DEC 12 1974 ' 
 
 BV 650 .S82 1850 
 Stevens, Abel, 1815-1897. 
 An essay on church polity 
 
AN ESSAY 
 
 ON 
 
 CHURCH POLITY 
 
 arom|jreI)enbing an (IDittlinc 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CONTROVERSY ON ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT, 
 A VINDICATION 
 
 THE ECCLESIASTICAL SYSTEM OF THE METHODIST 
 EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 BY REV. ABEL^STEVENS, A. M. 
 
 GEORGE PECK, EDITOR. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY LANE & SCOTT 
 
 200 Mulberry-street. 
 
 JOSEPH LONGKING, PRINTER. 
 
 1850. 
 
Entered according to Xct of Congress, in the year 1847, 
 
 by G. Lane and C. B. Tippett, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of 
 
 New-York. 
 
 / 
 
PREFACE 
 
 During the late secession from the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, in the northern states, the writer 
 of the ensuing pages was compelled, by his official 
 position, to defend our church government against 
 the misrepresentations of the seceders. He issued 
 two "Tracts for the Times," which received the 
 approval of the Journals, and some of the higher 
 authorities of the church. He also delivered public 
 lectures in several places on the subject. These 
 labors led to the request, from various quarters, ac- 
 companied by resolutions from quarterly conferences, 
 that the substance of the tracts and lectures should be 
 formed into a convenient volume for circulation among 
 our people. 
 
 The practical working of our system, though singu- 
 larly useful, frequently interferes with local feelings, 
 and is occasionally opposed by individual societies, 
 especially when the annual appointments may not be 
 satisfactory to them. Much of this dissatisfaction 
 would be prevented by a better understanding of the 
 system ; but we have no popular work expounding it, 
 none of any kind indeed, not out of print, that treats 
 
4 PREFACE. 
 
 on the chief, popular difficulties connected with it, 
 namely, the absence of lay representation, the autho- 
 rity of the appointing power, the relative control of 
 the system by the ministry and people, &c., &c. 
 Such a work is, unquestionably, a desideratum. The 
 present volume is an attempt to provide it. The 
 Third Part is especially devoted to these questions. 
 
 It was suggested to the author that the plan of the 
 volume might be advantageously extended, and made 
 to comprehend the outline of the course of study on 
 church polity, required of candidates for membership 
 in our conferences. This has been attempted. Can- 
 didates are now under the necessity of studying a 
 variety of elaborate works in their preparation for 
 examination. It is not designed to supersede these 
 works ; they should be retained not only as standards 
 for thorough study, but for constant reference. But 
 they are, certainly, too numerous and too extensive 
 for the purpose of conference examinations, especially 
 while our course of study is otherwise so large as it is at 
 present. A brief, but comprehensive, text-book, com- 
 prising an outline of the whole subject, it is believed, 
 would be highly acceptable to both the candidates and 
 committees. 
 
 In giving the volume this adaptation, the following 
 departments have been adopted: — 
 
 I. An outline of the controversy on church govern- 
 ment in general, presenting the views of our own 
 
PREFACE. 5 
 
 church on the subject, and the authorities which sup- 
 port them. 
 
 II. A discussion of the origin of our own system in 
 particular, correcting the misrepresentations of se- 
 ceders and Protestant Episcopalians respecting it. 
 
 III. An examination of the structure of our system, 
 explaining and defending its chief features, such as its 
 itinerancy, its episcopacy, and its popular checks. 
 This department does not include a description of our 
 economy in detail ; such a description is unnecessary, 
 as it is found entire and at hand in the book of Discipline. 
 
 On the first of these departments we have several 
 elaborate standards, namely, Lord King, Powell, 
 Emory's Episcopal Controversy — a valuable frag- 
 ment, though chiefly extracted from Dr. Campbell — 
 and Bangs' Original Church, in part — the best work 
 given by its venerable author to our literature. In 
 the second department, we have Emory's Defense of 
 our Fathers, a controversial pamphlet of decisive 
 ability, but relating to a temporary agitation, and 
 abounding in contemporary references; a portion of 
 Bangs' Original Church may also be referred to the 
 same department. In the third, and most important 
 department, we have not, so far as the author can 
 recollect, any work whatever. In the controversies 
 of 1828, Dr. Bond published an able pamphlet on 
 lay representation, from which valuable quotations 
 are made in a section of the present volume ; " The 
 
6 PREFACE. 
 
 Itinerant," of that day, contained some excellent 
 es3ays on the composition of our system ; Dr. Emory 
 also discussed the subject in the Methodist Magazine 
 at the time : but these publications were temporarjV 
 and are now out of print. We are constantly, how- 
 ever, reminded of the necessity of some such expo- 
 sition of our ecclesiastical economy, by the misrepre- 
 sentations circulated against us, and, occasionally, by 
 the disturbance of our churches. 
 
 As the first part of the work depends almost ex- 
 clusively on historical and traditional testimonies, and 
 these are numerous enough to fill volumes, a selection 
 of the best has been made, and minute references 
 given, both to verify the quotations and aid the further 
 inquiries of the reader. 
 
i 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL. 
 
 Chapter I. — No particular form of church government pre- 
 scribed in the Scriptures Page 9 
 
 Chapter II. — Government of the primitive church' . . 19 
 Chapter III. — The apostolate temporary . . . .25 
 
 Chapter IV. — The government of the church copied from 
 the synagogue ........ 36 
 
 Chapter V. — Identity in order of bishops and presbyters . 45 
 Chapter VI. — The apostolic succession . . . .62 
 
 Chapter VII. — The office of deacon . . . .78 
 
 PART 11. 
 
 GOVERNMENT OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 ITS ORIGIN. 
 
 Chapter I. — Origin of the Methodist economy . . .83 
 Chapter II. — Origin of the Methodist episcopacy in par- 
 ticular 89 
 
 PART III. 
 
 GOVERNMENT OP THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 ITS STRUCTURE. 
 
 Chapter I. — Absence of lay representation . . . 113 
 
 Chapter II. — Itinerancy 138 
 
 Chapter III. — Episcopacy — The appointing power . . 156 
 Chapter IV. — Checks on the system .... 161 
 Chapter V. — Objections to, and dangers of, the itinerancy 172 
 Chapter VI. — Importance of the presiding eldership . 188 
 
 Chapter VII. — Methodism a special system . . . 193 
 
AN ESSAY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL. 
 
 i- 2- 3 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 NO PARTICULAR FORM PRESCRIBED IN THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 Opmion of the Methodist Episcopal Church — Testimonies of 
 Emory, Bangs, Watson, Wesley — Confirmed by the opinions of 
 Stillingfleet, Cranmer, and other authorities — Remarks. 
 
 Method ists believe, jSjenerally, that no •particular 
 form of ecclesiastical polity is of divine prescription, 
 and that) therefore, the mode of governing the church 
 is left to its own discretion and the ex i gencies of ti me 
 and place . Bishop Emory says , (quoting substantially 
 the language of Dr. Campbell,) "That no form ofj 
 polity can plead such an exclusive charter as that' 
 phrase, \divine right,"] in its present acceptation, is 
 understood to imply ; that the claim is clearly the oflT- 
 spring of sectarian bigotry and ignorance. This we 
 may say with freedom, that if a particular form of 
 polity had been essential to the church, it would have 
 been laid do^vn in a different manner in the sacred 
 books." — Epis. Con,, p. 41. A^ain : " The vexed ques- 
 tion respecting the original form of government in the 
 Christian church, though not unimportant, is certainly of 
 no such consequence as heated disputants on any side, 
 1* 
 
10 cnuRcn government. 
 
 misled by party prejudices or intemperate zeal, would 
 affect to miike it. The declaration of St. Paul, that 'the 
 kingdom of God is not meat and drink, l)ut riglitcous- 
 ness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,' is applicable 
 alike to everything external and circumstantial ; and 
 it may be confidently added, as the apostle continues, 
 ' for he that in these things serveth Christ is accepta- 
 ble to God and approved of men.' But it may be said 
 that the for m of polity is not a thin g extern al or cir- 
 cumstantial, b ut of the v ery essence of a true churc h. 
 No one has ever yet produced, or can produce, a single 
 passage of Scripture which plainly teaches this doc- 
 trine, — a thing most marvelous indeed if the doctrine 
 be true. Now, that no such thing can be proved /rowi 
 Scrijyture, many of the very ablest writers on the epis- 
 copal side have over and over admitted. T he cele - 
 ^%^^ 224}I£ilj ^^^ very champion of the highest order 
 of high church, in the case of the non-juring bishops, 
 in the reign of William III., concedes that all the rea- 
 soning from which men conclude that the whole mode l 
 of ecclesiastical discipline may be extracted from the 
 yrritings of the New Testam ent is quite pr ecarious; 
 that there is no passage of any sacred writer wluch 
 openly professe s this design ; thariEcreTs n ot "one 
 which so treats of ecclesiastical government as if the 
 writer, or the wiTter's author, the Holy Spirit, had 
 intended to describe any one form of polity as bei ng to 
 remain everywhere and for ever inviolate. If all this 
 be so, as every one who reads the Bible can see for him- 
 self, ' what can we conclude,' adds Dr. Campbell, ' but 
 that it was mtended by the Holy Spirit thus to teach us 
 to distinguish between what is essential to the Christian 
 religion, [and a true church,] and what is compara - 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 11 
 
 livel y circmnstajitial , regarding external order and dis- 
 cipline, whicli, as matters of expedience, alter with 
 circumstances, and are therefore left to the adjustment] 
 of human prudence?'" Again : "That any specific] 
 form of church government, or mode of authenticating 
 ministers, is not essential to the being of a church, as 
 to the validity of the Christian ministry and ordmances, 
 I take to be plainly the doctrine of the Church of 
 England, if her twenty-third article be not framed in 
 language designedly ambiguous and deceptive, which 
 ought not to be supposed." — Epis. Con., app. ii. 
 
 Dr. Bano ^s says: " No specific form of church gov- 
 ernment is prescribed in Scripture, and therefore it is 
 left to the discretion of the church to regulate these 
 matters as the exigencies of time, place, and circum- 
 stances shall dictate to be most expedient, and likely to 
 accomplish the greatest amount of good ; always avoid- 
 ing any and everything which God has prohibited." — 
 Orig. Ch., No. xiii. 
 
 Watson, adopting the language of Bisho p Tomline, 
 says : " As it has not pleased our almighty Father to 
 prescribe any particular form of civil government for 
 the security of temporal comforts to his rational crea- 
 tures, so neither has he prescribed any particular form 
 of ecclesiastical polity as absolutely necessaiy to the 
 attainment of eternal happmess. Thus the gospel only 
 lays down g enera l principles, and leaves the application 
 of them to men as free agents." — Th. Inst., vol. ii, 
 p. 585. 
 
 Finally, Wesley hims elf says : " As to my own judg- 
 ment, I still beheve the episcopal form of church gov- 
 ernment to be Scriptural and apostolical. I mean, 
 well agreemg with the practice and writings of the 
 
12 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 apostles. But that it is prescribed in Scripture, I do 
 not believe. This opinion, which I once zealously 
 espoused, I have been heartily ashamed of ever since 
 I read Bishop Stillinfrflcet's Ircnicum. I think he has 
 unanswerably proved that neither Christ nor his apos- 
 tles prescribe any particular form of church government^ 
 and that the plea of the divine right of episcopacy was 
 never heard of in the primitive church." — Letter to 
 Clarke^ Works, vol. vii, p. 285. 
 
 In tliis opi nion we are su.stained by niany eminent 
 authorities in oth er secti ons of the church. Bishop 
 Stillingfleet, in his celebrated Irenicum , denies ex- 
 plicitly that there is any particular form of church 
 government enjoined in the Scriptures. The very 
 heading of his first chapter embraces the following 
 sentences : " Things necessary for the church's peace 
 feiust be clearly revealed. The form of church govem- 
 ' ment is not so, as appears by the remaining controversy 
 about it. All evidence thence that Clirist never in- 
 tended any one form as the only means to peace in the 
 church." In chapter vi, part 2, he discusses the ques- 
 tion at length. The heading of the chapter includes 
 these sentences: "Wliether Christ hath determined 
 the form of government by any positive laws. Argu- 
 ments of the necessity why Christ must determine it 
 largely answered; as, first, Chinst's faithfulness com- 
 pared with Moses, answered and retorted, and thence 
 proved, that Christ did not institute any foim of gov- 
 ernment in the church because he gave no such law 
 for it as Moses did, and we have nothing but general 
 rules which are applicable to several forms of govern- 
 ment." In chapter viii, part 2, he gives us the opinion 
 of reformed divines " concerning the unalterable divine 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 13 
 
 right of particular forms of churcli government, where- 
 in it is made to appear that the most eminent divines 
 of the Reformation did never conceive any one form 
 necessary ; manifested by three arguments. 1. From 
 the judgment of those who make the form of church 
 government mutable, and to depend upon the wisdom 
 of the magistrate and church. This cleared to have 
 been the judgment of most divines of the Church of 
 England since the Reformation." He places among 
 these divines Archbishop Cranmer, with others of the 
 Reformation in Edward the Sixth's time ; Archbishop 
 Whitgift, Bishop Bridges, Dr. Low, Mr. Hooker, in 
 King James's time; the king himself. Dr. Sutcliffe, 
 Mr. Hales, Mr. Chillingworth, Chemnitius, Zanchy, 
 Peter Moulin, Fugevil, Blondell, Bochartus, Amy- 
 raldus, and, among other learned men, Grotius and 
 Lord Bacon. "2. Those who look upon equamy as 
 the primitive form, y et jud ge e^iscopacyjawful. Au- 
 gustine Confession, Melancthon, Articuli Smalcaldici, 
 prmce of Anhalt, Hyperius, Hemingius, the practice 
 of most foreign churches, Calvin and Beza, both ap- 
 proving episcopacy and diocesan churches, Sahnasius, 
 &c. 3. Those who judge episcopacy to be the primi - 
 tive form, yet look not on it as necessary . Bishop 
 Jewel, Fulk, Field, Bishop Downam, Bishop Bancroft, 
 Bishop Marton, Bishop Andrews, Saravia, Francis 
 Mason, and others." 
 
 Stillingfleet {Iren., pp. 413-416) gives us Cranmer' s 
 answers to questions proposed " by the clergy of the low- 
 er house of convocation" to that illustrious martyr, " and 
 the residue of the prelates of the higher house." Among 
 these questions and answers are the following : — 
 
 " Whether, in the New Testament, be required any 
 
14 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 consecration of a bishop or priest, or oneley appoint- 
 eingc to the ofTice be sufficient ? 
 
 " A. In the New Testament, he that is appointed to 
 be a bishop or a priest needeth no consecration by 
 the Scripture; for election or appointeing thereto is 
 sufficient. 
 
 " Whether (if it fortuned a prince Christian lerned, 
 to conquer certen domynyons of infidells, having non 
 but the temporall lerned men with him) it be defended 
 by God's law that he and they should prcche and teche 
 the word of God there or no, and also make and con- 
 stitute priests or noe ? 
 
 " A. It is not against God's law, but contrary they 
 ought indede so to doe; and there be hystoryes that 
 witnesseth that some Christian priices and other lay 
 men unconsccrate have done the same. 
 
 '• "\Miether it be forefended by God's law, that if it 
 so fortuned that all the bishops and priests were dedde, 
 and that the word of God should there unpreached, 
 the sacrament of baptism and others unministred, that 
 the king of that country shoulde make bishops and 
 priests to supply the same or noe ? 
 
 " A. It is not forbidden by God's law." 
 
 "Thus far," says Stillingfleet, "that excellent per- 
 son, in whose judgment nothing is more clear, than his 
 ascribing the particular form of government in the 
 church to the determination of the supreme magistrate." 
 
 Archbishop Whitgift, "a sage and prudent person, 
 whom we cannot suppose either ignorant of the sense 
 of the Church of England, or afraid or unwilling to 
 defend it," says Stillingfleet, asserts that " the form of 
 discipline is not particularly, and by name, set down 
 in Scripture ; no kind of government is expressed in 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 15 
 
 the word, or can necessarily be concluded from thence ; 
 no form of church government is, by the Scriptures, 
 prescribed to, or commanded, the church of God." — 
 Iren., p. 416. 
 
 Dr. Low says , " No certain form of government is 
 prescribed in the word, only general rules laid down 
 for it." — Iren..f p. 417. Bishop Bridtres declares, " God 
 hath not expressed the form of church government, at 
 least not so as to bind us to it." — Iren., p. 417. 
 
 "They who please to consult," says Stillingfleet, 
 "the third book of the learned and judicious Hooker's 
 Ecclesiastical Foht y, may see the mutability of the form 
 of church government largely asserted and fully proved. 
 Yea, this is so plain and evident to have been the chief 
 opinion of the divmes of the Church of England, that 
 Parker [a Puritan author] looks on it as one of the 
 main foundations of the hierarchy, and sets himself, 
 might and main, to opposite it, but with what success 
 we have already seen. If we come lower, to the time 
 of King James, his majesty himself declared it in print, 
 as his judgment, ' It is granted to every Christian king, 
 prince, and commonwealth, to prescribe, within its o^vn 
 jurisdiction, that external form of church government 
 which approaches as much as possible to its own form 
 of civil administration.' " — Iren., p. 417. 
 
 In Tract No. 8 of the Ox ford series the author re- 
 marks, " There is no part of the ecclesiastical system 
 which is not faintly traced in Scripture, and no part 
 which is much more than faintly traced." Again, in 
 No. 85, it is said, " Every one must allow that there is 
 next to nothing on the surface of Scripture about 
 them," (referring to episcopacy, succession, the power 
 of the church, &c.,) "and very little, even under the 
 
16 CllUUCn GOVERNMENT. 
 
 surface, of a satisfactory character." Dodwcll admits 
 the same thing when he says, " They (that is, the sacred 
 writers) nowhere professedly explain the offices or 
 ministries themselves, as to their nature or extent, 
 which surely they would have done if any particulai* 
 form had been prescribed for pci-petual duration." — 
 Poivell, p. 26. 
 
 Bishop B everid<ye says, ^^ Nothing can he determined 
 from what the apostles did in their early proceedings, 
 in preaching the gospel, as to the establishment of any 
 certain form of church government." — Powell, p. 27. 
 
 Bishop Tomline^ says, "Though I flatter myself 
 that I have proved episcopacy to be an apostoHcal 
 institution, yet I readily acknowledge that there is no 
 precept in the New Testament which commands that 
 every church should be governed by bishops." 
 
 Neander, the best living authority in church anti- 
 quities, asserts, " Neither Christ nor the apostles have 
 given any unchangeable law on the subject. Where 
 two or three arc gathered together in my name, says 
 Christ, there am I in the midst of them. This coming 
 together in his name, he assures us, alone renders the 
 assembly well pleasing in his sight, whatever be the 
 different forms of government under which his people 
 meet." — Int. to Coleman's Prim. Ch., p. 15. 
 
 Dr. Woods, of Andover, declare s, "I am far from 
 intending to signify, that Christians in different places, 
 or in the same place, are absolutely bound in duty to 
 adopt the very same forms of ecclesiastical order." — 
 Lcc. on CJi. Gov., p. 6. 
 
 This view of the subject was substantially enter- 
 tained by the venerable Dr. White, late senior bishop 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 17 
 
 States, and, as he asserts, by " the great body of the 
 Episcopalians in America" in his day. "Even those 
 who hold episcopacy to be of divine right," he says, 
 " conceive the obUgation to it to be not binding when 
 that idea would be destructive of public worship." 
 "Much more," he justly continues, "must they think 
 so who indeed venerate and prefer that form as the 
 most ancient and eligible, but without any idea of 
 divine right in the case." "This," he adds, "the 
 author believes to be the sentiment of the great body 
 of Episcopalians in America, in which respect they 
 have in their favor, unquestionably, the sense of the 
 Church of England, and, as he believes, the opinions 
 of her most distinguished prelates, for piety, virtue, 
 and abilities."* 
 
 The position thus supported by g;ood authorit y, is 
 sustained also by sound reason. 
 
 1. It is obvious t hat there can be no intrinsic im- 
 I)ortance in any one form of church polity, rather than 
 another, to justify its exclusive appointment without 
 respect to times, place s, o r circumstances . Funda- 
 mental doctrines and morals must, from their essential 
 nature, be positive, but not so the mere ceremonial 
 offices and economical arrangements of the church. 
 
 2. The positive authority of such "offices" and 
 " arra ngements " wo uld be a formidable interference 
 with the success of t he ^* weightier matters of the law," 
 i n many instances. The history of the church abounds 
 in examples of this remark. It has repeatedly been 
 
 * Case of the Episcopal Church in the United States, &c., 
 p. 25. Bishop White, in his Memoirs of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church, fifty-three years afterward, says he sees no cause 
 to retract the leading sentiments of this pamphlet. 
 
18 CnURCII GOVERNMENT. 
 
 necessary, in order to maintain the purity of doctrines 
 
 and morals, for the subordinate clerj]^ or tlie people 
 to break away from the control of authorities declared 
 to be essential by the advocates of a positive eccle- 
 siastical system. Had not Wesley deviated from the 
 government of the Anglican Church in his ordination 
 of an American bishoji, the American Methodist so- 
 cieties would have been rent into factions, and the 
 sacraments administered without ordination. God has 
 sanctioned that deviation by crowning it with his 
 blessing, and following it with results unequaled in 
 the contemporary history of the church. The differ- 
 ences of civil governments, and national sentiments 
 and customs, must seriously interfere with the progress 
 of Christianity, if such modifications of its mere eco- 
 nomical system be inadmissible. 
 
 3. The doctrine of divine right, in m atters of church 
 polity, attac hes to those matt ers an importance which 
 is contrary to the genius of Christianity, and is of per - 
 nicious tendency. It is the foundation of priestly 
 pride and usuq)ation, and of most mortifying unchari- 
 tableness toward all who dissent from it. Its adherents 
 arrogantly consider themselves the exclusive church 
 
 , of Christ. They shut out from their pulpits all other 
 Jclergymen, however distinguished by piety, ability, 
 \and usefulness. It has led to a preposterous estimate 
 of mere ceremonies and external usages, and created 
 controversies, which, however excusable in the dark 
 , ages, are a disgrace to our century, and the ridicule 
 /of practical and sensible men. 
 
 4. In addition to these con siderations we have the 
 decisive^ fact, that the Holy Scriptures do not contain 
 a single injunction respecting the form of church 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 19 
 
 government. They state the general principles of 
 moral discipline; but, as we have shown by many 
 high Episcopal authorities, they nowhere prescribe the 
 forms and gradations of ecclesiastical offices. How 
 absurd, then, in this age of light and practical senti- 
 ments, is the assumption of divine authority for a par- 
 ticular system, and its erection into a barrier, by which 
 most of the Protestants of Christendom are precluded 
 from the " true church ?" 
 
 /- 1- 3 
 CHAPTER n. 
 
 PRIMITIVE CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Propositions deduced from ecclesiastical history — Most of the 
 first offices of the church temporary — Scriptural evidence — Wat- 
 son's opinion. 
 
 The position so amply sustained by good authori- 
 ties in the preceding chapter, namely, that though the 
 principles of moral discipline are fully prescribed in 
 the Scriptures, yet the particular forms of ecclesiastical 
 government are left to the discretion of the church 
 and the exigency of circumstances, must, we think, be 
 obvious to all impartial readers of the New Testament. 
 The history of the government of the primitive church 
 further confirms it. The history of the early Christians 
 presents the following facts : — 
 
 1. That in the beginning no systematic government 
 existed in the church ; it was a period of persecution 
 and dispersion. Many offices were providentially 
 created by the emergencies of the time, and disap- 
 peared with those emergencies, and acts were allowed, 
 
20 CnURCII GOVERNMENT. 
 
 and necessary, in individual and lay members, which 
 could not consist with an organized government. 
 
 2. It was soon found necessary to consolidate the 
 clmrcli by a more systematic economy. It adopted 
 the one nearest at hand and most convenient, namely, 
 the conventional system of the Jewish synagogue, not 
 the divinely appointed one of the temple. It thus 
 derived from the synagogue its orders of presbyter 
 and deacon. 
 
 3. That on the disappearance of the first and tem- 
 porally offices, which were created by the earliest 
 emergencies of the church, the two orders of presby- 
 ters or bishops, and deacons, were the only ones re- 
 cognized as permanently estabhshed, presbyters and 
 bishops being identical in order.* 
 
 * Let us not be understood to say, that the two orders ol 
 presbyters and deacons were permanently appointed by divine 
 authority. They were copied, we have said, from the synagogue, 
 and merely because they were found convenient. If any section 
 of the church should find these orders, or any other arrangements 
 of church polity, incompatible with its circumstances, it can 
 dispense with them, and assume any arrangement whatever 
 which will secure its prosperity, and not interfere with the word 
 of God. This remark is due to our "Wesleyan brethren, who 
 have but one order — that of presbyters ; and who, until lately, 
 have not practiced the usual services of ordination. Anti-pre- 
 latical writers have lost much of the weight of their arguments 
 by conceding too much, and by seeming to assume, that though 
 episcopacy, as a distinct order, is not of divine right, yet the 
 orders of presbyters and deacons are. In fine, though govern- 
 ment is essential to the church, there is no particular form of 
 divine authority, and there is scarcely a greater insult to the 
 common sense of the age, or a greater provocation of the scorn 
 of thinking men, than the belabored controversies and arrogant 
 assumptions which the question has occasioned. It may be 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 21 
 
 4. That on the increase of congregations in the 
 same place, and the consequent increase of pastors or 
 bishops there, one of the bishops being selected to 
 preside in the occasional consultations of the pastors, 
 became thus gradually possessed of the general over- 
 sight of the local churches, and in time, the name 
 designating the pastoral oversight, and applied before 
 to all the pastors, namely, episcopos or bishop, was 
 exclusively appropriated to him. In further time, 
 this superintendency extended to the neighboring 
 districts, and at last, with the growth of the church 
 in numbers and wealth, the adventitious dignities and 
 innumerable corruptions of diocesan, metropolitan, 
 patriarchal, and papal episcopacy were introduced. 
 
 Let us examine these propositions more in detail. 
 It is evident that several of the offices of the primi- 
 tive church were temporary, from the description 
 which the Scriptures give of them. In 1 Cor. xii, 28, 
 we have a minute catalogue of them. " God hath set 
 some in the church — first, apostles ; secondarily, pro- 
 phets; thirdly, teachers; after that, miracles; then 
 gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of 
 tongues." We have here eight different sorts of spi- 
 ritual men; and by comparing this verse with the 
 tenth, we may, perhaps, add two more — those pos- 
 sessing the power of discerning spirits and of inter- 
 preting tongues. But no one, it is presumed, will] ''^ '*^ 
 aver, that the apostle is here describing the ordinary^ 
 and permanent officers of a Christian church. He is 
 evidently speaking of the supernatural gifts and 
 
 asked, then, why we discuss it 1 We answer, to show its folly, 
 and dissipate, if possible, some of the preposterous fables asso- 
 ciated with it. 
 
22 CUURCII GOVERNMENT. 
 
 graces of the Holy Spirit, and of- the persons en- 
 dowed with these several gifts and qualifications 
 for usefulness. Compare verses 1-11. (See Panchard't 
 View, p. 71.) 
 
 St. Paul gives another enumeration of them in Eph. 
 iv, 12: "lie gave some apostles, and some prophets, 
 and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers ; 
 for the perfecting of the saints ; for the work of the 
 ministry; for the edifying of the body of Christ." 
 A sensible writer remarks as follows on this passage : 
 " This passage seems to imply, that the several reli- 
 gious teachers here named are essential to the accom- 
 plishment of the great work for wliich Chi-ist came 
 into the world ; and that the church will always need, 
 and should always have, these instrumentalities. This 
 may be true, and yet it may not be true that the 
 church should always have living teachers answering 
 to the four or five kinds above named. Indeed, from 
 the very character of some of these teachers, it is 
 a settled point that the church cannot have them as 
 permanent officers: I refer particularly to apostles 
 and prophets. I know not that anybody pretends 
 that there should be an order of prophets in our 
 churches. Inspkation being indispensable to the 
 prophetic office, prophets, of necessity, cease to 
 exist so soon as the gift of inspiration is withdrawn. 
 Still, the labors of prophets were essential to the 
 establishment of Christianity, and their recorded 
 predictions will be of great value to the church 
 in all periods of her existence." — Punchard, part ii, 
 p. 70. 
 
 Watson remarks on the passage in Eph. iv, 11: 
 " Of these, the office of apostle is allowed by all to 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 23 
 
 have been confined to those immediately commis- 
 sioned by Christ to witness the fact of his miracles 
 and of his resurrection from the dead, and to reveal 
 the complete system of Christian doctrine and duty ; 
 confirming their extraordinary mission by miracles 
 wrought by themselves." This is not admitted by 
 all; but, nevertheless, as we shall endeavor to show, 
 is the true doctrine. "If," continues Mr. Watson, 
 "by * prophets' we are to understand persons who 
 foretold future events, then the office was, from its 
 very nature, extraordinary, and the gift of prophecy 
 has passed away with the other miraculous endow- 
 ments of the first age of Christianity. If, with others, 
 we understand that these prophets were extraordinary 
 teachers, raised up until the churches were settled 
 unde^ permanent qualified instructors, still the office 
 was temporary. The 'evangelists' are generally 
 understood to be assistants of the apostles, who acted 
 under their especial authority and direction. Of this 
 number were Timothy and Titus ; and as the apostle 
 Paul directed them to ordain bishops or presbyters in 
 the several churches, but gave them no authority to 
 ordain successors to themselves in their particular 
 office as evangelists, it is clear that the evangelists 
 must also be reckoned among the number of extraor- 
 dinary and temporary ministers suited to the first age 
 of Christianity. Whether by 'pastors and teachers' 
 two offices be meant, or one, has been disputed. The 
 change in the mode of expression seems to favor the 
 latter view, and so the text is interpreted by St. Je- 
 rome and St. Augustine ; but the point is of little con- 
 sequence. A pastor was a teacher, although every 
 teacher might not be a pastor j but, in many cases, be 
 
24 CIIURCn GOVERNMENT. 
 
 confined to tlic office of subordinate instruction, whe- 
 ther as an expounder of doctrine, a catechist, or even 
 a more privato instructor of those who as yet were 
 unacquainted with the first principles of the gospel of 
 Christ. The term 'pastor' implies the duties both of 
 instruction and of government, of feeding and of ruling 
 the flock of Christ ; and, as the presbyters or bishops 
 were ordained in the several churches, both by the 
 apostles and evangelists, and rules are left by vSt. Paul 
 as to their appointment, there can be no doubt but that 
 these are the ' pastors ' spoken of in the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, and that they were designed to he the per- 
 manent ministers of the church ; and that with them 
 both the government of the church and the performance 
 of its leading religious services were deposited." — In- 
 stitutes, vol. ii, p. 575. 
 
 Besides these, there was another office — that of 
 deaconess ; which all now admit to have been tempo- 
 rary. Out of all this list of eight, or perhaps eleven, 
 original offices of the church, we have then but one 
 that is permanent, namely, the pastorate, which, as 
 formed on the model of the synagogue, was composed 
 of deacons, and presbyters or bishops. And this Is 
 permanent solely because it is the only one in the 
 series which, from the nature of things, is necessary 
 for the instruction and discipline of the church. We 
 remark further, that it Is permanent simply as a pasto- 
 rate or general provision for Christian instruction, 
 and not in the adventitious modifications of deacons 
 and elders. These, as simple, convenient, and of apos- 
 tolic example, should doubtless be retained wherever 
 practicable, but can be substituted by other terms and 
 modifications without contravening the word of Grod. 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 25 
 
 It is believed that this view of the subject is univer- 
 sally entertained, except among prelatists, who assert 
 that the apostolic office is continued in their episcopacy ; 
 but that the apostolate was extraordinary and tempo- 
 rary, is obvious from its peculiar endowments and 
 functions, which we shall consider in our next chapter. 
 
 CHAPTER ni. 
 
 THE APOSTOLATE TEMPORARY. 
 
 The apostolic office temporary — What was it 1 — Opinion of 
 Neander — of Dr. Woods — of Barrow — of Dr. Campbell — Epis- 
 copacy. 
 
 In the last chapter we endeavored to prove that 
 many of the ecclesiastical offices of the early Christians 
 were temporary, being founded on the exigencies of 
 the times. We class the apostolate among these spe- 
 cial offices. 
 
 The controversy relates not to the name, but to the 
 qUice ^ as peculiarly exercised by "the twelve" whom 
 Christ ajDpointed as the founders of the church. The 
 name in the original {aTTOGToXoi;, an apostle) sim- 
 ply signifies a messenger : in this general sense it is 
 repeatedly used by the New Testament writers. Epa- \ 
 phroditus is called ^Hhe messenger {a'noGroXov, the^ 
 apostle) of the church of Philippi." Phil, ii, 25. Str 
 Paul says, in John xiii, 16, " The servant is not greater ^ 
 than his lord: neither is he that is sent (diTOGroXog, 
 upostolos) greater than he that sent him." 2 Cor. viiijt 
 23, " Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my part-) ^ 
 ner and fellow-helper concerning you : or our brethren j 
 be inquired of, they are the messengers (dnoaroXoi, the] 
 
26 CIIUKCll GOVERNMENT. 
 
 apostles) of the cliurclics, and tlic glory of Christ." 
 But the term is admitted by all to be ajiplied in a dis- 
 tinctive sense to the twelve , designating their peculiar 
 office as special messengers . Passing, then, the name , 
 the question is, whether the office o f the twelve is con - 
 tinued or not. 
 
 Wlio is more competent to answer this question than 
 Neander ? "• In the ajDostolical church there was one 
 office whieli bears no resemblance to any other, and to 
 which none can be made to conform. This is the 
 office of the apostles. They stand as the medium of 
 communication between Christ and the whole Christian 
 church, to transmit his Avord and his Spirit through all 
 ages. In this respect the church must ever continue 
 to acknowledge her dependence upon them and to own 
 their rightful authority. Their authori ty and jDower 
 can be delegated to none other. But the service which 
 the apostles themselves sought to confer, was to trans- 
 mit to men the word and the Spirit of the Lord, and, 
 by this means, to establish independent Clu'istian com- 
 munities." — Int. to Coleman's Prim. Ch. 
 
