon Dr. Coke, •' if it was not an ordination, it was certainly a very solemn mockery." Def. p. 24. Mr. Wesley will be allowed to be as competent to decide upon the subject as Mr. E. is. Had Mr. Es knowledge been greater, or his pretensions less, he "-certain- ly" would not have declared, that " if the imposition of hands, upon Dr. Coke, was not an ordination, it was a very solemn mockery." — QfQO— Section VI. — Dr. Coke's letter to Bishop White. Dr. Coke's letter to Bishop White is a document of too much importance, a'nd too closely connected with the subject under discussion, not to have a place in this work. It develops the principles, by which some of the chief actors in the organiza- tion of the Methodist episcopal church were intluenced : — it contains concessions and acknowledgments, which no minister of Jesus Christ, who was unconscious of having done wrong, ought to make : it offers proposals which no bishop, having a proper respect for the dignity of his episcopal character, and a conviction of the validity of his ordination, ougtit to offer : and it stands, and will forever stand, as a proof of the jealousy and rivalry of the two superintendents, or bisliops, and of tlie artifice and intrigue used by the one, to gain an ascendency over the other. Tlie following is a copy of his letter attested by bishop White. ** Right Reverend Sir : — Permit me to intrude a little on your time, upon a subject of great importance. You, 1 believe, are conscious that I was brought up in the church of England, and have been ordained a presbyter of that church. For many years I was prejudiced, even I think, to bigotry, in favor of it : but through a vaiiety of causes and inci- dents, to mention which would he tedious and useless, my mind was exceedingly biassed on the othei- side of the question. In consequence of this, I am not sure but I went further in the separation of our church in America, than Mr. Wesley, from whom I had received my commission, did intend. He did indeed solemnly invest me, as far as he had a right so to do, with epis- copal authority, hut did not intend, I think, that our entire sepa- ration should take place. He being pressed by our friends on this side the water, for ministers to administer the sacraments to them (there being very few clergy of the church of England then in the States) he went farther^ I am snre, than he would have gone if he had foreseen some events which folloived. And this I am certain of — that he is now sorry for the scjiaration. But what can be done for a re-union which I wi^h for; and to accomplish which, Mr. Wesley, I have no doubt, would use his influence to the utmost ? The affection of a very considera- ble number of the preachers and most of the people, is very strong towards him; notwithstanding the excessive ill usage he re- ceived Jrom a few. My interest also is not small ; and both his and mine would readily and to the utmost, be used to accomplish that (to us) very desirable object : if a readiness were shown by the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal church to re-unite. It is even to your church an object of great importance. We have now above 60,000 aduhs in our society in these States; and about 250 travelling ministers and preachers ; besides a great number of local preachers, very far exceeding the number of travelling preachers ; and some of these local preachers are men of very considerable abilities ; but if we number the Metliodists 59 as most people number the members of their church, viz.— by the families which constantly attend the divine ordinances in their places of worship, they will make a larger body tlian you possibly conceive. The society, I believe, may be safely mul- tiplied by five on an average, to give us our slated congregations ; which will then amount to oOO,000. And if, the calculation, which, I think some eminent writers have made, be just, (hat three-fifths of mankind are un-adult(if 1 may use the expression) at any given period, it will follow that all the families, the adults of which form our congr-egations in these states, amount to 750,000. About one-fifth of these are blacks. The work now extends in length irom Boston to the South of Georgia ; and in breadth, from the Atlantic to lake Champlain, Vermont, Albany, Redstone, Holstein, Kentucky, Cumber- land, &c. But there are many hindrances in the way. Can they be re- moved ? 1. Our ordained ministers will not, ought not, to give up their right of administering the sacraments. I don't think that the generality of them, perhaps none of them, would refuse to sub- mit to a re ordination, if other hindrances were removed out of the way. I must here observe, that between 60 and 70 only, out of the two hundred and fifty have been ordained presbyters, and about 60 deacons (only.) The presbyters are the choicest of the whole. 2. The other preachers would hardly submit to re-union, if the possibility of their rising up to oixlination depended on the pi-esent bishops in America. Because, though they are all, I think I may say, zealous, pious and very useful men, yet they are not acquainted with the learned languages. Besides, they would argue, if the present bishops would waive the article ol the learoe'd languages, yet their successors might not. My desire of a re-union is so sincere and earnest, that these dif- ficulties make me tremble : and yel something must, be donebefore the death of JMr. fVesley, otherwise I shall despair oj sticcess: for though my influence among the Methodists in these states as well as in"" Europe, is, 1 doubt not, increasing, yet J/r. .tisbury whose influence is very capital, will not easily comply, nay, I know he will he exceedingly averse to it. In Europe whei'e some steps had been taken, tending to a separation, all is at an end. Mr. Wesley is a determhied enemy of it, and 1 have lately borne an open and successful testimony against it. Shall 1 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 h\v lines aenfc me by the return of the post, at Philip Rogers's Esq. in Bal- timore, from yourself or Dr. Magavv: and I will wait upon yoa with my friend Dr. Magaw. We can then enlarge on the sub- jects. 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. Magavv, 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, beenguilty of inadvertencies. Very lately I found myself obliged (for the pacifying of my conscience) to write a penitential letter to the Rev. Mr. Jarrat, 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 grf^at 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 1 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'hrough great inadvertency (I suppose) he suffered some re- flections on the characters of the two above mentioned gentle- men to be inserted in the magazine, for which I am very sorry : and probably shall not rest till I have made my acknowledg- ments more public ; though Mr. Jarrat does not desire it. I am not sure, whether I have not also offended you, sir, by ac- cepting 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, fas I doubt I did, especially from what you said to Mr. Richard Dallam of Abingdon ] I sincerely beg yours and Dr. Magaw's pardon, ril endeavor to amend. But alas ! I am a frail, weak creature. 1 will intrude no longer at present. One thing only I will claim from your candour — that if you have no thought of im- proving 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 des re) but if you will further negocltate the busi- ness, I will explain my mind still more fully to you on the proba- bilities of success. In the mean time, permit me, with great respect, to sub- scribe myself, Right Reverend Sir, Your very humble servant in Christ, [Signed] THOMAS COKE. The Right Reverend Father in God, Bishop White. Richmond, t^pril 24th, 1791. P. S. You must excuse interlineations, &c. I am just going into the country and have no time to transcribe.'* Upon this letter, I shall now make a few remarks. 1. Dr. Coke informs bishop White, "that he had been brought up in the chui-ch of England ; had been ordained a presbyter in that church ; and, for many years, had been prejudiced, even to biiTOtry, in favor of it." 2. He acknowledges that a great change had taken place in his views, and says, " that through a yai leiy of causes and incidents, which it would be useless to mention, my mind was exceedingly biassed on the other side of the question." 3. Whilst in this state, he adds, '■'- 1 xcent furlher in the separation of our church in Jlmerica, than JMr. fVesleyy from uhom I had received my commission, did intend. 4. Having mentioned his "■ commission,'^ he enlarges on that topic and adds, " Mr. Wesley did indeed solemnly invest me with episcopal authority, as far as he had a I'tght so to do." Respecting this most extraordinary investiture with episco- pal authority, I shall remark, (1.) That the reader can find nothing like this account, in any ecclesiastical writer. No man claiming episcopal authority, ever, before, expressed himselt in this manner {2) Notwithstanding all Mr. E's confident asser- tions respecting Dr. Coke's " having no doubt, not the shadow of a doubt," of the validity of his ordination as a bishop, it is worthy of remark, that the doctor does not say one word, about V his being ordained a bishop. Is it not a matter of just surprise, that he should carefully avoid mentioning his being ordained a bishop, provided he knew, that he had been ordained one. Hi» backwardness to use the term " ordained," and his substituting the novel, and periphrastical mode of expression, " he did in- deed solemnly invest me with episcopal authority,'" is proof to my mind, thai the doctor could not say he was ordained a bish- op ; nor use the same unequivocal language that he did, when speaking of his being *■' ordained a presbyter" in the church of England. (3) As he had been called a bishop so long ; as he had been accessary to the organization of the societies into an episcopal church ; as he had with Mr. Asbuiy his colleague, as- sumed the title of bishop, he seems to have wished, if possible^ to retain the title, and yet he decline* saying he was ordained a bishop. For, when writing to one, who was himself a bishop, in 'he common acceptation of that term ; who had been consii- tuted a bishop, according to ecclesiastical usage : who was ac- 6a sjuainted with the duties of the office, the meaning of tlie term, and the manner in which a bishop is ordained. Dr. ('oke ex- presses himself in a manner that is truly surprising Truth udl not allow him to say he was ordained a bishop, and yet he says, he was " invested with episcopal authority."" Never was any man placed in a more awkward position, by the pen of his ad- versary, than Dr. Coke is placed in by his own pen. Nor is this all. For (4) the latter part of the sentence is not a whit behind the former in absurdity •, and this absurdity is atteni()ted to be placed to Mr. \Vesley"'s account, by " his zealous son in the gospel." Hear the doctor again. " Mr. Wesley did in- deed solemnly invest me with episcopal authority, as far as he had a right so to doV Much might be said on the phrase, " as far as he had a right so to do ;" but I shall only make one or two remarks. I. Mr. Wesley had a right to ordain Dr. Coke a bishop, or he had not. If he had this right, why does the doc- tor express himself in such a way as to make this right ques- tionable ? If he had this right; there was no need of the restric- tive phrase," as far as he had a right so to do." 2. But, if Mr. Wes- ley had not this right, why, in the name of common sense does the doctor say, " he did invest me with episcopal authority." To common readers the whole matter must be glaringly absurd ; in what light then, must the atiair have appeared to the gentle- man to whom this letter was addressed .'' Bishop White knew what was the voice of ecclesiastical history, respecting the of- fice of a bishop, tlie meaning of the term, tfie equality of the or- der, in " office and povvef," and the established manner of ordain- ing one. Dr. Coke knew, or ought to have known these things as well as bishop White. Ecclesiastical writers had asserted, " that wherever a bishop be, whether at Rome, or at Kugubium, at Constantinoj)!e 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 e>ceed anotiier in splendor, 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 pow- er." And yet with a knowledge of these facts, he uses the re- strictive phrase " as far as he had a right so to do.''"' 1 1 The doctor, who candidly states that he " went farther in the separaiion than Mr. Wesley iutended," thereby confessing that he iiad not conformed to the instructions he had received, but had violated injunctions most solemnly imposed, now attempts to throw a little of the blame upon Mr. Wesley himself. " Mr. Wesley did not intend that our entire, separation (from the church) should take place ; he went farther, than he would have gone, .i' he hod foreseen some events which followed.'' It BOW remains to be ascertained what those steps were, which Mr. 63 Wesley harl taken, calculated to produce a separation, and vvhick he would not have lakt n, if he had foreseen the events which followed. And what could tliese steps have been, but the or- daining of ministers for the American Methodists. This circum- stance made them independent of the clergy of other denomina- tions, ibr ordination and the oi dinances. In consequence ol this, the Aietliodist preachers felt tleir independence,and as a prooi of it, their first act was to form themselves into an independent church. Mr. Wesley, too, was soon ntade to Jec/, that tliey were perfectly independent ol him also, and that they cared for him, no more, than they did for any other person. The first time he interfered in their business, by merely advising, that Mr. Whatcoal might be appointed joint superintendent with Mr. Asbury, they were otiended at his interlerence, and discarded him and his authority at a stroke, by leaving his name otl their minutes. Well mi^ht Dr. Coke say, this was " excessive ill usage ;" but tor the honor of the conference, oniy "a few" had any thing to do in it. Still, it is highly probable, that Mr. Wes- ley would not have ordained ministers tor the American socie- ties, if he had thought, that almost one of their tirsl acis would have been to treat himself in this manner. JNotvvithsianding all the palliating glosses of Mr. E. their treatment of Mr. Wesley will find no apolos^ists or admirers, in men of honorable mmas. The doctor farther tells bishop White, that he is "certain Mr. Wesley is sorry for the separation." If Air. Wesley was sorry for the scj* ation, was he not also sorry for having taken the steps that led to it? Was he not sorry lor having ordained ministers for America? That he was sorry for having oruamed some of his preachers for Great Britain, we have liev. Air. Creighton's testimony : and it he was sorry for having ordained a few of them, tor Great Britain, how much greater reason had he to be sorry lor haviiig ordained preachers for America ? In reply to Mr. Bradburn, Mr. Creighton says, "I must take the liberty positively to contradict you. — He did repent of it" (or- daining them) "aiid with tears in his eyes expressed his sorrow both in public and private." Again he says, " He likewise ex- piessed his sorrow respecting tliis matter at Leeds conference, in 1789, and occasionally afterwards in London until his death." p. 13. Having made these statements and concessions, the doctor next expresses hisu'ish for a re-union with the Protestant Epis- copal church ; and says, " both Air. v, esley's interest and mine would readily, and to the utmost, be used to accomplish iliat (to us) very desirable object." He, moreover, presses the subject upon the bishop, from the consideration that Air. Wesley could not be expected to live much longer. " Something must be done before the death of Mr. Wesle}, otherwise 1 shall despair of success." But where is Mr. Asbury all this time ? Jrias he 64 laothing to do with the Methodist societies, oris be not Cdnsidet* ed vvortfiy to be consulted in such important matters ? Ths doctor, it is true, does mention his name in the letter, but not with approbation, or as being likely to concur in the measure. For although, the doctor says, "tliat he doubted not but his in- fluence among the Methodists in these sr.ates is increasing; yet J^/r. Asbury whose influence is very capital, udll not easily comply, nay, I know he will be exceedingly averse to iL" Well might tiie doctor say so ; for Mr. Asbury would have no rival, much less a superior. He acted out the sentiments expressed to Mr. Shad- ford, " Mr. Wesley and I are like Caesar and Pompey. He will bear no equal, and I will bear no superior." However, take it on the whole, and it exhibits a pretty specimen ot brotherly af- fection! A delightful example of mutual conhdence and co-opera- tion between the two Methodist bishops! " Interest" opposed to " interest." " Influence" working against " influence ;" the one striving to counteract and undermine the other. Weil may some in the LVlethodist episcopal church be ashamed of such conduct. Well may they say, that " such things are calculated to disgrace and bring reproach upon its ministers and members." But jii the name of Heaven am 1 answerable for this ? Am I the author of this letter.!* Did 1 forge it? Did not Dr. Coke write it.^ Whj then expel me the church for republishing it ^ It was surely worse to write it, than to publish it ; and yet, the very men, who preferred the charges against me, for which I have been ex-com- municated, pretend to defend the doctor's conduct in applauding the ''Defence of our Fathers," and heartily approve of my ex- pulsion ! ! The doctor, in the exposition of liis plan, adds, "lam consci- ous 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. Vlagaw till I have the honor of seeing you. One thing only 1 will claim from your candor, that if you have no thoughts of improving this proposal, you will burn this letter." N. »w what would anj man, who was associated with another in mercantile pursuits, think of his partner, if that partner were to conduct himself to- wards him, as Dr. Coke did towards Mr, Asbury.-* ^^ Burn this letter''^ would be sufficient to excite indignation in the brea.st of any man. But instead of contemplating these gentlemen as men of the world, bound to each other, only by the ties of interest and honor, they must be contemplated in a much higher point of view, as joint superintendents in the Methodist episcopal church. They are to be regarded as bishops or overseers of a part of the flock of Christ, and ostensibly labouring, murually and atfeciion- ately, to [)roniote its weliare. Standing in this relation to one unother, they travel together for several days, after the letter 65 was written : they converse together, pray together, preach to- gether, eat ant! sleep together, and the one has not confulence ia hi? colleague to say one word to him about the re-union!! Is there any thing to surpass this in the history of the Popes ? How must Mr. Asbury have felt when he received, opened, and read bishop While's answer to the doctor's letter, which tell into his hands ? Is it not reasonable to suppose that he was thunder- struck with surprise; and indignant at such conduct ? That he was ready to cry out treachery, deception, intrigue and a thou- sand things besides ? Nor is it strange, that in a letter vviitten subsequently, and now lying before me, he should say ''1 cannot confide in ecclesiasticks passing through the degrees, and intri- gues of a university, as I can trust a ploughman." A personal interview had been proposed with bishop White, upon Dr. Coke's arrival in Philadelphia. This interview^ accord- ingly took place; at which the parties, Dr. Coke, bishop White and Dr. Magaw enlarged on the subjects mentioned in the letter. "The general outlines of Dr Coke's plan" says bishop White, "were a re-ordination of the melhodist ministers, their continuing under the superintendence, then existing, and the consecration ofhimseltand the gentleman connected with him.'' But says Mr E. "bishop WJiiie mistook the import ot Dr. Coke's letter," Def. p. 30. Although bishop White could not understand it, it will be recollected, that \8r. E. can ! I This assertion if takeu in connexion with another, on the same page, in the Defence of our Fathers, is only a genteel way of setting aside bishop White's testimony as utterly unworthy of credit. "This suggestion" (respecting consecration) "as far as we can discover, is not to be found in Dr. Coke's letter" ib. And wih Mr. E. say, that be- cause this "suggestion" is not found in Dr. Coke's letter, there- fore it was not made in the conversations which took place at the personal interview. Mr. E. ought to be ashamed of such in- sinuations, against such a man as bishop White. And is it possi- ble, that Mr. E could have the vanity to think, that his asser- tion would be believed, namely, that a man of bishop White's acknowledged acuteness of perception, talents, age, standing in the literary world, and high station in the church, could not un- derstand Dr. Coke's letter ^ The fact is, any man can understand it; for it is so plain, it can not be misunderstood. But this is not the first time bishop White lias received rude treatment from this pragmatical writer, who inflated with his own liiile acquire- ments, seems to think, that nobody can understand the most sim- ple proposition, or tell how many two and two make, but him- self. Notwithstanding Mr. E's dexterity in the management of do- cuments, this letter sadly perplexes him. He can neither bend it, nor break it ; he must therefore dispose ot it in the best man- ner he can. He atlects to represent the doctor's application for 3 66 coiiJipcrafiou, as a mere trifle, by comparing* his ofier, with the conduct of "some Metliodist presbyters, who have joined other churches.''' "It is well known", says he, "that some methodist presbyteis, who have joined other churches, have submitted to a second ordination, not for their own satisfaction, but for the sa- tisfaction of others, and because it was required of them in order to the union " Def. p. 29. First. Is not tins declaration contrary to the universal sense of mankind? According to Mr.E's doctrine, when a beggar asks an alms, it is not "for his own satisfaction,'* but for the ."satisfaction of the giver, that he asks it ! When aa applicant solicits a favor, it is not "for his own satisfaction,'* he solicits it, but for the satisfaction of his benefactor ! Whea a man wishes to become a member of a religious society, it is not "for his own satisfaction," that he wishes to join it, but for the satisfaction of the church ! According to this position, it is the party applying, who confers the favor, and not the party bes- toiving it And yet the book containing such nonsense is pronoun- ced " a masterly and unanswerable production.'