 Dr. WoodSj of Ando\ er, gives the following opinion : 
 " Jesus chose twelve of his disciples to be liis constant 
 companion s, to hear his instructions and witness, his 
 miracles, and thus to be t rained up for the sjiecial work 
 assigned them. ' lie ordained twelve,' says Mark, 
 * that they should be with him, and that he might send 
 them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sick- 
 nesses and to cast out devils.' These disciples Jesus 
 jinally commiss ioned to go forth as his apostles, and 
 
 (qualified them by the gift of the Ho ly Spirit to be 
 
 witnesses of his miracles, an d particidarly of his^resur- 
 rectipn, and to be mfallible teachers and guides. See 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 27 
 
 Mattliew xxviii, 19, 20; Mark xvi, 15, 16; Acts i, 8. 
 The work to which they were called was a special and 
 momentous work. It was the WC^ of proclaim ing the , . 
 gospel, } founding the first churches , j establish ing the 2,, 3, 
 Christian religion by preaching and by miracles, [ com- -<v-, 
 pleting the volume of inspiration ,) and exercising, un- J7 
 der Christ, a p aramount authority in all the concerns 
 of religion. Their commission and their end owments 
 were adapted to the peculiar objects which were then 
 to be accomplished. Those peculiar objects having 
 been accomplished, the peculiarities of their office 
 c eased . They were indeed relig ious teachers , mmisp 
 ters of the gospel ; and as^juc/i, they have succ essors. 
 But they were teachers and ministers in a peculiar ; . 
 sense, and with peculiar qualifica tions, and peculiar ^. 
 authority. Considered in this light they have no sue- ^ • 
 cessors. Others have been sent forth as missionaries, 
 as the word apostles literally signifies. But those first 
 Christian missionaries were di sting uished above aU 
 others ; and the word apostles, in a high and peculiar 
 sense, has been appropriated to them. Now how does 
 the fact that Chi-ist appointed the apostles to that 
 peculiar work, and distinguished them by their qualifica- 
 tions from other ministei^s, prove that one set of minis- 
 ters in after ages is to fill an office and possess qualifi- 
 cations above others? All true ministers of Christ 
 take the place of the apostles considered simply as gos- 
 pel ministers. But where are the men at the present 
 day^who^ iiiherit what was peculiar to the apostolic 
 character and office, or what distinguished the apostles 
 from other gospel ministers^? The welfare, and even 
 the^continuance of the church requires that men, pro- 
 perly qualified, should, from time to time, be set apart 
 
28 CnURCII aOVERNMENT. 
 
 for the work of the ministry ; and that the ministry 
 should be a permanent institution. In this sense there 
 is a succession, I do not say an uninterrupted, but a 
 real succession, from the apostles to the present time. 
 But it can no more be proved that subsequent minis- 
 ters of the gospel share the peculiarities of the apostolic 
 ofiice, than that they share the peculiarities of the office 
 of Moses or David." — Lee. on Ch. (rot'., pp. 14, 15. 
 
 Dr. Barrow, an Episcopalian; says, " The apostoli- 
 cal office, as such, was personal and. temporary ; and 
 therefore, according to its nature and design, not suc- 
 cessive or communicable to others, in perpetual descend- 
 ence from them. It was, as such, in all respects extra- 
 ordinary, conferred in a special manner, designed for 
 special purjDoses, discharged by special aids, endowed 
 with special privileges, as was needful for the propa- 
 gation of Christianity and founding of churches." — 
 Pope's Supremacy, sup. ii, sec. 4. Also, Sup. i, arg. 
 1, sec. 13-15. He proceeds to discriminate its extra- 
 / ordinary powers, " an immediate designation and com- 
 i/. mission from God -pe should be able to at test con- 
 ^, ceming our. Lord's resurrection or ascensi o n-}-to be 
 endowed with miraculoua gifts and graces, to impart 
 •V, spiritual gifls-f-his charge was universal and indefinite! 
 ^/7 — the whole world was his i^rovincC; that by the infal- 
 lible assistance of the Spirit, he could govern in an. 
 absolute manner. Now such an office, consisting of so 
 many extraordinary privileges and miraculous powers, 
 which were requisite for the foundation of the church 
 and the diffusion of Christianity, against the manifold 
 difficulties and disadvantages which it then needs must 
 encounter, was not designed to continue hy derivation; 
 for it containeth in it divers things which apparently 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 29 
 
 were not communicated, and which no man, without 
 gross imposture and hypocrisy, could challenge to him- 
 self. Neither did the apo stles pretend to communicate 
 it : they did indeed appoint sta ndino; pas tors and teach- 
 ers in each church ; they did assume fellow-laborers or 
 assistants i n the work of preaching and governance ; 
 but they did not constitute apostles equal to them- 
 selves in authori ty, privileges, or gifts ; for ' who know- 
 eth not,' saith St. Austin. ' that principate of apostleship 
 to be preferred before any episcopacy?' 'And the 
 bishops/ saith Bellarmine , 'have no part of the true 
 apostolical authority.' " Barrow elsewhere tells us, that 
 " the most ancient wri ters, living nearest to the fount- 
 ains of tradition, do e xclude the apostles from the epis- 
 copacy," or " were not assured in the opinion, that the 
 apostles were bishops, or that they did not esteem them 
 bishops in the same noti on of others." — Pope's Supre- 
 macy^ sup. iv. 
 
 Mr. Punchard presents the following judicious views 
 on the subject: "That their authority over others 
 was based, exclusively, on these ^traqrdinary and in- 
 communicable^ peculiarities, seems to us evident from 
 the usual form of introduction in the epistles, ' Paul, a 
 servant of Jesus Christ, called to he an apostle,' &c. 
 ' Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.' That it was on 
 their character as the inspired apostles of Jesus Christ 
 that they relied for authority over the churches, is 
 further apparent from numerous express references^ 
 to this fact : for example, 2 Cor. ii, 10, where the apos- 
 tle declares, that in granting forgiveness to the peni- 
 tent offender, he acted ' in the person of Christ,*— kv 
 TTQoawTTG) XpLGTOv — as the representative of Christ. 
 The same idea is repeated in the seventeenth verse, 
 
30 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 * apeak wc in Clirist f that is, 'in the name of Christ, 
 as his legates.' In chap, x, 8, Paul speaks of the 
 
 * authority' which Christ hatl given him for the edifica- 
 tion of the cliurch ; and in cliap. xi, 5, he declares his 
 beHcf that lie ' was not a whit behind the very chiefest 
 of the apostles :' and this he gives as a reason why liis 
 authority should be regarded by the Corinthians. In 
 the twelfth chapter, throughout, he defends his claim 
 to the confidence and obedience of the churches, by the 
 evidence he had furnished of his apostolic and inspired 
 character. lie says : ' In nothing am I behind the 
 very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. Truly 
 the signs of an apostle were ivrought among you in all 
 patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.' 
 See also ch. xiii, 2, 3, 10; Gal. i, 11, 12 ; ii, 2, 6-10 ; iv, 
 14; Eph. iii, 1-7. These texts_seem fully to author- 
 ize the belief, that^the apostles spoke and acted autho- 
 ritatively, solely on the ground of their apostolic and 
 mspired character. The reason wliy Paul had occa- 
 sion to insist so much upon his apostolical character 
 was, that many persons, particularly the false teachers, 
 questioned and denied his right to speak with authori- 
 ty in the churches ; because, as they said, he was not 
 an apostle, chosen of Christ, and impowered to act in 
 liis name." — View, pp. 73-4. 
 
 Dr. Campbell, the able author o£ the Philosophy of 
 Rhetoric and the Refutation of Hume, has discussed 
 in detail this question in his Ecclesiastical Lectures.* 
 "Many, indeed, convinced . . . that it is in vain to search 
 for the office of bishop, as the word is understood by 
 moderns, in those ministers ordained by the apostles 
 in the churches which they founded, have referred us 
 ♦See also Emory's Epis. Cont., pp. 75-78. 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 81 
 
 for its origin to the apostolate itself. I have passingly 
 observed already that this was one of those extraordi- 
 nary offices which were in their nature temporary, and 
 did not admit succession. But this point, as so much 
 stress is laid upon it, will deserve to be examined more 
 particularly. 
 
 " The apostles may be considered in a t wofold view, 
 — either in their general character as the first pastors 
 of the church and teachers of th e Chri stian faith, or in 
 what is implied in their special character of ap ostles 
 of Jesus Clirist. In the first general view they are" 
 doubtless the predecessors of all those who, to the end 
 of the world, shall preach the same gospel and admi- 
 nister the same sacraments, by whatever name we dis- 
 tinguish them, bishops, priests, or deacons, — overseers, 
 elders, or ministers. But the question still recurs, 
 whether, agreeably to the primitive institution, theh' 
 successors, in respect to the more common character 
 of teachers and directors of the churches, should be 
 divided into three orders or only into two ? To pre- 
 sume, without evidence, that the first and not the second 
 was the fact, is merely what logicians call a petitio 
 principn, taking that for granted which is the very 
 point in dispute. But if it be alledged, that not in the 
 general character of teachers, but in their special func- 
 tion as apostles, the bisliops are their proper succes- 
 sors, the presbyters and deacons being only the suc- 
 cessors of those who were in the begmning ordained 
 by the apo stles, this point will require a separate dis- 
 cussion. And for this purpose your attention is en- 
 treated to the following remarks. 
 
 " First, the indispensable requisites in an apostle 
 sufiiciently dem onstrate that the office could be but 
 
32 ClIURCn GOVERNMENT. 
 
 temporai'j. It w as neces sary that he should be one 
 who had seen Jesus Christ in the llcsh after his resur- 
 rection. Accordingly they were all especially destined 
 to serve as eye-witnesses to the world of this great 
 event, the liinge on which the truth of Christianity 
 depended. The character of apostle is bricfjyde- 
 sci'ibed_by^ Peter, who was himself the fir st of the 
 apostolical college, as one ordained to be a witness of 
 Christ's resurrectio n, Acts i, 22; a circumstance of 
 which he often makes mention in his speeches, both to 
 the rulers and to the people. See Acts ii, 32 ; iii, 15 ; 
 V, 32 ; X, 41 ; xiii, 31. And if s o, the office^ fromjts 
 nature and design, could not have an existence after 
 the extinction of that generation. 
 
 " Second ly, the apostles were distinguished by pre- 2 
 rogatives which did not descend to any after them. 
 Of this kind was, first , their receiving theii' mission 
 immediately f rom the Lord Jesus Clirist, not mediately 
 
 through any human ordination or aj^pointment. Of 
 this kind also was. >cc(»n(lly, tlir power of coiilerring, 
 
 I' by imposition of IuiikI-, the ininiculous gifts of the 
 Spirit on ANhomsouVL-r they v.ould ; and, thirdly, the 
 knowledge they had, b y inspiration , of the uhole doc- 
 ^trinc of Christ. It was for this reason they were com- 
 manded to wait the fulfillment of the promise which 
 their Master had given them, that they should be bap- 
 tized with the Holy Ghost. "What pains does not Paul 
 take to show that the above-mentioned marks of an 
 apostle belonged to him as well as to any of them! 
 That he had seen Christ after his resuiTection, and 
 was consequently qualified, as an eye-witness, to attest 
 that memorable event, he observes, (1 Cor. ix, 1 ; xv, 
 8,) that his commission came directly from Jesus Christ 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 33 
 
 and God the Father, without the intervention of any 
 human creature, he acquaints us. Gal. i, 1 ; ii, 6. To 
 his conferring miraculous powers as the signs of an 
 apostle, he alludes, 2 Cor. xii, 12 ; and that he re- 
 ceived the knowledge of the gospel not from any other 
 apostle, but by immediate inspiration. Gal. i, 11, &c. 
 
 " Thirdly . Their mission was of quite a diff erent kind 
 from that of any ordinary pastor. It was to propagate 
 the gospel throughout the_world, both among Jews and 
 pagans, and not to take charge of a particular flock. 
 The terms of their commission are, ' Go and teach all 
 nations ;' again, ^ Go ye into all the world, and preach 
 the gospel to every creature.' No doubt they may be 
 styled bishops or overseers, but in a sense very differ- 
 ent from that in which it is applied to the inspector 
 over the inhabitants of a particular district. They 
 were universal bishops. The whole church, or rather 
 the whole earth, was their charge, and they were all 
 colleagues one of another. Or, to give the same senti- 
 ment in the words of Chrysostom, Eiacv vtto Oeov ;^ef- 
 porovrjOsvreg anooroXoc ap^ovre^ , ovk eOvrj km noXeig 
 diacpogovg XapLliavovreg, aXka iravreg kolvtj ttjv oIkov- 
 l^evTjv einTtarevOsvreg, — ' The apostles were constituted 
 of God rulers, not each over a separate^ nation or^ity, 
 but a ll were intrusted with the world in common.' if 
 so, to have limited themselves to anything less would 
 have been disobedience to the express command they 
 had received from their Master, to go into all nations, 
 and to preach the gospel to every creature. If, in the 
 latter part of the lives of any of them, they were, 
 through age and infirmities, confined to one place, that 
 place would naturally fall under the immediate inspec- 
 tion of such ; and this, if even so much as tliis, is aU 
 2* 
 
34 cnuRcn government. 
 
 tliat has given rise to the tradition (for there is nothing 
 like historical evidence in the case) that any of them 
 were bishops or pastors of particular churches. Nay, 
 in some instances it is plain that the tradition has ori- 
 ginated from this single circumstance, that the first 
 pastors in such a church were appointed by such an 
 apostle ; hence it has arisen that the bishops of differ- 
 ent churches have claimed (and probably with equal 
 truth) to be the successors of the same apostle. 
 
 " Fourthly, and lastl y. As a full proof that the t^ 
 matter was thus universally understood, both m their 
 own age and in the times immediately succeeding, no 
 one, on the death of an a|;o--tl<'. Avas ever substituted 
 in liis room; and wlicii that oi-'uiinal sacred college 
 was exliiK't, the thh,' iH'cainc cxtiiKt villi it. The 
 election of jMaltliia- by the apostle?, in tlic room of 
 Judas, is no exe; i)tion, as it was prc^ious to their 
 entering on tlieir charge. They kncAv it was their 
 Master's intention that twelve missionaries, from among 
 those who had attended his ministry on earth, should 
 be employed as ocular witnesses to attest his resurrec- 
 tion, on which the divinity of his religion depended. 
 The words of Peter on this occasion are an ample con- 
 firmation of all that has been said^ both in regard to 
 the end of the office and the qualifications requisite in 
 the person wlio fills it, at the same time that they afford 
 a demonstration of the absurdity as well as arrogance 
 of modern pretenders. 'Wlierefore of these men 
 which have companied with us all the time that the 
 Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from 
 the baptism of John unto that same day that he was 
 taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness 
 with us of his resurrection.' But afterward, when the 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 35 
 
 apostle James, the brother of John, was put to death 
 by Herod, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, we 
 find no m ention madeof a successor. Nor did the 
 subsequent admission of Paul and Barnabas to the 
 apostleship form any exception to what has been ad- 
 vanced; for they came not as successors to any one, 
 but Avere especially called by the Holy Spirit as apos- 
 tles, particularly to the Gentiles ; and in them, also, 
 w ei'e found the qua lifications requisite for the testimony 
 which, as apostles, they were to give." 
 
 With these authorities and reasonings before us, we 
 are compelled to the conclusion that the apostolate was 
 one of the extraordinary and temporary offices we have 
 enumerated, and cannot, therefore, be appealed to by 
 prelatists as authority for their peculiar views of epis- 
 copacy. It is not denied, ho wever, that episcopacy 
 existed in the primitive church, using the word simply 
 in the sense of a general superintendency. Such a 
 supervision of the church was doubtless maintained by 
 the apostles, and under them, and some time after 
 them, by the evangehsts. But what we do deny is, 
 that this superintendency was divinely appointed to be 
 a distinct and permane nt order of the ministry i that it j / . J^ 
 was anything more tha n a convenience of th e times [| 
 that it claimed exclusively the right of ordination and ) J>^ 
 other modern prerogatives of episcopacy | that there is ; n 
 any mysterious virtue in what Wesley has justly calledj 
 the "fable" of its succession. As an expedient mea-f 
 sure , sanctio ned b y apostolic example, and well adapted, 
 under some circumstances, for the furtherance of the , 
 cause of Christ, it is approved by Methodists, and on j 
 these grounds alone do they imitate it. 
 
 It is asserted further, in our first proposition, that 
 
16 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Wtewere allowed in i\u ( aili< ~i i;igc of the ch urch 
 whic 'li colli'! not coiisi-i wiih ;iii oi-;j;iiiizccl government. 
 "We 111 itl oiilv iiiciiiioii the uiKiiir-iionablc fact, that, 
 durin^L!- ilio-r liiiir-; of (li-]ici'-ioii nml trial, lauin'ii ad- 
 mini.-UTf'l llio .-arraniciit in |iarliriilar ca-cs. .Alo^huiui 
 $ays : '• j\.t lir.-t, all wIki \V(1-(.' cngai^fd in jn'oiia^iiating 
 Clu'istiauity administered this rite, [baptism ;] nor can 
 it be called in question, that whoever persuaded any 
 person to embrace Christianity, could baptize his own 
 disciples."* 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH POLITY. 
 
 The government of the church copied from the synagogue — 
 Authorities for this opinion — Grotius — Vitringa — Coleman — Stil- 
 lingfleet — "Watson — Archbishop Whateley — This position a proof 
 that church government is not of divine authority. 
 
 Our second proposition is, thai •• It wa-; soon found 
 necessary to co nsolidate the eliureh l»y a more system- 
 atic economy ; it adopted the one nearest at hand and 
 most co nven ient ; namelj, Jhe_conventional system of 
 the Jewish synagogue, not the divinely appointed one 
 of the temple ; it thus derived from the synagogue its 
 order of presbyter and deacon." That the government 
 of the church was copied from the synagogue, has been 
 proved by some of the most erudite authorities among 
 Christian writers. In the list of these authorities 
 
 * Murdock's Mosheim, vol. i, pp. 165-6, 1st ed. See also 
 Eusebius's Ecc. Hist., lib. ii, chap, i; Waddington's Hist. Ch., 
 p. 43 ; Campbell's Lee. on Ecc. Hist., lee. iv, pp. 62-65 ; lee. 
 viii, pp. 135-127 ; lee. ix, pp. 151-155 ; Phila. cd., 1807. 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 37 
 
 may be named Vitringa, Selden, Lightfoot, Grotius, 
 Stillingfleet, Neander, "Whateley, Watson (Richard,) 
 Coleman, &c. 
 
 Groj:iu3 declares that " the whole government of thd, 
 churches of Christ was conformed to the pattern of the 
 synagogues." — Comment, ad Acts xi, 30. Vitringa, in :i,, 
 his celebrated work De Synagogue Veiere, has, to use 
 the strong language of his title, " demonstrated that 
 the form of government and of the ministry in the 
 synagogue was transferred to the Chiistian church." 
 Stillino^fleet has devoted the sixth chapter of the second! t3 
 part of his Irenicum to the same subject, and treats it 
 with conclusive ability and learning. We must refer 
 the reader to his great work for a full demonstration, 
 of the point. 
 
 Our Saviour, and the a postles after him, fi'ec[uented 
 the synagogue . It was convenient to them on three 
 accounts : first, because they found it everywhere in 
 their travels among the Jews, and often in foreign 
 parts; secondly , because it allowed them considerable U^ 
 freedom of speech, by which they could address their J 
 new doctrines to the people ; and thirdly , because theyt 
 always found in it the Old Testament scriptures, by j 
 the reading and exposition of which they could prove I 
 their doctrines. On these accounts the apostles and I 
 Jewish Christians continued to resort to the synagogue, | 
 proving to their brethren that Jesus was the very ' 
 Christ. 
 
 Tlie converts thus made to the new faith were 
 formed into congregations on the pattern of the syna- 
 gogue. It is probabl e that whole synagogues were""! 
 converted to the Christian cause without any essential 
 change in their officers and form of service. ^ 
 
 I. 
 
38 CHIKCII GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Watson has shown, in Ins Institutes, " that th e mode 
 of public worship in the primitive cliurch wa3 taken 
 from t he sy nagogue service ;" "and so also," he proves, 
 ^was its arrangement of offices." — Vol. ii, p. 578. We 
 shall illustrate these facts more fully from the highest 
 authorities directly. 
 
 The first Chris tia ns applied the n ame sjnagoguejo 
 their a ssemblies. '" ' If there come into your assembly, 
 (ovvaycjyi],) if there come into your synacjogue a man 
 with a gold ring,' &c. James ii, 2. Compare also 
 tTTLavvaycjyjjV. Ileb. x, 25. Their modes of wors hip 
 were substantially the same as those of the synagogue. 
 The titles of their oj^cers they also borrowed from the 
 same source. The titles bishop, pastor, presbyter, &c., 
 were all familiar to them as synonymous terms, denot- 
 ing the same class of oiTiccrs in the synagogue. Their 
 dutie s and prerogative s remained, in substance, the 
 same in the Christian church as in that of the Jews. 
 So great was this similarity between the primitive 
 Christian churches and the Jewish synagogues, that by 
 the pagan nations they were mistaken 'for the same 
 institutions. Pagan historians uniformly treated the 
 primitive Christians as Jews." 
 
 They derived the right of ordination from the syna- 
 gogue. It is an embarrassing fact to prelatical writers 
 (that this ceremony, to which they attach such mystical 
 /and almost sacramenta l virtue, was not used in the 
 consecration of the divine ly appointed jpriesthood of 
 the Jews , but only in the designation ofjheir civil 
 
 officers and those of the synagogue. "Their custom 
 
 of ordination was evidently taken up by the Clmstians 
 
 ;from a correspondency to the synagogue; for which 
 
 {we are first to take notice that the rulers of the church. 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 39 
 
 under tlie gospel, do not properly succeed tlie priests 
 and Levites under the law, whose office was ceremo- 
 nial, and who were not admitted by any solemn ordi- 
 nation into their function, but succeeded by birth into 
 their places; only the great Sanhedrim did judge of 
 their fitness, as to birth and body, before their entrancej 
 upon their function." — Stillingjieet, Irenicum, p. 288. 
 Grotius declares that " all the rulers and elders of thel 
 synagogue were so ordained, [by imposition of hands,] | 
 from whence the custom was translated into Christian- 1 
 ity." — Annot. in Evang., p. 32. 
 
 Th e forego ing positions are sustained by the best 
 authorities. Mr. "W atson says : '• Much light is thrown 
 upon the constitution of the primitive churches by re- 
 collecting that they were formed very much upon the 
 model of the Jewish synagogues. We have already 
 s een th at the mode of public worship in the primitive 
 church was taken from the synagogue service, and so 
 also was its ar rangement of offices. Each synagogue 
 had its rulers, elders, or presbyters, of whom one was 
 the angel of the church, or minister of the synagogue, 
 who superintended the public service, directed those 
 that read the Scriptures, and offered up the prayers 
 and blessed the people. The president of the council 
 of elders or rulers was called, by way of eminence, the 
 ' ruler of the synagogue ;' and in some places, as Acts 
 xiii, 15, we read of these 'rulers' in the plural num- 
 ber, a sufficient proof that one was not elevated in 
 order above the rest. The angel of the church and 
 the minister of the synagogue might be the same as 
 he who was invested with the office of president, or 
 these offices might be held by others of the elders. 
 Liglitfoot , indeed, states that the rulers in each syna- 
 
40 cnuRcn government. 
 
 gogue were three, while the presbyters or elders were 
 ten. To this council of grave and wise men the affairs 
 of the synagogue, both as to worship and discipline, 
 were committed. In the synagogue they sat by them- 
 selves in a semicircle, and the people before them, face 
 to face. This was the precise form in which the 
 bishop and presbyters used to sit in the primitive 
 churches. The descrip tion of the worship of the syna- 
 gogue by a Jewish rabbi, and that of the primitive 
 church by early Christian writers, presents an obvious 
 correspondence . 'The elders,' says Maimonide s, 'sit 
 with their faces toward the people, and their backs to 
 the place where the law is deposited, and all the peo- 
 ple sit rank before rank ; so the faces of all the people 
 are toward the sanctuary and toward the elders ; and 
 when the minister of the sanctuaiy standeth up to 
 prayer, he standeth with his face toward the sanctuary, 
 as do the rest of the people.' In the same order the 
 first Christians sat with their faces toward the bishops 
 and presbyters, first to hear the Scriptures read by the 
 proper reader ; * then,' says Justin Martyr, ' the reader 
 sitting down, the president of the assembly stands up 
 and makes a seimon of instruction and exhortation. 
 After this is ended, we all stand up to prayers ; pray- 
 ers being ended, the bread, wine, and water are all 
 brought forth; then the president again praying and 
 praising to his utmost ability, the people testify their 
 consent by saying, Amen.' — Apol. 2. ' Here we have 
 the Scriptures read by one appointed for that purpose, 
 as in the synagogue ; after which follows the word of 
 exhortation by the president of the assembly, who an- 
 swers to the minister of the synagogue; after this, 
 public prayers are performed by the same person; 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 41 
 
 then the solemn acclamation of amen by the people, 
 which was the undoubted practice of the synagogue.* 
 — Stillingfleefs Irenicum. Ordination of presbyters' 
 or^ elders is also from^the Jews. Their priests were 
 not ordained, but succeeded to their office by birth ; 
 but the rulers and elders of the synagogue received 
 ordination by imposition of hands and prayer. 
 
 " Such was the model which the apostles followed 
 in providing for the future regulation of the churches 
 they had raised up. They took it not from the temple 
 and its priesthood, for that was typical, and was then 
 passing away ; but they found in the institution of 
 synagogues a plan admirably adapted to the simplicity 
 and purity of Christianity, one to which some of the 
 first converts in most places were accustomed, and 
 which was capable of being applied to the new dis- 
 pensation without danger of Judaizing. It secured 
 the assembling of the people on the sabbath, the read-* 
 ing of the Scriptures, the preaching of sermons, and 
 the offering of public prayer and thanksgiving. It 
 provided, too, for the government of the church by a 
 council of jjresbyters, ordained solemnly to their office 
 by imposition of hands and prayer ; and it allowed of 
 that presidency of one presbyter chosen by the others, 
 which was useful for order and for unity, and by which 
 age, piety, and gifts might preserve their proper influ- 
 ence in the church. The advance from this state of 
 Scriptural episcopacy to episcopacy under another 
 form was the work of a later age." — Institutes, vol. 
 ii, pp. 578, 579. 
 
 The impartial archbishop of Dublin, Wliateley, con- 
 firms tliese testimonies of Watson and Stillingfleet, in 
 the following words : — " It_ js probable that one cause, 
 
42 ciURCii GOvr.nxMKNT. 
 
 humanly speaking, -svli^'- wc find in the sacrcd^ book^ 
 less information concerning the Christian ministry and 
 the cons titution of church governments, than wc other- 
 wise might liave found, is, that these institution s had 
 less of novelty than some would at first sight sup pose^ 
 and that many portions of them did not wholly origi- 
 nate with the apostles. It appears highly proba})le — 
 I miglit say, morally certain — that wherever a Jewish 
 synagogue existed, that was brought — the whole, or 
 the chief part of it — to embrace the gospel, the apostles 
 did not there so much form a Christian church, (or 
 congregation, ccclesia,) as 7nal:e an existing congrega- 
 tion Christian, by introducing the Christian sacra- 
 fments and worship, and establishing whatever regu- 
 \ lations were requisite for the newly adopted faith ; 
 leaving the machinery (if I may so speak) of govern- 
 ment unchanged; the rulers of synagogues, elders, 
 and other officers (whether spiritual or ecclesiastical, 
 or both) being already provided in the existing insti- 
 tutions. And it is hkely that several of the earliest 
 Christian churches did originate in this way: that is, 
 that they were converted synagogues ; which became 
 Christian churches as soon as the members, or the 
 main part of the members, acknowledged Jesus as the 
 Messiah. 
 
 " The attempt to effect this conversion of a Jewish 
 synagogue into a Christian church seems alwfu^s to 
 have been made, in the first instance, in every place 
 wher e there was an opening for it. Even after the 
 call of the idolatrous Gentiles, it appears plainly to 
 have been the practice of the apostles Paul and Bar- 
 nabas, when they came to any city in which there was 
 a synagogue, to go thither first and deliver their sacred 
 
CHUECH GOVERNMENT. 43 
 
 message to tlie Jews and ^devout (or proselyte) Gen- 
 tiles ;' — according to their own expression, (Acts xiii, 
 17,) to tlie 'men of Israel and those thai feared God:' 
 adding, that ' it was necessary that the word of God 
 should first be preached to them.' And when they 
 founded a church in any of those cities in which (and 
 such were, probably, a very large majority) there was 
 no Jewish synagogue that received the gospel, it is 
 likely they would still conform, in a great measure, to 
 the same model." — Kingdom of Christ, pp. 83-86. 
 
 Cole man declares : " It is an adm itted fact, as clearlj 
 settled as anything can be by hum an authority, that 
 the primitive Christians, in the or o^anization of their 
 assemblies, formed them aft e r the model of the Jewish 
 They discarded the splendid ceremonials 
 
 of the temple service, and retained the simple rites of 
 the synagogue worship." — Prim. Ch., p. 45. Stilling^ 
 flee t is so fuU and elaborate on the subject that we I 
 must refer the reader to his irrefutable work, content- 
 ing ourselves with two summary passages. He says, 
 using the italics himself, "We have the smne ordeiy^ . 
 for irrayerSy reading tlie Scrij)turcs according to occa-^ 
 sion, and sermons made out of them for increase of\ 
 faith, raising hope, strengthenijig confidence. We have \ 
 tlie discipline of the church, answering the admonitions 
 yind excommunications of the synagogue : and last of 
 [all, we have the hench of ciders sitting in these assem-' 
 \blies, and ordering the tilings helonging to themJ' — 
 Iren., pp. 287, 288. "That which we lay, then, as 
 the foundation whereby to clear what apostolical prac- 
 tice was, is, that the apostles, in forming churches, did '. 
 observe the customs of the Jewish^synagogues. ' The 
 whole ofovernment of the churches of Christ was con- 
 
44 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 formed to the pattern of the synagogues,' saith Grotius, 
 truly. * It is evident that the governors and overseers 
 of the churches were constituted according to the like- 
 ness of the ciders of the Jcwi.sh synagogues/ as Sal- 
 masius often aflirms : in which sense we understand 
 ■ that famous speech of the author of the commentary 
 on St. Paul's epistles, which goes under the name of 
 Ambrose, but now judged by most to be done by 
 Hilary, a deacon of the Church of Rome, under which 
 name St. Augustine quotes some words on the fifth 
 to the Romans, which are found still in those commen- 
 taries. ' For certainly among all nations, age is ac- 
 counted honorable. Hence both the synagogue, and 
 afteiTN'ard the church, had elders, without whose advice 
 nothing in the church was done ;' which words are not 
 to be understood of a distinct sort of presbyters from 
 such as were employed in preaching the word, but of 
 such presbyters as were the common council of the 
 church, for the moderating and ruling the affairs of it ; 
 which the church of Christ had constituted among 
 them, as the Jewish synagogue had before." — Iren., 
 p. 2G3. 
 
 The temple service of the Jews was di vinely ap- 
 pointed — the pricsthoocTappertainecT to it; but the 
 sjTiagogue was a local and conventional institution, 
 founded on not a single comm and, oxcept the general 
 o ne contained in Leviticus xxiii, o. " It was in- 
 troduced," says Stillingfleet, " by a confederate disci- 
 pluie among themselves ; for although the reason of 
 erecting them was grounded on a command in the 
 Levitical law, where holy convocations are required 
 upon the sabbath days, yet the building of syna- 
 gogues in the land was not, as far as we can find, 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 45 
 
 till a great while after. For although Moses required 
 the duty of assembling, yet he prescribes no orders for 
 the place of meeting, nor for the manner of spending 
 those days in God's service, nor for the persons 
 who were to superintend the public worship per- 
 formed at that time." — Iren.., p. 264. If, then, the 
 government of the church is not prescribed by a single 
 passage of the New Testament ; if most of its original 
 offices were adapted only to temporary exigencies, as 
 we have show n; aiid if, as we now assert, its only 
 permanent offices we re borrowed not from the divinely 
 prescribed system of the temple, but from the conven- 
 tional arrangemen ts of the synagogue, how preposterous 
 are the importance and pretensions which the advocates 
 of *^ divine ri2;h t" have attached to it! 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS THE SAME IN ORDER. 
 
 Identity of bishops and presbyters — Definition — Scripture 
 proof — Testimony of the fathers^Clement of Rome — Poly- 
 carp — Justin Martyr — Ignatius — Irenaeus — Jerome — St. Augus- 
 tine — Hilary — Theodoret — Anglican authorities. 
 
 Our third proposition declares, that on the disap- 
 pearance of the first and temporary offices which were 
 created by the earliest emergencies of the church, the 
 two orders of presbyters or bishops, and deacons, were 
 the only ones recognized as permanently established — 
 presbyters and bishops being identical in order. The 
 last clause of this proposition alone remains to be dis- 
 cussed, namely, the identity of bishops and presbyters 
 
Hx^ a. 
 
 « . I ^ — 
 
 46 CHURCH government. 
 
 — the former part having been considered in our last 
 chapkT. 
 
 Beibre entering upon the discussion, let us under- 
 stand our terms : — 
 
 JJpiscopos — (Greek, emoKOTrog) — signifies an over- 
 seer or su[)erintendent. 
 
 Bishop — (Saxon, bischop) — is a corruption of the 
 Latinized Greek word episcopus. Its analogy to the 
 second and third syllables of the latter is obvious. 
 
 Presbyter or elder — (Greek, Trpecr/Surtpoc) — signi- 
 
 ! fies an elder or old man. The early Christians derived 
 
 j it, as we have shown, from the Jews, who applied it to 
 
 the LeaTIs of their tribes, their civil officers, and the 
 
 Jiigher officers of the synagogue. 
 
 Were these orders of the primitive ministry iden- 
 tical ? We ai-gue that they were : — 
 
 First. From the manner in which the sacred writei*s 
 use the terms . The word bishop i> u<ri] five times in 
 the New Testament, and in each ca-c it is evidently 
 synonymous with presbyter. It is first found in Acts 
 ; pxx, 17, "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock 
 over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, 
 ' (emGKOTTovg,) to feed the church of God which he 
 liath purchased with his own blood." To whom is 
 this designation applied ? The seventeenth verse in- 
 forms us, " from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called 
 the elders (jDresbyters, TTQeGfSvregovg) of the church. 
 And when t/tei/ were come, he said unto them," &c. 
 Unquestionably, then, the apostle addresses those as 
 bishops whom the historian calls presbyters. 
 
 In his Epistle to the Philippians, (Phil, i, 1,) St. 
 Paul salutes them as the " saints," " with the bishops 
 and deacons." We submit four remarks on this pas- 
 
 Ui 
 
SJ 
 
 CHUKCn GOVERNMENT. 47 
 
 sage. (1.) If the apostle meant by bishops here, a)-\ 
 third order, according to the modern prelatical use^of 
 the appellation, then while he fails not to notice the 
 lowest order, (deacons,) he utterly neglects the second 
 (presbyters) — a class of pastors acknowledged hj all to 
 Kave heen general in the primitive cliurch. Such an 
 omission w^ould be entirely irreconcilable with his cha- 
 racter, and with propriety. (2.) If he meant by it 2.^ 
 presbyters, as we contend he did, and there w^ere at 
 the same time prelaIicaI~T5ishops at Phllippi, then, 
 whil e he saluted the mferior officers, he passed by the 
 highest and most important dignitaries of the church 
 — a supposition totally inadmissible. (3.) If he a^Dplied ^j 
 the term to a third order, then, as he uses it in the 
 plural number, there must have been more than one 
 prelate in the church at Pliilippi, which interferes with 
 the fundamental principles of diocesan episcopacy. 
 (4.) Our construction of the text is confirmed by the Lf ) 
 testimony of Chrysostom. He thus com ments on it: 
 "How is this? Were there many bishops in the 
 same city ? By no means ; but he calls the presby- 
 ters by this name, [bishops ;] for at that time this was 
 the common appellation of both." — In Phil, i, 1, p. 199, 
 seq., tom. xi. 
 . It is worthy of note, that Pplycarp, the disciple of ,,:\ 
 / John, addressed an epistle to this same church about ''^ 
 A. D. 140, in which he exhorts them "to be subject 
 to the presbyters and deacons." Paul spoke of the 
 " bishops and deacons." Both notice the lowest office ; 
 but of the other two, (if there were two,) Paul omits 
 one, and Polycarp the other — a circumstance which is 
 inexpKcable unless the bishops of the one werejhe 
 presbyters of the other. ^.^, 
 
48 cnuRcn government. 
 
 In Titus i, 7, it is said, " For a bishop must be 
 blameless, as the steward of God," &c. The apostle 
 had left Titus in Crete to orG^anizc tlio Christian 
 Converts~'ihto~chur(.'lir<, nnd onlaiii pa-i'u-^ among 
 them. lie describes the qiuilifications of these pastors. 
 What were these bishops ? Were they elders ? He 
 teUs us, in the fifth verse, " For this cause left I thee 
 in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things 
 that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city," &c. 
 After describing the necessary qualifications of these 
 elder?, lie assert?, a> a reason for such qualifications, 
 that "a j)i.siK>r {h-ioh-n-or — cpiscopon — an overseer) 
 must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self- 
 willed, not soon angry," «S:c. ; hereby clearly imj)lying 
 that a bishop and an elder were ideiitical. Wkttt eould 
 1p BMve e¥y6Mt? 
 
 ■^ The word occurs again in 1 Tim. iii, 2, " A bishop, 
 then, must be blameless, the husband of one wife," &c. 
 Tlie apostle, in this chapter, instructs Timothy respect- 
 ing the qualifications of a bishop, and then immediately 
 describes those of a deacon, without a single reference 
 to presbyters, though these were an unquestionable and 
 universal order of pastors in the ancient church, and 
 though he was expressly directing Timothy in the 
 appointment of its necessary ofiicers. This fact, in 
 connection with the passages already examined, ren- 
 ders it evident that he calls the presbyters bishops ; 
 and that he did not neglect them by an oversight, is 
 manifest from the consideration that in chap, ii, 14 he 
 refers to the presbytery, and in chap v, 17 speaks of 
 
 t he elders o r presbyters who rule well. 
 
 : The last passage in which the word bishop is 
 
 found is 1 Peter ii, 25, where it is applied to 
 
CHUECH GOVERNMENT. 49 
 
 our Lord, and cannot, therefore, affect the present I 
 discussion. 
 
 In this part of the inquiry we ought not to omit the 
 passage in 1 Peter v, 1, 2, "The elders which are 
 among you I exhort, who am also an elder. Feed 
 the flock of Christ which is among you, taking the 
 oversight thereof"; — eTTLGKOTTovvreg, acting the paH of 
 a BISHOP toward them. There were evidently no 
 prelatical bishops over the people whom Peter thus 
 puts under the episcopal care of the presbyters. 
 
 Dr. Mafion presents summarily the Scriptural argu^ ^ 
 ment in the following words : — " That the terms bishop \ ^ 
 and p resbyter^ in their application to the first class of 1 - , 
 officers, are perfectly convertible, the one pointing out ! "^ '^"' 
 the very same cla ss of rulers with the other, is as evi- (^ ^ ►v- 
 denTas the sun shining in his strength. Timothy was 
 instructed by the apostle Paul in the qualities which 
 were to be required in those who desired the office of a> 
 BISHOP. Paul and Barnabas ordained presbyters ^ 
 in every church which they had founded. Titus is 
 directed to ordain in every city presbyters who are 
 
 ^ to be blameless ; the husband of one ivife. And the 
 
 reason of so strict a scrutiny into character is thus or- 
 dered : for a bishop must he blameless. If this does 
 not identify the bishop with the preshyter, in the name 
 of common sense what can do it ? Suppose a law, 
 pointing out the qualifications of a sheriff', were to say, 
 A sheriff must be a man of pure character, of great 
 activity and resolute spirit ; for it is highly necessary 
 that a governor be of unspotted reputation, &c., the 
 bench and bar would be rather puzzled for a construc- 
 tion, and would be compelled to conclude, either that 
 something had been left out in transcribing the law, or 
 3 " 
 
50 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 that governor and sheriff meant tlic same sort of officer ; 
 or that their honors of the legishiturc had taken leave 
 of their wits. Tlie rn'^c is not :i Avliit stronger than 
 tEe case of presbyter ainl li!~li..ji in iIm I epistle to Titus. 
 Again : Paul, when on h i? la-t j.mhih} to JorusalemTl^-l 
 sends for the presbyters of i:|.li(<us U) meet liim at 
 . Miletus, and there enjoins these presbyters to feed 
 \ the church of God over which the Hohj Ghost had 
 rnade them bishops. It appears, then, that the bishops 
 to whom Paul refers in his instructions to Timothy 
 . were neitlier more nor less tlum plain presbyters. To 
 \ ajman ^v]lo lias no turn to serve, no interest in pervert- 
 ing the obvious meaning of words, one would think 
 that a mathematical demonstration could not cai'ry 
 j more satisfactory evidence." — Worhs, vol. iii, pp. 41-43. 
 ; Comp. King, Prim. Church, pp. 67, C8. 
 r- Coleman remarks on the terms bishop and preshyier, 
 that the former is derived from the Greek language 
 — the latter is of Jewish origin : accordingly the apos- 
 tles, when addressing Jewish Christians, use the term 
 presbyter ; but in their addresses to Gentile converts, 
 they adopt the term bishop, as less obnoxious to those 
 who spoke the Greek language. (Prim. Ch., p. 131.) 
 
 We argue the identity of bishops and presbyters, in 
 the second place, fr om the testinaony of the fathers. 
 Clement of Kome is among the most authentic of the 
 apostolic fathers. About A. D. 95 he wrote his cele- 
 brated epistle to the Corinthians. He rebukes them 
 for degrading certain presbyters from their bishopric, 
 ' CLTTO TTjg eTnoKOTTTjg. He mentions but two orders in 
 jthe ministry at Corinth, bishops and deacons. He 
 I makes not the shghtest allusion to a single or prelati- 
 1^ bishop in that church, but recognizes the expelled 
 
CHURCH G0VERN5IENT. 51 
 
 presbyters as in the highest order. " The apostles ] 
 preaching in countries and cities, appointed the first- i 
 fruits of their labors to be bishops and deacons, having 
 proved them by the Spirit." " It were a grievous sin," 
 he proceeds to say, " to reject those who have faith- 
 fully fiilfilled the duties of their episcopal office ;" and j 
 immediately adds, " blessed are those presbyters who j 
 have finished their course and entered upon their re- j 
 ward :" that is, blessed are those presbyters who have j' 
 thus faithfully performed the duties of their episcopal j 
 office ; bishops and presbyters being used interchange- 
 ably as descriptive of the same order. {Ep, ad Gor.^ 
 sec. 44. Apud Coleman's Prim. Ch., pp. 164, 165.) ; 
 Again, he says, " Who is there among you that is ' 
 generous ? who that is compassionate ? who that has 
 any charity? let him say, if this sedition, tliis contention, : 
 and these schisms, be upon my account, I am ready to i 
 depart ; to go away whithersoever ye please ; and do 
 whatsoever ye shall command me ; only let thefioch of 
 Christ be in peace, with the ciders that are set over 
 it'' — Epis. ad Cor., 54. -j 
 
 r Waddington, an Episcopalian, says of these pas- ' 
 sages, " The episcopal form of government was clearly 
 not yet here [at Corinth] established, probably as 
 being adverse to the republican spirit of Greece ;" and 
 Riddle says, " Clement himself was not even aware of I 
 1 the distinction between bishops and presbyters — terms ' 
 [which in fact he uses as synonymous." *" 
 
 Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, wrote, about A. D, X. 
 140, an epistle to the Philippian church, which cor- 
 responds entirely with Clement in recognizing but two 
 orders in the ministry, but differs from, or rather ex- 
 plains Clement, by invariably limiting them \x> presby^ 
 
A.3». ) vo. - - 
 
 52 CUURCU GOVERNMENT. 
 
 ters aud deacons. He uniformly represents the J9rc<- 
 h^ers 08 the rulers of the church, and the word bIsHop 
 does not once occur in Jiis letter. He exhorts the 
 Philippians " to be subject to the presbyters and dea- 
 cons." St. Paul, in addi'cssing the same church, men- 
 tions, as we have seen, only bishops and deacons. It 
 is certainly a remarkable circumstance that the apostle 
 should omit one order and Polycarp another, if the 
 bisliops of the apostle were not the presbyters of the 
 father; and unless we admit their identity, we ai'c 
 compelled to the conclusion, that while this eminent 
 Christian father, whose writings were publicly read in 
 the primitive churches, enjoins reverence and obedience 
 to the authority of presbyters and deacons as the i-ulers 
 of the church, he utterly forgets to claim the same re- 
 gard for a much higher and more important order of 
 the ministry, Polycarp agrees with Paul (Titus i, 
 5-9) in describing the qualifications of presbyters Avith- 
 out referring at all to those which are necessary to a 
 bishop. 
 
 The philosopher, Justin Martyr, the contemporary 
 of Polycarp, in describing the mode of worsliip in the 
 first churches, limits its officers to two orders — the 
 deacons and antistes or presidents, evidently meaning 
 by the latter the presbyters.* 
 
 TVe thus advance into the secoiid century, finding 
 the Scriptures and fathers uniformly recognizing but 
 two orders in the ministry, and these are obviously 
 presbyters and deacons. According to Mosheini and 
 the best authorities, it was in this century that the title 
 of bishop began to be appropriated distinctively to the 
 
 * Apol. i, c. 65 and 67. Milton has a good comment on Jus- 
 tin's testimony : Prose Works, vol. i, p. 76. 
 

 ^,3, /^4. - j\, .j>. sd a, 
 
 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 53 
 
 elder who presided in the consultations or meetings of 
 the presbyters of each church. The increased num- 
 ber and business of the churches required such synods, 
 and the orderly performance of their business required 
 such a superintendency. This presiding presbyter 
 was, however, considered only as a 'prince'ps inter pares 
 — -a president among equals, and not of a superior or- 
 der divinely appointed. Ignatius (A. D. 116) is the 
 first writer who notices the distinction, but so decisive 
 is the evidence that most of his epistles are forgeries, 
 that no reliance can be placed upon his alledged testi- 
 mony. The very best critics declare that they have 
 been egregiously interpolated. Yet if his authority 
 were admissible, it would be far from sustaining the 
 prelatical doctrine of episcopacy. Ignatius's bishops 
 were but " pastors of single congregations,"* — ^presid- 
 ing presFyters ; and he nowhere describes them as the 
 only representatives of the apostles, and, on this ac- 
 count, an ordeF'distihct Irom presbyters; but repeat- 
 edly affirms presbyters to be fhe true successors of the 
 apostles : " Your presbyters, in the place of the council 
 of the apostles" — "Be ye subject to your presbyters, as 
 to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope." — Trail, 
 sec. 2. " Reverence . . . the presbyters as the sanhe- 
 drim of God, and college of the apostles" — lb., sec. 3. 
 
 The later primitive writers 'of the church confirm"! 
 our position. Irenseus, who died about A. D. 202, ' 
 evidently uses the names bishops and presbyters as 
 convertible terms. Speaking of certain heretics, he | 
 says : " When we refer them to that apostolic tradi- 1 
 tion which is preserved in the churches, through the 
 succession of their presbyters, these men oppose the | 
 » See Coleman, p. 199. I 
 
54 CnURCII GOVERNMENT. 
 
 tradition ; pretending that, being more wise than not 
 only the pi-esbt/ters, but the ai)ostles themselves, they 
 have found the uncorrupted truth." — Adv. JIaer.j lib. 
 iii, eh. ii, sec. 2. Continuing tlie same course of rea- 
 soning, the author, in the next section, again styfes 
 these same presbyters hisliops : " We can enumerate 
 those who were constituted by the apostles bishops in 
 the churches ; their successors, also, even down to our 
 time. But because it would be tedious, in such a 
 volume as tliis, to enumerate the successions in all the 
 churches, showing to you the tradition and declared 
 I faith of the greatest, and most ancient, and noted 
 : church, founded at Rome by the two glorious apostles, 
 ; Peter and Paul, which she received from the apostles, 
 ; and is come to us through the successions of the 
 bishops, we confound all who conclude otherwise than 
 they ought, by what means soever they do so." — Ibid.j 
 i chap, iii, sec. 1. 
 
 "The very same traditions and successions," says 
 Coleman, (p. 170,) " which are here ascribed to the 
 bishops, are just above assigned also to the presby- 
 ters ;" and lie speaks of Polycarp as a bishop in one 
 ' place, and in another as a " blessed and apostolic pres- 
 
 ' Again, he says, that they who cease to serve the 
 church in the ministry are a reproach to the sacred 
 order of the presbyters ; but he had just before styled 
 these same persons bishops. 
 
 In his letter tt» the Roman Bishop Victor, he speaks 
 of the presbyters who had presided over the church in 
 
 that city bef ore that bishop. One of these bishops 
 was the predecessor of Victor Anicetus, whom Poly- 
 carp endeavored in vain to p ersuade " to retain the 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 55 
 
 usage of the presbyters who had preceded liim."— »] 
 Euseh. JEccl. Hist, lib. v, c. 24. 
 
 Similar testimonies from Clement of Alexandria, 6. 
 TertuUian, &c., may be found in Campbell, Coleman, 
 &c. We pass to some from the 'later fathers.' That"^ M 
 of Jerome, in the fifth century, not only asserts! ^ 
 our position, but declares the manner in which the 
 name bishop was changed from its indiscriminate ap- 
 plication to alT presbyters to its distinctive application 
 to the presiding pre sbyter. He says : " A presbyter, . 
 therefore, is the same as a Ushop : and before there | 
 were, hy the instigation of the devil, parties in religion, ^ 
 and it was said among different people, / am of Paul, \ 
 and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were 
 governed by the joint counsel of the presbyters ; but 
 afterward, when every one accounted those whom he 
 baptized as belonging to himself and not to Christ, 
 it was decreed throughout the whole world that one, 
 chosen from among the presbyters, should be put over 
 the rest, and that the whole care of the church should be 
 committed to him, and the seeds of schism taken away. 
 
 " Should any think that this is only my own private 
 opinion, and not the doctrine of the Scriptures, let him 
 read the words of the apostle in his Epistle to the Phi- 
 lippians : ' Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus 
 Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at i 
 Philippi, with the bishops and deacons,' &c. Phihppi j 
 is a single city of Macedonia ; and certainly in one ! 
 city there could not be several bishops, as they are now 
 styled ; buFas" they, at that time, called the very same 
 persons bishops"whoin they called presbyters, the 
 apostle has spoke n without distinct ion o f bishops as 
 presbyters. 
 
56 cnuRcn government. 
 
 " Should this matter yet appear doubtful to any one, 
 unless it be proved by an additional testimony, it is 
 written in the Aets of the Apostles, that when Paul 
 had come to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus, and called 
 the presbyters of that church, and, among other things, 
 said to them, ' Take heed to yourselves and to all the 
 flock in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops.' 
 Take particular notice that calling the preshjters of 
 the single city of Ephesus, he afterward names the 
 same persons bishops." 
 
 After further quotations from the Epistle to the He- 
 brews, and from Peter, he proceeds : " Our intention 
 in these remarks is to show that, among the ancients, 
 presbyters and bishops were the very same; but by little 
 and little, that the plants of dissension might be plucked 
 up, the whole concern was devolved upon an indi- 
 vidual. As the presbyters, therefore, knew that they 
 are subjected, by the custom of the church, to him avIio 
 is set over them, so let the bishops know that they are 
 greater than presbyters more by custom than by any 
 real appointment of Christ"* 
 
 St. Augustine, the celebrated contemporary of Je- 
 rome, gives the same opinion : " The office of a bishop 
 is above the office of a priest [presbyterj not by the 
 authority of Scripture, but after the names of honor 
 which, through the custom of the church, have now 
 ohtsdnQd."— Jewel's Defense, pp. 122, 123. 
 
 The author of the commentaries on St. Paul's epis- 
 tles, supposed by some to be Ambrose and by others 
 Hilary (A. D. 384,) says : " The'apostle calls Timo- 
 thy, create^ liL^B ^ presbyter, a bishop ; for the first 
 
 * Mason's Works, vol. iii, pp. 225-228. On Jerome's contra- 
 dictions, see Stillingfleet, Am. ed., p. 302. 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 57 
 
 presbyters were ca lled bishops." — Comment, in Eph.^ 
 iv, 11, 12. Inter, Op, Ambrose, 
 
 Chry sostom (A. D. 407}^ says : " "Wherefore, as I 
 said, presbyters were anciently called bishops and 
 stewards of Christ, and bishops were called presbyters. 
 For this reason, even now, many bishops speak of their 
 fellow-presbyter and fellow-minister; and finally, the 
 name of bishop and presbyter is given to eaeh_indis- 
 criminately.'' — JSp, ad Phil, tom. ii, p. 194. 
 
 Theodg ret, i mmediately after Chrysostom, in com- 
 menting upon St. Paul's words, (Phil, i, 1,) declares 
 l^^LJ^ishqps and presbyters "had, at that time, the 
 same names, as we have from the history of the Acts 
 of the Apostles." He says: "It is evident that he 
 [St. Paul, in his instructions to Titus] denominates 
 the presbyters bishops," (^. ad Phil., p. 445, tom. 
 iii ;) and of Phil, ii, 25, he says, that " those who, in 
 the beginning of the epistle, are called bishops, evi- 
 dently belonged to the grade of the presbyteiy." — 
 Ibid., p. 459. On 1 Tim. iii, 1, he affirms that Paul 
 " calls the presbyter a bishop, as we have had occa- 
 sion to show in our commentary on the Epistle to the 
 Philippians."— ^. ad Tim., p. 652. 
 
 Colen i^n (chap, vi ) gives similar and abundant tes- 
 timonies to sho w that the same opinion was generally 
 entertained even through the middle ages, and ^esler 
 declares " that the distmction between the divine and 
 the ecclesiastical appointment, institutio, was of less 
 importance in the middle ^ges than in the modem 
 Catholic Church, and this view of the original identity 
 of bishops and presbyters was of no practical import- 
 ance. It was n ot ti ll after the Reformation that it 
 
 was attacked. Michael de Medina, about A. D. 1570, 
 
 _ ...^^ 1... .--.--.... ....„,^^ 
 
58 CnURClI GOVERNMENT. 
 
 does not hesitate to assert that those fathers were 
 essentially heretics ; but adds, that out of respect for 
 these fathers, thi s heresy in them is not to be con- 
 demned. Bellarmine declares this a 'very incon- 
 siderate sentiment.' Thenceforth all Catholics, as 
 well as English Episcopalians, maintain an original 
 difference between bishop and presbyter." 
 
 Pages might be filled with authorities to prove that 
 the prerogatives afterward limited to bishops originally 
 pertained to presbyters, especially the one now con- 
 sidered by prelatists the most important — the power of 
 ordination. For the Scriptural and pj-imitive examples 
 we must refer the reader to Bangs' Original Church, 
 No. 5 ; and for still furth er au thorities, to Coleman's 
 Primitive Church, chap. vi. The example of the 
 church of Alexandria furnishes a complete vindica- 
 tion of Mr. Wesley's ordination of the American 
 bishop s. The following is Goode's translation of 
 the account given by Eut^[chius of the case of the 
 Alexandrian Church : — 
 
 " His words are these : after mentioning that Mark 
 the evangelist went and preached at Alexandria, and 
 appointed Ilananias the first patriarch there, he adds, 
 * Moreover he appointed twelve presbyters with Ha- 
 nanias, who were to remain with the patriarch, so 
 that, when the patriarchate was vacant, they might 
 elect one of the twelve presbyters, upon whose head 
 the other eleven might place their hands and bless 
 him, [or invoke a blessing upon him,] and create him 
 patriarch, and then choose some excellent man, and 
 appoint him presbyter with themselves in the place 
 of him who was thus made patriarch, that thus there 
 might always be twelve. Nor did this custom respect- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 59 
 
 ing the presbyters, namely, that they should create 
 their patriarchs from the twelve presbyters, cease at 
 Alexandria until the times of Alexander, patriarch of 
 Alexandria, who was of the number of the three hun- 
 dred and eighteen, [bishops at Nice.] But he forbade 
 the presbyters to create the patriarch for the future, 
 and decreed that when the patriarch was dead, the 
 bishops should meet together and ordam the patriarch. 
 Moreover he decreed, that on a vacancy of the patri- 
 archate they should elect, either from any part of the 
 country, or from those twelve presbyters, or others, as 
 circumstances might prescribe, some excellent man, 
 and create him patriarch. And thus that ancient 
 custom, by which the patriarch used to be created 
 by the presbyters, disappeared, and in its place suc- 
 ceeded the ordinance for the creation of the patriarch 
 by the bishops." 
 
 Many of the best standards of the Anglican Church 
 have admitted the right of presbyters to ordain, and 
 their identity in order with bishops. Neale, in his 
 History of the Puritans, declares that the reformers 
 under King Edward "believed but two orders of 
 churchmen in Holy Scripture, bishops and deacons; 
 and, consequently, that bishops and priests [presby- 
 ters] were but different ranks or degi'ees of the same 
 order." Acting on this principle, "they gave the 
 right hand of fellowship to foreign churches, and to 
 ministers who had not been ordained by bishops." — 
 Coleman's Prim. Church, chap. vi. The proofs of 
 this assertion are so numerous, that we can only refer 
 to them. The " Institution of a Christian Man," known 
 also as the " Bishop's Book," was prepared by Cran- 
 mer, Latimer, and eight other bishops, at the command 
 
60 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 of the king. This work affirms "that in the New 
 Testament there is no mention made of any degrees 
 or orders, but only of deacons (or ministers) and of 
 priests (or bishops.)" Two archbishops, nineteen 
 bishops, and the lower house of convocation, sub- 
 scribed to this work. The composition of the book 
 was most deliberate and cautious. A meeting of the 
 highest authorities of the church was appointed to 
 determine important questions of religion. These 
 questions were classified under heads, and apportioned 
 to the bishops and learned divines. Each wrote his 
 answers separately, and at a fixed time reported them 
 in an assembly of all, and then they discussed their 
 variations of opinion, till they could concur in a com- 
 mon report to be made to the convocation. At one 
 of these meetings, held in 1537, a paper was prepared, 
 called "A Declaration of the Functions and Divine 
 Institution of Bishops and Priests." It was signed by 
 Cranmer, and many bishops and other divines, and 
 declares that "in the New Testament there is no 
 mention made of any degrees or distinction in orders, 
 but only of deacons (or ministers) and priests (or 
 bishops.)" In 1540, a commission, with Cranmer 
 presiding, affirms "that the Scripture makes ex- 
 press mention of only two orders, priests and 
 deacons."* 
 
 "The Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man," 
 approved by parliament in 1543^ and prefaced by an 
 epistle from the king, declares "that priests [presby- 
 ters'] and bishops are, by God's law, one and the same, 
 and that the powers of ordination and excommunica- 
 tion belong equally to both," and under Elizabeth it 
 * See Hall's Puritans and their Principles, pp. 44, 45. 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 61 
 
 was enacted by parliament "that the ordination of 
 foreign churches should be held vaHd." 
 
 L ord King affirms, in his Primitive Church : " As 
 for ordination, I find clearer proofs of presbyters or- 
 daining than of their administering the Lord's sup- 
 per." — Chap, iv, p. 67. 
 
 Stillingfleet asserts: "It is acknowledged by the 
 stoutest champions of episcopacy, before these late 
 unhappy divisions, that ordination perfoimed by pres- 
 byters, in case of necessity, is valid." 
 
 Archb is hop U sher, being asked by Charles L, in 
 the Isle of Wight, whether he found in antiquity that 
 ^^ presbyters alone did ordain" answered, "Yes," and 
 that he would show his majesty more — even where 
 preshyters alone successively ordained bishops; and 
 brought, as an instance of this, the presbyters of Alex- 
 andria choosing and making their own bishop, from 
 the days of Mark till Heraclas and Dionysius. ( CoU' 
 marCs Prim. Church.) 
 
 Whittaker, of Cambridge, asserts, as the opinion of 
 the reformers, that " presbyters being, by divine right, 
 the same as bishops, they might warrantably set other 
 presbyters over the churches J* 
 
 Bisho p Forbes declares " presbyters have, by divine 
 right, the power of ordaining, as well as of preaching 
 and baptizing." 
 
 The episcopacy of the Methodist Church is pre- 
 cisely in accordance with the foregoing views, that is, 
 it is presbyterian, our bishops being considered but 
 presbyters in order, differing from presbyters only in 
 office, as primi inter pares, first among equals. Ordi- 
 nation is limited to them only as a delegated power 
 from the presbyters, and simply for considerations of 
 
62 cnuRCn government. 
 
 convenience. Provision is made in our Discipline for 
 the resumption of the power by presbyters in certain 
 exigencies. 
 
 We have, then, an overwhelming amount of the 
 highest aullioriiio-;, aiuit nt and modern, in evidence 
 of the^fact (hat the Christian ministry? as recognized 
 by the primitive church, consisted of but two orders, 
 preshyters and deacons. 
 
 i~ / - - 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 
 
 The true succession — Prelatical succession — It cannot be proved 
 — Objections to it. 
 
 If we have succeeded in proving the temporary 
 character^ of the apostolate, and the primitive identity 
 of bishops and presbyters, in respect to order, we have 
 equally disproved the apostolic succession, so called; 
 but as this doctrine is the basis of the arrogance and 
 pretension of the prelatical system, we submit some 
 further remarks on it. 
 
 There is a qualified sense in which it may be said 
 that there is a succession in the Christian ministry — 
 the sense in which that term is applicable to the iiilers 
 of a state. The state dies not, though its administra- 
 tors pass away. God has always maintained a minis- 
 try in his church, though changing from generation to 
 generation. Theu' succession depends not, however, 
 on any personally transmitted virtue or authority, but 
 upon his divin e and inward call, and the app ointme nt of 
 his providence. The true successors of the apostles do 
 
CHUliOH GOVERNMENT. 63 
 
 not succeed them in thej^rerogatives whicli constituted 
 their_jpecial^ffice — ^their^SiDecial authority to found '- 
 and supervise the general church — their special power ^ 
 to work miracles — their jglenary inspiration for the 5 
 completion of the sacred canon — their absolute author- H 
 ity to a ppoint jmstors, to excommunicate delinquents, ^J 
 and determine infallibly ecclesiastical questions. A 
 genuine successor of the apostles is he who has their 
 ;. X evangelical character — their consecration to God, their 
 
 3, self-denia l and disinterested zeal — and this character 
 founded in an apostolic experience — ^I'epentance for sin, 
 faith in Christ, the renovation of the heai't, the indwell- | 
 
 ij. ing and fruits of the spirit, with a divine call to preach | 
 r^ ^^ the word, and a ftiithful adherence to, and promulga-J\ 
 tion of, the apostolic doctrines. 
 
 But what is the succession claimed by prelatists? 
 It is an unbroken series of o rdinations, through the 
 suc cessive bish op s of the chu rch, up_to the apostles; 
 ordinations which, by this unbroken series, possess a 
 mysterious virtu e, through which the sacraments and 
 all ministerial functions are rendered valid, and this, 
 too, without reference to the moral character of the 
 adm inistrators. Some of the greatest moral monsters ; 
 of the race have been important links in the chain, yet 
 their ministerial functions were fully vahd ; while the j 
 ordinations of such men as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, &c., 
 were utterly invalid, and the sacraments performed by 
 their successors, thus ordained, were surreptitious, and 
 without divine sanction, the churches which they 
 formed are not true churches, and have not the divine 
 ordinances ; but they alone are the true church who \ 
 have the succession, though they may be composed, as 
 they unquestionably have been, to a great extent, of 
 
6i cnuRcn government. 
 
 worldly and profligate men. We proceed to state some 
 objections to this extraordinaiy position. 
 
 1. The first is, that th e assumed scries of ord inations 
 cannot be proved . An able critic in the Edinburgh 
 ! Review (1843) says: "Whether we consider the pal- 
 I pabj[e absurdity of tliis_doctrine, its utter destitution of 
 I historical evidence, or the outrage it implies on all 
 Christian charity, it is equally revolting. The ai'gu- 
 I ments against it are infinite ; the evidence for it abso- 
 lutely nothing. It rests not upon one doubtful assump- 
 tion, but upon fifty. First, the very basis on which it 
 rests — the claim of episcopacy itself to be considered 
 
 • undoubtedly and exclusively of apostolical origin — has 
 
 • been most fiercely disputed by men of equal erudition 
 and acuteness, and, so far as can be judged, of equal 
 integrity and piety." 
 
 " Again, who can certify that this gift has been in- 
 corruptibly transmitted through the impurities, here- 
 sies, and ignorance of the dark ages ? Is there nothing 
 that can invalidate orders ? The chances are infinite 
 that there have been flaws somewhere or other in the 
 long chain of succession ; and, as no one knows where 
 the fatal breach may have been, it is sufficient to spread 
 universal panic through the whole church. What 
 bishop can be sure that he and his predecessors in the 
 same line have always been duly consecrated ? or what 
 presbyter that he was ordained by a bishop who had 
 a right to ordain ?" " But the difficulties do not end 
 here. It is asked how a man, who is no true Chris- 
 tian, can be a true Christian minister ? how he, who is 
 not even a disciple of Christ, can be a genuine succes- 
 sor of the apostles." 
 , " Since the first century, not less, in all probability, 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 65 | 
 
 than a hundred thousand persons have exercised the 
 functions of bishops. That many of these have not 
 been bishops by apostolic succession, is quite certain. _ 
 Hooker admits that deviations from the general rule I 
 have been frequent ; and, with a boldness worthy of j 
 his high and statesman-like intellect, pronounces them I 
 to have been often justifiable." *^ 
 
 Aj;chbijhop_Whatelj declares : " If a man consider 
 it as highly prohahle that the particular minister at 
 whose hands he receives the sacred ordinances is really 
 apostolically descended, this is the very utmost point 
 to which he can, with any semblance of reason, attain ; 
 and the more he reflects and inquires, the more cause 
 for hesitation wiU he find. There is not a minister in 
 Christendom who is able to trace up, with any approach 
 to certainty, his 0"\vn spiritual pedigree." " If a bishop 
 has not been duly consecrated ... his ordinations are 
 null ; and so are the ministrations of those ordained by 
 him . . . and so on without end. The poisonous taint 
 of informality, if it once creep m undetected, will spread 
 the infection of nullity to an indefinite extent. And 
 who can pronounce that during the . . . dark ages, no 
 such taint was ever introduced ? Irregularities could 
 not have been wholly excluded without a perpetual 
 miracle. Amidst the numerous corruptions of doctrine 
 and of practice, and gross superstitions, that crept in 
 ... we find descriptions not only of the profound igno- 
 rance and profligacy of many of the clergy, but of the 
 grossest irregularities in respect of discipline and form. 
 We read of bishops consecrated when mere children — 
 of men officiating who barely knew their letters — of 
 prelates expelled, and others put in their place, by vio- ^ 
 lence — of illiterate and profligate laymen, and habitual \ 
 
66 CnURCII GOVERNMENT. 
 
 drunkards, admitted to holy orders ; — and, in short, of 
 the prevalence of every kind of disorder and indecency. 
 It is inconceivable that any one, even moderately ac- 
 quainted with history, can feel . . . any approach to 
 certainty, that amidst all this confusion and corruption, 
 every requisite form was, in every instance, strictly 
 adhered to ; and that no one not duly consecrated or 
 ordained was admitted to sacred offices." 
 
 Eusebius, the earliest uninspired liistorian of the 
 church, though he sets out with the design of tracing 
 the succession, assures us that it is matter of much 
 doubt, and that he had but slight authorities to depend 
 on respecting even the definite fields of the apostles, if 
 they had any. He assures us he had to rely on mere 
 report ; and respecting their successors, he says : " Who 
 they were . . . that, imitating these apostles, (meaning 
 Peter and Paul,) were by them thought worthy to 
 govern the churches which they planted, is no easy 
 thing to tell, excepting such as may be collected from 
 St. Paul's own words." — Ecc. Hist., lib. iii, ch. iv. 
 
 Bishop Stillingfleet remarks : " If the successors of 
 the apostles, by the confession of Eusebius, are not 
 certainly to be discovered, then what becomes of that 
 unquestionable line of succession of the bishops of 
 several churches, and the large diagrams made of the 
 apostolical churches, with every one's name set down 
 in his order, as if the writer had been Clarencieux to 
 the apostles themselves? Are all the great outcries 
 of apostolical tradition, of personal succession, of un- 
 questionable records, resolved at last into the Scripture 
 itself, by him from whom all these long pedigrees are 
 fetched ? Then let succession know its place, and learn 
 to veil bonnet to the Scriptures ; and, withal, let men 
 
£AAl/^A.vv4-n. 
 
 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 67 
 
 take heed of overreaching themselves, when they ) 
 would bring down so large a catalogue of single bishops, 
 from the first and purest times of the church, for it 
 wiU be hard for others to believe them when Eusebius 
 professeth it so hard to find them." ~ 
 
 Calamy , to show what little dependence can be j i-^ 
 placed on these tables, gives a brief view, from the ; 
 representations of ancient writers, of the " strange con- 
 fusion" of the first part of the tables of the three most 
 celebrated churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome : 
 — " Tlie church of Alexandria has been generally re- v. .) 
 presented as founded by St. Mark, and yet Eusebius 
 speaks of it but as an uncertain report. ' They say it 
 was so ;' but he does not tell us who oaid so, nor upon 
 what grounds. However, upon this slender authority 
 (^ Hhey say so/ many others after him have ventured 
 to affirm it as an indisputable fact, that St. Mark was 
 actually the founder of this church. However, even 
 in^this there is no perfect agreement. Some contend 
 that he was t here with St. Peter ; others, that he was 
 there alone, being sent by St. Peter; others, that he 
 was there only once; and others, that he returned 
 again after his first visit. As to the time of his arri- 
 val, the period of his ministry, and the year in which 
 this church was first founded, all its records are totally 
 silent ; and the famous Clement , from whom we might 
 expect some information, throws not a single ray of 
 light upon this subject. 
 
 " But even supposing St. Mark, under all these dis- 
 advantages, to have been seated in this church on his 
 throne of polished ivory, as the fabulous legends report, 
 and that he wrote his Gospel in it, the difficulties will 
 increase when we proceed to his successors. His im- 
 
C8 cnuRcn government. 
 
 mediate follower on 'the throne of ivory' has several 
 names given to him ; and as to those who come after, 
 the representation? and accounts are too various and 
 conflicting to be credited as records of a fact. 
 