* Second. Did not the churches which these "Methodist presbyters" joined, de- ny the validity of their ordination, as "Methodist presbyters,'' by requiring them to submit to a second ordination .'' They did. And if Dr. Coke's offer had been accepted, and if he had been "consecrated" by the bishops of the Trotestant Episcopal church, this circumstance would have been considered, by every church in the United States, a renunciation of what has been called, his episcopal ordination. But Mr. E. says, "It is well known'' &c. To whom } I have known the Methodist episco- pal church for 37 years ; and I know it as well, and better, than Mr. E. does, and 1 never knew it to allow such a plea as he states. So far from it, that I have known some "Methodist presby- ters, w^ho left the Methodist episcopal church and joined other churches," and I have always heard one of two things assigned as a reason for their submitting to a second ordination, namely the invalidity of thcr ordination, or the prospect oHmproving their temporal circumstances. Now, although some one of these "Methodist presbyters" may say, it "was not for his own satis- faction'' that he submitted to a "second ordination," his apology has not been admitted l)y the ministers or members of the JNIe- thodist episcopal church. This would be to acknowledge the invalidity of Methodist ord'nation, which would be a kind of ec- clesiastical suicide or felode-se. The Methodists, therefore, have, in every instance, that i have known or heard ot', attributed sub- mitting to a second ordination to a love of gain. And has Mr. E. in his "masterly defence" placed Dr. Coke in tliis predicament? Does he really think, that the doctor was that venal., sordid soul that his readers are left to infer he was, by representing his ap- plication to bishop White, as "a case analagous" to the above.** Does Mr. E. attribute his proposals to the love of pe//, rather 07 than admit that the doctor did not believe he was a bishop ? Mr. E. nnay clioose either horn of tlie dilemma. In the mean- time, I shall close this paragraph nith a sentence from his own book. "The propensity of the human mind to conjecture what is > most accordant with its own hnbits of thinkings or what is best calculated to support its own views is too well known, to re- quire discussion here." Def p. SO. Were Mr. E. a fair and honourable controvertist ; and were his sole object, truth, he never would allow himself to practise what he condemns in ofliers With the rules of controversy, he is presumed to be too well acquainted, not to know, that conjec- ture is not argument ; and that specious phantasies are very dif- ferent fiom logical deductions. But keepinjj these deductions out of sight, he ahounds in "conjectures" upon the subject of this letter ; thereby "demonstrating" how hard run he is for ar- gument, and liow difhcult it is for him to dispose of it, with any degree of plausibility, to please himself A Jm instances shall gerve as a specimen o^ his logical precision. "Dr. Coke might not have considered it wrong." "Bishop Wliite tniglit have misapprehended a hint.'' "It must be admitted to be possible^ that he viighl^ at leasts equally.'^'' "Bishop White was conjectur- t/J^-." "Dr. Coke had probably contemplated." "It was con* jedural. As such we leave it." "Bishop V\ bite mah have been correct^ '•'■It ma?/ easily be accounted for \\\\ho\i\. supposing-'^'' " Dr. Coke might have thought it.^'' "We conjecture, ij Dr. Coke did." "Bishop White mistook.''^ And, if I do not mistake, the reader will acknowledge, he never saw such a sample of con- jectures, in the same space, in any book before. No wonder it has been pronounced by the seven wise men as "unanswera- ble;" for it is so full of nonsense, conjecture, and contradiction tliat no man can tell what to answer. I shall not attempt to follow Mr. E. through those aii-y regions of conjecture, whither he allowed himself to be carried by his fancy, or his cunning : but shall turn to an other subject — the subject of Mr. Wesley's death, which is closely connected with the writing of this letter. Mr. E says, "the fact is, that Mr. W'esley at the time" (of writing this letter) "was dead." Def. p. 32. For what purpose does Mr. E. aver this fact ? To re- fute a statement made by Dr. Wyaft of Baltimore in a sermon which he published, .that Dr. Coke's proposal to bishop White, "was made with the approbation, if not direction of Mr. Wes- ley." Not so, says Mr. E. tliat could not be, for "Mr. Wesley at the time was dead." Dr. Coke, at the time he wrote his let- , ter to bishop White, knew, that Mr. Wesley was dead, or he did not. If lie did know it, Mr. E's assertion is a pitiful equivo- cation, and does not disprove, what Dr. Wyatt said : for surely Mr. ^\esley might have given his approbation to these propo- sals before he died; though 1 am very far from supposing he di<^. 68 But \f Mr. Wesley's death was known to Dr. Coke, before he wrote this letter, as Mr. E s phraseoloi^y would lead a person to suppose it was, then Mr. E. has fixed a stain ot the deepest die, on the character of Dr Coke, wh eh neither he, no: all he can call to his assistance, can ever wipe away. For, although the doctor, according to Mr. E's statement, is supposed to know of the death of Mr. Wesley, yet he says, "to accomplish which, Mr. Wesley. I have no douht, would use his influence to the ut- most." Again, "something must be done before the death of Mr, Wesley." To clear up this matter, and to do justice to Dr. Coke, I turn- ed to Drew's life of Coke, and found the following account. *'Dr Coke," says Mr. Drew, "had been preaching on th-- even- ing of the 20th of April, at a place, called Port Royal, in Virgi- nia, and had ensealed to preach, about twelve miles distant, at ten o'clock on the ensuing morning. But on returning after the evening preaching, to the house of a merchant where he was to lodge, he was informed by him, that the Pliiladelpliiaii papers had just announced to the public, the death of Mr. Wesley As- tonished at this intelligence, and unwilling to credit what he hop- ed might be false, he requested the gentleman to procure tor him, a sight of the paper. This was soon done: and on pe- rusing the paragraph, he was convinced, from the manner of its being written, that the unexpected tidings were mournfully true. . . . The next morning he set off for Nevv-lork. . . On his arrival at Alexandria, he received a leiter from home, coiitirni- inirthe truth of what the papers had circulated... He reached Baltimore by Sunday the 1st of May, and preached, in the even- ing, to a crowded audience, on the mournful occasion.' Drew's Life of Coke, p. 231. Here every thing is plain, clear, and circumstantial. But what bearing, it may be a^ked, has this account upon Dr. Coke's letter to bishop White .-* It has this : allowing Mr. Drew to be correct in his date, it will prove, that Dr. Coke knew of Mr. Wesley's death, before he wrote his letter to bishop White. According to the above account, the news of Mr. W'esley's death reached the doctor on the 20th, and he wrote his letter on the 24th of the same month. But Mr. Drew is not correct. And in proof of it 1 offer the following testimony. Mr. Asbury says : "Thursday 28 (April.) We hasted to Port Royal, where a number of tine people were waiting, to whom the doctor preached on "Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God " "Friday 29. The solemn news reached our ears that the public papers had announced the death ol that dear man of God, John Wesley... Dr. Coke, accompanied by biother C and Dr. G set out for Baltimore, in order to get the most speedy passage to England, leaving me to fill the appointments. 6» Next day T ovftrtook Dr. Coke and his company at Colchester. At MexaiKlria Dr Coke had certain iiil'ormati!. no: Mr V^ e^iey's death. On Sabbath day he reached Baltimore, and preached Oiwhe occasion of Mr Wesley's death; and mentioned some . thinu^s which gave otlence."'** Asbury's Journal, Vol. 2. pp. 99. 100. I have searched xhe newspapers of that year, preserved in the Baltimore Library, and find the acconnt of Mr. Wesley's death, taken from a Liverpool paper of March 3d. 1791, and copied in- to the "Gazette of the United Statec, of Saturday, April 23. 1791 published by John Fenno, No. 69. High- Street, Philadel- phia,'' in the following words. John Wesley. On Tuesday evening, died of a gradual decay, the Rev. John Wesley, in tlie 8blii year of his age" &c. The same account may be found in the Maryland .lournal and Baltimore Advertiser, under date of April 26th 1791. Having ascertained Mr Drew's account to be incorrect, there wf're a few things concerning the death of Mr. Wesley, connect- ed with this letter, on which I was anxious to obtain informa- tion; and which I was certain I could obtain from no other quar- ter, but from bishop White himself. 1, accordingly, waited on this gentleman, last May, when I was in Philadeluhia, and staied to him the object of my visit. The bishop received me with the greatest politeness, and answered my questions with the greatest promptness. The points respecting which I made inquiry were these. First. Did he believe, that Dr. Coke knew of th« death of Mr. Wesley, when he wrote his letter of April 21th. Second. W^as there any mention made, of the death of Mr. Wes- ley, at the interview which took place between Dr. Coke, bishop White, and Dr. Magaw .'' Third. Bishop White having stated, thai mention was made of Mr. Wesley's death, I then asked, did Dr. Coke withdraw, or propose to withdraw the proposals for a re-union with the Protestant Episcopal church, which he had made in his letter; and to etfect which, he "had no doubt," he said, "Mr. Wesley would use his influence to the utmost" .-' On these points the bishop was explicit and full. But on my return to Baltimore, it occurred to me, that it would be best, for seve- ral reasons, to have the bishop's answers to my questions, in writing. I therefore addressed him a letter, dated the 1st of Au- gust, and received the following answer on tlie 5tn of the same mouth. How unlike the conduct of the Methodist bishops, to whom I addressed my circular,dated "Baltimore July 1st, 1826,'^ and from whom, I have not received a single line, or word in answer to the present time. * When Ir Coke publishc-d this sermon, he omitted every things that hvi, yiven offence when it was delivereet. 10 Revd. Sir. Philad. August 4th, 1 828. I have received your letter of the 1st inst. In answer to which I have to inform you that you do not seem to have misunder- stood my answers to the questions proposed by you to me per- sonally in our interview. When Dr. Coke addressed to me the letter to which you re- fer, he could not have known of the death of Mr. Wesley, which was an event of too signal a character, not to be discours'^d of, immediately on the arrival of the tidings of it, I am persuaded, there was no knowledge of it in Philadelphia, when I wrote nijj answer to the aforesaid letter. Dr. Coke was informed of it, be- tween the date of his letter and the arrival of mine. All the cir- cumstances of the case, induce on my mind the persuasion, that on the receipt of the information, he hastened to Philadelphia with the view of a return to England. Tliis caused delay of his receipt of my letter; which had not come to hand, when he left Baltimore. In the conversations — for there were two — with Dr. Coke, in the presence of Dr. Magaw, there was certainly refei-ence to the decease of Mr. Wesley, to what effect, I do not recollect, altho' I am persuaded it had no bearing on the purpose of the visits of Dr. Coke. That gentleman did not intimate any intention of withdrawing the proposals, contained in his letter; and I was left at full liberty to communicate to our convention. I am respectfully, Revd. sir, your very humble servant Wm White. From Dr. Coke's letter to bishop White, I draw the follow- ing inferences. 1. That the doctor did not consult, either the travelling or lo- cal preachers of the church, or even Mr. Asbury,his colleague, before he proposed to be reunited with the Protestant Episco- pal church; but of his own accord, otfered to dispose of the Methodist episcopal church, with as little ceremony, as a Rus- sian nobleman would offer to dispose of the peasantry upon his estate, as lord of the soil. 2. That as he made these proposals, without the knowledge of either ministers or members of the Methodist episcopal church, he may have disregarded the instructions he received from Mr. Wesley, by organizing the societies in America, into an independent Methodist episcopal church. If he thought it best to do the one, he may have thought it best to do the other. And if he acted secretly in the former instance, he may have acted so in the latter. 3. That Dr. Coke was not satisfied with what has been called his episcopal ordination; and that he did not believe he had been constituted a bishop, in the common acceptation of that term, when he was ''set apart" by Mr. Wesley to the office ©fa super- intendent. 4. That, with intention to be constituted a bishop, he applied to bishop White for consecration; and to induce the bishop the more readily to comply with his wishes, he proposed a re-union with the Protestant Episcopal church, which union, he thought, ou^ht to be an object with that church. 5. That there was not a good understanding between Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, such as ought to exist between two Christian superintendents belonging to the same church. That the former was jealous of the popidarity or power of the latter; and with a view oflessening theone, or weakening the other, he proposed to he re- united to the Protestant Episcopal church. Could he effect this union, and obtain consecration in it as a bishop he knew with all bishop-admiring people, he would gain such an ascendency over his rival, as he could not hope to obtain in any other way. 6. That Mr. Wesley had been made acquainted with every th'ng that had taken place in America ; and that so far from ex- pressing his approbation of the measures which had been adopt- ed, he was "-sorry for the separation,'''' and for the steps he had taken, by which that "separation" had been facilitated. — Q©©— Section YU.— Tke Prayer Book of 1784. Whoever has read my "History and Mystery," will recollect, that in that work, I inserted a copy of the letter, which I ad- dressed to each of the five bishops of the Methodist episcopal church, soliciting information from them, whether they had "ever seen any document or letter written by Mr. Wesley, in which he explicitly recommended to the Methodist societies in America, the adoption of the episcopal mode of church govern- ment, according to the statements made in the minutes of confer- ence for 1785." The same inquiry was made in the letter which I addressed to each of six of the oldest preachers in the connexion. In the same work, page 68, I say, "there exists not in the range of our research, any paper, letter, or document to prove, that Mr. Wesley ever intended to constifute Dr. Coke or Mr. Asbury a bishop : or that he ever "recommended," or gave "counsel," that the societies should adopt the episcopal mode of church government, "in preference to any other." I say farther, on the same page, "It may now be reasonably expected, that every member of the church will look for the establishment of the assertion, by clear and indubitable evidences, that Mr. Wes- ley "recommended" the episcopal mode of church government to the American Methodists. Having made this demand for proof that Mr. Wesley did re- Commend the episcopal form of church government, it surely 12 might have been expected, that such proof would have been produced; or that a candid and honest acknowledgment, of the non- existence of such a document, would have been avowed To any o- ther man than Mr. E. there was no other course left; but his fertile imagination, hit upon an expedient, never, I presume, thought of, by any one before: such an expedient, that \{ morals were not too deeply involved, would produce a smile. In the preface to the prayer book, Mr. Wesley said, "this edition of it i recommend toihe societies in America'' Mr. E. findiiig the word recommend in it, seizes upon that term, as being likely to help his cause, and offers this, as Mr. Wesley's recommenda- tion of the episcopal mode of church government. Hear what he says, "now does it comport with good sense to say, Mr Wesley recommended the form and not the thing which that form imports.'' And will any intelligent man pronounce, that ihat thing is not an episcopal order of ministers, and an episcojiacy in fact, by whatever names they may have been called.'' This point is so plain, that we are really ashamed to dwell on it." Def. p 40. On this sentence, I shall remark. 1. I admire modesty in whomsoever it may be found; but feel no greater predilection for mock modesty, than I do for " voluntary humility." They are both equally repugnant to the genius of the Gospel, and are never assumed but for some secret, improper purpose or de- sign. 1 regret, therefore, that in this instance, Mr. E's bash- fulness became so excessive, as to have prevented him trom dwelling a little longer on this point. The abrupt manner in which he dropped a subject so plain, is proof, tliat there was a move cogent reason than bashfulness, for not saying more on it than he has done; the reader, therefore, will consider what he says, as only a flourish, or an effort to get rid of a knotty and difficult matter. 2. I called for " clear and indubitahle evidence," to support the assertion, that Mr Wesley recom- m(-nded the episcopal form of church government, apd lo? Mr. Wesley's recommendation of a pi aver book is produced. 3. This has a strong resemhiance of the confusion of tongues, which prevailed at the building of the tower of Babel. When one called for brick, another brought him mortar: " So did God conlound their language, that they did not understand one another's speech." 4. It may, now, be taken (or granted, that there never was any document, paper or letter in which Mr. Wesley recommended the episcopal mode of church govern- ment. Had there been such a document, Mr. E. would have produced it: and not have rested the assertion .under considera- tion, on a kind of proof, which, if it were true, is only inferen- • tial- S- ^^T^- E. has blended an " episcopal order of ministers,'* and " an episcopacy in fact," in the same sentence with what jt calls Mr. Wesley's recommendation of an episcopal form of government; it will be proper, therefore, in this section, to re- view the iormer as well as the latter. 6 He as«jerts thai the " episcopal order of ministers" in the Methodist episcopal church, '' is the same as exists in the church of England;" be- cause the prayer book was abridged h} Mr. Wesley, and be- cause "our bishops are ordained with the same solemnities, and for tiie same purpose, viz. to preside over the tlock of Christ, including the prtsbylers and deacons^ and to ordain others." Del\ p. 40. It is to be hoped, that after this, we shall hear no more of the futile distinction between "• office" and " or- der;'' and that we sliall never be told again, the term " bishop," as used in the Methodist episcopal cliuroh, is only the name of an "office;" unless it can be made appear, that the term " bish- op,'' in the church of Enlgand, is only the name of an " oifice," and does not, in that church, signify a distinct ''^ order''^ from presbyters; a thing which Mr. E. cannot prove. Having made these remarks, I return to tl>e very pith of the controversy, namely, whether bishops in the Methodist episco- pal church, are a third order of ministers, distinct from presby- ters and superior to them, or whether they are of the same or- der. And here I think it proper to state explicitly, that "di- vine right" has nothing to do with the settling of tiiis question; it enters not into the discussion at all. i make this declaration, that Mr. E. may not again attempt to evade the question, and slip off under the cover of "divine right." The inquiry re- gards the parity of bishops and presbyters; are they equal ia ordei, or are they not.-* Upon this point, I am sorry to be ob- liged to say it. there is a great deal of shutlimg prevarication, palpable contra*e? There is no evidence that he does. For, ahhou<2;fi he advises the use of the " liturgy on the Lord's day in all the congre- gations," he does not say one word about those "forms," uor •about an episcopal form of government. That Mr. E is " mis- taken" in representing Mr. Wesley's recommendation of 'he "liturgy," as a recommendation of the episcopal mode of church government is very evident. And in proof of his mis- take, I argue, that if the conference of 1784 had considered it in that light, they certainly would not have expunged from Mr. Wesley's letter of Sep. 10, 1784, that part of it, u hich accord- ing to Mr. E's argument, was the only plausible pretext for adopting the episcopal mode of government. But they did mutilate that letter, by expungin.y; from the original, that, part which relates to the "liturgy." I find a perfect copy of this letter, in the British minutes of conference tor I78d; and the words which have been expunged, ought to follow the words *' Lord's supper,'' in the 4th paragraph of the letter printed in the American minutes. The expunged words are these: "And I have prepared a lilurgy, little differing from that of the church of England (I think the best constituted national church in the world) which I advise all the travelling preacheis to use on the Lord's day, in all the congregations, reading the litany on Wednesdays and Fridays, and praying extempore on all other days." Now, will Mr, E. Dr. Bond, or any one else, have the hard- ihood to say, that Mr. Wesley did not wiite this sente.ice.'' That it is not published in the British minutes for 1785, as a part of the original letter? Why then was it omitted in the American minutes.'' VVhy was this letter mutilated? V\ as it because it was supposed, that if published entire, it would militate against Methodist episcopacy? According to Mr. E's shewing, it would have operated wonderfully in its favor. What a pity that the whole conference was '•'- mistaken.^'' As for my part, I know not what they supposed, what they said, or what reason they assigned for leaving it out of their minutes; nor do I even know, when, or by whom if was done. But this one thing 1 know; that the suppression of the letter given to Dr. Coke, when he was " set apart as a superintendent," which letter, Mr. E. says,, was a constituent part of the " sketch" pre- pared for the societies, by Mr. Wesley. — The mutilation of this letter, and the alteration of the minutes of conference; which alteration shall be al)undantly established in the setjuej, prove to my mind, that there has been great unfairness prac- ticed, in the organization of the church; and that Methodist episcopacy W'as " surreptitiously" introduced. I want no stronger evideHce of this fact, than these things fuiiiish. 76 The recommendation of the prayer book, beina: ^^e only evidence that Mr E. has attempted to produce, in proof of the assertion, tiiat Mr Wesley recommended tlie episcopal mode of government, it will be sufficient to show, that when Mi. Wes- ley recommended the use of the "liturg}''' or "commom pray- er," he did not recommend the episcopal form of church go- vernment. Mr, E. says he did, 1 assert he did not ; and as- sign the following reasons. 1. Because such a recommendation would have been decep- tions. There are now 400,000 members in the Methodist epis- copal church, very few of whom ever heard of Mr. Wesley's prayer book until lately. Now, let any one, who never heard of such a prayer book, read what is said respecting Mr. Wesley's recommending the episcopal form of government, and what o- pinioii would he form, from that statement.^ He certainly would conclude, that Mv. Wesley did recommend it to some person or otliei-; that he did write some letter, or document, in which he praised such a form of government, and advised its adopiion. This, I am coitident, is the way in which the term '■'■ recommend''^ would be understood; and no man would think of looking for such a reconunendation, in a prayer book of which he never heard, no more than he would think of looking for it, in an old Almanack. 2. Because such a recommendation would have been novel. If Mr.W esle} intended to recommend the episcopal form of govern- ment, when he only recommended the use of the " liturgy," or " common prayer," then he has departed from his usual way of expressing himself A similar instance cannot be found, in all his voluminous writings, of his recommending one thing by name, when he intended to recommend another thing not named. \\ hy then, should he be made to depart, in this single mstance, from his usual method, and not from his only, but from the me- thod ot eveiy correct writer, and every honest man? I challenge Mr. E. to produce from the British classics, such another in- stance of absurd recommendation, as he attributes to Mr. Wes- ley: nor can he find any writer on" ethics" or moral philosophy, who will justify such a procedure. 3. If Mr. Wesley recommesided the episcopal form of go- vernment, th<., according to Mr. E's. slatem' nt, he did it only iuutrectty ; ior he oiily recommended the '■''Jonn'''' not the " things'''' the shadow; not \he substance. With as much truth might Mr. E. say, Mr. Wesley recommended the episcopal form ol' go- vei innent, when he recommended doctor Coke, as say, he recom- mended that form of government, when he recommended the use of the " liturgy." 4. Because no document, paper, or letter can be produced in proof tiiat Mr. Wesley ever wrote the words, "episcopal form of government," with reference to the American Methodistu. 7T There never was a document in which he reeommended it ; no, nor one in whictijie ever expressed \\\< a|»()iDl)aiioii ul" ii, after it had been ado|)ted. Let tlie reader mark Mr. E's disiiii^enuous- ness on this point. He sa's Mr. Wesley wrote a cerlalu letter, Vajid it does not contain one syllable of censure or disapproba- tion." Def. p. 72 In another place, he says, '"Dr. Coke dedicat- ed his Journals to Mr. Wesley, and where is the evidence, that he ever remonstrated against this, or expressed the slightest dis- pleasure of it " Def. p. 59. And where, I say, 'Ms the sli,^htest evidence" that Mr. Wesley ever recommended this form of go- vernment, or expressed his approbation of it .'' There is not the slightest particle whatever. The proof of the recommendation lies on Mr. E. as the title to an estate is to be produced by the party claiming it. 5. If, by recommending the use of the "liturgy", Mr. Wesley recommended the episcopal form of government, then, according to Mr. E's reasoning, he recommended such a form of episcopal government as exists in the church of England; in which there are three separate and distinct oiders of ministers, bishops, pies- byters, and deacons. Had Mr. Wesley done this, he would have flatly contradicted what he himself said in his letter, drawn wp the day after the date of his preface to the prayer book. "Lord King's account of the primitive church convinced me ma- ny years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order.'''' If Mr. Wesley could have been so inconsistent, if he couid mus have contradicted himself, one day assertmg tliere were but two orders, and the next day affirming there were three, liis authority, instead of being received, ought to have been totally rejected. 6 According to Mr. E's shewing, if Mr. Wesley recommend- ed the episcopal form of government, he recommended such an episcopacy as exists in the church ofEngland. In that case, he recommended diocesan episcopacy; for bishops in the church of England are diocesan bishops. Tliis he substantially denies in a note inserted in the British minutes of conference lor I78j. "Ii any one is minded to dispute concerning diocesan episco- pacy, he may dispute. I have better work." A very appropriate answer to all that Mr. E. has said, or can say, respecting Mr. Wesley's silence, in not expressing his displeasure more luily, at the formation of the Methodist societies, into an independent episcopal church, and all their subsequent proceedings; he had ^'better work" to do, than be "disputing" with men who had violated Ids instructions; assumed a title, which, iu the most so- lemn manner, he had forbidden them to assume; and had acted towards him in such a way, by leaving his name oil' their minutes, "that from the time he was informed of it, he began to hang down his head, and to think he had lived long enough." 7. If Methodist bishops are of the same order as bishops in {he church ofEngland, it was unnecessary for Dr. Coke to ap- 7S ply to the bishop of London in 1799, to ordain, Giily "a few^'^ of the preachers, in the British connexion. What necessity was there to apply to his lordship to ordain only a few, if he himself was a bishop. The application stands as a clear proof, that notwithstanding all Mr. £. has said respectiig Dr. Coke having "no doubt," "not the shadow of a doubt" of his being a bishop, the doctor himself knew better; he knew he was no bishop. 8. On the supposition, that by recommending the use of the "liluig}," Mr. Wesley recommended the episcopal form of government, to those societies to whom he sent the prayer book, then, he recommended the episcopal form of government to his societies in Scotland, for he sent the prayer book to them. In the British minutes of conference for 1786, Mr. Wesley says, "1 at length consented to take the same steps with regard to Scotland, which 1 had done with regard to America." And Mr. Myles, in his History of the Methodists, tells us, "Mr. Wesley at Ihe conference of 1785, set apart three of our well tried preachers, John Pawson, Thomas Hanby, and Joseph Taylor, to minister in Scotland. He also recommended to tlse Scotch Methodists the use of the abridged common prayer. This latter they declined; the former they were thankiul for." p. 1 08. It may be asked, v\ liy was not the episcopal foim of government adopted by the Scotch Methodists, as well as by the American ;\iethodists.'' For, according to Mr. E's statement, it was re- commended to both. Can it be resolved into their ditferent views ot church government, the former being preshyterians ; the latter inclined to be episcopalians.'* Not so; for Dr. Coke tells the bishop of London in his letter to that nobleman, that "our numerous societies in America would have been a regular presbyterian church" if it had not been ior himself and Mr. Wes- ley. The American Methodists therefore, were in favor of a presbyterian government, as well as the Scotch. Was it be- cause the Scotch Methodists were more obstinate, and less dis- posed to comply with Mr. Wesley's recommendation, tlian the American Metiiodists.'' No. To what then can the difference between the Scotch and American societies be attributed.'' To the diti'eient views and dispositions of Mr. Wesley's delegates. Ihe one class of delegates faithfully and punctiliously obeyed Mr. Wesley's directions. Tlie other class violated his instruc- tions, which were given in the most solemn and sacred manner. The Scotch Methodists, although they "'declined the use of the prayer book, were thankiul for the ordinances," and continued in connexion with Mr. Wesley, until the day ol liis death. The American Methodists used tlie prayer book for a little while, and then laid it aside. Moreover, they rejected Mr. Wesley's authority, struck his name off their minutes, and now pretend to otier his recommendation of this prayer book, which they 79 have long since thrown away, as a recommendation of their episcopal form of church government.'!! 9. According to Mr. E's showing, Mr. Wesley recommend- ed the episcopal form of government to his societies in England, as well as to those in Scotland and America. For the same re- commendation, and the same forms of ordination, on whicti ♦ir. E. so confidently relies, to suj^port the cause of Methodist epis- copacy, are in the abridged prayer book which is used by the English Methodists to this day. And not only so, but Mr. Wes- ley, at the conference of 1787, "set apart Messrs, Alexander Mather, Thomas Rankin, and Nenry Moore, without sending them out of England, strongly advising them at the same time, that according to his example, they should continue unit(;d to the established church, so far as ttie blessed work, in which they were engaged, would permit. The former of these breth- ren, Mr. Mather, he ordained a superintendent." Myles's His. of the Methodists, p. 175. if the Scotch Methodists refused to follow Mr. Wesley's " counsel" and adopt the episcopal form of government, because of their strong predilections in favor of presbyterianism, were the English Methodists influenced to the same amount, by those predilections also ? Or, of all the socie- ties to whom the prayer book was sent, did the .\merican Me- thodists alone, understand tbe import of Mr. Wesley's recom- mendation, and cheeifully " follow his counsel," by adopting this mode of government ^ This, surely is incredible ; for if his in- tentions had been misunderstood elsewhere; he was alive seve- ral years after he recommended the use of the ''liturgy" to his societies in England, and could have corrected that mistake, if it had been one. 10. If Mr. Wesley recommended the episcopal mode of church government, " an episcopac;y in /«c^," though under the name of a superintendent ; and if he thought that the term hiskop was innocently, and through inadvertence or mistake, adopted, instead of the original title superintendent^ he would not, he could not have written his letter of severe reproof to Mr. Asbury for assuming the title bishop, without noticing the dillerence between the terms, and pointing out the impropriety of such a substitution. . But .VI r. Wesley was well convinced there was no mistake, or inadvertence in the assumption of the title of bishop. He knew it was taken in pointed opposition to his authority ; and in direct violation of his solemn commands. He therefore wrote in a manner, and used such language, as he never did beibre or afterwards. His letter of reproof to Mr. Asbury, for assuming the title of bishop, must, therefore, re- main fo' ever, an irrefragable proof, that he did not design an *' episcopacy in fact," nor recommend the episcopal form of government. II. The American preachers, in the conference of 1784, did not consider the reconimeiidation of the use ot" the liturgy or common prayer, a recommendation ol' the episcopal form of go- vernment, if they had, they surely would have said so, and have set forth this recomniPtidation as the reason for their adopt- ini^ this form. But instead thereof, they assign other reasons for their conduct, and never as much as glance at Mr. Wesley's reconnnendation of the liturgy. This is an omission which they would not have committed, had they considered his recommend- ation of the use ot the liturgy, a recomnumlation of the episco- pal lorm of government. Having assigned their reasons, they say "'For these reasons we have thought it our duty to form our- selves into an independent church. And as the most excellent mode of church government, according to our maturest judg- ment is that of a moderate episcopacy ; we therefore have consti- tuted ourselves into an episcopal church." Not a word about Mr. W esley's recommendation here. 12. The statement which is published in the book of discipline, eh. I, sect. 1, was not published until after the death of Mr. Wesley, which event took place, nearly seven years after the organization of the church. Prior to his death, this section had not been written. If Mr. Wesley recommended this form of go- vernment, how came his recommendation to be overlooked or forgotten so long .'' Or how did it happen, that it was not pub- lished at an earlier period .'' Was it for fear that if published in his life time, he would contradict it .-* Whatever may have been the reason, we are certain of this fact, that this account was not ^^' r\i\ en, iu]\\\ after tke death ofdMr Wesley, as is evident from the manner in which it speaks ol him as "the late Rev. John Wesley." Ah ! this little monosyllabie '■Hate'^'' has blown up the whole atfair and has proven, not only, that this first section, in the discipline, was by some one or other foisted into it, but that it was done with a view to impose the episcopal form of go- vernment, on the societies, under the sanation of Mr. Wesley's name. It is in this way, by little and little, and by setting up one prop after another, that Viethodist episcopacy has been estab- lished : and in the certain admeasurement of retributive jus- tice, it is by publishing one document alter another, and by deve- loping one fact after aiiother, that Methodist episcopacy is des- tined to come down. These are some of the reasons, which have induced me to be- lieve, that Mr. Wesley never intended, by recommending the use of the liturgy, to recommend the episcopal form of govern- ment; and when Mr. E. has answered these, 1 promise him I will furnish hitu with a few others. Bo'ivever, to confirm what 1 have, said, respecting the preachers who compused the conference of 1784, not understanding or believing, that the recommenda- iion ef the prayer book was a recommendation of the episcopal 81 form of church government, T shall subjoin the testimony of a few of those, who were members of that couference and who Jaavp survived their fel ovv labourers of that day. Extract of a letter from Rev. Edward l)romg-oole, dated "Brunswick 26 Septr 1828." "I do not recollect that there was any proposition for our re- ceiving the |)ray<^r book and episcopacy connected. And it is certain, (he preachers never considered themselves oblij^ed to conform to the prayer hook, for they did not make use of it on Wednesdays and Fridays as recommended.''^ Yours very sincerely Edward Dromgoole, sen. Extract of a letter fro n llev. Thomas Ware, dated "Salem I Dec. 1828." "Mr. Emory's Defence of our Fathers, I have seen, and once read; but I have it not; and but an imperfect recollection of liis argument founded on Vir. vVesiey's reconmendation of the liturgy, I am fully persuaded the preachers in 1781 believed they were acting in accordance with the will of Mr Wesley, when they adopted the episcopal form or the plan of general superiniendency. This plan we know Mr. Wesley approved, and we called it episcopal. I did not believe Mr. Wesley wish- ed us to give it that appellation. Dr. Coke was in favour of taking the name of Methodist episcopal church : argued the plan of general superintendency was in fact a s|)ecies of episco- pacy, but did not, I think, bring the prayer book into view. Thomas Ware." The following is from Rev. Jonathan Forrest. "As for what Mr. Emory has said in the Defence of our Fa- thers respecting the recommendation of the prayer book abridg- ed by Mr. Wesley, being a recommendation of the episcopal form of church government for the American Methodist socie- ties, I did not consider it in that light at the conference of 1784. Nor have I considered it in that light, at any time since. Nor do I consider it in tliat light now. Nor do I believe it \vas so con- sidered by any person in the conference of 1784. Jonathan Forrest." Section VIII.— TAe Prayer Book of 11 S6. When I was informed that Mr, E, was about to reply to ray "History and Mystery," I fully expected he would attem|)t, in some way, to avoid an admission of Dr, Coke's agency in the publication of this prayer book. But, as he has admitted this fact, I think it unnecessary to swell this section by arguments or documents to prove it. I shall, therefore, proceed to oiler 6 «2 what T have to say respectina: this prayer hook, under three heatis : The doctor's auency in having it pjintcd — the prohabil- ity that Mr. V\ esley saw the minutes of conference of 1784, which are re printed with it — and Mr. Wesley's silence with re- spect to any expression of his disapprobation of the title the **Methodist episcopal church." First. As to Dr. ( oke's agency in the publication of the prayer book. The attention of the reader is solicited to the following facts. 1. In the year 1784 Mr. Wesley abridged the prayer bojk of the church ot England, and reconnniended the use of it to tlie American Methodists : but in all the book, there is not one word about bishops, or episcopacy, or about an episcopal form of government. 2. He had this abridged prayer book printed at his own pii iting press, just before Dr. Coke sailed for Ameiica. 3. This prajer book was not even hound in Eng- land ; for, as Mr. E. says, ''the prayer book of 1784 was brougltt to America in sheets.'''' 4. The minutes of the general con- ference of 1784, "were first printed m Ihiladelphia by Charles Cist, and were bound up with the prayer book which was brought from England in 1784. ' 5. Dr. Coke sailed from Ame- rica to England in June 1*85, less than six months after the church was organized, leaving a supply of the prayer book, in which the minutes were bound up, behind him, for the Ameri- can societies. Now, putting all these facts together, every one wil' inquire, why had Dr. Coke this prayer book re- printed so soon after his arrival in England .'' And why had he it done at the press of "Frys and Couchman," and not at Mr. VVesley"'s ? It is reasonable to suppose, 1. that when Mr. Wesley had the prater book printed, he had a suOicient number siruck off, to serve his societies. 2. The short time which had elapsed, be- tween the doctoi's leaving the United States, and commencing prmting it in England, was not suthcient for distributing among the societies, the prayer book which he had left behind in this country; or for asceitaining wlieiher tiiere was a sufficient sup- pi) for the societies or not. S. Even if it had been ascertained that there was not a sufficient supply, the prayer hook and minutes were both in tliis couniiy, and could have been re-printed as well, and as cheap here, as they cuuld have been done in Eng- land. 1 his may be interred from the pva}er book being brought over "in sheets,'" to be bound in America. Had the ()ra}er book and minutes been re-printed here, there would then have been a saving of freight, risk &c.: besides having them ready for distri- bution at a much earher period, than they could have been, if obtained from England. If a farther supply w as reall} neces- sary, every thing was in favor of having them re-printed in this country, and to men of common sense, the matter will apptar mysterious, ai»d unaccouuiabie, il there were no particulai und private ends to answer-, why they were re-printed in London, 89 a few months after the doctor's return to England, and not in th« United States. Second. But why was the prayer hook and minutes re-printed at the press of Frys and Couchman, and not at Mr. Wesley''s? I answer, because the proceedings of the American conference, ia •the assumption of the title "Methodist episcopal church'' &c. were displeasing to Mr. Wesley. I have "candidly considered" what Mr E. says respecting the probability that Mr. VVeslej saw the minutes of conference, and cannot conceive any other reason why the work was done at the press of Frys and Couch- man. Out of the nine questions which Mr. E. has proposed to the consideration of his readers, six of them are ushered in witli a "probahle," or a "presumable;'^ two are accompanied with aa •'if;" and one is set down as being "certain.'" I admit it to be a *'certain" fact, that "Mr. Wesley felt a sufficient interest in this matter to have required from Dr Coke a particular account of what had been done in America " Det. p. 43. It is therefore certain, that Mr. Wesley saw those minutes or he did not. If he did not see them, it is evident that the doctor was conscious of having exceeded Mr. Wesley's instructions, and having done that, which he was sensible, would be displeasing to Mr. Wes- ley, when known. The only way then, of keeping those minutes from failing under Mr. Wesley's notice, and yet to have the book printed, was to have it done at some other press. If, upoH the other hand, Mr. Wesley did see them, it is rery evident that he disapproved of the doctor's conduct, and would not allow the prayer book and minutes to be printed at his press. But "where is the evidence," says Mr. E. that Mr. Wesley "ever objected to the title, or to the terms episcopal, or episcopacy.''" Where ! Why, in the very circumstance of this prayer boot, and these minutes being re-printed, not at his own press, but at the press of Frys and Couchman. Had the doctor informed Mr. Wesley that he had received advices from America, that there was not a suf- ficient supply of the prayer book, for the wants of the societies; and had he intimated that it would be necessary, to have an- other edition printed, can any one suppose that Mr. Wesley would not have had it done.-* that he would have objected against the printing of it at his own press,? or allow, nay compel the doc'or to go to Frys and Couchman lo have the work executed there ? And moreover, make the doctor pay for the edition out of his own private, fortune .'' Incredible ! Mr. Wesley would never have acted in this manner, had he approved of the doctor's doings; he had veiy dillerent ideas of generosity and justice. Considering this transanction then, in all its par's, it is impos-, sible to reconcile the piinting of the prayer book and minutes at the press of Frys and Couchman with Mr. Wesley's appro- hation of the doctor's proceedings. Indeed to suppose that he gave his consent, to have them printed at any other press than 84 his own, would be incompatible witb the interest he had hereto- fore manifested towards the American societies. It would have been in direct opposition to his usual custom. For. as the pro- fits of all the books printed at his press, were applied according to his views, to the carrying on of the blessed work in which he was engaged, it is not reasonable, that in this solitary instance, he would have relinquished his right of disposing of the pro- ceeds of this edition of his prayer book, any more than he would of those of any other of his works. Or if he intended, gra- tuitously to tender the edition to the American societies, he would not have thrown the payment of printing it upon Dr. Coke. He must have been aware also, that by refusing to have the prayer book and minutes printed at his own press, he would af- ford ground to impugn Dr. Coke's motives and conduct, in the organization of the Methodist episcopal church, as contravening his own wishes and instructions, and yet, that consideration could not prevail on him to do a thing, that might be construed to imply an approval of the proceedings of the doctor and the American conference. In tine; for Dr Coke to have this prayer book and these minutes re-printed in London — in a few months af- ter his return from the United States — before it could have been ascertained that a second edition was necessary — at the press of Frys and Couchman — and not at Mr. Wesley's — and all out of his own private "fortune." must be proof positive and irresistible, to every impartial mind, that there was an object of a peculiar character to be obtained; that the obtainment of it could only be etfeced, by the prayer book and minutes coming from England, and that that object was the apparent sanction of Mr Wesley, to the whole of the proceedings of the conference of 1784. Third. "Assuming as a fact," says Mr. E. " that Mr. Wes- ley did become acquainted with the acts and proceedings of Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, and the conference of 1784, in the organization of the Methodist episcopal church, we ask, where is the evidence that he ever disavo\\ed them .'"' Def p. 45. And is this the proper question to ask } Mr. E. knows it is not ; and if he attempt to deny it, his own pen shall contradict him. Although he, knows it is not a proper question ; such a one as a lawyer, a doctor of divinity, a Christian, a maii of com- mon sense, or a candid deist, would ask if he wished to arrive at the truth, yet Mr. E. artfully and shamelessly (ills half a page of his book in asking such questions ; until at last, having warmed himself at a fi-e of his own kindling, he concludes in a sort of triumph, by saying, " VV^e deny thai one syllable of such evidence has ever yet been produced." And-suppose no such evidence has ever been " produced," will it follow that no such evidence is in existence, or that Mr. Wesley never " disa- vowed" those proceedings ? Mr. E. ought to have recollected, that six years ago, he might have said, with as much exultation. respecting the term " bishop," what he now says respecting "episcopacy," and the title "Methodist episcopal church." But the publication of Mr Wesley's letter to Mr. Asbury, in which he says, " Men may call me a knave^ or di/ool, a rascal, .a scomidrel and I am content ; but they shall never by my con- sent, call me a bishop,'' has robbed Mr. E. of this boasting, and stands as evidence, that Mr. Wesley strongly disapproved of the title of " bishop." This letter was kept secret lor nearly forty years ; notwithstanding Coke and Moore wrote a life of Mr Wesley, shortly after his decease. Additional evidence therefore, ot Mr. Wesley's disavowal of ^' episcopacy," of the episcopal form of ciiurch government, and of the proceedings of the conference of 1784, may be in existence, although not "produced." For, how could it be expected, that the very men who were censured by Mr. Wesley, would publish the documents condemning themselves and their pioceedings .