 '• The line of su ccession which proceeds from Antioch 
 is involved in equal, if not still greater, difficulties than 
 that of Alexandria. Eusebius, St. Ch rysostomj St. 
 Jerome, Pope Leo, Innocent, Gelasius, and Gregory 
 
 I the Great, all tell us that this church was founded by 
 St. Peter ; but we leara, from superior authority, that 
 * they which were scattered abroad upon the persecu- 
 tion of Stephen traveled as far as Antioch, preaching 
 the word to the Jews only.' Acts ix, 19. Tliis seems 
 to have been the occasion of introducing Christianity 
 at Antioch. After this, as the converts needed some 
 one to confinn them in the faith which they had newly 
 embraced, the church at Jerusalem sent forth Barna- 
 bas, not Peter, that he should go as far as Antioch ; 
 and when Barnabas found that he needed some further 
 assistance, instead of applying to Peter, he * departed 
 to Tarsus to seek Saul ; and when he had found him, 
 he brought him to Antioch. And it came to pass, that 
 
 , a whole year they assembled themselves with the 
 
 I church, and taught much people. And the disciples 
 were called Christians first at Antioch.' Acts ix, 25, 
 
 I 26. In all these transactions we have not one word 
 about Peter ; but, on the contrary, the intimations ap- 
 pear strongly in favor of Paul, as the first founder of 
 the church in this place. 
 
 " We read, indeed, in another place, that St. Peter 
 was at Antioch, but the circumstance is not mentioned 
 to his h onor ; for St. Paul, observing the offense he 
 
 ' had given by his dissimulation, withstood him to the 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. ^ 
 
 face, which we can hardly suppose he would have done j 
 if Peter had been the founder of the church, and if he ' 
 now stood at the head of his own diocese. 
 
 " Baronius , indeed, aware of these difficulties, is very j 
 willing that St. Peter should resign his bishopric at 
 Antioch, upon condition that St. Paul, acting as his 
 vicar, be allowed to have erected one there by his au- 
 thority. But even this will not do ; neither can the ; 
 supposition be reconciled with the positive declara- i 
 tions of those who assert that he was a long time bishop i 
 there. -^ 
 
 " If we turn from the apostles to their successors in \ ^^^ 
 this church, we shall find ourselves equally destitute \ 
 of firm footing. Baronius assures us, that the apos- ; ^ 
 ties left two bishops behind them in this place, one for 
 the Jews, and the other for the Gentiles. These were 
 Ignatius and Euodius. Eusebius says expressly, that \ 
 Euodius was the first bishop of Antioch, and that Ig- j 
 natius succeeded him. But, on the contrary, St. Chry- } 
 sostom, Theodoret, and the authorof the Constitutions, 
 declare, with equal assurance, that St. Peter and St. i 
 Paul both laid their hands on Ignatius ; but, unfortu- 1 
 nately, it appears that St. Peter was dead before Igna- J 
 tins was bishop in this place. •- 
 
 ^ The_ settlement of the Church of Rome, and its q^ \ 
 much-extolled apostolical succession of bishops, is in- '■ 
 volved, if possible, in still greater perplexity, confusion, 
 and disorder. According to some, this church was 
 founded by St. Peter ; others say it was by St. Paul ; 
 some introduce both; and others assert that it waSj 
 neither. Of this latter opinion were the learned SaI- 1 
 masius and others. But let us allow that St. Peter} 
 actually was at Rome, of what advantage will Jthis be i 
 
 
 
70 CnURCII GOVERNMENT. 
 
 to the succession of bishops ? If Peter was there^ ^t 
 is equally certain that St. Paul was there also ; and 
 under these circumstiinces it will be hard to detemiine 
 who was bishop. St. Paul was there first, and on this 
 account he is preferred by many of the ancients to St. 
 Peter ; and in the seal of that church, the former is 
 placed on the right hand, and the latter on the left. 
 But still this does not determine who was bishop. 
 To accommodate this business, they have agreed to 
 make them both bishops ; and this unhappily destroys 
 the unity of the episcopate, by placing two supremes 
 
 ^t the same time in the same church. 
 
 "But whatever uncertainty may accompany the 
 question as to the first bishop, those who succeeded 
 him are known with even less^ assurance. On this 
 point, the ancients and the moderns are strongly di- 
 vided. Some will have Cletus expunged out of the 
 table, a3 being the same with Anacletus ; and thus 
 fixing Linus at the head of the succession, cause him 
 
 I to be followed by Anacletus and Clemens. In this 
 manner Irenoeus represents the case. Others will have 
 Cletus and Anacletus to be both retained as distinct 
 bishops, having Linus standing between them. At the 
 same time, in some of the ancient catalogues, Ana- 
 cletus is excluded ; and, what is remarkable, he is not 
 to be found at this day in the canons of the mass, and 
 yet, in the Roman Martyrology, both Cletus and Ana- 
 cletus are distinctly mentioned, and a different ac- 
 count is given of the birth, pontificate, and martyrdom 
 of each. 
 
 ■• " In the catalogue of Epiphanius, the early bishops 
 of Rome are placed in the following orders : Peter and 
 Paul, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, and Euaristus. But in 
 
 ■^■.A 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 71 
 
 the catalogue of Bucher they stand according to thel 
 following arrangement: Linus, Cletus, Clemens, and 
 Euaristus; and three names are entirely omitted, 
 namely, Anicetus, Eleutherius, and Zephyrinus. And 
 what shall we do with the famous Clement ? Does he 
 style himself bishop of Rome ? Or how came he to ■ 
 forget his title ? ! 
 
 " It has been said by some, that after he had been [ 
 St. Paul's companion, and was chosen by Peter to be | 
 bishop of Rome, he gave place to Linus. But others! 
 assert, with equal confidence, and perhaps with equal, 
 authority, that Linus and Clemens, and others, that; 
 Linus and Cletus, were bishops at the same time. • 
 TertuUian, Ruffinu^, and some others, place Clement , 
 next to St. Peter ; Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus ■ 
 before him ; and Optatu s makes both Anacletus and j 
 Cletus to precede him. And, finally, as though these 
 strenuous defenders of apostolical succession were 
 destined to render it ridiculous by the various me 
 thods they have adopted to defend this tender string, 
 Austin, Damasus, and others, will not allow him to 
 grace the list, until the names of Anacletus, Cletus, 
 and Linus, have appeared. Such is the foundation of 
 apostolical succession in the Church of Rome ! Surely 
 it can be no breach of charity to assert that 
 
 ' The bold impostor 
 Looks not more silly when the cheat's found out.' 
 
 " It was not, therefore, without reason that Bis^p 
 Stilling fleet observed: 'The succession here is as 
 muddy as the Tiber itself; and if the line fails us 
 here, we have little cause to pin our faith upon it, as 
 to the certainty of any particular form of church 
 
72 
 
 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 government, which can be drawn from the help of 
 .the records of the primitive church.' — Irenicum, p. 
 [312. It cannot, therefore, but be evident to every 
 unprejudiced mind, that, since such confusion and dis- 
 order aj)peai' in the front of these tables of succession, 
 where we might most naturally expect the greatest 
 regularity and certainty, no dependence can be placed 
 on theu- authority." 
 
 2. We^jectto tliis doctrine, that while the series 
 of the succe ssion is thus doubtful, a failure in it involves 
 most disastrous consequences — none less tEanthe in- 
 valid ity of the ministration^ of all wIkj liav^ not re- 
 ceived au thority tliroiigli it. Hooker, a-^ wc have 
 I seen, admits that deviation- iVcni tlie genuine rule 
 [have been frequent. These deviations have not only 
 foccurred among the sul^ordinate bishops, but in the 
 highest department of the succession — among the 
 bishops of Rome — the popes themselves. There were 
 sometimes two, and even three, popes at once, and, at 
 Uie same time, excommunicating and cursing each 
 other most lustily. During these schisms there was 
 either no true pope, or no c_ertain one, and hence 
 a chasm in the chain. The Council of Basil ^pro- 
 nounced Eugenius a schismatic ; y*t from liini there 
 descended other popes, who, to this day, are his suc- 
 cessors — who, according to their own canons, possess 
 no pontifical authority. "Where is their apostolic suc- 
 cession then ? Again, several popes have been here- 
 tics. Pope Liberius was an Arian ; Sylvester, a 
 magician ; John XXII. taught the sleep of the soul 
 between death and the resurrection ; and John XXIII. 
 j believed the soul died with the body, as the Council 
 i of Constance says respecting him. A heretic c annot 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 73 
 
 transmit orders, according to the Church of Rome;^ 
 and, hence, on her own principles, her succession is ! 
 
 gone- I 
 
 Now a dev iation in one inst ance ma y ext end through^ 
 ages, and be ramified^ver aU Christendom. " The 
 ultimate consequence," says Whatel y, "must be, that 
 any one who sincerely believes that his claim to the j 
 benefits of the gospel covenant depends on his own! 
 minister's claim to the supposed sacramental virtue of 
 true ordination, and this again, on perfect apostolical ( 
 succession — must be involved, in proportion as he/ 
 reads, and inquires, and reflects on the subject, m the ) 
 most distressing doubt and perplexity." We pu t the ■ 
 question to any candid and thoughtful man, Can it be 
 possible that a jtosition so capable of ambiguity, so 
 actually uncertain, and a deviation from which, Avhile 
 it is a matter of such liability, is, at the same time, so 
 disastrous, can it be possible Jthat such a jDosition has 
 _been made, hj_ the infinitely wise and gracious Head 
 of the church, essential to its validity and authority ? , 
 Assuredly it camiot be. 
 
 3. The prelatical doctri ne of succession tends to give 
 undue importance to me re rites and forms. It claims, 
 indeed, that a spiritual and mysterious virtue inheres 
 in the unbroken succession ; but this virtue is strictly 
 and invariably dependent upon a determinate process 
 — it can be transmitted only by a given class of men, 
 through a given class of men, and by a given means. 
 It must be done by ordination, done by bishops, and 
 transmitted through bishops. A bishop can ordain 
 presbyters, but cannot give them the power to ordain 
 as such; he must ordain other bishops in order to 
 transmit this power. And this marvelous virtue, so 
 " 4 '~ 
 
74 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 marvelously inherent in a process whi ch scarcely 
 admits of variableness or shadow or turni ng, ma y be 
 communicated — nay, most certainly has been, if the 
 
 doctrine is true, hy men whose lives have been a com- 
 ) plication of the most enormous crimes known in our 
 ' world, and to men equally detestable. The rival pos- 
 sessors of the mysterious virtue have superseded each 
 other by cabals, by bloody conflicts, by assassinations, 
 and yet they have unfailingly possessed and trans- 
 mitted it in all its purity and power. And how? 
 AVliy simply and solely by the fact that a certain 
 form, called ordination, was performed by a certain 
 ecclesiastical officer, wlio, in his turn, had been treated 
 in like manner by a certain predecessor! Is it a 
 wonder that strong-minded men turn to infidelity, and 
 scorn our faith, when it thus arrays itself in absurdity? 
 Could it more effectually expose itself to the ridicule 
 of mankind than by such antiquated and preposterous 
 assumptions ? 
 (V This exaggerated importance given to mere rites or 
 offices is in contrast with the whole^ ^Pl^J^ ^^ Chris- 
 tianity. Christianity has its rites, simple and hallow- 
 ed, but teaches them with a latit ude in respe ct to their 
 mode, which shows that their spir it, not their lette r, 
 constitutes thejr importance. The genius of Christian- 
 ity is spiritual , not formal. This tenacity for modes 
 destroys its spirituality ; it is the source of Puseyism, 
 and the infinite corruptions of Popery. The doctrine 
 of a special mysterious virtue, inherent in the acts of a 
 man, because of a specific mode of appointment to his 
 office, is but a step from the doctrine that he imparts 
 a special virtue to the sacraments, by which, inde- 
 pendently of the moral temper of the recipient, they 
 
CHUKCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 75 
 
 save his soul ; a religion of forms without morals^ — *? 
 transubstantiation — the adoration of the host — implicit ' 
 reliance on the mediation of the priest, and numerous . 
 otlicr delusions, follow in the train. 
 
 4. Not on ly is the doctrine of succession contrary 
 to the gen ius of C'lirisiiaiiilyj l)ut it cannot claim a 
 singl e express p assage of the Scriptures for its sup- 
 port. This doctrine, as we have seen, is assumed as 
 fu ndame ntal ; the validity of the ministry, of the sa- \ 
 cramen ts, of the w hole or ganization of the church, in ^ 
 fine, depends upon it. Without it, the holiest and 
 ablest o f men are not genuine ministers of Christ, and 
 the most devoted and useful bodies of Christians are 
 noi tnic- cliurclic-, ;i;)(l can hope for heaven only by 
 the uncovenanted mercies of God. We have already' 
 asked the question, if it can be possible that a mere 
 histori cal circumstance, so liable to uncertainty, and so 
 actua lly uncertain, could be made, by God, the founda- 
 \ tion of the validity and authority of his church ? We 
 'noAv ask a still more pre ssing question, namely, Can it 
 b e possible that a pri nciple, whose integrity is so fear- 
 fully exposed, and yet is so indispensably necessary — 
 the basis of the validity of the ministerial office — the 
 validity of tlio sacraments — the validity of the entire 
 church — can it be that a matter of such importance is 
 left to be ascertained and maintained by the church, 
 without a single express reference to it in the whole 
 revelation of God? Where is there s uch a reference ? X 
 Can an unsophisticated reader of the sacred volume ' 
 find one ? The essential matters of salvation are plain ; 
 on the surface of the Scriptures. Men of common ( 
 sense have no difficulty in learning there that they ( 
 ai'e sinners — that they can be saved from their sins / 
 
ClirUCII GOVERNMENT. 
 
 I only by tlu' atoncmnit — (liiit llic condition of this 
 ( salvation is faith — that they should pray — be pure — 
 assemble themselves to«^ether for worship — be baj)- 
 tized— commemorate the death of Christ by his supper 
 — have the word preached by suitable men, &c. ; but 
 what mind, however keen, would, without i)revious 
 prejudices, be able to detect there this fundamental 
 condition of the validity of the ministry, the sacra- 
 ments, the entire church ? We do not deny that_it is 
 right, as a matter of expediency and propriety, that 
 Christian ministers should, wherever practicable, be 
 set apart to their work with suitable authority from 
 
 their clerical brethren. But where do the Scriptures 
 ^ enjoin even this^?_ Where, still more, do they enjoin 
 
 1 +110+ rvTio n^aca r^nW nf tlw r^^\',^] ^{yy gJij^U haVC pOWCr 
 
 •o. yet fur- 
 li:ive such 
 
 to give the necessary <anclioii.- '' And w) 
 ■ffier^ do they declare that th 
 
 that one class only of tli 
 
 mil 
 
 |)(»\ViT > 
 
 inexplicable virtue as to render valid and ellicacious 
 the ministrations of the candidate, notwithstandijng his 
 total want of moral qualification ? And where, we ask 
 once more, do they declare^ that deviations from this 
 mere form shall forfeit the ecclesiastical j^haracter and 
 covenant claims of vast bodies of Christian men, though 
 they may extend over a continent, and may plant, in 
 ) aJi the world, the monuments of their u sefulness a nd 
 J piety? It has been justly said by Dr. Woods, that 
 this is one of those doctrines which need only to be 
 stated to appear absurd. 
 
 5. Another and serious objection to this opinion is 
 
 its essential uncharitableness. It unchurches most of 
 
 the Protestant world. Unquestionably, the denomina- 
 
 tions_who deny it practically, as well as theoretically, 
 
 Vare more devoted, and by far more useful at present, 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 77 
 
 than those which m aintain it._The laborers of dissent- 
 ing churches are found scattered all over the foreign 
 world, and are most efficient at home. In our own 
 country they vastly preponderate in numbers and re- 
 ligious exertions. Yet a comparatively limited class 
 stand up amid them, denouncing them as destitute of 
 the claims of a true church — refusing to recognize \ 
 their sacraments, and excluding their large ministry t 
 from the courtesies due to genuine ambassadors of ' 
 Christ. Is it said that numbers are no proof of truth 
 — that a wrong cause may outnumber a good one? 
 Very true. If we had merely numerical preponde- 1 
 ranee, the reply would be just. Mohammedanism, s 
 Popery, heathenism, have greater numerical strength f 
 than Protestant Christianity ; but if they had also j 
 gr eater p iety and greater usefulness, then jFould the j 
 numerical argument be undeniably in their favor. The 
 effect cannot be without the cause. If the great dis- 
 senting^ bodies have all the spiritual attributes of the 
 true church, and accomplish all its legitimate ends 
 more extensively than their prelatical opponents, then 
 certainly they have a more valid claim to be considered 
 the true church, and the bigotry which brands them 
 witli^ecclesiasticai bastardy k an offense against God 
 as well as man. An opinion which logically leads to 
 uncharitabieness, so contrary to the whole genius of 
 Christianity, cannot be founded on Chi^stianity. 
 
78 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 I.- t- J, 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE OFFICE OF DEACON. 
 
 Derivation of the office — What was it 1 — Evidence from the 
 Scriptures — From the fathers — Controversy respecting it not 
 important. 
 
 On the subjects discussed in the foregoing pages we 
 are at variance with prelatical Episcopalians, and agree, 
 in general, with Presbyterians. There Js^^pne ground, 
 however, where we correspond with the former, and 
 dissent from the latter. We refer to the office o f 
 deacons. 
 
 The controversy on this subject does not involve 
 the question whether or not such an office existed in 
 the early church, but whether it was lay or clerical. 
 Our Presbyterian brethren contend that it was the 
 latter; and retain it only in that form. The Scrijv 
 tural references to the office sustain, we think, the 
 position that deacons, though appointed to superintend 
 certain inferior interests of the church, were, never- 
 theless, also preachers of the word — a subordinate 
 part of the regular ministry. 
 
 The office, like that of presbyters, was derived from 
 the synagogue. Three deacons, at least, officiated in 
 each synagogue; and their Hebrew designation im- 
 plies that they were to " nourish, support, and govern" 
 the congregation. (See Clarke's Com., Acts vi, 4.) 
 " The parnos, or deacon, was a sort of judge in the 
 synagogue, and, in each, doctrine and ^visdom were 
 required, that they might be able to discern, and give 
 right judgment in thiAgs both sacred and civil The 
 
CHUKCH GOVERNMENT. 79 
 
 chazan and shamash were also a sort of deacons. 
 The first was the priest's deputy, and the last was, in 
 some cases, the deputy of this deputy, or the sub- 
 deacon." — Ihid. It is obvious that the office implied, 
 to the Jewish Christians, among whom it was intro- 
 duced, a department of the sacred ministry, though a 
 s ubordinate one. In the Epistles (see 2 Cor. vi, 4 ; 
 Eph. iii, 7 ; Rom. xv, 8 ; Col. i, 23) the title is ap- 
 plied to the apostles, and to Christ. 
 
 Presbyterians found their limitation of this office to 
 mere ceremonial services, on the consideration that it 
 was ostensibly introduced into the church for such 
 purposes. Acts vi, 1-6. Dr. Bangs {Original Church, 
 p. 306) justly remarks on this point, that "if any man 
 say that these were set apart for the purpose of 
 serving tables, let him remember that it was a sort 
 of service to which the apostles themselves had de- 
 voted themselves until now, and therefore it could not 
 be incompatible with the ministerial or even the apos- 
 tolic office, and hence this objection makes nothing 
 against the position that these deacons were also 
 preachers of the gospel." 
 
 The apostles having sustained these menial cares 
 of the church until their duties became too burden- 
 some, ordered the appointment of subordinate preach- 
 ers, who, while ministering in the temporalities of the 
 Christians, as they themselves had, might also, like 
 them, preach the word. 
 
 The niode^of their appointment seems to iniply that 
 their office included more than the mere service of 
 tables. The apostles themselves appointed them as 
 they did other pastors in the church. They set them 
 apart with solemn services of consecration — "When 
 
80 cnuRcn governbient. 
 
 they had prayed, they laid their hniids vjjon them " — 
 using the form of ordination, which they borrowed 
 from the synagogue, for the consecration of the Chris- 
 tian ministry. 
 
 ' The qu alifications required of them would seem, by 
 their extraordinary character, to imply something niore 
 than the service of tables. They were required to be 
 men of "honest report," which, we should suppose, 
 would comprehend the necessary responsibility of their 
 temporal duties ; but they were also to be men "/i^/ 
 of the HOLY GHOST AND WISDOM ;" Dot, it is supposable, 
 for the purpose merely of apportioning food among the 
 poor, but that they might prudently and successfully 
 supply the lack of service on the part of the apostles 
 in the ministry of the word, and the administration of 
 spiritual discipline, as well as in the temporal interests 
 of the church. 
 
 - Accordingly, we find Stephen immediately preach- 
 ing the truth, not only before the council, but disput- 
 ing with the Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and Cilicians ; 
 and being "full of faith and power," he "did great 
 wonders and miracles among the people." We have 
 no information of his performing similar labors before 
 his ordination, by the laying on of the hands of the 
 apostles. 
 
 Philip was also appointed to the same office at the 
 same time ; and we have recorded, in the Acts of the 
 Apo?tlc?, the fact that he " went down to Jerusalem 
 2ii\(\. jirtarJiod Christ even to them;" and "the people 
 with one accord gave heed unto the things which 
 Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which 
 he did. For many unclean spirits, crying with a 
 loud voice, came out of many which were possessed 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 81 
 
 with tliem, and many taken with palsies, and that 
 were lame, were healed. And there was great joy m 
 that city." ' 
 
 It is evi dent that deacons ad.ministered the sacra- 
 ments. " When they believed Philip, preaching the 
 things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name 
 of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and 
 women." Acts viii, 2. And at verse 26, we find him 
 baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch. In Acts xxi, 8, we 
 read of this same Philip, " which was one of the 
 seven," as an " evangelist." 
 
 The apostles, in giving instructions respecting the""] 
 qualifications of the mini stry, refer to the deacons as ■ 
 well as £}'esby^ters. They existed in the early church 
 as a portion of its regufar ministry, and the fathers 
 describe their office to be such as we have inferred it 
 from the Scriptures. TertuUian tells us that they 
 "baptized in the absence of the bishop and presby- 
 ters." They are commonly represented as " ministers 
 in the word of God " — " ministers of the mysteries of 
 Jesus Christ," (^Ignatius to the TroUians ;) as " intrust- 
 ed with the ministry of Jesus Christ," { Polycar p to 
 the ^phesi^ms;) as "ministers of God in Christ," 
 {?^ly9^^^2 J2. ^^^ Philippians.) The church gene- 
 rally has maintained, from the apostolic times, the 
 ofiice of deacon in the manner yet retained by epis- 
 copal bodies ; and no time can be designated in 
 which it was perverted from a lay to a clerical cha- 
 racter. 
 
 But even though the Presbyterian view of the 
 
 office were historically correct, it does not affect our 
 
 right to render it a clerical order, such as it really is 
 
 in Episcopal churches. The Scriptures set us the 
 
 4* 
 
82 cnrRrii covkrnmknt. 
 
 example of such a clas"^ oliuiMic s* i-vaiits in tlic clmiTh, 
 but tliey do not enjoin it. Tlic priinitiv*.* C'liristians had 
 need of it un<U'r their peculiar circumstances, they 
 copied it from the exampl(3 of the synagogue ; in so 
 doing they put no obligation on the subsequent genera- 
 tions of the church further than to provide expedient 
 means of good order in the administration of ecclesias- 
 tical business. Hence the English "NVesleyans have 
 no deacons, not deeming the office necessary. Any 
 church can have them or not, as its interests re- 
 c^uire, or can modify tlie odieo. making it a lay or 
 clerical one, as it choo-i -^ ; loi-. ;i< we have repeatedly 
 said, particular forms of ecclesiastical economy are 
 not essential to the validity of the church. The con- 
 troversy, therefore, relntes more to a question of Sis- 
 t orical accuracy t han of t)racti cal necessity . 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 83 
 
 PART II. 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL 
 CHURCH— ITS ORIGIN. 
 
 i 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE METHODIST ECONOMY. 
 
 Not a contrived, but providential arrangement — Its successive 
 stages — Mr. Asbury's original relation to it — Organization of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 Two of tlie violent assaults made on tlie government ] 
 of the M ethodist Episc opal Church within the last( 
 twentj-five years have had reference to its origin : the j 
 first implying that it is a system of oppression, con- 
 trived and formally adopted hy the clergy without con- 
 sultation with the If^ Vy ; the second asserting that its 
 e^?'5co^cfc^,^n_particular, was introduced in defiance of 
 the expressed wishes of Mr. Wesley. (See True Wes- 
 leyan, vol. ii, No. 8.) In meeting these objections we 
 shall, fi rs t, state the origin of the Methodist -polity in gene- 
 roi; second, the origi n of its episcopacy in particular. \ 
 
 It should be remembered that the Methodists, with 
 most other Christian sects, do not consider that church 
 government ought to be modeled on that of the state. 
 It should be neither monarchical, aristocratic, nor 
 democratic, but founded upon the Scrijitures and the 
 actual wants of the times, provided the different parts 
 are so balanced as not to oppress any party. 
 
 1. The Methodist economy was not a contHyedspis- 
 tem.. It was the result of providential circu mstances. 
 
 2- 
 

 84 cnuncn govehnment. 
 
 WIk'ii 'Mr. AVesley commenced his labors in England 
 he lool^O(l not into the future, but consuhed only the 
 openings of jursent duty. '• AVhillier they -were to 
 lead lie knew not," says Southey, " nor what form or 
 consistence the societies he was collecting would as- 
 sume, nor where he was to find laborers as he enlarged 
 the field of his operations, nor how the scheme was to 
 derive its temporal support. But these cons ideratio ns 
 neither troubled him, nor made him for a moment fore- 
 slacken his course. God, he believed, had appointed 
 it, and God would always provi de m eans for his own 
 
 ^ends." — Life of Wesley. 
 
 ^ CHe went out preaching to the masses in the high- 
 ways. Multitudes were converted) (Thej applied to 
 
 I him for spiritual counsel. lie combined them in small 
 companies or societies, the more conveniently to guide 
 them ; in time they were formed into " bands " and 
 
 I " classes," und er " l eaders," and were thus placed under 
 
 I spiritual oversight during his absence) [These societies 
 soon found private houses too strait for their conve- 
 nience. They erected humble buildings for their meet- 
 
 ! j" gs? ^"^d th ence sprung up a series of cha pels, a resul t 
 
 I altogether unanticipated^ (Among the societies thus 
 collected were occasionally found men of deep piety, 
 sou nd se nse, and strqi\g natural powers, who, in the 
 absence of AVesley, instructed the people by reading 
 the Scriptures and exhortation. Such he took unde r 
 his special direction as providential assistants in his 
 great work, and thence arose the Methodist lai/ minis- 
 
 ' irj/^ (By Ihe rapid multiplication of the societies, it 
 became necessary that the preachers, or " assistants," 
 as they were called, should travel from one to another, 
 each supplying a plurality of appointments ; and thence 
 
Ltrvvlw 
 
 Vul 
 
 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 85 
 
 arose the itinerancy ^ (These assistants became, m\J 
 time, so numerous, that it was necessary for Wesley 
 to assemble them periodically, in order to examin e and 
 counsel them, and regulate their labors ; thence^arose 
 the a miual conferences^ an unpretending title, indi- \ 
 eating the simplicity of their character^) (AX these con- 
 ferences Wesley distributed his " assistants," and cer- 
 tain questions were asked and answered comprehend- 
 ing the arrangements of the new body. They were 
 published annually in humble pamphlets, called Min- 
 utes; and thence arose th e Annual Minutes^ The 
 arrangements and regulation s thus nrrnhufally^ or 
 rather prmndentially, provided, gradurdJij (/reic perma- 
 nent^ and formed the government of fJte sect. When 
 the Annual Minutes became numerous, their substance 
 was digested by Wesley into a permanent document, 
 called the Large Minutes, which became, and in various 
 forms has continued to be, th e Discipline of the body. 
 
 Thus, societies, classes, cha pels, lay preachers, itine- 
 ra ncy, conferences, minute s, or the discipline, succes- 
 sively and providentially entered into the system of 
 Methodism . At the head of this system stood Wesley, 
 gladly acknowledged by the increasing thousands of 
 his followers as the founder and rightful director of 
 the whole. 
 
 Meantime, Methodism reached th e colonies of th is v^-wvjto^ 
 continent. A few, adopting its doctrines and name, 
 in New-York city and elsewhere, applied to Wesley 
 for some of his " assistants," or preachers. He sent 
 several, and among them Francis Asbury, who acted 
 as his general assistant, performing in this country 
 the functions which Wesley exercised in England, and 
 subject to his direction. As the preachers increased 
 
 
86 cnuRcn govkkxment. 
 
 ill this country, they, from time to time, expressed 
 their approbation of this aj)i)ointment. In the Minutes 
 for 1771) is the ibllowing item : — 
 
 " Quest. 12. Ought not brother Asbury to act as 
 ge neral assistant in America? 
 
 " Ans. He ought : 1st . On account of his age. 
 2d. Beca use originally appointed hy Mr. Wesley. 
 3d. Being joined by Messrs. Rankin and Shadford, 
 by express order from Mr. Wesley ." 
 
 And again, in 1782: — 
 
 " Quest. 19. Do the brethren in conference unani- 
 mously choose brother Asbury to act according to Mr, 
 Wesley's original appointment, and preside over the 
 American conferences and the whole work ? 
 
 ''Ans. Yes." 
 
 And in 1784 , among other conditions required of 
 " European preachers" admitted among us, one is, that 
 they shall be ''subject to Francis Asbury as general 
 assistant ichile he stands approved by Mr. Wesley and 
 the conference.''^ 
 
 As the two countries were then under one govern- 
 ment, the two churches were also. Wesley's "Min- 
 utes" were the discipline of the American as well as 
 the British Methodists ; and Asbury represented his 
 person among us, vested with much greater powers 
 than now belong to our bishops. 
 
 Thus was the American church governed, for years, 
 by the parental direction of Wesley. Meanwhile, 
 none of our preachers being ordained, the societies 
 were dependent upon the clergy of the English Church 
 in this country for the sacraments. At the Revolu- 
 tion most of these left the country, and the Methodists 
 Avere thereby deprived of the sacraments. Many in- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 87 
 
 sisted upon having them without ordination. A gene- 
 ral strife ensued, and a large portion of the southern 
 church revolted. A compromise was effected until 
 they could apply to Wesley for a more thorough ar- 
 rangement, with powers to ordain and administer the 
 sacraments. In meeting their demand he ordained 
 and sent over Dr. Coke, with episcopal powers, under 
 the name of superintendent, to ordain Francis Asbury 
 a "joint superintendent," and to ordain the preachers 
 to the offices of deacons and elders. He sent also a 
 printed liturgy, or " Sunday Service," containing forms 
 for " ordaining Superintendents, Elders, and Deacons," 
 the "Articles of Religion," and "A Collection of 
 Psalms and Hymns." They w^ere accompanied by a 
 circular letter to the societies, stating, as a reason for 
 these new measures, that " some thousands of the in- 
 habitants of these states desire my advice ; and, in com- 
 pliance ivith their desire, I have drawn up a little 
 sketch^' &c. When Dr. Coke arrived, the preachers 
 assembled in Baltimore to receive him and the new 
 arrangements borne by him from Wesley. The adop- 
 tion of the appointments and arrangements thus made 
 by the father of Methodism at the request of "some 
 thousands," is what is called the " organization " of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. The " Minutes," which 
 had before been the law of the church, were continued, 
 with such additions as were required by these new 
 arrangements of Wesley. There w as no revolution 
 of the church polity, no new powers imparted to_As- 
 bury, except to ordain preachers . Everything pro- 
 ceeded as before, except that now, the Church of 
 England being dissolved by the American Revolution, 
 we no longer depended upon it for the sacraments, but 
 
88 cnuRcn government. 
 
 ciijoyed tlicin iiDiong ourselves. All subsequent modi- 
 fications took jjlace' in the manner previously appointed 
 by Wesley, in both England and America; that is, by 
 tJie action of the conferenees, as providential circum- 
 stances required. Thus, then, it appears, — 
 
 1. That the Me thodist polity, instead of being a 
 contriv ed s^'^stem , im])osed by the ministry up o n the 
 people, providentially grew up in the progress of the 
 denomina tion. 
 
 2. That Mr. "Wesley was the agent of Providence 
 in its gradual formation ; and that his followers, vene- 
 rating liim as, under God, the father of INIcthodism, 
 universally and gladly recognized his agency in its 
 establishment, 
 
 3. That the so-called " organization " of the Method- 
 ist Episcopal Church, at Baltimore, was simply and 
 substantially the conti nuance of the system previously 
 appointed by Wesley, with such alterations as he, at 
 our request, provided. In respect to the very term 
 ^^ episcopaV itself, the conference at Baltimore said, in 
 tlieir "Minutes" of the so-called organization, that, 
 " following the counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who recom- 
 mended the episcopal mode of church government, we 
 thought it best to become an Episcopal Church,'' &c. — 
 Minutes of 1785. The Minutes containing this decla- 
 ration were, six months after, in the hands of Wesley, 
 and published in London, under liis eye, without a 
 word of disapprobation ; and when Dr. Coke was 
 attacked for liis proceedings at Baltimore, in the Lon- 
 don papers, he publicly defended himself by declaring 
 that he had "done nothing without the direction of 
 3Ir. Wesley:'* 
 
 * Defense of our Fathers. Reply to T. T. Castleman, by a Layman. 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 89 
 
 4. That the government of the American Methodist 
 Church is therefore truly Wesleyan m its origin, and 
 thaf those who, under the name of " True Wesleyans," 
 ai'e attempting to destroy it, are not entitled to that 
 appellation, but are actually opposing what was j)rima- 
 rily the work of Wesley himself. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 
 
 Did Wesley originate it 1 — Preliminaries — A series of proofs. 
 
 We pass now to the second charge, namely, that 
 our episcopacy, in particular, was established in defi- 
 ance of the expressed wishes of Mr. Wesley. 
 