-* But if all the papers are yet in existence which relate to the organi- zation of the Methodist episcopal church, &.c. and if tiiese papers were accessible to other people, besides the men into whose hands, they have fallen, I stiongly suspect, and I have reasons for thinking so which Mr. E. knows nothing of, that the boasting of the author of the "Defence of our Fathers" would be temporary and vain. To the most superficial reader it is plain, that it is not by the absence of evidence, of the disavowal " of the proceedings of Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury and the conference of 1784," that Mr. Wes- ley's approbation of those proceedings, and his recognition of the title " Methodist episcopal church," are to be proved. As well might A say that his title to an estate was valid, be- cause B could not produce a title to the same estate. And yet it is in this way — a way which shocks common sense, and it might be added, common honesty, that Mr. E. strives to support the claims of Methodist episcopacy. If these claims are just and well founded, let it be shown by positive proof. If Mr. Wesley did, indeed, approve of" the proceedings of Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and the conference of 1784," let the evidence of it be produced. If Methodist episcopacy had Mr. Wesley's ap- probation, it will be strange, if nothing of this approbation can be found, among all Mr. Wesley's, Dr. Coke's, or Mr. Asbury's papers. To produce documentary and explicit evidence of this fact I challenge the world. If such evidence is among Mr. Wesley's papers, Mr. Moore can produce it. If such evidence is among Dr. Coke's papers, Mr. Drew can produce it. And if such evidence is among Mr. Asbury's papers, Mr. McKendre© can produce it. Mr. E. has called for help from bretliren in Europe as well as in America, let us see if the above gentlemen, who are all alive, will be able to furnish tlie documents now called for. " The burden of proof in this matter is not proper- 80 >y incumbent on us," Def. p. S6, but on Mr. E. If he does net produce it, his shuffling attempts to defend Methodist episco- pacy in this negative sort of way, will stand in proof, that nei- ther this " episcopacy nor this episcopal form of government" haiJ Mr. Wesley's approbation. The strong manner in which 1 have expressed myself in the call for '■'■documentary and explicit evidence" that Mr. Wesley approved of the proceedings of Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury and the conference ©f 1784, may, perhaps to some, be exceptionable : but I consider the subject, and tlie circumstances under which I write, not only justify, but imperiously demand it. Nor would I venture to express myself in this manner were it not, that I am very confident no such evidence can be produced. There is now lying before me a letter from a preacher who was a member of the conference of '84, which contains the following sentence : " Dr. Coke, in 1787, made us a second visit, and brought instructions with him from Mr. Wesley, which instruc- tions I never saw, or heard but in part. 1 received a letter from a preacher who had seen them, and quoted from them the fol- lowing words : Put as few things as possible to vote. If you (Dr. Coke) brother Asbury and brother Whatcoat are agreed, it is suflicient." Mr. Wesley gave these directions, because he disapproved of the proceedings of the conference of 1784. Will Mr. E. say, he objects to " this third hand report ?" He can receive the same information from Rev. Nelson Reed who relate-d to myself, Mr. Wesley's objection to putting things to vote. Tliere are two or three other things, which I shall briefly no- tice, before I proceed to the next section. "Mr. M-Caine has represented, that iVir. Wesley did punish Dr. Coke for his pro- ceedings at this period, by leav ng his name ofithe minutes for one year. But this is an entire r.mluke.^'' Di f. 43. My words «re, ""Under these circumstances as some decisi\e steps were necessary to be taken in this critical atiair, it was finally deter- mined, that the name of Dr Coke should be omitted in the min- utes for the succeeding year: it was accoidingly omitted." His. and Mys. p. 46. 1 'ga\ e this as a quotation from Drew's life of Dr. Coke. Let us now see, how Mr. E. proves this to be a *' mistake^ "Under these circumstances, as some decisive steps were necessary to be taken in this critical affair, it was finally determined, that the name of Dr. Coke should be omitted in the minutes for the succeeding year." Def. p. 61. The very words 1 had quoted, and wliich, he says, was an entire mistake! And is this the way Mr. E. proves my mistake .'' But this is only one of Mr. E's little tricks ; there is another skulking in the next two lines. " At this very conference of 1785, Dr. Coke's name appears in the British Minutes, after John and Charles Wesley themselves." And what if it does } Does that prove 87 the "wrVrtfce?" "Really T always thought, that the " succeeflin^ year''' al'tpi- 1785 was 1786. The very year I said Dr. Coke's name was left oH' the British minutes. And if Mr. E. can find the floctor's name in thr minutes ot" 1786, I will acknowledge I liave made a mistake indeed. Mr. E says, "in 1787 and 1788 he (Dr. Coke) was aijjaia stationed in London with John and Charles Wesley." Ami he intimates in the same paragraph thai I asserted that the doctor's name was left oti in I7h9. Now in tliis slmrt paragraph con- sisting of seven lines only, there are three capita! biundei-s, or misrepresentat.ions. F«r Charles V\ esle} died Maich 29lh, 17^8, and yet Mr. E. stations Dr Coke with liim in London after he was dead !! And, as if that was not enough, he stations the doctor with him again in London in 1790, two years and four months after Mr. Wesley's decease. Nor is this all. Mr. E. might have seen, if fie had looked carefully into llie matter, that Dr. Coke sailed for America in Ocioher 1790, and did not re- turn !o England until after the death of Mr. John Wesley. So that while Dr. Coke was in .America, and Charles Wesle) was upwards of two years in heaven, Mr. E. will have them both stationed together in London. But the worst of all is, that in the * Christian Advocate and Journal for June 3, 1828," Mr. E strives to make his readers believe that these "errors'' were not in the " original manuscript " " How the name of diaries Wesley, says he, came to be inserted in this place, I am not able to say. I think it could not have been so in the original manuscript ; because, in writing this passage, the minutes of the British conference were open before me." I believe it is susceptible of proof, that Mr. E. knew nothing of these " errors" until they were mentioned to him by the Hon. Judge — That when informed of them, he expressed surprise, and said, "it can- not be, for I had the British minutes before me. when I wrote the account. It must be a typographical error;'' and so confi- dent was he that the "original manuscript" was correct, that he would not believe to the contrary, until he went to the house of a gentleman in Baltimore and examined those minutes. Atid now, forsooth, he wants to throw the blame upon the poor printer, and to metamorphose him into a scape-goat. No, no, the printer is innocent of the charge. It serves, however, as another proof of Mr. E's disingenuousness, and of his willing- ness to throw the blame upon any one, rather than admit that he can be " mistaken.'' — aO'©— Section IX. — Bishop Jlsbury. Although the name of Bishop Asbury stands at the head of Uiis section, very little is said respecting him, on the two or three first pages of Mr. E's book : iVir. Wesley beinjf broujjht forward as the principal personage. Nor, is the manner iu which Mr. Wesley's nanne is menlioned, free from all excep- tion ; for it would seem as if Mr. E. intended, by inserting the name of Mr Wesley, connected with all his implied frailties and imperfections, to set off, b. contrast, the splendid virtues of Mr. Asbury. This surely, is not right. We ought to do them both justice, for they are both entitled to our "reverence un- feigned and profoutid/" " We have never felt free, however, (says Mr E ) to claim for him (Mr. Wesley) absolute infalli- bility." And who ever did .'' Mr. V^ esley never claimed it for himself; nor would he allow any to claim it for him, or attri- bute it to him, if they were inclined to do so. Indeed, were it necessary to institute a comparison between Mr. Asbury and Mr. Wesley on this point, there certainly would be much stronger evidence in proof that Mr. Asbury was nearer claim- ing " infallibility" for himself, by asserting '■'•divine authority^' for his episcopal power, than ever Mr. Wesley v\as. But waiving all this, from the insidious manner in which Mr. E. expresses himself, it must be evident, that his profession of " reverence for the name and chaiacter of Mr. Wesley" is hollow and insincere, and that his reniaik, respecting his " ab- solute infallibility," is not only uncalled for, but invidious.* * In the " christian Advocate and Journal," of February 8th. 1828, there IS a letter from Mr E. to tlie editors, in which he states " sofne facts" which he says '* may be worth preserving." They, are these : " When Dr. "White was in England in 1787, he was desirous of seeing Mr. VN'esley, ta state to him some circumstances, ot which he supposed he might be unin- formed, in eference to the organization of the Methodist societies in Amer- ica as a distinct church " With this view lie called at Mr. V\ esley's house, and left a letter which he had obtained from Mr. Pilniore. Sometime after this. Dr. White addressed a note to Mr. \A esley, infbrniing him ' tliat he would stop at his house on a certain day, if convenient to him." Mr 'V^ t- sley answei'ed that he was then engaged in a periodical duty "vrliich would preJ vent him from receiving the visit at the time mentioned;" "but that incase of l)r White's stay of a week or two, he would derive pleasure from the interview proposed." These are the " facts;" now for the inferences. Mr E. " thinks" that Dr. White's " conjecture, ' is '* hii^hly probable, ' that Mr. Weslej' supposed, that Dr. W hite ivishcd "to impugn the measure which Mr. Wesley had adopted with resjject !0 the Methodists in America, and -I'hich he did nut intend to relinqxdsh.'^ Mr- E. farther thinks, "that a nian of Mr. Wesley's distinction and politeness sIk idd have evinced so little disjio- sition to have an interview with Dr. W hite, is one of the strongest facts which we can well imagine, in proof of the fixedness of his views, in relation t» the nteasures which he had adopted, for the distinct organization of the Meth- odist episcopal church in America ;" and of his hemg perfect ly satisfied, with the title, 'the Methodist Episcopal Church." Mr E.'also thinks it re- markable, that so polite a man as VJr Wesley was, should decline an inter- view with Dr. \\ hite, and can in no way account for it, but on the supposi- tion above stated. If his supp(<.sition or ccopal loim ot goveinment. 2. It has already been shewn^ that, '■'■Jrom principle^^ Mr. Asbury "was strongly attached to * Notwithstanding' all Mr. E. has said respecting the good understanding, the harnion\ , tiie union, the atiection !s.c subsisting i)etueen Ur. (Joke and. Mr. Asbury; the contrary / kj:o-w to be the fact. Several letter.s, from these genilemen, in proof of tliis slutenient, are now in my possession. These let- ters I decline publishing at present, but shall do it hevealtei", if I am com- pelled to it. 93 episcopacy". That "his attachment to the church of Ensfland was exceedingly strong.''^ That he "preferred the episcopal morle of church government to the presbyterian." And that lie main- tained tlie doctrine of f/jree orders^ bishops, presbyters, and dea- cons. To be consistent with himself, he must have wished, when the church was about to be orjjanized, to have such a form of government as corresponded with his vieivs. It is reasona- ble, therefore, to suppose, that he exerted all his influence with the preachers, to obtain for her the episcopal for ii, which he thoug^ht was the best, and which he preferred to all others. As he acted "from principle^'' and according to the best of his know- ledge, the /loies/ reader will readily understand, "what ideas I attach to the terms wise and good "" I will not deny however, that men who are of a diti'erent character, or who do not act "from principle" may be utterly at a loss to compi'ehend me ; nor would I be able to make the blind see, although I might spend hours, in the fruitless attempt. How far Mr Wesley's conduct may have served, as a justi- fication to Mr. Asbury, to strive to have the episcopal form of government adopted, I will not undertake to say. I readily ad- mit, that the bare circumstance of the "setting apart Dr. Coke" to the office of "a superintendent," by the imposition of hands, simply and abstractedly considered, might have led Mr. Asbury to suppose, that Mr. Wesley did intend the episcopal form of go- vernment; especially, when we consider, how strongly Mr As- bury was prejudiced in favor of that kind of government, where the three orders are recognized. Upon the other liand, I do not see how it was possible for him to understand Mr. Wesley to have recommended such a form of government, because Mr. Wes- ley's circular letter was before his eyes. In that letter Mr. Wesley expressly declares his conviction, that there are but Iwo orders^ presbyters and deacons; bishops and presbyters being the same. The probability of Mr. Asbury's understanding Mr. Wesley to have recommended the episcopal form of government, is farther diminished by another fact, namely, that Mr. Wesley severely reproved him for assuming the title of bishop, which title was exceedingly offensive to Mr. Wesley. Had Mr. Asbury really misunderstood Mr. Wesley's intentions, and had not the title of bishop been an object of primary consideration with him, an ob- ject upon which his very heart and soul were fixed, it cannot he conceived how he could have pursued it with so much perse- verance, and clung to it with so much tenacity; that he would r;i- ther forfeit the esteem of "one of liis greatest friends"'' than pait with it. But the following facts put this matter beyond all doul»f,. and incontestibly prove, that JVIr. iVcsley was not misunderstood. Dr. Coke's letter of appointmen', which "was pari of the sketch,''^ was suppressed. The circular letter of Sept. 10. l7'-^t, was muii- latcd. Mr. Wesley's name was struck off tke minutes in two u years after the church was organized, and the title "bishop" was assumed. Tlie minutes of conference were subsequently al- tered^ so that Mr. Wesley's name, which stood on the original minutes foi' '85 and' 86, does not appear on the printed minutes from 1784 till 1789. No notice is taken of Mr. Wesley's death, altho' obituary notices are taken of all who died the same year, one of whom had not been more than "fwo years and a half'' in the field of labour. Mr. Asbury makes no mention of Mr. Wes- ley's name, when enumerating the sources whence he derived bis "episcopal authority." And lastly, the different and contra- dictory reasons assigned for the adoption of the episcopal niode of churcli government All these are facts, the knowledge of wliicli may he obtained by recurring to the various editions of the book of discipline, and to the minutes of conference. Wliether those who were concerned in these matters were *'good" or bad, "wise" or foolish for the |)art they took in them, and for publistiing the accounts as they stand, alters not the case. ]V will surely be more to the ciedit of the writers, who ma}^ herv"after undertake the "Defence of our Fathers," and it will serve as a more substantial "-defence" to the "-fatliers" them- selves, lo disprove those facts, and demonstrate by documentary evidence Jhat the statements 1 here make, are w/i/r?te, than to be wasting timt*, mivsleading the reader, or venting their malignity, by commentinif upon my opinion respecting Mr. Asbury. If ever Mr. E. should write again, he is requested to confine himself to the facts in the case, and not to pass over in silence some of the most material parts of my present work, as he has done many things which are inserted and remain unanswered, in my Historj and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy. Having taken this view of Mr. Asbury's sentiments respect- ing church governnjent, his principles, and the probable influ- ence which they had in the adoption of the episcopal form of govf rnment, it will be necessary to notice those letters to which I made reference above ; as Mr. E. with a dexterity peculiar to himself, has attempted to lessen the force of the testimony of some ; and to set others entirely aside, " as unentitled to one particle ot credit." 1 he first is a letter addressed to Mr. Asbury, and is dated "London, .Sept. 20th, 1788. "There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation where- in you stand to the American Methodists, and the relation w here- in I stand to all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Methodists ; 1 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 ; for tlie supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he couid hot provide, were it not for me : were it not that I not ©nly permit him to collect, but support him in so doing^. But in one point, my dear brother, T am a little afraid both the fleeter and yoii dit'ter iVom me. 1 study to be little, you study to be great ; 1 creep, you strut aloui^. 1 found a school, you a college. Nay, and call it after your own names ! O be- ware ! 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 eoncern. How can you, how daie you, sutler yourself to be called a bishop? I shudder, 1 start at the very thougfit. Men may call me a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and 1 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, 1 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 atiectionate iriend and brother, John Wesley.' Moore s Life of Wesley, vol. 2, p 285. Respecting this letter, which Mr. E. has been careful to keep ®ut of sight, he says, " Mr. M'feiine, indeed, rejoices over it, as one who has found great spoil. He seems delighted with it." Def. p. 47. To this 1 reply, it is a fact, that 1 am ''delighted with it," and I will tell Mr. E. why I am so. Fii^st. Because it has afforded my mind relief, by removing doubts and dilHculiies, respecting the organization of the Methodist episcopal church, under which I had laboured for several years. 1 had olien read in the records of the church, that Mr. Wesley recomrnendcd the episcopal form oj government ; but where that recommendation was to be found, I could not tell, it is affirmed, also, in the book of minutes, that Mr. Wesley's circular letter "will atlord as good an explanation as can be given of this subject." This letter never was, to me, any explanation a^ all ; nor did it con- tain one single reason, why the episcopal form should be adopt- ed, in preference to any other I, theretore, wished to obtain information upon the subject, and this letter lia^ fully satistied my mind that there never was any " recommendation" or "counsel" given to adopt the episcopal form of church government. On account of the s-atisfaction 1 have derived from it, 1 "rejoice over it as one who has found great spoil ;" aud have made my acknowledgments, by letter, to the Rev. Mr. Moore for publishing it, aud have tnanked God, that in the order of iiis providence, a document of so much importance, which had been kept secret so long, has at last been brought to light. I "rejoice over it," because it is tiie Truili ; and Mr E. knows, that it is affirmed of goodness, " it rejoiceih not in ini- quiiy, but it rejoiceth in the Truth." From his censuje, it is evident that he does not rejoice ever it. That he is sorry it was published ; and, if it were in bis power, tbat be wouM hide it from public view. And wherefore ? What has the "De- fence of our Fathers-' to dread from the publication of Truth ? We know who has said, ' every one, that doeth evil hateth the light neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be re- proved.'* 1 do " rejoice over if." because, by exposing^ the truth, it is likely to break the power of despotism in the church, and re- store to the injured members, their liberties and their rights. Wherever this letter shall be read and duly considered I think it will be impossible for any disinterested man to believe, that Methodist epis(;opacy is of VI r. Wesley's creating. The peo- ple will see by it. that they have been deceived by the state- ments which have been published. I'hey will see that Mr. Wesley never recommended never approved of episcopacy, or the episcopal form of government for the Methodist socie- ties in America. They will have confirmation of what the Rev. Mr, "^^oore, Mr. Wesley's biogiapher has said," that Mr. Wesley never gave his sanction to any of these things " Find- ing, tliat Dr. Coke " tvent farther than JMr. JVesley intended " and that they have been imposed upon, tliey will one day rise in the majesty of their strength, and demand representation : nor will tliey rest until like freemen they have a voice per- sonally, or by their representatives, in making those laws by which they are to be governed. Believing that this change would be for the happiness of the present and future genera- tions, I " rejoice over this letter as one who has found great spoil." '• This letter to Mr. A.sbury contains expressions too severe." Mr. Asbury very fitly denominated it, "« hitler fill :'' such he found it, and such Mr. E. finds it ; the very sight of it pro- duces nausea. *But why are the expressions " too severe V^ They are not too severe for the occasion, as the event showed. For the man who could resist the entreaties of Mr. Wesley, his ■' father." his benefactor, his " friend," and these entrea- ties urged too. with such appeals as the following, "for my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake," gave proof that he was willing to sacrifice every thing for the title of bishop. They are not "too severe,'' in the apprehension of the dangers the parties w^ere in, who fronj vanity or pride, assumed the title of bishop Not " too severe,'' for having departed from the instructions which had been given 'm the most solemn man- ner,''^ not to assume the title of bishop. But on the supposition that Mr. Wesley -'recommended" the episcopal form of gov- ernment, they are not only 'too severe," but they cannot be defended at all. On such a supposition, a letter containing such expressions as are to be found in this, would be a proof of madness, rather than of a sound mind. 97 Mr. E. says, I have '' wholly misrepresented its import." Wonderful man ! Prodigy of nature ! wliere shall we find his fellow : for it seems no man can understand the most plain and simple statement but himself. Surely the Methodist episcopal church ought to pray for his long life, lor when he dies wis- dom will die with him ! And what is the import of this letter according to Mr. E's showing ? Why, that " Air. Wesley's sole objection to the term bishop, was from the associations ordi- narily connected with it in the public mind in England'''' !!! Any man who reads \ir. Wesley's letter, and can believe Mr. E's assertion is not to be reasoned with. But 1 have no idea that there will be many found, who will believe it: it is so repugnant to common sense that it defies belief. The next to be noticed is Dr. Coke's letter to Mr. Wesley, which contains tliis sentence : " Mr. Brackenbury informed me at Leeds, that he saw a letter in London from Mr. Ashury, in which he observed, that he would not receive any person de- puted by you, to tajce any part of the superintendency of the woi'k invested in him, or words evidently implying so much." And upon this Mr. E. remarks : " Mr. Brackenbury might have been mistaken''^ — again. '^ how easily might he have mistaken their meaning," the meaning ot the expressions in the letter. And again, ''Had we before us also the letter of Mr. Asbury, to which Mr. Brackenbury alluded, we might peihaps, be able to show some equal mistake. We object, therefore, to this parol, third handed report ; and unless the document itself be produced, we pi'otest against the statement.'' Dei\ p. 53. Mr. E. must, certainly, be a pupil of the celebrated Italian, Theodore Majocchi, who was a principal witness against the late queen of England, when on her trial. This man, so long- as he was allowed to go on, and tell his own story, would go on very glibly : but whenever he was pinched hy the questions of the queen's counsel, he always had one answer to make, " J\'un mi recordi.'^^ Just so with Mr. E. As long as he is per- mitted to tell his own tale, he seems to do pretty well. But whenever he is pinched by some unmanageable document, that intercepts his way, like a cross question from an examining counsel, then he has one uniform way of disposing of it, the writer was " mistaken.''^ As it respects the case before us, it was not only Mr. Brackenbury who was " viistaken,^^ but Dr. Coke must have been '•'• mistaken" also. Otheivvise, Dr. Coke urged Mr. Asbury's opposition to receive a person deputed by Mr. Wesley, as a reason why Mr. \- esley should ordain preach- ers for America, when at the same time, he knew that the state-, ment made by Mr. Brackenbury was not correct, and that he " vA'as mistaken,'''' in the meaning he attached to the words in the letter. How far this diliers from using deceit, or uttering a falsehood, 1 will leave the reader to judge. 7 98 " In another lefler," says Mr. E. " dated October 31, 1789, Mr, M'Caiiie represents Mr. Wesley as saying of Mr. Asbury, * He flatly refused to receive Mr. Whatcoat in the cliaracter I sent him.' Now this could not have been." Def. p. 53. This is not my representation, the words are Mr. Wesley's own. And as for the phrase, " Now this could not have been," it is only another way of expressing the old answer, " he was mis- takenP So then Mr. Wesley was " mistaken." Dr. Coke was "mistaken." Mr. Brackenbury was "mistaken." Bishop White was " mistaken." Every body is " mistaken" except Mr. Emo- ry ! What excessive modesty, or rather, what presumptive arro- gance. I shall now present the reader with this letter, and he may judge for himself, who is mistaken. '' London, October 31, 1789. " My dear Brother, — The point you desire my thoughts upon, is doubtless of no common importance. And I will give you my settled thoughts concerning it without the least disguise or reserve. Indeed, this has been always my manner of speaking when I speak of the thi.igs of God. It should be so now in particular, as these may piobably be the last words that you will receive from me. It pleased God sixty years ago, by me, to awaken and join to- gether, a little company m London, whence they spread through- out the land. Some time after, I was much importuned to send some of my children to America, to which I cheerfully consent- ed. God prospeied their labours : but they and their children still esteemed themselves one family, no otherwise divided, than as Methodists on one side of the Thames are divided from the other. I was therefore, a little surprized when / received some letters from Mr. ^isbury, affirming thai no person in Europe knew hotv to direct those m rdnierica. Soon alter, he flatly refused to leceive Mr. W hatcoat in the character 1 sent him. He told George Shadlord, 'Mr. Wesley and I are like Caesar and i'ompey — he will bear no equal, and I will bear no superior.' And accordingly he quietly sat by, until his friends, by common consent, voted my name out of the American minutes. This com- pleted the matter, and shewed he had no connexion with me." "But how happens it" says Mr. E. '-that Mr. M'Caine has told us nothing more about this letter.? Why did lie not state to whom it was written, and from what autliorily he received ii ?" Strange questioiis, indeed, coming from a man who would v\ish to be understood as not intending to deceive. And who in the course of two sentences adds, ''The documents in proof of all this are in our possession.'''' Def p. 54. Did not Mr. E. kiiow, then, where 1 obtained it ? Did he not know, from what au- thority I received it.? The documents in his "possession" told him all this, and ihey told him muck more which he \\as very willing to keep back. It was not, therefore, to obtain informa- 99 tion upon those points that Mr. E. proposed his questions ; for the "documents," giving all the information he called for, he tells us, he had "in his possession." But it was for the purpose of conveying an inuendo, that I forged or fabricated this "noted letter," a charge of which, he had too much cunning openly to make ? Perhaj)s he thought a few intervening lines between the name of "Mr. M'Caine," and the terms "corruption and fabrica- tion," would not present an obstacle of such magnitude, as that the sharp sighted reader would not perceive the intended con- nexion between the name and the thing. "The aforesaid noted letter bears on the face of it marks of corruption or of fabrica- tion. And until better authority is produced for it, or the docu- ment itself, we hold it unentitled to one particle of credit." As Mr. E. pronounces this letter to be a forgery "bearing on the face of it marks of corruption or of fabrication," and "holds it unentitled to one particle of credit," I should like very much, to have an opportunity to ask him a (ew questions respecting this letter under oath, in a court of justice. I am very much mistaken it 1 would not extort from him, a very different ver- dict, from that u liich he has recorded above. But as I shall never have that opportunity, I shall go on, and produce "better au- thority" for its authenticity, than he can for its "corruption or fabrication." First. This "noted letter" was published by Rev. Wm Ham- melt, in his controversy with Rev. Thomas Moriell, in Charles- ton, South-Carolina, in 1192. And I never heard that Mr. Mor- rell doubted its authenticity. If Mr. E. believed that it was forg- ed, it was a very easy matter for him to write to Mr. Morrell in Elizabeth-Town, New-Jersey ; and if Mr. Morrell pronounced it a forgery, Mr. E. could publish that certificate, as he did the certificate of the same gentleman, respecting the address to ge- neral Washington. Secondly. From a mamcscript-note in Mr. Hammett's pamphlet, now lying before me, 1 find that this "noted letter ' was addressed to Rev. Beverly Allen, formerly a very distinguished Methodist preacher in the southern States. Whether this was the case or not; or by whom that note was written, I do not know. Thirdly. In a printed note in said pam- phlet, page 23, Mr. Hammett says, "When the first edition of this pamphlet came from the press, the Rev. Mr. Cooper, (resi- dent minister in the M. E. church) called on me to see the ori- ginal; and was fully convinced, it was Mr. W^esley's own hand writing and sentiments, as he corresponded with him, before his death, some time.'* If this was the Rev. Ezk. Cooper, lie was al Mr. E's elbow when he was writing his "Defence of our Fa- thers:" It is therefore reasonable to suppose, that he would inquire of Mr. Cooper, if Mr. Hammett's statement was true f If he ever saw this "noted letter'.? and if the "handwriting was Mr. Wesley's".!* If Mr. Cooper was at a distance, Mr. E. coul«l 100 obtain information upon these points by letter. If he neglected to take this step, he is extremely culpable. But if he did in any vav, come at the knowledge of the authenticity of the above Jetter — if he did know, when he wrote his "Defeiice of our Fa- thers," (and I believe he did) that what Mr. Hammett said re- specting it, was true, tlien the community is left to judge of Mr.. E's truth and integrity for having said that this "noted letter bears 3n its lace the marks of corruption or of fabrication." Fourthly. Mr. Asbury says, respecting this letter, "Saturday 24th I attended quarterly meeting at the widow Flint's. Here I had the first sight of Mr. Hammett's and brother Morrell'^ at- tacks on each other; or rather Mr. Hammett's against the Me- thodists, and brother Moriell's reply. Had brother M. known more, he would have replied better. Mr. H's quotation of a clause in my confidential letter to brother S d (Shadford) is Dot altogether just." Journals, Vol. 2. p. 131. Now what is there here to prove ''corruption or fabrication.'"' Does not Mr. Asbury acknowledge that ne had seen Mr. Hammett's pamphlet in which this letter was published .? Does he not acknowledge that he had read this letter.-* Does he not admit its authenticity by referring to it without any expression of doubt or denial.? Does he not admit it to be froni Mr. Wesley, by acknowledging the truth of the "quotation of a clause in his confidential letter,''^ with only a small qualification "it was not alt ogvtker just.'''' And yet Mr. E.says "this noted letter- bears on.the face of it the marks of corruption or of fabrication "!! Fifthly. In one of Mr. Asbu- ry's letters dated August 6th 18* 6, now before me he says, "On the momentous matter you write, I must be prudent. I have sutiered by a change of things with Mr. Wesley. When it \\as thoughc some persons should come from England to preside, George Shadiord \\as in contemplation.- 1 wrote to him, and it was applied to Mr. Wesley; what a mistake".'' Here is farther testimony from Mr. Asbury; and does he deny the authenticity of Mr. Wesley's letter which contains the expressions he wrote to George .Sba Iford? He does not. Does he deny having written these words.'' He does not. He admits he wrote them; but says, tht-y were "applied to Mr. Wesley'' by "mistake." And yet Mr. E. v\ould pronouce this "noted letter" a forgery, "unentitled to one |)article of credit.'' It may agree with the principles and suit the interests of some little petty fogging village lawyer, who regards neither truth nor justice, so that he gets his lee, to at- tempt to set aside some important document, as unentitled to one particle of credit : but for a minister of Jesus Christ to resort to such stratagems, is enough, to make, if possible, an angel v\ eep. Having disposed of these letters, I must detain the readei-, a few moments, to notice a short paragraph which i*eads thus. "Alas ! what a friend have the venerated dead found in Mr. M'Caine ! He has a great veneration for their memory ! Yet 101 while he salutes, he stabs them, fie kisses, and straightway leads them to be cruoilied." Def. p 50. A.s Mr. E. has com- paied me to two of the worst characters in sacred or profane history, and has imputed to me crimes the most base and infa- mous, I must be allowed to say a few words in reply. 1. Mr E. in his preface informed his readers, that ''in pre- paring this defence, the Divine assistance has been asked — in sending it abroad, the Divine blessing is now implored." Can tiie pious reader believe one word of what is here stated ? Can he bi'lieve that Mr. E. asked and obtained the Divine assistance to write a book containini^ such a passage? Can he conceive what kind of a prayer he put up when he implored the Divine blessing upon this sentence? If he prayed at a!l, there is no instance in his- tory with which his conduct can be compared with more justness than with tliat of lord Verulani, wlio placing his inhdel book ia the window of his chamber, kneeled down and asked God to grant his blessing to a work, written expressly to prove Revela- tion to be a lie. 2. Those who are acquainted with the Scriptures, need not be told, that the persons whom Mr. E. had in his eye, when he wrote the above paragraph, were Joab and Judas: and that their crimes involve treachery, hypocrisy, pertidy, venality, and in short, every thing that is mean and wicked. Alas! for Mr. E. that he should have alluded to either .Joab or Judas. He is the last man in the world that ought to have mentioned their names, or glanced at tiieir conduct. As long as some men are alive, he ought to have observed silence about "saluting and stabbing — kissing and crucifying." I shall not, however, at this time, otfer either spe- cification or proof that these charges are applicable to Mr. E. himself. This I shall do whenever he demands it. All I shall say at present is, that not a syllable of what he has said will ap- ply to me. 3. As the case of the apostate Judas has been introduced, it may not be amiss to notice, first his crime, — next his punishment. His crime consisted of covetousness ; and this may have had its origin and consummation, in his carrying the bag. In perfidy; he betrayed his friend. In hypocrisy; he saluted that friend Willi a kiss. In venality; he sold him for thirty pieces of silver. If the opinion of some men be correct, Judas thought that Jesus would have delivered himself, by a miracle, from the hands of his enemies, and that he would, in that case, not only have re- tained his office, but would have had the purchase money, clear gains. If this was his cool, calculating cunning, the event shows how much he was mistaken. His punishment consisted in the loss of the friendship of the Saviour, and of the Saviour's friends. In the loss of his bishoprick— in the loss of his chaiacter— in the loss of his peace of mind— in the loss of a good conscience— in the loss of his life— in the loss of his soul— iu the loss of heaven. i02 Would it be amiss, therefore, for some men to think of the crime and punishment of Judas ? 1 think not. For, to confine my re= marks to the subject which has agitated the Methodist episcopal church, some have been known, and others have been reported, to have declared themselves in favor of reform. Some of these have composed verses lampooning the government of the church, and have sung or repeated those verses in different parts of their circuits. Some have fearlessly advocated reform in the ge- neral conference. Some have written and published their senti- ments on the same subject. Some have boldly contended for the rights of the people in the presence of, and even against the bishops. Whilst others have declared themselves on the same side of the question in conversation with the private members. And what then .'' It is a well known fact, that these very men have changed, or have acted as if they had changed their prin- ciples. Now I would explicitly say, that 1 respect the man who has an opinion of his own, and acts consistently with that opin- ion; whether he agrees with me, in sentiment, or not. And, that I commend the man who renounces an erroneous opinion, as soon as he discovers that opinion to be erroneous. I do not say a word, therefore, against either of these classes; my remarks are intented solely and exlusively, for men of a different description. For men who change their principles with their circuits; as if the nature of truth changed with the quantum of their stipport. It is against these apostate^' from principle, I write. Against men who feel as if they were in the' very precincts of pauperism ; and al- though "Divinely authorised" as they say, are at a loss to de- termine whether to preach the gospel, or follow some other pro- fession. Against men who seem to have labelled themselves with the inscription to be seen on empty iiouses, "To Let:" and whose inquiry is, in the language of Judas, "what will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you" Where is the faith of these men that they cannot trust God .'' Where is their consistency of character as ministers of Jesus Christ? Where is their inde- pendence and nobleness of mint! as men? WHio can respect them? W ho will place confidence in them ? Such ought to rcilect on the cases of those, in the New Testament, who were inclined to traffick in things pertaining to Uod. Simon Magus offered to purchase the power to impart the Holy Ghost; and Judas Is- cariot sold his Saviour for thirty pieces of silver. The fate of. these individuals admonish all of the evil and danger of either buying or selling the truth, for the sake of "tilthy lucre" From their history, we may learn, that the case of him who receiveSy and of him who gives a price for principle is alike hopeless. That although, Peter, who denied his Lord and Master, with oaths and curses, afterwards found acceptance with the Saviour, Judas did not. And that there is no ground to hope for the salvaiion of I 103 any who would basely make merchandise of grace, or sacrifice truth for gain. — qO© — Section X. — Testimonies of English Methodists. What are the " testimonies of the Eni^lish Methodists"? They allow that " Mr. VVesJey established the validity of pres- byterian ordination." And Mr. E. adds, " who ever disjjuted this .!"' As he admits this point, it may be necessary to ascertaia the meaning of the phrase, "presbyterian ordination." I. It may mean such an ordination as the presbyterians practise ; in that case only one order of ministers is recognised. This parity of ministers did not agree with Mr. Wesley's views, for he said there were two orders^ presbyters and deacons. 2. Or it may mean, ordination by the bands of presbyters alone, as con- tradistinguished from ordination by a tliird order of ministers called bishops. Among presbyterians no higber order is acknow- ledged than that of a presbyter ; nor can presbyters create a higher order than themselves, for no stream can rise higber than its head, spring, or fountain. In this view of the subject, we have but two orders of ministers, presbyters and deacons, which per- fectly harmonizes with Mr. Wesley's views. With this explana- tion of a preshyterian ordination, ivith which the practice of the English Methodists, who have no bishops, corresponds, their tess- timony is adverse to the claims of Methodist episcopacy. 2. Mr. E. has not forgotten to let his readers know, that he was at "the British conference held in Liverpool in 1 320,* and that he heard the profoundly learned Dr. Adam Clarke, and that most able and eloqueni divine, the Rev. Richard Watson, express themselves publicly before the conference, in relation lO our episcopacy, to the same effect, as a true, actual, scriptural episcopacy of the most genuine and apostolical character." Def. p. 48. All this the reader is to take upon Mr. E's ipse dixit, and take it just as he gives it ; because, although Mr. Wesley, Dr. Coke, Mr. Brackenbury, bishop White, and a thousand others may " mistake," Mr. E. cannot. " But how happens it" that these " profoundly learned" and " eloquent'' gentlemen, did not * The public were informed of the same fact, by the followini'' notice in a Canada paper " At a meetin;4^ of the stewards and leaders of the Wrs- lEYAjf Methotiist Society, held in ECing'Slon this day — It w.is resolved that a remonstrance be sent' to the British .Missionary Commiiife, ag-ainst their late decision, relaiive to the withdrawin:^ their Missionary from tliis place, and that the sense of the public be obtained by receiving' signatures to a petition for the cnutiituance of a British Mission ttry herr. This is on the presum[)tion, that inisra/neMntationfi have been made to tiie committee, by, the Amnricun delegate Tiie particulars of which on their arrival, will be laid before the puiilic. As British subjects, we are resolved to supjjoit a British Missionary. Ky order, N. M'LIiO!), Scc'ry." Kingston, Nov." 6lh, 1820. 104 define our " episcopacy !" I suspect they did not use the term *' episcopacy" in its popular acceptation, as an epis- copacv of the third order ; such an " episcopacy" as is in the " church of England." If these learned and eloquent gentle- men had used the term in that sense, they would not have found it necessary to qualify (he term, by employing all the adjunctive epithets, which Mr. E. says, they connected with it. They must, therefore, have meant, that " our episcopacy" is such an cpisropacy as Mr. Wesley explained in his Notes on the New- Testament already quoted ; and such as Lord King laid down, where presbyters and bishops are the same order. In that case, *' the testimonies of the English V^ethodists" are in favor of my position, and opposed to the claims of "our episcopacy." 3. At the otganization of the church, the preachers assumed the title " the Methodist e[)iscopal church :'' and down to the present time, it has been asserted, Mr. Wesley recommended the episcopal form of government. This assertion I have de- nied ; and among other reasons tor my opinion, 1 offer this as one : " there exists no document in which the words Methodist episcopal church, tvere ever written by JMr. Wesley'*'* Althongh nothing of the kind can be produced, yet Mr. E. claims the " testimonies of the English Methodists" in favor of the title, and in support of "our episcopacy.'' Let us see some of the proofs. In the English Magazine for 1809, there is a likeness of Mr. Asbury, taken by the direction of the British conference, which must be considered as an official act, with this inscription : " Mr. Francis Asbury, General Superintendent of the Methodist societies in the United States of America." Two things may be noticed here. I. Mr. Asbury is not styled a " bishop," but a '■'' general superintendent^'' 2. The societies are not denomi- nated the " Methodist episcopal church ;" but, simply, the " Methodist societies." In the Magazine for ]S-^2 there is a print of Mr. Emory himself, taken by order of the British con- ference. This print bears this in'5cri[)t'on : " Rev. John Emory, Repiesentative from the i\merican conference of the people called Methodists, to the English conference, 1830.'* What makes the omission of the ti'le the " Methodist episcopal church" the more remarkable in this ca«e is, that " at the reque.st of the conference'' Mr. E. furnished a copy of the sermon preached before that body, with the following heading, " T!ie substance of a Sermon preached in Liverpool on the 30th of July, 1820, before the conference of the Ministers late in connexion witli Rev. John Wesley. By John Eimoiiy ; the Representative of the General confin-encc of the J\felhodist episcopal church, in America." And also, in his note of inscription to the confer- ence, he styles himself " the Representative of the General conference of the Methodist episcopal church.'''' But although he was thus particidar to give the title, the " Methodist episco- 105 pal church " twice, and even to place it in capital letters, all would not do. The Englisli coiiterence would not coinbuie with I lie Ameiican representative to acknowledge the title. 