 Mr. Wesley, while he established our episcopacy, 
 did^not approve the use of the appellation " biskoj)" 
 because of the adventitious dignities associated with it. 
 We had been in existence three or four years under 
 the express title of an " Episcopal Church," with the 
 uninterrupted approbation of Wesley, before the name 
 bishop was personally applied to our superintendents. 
 Not till this term was adopted did he demur. He 
 then wrote a letter to Bishop Asbury objecting strongly 
 to his being " called a bishop." This letter has been 
 published for years at our own Book Rooms, in Moore's 
 Life of Wesley, without an apprehension that it could 
 be validly used against us. Our antagonists have, 
 however, adopted some of its strongest sentences as 
 their mottoes ; and under general headings, such as 
 " Did Mr. Wesley approve of bishops ?" &c., they have 
 repeatedly published extracts from it adapted only for 
 a false effect ; for while their extracts are unaccompa- 
 
90 CHURCH flOVKRNMKNT. 
 
 nied by any qualification sliowing th at Wesley did no t 
 condemn the fl^cc, which he ai»proved and created, but 
 merely the name, the headin;;.s and comments whic h 
 accom pany them are so worded as to begu ile the read - 
 er, not acquainted with the facts, into the supi)Osition 
 that it was the t/iing, not merely the name, that Wesle y 
 condemned. Though our argument must reflect seri- 
 ously on the candor of these representations, we are 
 compelled to show the amazing injustice attempted to 
 be done in this instance to Mr. Wesley and the church 
 which he planted. Three things are to be understood 
 in this inquiry : — 
 
 1. That Wesley was a staunch Episco j^ a lian. What 
 man was ever more attached to the national episcopacy 
 of England ? But he has left an express declaration 
 on the subject. " / believe,''^ says he, " the episcopal 
 form of church government to he Scriptural and 
 apostolical ;"" that is, conformable to the Scriptures 
 and apostolic usage, though not prescribed by them, 
 as he shows in the context. (See pp. 11, 12 of tliis 
 Essay.) 
 
 2. That Wesley, w^hile he believed fiiTnly in episco- 
 pacy, belonged to that class of Episcopalians in the 
 English Church who contend that episcopacy is not a 
 distinct order, but a distinct office in the ministry ; that 
 bishops and presby ters, or elders, are of the same order , 
 and have essentially the same prerogatives ; but tha t, 
 for convenience, some of this order are raised to the 
 episcopal office, and some of the functions originally 
 pertaining to the whole orde r confined to them, such 
 as ordination, &c. (See his Circular Letter to Ameri- 
 can Methodists, on the ordination of Dr. Coke.) 
 
 3. That the words episcopos in Greek, superintend- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 91 
 
 ent in Latin, and bishop in Eng;lish, have, as we h ave 
 show n, the same meaning;. 
 
 With these preliminaries, we recur to the abov e 
 qu estion : " Did Mr. Wesl ey ap prove of bishops ?" o r, ■l'-'-*^ 
 what is more to the point, as connecting the question 
 with our church, Did he appoint Dr. Coke to the epis -" 
 copal office? did he establish the Methodist episco- 
 pacy? We affirm most unqualifiedly that he did. Our 
 antagonists deny it, iind reduce tlie rij>|;ointnient of 
 Coke to a speL^^s of general supervision, declaring it 
 to be altog ether foreign to the ^jiscopal office. Let 
 us now look at the evidence. 
 
 1. Mr. Wesley mentions in Dr^ Coke's lettersjDf 
 ordination, a s a re ason for ordaining him, that the 
 Methodists in this country desi red ^^ still to adhere to 
 the doctrine and discipline of the Church of EnglancU' 
 That church was dissolved by the Revolution ; he, 
 therefore, appointed Dr. Coke, with an episcopal form 
 of government, to meet the want. If Dr. Coke was 
 appointed merely to some general relation to the 
 church, without the authoritative supervision pertain- 
 ing to the episcopal office, wherein did his appointment 
 meet the reason mentioned by Wesley — " the discipline 
 of the Church of England f '\Yherein consists the 
 main feature of the discipline of the English Church ? 
 In its episcopal superintendency. ^Ylierein does our 
 system resemble it ? Certainly not in its classes, itine- 
 rancy, &c., but in its episcopal regimen. Wesley's 
 language is sheer nonsense if this is not its meaning. 
 
 2. Why did Wesley att ach so much im^portance^to 
 the appointment if it Avas of the secondar y character 
 alledg;ed ? He says, in his circular letter on Dr. Coke's 
 appointment : — 
 
92 CUURCII GOVEitNMKNT. 
 
 " For many years I have been importuned, from 
 time to time, to exereise this right l)y ordainivg part 
 of our traveling preaeliers ; but I liave still lefused, 
 not only for peace' sake, but because I wjvs determined 
 as little as possible to violate the established order of 
 the nationid church to which I belonged. But the case 
 is widely different between England and America. 
 Here there are bishojjs who have a legal jurisdiction. 
 In America there are none, neither any parish minis- 
 ters; so that, for some hundred miles tojrether, there 
 are none either to baptize or administer the sacrament. 
 Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end /" 
 
 Scruples! What could have been his "scruples '* 
 about sending a man on such a secondary errand as 
 our opponents assert? He had already sent Asbury 
 and others to this country, and to Asbury he had actu- 
 ally assigned such a special yet secondary office as our 
 opponents ascribe to this new appointment, but unac- 
 companied with the ordination and authority of episco- 
 pacy. This he had done years before, without any 
 scruple whatever ; but all this time he had been scru- 
 pling about this new and solemn measure, till the 
 Revolution relieved him by dissolving the jurisdiction 
 of the English bishops over this country. We say 
 again, there is sheer nonsense in all this if Wesley 
 merely gave to Coke and Asbury a sort of indefinite 
 special commission in the American church, not includ- 
 ing in it the distinctive functions of episcopacy. We 
 can conceive of nothing in the nature of such a com- 
 mission to excite such scruples, and such a commission 
 had long since been allowed to Mr. Asbury. 
 
 Again, when M r. AVesley proposed to Dr. Coke his 
 ordination to this new office, some six or seven months 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 93 
 
 before it was conferred, the doctor was startled, (as 
 Drew tells us in the I^e^f^CokeJi a7id doubted Wes- 
 ley's autJtoritij to ordain him, as "Wesley himself w as 
 not a bishop . Wesley recommended him to read Lord 
 King's Primitive Church, and gave him time to reflect. 
 Coke passed several months in Scotland, and, on satis- 
 fying his doubts, wrote to Wesley, accepting the ap- 
 pointment, and was afterward ordained with solermi 
 forms and the imposition of hands by Wesley, assisted 
 by presbyters of the Church of England. Now w e 
 put it to the common sense of the reader, if aJl these 
 former scruples of AYesley, this surprise, and douht, and 
 delay of Coke, this reference to eccleskstical antiquity, 
 and th ese solemn /b r??ig, were anything less than ridicu- 
 lous if they related merely to tlie species of appoint- 
 ment asserted iDy our opixjucnts, e-pecitilly as this very 
 species of comm ission licid already L.iug e xisted in the 
 person of Asbury ? 
 
 ~ 3. It is evident, beyond all question, that Wesl ey 
 did not consider this solemn act in the subordinate 
 sense of an appointment, but as an " ordination^ using 
 the word in its strictest ecclesiastical applic ation. Look 
 again at the above quotation from his circular letter. 
 " For many years," says he, " I have been importuned 
 ... to exercise this right by ordaining a part of our 
 traveling preachers ; but I have still refused . . . be- 
 cause I was determined as Httle as possible to violate 
 the established order of the national church. . . . Here 
 [that is, in respect to America after the Revolution] 
 my scruples are at an end." Here the word ordain - 
 ing is expressl y u sed ; and if th e new aj^jpointmen^waa 
 not a regular " ordination," but a species of nondescrip t 
 com missio n, like that contended for by our opponents, 
 
1)1 ciiLi:cii <.;ovi:knmi;nt. 
 
 Low cou ld it be an interference w ith " the established 
 order of the national church V How, especially, could 
 it be such an intcrtcrenco in aiiy important sense dif- 
 ferent from that which AVesley had already, for years, 
 been exercising without "■ scruple," in sending to this 
 country his unordained preachers ? It was clearly an 
 ordinatioUj in the ecclesiastical sense of the term. 
 Now there have been but three ordinations ever 
 claimed by any sect in the world; namely, to the 
 offices of, 1. Deacons; 2. Elders or presbyters; and, 
 3. Bishops. If, then. Dr. Coke was ordained by W es- 
 ley, as we have p roved, and was not ordained a bishop , 
 as ou r opponents assert, we ask these new speculators 
 in church polity to what was he ordained ? He had 
 been a presbyter for years. To what, then, did Wes- 
 ley ordain him, if not to the next office ? It is folly to 
 evade here. 
 
 Let it be remembered that Messrs. Whatcoat and 
 Vasey were ordained elders for this country at the 
 same time. If Di". C'nkc did not then receive a higher 
 ordination, Tthat is, episcuixil, lur this Is the only higher 
 one.> why was he ordained separately from them? 
 And why did Wesley, in his circular letter, declare to 
 the American Methodists that, while Whatcoat and 
 Vasey were " to act as elders among them," Coke and 
 Asbiiry were " to be joint superintendents over them ?" 
 How are we to interpret language, if ours is not the 
 sense of Wesley ? 
 
 4. Mr. Wesley, in his circular letter, appeals to 
 Lord King's Sketch of the Primitive Church to show, 
 that he, as a presbyter, had a right, under his peculiar 
 circ umstances, to perform these ordinations . Lord 
 King establishes beyond a doubt the second of our 
 
CHUKCH GOVERNMENT. 95 
 
 above preliminary statements, and the right of pres- 
 byters to ordain. He refers particularly to the Alex- 
 andrian church, where, on the decease of a bishop, the 
 presbyters ordained his successor. Mr. Crowther, in 
 his " Portraiture of Methodism," and Mr. Sutcliffe, in 
 his " Life of Coke," (both Wesleyan preachers,) and 
 the celebrated Drew, in his " Life of Coke," say that, 
 when Wesley communicated to Coke his wish to ordain 
 him, he said : — 
 
 " That, as the Revolution of America had separated 
 the United States from the mother country for ever, 
 and the episcopal establishment was utterly abolished, 
 the societies had been represented to him in a most 
 deplorable condition. That an appeal had also been 
 made to him through Mr. Asbury, m which he was 
 requested to provide for them some mode of church 
 government suited to their exigencies ; and that, hav- 
 ing long and seriously revolved the subject in his 
 thoughts, he intended to adopt the plan which he was 
 now about to unfold. That as he had invariably en- 
 deavored, in every step he had taken, to keep as close 
 to the Bible as possible, so, on the present occasion, he 
 hoped he was not about to deviate from it. That, 
 keeping his eye upon the conduct of the primitive 
 churches in the ages of unadulterated Christianity, he 
 had much admired the mode of ordaining bishops 
 which the church of Alexandria had practiced. That, 
 to preserve its purity, that church would never suffer 
 the interference of a foreign bishop in any of their 
 ordinations, but that the presbyters of that venerable 
 apostolical church, on the death of a bishop, exercised 
 the right of ordaining another from their own body by 
 the laying on of their own hands j and that this prac- 
 
96 CUUKCII GOVEllNMENT. 
 
 tice continued among them for two liundred years, till 
 the days of Dionysius. And liiially, that, being him- 
 self a presbyter, he wished Dr. Coke to accept ordina' 
 tion from his hands, and to proceed, m that character, 
 to the continent of America, to superintend the socie- 
 ties of the United States." — Drew's Life of Coke. 
 
 Now we ask ngain, AVhy this reference to Lord 
 King and tlio Alt xaiidrian church — provmg t hat pres- 
 hyt< I s (diild >>r<l<iin — in justification of Wesley's pro- 
 cee'liii,--. if ln' dM ]i<«i <n->hi'ni ? And if h^ejlid ordain 
 D]-. ( uki'. \\<' ajaiii :i-k. a- ihe doctor was already a 
 pr<'-li_\ Icr. to ^vll,•^t wa- lie lliii.- oi'daiiird, if it was not 
 the only reiiiaiiiiiig oilicc — the epi.- cH}>:ioy ? A nd we 
 ask still more poi ntedly, what prop ria ly ^\ as there in 
 Wesley's justifying himself by refer ring to the ordina- 
 tion of bishops by the presbyters of Ale xandria, if lie 
 himself had not ordained a bishop ? A>-u]< <11\, the 
 view of our opponents renders Wesley utterly absurd. 
 
 5. Mr. Wesley prepared at this time a prayer book 
 for the Arnerican churches^ to be used under this new 
 arrangement. It contains the forms for the ordination 
 of, 1. Deacons; 2. Elders; 3. Superintendents; and 
 directs exj^ressly that all elected to the office of dea- 
 con, elder, or superintendent, should be presented to 
 the superintendent to be ordained. We remark, 1. That 
 here the very word ordain is used. 2. We have here 
 the thr ee distinct offices of the ministry stated in order, 
 according to t he understa nding of Mr. Wesley and all 
 Episcopalians the world over. 3, That npt only ia 
 the na me of bishop chan ge^ to that of superintend ent, 
 but the name of p reshjter, or priest, to that of elder — 
 the new names being in both cases precisely synony- 
 mous with the old ones. Now, if the change of the 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 97 
 
 former n ame implies a difference in the ofj ice also, 
 w hy does not the change in the latter imply t he same? 
 and why do not s eceders deny, then, that we have pres- 
 hyters as wel l as bishops ? and what then becomes of 
 their own aiithoritj as presbyters? How dare they 
 administer the sacraments, and perform other rights, 
 denied by Wesley and the universal church to all be- 
 low presbyters? Behold into what absurdities their 
 logic leads them ! 4. We remark that these forms of 
 ordination were abridge d from the forms in the Miglish 
 Liturgy for the ordination of deacons^ preshyterSj and 
 bishops, the_ names of the latter two being changed to 
 synonymous terms, namely, elders and superintendents. 
 Our opponents freely grant that elder means presbyter, 
 and that we really have the office, though not the name ; 
 yet, as soon as we mention superintendents as bishops, 
 they fly off in a tangent. 5 . Th ese forms jhow that 
 Wesley not only created our episcopacy, but designed 
 it to co ntinue after Coke and Asbury's decease. 
 
 6. By reading Coke's letter to Wesley, consenting 
 to, and directing about, his proposed ordination, it will 
 be seen that Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey were or- 
 dained presbyters at his request, because ^^ propriety 
 and universal practice make it expedient that I should 
 have two presbyters with me in this worlc." — Drew. 
 That is. Coke requests, and Wesley grants, that two 
 presbyters shall be ordained to accompany Coke in his 
 new office, because ^^ propriety and universal practice" 
 require that two presbyters assist a bishop in ordain- 
 ing ; and yet Coke was not appointed to the office of 
 a bishop ! Alas for such logic ! We repeat : Coke, 
 in this letter, requests that these two men should be 
 made "presbyters." Wesley complies j and yet, in 
 5 
 
98 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 the forms of the prayer book or discipline, thoy are 
 railed " elders^ The 7iamc, therefore, was only 
 changed, not the thing ; "vvhy, then, is not the infer- 
 ence just that the other change in these forms, that of 
 bishop to superintendent, is only in the name, not the 
 thing ? The rule certainly ought " to work both ways." 
 
 7. Ch arles AYcsley was a rigid high churchman, and 
 oppo sed to all oi;dinations by his brother. . The latter 
 knew his views so well that he would not expose the 
 present measure to interruption by acquainting him 
 with it till it was consummated. Though Charles was 
 a presbyter of the Church of England, and in the town 
 at the time, yet other presbyters were summoned (one 
 even from London) to meet the demand of " j^ropriety 
 and universal practice" on such occasions, while he 
 was utterly avoided. Now, why this remarkable pre- 
 caution ag ainst the hi gh church prejudices of his 
 brot her respecting; ordina tions, if he did not in these 
 H9.9£*?5liDS^ ordain? If it be replied, that Charles 
 was not only opposed to his brother's ordaining a 
 bishop, but equally to his ordaining to the other offices 
 of the ministry, and therefore those ordinations might 
 have been confined to the latter, and yet such precau- 
 tions be proper, we then ask again. How can we sup- 
 pose Dr. Coke to be ordained to these lower orders 
 when he had already received and exercised them for 
 years ? 
 
 8. A s soon as ^'harles Wesley lear ned these ^iro- 
 ceedings he was profoundly afflicted. His correspond- 
 ence with his brother (sec Jackson's Life of Charles 
 Wesley) shows that he understood them in the man- 
 ner that we do, and 3fr. Wesley never corrected this 
 interpretation. He vindicates himself, but never de- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 99 
 
 nies tlie facts. Charles speaks of Dr. Coke's " Meth- 
 odist Episcopal Church in Baltimore," alluding to the 
 name assumed by our church at its organization in 
 that city. Wesley, in his reply, utters not a word in 
 denial or disapproval of this title, but simply vindicates 
 the necessity of his course in respect to the Amierican 
 Methodists. Charles, in reply, speaks of the doctor's 
 *" ambition" and "rashness." John, though he knew 
 the church had been organized at Baltimore with the 
 title of " Episcopal," says : " I believe Dr. Coke as free 
 from ambition as covetousness. He has done nothing 
 rashly that I know." Charles, in his letter to Dr. 
 Chandler, (see Jackson,) speaks earnestly of his bro- 
 ther having "assumed the episcopal character, or- 
 dained elders, consecrated a bishop, and sent him to 
 ordain our lay preachers in America;" showing thus 
 what the office really was, though the name was 
 changed. It was only the term bishop, applied to the 
 superintendents in person, that AVesley disapproved. 
 
 9. The conference at which the church was orga- 
 nized terminated January 1, 1785. The Minutes were 
 published by Dr. Coke with the title, " General Minutes 
 of the Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 in America." The Minu tes expressly say that we were 
 formed into an Episcopal Church, and this, too, at the 
 ^ ^ recommendation^ ^ of Wesley. By July 26th, Dr. 
 Coke was with Wesley at the British Conference. 
 By the 26th of the preceding June, liis own Journal, 
 containing this phrase, was inspected by Wesley. The 
 doctor also took to England the Minutes above men- 
 tioned, and they were printed on a press which Wesley 
 used, and under his own eye. The Baltimore pro- 
 ceedings were, therefore, known to Wesley, but we 
 
100 CHURCH govp:rnment. 
 
 hear of no remonstrance from him. They soon be- 
 came known, l)y the Minutes, to the public; and when 
 Coke was attacked in a newspaper tor what he had 
 done, he replied, tlirough the press, that " he had done 
 nothing hut under the direction of Mr. Wesley." Wes- 
 ley never denied it, but continued to show the doctor 
 the highest consideration and confidence. How is all 
 this explicable, on the supposition that Coke and Asbury 
 had ambitiously broken over TVesley's restrictions ? 
 
 10. One of Charles "Wesley's greatest fears wa?, that 
 the English preachers would be ordained by the doc- 
 tor, lie had prevailed upon his brother to refuse them 
 ordination for years. He nowj^vrites, with profound 
 concern, that '' not a preacher in London would refuse 
 orders from the doctor." '' lie comes armed with your 
 authority to make us all di>sont('rs." (See Jackson.) 
 Now why all this sii(l<l< n di-po-ition of the English 
 j)reachers to recerve " orders from the doctor/' if it 
 was not understood that he had received episcopal 
 powers, and they (lc<[. aired <.!' ever g. ttiiiLT oi^dination 
 from the national bishops? If it is replied. They 
 believed, with Wesley, that, under necessary circum- 
 stances, presbyters could ordain, and therefore desired 
 it from the doctor, not in view of his new appointment, 
 but because he was a presbyter of the Church of Eng- 
 land, then we ask, Wliy did they not seek i t bef ore, for 
 the doctor had been a presbyter among them for years ? 
 Why start up all at once as soon as they learned of 
 the new position of the doctor? And how could 
 Ch arles say, in this case, " He comes armed with your, 
 author ity" <S:c. ; for his au thority as a presbyte r he 
 obtained from a bishop of the E nglish Church years 
 before he knew Wesle y, 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 101 
 
 11. The term bishop was not applied, in the Disci- 
 pline, to our superintendents till about three years 
 after the "organization" of the church, and Wesley's 
 letter to Asbury was not written till four years after. 
 During all this interim, however, we were called an 
 '^ JEpiscopal Church." Six months after adopting the 
 name, our Minutes were, as above stated, inspected by 
 Wesley, and published under his eye. They were 
 called the "Minutes of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 in America;" and they expressly declared that, "fol- 
 lowing the counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who recom- 
 mended the episcopal mode of church government, we 
 thought it best to become an Episcopal Church." Yet, 
 during all this inteiim, Wesley never uttered a syllable 
 against this assumption ! When his brother wrote him, 
 accusing Coke of rashness, he repUed that " the doctor 
 had done nothing rashly ;" and when the doctor was 
 accused in the London prints, he declared, under Wes- 
 ley's eye and without contradiction, that " he had done 
 nothing without the direction of Mr. Wesley." What, 
 now, dees all this imply ? What but that Wesley did 
 approve our episcopacy — that it was established by his 
 direction ? But, four years after, when the appellation 
 of bishop was applied personally to our episcopoi, this 
 letter of Wesley was written. What further does this 
 imply? Why, that it was not the thing that he con- 
 demned, b ut the name /— ^the^ ^^^_E _-^.^4_ ??^^^^.^9L 
 years unco ndemned , nay, defended by him. The very 
 name '^^ Episcopal,'' so far as it applied to the church 
 collectively, he did not condemn ; but the personal title 
 of bishop he disapproved, because of its adventitious 
 associations. Is it possible to escape this conclusion ? 
 
 12. Finally, we affirm that this view of the su bject 
 
102 CUURCII GOVERNMENT. 
 
 is the una nimous one of all good authorities a mong our 
 Wes leyan brethren themselves. A man would excite 
 a smile among the Wesleyans of England by telling 
 them that their founder did not approve of episcopacy. 
 The much-abused letter of Wesley to Asbury was 
 published by Mr. Moore in his " Life of Wesley ;" but 
 Mr. Moore himself gvAirds against our opponents' abuse 
 of it, fully acknowledges the legitimacy of our epis- 
 copacy, and argues at length to show that Wesley 
 meant and did what we contend fof, and had a right 
 to do soi No man can extract the letter from his 
 page, and give it to the public unqualifiedly, without 
 a consciousness of distorting its meaning. He says: 
 "That our brethren who are in that office are true 
 Scriptmal bishops, I have no doubt; nor do I wish 
 that the title should be relinquished." " He [Wesley] 
 gave to those episcopoi [bishops] whom he ordained 
 the modest title of superintendents," «&c. Yet our an- 
 tagonists extract from the midst of these remarks a 
 letter to oppugn our episcopacy ! When Mr. Moore*s 
 Life of Wesley appeared, it was reviewed in the official 
 periodical of the Wesleyans. We give an extract from 
 the review, showing the views of th6 Wesleyans on 
 our episcopacy, and their sense of Mr. Moore's re- 
 marks : — 
 
 " The author has spent some time in showing that 
 episcopacy, by name, was not introduced into the 
 American Methodist society by the sanction of Mr. 
 Wesley ; who, though he, in point of fact, did ordain 
 bishops for the American societies, intended them to 
 be called ' superintendents.' To the statement of this, 
 as an historical fact, no objection certainly lies; but 
 the way in which it is enlarged upon, and the insertion 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 103 
 
 of an objurgatory letter of IVIr. Wesley to Asbury on 
 the subject, can have no tendency but to convey to the 
 reader an impression somewhat unfavorable to Dr. 
 Coke and Mr. Asbury, as though they were ambitious 
 of show and title. Mr. Moore, indeed, candidly enough 
 relieves this, by admitting that, on Mr. Wesley's prm- 
 ciple itself, and in his own view, they were true Scrip- 
 tural episcopoi ; and that Mr. Wesley's objection to 
 the name, in fact, arose from its association in his mind 
 rather with the adventitious honors which accompany 
 it in church establishments, than with the simplicity 
 and pre-eminence of labor, care, and privation which 
 it has from the first exhibited in America, and from 
 which it could not, from circumstances, depart. Ac- 
 cording to this showing, the objection was grounded 
 upon no principle, and was a mere matter of taste or 
 expediency. '^Miether the name had, or had not, the 
 sanction of Mr. Wesley, is now of the least possible 
 consequence, as the episcopacy iiself was of Ms ere- 
 odiw^'' — English Wesleyan Methodist Magazine for 
 1825, p. 183. 
 
 Crowther, Sutcliffe, and Drew, as we have said, 
 perfectly agree with our view of the matter. Watson, 
 in his Life of Wesley, argues it at l^gth, and the 
 British Conference approved his work. Jackson, in 
 his Life of Charles Wesley, discusses the whole sub- 
 ject. Dixon declares our episcopacy to be a true ex- 
 ample of Mr. Wesley's views of church government.* 
 
 * " When the United States had effected their emancipation 
 from the mother country, Mr. Wesley considered himself at lib- 
 erty to act with perfect freedom in the new territory, and, we 
 may say, to develop his views and opinions fully ; and, if we 
 mistake not, it is to the American Methodist Episcopal Church 
 
104 ClIUKCII GOVERNMENT. 
 
 None of these writers ever dreamed that Wesley did 
 not appoint Coke and Asbury as bishops. They labor 
 at length to defend Wesley, not against the cliarge of 
 having ordained bishops, but of having ordained them 
 without a right to do so, and prove that he had this 
 right in liis peculiar circumstances. Thus we see that, 
 whatever view we take of the subject, we are compelled 
 to one conclusion : that Wesley did create and establish 
 our episcopacy. The man who gainsays these evi- 
 dences must be given up as incorrigible. There can 
 be no reasoning with him. 
 
 Here we have Wesley proposing to establish "the 
 discipline of the Church of England" among us, and 
 / yet, according to our antagonists, it is not episcopal; 
 the only respect in which any resemblance can be 
 1 traced! Wesley and Coke had "scruples," delays, 
 (references to antiquity and solemn forms, imposition 
 \ of hands, &c., conforming to the "universal practice" 
 of cpiscojial ordination ; and yet, forsooth, all concern- 
 ing some nondescript kind of appointment, analogous 
 to that which we give to our head missionary in Africa 
 ^_or Oregon ! Wesley speaks of it as " ordaining," and 
 of his refusing to use the right before the Revolution 
 because it would have interfered with the " established 
 ! order of the national church ;" and yet such a mere 
 I secondary commission of Dr. Coke, such a one as had 
 ) existed in the person of Asbury for years, was the 
 
 that we are to look for the real mind and sentiments of this great 
 man. Obstructions removed, he instantly seized the opportunity 
 of appointing an entire church system, on the principle of mode- 
 rate episcopacy ; and if we may judge of the wisdom and piety 
 of the design by its usefulness and success, certainly we shall be 
 prepared to consider it.most providential." — Dixan on Methodism. • 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 105 
 
 lid' 
 
 )al| 
 
 momentous interference with the established order of ) 
 the national church ! With what in that order could ' 
 it interfere ? Had the national church ever any sucl 
 appointments? Wesley solemnly "ordains" Cokel 
 and yet, say our opponents, it was not to the episcopal J a^ 
 office, though he had been ordained to all the other 
 offices years before ! Wesley ordains two other men 
 to the office of elders, and at the same time separately^ 
 and formally ordains Dr. Coke, who already had borne ■ 
 this office ; but still Dr. Coke's new office was not the ' 
 only remaining one that could be conferred upon him!/ 
 Wesley refers to the ordination of a bishop by the] 
 presbyters of Alexandria in justification of his ordina-/ 
 tion of Dr. Coke ; and yet, forsooth, he did not ordain] 
 Dr. Coke a bishop ! Wesley prepares for the Ameri^ 
 can Church a prayer book, abridged from that of the| 
 Church of England, prescribing the English forms for) 
 the three offices of deacons, presbyters, and bishops:', 
 the two former are allowed unquestionably to be what! 
 they are in England, and yet the latter is utterly ex-j 
 plained into something new and anomalous, answering! 
 to nothing ever heard of in the Church of England or) 
 in any other church! In these forms the old names! 
 of two of the offices are changed to new but synony- 
 mous terms : that of presbyter, or priest, to elder ; that 
 of bishop to suj)erintendent. In the former case the 
 change of the name is not for a moment supposed to 
 imply a change of the thing, and our seceding oppo-s 
 nents contentedly exercise the rights of presbyters 
 under the name of elders ; and yet, in the other case, 
 the change of name invalidates entirely the thmg, with- 
 out a particle more evidence for it in the one case than 
 in the other ! Charles Wesley, being a high church-.\ 
 5* ' 
 
> 
 
 106 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 <,man, was kept unaware of his brother's proceedings 
 (till they were acconiplislicd, lhoii<^li he was in the town 
 ^^ the time of the orclination ; aii<l yet it was no ordi- 
 TvSation, but a species of appointment, against wliich he 
 _couId have had no episcopal prejudice whatever ! 
 When he learns the facts he is overwhelmed with 
 surprise, and in his correspondence exclaims against 
 his '• brother's consecration of a bishop,'' and " Dr. 
 Coke's Methodist Episcopal Church" at Baltimore; 
 and Wesley, in his replies, never denies these titles, 
 .Ibut simply vindicates his ordinations, and says that the 
 \ doctor had " done nothing raslily ;" yet there was no 
 ,; bishop, no episcopal office appointed, but the doctor 
 had fabricated it! When the preachers in England, 
 I trained under episcopacy, hear of the doctor's new 
 office, they are, to the great alarm of Charles Wesley, 
 seized suddenly with a desire to be ordained by the 
 doctor, though, according to our antagonists, they fully 
 knew that the doctor was no bishop, but the same 
 _£resbyter that he had been among them for years ! 
 In six months after the organization of our clmrch Dr. 
 Coke publishes our Minutes, with the title " Methodist 
 Episcopal Church of America," in London, under the 
 eye of Wesley, and in these Minutes it is declared that 
 ' Mr. Wesley " recommended the episcopal mode of 
 church government " to the American Methodists ; 
 but no remonstrance is heard from Wesley! When 
 Coke is condemned in the public prints for his pro- 
 ceedings, he publicly replies that he had done "no- 
 thing without the direction of Mr. Wesley." No 
 Irebuke follows from Wesley, but Coke goes on as 
 lusual fully in his confidence, presiding in his confer- 
 fenceSj &c. ; and yet, alas ! his American proceedings 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 107 
 
 were an ambitious plot, contrary to the will of Wesley, j 
 We had borne the title ^' JSpiscopal Church," witEj 
 Wesley's full approval, for four years, when, on thej 
 use of the personal title of bishop, Wesley writes liis| 
 letter to Asbury ; and yet it is not the mere personal| 
 title he condemns, but the office which, for four years, j^ 
 he had left uncondemned, nay, had vindicated ! All| 
 the English standard writers fully understand the mat-| 
 ter as we do and as Coke did, and even the writer) 
 from whom Wesley's letter is taken guards it agamstl 
 the construction of our enemies ; yet they deliberately r' 
 quote the letter against our system of government,^ 
 without a word of quaUfication, and in the " face and> 
 eyes" of the whole English and American Church,^ 
 including the very author from whom they take it ! "^ 
 
 The latest party of seceders from our church, not- 
 withstanding the obvions lack of candor in the pro- 
 ceeding, have frequently quoted this letter not in 
 referenc e to the name, but to the ojjice of bishop, as 
 held among us. For several years their organ has 
 quoted bare sentences from it as a motto. When 
 rebuked for this unquestiona ble d eception, they have 
 replied as f9llows : — 
 
 1. "We ^ive M r. ^^sleyj own language. If the 
 letter does not prove that he was opposed to the o^ce 
 as well as the name, very well : we give it just as Mr. 
 Wesley wrote it. We do not wish to prove by it any- 
 thing which the letter itself does not prove. We did 
 not intend to make any remarks upon it, had our oppo- 
 nents let us a lone." 
 
 It is preposterous for these gentlemen to reply that j 
 they give Mr. Wesley's words without note or com- 1 
 ment, that they speak for themselves, and that their i 
 
108 CnUKCII GOVERNMENT. 
 
 (paper is not responsible for a misapprehension of them. 
 iSupposc a band of fanatics should obtain the control 
 jof the commonwealth, tlo away the penal code, fanati- 
 Ically enacting that every crime, however small, should 
 5 be punished wuth death, and over their tribunal should 
 linscribe the text, "The soul that sinneth it shall die ;" 
 I what man in his senses would not say that this was a 
 fearful perversion of God's holy word ? The passage 
 would be literally time in its quotation, but utterly 
 false in its application. If they should assert that it 
 is without comment, would this palhate the abuse? 
 |No! for the very tribunal and all its proceedings 
 /would be a standing comment on it, speaking a false 
 sense louder than any verbal comment could speak. 
 The illustration holds entirely in this case. !Mr. Wes- 
 ley not only approved, but estahlished our episcopacy, 
 land provided the very forms of ordination for its per- 
 petuation; but he Avished not the "svord bishop to be 
 used, because of the abuse of the word in England. 
 He wrote a letter to Asbury on this point. The sece- 
 dcrs set themselves in array against the form of gov- 
 ernment thus appointed by Wesley, and, finding this 
 letter, (against the name, but not against the thing,) 
 quote single sentences, and by omitting all explana- 
 tion, virtually represent by it that Wesley was opposed 
 )to the tiling, not merely the 7iame, and this notwith- 
 ) standing the English author from whom it is quoted 
 \expressly guards against such an abuse. The whole 
 
 ! character of their opposition is a comment on the pas- 
 , sage, giving a perfectly false meaning to it. We point 
 Uhe eye of the Christian public to this amazing indica- 
 jtion, and say, "Judge ye." Is this honorable? Is it 
 t honest ? Such chicanery may have a temporary effect 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 109 
 
 with the uninformed, but sensible and good men will 
 turn from it to blush for truth and religion. 
 
 2. " The question is/' say our opponents, " did Wes- 
 ley design to establish an episcopacy possessed of, and 
 wielding, the prerogatives of the present Methodist 
 bishops ? Tliis is the true point at issue. He only 
 intended that superintendents should 'preside in the 
 conferences as moderators.'' Th ese sent iments w ere 
 in the old Methodist Episcopal Disciplines once, but 
 have long since been left out; so that it is very evi- 
 dent Mr. Wes ley never intended to establish such an 
 episcopacy as now exists in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church.'^ "" 
 
 What will the reader think when we assure him 
 that the quotation here given is from the original 
 Minutes prepared for the American Church under 
 Wesley's eye, and that it is but a single member of 
 the sentence, expressing only 07ie of the duties of a 
 superintendent; while the omitted members express 
 every other duty which has ever pertained to our 
 episcopal office, except such as are merely incidental ? 
 Here is the whole passage : — 
 
 25th Question: "What is the office of a superin-j 
 tendent?" The answer is: "To ordain superintend- j 
 ents, elders, and deacons ; to preside as a moderator^ 
 in our conferences ; to fix the appointments of the j 
 preachers, and, in the intervals of conference, to change, 
 suspend, and receive preachers, as necessity may re-j 
 quire ; and to receive and try appeals." 
 
 Wesley had actually vested all these powers, except 
 ordination, in Asbury, before he thus organized them 
 in the church. They remain now precisely as they 
 were, except in incidental matters ; and in these there 
 
110 cnuRcn government. 
 
 has been more of an abatement than an increase of 
 powers. (See Hedding on the Discipline.) 
 
 3. Our oppone nts _saj that^ "Wesley did not esta- 
 blish s uch an episcopacy in England ." And why? 
 He gives the reasons in his circular letter to the 
 American Church, as we have quoted above. There 
 *" there were bishops ;" here, " there were none." The 
 American Revolution removed his " scruples " in re- 
 spect to this country, but they remained in respect to 
 England. He intended that the English Methodists 
 should abide in the church, and died with this inten- 
 tion. Wesley's views on this subject are so well 
 known that it is useless to delay here. 
 