4. As it respects the case of the pictures, it may be sup- posed that the omission, in the inscription, was a blunder of the 'artist, and that the conference was not answerable for bis mis- take. But no such excuse can be pleaded or allowed tor olhcial documents emanating from the conference, in their olhcial ca- pacity, signed by their president, and countersigned by llieir secretary. The first of these documents, or addn-ssc'S may be found in the British Minutes for 1796, and is beaded thus : " To the General Conference of the people called Methodists, in America : signed Thomas Taylor, president; Samuel Biad- burn. secretary." Having assumed the title " the Methodist episcopal church," the general conference might have leit themselves justifiable in demanding a recognition of their tille. They might have insisted on the fitness of such a recognition, and have found instances to justify its propriety. When " Lord Howe addressed a letter to George Washington, Esquire, the general refused to receive it, as it did not acknowledge the public character with which he was invested by Congress. Marshall's Lite of Washington, vol.2, p. 420. But, although the conference received the address, yet they, wtiose duty it was Lo direct the answer, as if stung by the indignity oi'Jj'ed by the omission of the tille " Methodist episcopal church, or as gently reminding their British brethren of their mistake, di- rected their answer in the same manner, " To the general con- ference of the people czdled Melhodists in Great Britain." 1 bis answer was signed by " Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury. Here 1 would remark, that the British conference is not styled, by themselves, or by tiieir brethren of the Irish conference, the '-general conference." The title they assume is simply, the Biitish conference. To have added therefore, the epithet *^ general," to the term conference, was, to say the least ot it, unnecessary. ,. , Whatever may have been the object of those who airecled the above answer, the British conference were not to be (ti- verted from their purpose : they were neither to be i.atterecl nor driven to adopt the title the » Methodist episcopal church in their addresses. For in the next year they sent another olti- cial communicatioh, directed " To Mr. Francis Asbury, and all the conferences of the people called Methodists in America. See the Britisfi minutes for 1797. r i • d " The next communication they sent is to he found '» y^eir minutes for 1799, the tille of which runs thus : " 1 he Address of the British conference, to the general co.iference in Amj;'"^- ca." And in 1803, they sent another address entitled, 1 he address of the British conference, to the general conference ot 106 the. Methodists in America" In 1807 there is another, " The address from the Biitish, to the Meffiodist's general conference in America " Besides these, the British conference occasion- ally speaking of their Irrethren on this side the Atlantic, speak of tliem, on their minutes, not as the " Methodist episcopal church," but as " the Methodist societies in the United States of America" — " The American Methodist connexion &c." It is, therefore, a singular fact, and perhaps but little Known, that this boasted title, the " Methodist episcopal church ;" and this no less pompous appellation " bishop,'' are not to be found in these Britisli official papers : nor is there any proof, that I have been able to find that either of these titles appears in their minutes, any more than they do in Mr. Wesley's writings. Suck are the " testimonies of the English Methodists." Section XI. — Dr. Coke. Reserving the remarks 1 intend to make upon ihecaicses which gave rise to the charges preferred against Dr. Coke, in the British conference, upon his return to England, until I come to the section, which treats of the " Address to general Washing- ton,'' I shall first notice those charges whh their punishment, — next, the delence which Mr. E. has set up. As to the charges, much need not be said on them ; as Mr. E. expressly states, that " an address.was diavvn up, and signed by Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, in behalf of the American Metiiod- ists, and presented *tO Gen. Washington.'' Def p. 60. And on the next page he says, " a copy of this address was introduced into the British conference, as a ground of censure against the doctor." — " Dr. Coke heard these charges urged against him in PROFOUND SILENCE." if there be no " mystery" about this address, there is, certainly, something connected with it, that I do not yet fully understand. I should like to know, if thera were two addresses, drawn up and presented, by Di'. Coke and Mr. Asbuiy, to general Washington ? The one in 1785, when the general was a private citizen; the other in 1789, when he was president of the American Congress .'' As Mr. E. accord- ing to his own statement, has " examined this subject minutely,'' he ouglit to have told us wiiether there were two addresses, or wheilier there was only one If there were two, I would like to know wherein did they differ in their nature, and what were the objects intended to be elfected by each ? I can find, however, no evidence that there were two : Mr. E. therefore, must clear up this matter. Secondly. 1 should like to know what was the date of tlie address, '' a copy of whicti" Mr. E. says, " was introduced into the British conference as a ground of censure against the doc- toi," Tiiis is an important auUter, and should be well remem- 107 bered. But, says Mr. E. " Mr. Drew 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 arranged bis papers in chronological order." Def. p. 81. On this 1 re- mark, 1. It is not likely, that Dr. Coke, who had made all the previous and necessary arrangements for the publication of iiis papers, selecting his biographer, and placing the papers in his possession, would neglect the chronological arrangement of those papers ; especially, as he was, at that time, an old man, was going a voyage to India, expected to be gone a long time, and was fully sensible of the uncertainty of life. To me, the thing is very improbable. 2. But, for argument sake, admitting it to be a fact, how could I be expected to fix dates to those documents, where dates were wanting, if Mr. Drew was " em- barrassed," with all Dr Coke's papers before his eyes ? And if he erred on that point, how can I be blamed for copying him, unless I had the means of correcting his mistakes, which I had not. But to return to dates, Mr. E. does not gainsay, that this address was presented to general Washington in '85 ; for he assures us it " was introduced into the British conference upon the doctor's return to England in that year." And yet, in .Mr. Sparks's letter, that gentleman says, "It is not likely that any address from any quarter was presented to Washington in 17S5. I have never seen any of that year. He was then a private man, wholly employed with his farms." Tliirdly If no address had been presented, no charge could have been predicated upon such an address : consequently, no punishment could have been inflicted. But Mr E. says "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." Def p. 6i. I ask, now, how came the doctor to be pun- ishedj if no charge was preferred.'' And how came the charge lo be preferred, if no address was presented .-' These are questions, whicli Mr. E. will have to answer in his next, as he has "exa^ mined this subject minutely." The punisliment. "It was finally determined that the name of Dr. Coke should be omitted in ihe minutes for the succeeding year.'''' Def. p. 61. Although this statement is as plain as language can express it, yet Sir. E. attempts to set it aside. Hear what he says. "At this very conference of 1785, Dr. Coke's name ap- pears in the Biitishminutes in London &c." Daf. p. 43. Let the reader, now, mark Mr. E*s disingcnuousness. The question is not, does Dr. Coke's name appear on the minules for 1785 : but does it appear on tlie minutes for the "succeeding year," which is not 1785, but 1786 ^ That is the question. I affirmed it does not appear on the minutes for 1786; and I affirm so still. But Mr, E. says, "at this very conference of 1785 Dr. Coke's name a[)pears on those minutes." Heally; this is very cunning. It is just as if 1 108 Iiad said, A. B. died in 1786. O no, says Mr. E., that is a mis- take^ for he was in London, in 1785 ! ! Mr. E. makes another blunder; for in speaking of Dr. Coke's Journals, he expresses himself thus. ''In this dedication, Dr. Coke states, that he had found in Mr. Wesley a father and a fiiend for thirteen years. If we compare this with the period at which Dr. Coke hecame connected witli Mr Wesley, which was between Aug. ITTG and Aug. 1777, it will just bring us down to the date of the prelace; and this date, too, is in that very year ;Conferenceyear) in which Dr Coke's name was left off' the British minutes.'''' Def p. 69. Now let us go to work and see wiiat we can make out of this statement. "Thirteen years" added to 1777 will give 1790. So far Mr. E. is corred; for Dr. Coke's preface to his Journals is dated '-Jan. 25, 1790. ' Secondly. Mr. E. says, "this date ( 1790) is the very year in which Dr Coke's name was left olf the Brit- ish minutes." This is wrong. For his name stands on the British minutes in 1790. It was left otF in the year 1786. Thirdly. Al- thouj^h in this place Mr. E. says, "Dr. Coke's name was left off the British minutes in 1790," yet he contradicts it and says on page 43 "in 1790, he (Dr. Coke) was again stationed in London vyith John and Charles Wesley." Fourthly. Although he sta- tioned the doctor in London with Charles Wesley in 1790, Charles Wesley had been dead, at that time, two years and tour months. So much for Mr E's accuracy. Fifthly. On the sup- position that no address was drawn up and presented to general Washington in 1785 by Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury; will Mr. E. tell us, what was the nature or character of the charges, which were preferred against Dr. Coke, in the British conference, that year.^ If the doctor was punished, as Mr. E. acknowledges he was, for chaiges which were preferred against him at that con- ference, it will be required of Mr. E. to prove, that those char- ges, and this punishment had no connexion with the organization of the church, or the assumption of the title "Methodist episco- pal church." The next thing to be considered is the defence set up by Mr. E. He complains that in presenting this affair from Drew's Avork, I have not presented "the subject fully ' To mend what I had Sftoiled, or su|tply what 1 had omitted, he proposes to give "a itw fuller extiacls from the same pages, I'rom which Mr. M'Caine took his, which will place the subject in the fair and candid light, in which it was regarded by Dr. Coke's more mag- liaiiimous biograplier." Def p. 60. The attention of the reader is particularly requested to the following novel, and unprece- denled manner of composing this defence; which, if it does not discover a great deal oi fairness and (the clergy of the church ol" Rome excepted) arc now a!?hamed to support the doctrine of the apostolic, uninterrupted succession of bishops." Will Mr. E. answer the following questions. Is not the "apostolic and uninterrupted succession," the very foun- .dation of Jure Divino ? If these subjects diller, let him say wherein .'' Again, what is the difference between Jure Divino, and "Divine Authority.''' See Mr, Asbury's Journals, Vol 3. p. 168. Wherein does "Divine Authority'' dilfer from being "Divinely authorised." See "Report of the committee on peti- tions and memorials. Joun Emory, chairman," in the Christian Advocate and Journal of June 20. 182b. And how can any of these agree with "the principles of the laiu of nature.'*'' Def. p. 7. JVole. 2. "Nor must we omit to observe" (speaking of primitive episcopacy) 'that each diocess had a college of elders or pres- byters, in which the bishop presided." Was this bishop of the same order as his brethren, of the college of presbyters ? if he was, a Methodist bishop diilers from a primitive bishop, and IMethodist episcopacy is very different from primitive episco- pacy. If it be said he was not, 1 deny the position and demand the proof. 3. " And we verily believe, that if our episcopacy should at any time, through tyrannical or immoral conduct, come under the severe censure of the general conference, the members thereof would see it highly for the glory of God, to preserve the present form, and only change the men." " The members of the general conference"' might, perhaps, " change the men,'* it they were not equally inlertsled in playing the lyrant. ^^\t- ncss the recent persecutions and expulsions in Baltimore and elsewhere ; and the approval of these shameful and '■'• tyrannical'^ proceedings by the bisliops and the general conference. 4. ' The bishops of the Methodist episcopal church, have no control whatever over the decisions of either a general or an an- nual conference." Dcf. p. 64. I really wonder Mr. E. was not ashamed to make this assertion, considering the proceedings at the Winchester conference, in which J. Soule and J. Emory took such a "spm/crf" part. The following extract is taken fioni AJr. E's pamphlet, ard tlatly contradicts the above assertion. " That a brother but j«sf elected to the episcopal otfice, and not yet ordained, or even an existing bishop in fact, wtiatever regard ue might feel for them personally, shouid thus, by a strong hand arrest the operation of resolutions such as the above, p«sscrf after long and solemn debate upon tl-.eir subject mailer, — passed with an express view to conciliation, and concurred in, not ouiy by more than two thirds of the general conference, but by two thirds of the episcopacy itself ! ! lyc." VV h( n Nir. E. wrote his pamphlet he was opposed to the power of the bishops : when he 112 wrote his " Defence of our Fatliers" he was a hook agent, and had received a few votes for the office of a bishop. " God for- bid that men should not learn vvliile they live, but it is a bad sign wiieu illumination and preferment come together." '-^^©— Section XIII. — Title Bishop. If reiteration and confident assertion will do any thing for Methodist episcopacy, it will be under great obligations to Mr. E. For, altiiough so much had been said upon the subject mat- ter of this section, in the preceding part of liis book ; yet the "title bishop'^ must be honoured with one whole section for its special use. Its hallowed claims must not be polluted by being mixcQ or confounded with other topics, nor its honours be lost, or buried in a crowd. And, after thus signalizing it, by such marks of respect, what is there in the whole section worth no- ticing ? Nothing that makes for Methodist episcopacy ; but something that justifies the view I have taken of that subject. To begin with the definition of a "bishop." 1. It is a very singular fact, though it cannot be considered as a proof'of logical acumen, that the first definition in Mr. E's book is to be found in the first paragraph of this section : and even this is not his own. We are indel)ted for it to the quota- tion which he gives from Leigh's Critica Sacra. The reader may remember, that I complained, more than once, that Mr. E. did not define the subjects in dispute ; and accounted for his ne- glect on this princij)!e, " that definition would be destruction to his cause " That the reader may not think that this extract from " Leigh," clashes with what I said formerly, when complain- inir. Wesley says in his objurgatory letter to Mr. Asbury, respecting the presbyterians, and what Mr. Wesley says respecting putting away the title of bishop, is extremely disingenuous Surely Dr. vlijler could not mean, that a bishop is a minister of the third order, a sentiment which -Mr. Asbury held when he assumed the title of bishop, and to which -ir. Wesley was strongly opposed. The preacher in charge among the Methodists is of the same order as the rest of the elders, in the same station, and yet he is by virtue of his office, pastor, overseer or bishop of that charge. He is not called a bishop, it is true ; that title being applied to another order of men. If the title bishop, in the Methodist episcopal church, means either the preacher in charge, or a man in elder's orders, I never knew' it before. 3. I hesitated, for some time, whether I would notice Mr. E's remarks res()ecting Mr. Wesley's being elected to the " episco- pal office,'' considering these remarks to be so futile, that ererv 8 lU one would, at a glance, perceive their absurdity. Lest, how- ever, they should be considered by some clrotvning men, who would catch at a straw, sound and unansuerable, I have con- cluded to insert them, and bestow on them one or two remarks. " Mr. M'Caine reproaches our fathers with entermg Mr. Wes- ley's name on the minutes of 1789 as a bishop, atter it was known, that the very term was so extremely otfensive to him. This is not correct. They did enter him as exercising the epis- copal office. But they did not entitle him bishop." Dei\ p. 68. Now what is this but a poor pitiful quibble, as destitute of honesty as it is of common sen^e. And if Nielhodist episcopacy is to be defended and supported by such means, 1 wouUi say of it, "my soul come not thou into their secret ; unto their assem- bly mine honour be not thou united." For to say nothnig of the "principles of verbality,"" which are so offensive to Mr. E. any intelligent school-boy of 10 or 12 years of age can tell him, that the " episcopal office" is the office of a bishop ; and that the person discharging the duties of that office, is called a bishop. To deny that Mr Wesley was a bishop, merely because he was only entered " as exercising the episcopal otiice," is to deny that Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury were bishops, for they were entered in the same way, in the same answer. If, there- fore, it was necessary to constitute Mr. Wesley a bishop, to enter him by that, title, it was equally necessary to enter Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury by that title, to constitute them bishops. And as the term bishop does not appear on the minutes for 11 years, namely, from the year 1789 to the year I8D0, and as Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury were considered, in all that time, "bish- ops," notwithstanding they were only entered " as exercising the episcopal office," in like manner, must Mr. Wesley be con- sidered a bishop, although he was only entered "as exercising the episcopal office." — aQ!^— Sectio^n XIV. — Orgaiuzatioii of the ^lelhodist episcopal cluirch. I HAD occasion to remark, that the two preceding sections of Mr Es book, contain but little that had not been interspersed in other parts of his work. The same thing may be said of this section also. Perhaps he thought, that as he had under- taken to write a book, it would not look like being a '^ Dejence of our Fathers" unless it were respectable for size. Or, he may have thought, that it would not be considered an ample refuta- tion of the " History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy," if it did not contain a few pages more than that ^vork. Or, he may have thought, that there are some men in the Methodist episcopal church weak enough to judge of the merits of his book, and the weight of his arguments, by the number of his pages ; and that tliese would certainly pronounce the " Defence il5 of our Fathers'' a masterly and unanswerable production, if it were only a little larger than my pamphlet. To swell the work, therefore, it became necessary to repeat. For notwithstandin ethodist societies, Tvhen the church vv as organized ; of course no right can be proved from them. " Or if the latter be alleged, viz. that it has been acquired in consequence of becoming Methodists, then it must have been, either by some conventional compact, or by some obligatory principle, in the economy of Methodism, to which, as tlien organized^ the claimants voluntarily attached themselves. " That the preacheis derived a right to adopt the episcopal form cf gjven.ment from any "conventional com- pact," no One will afl'rm ; for no such "compact'" was ever made. Indeed, the societies were not even consulted, much less " a conventipnal compact'- entered into. That the preachers did not derive a right from any * 'obligatory principle in the economy of ethodism," is equally evident. For it was the pe- culiar glor} of Methodism, '•'• as then organized,^'' to receive into its societies, "all wiio had a desire to Hee the wrath to come." If any were expelled from the fellowship of the Metliodists, they were not thereby excommunicated from their own churches. Expulsion from the one, did not imply expulsion from the other. Tliese were "the principles of Methodism as then organized,'^ and from these principles, the travelling pnachers derived no right to organize the chuich and adopt the episcopal form of government for the societies, without their consent. Having admitted and maintained the right of the societies to choose any form of government they pieased, I will now oiler my objections to the episcopal form bemg adopted for them. 1. It was adopted by the preachers alone, without consulting the societies, or obtaining their concurrence or approbation ; a thing haying no precedent in the Christian work! from the days of the Apostles to the piesent time. 2. If the societies had been consulted, they would not have chosen ihe episcopal^hu\ the presbyteyian form, as appeals from the testimony of Or. Coke : "our numerous societies, in America. ViOuld have been a regular presbyterian church, if it had not been for myself" &c. 3. To give the episcopal form of government currency with the peo- ple, and to reconcile them to the adojttion of a form, for which they had no partialities, but to which they were opposed, ad- in vantage was taken of tlie great respect the societies had for the name and chaiacier of Mr. VVesley. It was, therefore, pui)lisiiecl, that this lorm ot li^overnment was "recommeiuled" by him ; and that it was adopted in consequence of his "counsel'' and advice. These things, will be a suflicient answer to Mr. K's question, ''on ' what ground is the Methodist episcopacy thus instituted iUes[iti- mate, unlawful.^" Def. p. 70 It is unlawful, I. Because the preachers had no right, no authority "from the Holy Scriprures — from a conventional comjiact — or from the principles of Me- thodism, as then organized" to ado[)t the episcopal form of go- vernment. 2. Because, it rendered the people's rights a nullity; or in other words, the people- were treated as ifthey had no right to say one word in the organization of the church, or the adopt- ion ot the form of government. 3. Because Mr. Wesley's re- commendation was offered as authority for it, which recommen- dation was never given. And 4. because it was imposed upon the societies under the sanction of Mr. VV^eshiy's name. Mr. E. seems to think that if VIr. Asbury had been influenced 'by motives of ambition and selt''-aggrandizement,"it would have been ''easy" for him, "to have organized a church in America, with himself at its head, independently of Mr. Wesley, and of the whole European connexion." Def p. 69. I think not : for Jn that case, he must have renounced his principles ; or, he must have had a church without the ordinances, — a mere faction, not a church: a church being "a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance" See XIII. Article of Religion. Mr. Asbury had been brought up in the church of England; and there is no evidence that he ever chang- ed his sentiments respecting the doctrines, or government of that church. It has been shewn already, that instead of changing, he retained them : and that he differed from Mr. Wesley respect- ing the order of bisiiops, afhrming it was distinct from and supe- rior to the order of presbyters. If Mr. Asbury did not hold the doctrine of "apostolical succession," he, all along acted on the principle, that ordination by those, who themselves had been ordained, according to common, ecclesiastical usage, was neces- sary to the valid administration of the ordinances. On this ground he resisted the proceedings of the preachers in Virginia, who, in 1778, acting under the "exigence of necessity," chose three of their own body, and ordained ihem. On the same ground, he was unremitting in his exertions to prevail on them to suspend the administration of the ordinances. On the same ground also, he afterw^ards voted wi'h the Philadelphia conference, that the - aforesaid ordinations of the Virginia preachers, and all the pro- ceedings, connected therewith, were '■''invalid.'''' "To have or- ganized a church, what plausible pretext or occasion did he want," says Mr. E. I reply, he wanted ordination; a proper, re- 118 guJar, ecclesiastical ordination, such a one as accorded with his own views. Without such an ordination, he could not move an inch. And where could he have obtained it ? The Protestant episcopal church in the United States, was not at that time or- ganized. Her ministers had not ordination for themselves; con- sequently could not have given it lo others. Such an ordination as any other religious denomination could have imparted, ad- mitting they were willing, Mr. Asbury would not have accepted, because inconsistent with his principles. He knew, therefore, it would be vain to expect ordination from any other quarter than from Mr. \^ esley ; and accordingly, in the hope of obtaining it from him, he waited patiently many years. Now will Mr. E. answer one question: Why did Mr. Asbury remain in connexion with Mr. Wesley for 13 years after he arrived in this country, resisting the importunities of the people for the ordinances — op- posing the proceedings and ordinations of the preachers in Vir- ginia, "some of whom, were the ablest and most influential men in connexion, aud some of whom were his most intimate, and personal friends-," and yet in two years after he had obtained ordination from Mr. W^esley, he relused to submit to his author- ity, and struck his name from the American minutes ? If there was no "ambition and self-aggrandizement" in this, there was something, which, to me at least, looks very much like it. Section XV. — Leaving Mr. Wesleifs name off the Minutes. "The meaning of this phrase," says Mr. E. "seems not to have heen correclhj understood'''' {^non mi recordi again). "In some pla- ces Mr. M'Caine asserts, that Mr. Wesley's name was lett oflin 1785 — 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. Def. p. 73. In a note on the 49th page, Mr. E. advances the same sentiment. And on page 81, he says "Mr. M'Caine asserts also, that the minutes of conierenceicere a/fercfZ, to make them quadrate with subsequent proceedings." In pioof of this, and showing the application to Mr. Asbury, he refers to Lee's History. Now Mr. Lee says, "In the course of this year (1787) Mr. Asbury re-printed the general minutes, but in a dif- ferent form, from what they were before." I have collected and placed together, in one paragraph, all that Mr. E. has said respecting leaving Mr. Wesley's name off the minutes, that the reader may judge, whether what 1 have said on this subject, and on the alteration of the niinutes, be cor- rect or not. Before I proceed to the proof of these facts, it may be proper to inform him, that "the minutes of conference" of which 1 speak, and which I have examined, is a bound volume, purporting to contain "Minutes of the Methodist conferences il9 annually held in America from 1773 to 1813 inclusive, Vol.1.. New-York, published by Daniel Hitt and Thomas NVare, for the Methodist connexion in the United States. John C. Totten, printer. 1813." This volume is easily obtained, and the reader is requested to examine it, for himself. Advertino,- to the leaving of Mr. VVesley's name off the min- utes, I said in my pamphlet, "We know it to be a /acf, that Mr. Wesley's name was left out of the minutes of conference ; and many of our old friends are acquainted with (his fact, as well as ourselves. But bow many are acquainted with all the circum- stances of the case .■' We presume but very few. We arc free to acknowledg-e, loe are not.'''' His. & Mys. p. 3i3, First. From this statement it is evident, that I did not fix the date at all. I neither atlirmed it was '35, nor '87. When I mentioned the fact, I did not, myself, determine the period when his name was left off. I only mentioned it with reference to the records of the church, or to other authorities. Secondly. In order to come at the kno.wledijce of the date of a fact, of which I professed my i.f^norance, I examined the above book of minutes, but could not find Mr. Wesley's name on them from 1784 until 1789. Thirdly, Notwithstanding Mr. Wesley's name does not appear in the minutes from 1781 until 1789, 1 argued it must have been on the minutes for 1785, when those minutes vjers taken. For this opin- ion I assigned the following reasons, two of which Mr. E. has not noticed. "1. Because, rt seems strange, if not unreasonable, that the conference would give Mr. Wesley's name as the only authority for the adoption of the episcopal form of government, and at the very same conference determine to reject him. 2. Be- cause, in quoting Mr. Wesley's letter in the above 'account,' that part of it which relates to the liturgy, is omitted. That there was no resolution passed at that conference to suppress that part of his letter, we argue from the fact, that the prayer book, which !)ad been abridged and recommended by Mr. Wes- ley, was used by the superintendents and many of the preachers subsequently to the conference of 1784 : and we cannot believe, that they would do a thing, the authority for doing which, they had previously and formally rejected. 3. Because we have the testimony of the Rev. .Tesse IjCc to prove, that the minutes of conference were altered ! In the coarse of this year 1787, Mr. Asbury re-printed the general minutes, but in a dillerent form from what they v/ere before." History and Mystery, pp. 37. 38. Fourthly. Finding I could not ascertain from t!ie minutes, wtien his name was left off, I inquired of several old members, if they could tell me. But not obtaining the desired information frorti them, I wrote to tlic five bishops: also to six of the oldest preach- ers in the connexion. See the fourth question in my circular let- ters. The Rev. Freeborn Garrettson in his answer, to my let- ter said. "1 tiiink it was done at a conference held in Mav 1787.'" l!20 This is one of the dates, which, Mr. E. says, I gave. I only averred it to be a fact, that Mr. Wesley's name was on the min- utes of 1785 and 1786 when these minutes uere taken. That ac- cording to Mr. Garrettson's letter, his name v\as left off in 1787. That when the minutes of '85 and 86' \oere taken Mr. Wesley's name was on them, but when the same minutes loere ■printed., his name was left oif. Where now is the confusion? In my "mind," or in the records of the church? I am fully sustained in the state- ment, 'nhat the minuteg of conference were altered to make them quadrate with subsequent proceedings." 1 therefore reiterate the assertion in the face of the world, and I challenge Mr. E. or any other person to disprove what I say, the records of the CHURCH HAVE BEEN ALTERED, The omission of Mr. Wesley's name in the printed minutes of conference for 1785 and 178G is one proof; but it is not the only one. 2. The minutes of conference for 1785, printed in the bound volume referred to above, furnish primafacie evidence, that they were not taken at the time the cont'erence was held in that year. In these printed minutes, the past lime is used instead of the pre- $ent., in every instance, thus : "If. loas agreetV — "circumstances made'''' — "At this conference we formed^'' — "we thought it best," &c. In the original minutes it reads thus: "We will form ourselves into an episcopal church" &c. Besides, the word "^bishop" is in- serted in the bound minutes of 1785, and it is now well known, tliat that term was not used until J 787. 3. Mr. Wesley's circular letter, dated "Bristol Sep. 10. 1784" was not inserted in the minutes of 1785 when these minutes were taken. This statement I make to the best of my recollection, not having- it in my power to examine these minutes now. The only copy of these minutes which I ever saw, was bound up in the prayer book of 1786; and if Mr. E. cannot piocuie a copy of that p; ayer book, nearer than Baltimore, he can, I believe, obtain one from his friend Dr. Bond. This prayer boolc is very scarce; for although I have been in 16 states of the Union, and have been in the houses of many old Methodists, I never saw a copy of this prayer book, but one. As soon as I had returned it to the owner, I was informed that Dr. Bond had bought it up. But alas! for him and Methodist episcopacy, he was a day too late. I be- lieve Mr. Wesley's circular letter of the above date is not in the minutes of 1765, wliich were inserted in the prayer book o( '86: and yet that letter will be found in the minutes for '85 printed for the American connexion. Here, then, if my recollection is correct, is another proof, that the records of the church have been altered, by inserting this letter in the book ef printed min- utes, when it was not inserted in the minutes when taken. This same letter is said to contain ail the "reasons" for becoming a "separate body under the denomination of the Methodist episco- pal church;" and yet there is no reference made to those "rea~ 121 sons," in the minutes printed in the prayer book of '86, but other "reasons" are assigned for that measure. Nor is this all. 'Vhen this letter was printed it was mutilated^ part of it having been expunged. 4. The minutes of conference, which were taken when the 'church was organized, "were first printed," says Mr. E. "ia Philadelphia by Charles Cist in 1785." Def p. 41. They were afterwards re-printed with the prayer book in "London, hy Prys and Couchman." These minutes are headed as follows. "The general minutes of the conferences of the Methodist episcopal church in America, forming the consntution of the said churcli." These minutes contain seventy-six questions with their answers, and occupy a space of thirty-three pages. Now, any one, who will take the pains to look into the book of minutes, printed for the Methodist episcopal church, cannot find one single question or answer, in them, which was printed in the minutes bound up in the prayer book. No, nor one single line I had occasion to notice, before, the constructioii and operation of Mr. E's '•'■magi- cal mill^"'' but really here is something worse than his mill. He did give us a page and a half, after grinding down 44 pages of Drew's Life of Coke. But in the bound minutes we have nor a single page, nor a single question, nor a single answer, nor a single line of the minutes of conference of '85 which were pub- lished in the prayer book. Here is a fourth proof that the records of the church have been altered. And for what purpose were they altered ? I answer again, "to make them quadrate with subse- quent proceedings." To weaken the force of Mr. Lee's testimony produced above, Mr. E. quotes another passage from his (Mr. Leej book, which, by the unwary reader, might be considered as relating to the same subject. "Tiie 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 .-• The first question used to be, who are admitted into connexion ? It is evident, therefore, that Mr. Lee had reference simply to the form in which the minutes were methodised and printed." Def p. 81. A'ofe. In this place, he had reference to the yorm. But it is not "evident" to me, that he had, in the quotation,! gave from him formerly. For Mr. Lee had too much good sense, and too much honesty to say, in reply to the assertion that the records of the church were altered, that this alteration consisted, in a mere transposition in the order of the questions. Nor will the quotation in the above note p. 81 invalidate the testimony I adduced fiom Mr. Lee's History in 6upj)ortjof the alteration of the records of the church. For m Mr.'E's quotation, Mr. Lee speaks of a change which was made in 1779. In the quotation which I gave above, Mr. Lee speaks of Mr. Asbury's re-printing "the general minutes in a ditierent form from what they were before." The reader will please to 123 notice that this latter alteration which is the one to which T re- ferred was made in 1787. And the one which Mr. E. gives, was made in 1779. See the dates, and (hen say was not Mr. E. oun- nina^, U is not of^ ihe folding of the paper, or form of the inslru-' ment of writing, but of the matter or contents, that an honest man speaks when he says, the record, or document was altered. Neither was it of the faun or arrangement of the questions in the minutes I spoke, when i affirmed "the records of the church have been altered." I have now incontestibly established the two points with which I commenced, namely, that Mr. Wesley's name was left oflf the minutes, and that the records of the church have been altered. How the omission of his name was viewed by Mr. Wesley, we learn from Mr. Asbury liimself. Alluding to the minutes of '85 in which the conference declared themselves "ready in matters belonging to church government to obey his (Mr. Wesley's) commands," Mr. Asbury says in his Journals, "it is true, / never approved of that binding minute. I did not think it practical ex- pediency to obey Mr. VV'esley at three thousaiul miles distance, in all matters relating to church government; neither did brother "Whatcoat, nor several others. At the first general conference I was mnic and modest when it passed, and I was mute when it was expunged. For this Mr. Wesley blamed me, and was dis- pleased that I did not rather reject the whole connexion, or leave them if they did not comply." We shall now see what was Dr. Coke's opinion respecting this transaction, which Mr. E. palliates with a cold phlegmatic acknowledgment, " that a g^ewf/cr, and more conciliatory course, on the part of the conference, in relation to Mr. Wesley, per- sonally, might have been, perhaps, the more excellent way." How this sentence drags ! "The line, too, labours, and the words move slow." No wonder, when disapprobation is expressed of any part of Mr. Asbury 's conduct : for he is the only one in Mr. E's book that has not been censured, and even this is accompanied with a * perhaps" as if it came from a friend! But there would be no " perhaps" in the case, if the New York conference were to serve Mr. E. as Mr. Wesley was served. But to return to Dr. Coke. He said, in the seimon he preached in Baltimore on the occasion of Mr. Wesley's death, " that the leaving of Mr. Wesley's name otf the minutes was an almost diabolical act. No history furnished any parallel to it — that a body of Christian ministers should treat an aged and faithful minister, as Mr. Wesley undoubtedly was, with such disre- spect." in his circular, dated Wilmington, Delaware, May 4th, 1791. he says, " I doubt much, whether the cruel usage he re- ceived in Baltimore in 1787, when he was excommunicated. 123 (wonderftil and most unparalleled step) did not hasten his death. [ Indeed / little doubt it. For from the time l)e was infortned \ of it, he began to hang down his head, and to think he had ' lived lonj^ enough '' ' Mr. E, thinks "it was not understood, or intended from the commencement of the organization of our church, that Mr. Wesley should personally appoint our church officers.'" For this opinion he otfers as proof, that Mr. Wesley retained the form of ordination of superintendents in the prayer book, which form prescribes "the imposition of hands upon the head of the elected person." That Mr. Wesley did not understand this busi- ness in the light in which Mr. E. represents it is undeniable ; for he did appoint Mr. VVhatcoat joint superintendent with Mr. Asbury, as may be seen by his letter to Dr. Coke on that sub- ject. 2. Mr. Wesley never did, and never would give up the appointment of church officers, especially those who^ held the first rank in the Methodist societies. 3. He was displeased that even election was resorted to by the general conference, in the case of Mr. Asbury to the superintendency. And this, by the way, may serve as another proof, in addition to those I liave already offered, that in recommending the liturgy, he neither recommended a third order of ministers, nor the episcopal form of church government. — oG^— Section XVI. — JMv. M'-Caineh Arithmetical Calculation. In my History and Mystery I stated that " Methodist episcopacy, from its commencement, had a tendency to cre- ate dissensions and divisions among the bishops and trav- elling preachers, as well as among the societies." p. 62. In proof of this assertion, I noticed the rupture which took place between Dr. Coke and the conference in 1787. — "The dissatisfaction in our connexion in general, and among the trav- elling preachers in particular,'' in consequence of the " pro- ceedings of the council" in 1789. The appeal of Mr. 0''Kelly in 1703, besides other secessions, which took place in ditl'ercnt parts of the United States. As the secession which had its ori- gin in the rejection of " Mr. O'Kclly's appeal'' was the mo-^t extensive, and most generally known when treating of it I said "i/u's appeal," &c. ' Not that I intended "that the rejection of Mr. O'Kelly's appeal, and that alone, abstract from all otlier things, was the cause of a decrease of 20,000. I well knew, lor 1 was on the spot at the time, that Mr. Hammett's secession had taken place in 1791, and this secession 1 intended should be embraced in the account also. It would, therefore, have been more accurate, if in accounting for the decrease, instead of say- ing " this appeal," I had said, the opposition to episcopacy, (and 124 this was the very thing with which T commenced the section,) -and episcopal prerosj^ative was, ahout that time so violent '•'that in five year'^, the minutes of conference exhibit a decrease of 20,000 members " Mr. E. says, " Now how will he make this out ?" I will tell him. At the end of the bound volume of minutes, there is a '' general recapitulation" of the number of preachers in the travelling connexion — the number of preachers who died in the work — and the number of members in society eacb year, from the first conference in 1773 flown to the year 1813 inclusive. In this volume, are bound together, all the minutes of the church; and from this table at the end of the volume. I took my account. I now put it to the candor of every man to say, what reason had I to distrust the report of those minutes .'' Had t any reason to believe that they were less correct than any other document to which I might have recourse .-' But Mr. E. says, '' in the aggre- gate, as exhibited in the minutes, did Mr. M'Caine discover no mistake P' No, I did not; for I went no farther than this table. I looked at no other account than this " general recapitulation." He says. I ought to have looked into Lee's History. Had I quoted from Lee, Mr. E. perhaps, would have replied, your authority is not official. Why do you not go to the minutes of confei'ence ? To the minutes I went, and to them I confined myself And in examining them, was it to be expected, that I would add up ever_\ line of figures to ascertain the true number, when that was done already to my hand ? And, even if i had done so, and detected an error, as I might suppose, how was I to determine, whether the error existed in the minutes for the respective year, or m the table of " general recapitulation ?" The one was as likely to be wrong as the other. And even now, notwithstanding I have added up the lines of figures, in the minutes for 1791, I do not get the same result with that in the minutes The fact is, that in looking at the "general reca- pitulation," I found the number for 1791 to be 76,153. Five years afterwards, namely in 1796, the number inserted is 56,664. Confining myself, therefore, to this table, I had as good reason to believe the latter number was incorrect as I bad that the former was ; but I supposed, as 1 went to no other account, that both numbers were correct. If Mr. E. can subtract these two numbers 56.664 from 76,153 he will find the ditlerence to be 19,489, which for the sake of round numbers, 1 set down as 20.000, and said, it was " about the one third of the whole num- ber in connexion." If the above numbers are not correct, am I answerable for the mistake ? If the book agents publish erro- neous accounts, how am i to find means to detect them. I have taken the statements hitherto which have come from the book room as ti-ue and correct ; but if am pardoned in this tlsing, I will promise to receive no account herealter as true, merely 125 liecause it comes from that quarter, notwithstanding it may have Mr. E. af its head " But we have other cases of arithmetical los^ic," says Mr. E. io '^ propose in bar of Mr. M'Caine's." Mr. E's first ar- gument, in favour of " our episcopal form of government," is founded on the increase of numbers. If this can be called an argument, it is a weak and a stale one. " In bar" of all that can be said on that subject, the reader is requested to turn to the first volume of the " Mutual Rights" and he will find an argument in favour of representation from the laity, and conse- quently against "our episcopal form of government" as 12^ are to 1|, Rut suppose Mr. E's ' logic" was sound, what right has he to use it ? He has been in the itinerant connexion for 18 years : how many have been added to the so<;iety through his instrumentality, in ail that time ? Although he writes so teel- ingly in praise of Mr. Asbury's toils, and sulft rings, and trav- els, and labours, yet it may be asked how many hard cirmits has he travelled .'' What sutfierings has he endured .? His min- isterial services are estimated, perhaps, as highly by himself as by others, but how many have been awakened and con- verted by his ministry, is not for me to say ; — the great day of eternity will disclose the number. Section XYII. — The .Address to General JVashinslon. " Let no one blame an historian," says an elegant writer, " who does not begin before his records ; it is not his fault, it is his virtue." Nor ought the hisiorian to be blamed, who confines himself to his records, unless he has undoubted evidence that his records are not true. In writing my " History and Mystery," I was govei'ned by these principles, not only not " to begin before my records," but to confine myself to the accredited records of the churcli, and to give those records as authority tor the facts I stated. Of the class of records which 1 considered as worthy of belief, was the life of Dr. Coke, written by Mr. Drew. This work I considered entitled to full credit. First, on account of the standing and reputation of the author as a writer. Secondly, because it was " printed in London at the conference room, sold by Thomas Blanchard, 14 City Road, and at the JMethodist preaciiing houses in town and country." Thirdly, because it was re-printed by the Meth- odist episcopal church, and sold by the preachers in the Unit-' ed States. Of the many facts contained in my pamphlet, the account of one is taken from this work, namely, that before Dr. Coke left th.e United States in 1785, an adilress was drawn i!u by iiim and Mr. Asbury, wUieh address was presented by 126 tbem (o genpral Washington. — That tins address was publish- ed in the newspapers in this country, and in them found its way to England, before Dr. Coke arrived there — That upon the doctor's airival in England, charges were preferred against him, before the conference. — And tinallj', as a punisjjment, it was determined that his name should be left otf the minutes of conference " the succeeding year." The reader is jjarticularly requested to bear in mind, that T deiived every particle of this information from Diew's life of Coke ; and in copying the account into my book, I gave, not only the page, but was so particular as to notice the edition of the work. Now, what does Mr. E. with all his boasted light and inlbrmation say respecting tlie whole affair ? Does he deny That such an address had been drawn up by Dr. Coke and Mr. As- bury."