 4. "About the same time that he appointed Dr. 
 Coke and Mr. Asbnry superintendents in America, 
 he also appointed a superintendent for Scotland. But 
 neither Scotland, nor Canada. n< >r any other ])art of the 
 world, save the United State-^. ha- sucli an episcopacy." 
 
 r- Respecting Canada, Ave r( ]»1\ . tliat it was then placed 
 under the supervision of our bishops, and therefore 
 needed no such separate appointment. To the asser-"" 
 tion respecting Scotland, we give a simple and peremp- 
 tory denial. Mr. Wesley never ordained such a su- 
 perintendent for Scotland as he appointed for America. 
 Moore, Watson, Jackson, &c., and Wesley himself, in 
 his own Journal, show that he merely ordained preach- 
 ers to administer the sacraments in Scotland ; but this 
 was not that for which Coke was ordained, for he had 
 
 !been doing this as a presbyter for years. The Scotch 
 preachers were not ordained in order to ordain others^ 
 fbut to administer the sacraments; while Coke was 
 ^ordained expressly to ordain others, that the latter 
 } might administer the sacraments. The Scotch ordi- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. Ill 
 
 nations were precisely like those of Vasey and What- ) 
 coat, at the time of Coke's ordination ; but Coke's, as \ 
 we have seen, was entirely distinct. He had received j 
 such ordination years before. 
 
 And now, looking again at this series of arguments, [ 
 will we not be acquitted of presumption when we say ; 
 that we may here make a triumphant stand, surround- 
 ed by evidence accumulated and impregnable ? That \ 
 noble ecclesiastical system under which it has pleased | 
 God to give us and our families spiritual shelter and \ 
 sweet fellowship with his saints, and whose efficacy is j 
 the wonder of the Christian world, is not — as our oppo- / 
 nents would represent — an oppressive contrivance, an j 
 imposition of the clergy, contrary to the wishes of our f 
 great founder, but was legitimately received from his / 
 hand as the providential agent of Methodism. ^ 
 
 Mr. Wesley's strong repugnance to the mere name 
 of bishop was not expressed till after it had been 
 adopted by our church, or it would probably not have 
 been adopted. Still, the American Church was now 
 a separate organization, and was at perfect liberty to 
 dissent from Mr. Wesley on a matter of mere expe- 
 diency like the present. The church thought it had 
 good reasons to adopt the name. The American 
 Methodists were mostly of English origin. The peo- 
 ple of this country among whom Methodism was most 
 successful were either from England or of immediate 
 English descent, and had been trained to consider 
 episcopacy a wholesome and apostolical government 
 of the church. We approved and had the thing — why 
 not, then, have the name ; especially as, without the 
 name, the thing itself would be liable to lose in the 
 eyes of the people its peculiar character, and thereby 
 
112 cnuRcn government. 
 
 fail in that appeal to their long-established opinions 
 which wc had a right, both from principle and expe- 
 diency, to make ? The English Establishment had been 
 dissolved in this country by the Revolution. The 
 Protestant Episcopalians had not yet been organized 
 on an independent basis. Our own organization and 
 the ordination of our bishops preceded theirs. The Me- 
 thodist Church had, therefore, a clear right to present 
 itself to the American public as competent to aid in sup- 
 plying the place of the dissolved Establishment, having 
 the same essential principles without its peculiar defects. 
 ^ May not the circumstance of our assuming an epis- 
 S copal character , nominally as well as really, be con- 
 ( sidered providential ? Episcopacy, both in this country 
 jand England, lias, since that date, reached an excess 
 '.of presumption and arrogance. The moderate party, 
 (holding the sentiments of the first part of this work, 
 j and once declared, by Bishop "White, to include a large 
 \ majority of American Episcopalians, has nearly disap- 
 
 ipeared. Was it not providential, under these cir- 
 cumstances, that a body of Christians should appear, 
 (exceeding every other in zeal and usefulness, and 
 nominally and practically bearing an episcopal charac- 
 ter without any of its presumptuous pretensions? 
 Amidst the uncharitable assumptions of prelatical 
 Episcopalians in our ot\ti land, the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church stands forth a monument of the laborious 
 and simple episcopacy of the early ages, seen and read 
 ^of all men ; its success, as well as its humility, con- 
 iti-asting it signally with its domineering, but feebler 
 sister. It has thus practically vindicated episcopacy 
 las an expedient form of ecclesiastical government, and 
 ^assuredly it needs vindication in these days. 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 113 
 
 PART III 
 
 GOVERNMENT OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL 
 CHURCH— ITS STRUCTURE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 LAY REPRESENTATION. 
 
 Difference between civil and ecclesiastical organizations — Con- 
 formity to our civil system not common in our voluntary secular 
 associations — Nor in religious associations — Nothing in our sys- 
 tem requiring it — Its impracticability — Probable results of such 
 a change. 
 
 The chief innovation in the government of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, demanded by seceders, 
 is, that it should be modeled on the representative sys- 
 tem of the nation. Let it be distinctly understood in 
 the outset that the question is not whether the laity 
 should have a due control of the government of the 
 church, — we shall show in the sequel that, in the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, they have this abun- 
 dantly, — hut whether this control shall he put into the 
 representative form of our civil system f Without dis 
 cussing here the abstract right of individuals to such 
 a claim in a compact which they voluntarily entered 
 and can voluntarily leave, and which stipulated no [ 
 such arrangement when they entered it, we shall con- { 
 sider more particularly the inexpediency and imprac-\ 
 ticahility of the proposed change. Whatever may be 
 said of abstract right in the case, it will undoubtedly 
 be admitted that an abstract right may be voluntarily 
 
 
114 CHURCH government. 
 
 resigned for a supposed good. This, indeed, is a neces- 
 sary condition of civil government, — the surrender of 
 certain personal rights for the greater security of others 
 more important. Every man lias an abstract right to 
 his own property ; but, by becoming a member of the 
 state, he so far resigns this right as to allow his rulers, 
 or a majority of his fellow-citizens, to appropriate a 
 portion of his property by taxation, even against his 
 own opinion of its necessity. Self-preservation is a 
 right of the individual ; but civil government may re- 
 quire the sacrifice of life in the pubhc defense. The 
 Methodist polity is based on such a mutual surrender 
 of rights — bearing, however, far more onerously on the 
 ministry than on the laity ; and if the principle should 
 be admitted that the proposed change ought to be made 
 because it is a natural right, it is obvious that the most 
 valued features of the system must be at once sacri- 
 ficed, and Methodism be no more Methodism ; for, on 
 this principle, the itinerancy (under God the strength 
 of our system) must cease, it being doubtless an ab- 
 stract right of the churches to choose their own preach- 
 ers, leaders, and other oflicers, and also of the preachers 
 to choose their own fields of labor. Unquestionably 
 the claim of these rights by the people, on the one 
 hand, and the preachers on the other, would reduce us 
 at once to Congregationalism, and extinguish the pecu- 
 liar efliciency of our cause. The change demanded 
 should, therefore, be considered merely in the hght of 
 expediency, not of right. If it could be proved more 
 useful than our present arrangement, we are morally 
 obliged to adopt it : if not, we are at perfect liberty to 
 reject it. We believe it to be neither necessary nor 
 desirable — 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 115 
 
 1. Because there is no such analogy between our 
 relation to the Methodist Episcopal Church and our 
 relat ion to the state, as is asserted hy the advocates of 
 the pro posed change. "The two governments are to- 
 tally dissimilar in their origin, their authority, and 
 their design^* 
 
 They differ in their origin. Our civil government 
 originated with the people. They were necessarily 
 antecedent to their rulers and constitution, the sources 
 of power and change in the government. The govern- 
 ment of our church, as has been shown,* originated pro- 
 videntially with " Wesley and his colleagues. It was 
 originally and of necessity in their hands, and its sub- 
 sequent administrators are such by virtue of its pro- 
 visions as then established. All who have come under 
 it have done so with an understanding of its terms, and 
 a voluntary consent to them. It was a mutual compact 
 for certain ends ; and those ends have confessedly been 
 attaiued, and the terms of the compact maintained 
 inviolate. 
 
 They differ in their authority. " The civil govern- 
 ment claims our allegiance from the very circumstance 
 of our being born within its jurisdiction; and long 
 before we are admitted to the right of suffrage, our 
 property, our liberty, and our life itself, depend on the 
 authority of the government. Our obedience to the 
 laws of the country does not depend on our individual 
 
 * Bond's Appeal, Baltimore, 1828. This is a document of 
 remarkable ability. It had a decisive influence in settling the 
 disputes of 1828. We are much indebted to it in the present 
 part of this volume. Besides the quotations in arguments 1, 4, 
 6, and 7, we have condensed much from it in 1 and 7. Our 
 quotations are also much condensed. 
 
lie CHURCH GOVEnNMKNT. 
 
 consent to them, either before or after we arrive at 
 age. We may consider them grievous and oppressive, 
 but we have no altcniative but to obey. We can in 
 no way withdraw from this allegiance but by abandon- 
 ing our country, and circumstances may place even 
 this out of our power. There arises, therefore, from 
 the nature of our civil obligations, a right to participate 
 in the enactment of the laws by which we are to be 
 governed, as soon as we are deemed capable of exer- 
 cising this right. But change the nature of these obli- 
 gations — make membership in the^i'ommunityand obe- 
 dience to the laws a matt^c r of ch oice, and the rights 
 which belong to the former relation no longer remain. 
 The rights and the obligations are necessarily recipro- 
 cal. Where obedience is necessary, the corresponding 
 rights are inherent ; but where the obedience is volun- 
 tary, the privileges are conditional, and are in extent 
 no more than are stipulated for in the contract between 
 those who govern and those who are governed. Now 
 ^this is precisely the relation we sustain to the Method- 
 ;' ist Episcopal Church. It did not extend its jurisdiction 
 . over us in our infancy, nor until we voluntarily entered 
 ■within its pale. Our becoming members was a volun- 
 jtary act, done with a previous knowledge of all the 
 rights we were required to surrender, and the privileges 
 we acquired by the contract. We could not carry with 
 us into this voluntary association any natural rights 
 incompatible with the contract we then entered into ; 
 land if the right to participate in the legislative power 
 was no part of the conditions we stipulated for, can we 
 , now complain that it is improperly withheld from us ? 
 * Surely not. If to this we add that there remains to 
 {us the right of dissolving the obligations we have volun- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 117 
 
 tarily taken upon ourselves, what becomes of the anal- 1 
 ogy which has been so strangely insisted upon between { 
 our civil and ecclesiastical relations ? or what of the f 
 charge of usurpation and tp-anny which has been so } 
 repeatedly made against our church ? 
 
 "The rights which a Methodist possesses, as such, 
 are purely conventional. They are not natural, but 
 acquired rights, and they are determined by the articles 
 of association, contained in our book of Discipline. The 
 church is a voluntary association, entered into for reli- 
 gious purposes. Whoever enters into its communion 
 is entitled to all the immunities which the articles of 
 .association hold out to him, and no more. If he finds, 
 upon experiment, that the religious advantages he ac- 
 quires do not compensate liim for the sacrifices he is 
 required to make, he has an indefeasible right to with- 
 draw from the community; but he has no right to 
 demand of the church to change her economy for his 
 accommodation." — Dr. Bond. 
 
 Is it alledged in reply that many enter the church 
 young, or ignorant of the terms of its compact ? We 
 answer, It is not responsible for this ; its Discipline is 
 made accessible to all; all are urged to read it and 
 judge for themselves. All that can be demanded of 
 the church is, that when such arrive at mature age or 
 better information, she should allow them to dissolve 
 their connection with the compact, if they find it not 
 satisfactory. 
 
 Is it further replied that the members of the church 
 have invested property in church edifices, &c., and ought 
 not to be required to sacrifice it ? We answer, that in 
 respect to our free houses, (and m.ost of them are/ree,) 
 such investments were not terms of memhershif. They 
 
118 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 were voluntary benefactions^ by which the donors ac- 
 quired no 'property in such free churches. They were 
 erected for any and all who choose to use them ; and 
 if they are secured, by the terms of their erection, to 
 the doctrines and usages of Methodism, this also must 
 have been the voluntary act of the donors. The 
 original design being fulfilled, no complaint can be just 
 on the part of those who may choose, after such chari- 
 ties, to leave the cause to which they were given. It 
 should be remembered, also, that many who arc dead, 
 and many who are not members of the church, have 
 contributed to such free houses on the same terms and 
 for the same beneficent purpose. Has a man a right 
 to reclaim a charity, which, by being blended with that 
 of others, dead and alive, cannot be returned without 
 frustrating an object of public beneficence, and that, 
 too, when the original terms of the grant are fully ad- 
 hered to ? Such a claim, it is clear, by destrojHIng all 
 grounds of the permanent security of charitable be- 
 quests, would soon suppress all similar liberality. Such 
 a claim is no more admissible in this case than in any 
 other benevolent foundation. So much {or free houses. 
 In respect to the pewed, where, as in New-England, 
 the seceding member has individual property in them, 
 he voluntarily contracted for the terms on wdiich it is 
 held, and, on leaving, can dispose of it to others on the 
 same terms, precisely in the manner that he can dis- 
 pose of his bank stock, or other property held by 
 contract with public bodies. 
 
 Again, they differ in their design. " Civil govern- 
 ment is instituted to p]ft)mote the welfare of those in- 
 cluded within the compact. Their own interest is the 
 only object to be provided for, and therefore no more 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 119 
 
 natural rights are to be surrendered than are necessary 
 to secure the object of the association. Such a com- 
 munity is not expected to provide for any without the 
 pale of its jurisdiction ; for those who contribute no- 
 thing to the common stock cannot be entitled to receive 
 from the contributions of others. 
 
 " Now, the design of our religious association is 
 essentially different. It is true, we propose to increase 
 the religious advantages of our members ; but then our 
 system is essentially a missionary one. It is intended 
 for those who belong not to the conununity; to send 
 the gospel to those who are too poor to pay for it, or 
 too ignorant to appreciate its value, and therefore do 
 not desire it. Is it, then, strange that such an associa- 
 tion, formed for purposes so widely different from those 
 which influence us in the organization of civil compacts, 
 should also differ from civil government as much in its 
 structure as it does in its design? Will not such a 
 religious conununity be necessarily called upon to make 
 sacrifices of individual rights and advantages which it 
 is not at all necessary to make as members of civil so- 
 ciety? To combine the twofold advantages of pro- 
 viding pastors for the church and missionaries for the 
 world, and fulfill the duties incumbent upon both, the 
 regulations required for such an arrangement being 
 such as chiefly relate to the distribution of ministerial 
 labor, the right of making such regulations has been 
 left to the ministry themselves ; and the people, or laity, 
 have moreover relinquished the right of electing their 
 own pastors, because the exercise of this right was 
 incompatible with the plan of an itinerating missionary 
 ministry. 
 
 " But if this original missionary design called for 
 
120 CUURCn GOVERNMENT. 
 
 important sacrifices on the part of the laity, did it not 
 demand a still more important surrender of natural 
 rights on the part of our itinerant ministers? They 
 not only relinquish the right of selecting their own 
 field of labor, but submit to the absolute disposal of a 
 general superintendent, whom they have clothed with 
 authority to send them to any part of the land; and 
 that, too, without any guaranty from those to whom 
 they are sent that they shall be supplied with even the 
 necessaries of life. 
 
 "We can conceive of no sacrifices of individual 
 rights, comforts, and conveniences, superior to those 
 which our traveling preachers are thus called upon to 
 make, in order to fulfill the primitive missionaiy design 
 of our institutions." — D)\ Bond. 
 
 We have thus far shown that the essential difference 
 between our civil and ecclesiastical systems, in respect 
 to their origin, design, and the obedience they demand, 
 admits of no such analogy between them as requires a 
 conformity of the one to the other. 
 
 2. We observe, further, that such a conformitj^ to 
 the mo del of our political system is not considered neceS ' 
 sary n or desirable in most o f the voluntary organizations 
 oj^ secidar character in the land. They adapt them- 
 selves to theu' designs and emergencies, and are con- 
 tent with such arrangements as will best effect their 
 objects, controlled by such checks and balances as will 
 prevent abuses. Tins is precisely the arrangement of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church, as we shall by and by 
 see. Nay, our civil government itself presents, in some 
 of its collateral branches, similar deviations from its 
 general model. It maintains an army and navy. The 
 power of military command is absolute. The only 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 121 
 
 maxim of the soldier is to " obey," if it carry him to 
 the cannon's mouth. How would the representative 
 principle work amidst the emergencies of the camp or 
 of the high seas ? What propriety is there, then, in 
 this indiscriminate cry of " republicanism," in reference 
 to voluntary compacts. We are sure that no American 
 citizens love republicanism better than the members 
 of' our church, but this boisterous fallacy has always 
 proved too flimsy to beguile their sound discernment. 
 They believe that, being under the broad shelter of a 
 free civil system, to which all other organizations are 
 responsible, the latter may assume any form that con- 
 venience or efficiency may justify without serious 
 danger. Their church system is altogether militant^ 
 requiring great sacrifices, great energy, and decisive 
 promptness. They believe that they can have such a 
 system, with its pacific and beneficent ends, under the 
 civil system of the land, with as much, nay, more pro- 
 priety, than the latter can maintain an army or navy, 
 or than pecuniary companies, involving the property 
 of thousands, can deviate from the precise model of the 
 state ; but, by the sweeping generalizations of our op- 
 ponents, we would not only be compelled to abolish our 
 military and naval regimen, but also the authority of 
 the parent in the family, the government of most of 
 our literary institutions, and the discretionary arrange- 
 ments of most of our business combinations. 
 
 3. The conformity to a secular system, demanded by 
 our opponents, is considered unnecessarij and inexpe- 
 dient hy most, if not all ecclesiastica l organizations of 
 the country. All Protestant ones provide, we believe, 
 a suitable popular control of their respective systems, 
 as we shall show ours does ; but we know of none that 
 6 
 
122 CHURCH government. 
 
 tlocs not deviate essentially from our civil forms in the 
 exercise of that control ; and, upon a minute compari- 
 son, it will be found, we think, tliat the Methodist sys- 
 tem includes as much security of the i)opuUir rights as 
 any one of them. 
 
 The Protestant Episcopal Church has a representa- 
 tive system, but with such clerical powers as can en- 
 tirely control it. However unanimous the General 
 Convention may be, they cannot appoint a bishop with- 
 out the consent of the existing bishops. Our bishops 
 have no voice whatever in the choice of their colleagues. 
 "WTiatever law may be passed, and with whatever una- 
 nimity, by the Protestant Episcopal Convention, the 
 bishops can nullify it by an absolute veto power. Me- 
 thodist bishops have no veto, nor even vote in making 
 any law whatever, though it should affect themselves 
 alone. 
 
 The Presbyterian Church has laymen in its ecclesi- 
 astical bodies, but not on the representative system — 
 none being admissible, besides the clergy, except ruling 
 elders, who are elected for life ; and therefore, instead 
 of representing the views of the present church, may 
 represent only those of ten, twenty, or thirty years ago, 
 the date of their election. The Congregationalists cer- 
 tainly do not follow our representative system, but 
 exercise the popular control without limitation ; a mode 
 which, in large bodies, is but anarchy, and, among our 
 Congregational brethren, has been attended with no 
 little distraction. The Quakers have no voting what- 
 ever, but follow, in all things, the counsels of seniority 
 and experience, and find no inconvenience in tliis 
 course. 
 
 The Protestant Methodists themselves, after all their 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 123 
 
 urgency for republican rights in ecclesiastical bodies, 
 have adopted a course which violates the fundamental 
 principle of republican representation by an unequal 
 representation of different classes. They allow as 
 many representatives for their few clergymen as they 
 do for all the hundreds of their laity, and the late sece- 
 ders have adopted the same aristocratic arrangement. 
 If adopted into our system, it would give to our four 
 thousand preachers the same representation that it 
 would allow to our more than milh'on members !* 
 This, certainly, is not fair republicanism. If we are 
 to be reproached for judging the plan inexpedient, how 
 much more credit is due to our neighbors, who, with 
 the loftiest pretensions to it, present such a distortion 
 of it ? So badly, too, has the innovation worked among 
 our Protestant Methodist brethren, that one of the most 
 eminent leaders of the movement. Rev. A. Shinn, wrote 
 an admonitory letter to the leaders of the late secession 
 on the subject, declaring that " they have had no little 
 difficulty in keeping their denomination from being 
 scattered to the winds by a loose and deplorable spirit 
 of anarchy." Although he wishes popular representa- 
 tion in the General Conference, and thinks that, in a 
 modified form, it might succeed in the Annual Confer- 
 ence, yet he admits fully its mischievous effects in his 
 own church. Referring to a modification of it, which 
 he attempted to introduce in the convention in 1830, 
 he says : " I was overruled ; and from that day until 
 now the evidence has been constant and uniform, that 
 
 * The reader will notice, here and elsewhere, that these pages 
 were written before the late division of the church. The argu- 
 ment is not, however, affected by this fact. 
 
124 cnuRcn government. 
 
 the love of power in the sovereign people as regularly 
 turns a deaf ear to argument, as does the love of power 
 in bishops or itinerant ministers."* The project has 
 certainly failed, after most deplorable strife for its 
 introduction. 
 
 In the Protestant Episcopal Church bishops have 
 the sole right of admitting persons to membership in 
 the church, by confirmation. In the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church no one can be admitted -without six 
 months' probation, and then by recommendation of a 
 lay officer, and an examination before the church. 
 
 In the Protestant Episcopal Church the expulsion 
 of a member is solely with the clergyman, and there is 
 no appeal but to the bishop. In the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church no member can be expelled but after 
 trial by the church, or a committee of the church, and 
 has then an appeal to the quarterly conference, cliiefly 
 composed of lay officers; while in the Presbyterian 
 Church the preacher and ruling elder (appointed for 
 life) alone try and expel members; and in the Con- 
 gregational, juries, as in secular courts, are not allowed, 
 and however intense the public excitement in any given 
 case, the whole society have the right of trying and 
 punishing the accused ; a mode certainly liable to 
 
 * See his letter in the " True Wesleyan," February 18, 1843. 
 
 i He further says in this letter, that " the love of power is a deep 
 
 \ 1 disease in human nature, and it is not confined to any one order 
 
 i of men. The sovereign people are as proud of their sovereignty 
 
 I as a monarch upon his throne ; and the lawless rage of a mob is 
 
 I 'no better than that of an individual tyrant. If you put all power 
 
 into the democratic body, they will soon show themselves ' many 
 
 masters ;' and a destructive anarchy will be as great a traitor to 
 
 i the Redeemer as a domineering hierarchy." Rather aristocratic 
 
 ^sentiments, certainly, for a Methodist seceder. 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 125 
 
 serious objections, and which would be most calamitous 
 in civil governments. 
 
 In the Presbyterian Church, candidates for the min- 
 istry are admitted to the office bj the presbytery ; and 
 in the Congregational, the associations of the clergy 
 alone admit them ; while, in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, the people make the ministry, and, as we shall 
 show hereafter, by a process remarkably minute. 
 
 In most, if not all Protestant churches, the clergy 
 stipulate with the people for their salaries, and can 
 prosecute them at law. In the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church they can rely only on the voluntary contribu- 
 tions of the people, and have ho legal right for the 
 supply of any deficiency in their allowance. 
 
 We might extend these comparisons further, but 
 they are sufficient to show that our own church admits 
 a popular influence not surpassed in the most important 
 respects by any other. We have not made these com- 
 parisons to disparage our brethren of other sects. Most 
 of the points we have referred to in their respective 
 systems are not objectionable, if counterbalanced by 
 suitable checks. They prove fully our position, that, 
 though these sects may all admit a sufficient popular 
 control, it is not exercised on the plan of our repre- 
 sentative system. They, in common with the Method- 
 ist Episcopal Church, do not deem this plan necessary 
 or expedient in religious and voluntary organizations. 
 
 4. There is nothing in our syste m which requires 0£ 
 jus tifies the proposed change. When such a revolution 
 is demanded it is proper to inquire. Where is the ne- 
 cessity of it ? What evil is it to remedy ? 
 
 " Is it intended to alter our articles of religion ? These 
 have not been questioned by our disaffected members. 
 
126 CnURCU GOVERNMENT. 
 
 "Are the lay members of the conference to effect any 
 change in our moral discipline ? "With this, also, our 
 opponents have publicly expressed their satisfaction. 
 In fact, the church did not make it, and, therefore, must 
 not alter it. It is none other than that which is pre- 
 scribed by the gospel itself. 
 
 " Now there remains nothing more in our economy, 
 in reference to the laity, except those prudential regu- 
 lations which have been deemed necessary to enable 
 the pastors of the church to execute and enforce the 
 discipline. Of these regulations, the principal com- 
 plaint has been against class-meeting, as a term of 
 membership. The class-meeting, we beUeve, the mem- 
 bership are not disposed to abolish. On the contrary, 
 the great majority of the church consider it an in- 
 dispensable provision while we retain an itinerant 
 ministry. 
 
 " Is it, then, to legislate on the temporal concerns of 
 the church that laymen are necessary in its business 
 bodies ? 
 
 "The General Conference j the highest body in our 
 'system, have never attempted to interfere authorita- 
 tively in our temporal mattei-s. The regulations they 
 have made on this subject have been only recommend- 
 atory. The General Conference have never considered 
 ^themselves authorized to levy taxes upon the laity, or to 
 make any pecuniary contribution a condition of mem- 
 bership in the churchr — Dr. Bond. 
 
 Nine-tenths of the business of the General Confer- 
 ence relates to the preachers alone, and it has expressly 
 declared that it has no properly legislative powers. 
 Though it makes rules and regulations for its great 
 work, it pretends to do nothing more in this respect 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 127 
 
 than scripturally pertains to the ministerial office. In 
 its Report on the subject, in 1828, it says : — 
 
 " We arrogate no authority to enact any laws of our 
 own, either of moral or of civil force. Our commission' 
 is to preach the gospel, and to enforce the moral disci-j 
 pline, established by the one Lawgiver, by those spirit-] 
 ual powers vested in us as subordinate pastors, who| 
 watch over souls as they that must give account to the \ 
 chief Shepherd. We claim no strictly legislative pow- 
 ers, although we grant the terms ^legislature' and 
 * legislative ' have been sometimes used even among 
 ourselves. In a proper sense, however, they are not 
 strictly appUcable to our General Conference. A mis- 
 take on this point has probably been the source of much 
 erroneous reasonuig, and of some consequent dissatis- 1 
 faction. Did we claim any authority to enact laws to 
 affect either life or limb, to touch the persons or to tax 
 the property of our members, they ought, unquestionably, j 
 to he directly represented among us. But they know \ 
 we donot. We certainly, then, exercise no civil legis- j 
 lation. As to the moral code, we are subject, equally 
 with themselves, to one only Lord. We have no power 
 to add to, to take from, to alter, or to modify a single 
 item of his statutes. Whether laymen or ministers be 
 the authorized expounders and administrators of those 
 laws, we can confidently rely on the good Christian \ 
 sense of the great body of our brethren to judge. ' 
 These well know, also, that whatever expositions of 
 them we apply to others, the same are applied equally j 
 t© ourselves, and, in some instances, with peculiar j 
 strictness." 
 
 So much for the General Conference. 
 
 The Annual Conference is the next body in our sys- 
 
128 CHURCn GOVERNMENT. 
 
 tern. Representation is certainly not necessary here, 
 for its business, excepting a few judicial items, relating 
 alone to traveling and local preachers, is entirely execu- 
 tive, and concerns only the preachers. No rule or 
 regulation can be made by it, except such as is merely 
 advisory. The appointments of the preachers are not 
 a part of its business ; they are only announced in it. 
 
 The third body, the Quarterly Conference^ which has 
 most control of the pecuniary and local business of the 
 churches, is almost entirely composed of laymen. An 
 objection to the manner of their appointment we shall 
 notice in the sequel. 
 
 Is it objected here that there ought to be a combina- 
 tion of laymen with clergymen in the business bodies 
 of the church, however limited may be the functions of 
 these bodies, because history records the great abuse 
 of clerical power; as, for instance, in the Papal sys- 
 tem ? "We reply, that they thus control the one which 
 most affects their interests, the Quarterly Conference, 
 and of the others have a full controlling power in 
 another form. There is not the remotest relation 
 between the historical instances referred to and our 
 economy. They grew out of the connection of the 
 church with civil power, and its consequent, release 
 from the popular will. Our ministry is dependent 
 utterly on the voluntary support of the people. " We 
 thereby have over them a positive and absolute con- 
 trol; for, whenever their flocks shall withdraw their 
 support, the preachers will be under the necessity 
 of abandoning their present pastoral relation, and o^ 
 betaking themselves to some secular occupation. These 
 contributions depend, for their continuance, on the 
 ^affection which the laity bear to their pastors. There 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 129 
 
 can, therefore, be no danger of these pastors attempting < 
 to exercise any tyrannical authority over them." — Dr, 
 Bond. 
 
 It does, then, appear, that the revolution in our poli- 
 ty, so urgently demandeji by seceders, is almost with- 
 out an object. There is certainly none sufficient to 
 justify the risk of the change, especially when it is 
 considered that the system is already amply controlled 
 by the people in another manner. 
 
 5. This plan would he impracticable on account of 
 its pecuyi i ary em barrassments. 
 
 "Suppose the delegates elected; the next question* 
 to be asked is, Who is to bear then' traveling expenses , i 
 to and from the conference — the delegate, or his con- 
 stituents ? And how are they to be provided for during 
 the session ? If it be answered that their expenses will 
 be borne as those of the traveling preachers are now 
 provided for, we reply, that the case of the one kind 
 of delegates is not at all similar to that of the other. 
 In the first place, the preachers, on their road to and ' 
 from the conference, labor all the way in their voca 
 tion. They are everywhere received and entertained f 
 as missionaries — as a kind of common property, in 
 which every member of their church has an equal in- 
 terest. The preacher, on his part, is accustomed to be , 
 entertained by the membership, without making any 
 pecuniary compensation. He has only to preach to 
 them, and t^ pray with them, and they consider them- 
 selves amply remunerated. Now it will not be so with 
 the lay delegates. Tbey must travel as other laymen 
 do. They will not condescend to ask for accommoda- 
 tions of strangers, but will pay for them at the public 
 
 houses. 
 
 6* 
 
130 cnuRcn government. 
 
 Q *' III the second place, we know tliat some difliculty 
 fhas been always experienced in i)roviding for the 
 I preachers at the General Conference ; and hence, it 
 may be fairly questioned whether the members would 
 accommodate the lay delegates at all. And, on the 
 other hand, as these delegates will not have been ac- 
 customed to receive gratuitous entertainment of stran- 
 gers, they will not feel free to receive two or tlu^ee 
 months' board for nothing. If this should turn out to 
 be the case, then we must add the expenses of board- 
 ing, lodging, &c., to the expenses of the delegate ; and, 
 j without any allowance for the loss of time, or for the 
 ] injury which his business will sustain by the negligence 
 * or improvidence of those who superintend his affairs 
 while he is from home, the expenses of a delegate will 
 be no inconsiderable sum. 
 ^ " AYe think it will be impossible for the distant sec- 
 \ lions of our church to find men who are able to meet 
 (►these expenses, and give the time which the duties of 
 I a delegate will necessarily require. They cannot be 
 ^ found among any of those whose personal attention is 
 necessary to their callings in life. The farmer, the 
 merchant, the lawyer, the physician, and the trades- 
 man cannot spare the time, even if they could afford 
 the expense ; and the idle may not furnish the very 
 best materials for representatives to the church legis- 
 lature. If, however, men of wealth and leisure can be 
 everywhere found, as willing as they are akle, to go at 
 their own expense, it would become a question, of no 
 rdinary interest to the Methodists, whether they ought 
 to adopt a system of government which would make 
 rich men absolutely necessary to them, or which would 
 exclude from their councils the brethren of less fortune, 
 
CHUKCH GOVERNMENT. 131 
 
 though, possibly, possessed of better gifts and morej 
 experience. \ 
 
 " We think it must be obvious, that, before the Me- 'j 
 thodists can have a lay representation, they must pro-j 
 vide funds to meet, at least, the expenses of the dele-f 
 gates, if not to make them some compensation for their\ 
 loss of time. To raise these funds in some districts ; 
 will be utterly impossible, for they are not able to pay | 
 their preachers the small stipends to which they are j 
 entitled. It is well known that in many, if not most \ 
 of the conferences, such is the amount of deficiencies 
 in the circuits, that, after all the collections from the 
 other circuits and stations are brought into conference, 
 the preachers seldom liave been able to divide among I 
 those who are deficient more than fifty cents in the] 
 dollar. We are at a loss to know how those circuits i 
 which cannot pay their preachers are to raise the money [ 
 to pay lay delegates. But tliis is not all. The remote | 
 districts, many of which are among those that are least ; 
 able to pay their delegates, will have to incur much( 
 greater expense than those which are located nearer 
 the General Conference, as their delegates will have 
 further to travel. This would not only be oppressive, 
 but unjust. As the representation is intended for the 
 common benefit, no one part of the membership ought 
 to pay more than another. , 
 
 " From these considerations, it will appear that the 
 representatives must be paid out of some common fund, 
 to be provided by the whole church ; and further, that 
 this fund, as it is intended to meet expenses that must 
 certainly accrue, cannot be looked for from sources that \ 
 are uncertain, and, therefore, must not depend upon the { 
 voluntary contributions of the members of the church. ^ 
 
182 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 (It can, then, only be raised by direct taxation ; and to 
 levy this tax will be one of the many new powers which 
 must be given to the General Conference, when con- 
 stituted as the seceders would have it. To levy a tax, 
 without having the power to enforce the collection of 
 it, would be an absurdity ; and I can see but one means 
 •of enforcing the collection, and that will be, to turn 
 those out of the church who do not comply with the 
 requisition. Here, then, will be a new condition of 
 membership ; and we hope there are few of us who 
 would consent to hold our membership upon any pecu- 
 niary condition whatever. But, if we do consent to 
 
 I this tax, how shall it be levied ? Will it be by an equal 
 assessment on property ? or will it be a poll tax ? The 
 first would be vexatious, and give rise to endless dis- 
 putes ; and the other would be both unjust and oj^press- 
 ive. In short, look at this Utopian scheme on what- 
 ever side you will, if you only bring it near enough to 
 see it in its details, it will appear equally absurd and 
 .impracticable. 
 
 " It may be alledged, however, that if each electoral 
 district be allowed to raise, by subscription, the amount 
 necessary to pay their own delegate, those who do not 
 send delegates will have no right to complain if others, 
 more liberal, should avail themselves of the privilege. 
 
 ' We reply, that this would be true in reference to those 
 who had the means, and declined to avail themselves 
 I of the advantages accorded to them ; but will not apply 
 to those who cannot send delegates for want of the 
 means. These would have a right to complain ; not, 
 indeed, because others enjoyed a blessing in which they 
 could not participate, but because their former situation 
 i was made worse by the advantages accorded to their 
 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 133 
 
 wealthier brethren. This will be obvious, from the^ 
 following considerations : The regulations, by which the | 
 whole church is governed, are made by those who have 
 no local or fixed residence ; but they necessarily acquire 
 a knowledge of the local circumstances, and particular 
 necessities of our membership, in the different sections 
 of the United States. Now, if the interests of the laity [ 
 were confided to a partial representation, chiefly, if not \ 
 entirely, composed of delegates from the circuits and J 
 stations in the vicinity of the General Conference, the 1 
 situation of those sections which could not be repre- f 
 sented by their own delegates would be very materially \ 
 altered for the worse. They will then be legislated 
 for, not only by those who are in no way responsible 
 to them, but by those who do not even know them, and, 
 of consequence, are totally unacquamted with their 
 sentiments or their circumstances. So far, then, from 
 enjoying new privileges by the contemplated changes 
 in our ecclesiastical polity, they would be robbed of 
 the equal advantages which they now enjoy. It is 
 easy to foresee, without pretending to any extraordi- 
 nary sagacity, that such a state of things would neces- 
 sarily bring about a dismemberment of our ecclesiasti- 
 cal union. The more remote annual conference dis-/ 
 tricts, not being able to send representatives to the \ 
 general conferences, where the other districts were 
 represented, would withdraw from the confederacy and : 
 institute a legislature of their own, more conveniently ,• 
 located." — Dr. Bond. 
 
 _6. But s uppose all these difficulties su rmounted^Jt 
 w ould still be im possible fully to adopt the jolan. Ac- ? 
 cording to the republican principle that representation j 
 should be apportioned to numbers, the change would ) 
 
134 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 ■• absolutely be impracticable among us unless the min- 
 istry should be virtually excluded from the represent- 
 I ative body. Our travehng ministers are now four 
 ^thousand; the membership 1,068,000. If, then, we 
 { should have but one representative to a thousand, it 
 j would give us four for all the clergy ; that is, one for 
 \ every eight conferences ! virtually none at all ; while, 
 for the laity, there would be one thousand and sixty- 
 eight! and this, too, in a body nine-tenths of whose 
 business relate only to the clergy. And, certainly, the 
 number cannot be increased to accommodate the clergy, 
 for, even at the above reduced rate, the body would be 
 ; unmanageably large ; and if, on the other hand, it 
 ,. should be reduced still more, to render it more man- 
 \ ageable, the clerical representation must be entirely 
 j cut off! 
 
 7. If, howe ver, by violating a fundamental principle 
 of republ ican representation , we should allow as many 
 clergymen a s laymen in the representative body, — the 
 plan adopted by our seceding brethren, — while, as we 
 have already shown, tliere is nonnecessity for such an 
 arraiigemerit, itwoiild l)ej^ro^ictive oj incalculable evih 
 to the chur ch. Our present representation is one for 
 i every twenty-one preachers, and affords about one 
 hundred and ninety members to the General Confer- 
 ence. If we reduce this number one-half, to make 
 room for the lay delegation, it will give the preachers 
 one representative for every forty-two ; and, estimatmg 
 two preachers to a circuit, it will take twenty-one cir- 
 cuits to send one itinerant delegate. As the lay repre 
 sentation is to be equal, it will take the same numbei 
 of circuits to send one lay delegate. Now, how are 
 these lay delegates to be chosen? No candidate can 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 136 
 
 be known personally to one in several hundreds of the | 
 Methodists on the twenty-one circuits which form hisi 
 electoral district ; and, if they know him not, how will J 
 they be fit to judge of his quahfications ? i 
 
 " To obviate this difficulty in the election of delegates! 
 by the members immediately, it will be necessary to 
 institute an electoral college, composed of electors ^ 
 chosen in each circuit separately, who shall meet and 
 choose a representative for the General Conference. 
 These electors can only be chosen by the members in 
 the class-meetings, for it will not be possible to assem- 
 ble them together at one place, in order to take their 
 votes. It will be a consequence, growing out of this 
 arrangement, that each of the candidates for the honor 
 of representing us in the General Conference will have 
 his elector in every circuit composing the district, who 
 will be pledged to vote for said candidate in the event 
 of his being placed in the electoral college. We have 
 now the preliminary arrangements for the combat, and 
 the issue will be easily foreseen. The several candi- 
 dates for the electoral college must of course visit the 
 different class-meetings in the circuit, to set forth the 
 pretensions and superior qualifications of the person i 
 whom he has been led to prefer as a representative to 
 the church legislature. These claims may at first be 
 modestly set forth, but presently opposition will enhst 
 and warm his feelings. As the time of the election 
 draws nearer, and the contest becomes doubtful, pride 
 and partisan zeal will enter the Hsts. The disgrace 
 and mortification of defeat, the glory and triumph of 
 victory, urge on the combatants ; and the ' on, brethren, 
 on,' of the Rev. Mr. Snethen,* will everywhere be' 
 * See Mutual Rights, vol. lii, p. 348. 
 
136 cnuRcn government. 
 
 ;heai*d, animating tli3 competitors, and encouraging the 
 contest. The feelings of the members will soon catch 
 the kintUing flame. Personal friendship for the can- 
 didates, or the interest they may feel for the measures 
 they severally propose to carry in the General Confer- 
 ence, cannot fail of effect. Parties and caucuses will 
 be formed, which will necessarily alienate theii* affec- 
 tions from each other. Brotherly love no longer con- 
 tinuing, strife and envy, evil speaking and slander, will 
 take the place of those fruits of the Spirit — peace, long- 
 suffering, and meekness, and of that humility which 
 has so long taught us each to esteem the other better 
 than himself. From such scenes the more pious, hum- 
 ble, and retiring, though obviously the most competent 
 part of the membership, will seek to hide themselves, 
 and mourn over calamities they cannot control ; while 
 the froward and assuming, the vain and the self-con- 
 I ceited, will be brought forward, and obtain, by their 
 \ party zeal and desire of distinction, the suffrages of 
 » their brethren. Beloved reader, brother in Christ, I 
 ,- am no prophet, neither the son of a prophet ; but I 
 \ venture to predict, without the spirit of prophecy, that 
 (this is but a very faint representation of the scenes 
 which will certainly follow the changes which you are 
 urged to effect in the government of the Methodist 
 Church. Our class-meetings, heretofore blessed to us 
 as a peculiar privilege, where we have been accustom- 
 ed to speak and to think only of spiritual things, will 
 then become, over this whole continent, so many arenas 
 for electioneeiTJig, strife, and contention; where bro- 
 ther will seek to traduce and misrepresent brother, in 
 order to lessen his influence in an approaclung elec- 
 tion; and where feuds and personal enmities will be 
 
CHUKCH GOVERNMENT. 137 
 
 engendered, fearful in their consequences, and inter-; 
 minable in their duration. I care not whether elec- 
 tions in our church be for preachers, class-leaders, or 
 delegates to the General Conference or the annual 
 conferences ; only make them of sufficient importance 
 to excite competition, and awaken that desire for diS' 
 tinction wliich finds a place in every human bosom 
 until it is cast out by perfect love, and the same de- 
 structive consequences will inevitably follow so long as 
 man continues what he is — a weak and fallible being." 
 — Dr. Bond. 
 
 According to the plan actually adopted by the seced- 
 ing Methodists, these dangerous liabilities are increased 
 four or jive fold, for they have not only an election 
 once in four years for the General Conference, but 
 every yeai* for the annual conference, besides the elec- 
 tions of appointing-committees, class-leaders, &c., keep- 
 ing up a constant agitation in all departments of the 
 church. Well may they, as Mr. Shinn declares, have 
 "difficulty in keejping their denomination from being 
 scattered to the winds by a loose and deplorable spirit 
 of anarchy !" And if this arrangement could succeed 
 tolerably with their small numbers, yet how would it 
 operate among our vast membership ? 
 
 Thus, then^it is manifest that this demand for re- 
 publican forms in our economy is not justified by any 
 analogy between the church and the state in their 
 authority, their origin, or design — nor by the example 
 of mos t volaiitary organizations of a secular cherracter 
 in the land — nor }>j the example of other churches — 
 nor Ijj any important icant or liahility in our present 
 system; — that it has insurmountable 'pecuniary diffi- 
 culties — ^that, from the proportion of the clergy to the 
 
138 cnuRcn government. 
 
 hiity, it would be ahsolutehj impracticable on the true 
 repul>lic; ui principle— and that, even oij&n aris tocratic 
 plan of dis|)n>portioi)ate representation, it would be 
 attended \\\{\i j^roccsses, a(/itations, and s/!r//<?5, Tn ^r 
 large body, which would be utterly incom2)atible with 
 the pacific character of religious institutions, and would 
 probably prove destructive to our cause. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ITINERANCY. 
 
 Recommended by Scriptural example — Comports with the design 
 of the Christian ministry — Its influence and results. 
 
 Wb now proceed to examine our economy «»-4t-Tsr 
 and to show that it is actually under a sufficient popu- 
 lar control in another form. In our brief limits we 
 -camiot, of course, notice all those features -of it which 
 are condemned by seee^ew. We shall, therefore, in- 
 the following observations, keep in view the chief one, 
 namely, its episcopacy; remarkiiiir 1 k- re, however, //urf 
 tfi€ design and checks which justify and restrain this 
 apply to the others aho. If. they.xu-e found sufficient 
 iu_4his instance, they, of course, will -aot be-deemed- 
 inadequate in subordinate casea. 
 
 Wi444 -t^Hs-^weliminary^-pemaricy-thFee -things -iire-4« 
 \ \ Q rn n^iil e r ed in forming ft- j«6t-idea-ef-+ht; Methodist- 
 ■ gconomyt 4k&t,.iL3xZNy-dj^ r^et!tm43 its thi t f p ow er ; 
 ihicilrMs-tippropricUc-Mhache or halcmve^. 
 
 First. Its chief design (subordinate to its spiritual 
 cnds)^ is the maintenance of itinerancy in the ministry,. 
 This i s its stamped feature. -" Nothing pertaining to it 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 139 
 
 4a..ixw»e~-prize^ bj Methodi«tsr. E v e n in th o dense- 
 pQpulaiioiu©£.-E»glft»d3--a«K>ng tlie old and weU-e&ta- 
 - bli s hed B oc i^ies-^ Lond^H;t~aBd I^iveypool, the preach- 
 ers are required to exeha*ige-every sabbathy and-to 
 remove-e-very two- or~,three~y-ears. Seme- of -the^ rea- 
 ■ewts4ep-this-arrangement can only be referred to here. 
 1. It is recommended by Scriptural example. The 
 fathers of our church speak thus on this point : " The 
 following portions of the word of God are pointed in 
 support of the itinerant plan for the propagation of the 
 gospel ; which plan renders most of the regulations of 
 the General and Annual Conferences essential to the 
 existence of our united society : Matt, x, 5-11, ' These 
 twelve [apostles] Jesus sent forth, and commanded 
 them, saying. Go to the lost sheep of the house of 
 Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying. The kingdom 
 of heaven is at hand. And into whatsoever city or 
 town ye shall enter, inquire,' &c. Matt, xxii, 8-10, 
 * Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, 
 but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye, 
 therefore, into the highways, and as many as ye shall 
 find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out 
 into the highways,' &c. Matt, xxviii, 19, ' Go ye, 
 therefore, and teach all nations ;' be as extensively use- 
 ful as possible. Mark vi, 7-12, * And he calleth unto 
 him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two 
 and two, . . . and commanded them that they should 
 take nothing for their journey, save a staff only. . . . 
 And he said unto them, Iqi what place soever ye enter 
 into a house, there abide, till ye depart from that 
 place. . . . And they went out, and preached that men 
 should repent.' Luke x, 1-9, * After these things, the 
 Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two 
 
140 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 and two before his face into every city and place, whither 
 he himself woukl come. . . . Aiid into whatsoever house 
 ye enter,' says our Lord to them, ' first say, Peace be 
 to this house. . . . And into whatsoever city ye enter 
 and they receive you, say unto them, The kingdom of 
 God is come nigh unto you.' Luke xiv, 23, ' And the 
 Lord said unto the servant. Go out into the hiyhvays 
 and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house 
 may be filled.' Acts viii, 4, ' They that were scattered 
 abroad went everywhere j^reaching the word.' Acts 
 viii, 40, * Philip . . . preached in all the cities, till he 
 came to Coesarea.' Acts xvi, 3G, ' Paul said unto Bar- 
 nabas, Let us go again and visit our brethi-en iri every 
 city where we have preached the word of the Lord,' 
 &c. . . . Timothy and Titus were traveling bishops. In 
 shoi-t, every candid person, who is thoroughly acquaint- 
 ed with the New Testament, must allow, that whatever 
 excellences other plans may have, this is the primitive 
 and apostolic plan. But we would by no means speak 
 with disrespect of the faithful located ministers of any 
 church. We doubt not but, from the nature and cir- 
 cumstances of things, there must have been many lo- 
 cated ministers in the primitive churches ; and we must 
 acknowledge, with gratitude to God, that the located 
 brethren in our church are truly useful, and of consi- 
 derable consequence, in their respective stations. But, 
 on the other hand, we are so conscious of the vast im- 
 jiortance of the traveling plan, that we are determined, 
 through the grace of God, to support it to the utmost 
 of our power ; nor will any plea which can possibly be 
 urged, however plausible it may appear, or under what- 
 ever name proposed, induce us to make the least sacri- 
 fice in this respect, or, by the introduction of any nov- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 141 
 
 elty, to run the least hazard of wounding that plan 
 which God has so wonderfully owned, and which is so 
 perfectly consistent with the apostolic and primitive 
 practice." — Notes to Discipline ojf 1796. 
 
 2. It comports with the desiffli o f the Christian min- 
 istry, Christianity was not designed to be, like Juda- 
 ism, a local system, but aggressive, until it should be 
 universal. The missionary idea should not be inci- 
 dental, as it is in the systems of most modern churches 
 — dependent on casual impulses and occasional liberal- 
 ity, but should be incorporated into the very constitu- 
 tion of the ministry — its ostensible characteristic. Such 
 was the meaning of the divine commission, " Go ye into 
 all the world." Such was the character of the primi- 
 tive ministry during its itinerant operations. The truth 
 broke forth on the right and on the left, till it over- 
 spread and outspread the Roman empire. Wh en it 
 plea sed God to raise up Wesley, only about two or 
 three of even incidental forms of aggressive action were 
 to be found in the Protestant churches. He was provi- 
 dentially led to introduce an arrangement which should 
 put Protestant lands themselves under a great system 
 of missionary operations — itinerant circles of ministe- 
 rial labor, which, while they conveyed the gospel to the 
 millions of domestic heathen who had scarcely been 
 affected by the existing localized system, should also 
 send forth tangents of evangelic light to the miUions 
 abroad. 
 
 3. It has an inestimable influence on the ministry 
 itself. It is an heroic training which the greatest mili- 
 tary captains might applaud. We need not enlarge 
 here. Any reflecting mind must perceive that such a 
 system as the Methodist itinerancy is remarkably adapt- 
 
142 CnURCII GOVERNMENT. 
 
 ed, as a vehicl e, for the enthusiastic energy w liich cha - 
 racterizes fervid and hig;hly d evotional minds, and is 
 equally fitted to keep alive t hat energy. It is also well 
 suited to preclude men of false character, for it is al- 
 most entirely a system of sacrifice. By its access to 
 
 all classes, it affords an invaluable knowlcd'j<' ot Imman 
 ■ - ? . . ^ 
 
 nature; by its constant exercise, it produces atldetic 
 frames and energetic temperame nts; by its incessant 
 labors, an exclusive devotedness to one work; by its 
 frequentdianges, a pilgrim spirit. "Most of its labor- 
 ers may say, Avith tlieir grcut poet, — 
 
 " No foot of land do I possess, 
 No cottage in this wilderness, 
 
 A poor wayfaring man ; 
 I lodge awhile in tents below, 
 And gladly wander to and fro, 
 
 Till I my Canaan gain." 
 
 This effect the world witnesses. Do we assert too 
 <much when we say, that for one hundred years the 
 /Methodist ministry, though mostly uneducated, have 
 Uranscended in labors, in results, and in conservative 
 ) adherence to their great principles, any other body of 
 )^men engaged in moral labor on the earth ? 
 
 4. It distributes in turn, to most of the societies, the 
 various talents of the ministry. This is an important 
 consideration to those who have witnessed its opera- 
 tion, but it can only be alluded to here. Many men 
 I of fervid spiri t and deepj^lety have little talent for dis - 
 i ciplin ing the church. Their discourses are chiefly 
 hortative ; they are instrumental in great revivals and 
 additions to the membership. It is obvious that such 
 talents need a rapid distribution. The soul must not 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 143 
 
 only be converted, but trained in piety. By an itin-'i 
 erant system such men are changed from position to 
 position, arousing dull churches, breaking up new 
 ground, invading and reclaiming ungodly neighbor-, 
 hoods. By the same system prudent men, with talents ii 
 for instracting and edifying the converted masses, fol- ; 
 low the former, gathering up and securing the fruits 
 of their labors. Some pastors are addicted chiefly to 
 expe riniental and practical preaching, others to the J 
 illustration and defense of doctrinal truth. Some are 
 most effectual in the soc ial services and in pastoral 
 l^ors, others in the nunistrations of the pulpit. Some 
 have ability only for spiritual labors, others are skill- ; 
 ful in managin g and invigorating the fiscalresources 
 of the church, in erecting new chapels, and promoting 
 the benevolent .enterprises of the times. Now it is 
 clear that the frequent distribution of these various '■ 
 gifts, wisely adapted to the local wants of the various \ 
 churches, must be an extraordinary cause of energy ' 
 and success, and such we shall by and by see has actu- J 
 ally been its effect. 
 
 5. It produces a sentiment of unity throughout the 
 church. In no sect is there more co-operation — more 
 of the esprit ^u corps. Scarcely is a church erected, 
 or any important measure attempted, that does not en- 
 list the common sympathy of the body ; and this results, 
 to a great extent, from our having pastors who, by fre- 
 quent changes, become individually common to us all. 
 
 6. By it one preacher can supply a plurality of 
 societies. This is one of its capital advantages. In a 
 sparse population, a single circuit sometimes takes in 
 ten or twenty appointments. Methodism has thus sup- 
 plied our frontier for fifty years with the gospel. The 
 
144 CHUUCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 usual stationary ministries wait for the call of the peo- 
 plcf except in their colhiteral missionary labors: the 
 Methodist ministry goes forth to call the people. This 
 is one of its strongest points of contrast. It is the miS' 
 X sionary church. Its adaptation in this respect to our 
 own country is worthy of remark. While the great 
 moral revolution of Methodism was going on across 
 the Atlantic, the greatest political revolution of modem 
 times was in process on our own continent ; and when 
 we contemplate the new adaptations of religious action 
 which were evolved by the former, can we resist the 
 conviction that there was a providential relation be- 
 tween the two events ? — that they were not only coin- 
 cident in time, but also in purpose? Wliile Wesley 
 and his co-laborers were reviving Christianity there, 
 Washington and his compatriots were reviving Hberty 
 here. It was the American Revolution that led to the 
 development of the resources of this vast country, and 
 rendered it the assembling-place of all kindreds, tongues, 
 and people ; and Methodism commenced its operation 
 sufficiently early to be in mature vigor by the time that 
 the great movement of the civilized world toward the 
 west began. It seems to have been divinely adapted 
 to this emergency of our country. If we may judge 
 from the result, it was raised up by Providence more 
 in reference to the new than to the old world. Its 
 peculiar measures were strikingly suited to the circum- 
 stances of the country, while those of every other con- 
 temporary sect were as strikingly unadapted to them. 
 The then usual process of a long preparatory training 
 for the ministry could not at all consist with the rap- 
 idly increasing wants of the country. The usual plan 
 of local labor, limited to a single congregation or to a 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 145 
 
 parish, was inadequate to the wants of Great Britain 
 at that time ; but much more so to those of the new 
 continent. That extraordinary conception of Weslej, 
 an itinerant ministry, met, in the only manner possible, 
 the circumstances of the latter. No one can estimate' 
 what would have been the probable result of that rapid 
 advancement which the population of the United States 
 was making beyond the customary provisions for reli- 
 gious instruction, had not this novel plan met the emer- 
 gency. Much of what was then our frontier, but since 
 has become the most important states of the Union, 
 would have passed through the forming period of its 
 character destitute, to a great extent, of the influence 
 of Christian institutions ; but the Methodist itinerancy 
 has borne the cross, not only in the midst, but in the 
 van, of the hosts of emigration. Methodist itinerants^ 
 are found, with their horses and saddlebags, threading 
 the trail of the savage, cheering and blessing with their 
 visits the loneliest cottage on the furthest frontier. 
 They have gone to the aboriginal tribes, and have 
 gathered into the pale of the church more of the chil- 
 dren of the forest than any other sect. They have 
 scaled the Rocky Mountains, and are building up 
 Christianity and civilization on the shores of the Co- 
 lumbia. They are hastening down toward the capital 
 of Montezuma ; while, through the length and breadth 
 of our older states, they have been spreading a health- 
 ful influence which has affected all classes, so that their 
 cause includes not only a larger aggregate population 
 than any other sect, but especially a larger proportion 
 of those classes whose moral elevation is the most dif- 
 ficult and the most important — the savage, the slave, 
 the free colored man, and the lower classes generally. 
 7 
 
146 cnuRcn government. 
 
 Dr. Bainl, (a Prcsbytcrijin,) in his late invaluable 
 work on Keligion in America, speaking of dillicult por- 
 tions of our moral field, exelaims : " Blessed be God, 
 ( there is a way, as I shall show hereafter, by which 
 ) some of the evils here spoken of ma^ be mitigated ; 
 I and that is, by the system of itinerant preaching; cm - 
 I ployed in the United States so extensively and usefully 
 [ by the Methodists . And again he says : " It has been 
 said, with truth, that the Methodist Church is, in its 
 ^ very structure, erapliatically missionary ; and it is an 
 inexpressible blessing that it is so, as the United States 
 strikmgly prove. The whole country is embraced by 
 one General Conference ; it is again subdivided into 
 tliirty-two annual conferences, each including a large 
 extent of country, and divided into districts. Each 
 district comprehends several circuits, and within each 
 circuit there are from five or six to above twenty 
 preaching places. Ordinarily, as often as once in a 
 fortnight, a circuit preacher conducts a regular service 
 at each of these preaching places, whether it be a 
 church, school-room, or a dwelling-house. In the 
 largest towns and villages such services are held on 
 the sabbath, and on a week-day or evening in other 
 places ; and thus the gospel is carried into thousands 
 of remote spots in which it never would be preached 
 upon the plan of having a permanent clergy, planted 
 in particular districts and parishes. It was a remark, 
 I believe, of the celebrated Dr. Witherspoon, that ^he 
 needed no other evidence that the Rev. John Wesley 
 
 was a great man, than what the system of itinerating 
 preacliing presented to his mind, and of which that 
 
 t wonderful man was the author. * The observation was 
 a just one. It is a system of vast importance in every 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 147 
 
 point of view, capable of being made to send its rami- 
 fications into almost every corner of the country, and 
 to carry the glad tidings of salvation into the most re- 
 mote and secluded settlements, as well as to the more 
 accessibly and populous towns and neighborhoods." 
 
 7. It provides for poor churches. At least one-third 
 of our societies do not afford a competent support ; yet 
 we supply them with preachers, and by annual or bien- 
 nial changes these preachers are replaced, and the dis- 
 advantages of such places relieved, by being shared 
 among them. By any other plan, such societies must 
 be abandoned. Do away the itinerancy, and Method- 
 ism would at once contract^ hy at least one-third, its 
 sphere of labor, and lose nine-tenths of its moral power. 
 This, under God, is the great secret of its triumphs. 
 Pages could be written on the subject. 
 
 8. This system has Ijcen found by experiment not 
 onIy^2jracticable, an d, in coinK.'ctioii with our classes 
 and other means, perlectiy a<la|)t( d to the pastoral and 
 other wants of our dense st eoiniuiiiiiiics as well as the 
 wilder ness, but also the n ujst siuxessiUl one yet adopt- 
 ed by Protestant Christendom. We would not speak 
 of it with sectarian gratulation, but in proof of our po- 
 sition, and in humble gratitude to the great Head of 
 the church, who, in his mercy, has made us " a pecu- 
 liar people," "which in time past were not a people, 
 but are now the people of God." 
 
 Methodism is but little more than a century old in 
 England. Other dissenting bodies were in operation 
 centuries before it, yet it has outstripped every one of 
 them in the number of its societies and its pecuniary 
 efforts for the salvation of the heathen. The substance 
 of a report, showing the dissenting force arrayed against 
 
148 cnuRcn government. 
 
 Puseyism, has been republished in the American reli- 
 gious papers. (See Christian Intelligencer, February, 
 1844.) It gives to the Methodists in England and 
 Ireland a number of societies equal to al)out half of all 
 the dissenting societies in England and Waifs. They 
 are stated at four thousand in England and Ireland ; 
 the Baptists in England and Ireland at one thousand 
 six hundred and seventy-six ; Independents in England 
 and Wales, two thousand three hundred and sixteen 
 churches ; Presbyterians, (Orthodox,) in England, one 
 hundred and twenty churches, &c. The dissenting 
 aggregate is stated at about eight thousand. This re- 
 port is irregular, in excepting from its statistics of the 
 Methodists their numerous societies in Wales and Scot- 
 land; while it also excepts the Baptists in the same 
 places, and the Independents and Presbyterians in Ire- 
 land. We give it as it is. It is sufficient to show the 
 remarkable superiority of the Methodist economy. 
 
 Only about sixty years have yet passed since the 
 organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
 United States, and but about seventy-five since the 
 arrival of the first Methodist itinerant. Other evan- 
 gelical bodies had been operating here more than a 
 century, and yet the Methodist Episcopal Church, ex- 
 clusive of several other classes of Methodists, exceeds 
 by nearly one-half any other Protestant sect of the 
 country. The Baptists are the next in numbers — the 
 Baptist Register states their present communicants at 
 032,200. The last Methodist Minutes (1844) report 
 our numbers at 1,0G8,525 members, 4,000 preachers, 
 and 7,700 local preachers. As an evidence of the 
 missionary character of our system, it ought to be stated 
 that this estimate includes 3,379 Indians and 128,410 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 149 
 
 colored people, and that about ^0,000 of the latter are 
 in our missions to the slaves. Its success still advances. 
 The increase last year alone was 154,000, (and of this 
 increase eight hundred were Indians, and twenty thou- 
 sand colored people,) more than twice as large as the 
 whole Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States ; a sister church, which has our doctrines and 
 episcopacy without our itinerancy.* 
 
 Let us take a local example of its success, and let 
 it be selected from its most difficult field, New-Eng- 
 land, where it has had a perpetual conflict with the 
 prevalent theology and views of ecclesiastical govern 
 ment. A series of careful statistical articles have been 
 published, comparing the per centage of our increase 
 with that of the whole population of New-England. 
 The population of 
 
 New-England increased, from 1800 to 1810, 19|^ per cent. 
 
 Methodism " " " 92 " 
 
 New-England increased, from 1810 to 1820, 12^ " 
 Methodism " " " 58 
 
 New-England increased, from 1820 to 1830, 17^1 « 
 
 Methodism " " " 98^ " 
 
 New-England increased, from 1830 to 1840, 14 « 
 Methodism " " " 85 
 
 * Dr. Dixon, late president of the Wesleyan Conference, Eng- 
 land, says : " Taking into account the present numbers and po- 
 sition of the American Methodist Episcopal Church ; the wide 
 area of the United States ; the rapidly increasing population of 
 the country ; the adaptation of their system to meet the wants 
 of a scattered and new population ; and, above all, the complete- 
 ness of their church order, which is evidently looked upon with 
 affectionate and loyal veneration on the part of the people, we 
 are furnished with moral data for the conclusion, that the Ameri- 
 can Methodist Church must, in the ordinary course of things, be- 
 come one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, Protestant 
 body in the world." 
 
150 cnuRcn government. 
 
 The per ccntage of our increase, it will be seen, is 
 far in advance of that of the general population. If 
 we compare our numbers with the whole population, 
 we discover a rapidly increasing ratio. Thus, begin- 
 ning ten years after our origin, in 
 
 1800 there was one Methodist in every 211 of the whole population. 
 1810 " " 131 " 
 
 1820 " " 94 " 
 
 1830 " " 56 " 
 
 1840 " " 34 " 
 
 These ratios we obtain without including the thousands 
 of New-England Methodists comprehended in the 
 New- York and Troy Conferences. We have esti- 
 mated the latter, for 1840, at twenty-two thousand, 
 and we are certain that this estimate is short of the 
 truth. Including these, our ratio, for 1840, will be 
 one in twenty-five. Thus, in forty years, our ratio to 
 the whole population of New-England has advanced 
 from one in two hundred and eleven to one in twenty- 
 five, exhibiting a rapid gain on the general population. 
 
 The Methodist membership in Neio-England has more 
 than douhled every twelve years since 1796. 
 
 Compare now these local estimates with the num- 
 bers of other sects. Our Congregational brethren have 
 been in the field more than two hundred years, four 
 times as long as ourselves. They possessed it wholly 
 a large portion of the time. Besides the advantage of 
 pre-possessing the ground, they have had numerous 
 auxiliary means (peculiar to themselves) of not only 
 retaining their original strength, but of extending it 
 with the increase of population. From the minutes 
 of their general associations for the different New- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 151 
 
 England states, (mostly of 1841, a year later than our 
 own statistics, as given above,) we compile the follow- 
 ing estimates of communicants : — 
 
 Connecticut . . 
 
 . 35,688 
 
 Maine 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 . 57,563 
 
 Vermont 
 
 New-Hampshire . 
 
 . 17,581 
 
 
 Rhode Island . . 
 
 . 2,577 
 
 T 
 
 17,338 
 22,666 
 
 153,413 
 
 The total of Methodist members which we have 
 given New-England, for 1840, is eighty-seven thou- 
 sand. Compared with the aggregate returns of the 
 Congregationalists, it gives us considerably more than 
 one-half their number, enrolled in less than one-fifth 
 their time. In some of the New-England states our 
 aggregate exceeds theirs. We have no means of as- 
 certaining the per centage of their increase, but the 
 above statements show that it must be considerablv 
 short of our own. 
 
 Our Baptist brethren are a numerous and successful 
 denomination in New-England. Their first church 
 was established by Roger Williams in 1639, about one 
 hundi'ed and fifty yeai's before Jesse Lee's visit to 
 New-England. By the time of his visit they were 
 twenty thousand strong. The Baptist Memorial extra, 
 (p. 22,) for 1842, gives the following returns from each 
 of the New-England states for 1840 : — 
 
 Maine 20,490 
 
 Vermont .... 11,101 
 
 Connecticut . . . 11,725 
 
 New-Hampshire . . 9,557 
 
 Massachusetts 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Total 
 
 26,311 
 5,962 
 
 85,146 
 
 Our membership for 1840 being eighty-seven thou- 
 sand, gives us nearly two thousand majority over the 
 
152 CUURCU GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Baptists, though "vvc have been in the field but one- 
 fourtli of their time. 
 
 The above two denominations are leading ones in 
 New-England. They are far in advance of any others 
 with which we might institute further comparisons, and 
 are therefore sufficient for our purpose. 
 
 The foregoing calculations aflford the following re- 
 sult: — That the Methodist Church is second in New- 
 JEngland in numbers, and jirst in progress. 
 
 There is an apparent invidiousness in such compari- 
 sons, but we have made them with no such feeling. 
 They are presented as matters of fact, illustrative of 
 our actual progress. "While the rapidity of our ad- 
 vancement is an occasion of undisguised congratula- 
 tion and gratitude, we trust we should rejoice were 
 that of our sister churches a hundred-fold greater than 
 it is. 
 
 We have said that our itinerant aiTangement, though 
 itself a system of domestic missionary circles, sends 
 forth tangents of evangelic influence to the foreign 
 world. The Wesley an Methodists are unsurpassed in 
 their zeal for foreign missions. According to a table 
 in the London Missionary Register for 1842, their an- 
 nual missionary contributions are greater than those 
 of any other benevolent society whatever in Protestant 
 Christendom, except the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society and the English Church Missionary Society. 
 Besides their centenary contribution of a million dol- 
 lars, they have recently raised above 8500,000 yearly 
 for missions. Their missionary communicants are more 
 numerous than the missioiiary communicants of all the 
 other European Protestant churches put together.* 
 
 * Besides these and other numerous benevolent efforts, the 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 153 
 
 The Methodist Missionary Society in the United 
 States extends its labors to Africa, South America, 
 Oregon, our frontier Indians, our slaves, and other 
 domestic fields. It is not yet twenty-five years gld, 
 yet it now includes, and supplies with the bread of life, 
 a noble army of nearly forty thousand communicants. 
 Among these are more than four thousand Indians, 
 and nearly fifteen thousand colored people. It sustains 
 a band of missionary laborers more than tlu'ee hundred 
 strong. We assert that, all things considered, these 
 results are not exceeded in the history of modern mis- 
 sions. K we exclude the thousands of white commu- 
 nicants in the Methodist missions in this country, 
 (twenty thousand,) and in the Wesleyan missions in 
 France, the British provinces, &c., the remaining com- 
 municants of the united Metliodist missions are con- 
 siderahly more than all the missionary converts of all 
 the rest of Protestant Christendom put together /* 
 
 These are facts, and they speak with a voice that 
 cannot be misunderstood. Here is a sect which, with 
 little pretension to adventitious influence, and through 
 much obloquy and poverty, has in about a century 
 equaled, in England, about one-half of most the dis- 
 senting bodies combined, and in this country is nearly 
 twice as large as any other sect of the land, though 
 
 Wesleyans have, before their recent extraordinary efforts for edu- 
 cation, sustained in England and Wales more than two hundred 
 and seventy day schools, including more than twenty thousand 
 children, and three thousand six hundred sabbath schools. They 
 teach in these schools nearly forty thousand scholars, at an annual 
 expense of $100,000. 
 