* Does he deny that such an address had been presented in 1785.'' Does he deny that this address had been published in the newspapers .'' Does he deny that the newspapers containing it had reached England before the doctor ^ Does he deny that charges predicated upon this address had been preferred against the doctor in the British conference .'' Does he deny that the doctor was punished by leaving his name off the minutes .'' He does not. He admits all these facts, by inserting the very same account in the " Defence of our Fathers ;'" and contents him- self with saying. " Mr. Drew though himself a British subject, has vindicated both the conduct and motives of Dr. Coke, on that occasion, with a triumphant ability, which leaves us noth- ing to add." Def p. 60. But Mr. E. intimates that the address to Washington wai not presented in n85 but in 1789. And yet all the transac- tions coupled with this address, actually took place according to Mr. Drew's statement, and I might add Mr, E's also, ia 1785. Either the whole account, as given by Mr. Drew and copied by Mr. E. is incorrect ; or there was an address pre- sented in 1785. If there was no address presented in '85, it seems very strange that Mr. Drew, with all Dr. Coke's papers before liim should say there was ; and that his statement should be supported by collateral testimony. Allowing that no address was presented in that year, as Mr. Sparks, in his letter, inti- mates to be the case, tlien the charges which were preferred against the doctor, and the subsequent punishment, must have originated in another matter ; and what more likely to have elicited charges than the organization of the Methodist episco- pal church, and the assumption of that title. 1 say, therefore., upon a review of the whole alTair, that this address is involved an *'mystery;" and it remains for Mr. E. to clear this mystery \\\). It may be exj)ected that I should state the exertions I made to obtain information respecting the dale of this address, which is said by Mr. Drew, to have been presented to general Wash- 127 iiigton in 17S5: and the reasons which led me to eonelude it was dated in 1785, and not in 1789. The reader must bear in mind, thai although the address itself is not given by iMr. Drew, nor any date assigned to it, yet he says expressly that an address had been drawn up and presented to general AVashiugton, by Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury before the doctor \t\\ the United States in 1785. That it was published in the newspapers, car- ried to England, preferred as a charge against the doctor, in the conference, and for it, his name was left otfthe minutes as a pun- ishment. All these things are stated by Mr. Drew, and in the contemplation of these facts, I considered first, the character of Mr. Drew. Some of my readers may not know that this gen- tleman is a local preacher in the Methodist connexion in Eng- land. That he is the author of two works which have inimorlai- ized his name : one on the" Immateriality and Immortality of the Soul," the other on the " Resurrection of the Body." Thai as a close thinker he is considered to have but few to equal, none to surpass him. That this gentleman was selected, by Or. Coke to write his life, and for this purpose, the doctor placed in his hands all his papers, before he sailed for India. Now, what was there in the historian to lead me to disbelieve his statements? I could not doubt of his ability to investigate the subject; his metaphysical works forbade that thought. I could not doubt of his integrity ; his ministerial standing, and his high character for piety precluded that. I could not doubt of the correctness of his statements; I knew that he had all Dr. Coke's papers in his pos- session, and before his eyes. Viewing the subject therefore, with reference to the ivriter, and the viaterials which were in his pos- session,! had no more reason to question his statement, than 1 would ha\e to disbelieve any statement in the Life of Washington, by Ju(.ge Marshall; or in the Life if Patrick Henry, by Mr. Wirt. Secondly. 1 stated above, that although Mr. Drew did not in- sert a copy ol the address which had been presented to general Washington, before the doctor left the L'nited States in 1785: yet he inserted a copy of general Washington's answer, wtiich was said to be an answer to that same address. The answer be- ing given, presu[>posed the presentment of the address, to which it purports to be an answer. This answer, ihough it nas no date, corresponds word for-word (with the excejjtion of one word) with the answer published in the Arminian Magazine, vol. 1, p. 286. I concluded therefore, that as Mr. Drew had all Dr. Coke's papers betbre his eyes, that the address published in the Arminian Magazine must have been the address to which he re- ferred ; the answer in the Magazine being the same as that which' he published in his life of Dr. Coke. Hardly. It will he recollected that Mr. Drew distinctly states tliat charge^ had been preferred against the doctor upon his return to Kngland, founded upon the address which h*^ ^rU^ 128 Ifr. Asbury presenter! io general Washing'ton. He ftrther tells us, " traf as some decisive sleps were necessary to be taken in tills critical aflair, it was finally deteimined tbat the name of Dr. Coke should be omitted, in the minutes for the succeeding year.'''' I accordingly looked in the British minutes for 1786, the year succeeding '85, and could not find Dr. Coke's name in them that year. Here was collateral proof that Mr. Drew was correct in his statement. Fourthly. As Mr. Drew affirmed that this address was publish- ed in the new^spapers of the day, and as general Washington's residence was in the neiglibourhood of Alexandria, D. C. I thought ]t was most likely that,the newspapers in which the ad- dress was published, were those of Alexandiia. I accordingly wrote to two gentlemen in the District ol" Columbia, who are well acquainted with several of the officers of government, and with members of congress, requesting them to use their influence with their acquaintance, as well astonuike exertions themselves, to procure forme, if possible, a copy of that address, or inform me in what newspaper it v\as printed. After a lapse of several weeks, they answered my letters, and stated that they could nei- ther find the address, nor tell me where I could obtain it. One of fhfse gentlemen suggesting tbat it might probably be found among Washington's papers, I had it in contemplation to go to Mount Vernon with the view of obtaining a sight of it. But be- ing informed that Judge Washington was on. his circuit, I relin- quished the idea. Fi/tlUy. Fai'ing to procure a copy of the address, through the assistance oi' my friends, I next applied to the editors of the Baltimore "American,'' supposing as it was an old paper, they JHJ could give me some information that might serve as a clue to the jH business. They informed me that they had ro papers " so far back," but in all probability i could find them in tiie Baltimore Library. Sixthly, f next applied to the librarian in the Baltimore Li- brary, who not onl5' allowed me to search the newspapers in the library, but politely assisted me in making the search. In this way 1 spent the greater part of a day, but all in vain. Seventhly. Disappointed in every efiort I had made,either to get a copy of the address, or to ascertain its date, i published my j^amphict, under the solemn belief that Mr. Diew-'.s statement was true, and that the date of the address was 1785, and not 1789. Eighthly. Shortly after my pamphlet came out of press, Mr. Sparks's letters to judge Story were published in the newspap- ers : in which he stated that he had obtained geneial Washing- ton's papers. As soon as I read these letters, .' determined to apply to Mr. Sparks, to know if a copy of the address could be procured from him. Being a stranger to Mr. Sparks, 1 waited 129 on a gentleman of this city to get a letter of introduction to Mr. Sparks. This gentleman very politely and promptly complied with my wishes, I then addressed a letter to Mr. Sparks, ac- companied with one of my pamphlets, and received from him the following answer. " Sir. Boston, July a7th, 1827. It has given me pleasure to comply with your request, in look- ing over general Washington's papers for the address of doctor Coke and bishop Asbury. The original paper ( do not find, hut the addi'ess is recorded with the date ofMay the hoenty -ninth 1789. In your pamphlet, the date is stated to be May the nine- teenth. A mistake of a figure has, in some way, crept in. As to the year', I am inclined to think the same error has happened ; that is, 9 has been altered to 5. It is a little singular, to be sure, that two such errois should have occurred in one date. Whether it admits of explanation, I know not. General Washington was never president of congress; nor is it probable that any address of a public nature would have been made to him in the year 1785, when he was living at Mount Vernon, as a private citizen. I should think circumstances would be very conclusive against this latter date. The address and reply as recorded are word for word, as printed in your pamphlet, except one instance in the reply where three words are omitled. Thus, instead of — "it^hall still be my endeavour to manifest the purity of my inclinations," — it is expressed in the records as follows — ":t shall be my endea- vour to manifest, by overt acts, the purity of my inclinations." Jn all other respects the printed copy is an exact transcript. I am. Sir, very respectfully, your most obedient servant Jared Si' arks'" From this plain, unvarnished account of the pains I took to as- certain the date of this address, the reader will be able to form an opinion, respecting the justness of the charge, preferred in the following words. "-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 tlie atten- tion directed to the points in the 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 gla- ringly unfounded and injurious decision, against all evidence and reason, and all justice and truth." Def p. 81. 1. The decision which I pronounced, so far from being "against all eviderice and reason, and all justice and truth,'' was pronounced with the utmost respect for tlie testimony, and with the utmost reliance on the respectability of the witness. The witness was the Rev. Mr. Drew, Dr. Coke's biographer; a gen- tleman who was selected, by the doctor himself, to write hig life; and who placed in Mr. Drew's hands, all his papers fortha 9 ISO purpose. Mr. Drew holds a very distinguished rank in the reli- gious and literary world. He is a minister in the Methodin} so- ciety in England; the author of two celebrated metaphyFical "works, and editor of the Imperial Magazine. Was not this gen- tleman a competent, and credible witness.'' Would not his testi- mony be received in any court of justice as soon as Mr. E's? And ii I had been so weak or wicked as to pronounce a decision against such testimony, then indeed it might have been said that my decision was "against all evidence and reason, and against all justice and truth." As it is, the imputation returns to Mr. E. 2. It ought also to be known that the Rev, Mr. Drew was deemed a competent and credible witness by the Methodist so- ciety in England. His "Life of Dr. Coke" was so highly appre- ciated, that it was published by the British connexion, and sold by the preachers "in town and country." 3. This work has been re-published in this country at the Meth- odist book-room. it has been sold by the preachers all over the United States — has been eulogised in the strongest terms possi- ble — and has been lately recommended to the members of the society without even an index expurgatorious. 4, From this work, Drew's Life of Coke, I derived every particle of information I possessed at that time upon the subject of the "address," and the punishment inflicted on the I'octor for presenting it. In the decision which I pronounced on this mat- ter, 1 gave Mr. Drew as authority for all i advanced : of course, if there w^as any "error," it was Mr Drew's; not mine. This Mr, E. knew well, when he wrote the above charge ; as is evident from the fact that he represented the subject in the same point of light, notwithstanding all the pains he took to manufacture his quotations. Section XVIII. — History and Afystcry ofJ\Ir.J\rCktinc''s inconsistency. If any thing unfair or untrue, coming from Mr. E's pen, could surprise me, I certainly should be surprised at the contents of this section. In reviewing a former section of his work, 1 per- ceived he had not once mentioned my name ; but he has made ample amends for this omission, by appropriating a whole sec- tion to the "history and mystery" of my "inconsistency." He has reserved the history of my alleged "inconsistency" to the last, with a view, I suppose, of making a deeper impression; and this, he thinks, will clinch the nail which he supposed he had so surely driven. But when the reader is made acquainted with the history of the facts, to which Mr. E. has alluded, and which he has distorted and discoloured, the odium which was intended to be fixed on me, will in the end fall upon himself. When I was printing my "History and Mystery," the printer informed me, there would be two or three spare pages, and 131 wished me to furnish matter to fill them 'up. This induced me to sketch the plan, which is given in the "conckjsion." Iq this sketch, I distinctly stated, that the plan was entirely my own; and that it did not emanate from the "brethren who are in favor of representation." I was explicit in making this statement, lest the plan should be objected to as speaking the language of reformers generally, or as being sanctioned by them. One of the articles in this plan runs thus : "Let the name of bishop and the episcopal office, as it now exists among us, be put away for ever," &c. With a view of preventing objections, or weakening them if made, the project was submitted as the production of a single individual. Of one, who was willing to submit to the judgment of the majority of his reforming brethren, if they "thought it best to relinquisli any or all of them," for the present. Of one, who arrogated no right to dictate, and who gave an assurance in his statement, that lie would co-operate with his reforming brethren in any way, that would be likely to secure the great principle of "Representation." "VVe hope, therefore," this was my language, "no attempt will be made to withhold representa- tion from the laity on account of any objections which may be made against the specified items of change. We are not tena- cious of tlicm. But re)>reseiitation from the local ministry and laity, by the help of God, we will never relinquish. This, with us, is a sine qua no/i." Perceiving that every word in this quotation contradicted and refuted the slanderous reports put in ciiculation b} some in high stations, that I only wanted to be the head of a party, Mr. E. im- proves upon a suggestion offered by Dr. Bond. The doctor had said of me, "if he believes all that he has written in the previous part of his book, and would be satisfied with this, he offers a base and disgracefitl compromise." Truth-loving and slander- hating Dr. Bond who is almost afraid to open his mouth, lest an untruth or a slander should slip out, ushers in his conclusion with an "if:'" and modest Dr. Emoi-y (par nobilc fratrum) asks, "is Mr. M'Caine sincereP"" Yes, gentlemen, I believed the state- ments made in my book, and I was ^'•sincere*'* in making them. And although you have both tried your skill, you have not been able to disprove them, or shake their credibility in the least. Mr. E. asks "Docs he really mean, after all he has said, that if admitted into the general conference, he would 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 other- wise, at this juncture, he might dash from his lips the cup of sweets.""' To this I answer. I. I was a member of general conferences long before Mr. E. was a member of the church, and never found them to ofl'er "a cup of sweets." 2. Since 1 have been engaged in the cause of reform, I never liad the least wish or desire to be a member of a general conference. 3. The expressions which 132 he has attempted to distort, and place to the account of my *'in- coi.'sistency,"'' were not intended to piocure for iii}selt "a cup of sweets;"" but to prevent objections to the sketch, procure unani- mity among reformers, and shew, that notwithstanding ; might have my own views of the subject, yet I was willing to submit to the will of the majority. 4. The expression of these sentiments, intended to be applied to the incipi<^nt stage of the business, cannot be construed as a pledge, promise oi assurance, that at a future period 1 would be wanting in my exertions to "do away the name ot bishop and the episcopal othce as it now exists among us." 5 hi proposing to put away the name of bishop, and to abolish the episcopal office as it noic exists among us., I con- ceived 1 Mas onl^ reiteiating Mr. V\ esley's advice who entreied Mr. Asbury in the most tender manner, and by the most sacttd and powerful considerations to put away the title, ti. Perhaps some may feel that I have done as much, to say the least, as any other man, to put away tiie title. They may be fear(ul that as 1 had begun, so I intended to go on, until at last, the object of their highest ambition would be prostrated in the dust. " But a still more extraordinary mystery of inconsistency," says Mr. E. " remains to be developed." To make out this " inconsistency," he compaies one of the reasons, which I as- signed in the preface to my "• History and Viystery," for the publication of that work, with a "communication," which I made "in a way to reach .episcopal ears." hi the preface, I said, " I think this exposure of the manner in which episcopacy was foisted upon the societies, will tend mucri to lessen, if it will not totally overcome, the o|)position ot' travelling preachers to representation.'''' In the communication which reached epis- copal ears, (Mr. E. ought to have !-aid episcopal eves unless he means that a Methodist bishop sees with his ears instead of his exes,) I am represented as saving, "atfection and veneration for episcopal men might, and no doubt would lead a local repre- sentation to support a measure" which they had no immediate and direct interest in opj)Osing ! Thus, by exposure of episco- pacy shall never by my consent call me a bishop." TWKl-JTY NINTH HEASON- Because Mr. Asbury would nf>t put away the title of bishop, although he had been entreated to do so by Mr- Wesley in the follovvmg moving manner. ♦•For my sake — for God's sake — for Christ's sake" Sic, He would neither yield to reproof nor entreaty ; but would ra- ther forfeit the confidence and affection of Mr Wesley his "father" his be- nefaetor, and one of "his greatest friends, ' than part with the title of bishop. THIRTIETH REASON. Because no notice is taken of Mr. Wesley's death in the American minutes of conference, although the doath of one who had not travelled more than "two years and a half" is respectfully recorded. THIRTY FIRST REASON. Because Mr Asbury takes no notice of Mr. Wesley in enumerating the sources whence he derived his episcopal author- ity; and yet Mr \V esley's recommendation of the "liturgy" is given as his re- commendation of the episcopal form of government, THIRTY SECOND REASON Because of the strife between Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury and the conference. See Dr Coke's certificate of May 1787 in my His. and Mys p, 62. Dr. Coke's letter dated Wilmington Del. May 1791 in my His. and Mys. p 64 Dr Coke's letter to bishop White in this work p. 58. See also an extract from his letter in "Defence of our Fathers" p. 91, THIRTY THIRD REASON. Becauue Dr. Coke wrote a letter to bishop While, without consulting the conference, or even Mr. Asbury his colleague in the episcopal office ; proposing to re-unite the Methodist witli the Pro- lestant episcopal church THJR'IY FOURTH REASON. Because in the aforesaid letter, Dr. Coke acknowledged he 'went further in the separation than Mr. Wesley, from whom he nad received bis commission, did intend." THIRTY FIF TH REASON. Because Dr. Coke wrote to the bishop of I>ondon requesting liim to ordain only a few of the British preaciiers. AVouid he hare done tliis if he had been a bishop .' THIRTY SIXTH REASON Because of the pains which have been taken by the rulers ot ihe church, to effect concealment and prevent exa- mination Investigation being interdicted, in fact, under the penalty of ex- communication. THIRTY SEVENTH REASON Because of the contradictory views of the writers who have undertaken to defend Methodist episcopacy See Mr. Morrell's. Dr.Phcebus's, Mr-Bai\gs's, and Mr Emory's |)ampldcts,Mr AA'esley's letter of Sep 10 1784. The first chapter and first section of the book of discipline. The section extracted fn^m the book of discipline of 1705 pub- lished in my His and Mys. p 18 'l"he extract from Mr.Asbury's letter dated Dec, 26. 1806 in this work p. 90; and the Narrative and Defence, said to be written by T. E. Bond and signed by George Earnest and others. If the reader will compare these documents, he will find that the writers not only diH'er respecting the origin of "our episcopacy'' and the reasons for adopt- ing tije episcopal form of church government: but tliat they conMadict one another in their statements respecting the ministerial oi'der to which a Me- thodist bishop belongs. WHhN the cant, id reader sJiall have duly considered the nature, the num- ber, and the variety of the facts set forth in the foregoiiig recapitulation, he will be led to the inevitable conclusion, that Methodist episcopacy, as it now exists, is not Of Mr. \\' esley's creating ; nor could he have recommended the episcopal form of government to the American societies. He will be con- vinced that although these "facts'' are so diversified in their character, originating- under vai-ious circumstauces, happening at different periods, and having been ir.uisacted by dift'erent agents, yet they all unite-to prove such a recommendation inipos.sible. And he will be convinced, by these "facts and reasons," that I am fully sustained in the assertion 1 have made that the episcopal form of government was suuRKP-riTiocsLr iNTRODtcF.n, and was jniposed on Ihe societies under the sanction of Mr. Wesley's name. Erratum. — Expunge the words "for it" in the note on the 56th page, sec- »nd line from the bottom. FINIS. DATE DUE ■•'wSfcft^ftjJgJlyjIj H^- Urn \ ^m^TT^ % 'FEB 29 '« i GAYLORD PRINTED IN US A. mMmmm u !\i^^ rai^f M^-'^m^si&^'9^' •w^^M&W? iMvM ^li^f^^'^'^i'^^s^^ ■'•VWyv. ¥p,,Mmk.... (^,yowcv«y^ '^M^^^^', f':.mm :^^-mm^ "!"" ,5,aft"i.- Ill'' i Vjt.^. TOww^ l^'l-^iimim^^^-^^^i^^'''" M^.. W:^^^::^ W^ Kf^^K rA"^ ■mmh JCT^"^''''" ■■j r*9 ^Ml 1 r :■ , t !■- cl^ ^ " "•^"v ^JLt^ rtii ffl ill iM vv.Ji ■yywWw..,;r,aurwv VS^^^^^v 'vrnmm^ wwyw:"^^. 'y^wy.