 * About one-third more. See the Foreign Missionary Chroni- 
 cle for 1843, Methodist Missionary Report for 1843, and Sunday- 
 School Messenger, February 16, 1843. 
 7* 
 
154 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 many had buried generations of communicants before 
 it had one, and lliis same sect exceeds in its missionary 
 converts those of all the rest of Protestant Christen- 
 dom. To what is this extraordinary success attributa- 
 ble? Assuredly there is some most potent cause for 
 it. It would be uncharitable to ascribe it to our doc- 
 trines alone, for the fundamental ones are common to 
 all evangelical churches. Is it ascribed to our zeal? 
 But that zeal, through the effect of the divuie Spirit, is 
 produced by means. And what arc our peculiar means ? 
 "Wliat but our ministerial arrangement, our itinerancy, 
 infusing missionary energy into all its auxiliary provi- 
 sions ? This is the mainmast of our bark — the engine 
 of our train. Who, then, shall presume to propose in- 
 novations that may affect unfavorably this stupendous 
 instrument? Are we not right in scrupling to touch 
 it rudely, lest, like him who touched the ark, the sym- 
 bol of Israel's strength, we fall and perish as a denomi- 
 nation ? If there is any feature of their cause to which 
 Methodists should adhere immovably, it is their glo- 
 rious itinerancy. Who can recount what it has accom- 
 plished, under the blessing of God, for this land? 
 Wliat would Methodism be without it in ten or twenty 
 years? It is, indeed, a system of sacrifice, but the 
 sacrifice is mutual between the ministry and the peo- 
 ple, and infinitely greater with the former than the 
 latter; and all its hardships are abundantly indemni- 
 fied by its singular usefulness. It has enabled us pre- 
 eminently to preach the gospel " to the poor." It has 
 given us the van rank of the church in the progress 
 of the western frontier; and, throughout the length 
 and breadth of this land, its fruits are like the herbage 
 of the fields. We repeat, the missionary ardor and 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 155 
 
 energy of the church, growing out of its itinerancy, 
 have, under God, done this ; and the day that this is 
 forgotten, Methodism begins to wane^* 
 
 * Dr. Baird pays the following tribute to our church : — '* Since 
 its organization in 1784, though not without its share of difficul- 
 ties, its career, upon the whole, has been remarkably prosperous, j 
 and God has enabled it to overcome every hinderance with won- : 
 derful success. We have seen the numerical amount of its mem- } 
 bers sixty years ago to be 15,000 — in 1843 it was 1,068,525' 
 communicants ; and the probable proportion of the community \ 
 under the influence of this church's ministry, that is, who attend , 
 its preaching, as stated by Bishop Soule before the British Con- i 
 ference in August, 1842, is 5,000,000. Surely we may well ex- 
 claim, "What hath God wrought!" It covers the whole land I 
 with its network system of stations and circuits, and carries the^ 
 gospel into thousands of the most remote, as well as the mosti 
 secluded and thinly-peopled neighborhoods. This denomination! 
 has made great exertions to increase the number of its churchy 
 edifices within the last few years ; but its itinerating ministers | 
 preach in thousands of places where no such buildings are yet .' 
 erected, or, at least, none belonging to that denomination. In i 
 these cases they hold their meetings in school-houses, court- 
 houses, and private houses. No American Christian, who takes 
 a comprehensive view of the progress of religion in this country, 
 and considers how wonderfully the means and instrumentalities \ 
 employed are adapted to the extent and the wants of that coun- / 
 try, can hesitate for a moment to bless God for having, in his;' 
 mercy, provided them all. Nor will he fail to recognize in the', 
 Methodist economy, as well as in the zeal, the devoted piety, and ] 
 the efficiency of its ministry, one of the most powerful elements 
 in the religious prosperity of the United States, as well as one of 
 the firmest pillars of their civil and political institutions.^^ 
 
156 ClIUBCH GOVEENMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE ArPOlNTING POWER OF EPISCOPACr. 
 
 Three modes of appointment — First, by the preachers and 
 people in common — Second, by a committee of preachers and 
 laymen — Third, the episcopal mode. 
 
 The cldef object of our system being determined, 
 the question respecting its chiefs or directing powers 
 recurs. Where shall the appointing power be vested ? 
 for it must exist, aad Mii vigorously, to propel such 
 machinery. 
 
 I. Ik it «iw*r, ^imt, it cannot be left to the preachers 
 and societies themselves ; because 
 
 1 flnatli «— ^^ iiiiMiliiiinii ■ ^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ±-\--j. 
 
 the largest societies would lie diflpoao d. ii choose the 
 most popular men, and the more popular preachers 
 would 1m UmA^jt I* reciprocate ikm diupuiiiiion. The 
 wealthier would thus keep always the best preachers, 
 and the gifts of the ministry would not be distributed. 
 One important advantage of the itinerancy would 
 hereby be lost. 
 
 2._The less able jDreachers, kept by the above 
 course in the feeble appointments, would sooner or later 
 1m itaMwl ««e, «r ttBipriM m retire tv tiMir ^mmk- 
 olwyi mmL jlawglii, and a large portion of our work be 
 abandoned. Tliis imM jwiiit -tiifc we can hardly now 
 avoid. The least relaxation would render it uncon- 
 trollable, and %m, m im ^mm nM, ir Aiwi «£ Mr 
 
 ^ ^^f^^^^^ J 1- ^ ^^a. 
 
 . We -soberly believ-e -that thifl 
 resnJti would onfe««4n a very few years after sueh an 
 t u ffftpg ^aient ^-tl^-appointlBg power. 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 157 
 
 3. Many societies would 1» Mek 4« choose the 
 same man, and many men the same place ; who shall 
 ^en decide ? And, 
 
 4. If even there could be devised a mode of deter- 
 mining such cases, yet if the itinerancy is to be main- 
 tained in fact, and not merely in name; if these 
 changes are to be as_frequent and as extensive as 
 they now are, what m wmmm rf negotiation, strife, an4 
 disappointment iMnt^ln UnHml every year or two in 
 the societies? Would not these inevitable conse- 
 quences more than counterbalance the advantages of 
 such an abortive itinerancy ? Would it not be better 
 to turn Congi-egationalist entirely, and at once ? Yet 
 this is virtually the system of the recent seceders ; for 
 though they have a committee to adjust the appoint- 
 ments, yet their preachers and societies are allowed to 
 negotiate beforehand, and the committee are to con- 
 form to these previous negotiations as far as prac- 
 ticable. In England, where ample funds are pos- 
 sessed, and no new appointment received unless it 
 can, by the aid of these funds, maintain a preacher, 
 this plan might operate ; but here it is s» b^t^', xmf, 
 ft H worse, than Congregationalism. If the committee^ 
 should not imm. ft puMti t a l rie i» conform to such'^ 
 arrangements, what cbasirtisftK^ioa mmk strife must \ 
 follow tfaft jmf^ma» «f tiw igeBemfmsf n^jyrt i w la u ' inj ? MmA \ 
 if they do conform it Hmm., a few leading men will ' 
 always possess the best appointments, while the feebler 
 
 societies and preachers must dwiiiilli «mI fail through j 
 neglect. 
 
 II. B ii (Wt i Umt thnt a committee of preachers and 
 laymen could not best conduct it. 
 
 1. Such a committee «nU mdi "ff^ ^interested. 
 
158 CnURCII GOVERNMENT. 
 
 The preachers on it would have an Interest in the 
 appointments, as would also the societies to which the 
 laymen belong. 
 
 2. Such a committee would be composed of sec - 
 tional men ; they could not be well acquainted with 
 all the appointment^, and iho qnnlificntions and con- 
 venii'iicc.- (.r ilic i'.'-|iccti\ (■ prraclicr-. Suppose this 
 committee, lor exiunplc, composed of three preachers 
 in the New-England Conference, one from Boston, 
 one from Worcester, and one from Springfield, and as 
 many laymen from the same or other j)laces, what 
 could they do with the appointment of a hundred or 
 more men to all parts of tlie commonwealtli ? Of 
 most of the places they could know notliing. They 
 must, therefore, have written or personal communica- 
 tions from most of the appointments ; these must be 
 heard, read, compared, discussed, &c. Amid such 
 confusion, harassed by conflicting claims, how and 
 when could they come to a conclusion of the business? 
 How much preferable is a permanent committee, (such 
 as our bishops and presiding elders virtually are,) 
 who, by making this their responsibility, and tra- 
 versing the whole field, can become acquainted with 
 the abilities and wants of the individual preachers 
 and societies, and, by having no share in the appoint- 
 ments, can be disinterested ? 
 
 3. Such a committee would require a_po£ular elec- 
 tion in jthe^onference ; electioneering and caucusing, 
 with their usual evils, favoritism among the preach- 
 ers, and c onsequent jealousies and dissensions, would 
 follow. 
 
 4. We have said that the members of such a com- 
 mittee would have a personal interest in the appoint- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 159 
 
 ments ; now if it were limited to four or five, in order 
 to keep out, as much as possible, this selfish inter- 
 ference, it could not, as we have shown, represent 
 generally the societies ; it could not know well their 
 wants, while, as we have stated, our present plan in- 
 cludes usually four or five — the presiding elders and 
 bishops — without these disadvantages. If, on the 
 other hand, ij should be numerous, including repre- 
 sentatives from all, or most, of the societies, it would 
 be a large popular assembly, and never able to come 
 to a determination of so many and such various 
 claims, and would merely give but a fuller play to 
 the selfish interests of its members — and what must 
 be the "confusion worse confounded" which would 
 result where an appeal is allowed, as in the system 
 of the late seceders, from the decisions of the com- 
 mittee to the whole conference, more or less of the 
 members of which must be involved in any change ? 
 
 5. Similar modifications of the appointing power 
 have been adopted by the Protestant Methodists, and 
 have failed. If^ wonld net la^mp i& tk«ee Wo t b i cQ i i , 
 
 IhuI •• aioiT iii mg omfi<Biii Hi '-on what w ftua bi i i m '" ' jftif ^jca* 
 jHwtnuli ffiwrii'mw Ito— ni nbo doniod that their inno- 
 vation has proved abortive. At their secession they 
 carried with them a strong ministerial force, and a 
 considerable lay membership ; but with all the advan- 
 tages of later secessions from the parent church, plausi- 
 ble appeals to the popular feeling in favor of lay rights, 
 the great revivals of the times, and twenty-five years 
 of agitation, and eighteen of organized efibrt, they 
 number but little more than one-third of the increase 
 alone of the Methodist Episcopal Church in a single 
 
160 CHUBCn GOVERNMENT. 
 
 year. They have not erected in New-England, the 
 stronghold of lay rights, a dozen chapels during all 
 these yciu's of agitation and effort. The itinerant 
 system moves heavily among them. In many im- 
 portant places it is virtually suspended, and many 
 of their societies and preachers, tired of the irregu- 
 larity and distraction of the plan, have returned to the 
 bosom of the elder church. 
 
 ^ in. In view of these considerations, the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church has chosen superintendents in whom 
 ■ to vest this power — men who have no local or selfish 
 I interest in it, but travel over the whole land, and are 
 ■counseled and aided by presiding elders, whose local 
 inspection of the societies enables the superintendent 
 to suit his appointments to their necessities. How 
 M) could this power be better vested ? Our Enghsh bre- 
 ^ thi'cn have a committee of preachers alone, but these 
 j have a selfish interest in the appointments ; while we 
 have virtually such a committee, (the presiding elders 
 and bishops,) but so situated as not to have any such 
 personal interests. The occasional embarrassments 
 ►which attend our method are believed to be much 
 less serious than those which occur in the appoint- 
 ments of the Wesleyan committee, and the efficiency 
 J of our system, as attested by its results, is far in ad- 
 ]^vance of that of the transatlantic Methodists. 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 161 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 CHECKS ON THE SYSTEM. 
 
 Checks of the ministry on the episcopacy — Checks of the 
 people on the whole systena — Restrictions of the bishops — Re- 
 flections. 
 
 Having thus stated the chief object of our system, 
 and its appropriate directing power, the thu'd question 
 returns, — What checks are there to this necessary ap- 
 pointing power ^ To simply assert that the bishops 
 have it, as our opponents do, without the above views 
 and others that remain, is as startling as it is false. 
 Such a power, unnecessary and unbalanced, would not 
 be tolerated by Methodists one hour. 
 
 Here, then, for the extraordinary advantages of the 
 itinerancy, are the preachers, on the one hand, giving 
 up the choice of theii* appointments, and submitting to 
 be sent, like men in battle, to all points of the field ; 
 and the people, on the other, abandoning the choice 
 of their pastors. The sacrifice is common to both; 
 both ought, therefore, to have a check upon the ap- 
 pointing power ; but as it bears most onerously on the 
 preacher, he should have the strongest control of it. 
 What chec ks, theii, Jiaye the ministry on this power? 
 
 1. They elect the officer who bears it. Methodist 
 bishops have no vote in the appointment of their asso- 
 ciates or successors; while in the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church, though every member of the lower 
 house of the General Convention- should vote for a 
 candidate, the bishops can reverse his election. 
 
 2. The bishop is responsible to the m for his con - 
 
162 CHURCH govi:unmi:nt. 
 
 duct, private and official ; while, in the Protestant 
 Episcoj)al Church, a bishop can be tried and deposed 
 only by bishops. 
 
 3. They can modify or utterly abolish his power in 
 t he General Conference . T^his is certainly sufficient 
 control. This terrible power, which is represented as 
 tyrannizing over their destmies, is then created, con- 
 trolled, and can he anniJiilated by them at their plea- 
 sure. Are they slaves, then? Or is not their ex- 
 ample in this respect one of the noblest instances of 
 heroic self-sacrifice on the earth ? Is it noj morally 
 sublime ? and should it not excite the admiration, in- 
 stead of the abuse, of their fellow-Christians ? 
 
 In the next place. What c heck have the people on 
 this_ machinery ? It is clear, that as the preachers 
 appoint the bishops, and the bishops distribute the 
 preachers, the people should check the whole plan by 
 a counterbalance upon the whole ministerial body. 
 
 1. This is provided in the most decisive form _that 
 it could possibly assume, namely, the power ofjpecu- 
 niary suj^plii's. No sfipuhited contract for support 
 exists in the Methodist economy. The Discipline 
 allows a certain support, but does not enforce it ; and 
 no Methodist preacher can prosecute a civil suit for 
 his salary.* The General Conference disclaims all 
 right to tax the property of our members. A Me- 
 thodist church has no necessity, in order to control or 
 remove the preacher, to prosecute him by a tedious 
 and expensive process at law, but simply to signify 
 that after a given date his supplies cease. He can- 
 
 * The word salary was changed in the Discipline to "alloiO' 
 ance,'^ in 1808, the year when a delegated General Conference 
 was established. 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 163 
 
 not live on air; he must submit or depart. This 
 would be a sufficient guaranty, certainly; and this 
 check applies not merely to a specific prerogative of 
 the ministry, but to the whole ministerial system. 
 The lamented Dr, Emor^ thus states it : — " We have"] 
 said that the Methodist Episcopal Church possesses! 
 effective and substantial security against any encroach-/ 
 ments of tyranny on the part of her pastors. Thisi 
 security, to say nothing of higher principles, is amply 
 provided in the fact, so obvious to common sense, that 
 the interests of the preachers, as men, are not only 
 coincident, but identical, with all the interests which; 
 bind them to be good pastors ; and that these again 
 are identical with the interests of the people. They 
 cannot possibly have any earthly mot i ve for settin*; 
 themselves in opposition to the people. All human ^ 
 motives are on th e other side. And the fargreater 
 danger is, that ^ir sense of dependence, and the 
 pressure or apprehensio n of want, may tempt them, 
 in the_general state of our poor fallen nature, to lower 
 the gospel standard , and to rehu: its holy discipline, in 
 accommo datio n to the common frailt ies of those who , 
 hold over them, and over their wives and children , 
 a nd all most dear to them, the fearful power of feed - ) 
 ing or s tarving the m at discreti on. For the sober 
 truth is, that there is not a body of ministry in the 
 world more perfectly dependent on those whom they 
 serve than the Methodist itinerant ministry. In those 
 churches which have a lay representation, the pastors 
 make legal contracts with their people, and have legal 
 remedies to enforce their fulfillment. We make no 
 such contracts, and have no such remedies. In this, 
 our system is more Scriptural, and renders us more 
 
164 CUURCU GOVERNMENT. 
 
 ; dependent. It places us, in fact, not only from year 
 I to year, or from quarter to (puirter, but from week to 
 (week, within the reach of such a controlling check, on 
 the part of the people, as is possessed, we verily be- 
 lieve, by no other denomination whatever ; and which 
 is considered, both by them and by us, as a relinquish- 
 ment of what might be claimed, on our part, fully 
 j equivalent to the relinquishment, on their part, of a 
 [direct representation in our General Conferences." 
 
 2. Anoth er pow erful che ck is, t hat th e peop le, the m- 
 selves make all their preachers . No man becomes a 
 preacher in the Methodist Episcopal Church unless 
 he is first recommended by the society of which he is 
 a member, or the leaders' meeting. With this recom- 
 mendation he goes before the quarterly conference, 
 which is composed almost entu'ely of laymen, and 
 they license him. The preacher, presiding elder, or 
 bishop himself, cannot give this license ; he can only 
 tcrite it when the people thus order it. And if all the 
 bishops and preachers in the land should wish the 
 preacher thus licensed to become a member of the 
 conference, or traveling connection, he cannot, with- 
 out the permission of the laymen of the quarterly 
 conference. A candidate for license must then, first, 
 be recommended by a body of laymen; second, this 
 recommendation must be accepted by another body of 
 laymen ; third, liis license must be annually renewed 
 by laymen ; fourth, if he wishes ordination^ it must be 
 voted by laymen ; fifth, if he wishes admission to the 
 conference, he must be recommended by laymen. 
 
 A popular control of the ministry, equal to these 
 two examples, we know not elsewhere in the Christian 
 church. It might be abused to the great injury, or 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 165 
 
 even destruction, of the churcli ; but the interests of 
 the laity require its right use, just as the interests of 
 the clergy requu'e the right use of their powers ; and 
 it would be about as proper to provide laws against 
 such abuse as it would to provide laws to keep our 
 opponents from hanging themselves. Such powers 
 have, indeed, been abused, and men have also hung 
 themselves ; but the constitution of the human mind 
 is itself sufficient law agamst such liabilities. 
 
 In this sense it may be said that the Methodists 
 elect their pastors. The church in any given confer- 
 ence is a unit. The societies supply the preachers 
 for this general church, through the quarterly confer- 
 ence, with the understanding, that out of the body of 
 pastors thus provided by themselves, they are to have 
 a preacher who is to be appointed in such manner as 
 the best interests of the whole church demand. 
 
 To these remarks it may be objected, that the 
 preacher has the privilege of appointing some of 
 the officers o f the church, who, ex-officio, are mem- 
 bers of the quarter ly conference. 
 
 He nominates the stewards, but this can be no 
 material objection; for, as the quarterly conference 
 elects them, it can compel him to nominate such as are 
 satisfactory. But the leaders he appoints; and he 
 should do so for these good reasons : 1. Their work is -^ 
 entirely his ; it is pastoral labor. The labors of long 
 circuits would not at first allow the preacher to visit 
 much the members of the local appointments. Lead- 
 ers did, and still do, this work in another form. It is 
 a spiritual supervision of the church, rightfully per- 
 taining to the ministry ; but in this case delegated in 
 part to the leaders. The ministiy should certainly 
 
166 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Lave tlic power to choose their delegates to do their 
 own work. 2. "\Miat might be tlie results if the 
 
 ^ classes should choose their own leaders, as among the 
 seceders ? These classes are often composed of young 
 converts, and include all members, however excitable 
 or extravagant. The man who could be most ex- 
 travagant would, in many cases, be preferred; not 
 the aged and experienced, who could instruct and 
 build them up. 3. The process of electioneering, 
 
 ' through all the classes once a year, would produce 
 endless distractions and feuds; and, 4. Members of 
 
 ^ classes who should vote against their leader, would 
 ever feel uneasy under his guidance; his reproofs 
 would be construed into party prejudice, and his admo- 
 nitions be rejected. Better would it be to give up the 
 classes, than have them thus fountains of discord. But 
 though he appoints these officers, it is obvious that 
 every motive is in favor of the right use of this power, 
 and the preceding check applies here most effectually. 
 "These remarks [on the pecuniary check] apply 
 not only to the mode in which the preachers are ap- 
 pointed — on a principle of mutual sacrifice for the 
 general good, and one to wliich we believe our people 
 peculiarly attached, in support of an itinerant system 
 — but they apply with equal force to the whole of the 
 official conduct of each individual pastor ; and, above 
 all, in his appointment of class-leaders, of which so 
 much has been said. That the pastor, agreeably to 
 our Discipline, possesses the right, as a branch of his 
 pastoral oversight, to appoint whom he thinks best 
 qualified to aid liim, as leaders, and to continue to 
 change them, is not disputed. But it is equally cer- 
 tain, on the other hand, that the means of his support 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 167 
 
 are in the hands of the classes; and that the supply- 
 ing or withholdmg it, as they judge proper, is as indis- 
 putably their right. Were a preacher, therefore, 
 governed by no better principle than his own interest, -^ 
 he could not successfully resist the just wishes of the 
 classes by arbitrarily obtruding on them obnoxious 
 leaders. Suppose a preacher should even be so 
 stupid, or so wicked, as to attempt a course of tyran- 
 nical appointments. In the fii^ place, he may be 
 arrested at any period of the year, on application to a 
 bishop or presiding elder, and, if convicted, may be 
 removed, and degraded from the pastoral charge ; or, 
 secOTidly, supposing it even possible that redress from 
 these sources should be delayed or denied, is it not 
 plain that the classes have the means of redress in 
 their own hands? Suppose they should say to the 
 pastor — and in circumstances of such extremity they 
 would be justified in saying it — If you obstinately per- 
 sist in the vexatious exercise of an extreme power to 
 force on us obnoxious leaders, we will also exercise 
 our extreme power to withhold our contributions. 
 Where would be his empty boast ? Would he not be 
 paralyzed at once ? Who does not see, then, that on 
 our system, the true effective power is, in reality, in 
 the hands of the people; and more perfectly so, in 
 fact, than in almost any other denomination? It is 
 such a power that the preachers must be mad to pro- 
 voke its array against them, and more than men to 
 be able to resist it."— i)r. Emory. 
 
 These are some of the respective checks of preach- 
 ers and people on the necessary power which moves 
 the itinerancy, and of the latter, on the whole minis- 
 terial system. What sober man will say, in view of 
 
168 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 them, that any revolutionary outcry against the pro- 
 bable abuse of such a system, is not preposterous? 
 But there are others equally remarkable, and as they 
 are habitual, they may be considered common to 
 both. 
 
 1. The bishops who have this power itinerate 
 throughout the land, and are therefore cut off from 
 local or selfish partialities in making the appoint- 
 ments. They may be now in Illinois, and next season 
 in Maine, and are more than any other men " in la- 
 bors abundant." 
 
 2. They have no superior salaries above their bre- 
 thren of the ministry, and are considered to be of the 
 same ministerial order, having only a distinct office, 
 which itself is based on expediency, not on an alledged 
 apostolic succession. 
 
 3. They have no vote in any question to be decided 
 in General or Annual Conferences, not even in making 
 rules hy which they themselves are to he governed. 
 
 4. Their conduct, both private and official, is ex- 
 amined at every General Conference by a committee 
 of one from each annual conference. They are thus 
 virtually arraigned and examined every four years, 
 however pure their reputation. 
 
 5. Any person, lay or clerical, can appear before 
 this committee and accuse the bishop, and that, too, in 
 his absence, and without giving him any previous 
 notice. 
 
 6. A bishop may be arrested and expelled not only 
 for immoral, but for improper, conduct — a severity 
 used toward no other member of the church ; for " no 
 one but a bishop, not even a child or a slave, can be 
 expelled for the first improper act of that character.** 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 169 
 
 And an improper use of his powers comes under this 
 head. 
 
 7. If a bishop be expelled he has no appeal: a 
 i)rivilege enjoyed in any other department of the 
 church.* 
 
 If there is any oppression in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church it is on the bishops. No officer of any other 
 enlightened body on earth, civil or religious, is so 
 severely restrained; and it is indeed questionable 
 whether any man should expose himself to the lia- 
 bilities which may result from such peculiar restric- 
 tions. 
 
 It is obvious, from the foregoing pages, that the 
 change proposed by seceders in our economy is 
 scarcely more than a ^natter of form, so far as a lay 
 control of the church is concerned, while its difficulties 
 and results would be matters of serious reality. 
 
 We have been compelled, in these brief limits, to 
 present merely the skeleton of our arguments, but they 
 afford a comprehensive view of the system of Method- 
 ism ; and, now, how does it appear thus viewed ? and 
 how appear by the side of it those partial statements 
 of our opponents, which, in describing its ministerial 
 functions, so cautiously omit its powerful checks and 
 balances? What becomes of the slavery of the 
 preachers and people? Instead of servility, they 
 are presenting an instance of disinterested sacrifice 
 and labor which allies them to the Christians of the 
 first ages, and the results of which, on both sides of 
 the Atlantic, are exciting the interest of Christendom. 
 
 The complex, and yet harmonious, constitution of 
 
 * See Hedding on the Discipline for these and further par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 8 
 
170 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 the Methodist Church in the United States, would be 
 an interesting subject of further discussion had we 
 space. It is a powerful system of wh^ls within 
 wheels, but all revolving with the facility of a well- 
 made machine ; the power which propels it at one 
 extremity being balanced by appropriate checks at 
 the other. Our general conferences occumng once 
 in four years, the annual co nferences once a year, the 
 quarterly conferences once in three months, the lead - 
 ers* meetin gs once a month, the classes once a week, 
 form an admirable series of gradations, extending 
 from one week to four years, and covering all the 
 successive intervals. To these correspond, also, our 
 gradations of labor — bishops traversing the continent, 
 presidin < y elders traveling over extended districts, cir- 
 cuit preachers occupying less _exte nsi ve fields, assisted 
 by local preachers and exhorters ; and, finally, leaders 
 inspecting, weekly, divisions of the local societies. 
 ^ This system has worked well, the surest proof to 
 sensible men of its excellence. The objections to it 
 refer to hypothetical consequences. Its history re- 
 cords no serious abuse, no more serious defects than 
 such individual acts of administration as result from 
 the common imperfections of our nature, and are 
 liable to occur in the best legislatures and the purest 
 courts of justice. 
 
 (And now, if from the difference in their origin, na- 
 ture, and design, it is not necessary that religious poli- 
 - ties should be modeled on civil ones^if most secular 
 voluntary combinations are not so constructe^-^if no 
 3 : leading denomination in the land has so modeled its 
 jj systeni)-^if there is no liability in ours calling for such 
 4. a change)-^f such a change is perilous^if it is im- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 171 
 
 practicable)-^if the only object in ecclesiastical organi- 
 zations should be practical utility, guarded against 
 oppressive tendencies^-^nd if this system has excelled 
 all others in utility, and is thoroughly guarded against 
 such tendencies, and has never seriously developed 
 such tendencies, shall we not hesitate, nay, shall we 
 not shrink with most serious scrupulosity from any 
 innovation which, by changing its essential features, 
 may enervate its action and frustrate its providential 
 mission ? It is now under as salutary a popular con- 
 trol as any representative arrangement could be ; why, 
 then, sacrifice or risk its eflBciency; why throw into 
 rancorous tumult its community, as has repeatedly 
 been attempted, merely to put this sufficient control 
 in another form, having no other advantage than a 
 vaunted resemblance to a system which has an entirely^ 
 different nature and purpose ? And do not those, who, 
 by outcries of tyranny, and clamorous and unfounded 
 appeals to political sentiments, attempt to destroy this 
 system, and break up the churches which its friends, 
 through years of labor and toil, have founded, under- 
 take a work which good men should tremble to as- 
 sume? 
 
 It is this system of voluntary self-sacrifice and labor 
 that is denounced by our antagonists as " oppression 
 and vassalage." It needs only to be examined to be -^ 
 approved. Bj it, the gospel has kept pace with our 
 frontier settlements; by it, we have conveyed the 
 word of God into almost every nook and corner of 
 the land ; by it , we have gathered nearly one hundred 
 thousand African slaves into the church, and more of 
 the savages of the wilderness than aU other Christian 
 denominations put together; hj it, we have spread a 
 
172 cnuRcn government. 
 
 moral leaven throughout the whole practical class of 
 our population, and into some of the higher spheres 
 of society ; and in its communion are now imbodied a 
 million of our fellow-citizens, besides several millions 
 who attend its worship. Under the blessing of our 
 Lord, we have thus succeeded by our pecuhar system ; 
 and while he thus approves it, we may safely abide 
 under it, and commit to it our children. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO, AND DANGERS OF, THE ITINERANCY. 
 
 Unsuitable appointments — Less dangerous than with Congre- 
 gationalism — Dissatisfaction at the removal of successful pastors 
 — Itinerancy applicable to cities — Negotiations between preach- 
 ers and churches — Multiplication of small stations. 
 
 We have presented in the preceding pages a de- 
 fensive view of the general principles of our church 
 government. Of the constituent departments of the 
 system, and the functions which pertain to them, no 
 more has been said than is deemed essential for the 
 vindication of these general or fundamental principles. 
 Any further detail is rendered unnecessary, as the 
 book of Discipline is everywhere accessible, and a 
 minute description of the several functions of the 
 system must needs be but a copy of that volume. 
 
 There are, however, two very important features of 
 our economy which are liable to be impaired if not 
 mere seriously affected by somewhat prevalent opinions, 
 and to which we would, therefore, direct special at- 
 tention. 
 
 It is obvious from the preceding discussion that the 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 173 
 
 grand peculiarity of the Methodist ecclesiastical system 
 is the itinerancy of its ministry. This is the corner- 
 stone of the whole structure. How carefully, then, 
 should it be guarded against deterioration ! Bishops'] 
 Asbury and Coke, in their explanatory "Notes onl 
 Discipline," (Discipline, 1798, pp. 40-44,) say: " Our^ 
 grand-flan, in all its parts, leads to an itinerant minis-j 
 try. Our bishops are traveling bishops. All the dif-j 
 ferent orders which compose our conferences are em- 
 ployed in the traveling line ; and our local preachers, 
 are, in some degree, traveling preachers. Everything, 
 is kept moving as far as possible ; and we will be boldj 
 to say, that, next to the grace of God, there is nothing! 
 like this for keeping the whole body alive, from the 
 centre to the circumference, and for the continual ex;j 
 tension of that cii'cumference on every hand." We 
 need constantly to be reminded of its signal advan- 
 tages, and the comparative insignificance of its incon- 
 veniences, if we would keep ourselves from becoming 
 infected with the Congregational and more popular 
 views of other sects. 
 
 1. One of its alledged inconv eniences is, th e j/a- 
 hility of disappointment among the people, in respect 
 to a pasto r, who, in most cases, has been little, or not 
 at all, known to them, and in who se appointment they 
 have had little or no direct agency . It is not denied 
 that such disappointments do occur, and they probably 
 produce more prejudice than any other cause against 
 the itinerant system, and occasion the most perplexing 
 trials of the episcopacy. Yet, if there were no other 
 relieving fact, would not the extraordinary utility of 
 the system be a sufficient counterbalance to this inci- 
 dental evil ? Review the proofs of its utility given in 
 
174 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 the preceding pages, and answer. Though, therefore, 
 the evil is admitted, it is not admitted to be sufTiciently 
 serious to be contrasted for a moment with the unde- 
 niable excellences of the plan. It occurs but occa- 
 sionally. In most instances it is but pai'tial, affecting 
 "* a small minority. In many instances it is soon dissi- 
 f pated by a better acquaintance with the new pastor, 
 land, in not a few, it is converted into the warmest 
 [ interest for him, by unexpected results from his minis- 
 try, especia lly where he is an humble and devoted 
 laborer, and meekly bears the severe trial of his 
 , faith, to which such disaffection subjects him. Our 
 history is full of illustrative facts, so much so, that 
 they have come to be looked upon as providential 
 confirmations of the system. 
 
 But, ag^ain : w e cont end that such disappointments 
 are not peculia r to an itiner ant ministry. They are 
 -V quite as common among Congregationalists. Their 
 frequency in the latter case is notorious. We have 
 said, that in our own church they are limited generally 
 to a small minority ; and it may be affirmed that this 
 minority is usually no larger than can be found equally 
 dissatisfied in almost every Congregational Church at 
 the settlement of a new pastor. Let it not be said, 
 that the discontent cannot, in the latter case, be so 
 deep and dangerous as in the former, from the fact, 
 that the appointment is matter of popular choice, 
 though subjected to the control of the majority ; for 
 we reply, that the economy of our own church is a 
 matter of popular choice, though the ministerial ap- 
 pointments, for the sake of the itinerancy, are sub- 
 jected to the control of the episcopacy. The people 
 enter into this arrangement voluntarily; and they 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 175 
 
 prize the ititferancy so highly, that all the secessions 
 from the main bodies of the church, in both England 
 and America, have retained it tenaciously. K, there- 
 fore, the voluntary agreement, that the majority shall 
 rule, should pacify the discontent of the minority, it 
 should be equally quieted by the consideration that 
 the itinerant system, in our own church, has been 
 voluntarily adopted by all who enter our communion. 
 
 We go further, and assert that such dissatisfactions 
 are more liable to be violent and pernicious under 
 Congregationalism than under our itinerant regime, 
 for two reasons, — 
 
 First. The appointm ent in the former case being 
 subject immediately to the popular voice, is usually 
 the occasion of much previous discussion. Opinions 
 are compared and opposed; as a consequence, pas- 
 sions are often excited, parties formed, and, not unfre- 
 quently, churches rent.. If, at last, the minority sub- 
 mits, the ministrations of the opposed pastor can 
 scarcely be supposed to obtain from them a fair 
 appreciation ; his reproofs will hardly be received 
 aright ; his defects will be liable to uncharitable judg- 
 ment ; and his measures to vexatious quibblings. The 
 itinerant may, indeed, have some of these trials, but 
 not exasperated by previous and partisan excite- 
 ments. 
 
 Second ly. In_the_case of the_ latter, it is always 
 known that a change can be effected in the jcqurse^ of 
 a year, and doubtless much discontent is allayed by 
 this fact, whereas among our Congregational b rethren 
 no such regular and peaceful mode of remedying the 
 e vil exists ; but the dissatisfied party have a strong 
 inducement to continued and energetic opposition in 
 
176 cnuRCn government. 
 
 the consideration that if tlicy succumb, they either 
 must desert the church, or be indefinitely under a 
 ministry, which is not agreeable to their judgments or 
 inclinations, and that a change is only to be secured 
 by such agitations as may procure them a majority of 
 votes. 
 
 It is believed, therefore, that our system is not more, 
 if it is not less, embarrassed by the alledged evil than 
 Congi*egationalism itself. 
 
 2. A more prevalent complaint against the itineran- 
 cy is the contrary and popular objection that it removes 
 favorite as well as unpopular pastors . Tlie objection 
 arises from a generous, but fallacious feeling; one 
 which, however, has wrung many hearts with grief. 
 It is quite natural that a devoted people should be- 
 come attached to a faithful pastor ; and such a pastor 
 will generally have to sunder, at his departure, the 
 most precious ties — those which attach to him his own 
 spiritual children — the lambs whom he himself has 
 gathered into the fold. Difficult indeed must be such 
 a separation, and it is not surprising that the popular 
 feeling occasionally revolts at it. Let us, however, 
 bear in mind, that the very gi'ound of the attachment 
 is the reason of the change. K the faithful laborer 
 has been successful in his charge, surely every senti- 
 ment of Christian benevolence would dictate, that, after 
 having expended his efforts for two years on one field, 
 and made it blossom as the rose, his useful labors 
 should be transferred to a less-favored sphere. The 
 sacrifice then, however painful, is characterized by the 
 noblest generosity and disinterestedness. Let us ever 
 thus consider it, and its grief even will become pre- 
 cious and salutary. 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 177 
 
 Better is it by far, both for preaclier and people, 
 tbat tbeir relation should be changed early enough to 
 anticipate that declension of interest which, in a large 
 majority of cases, must occur after the freshness and 
 novelty of the first two years of pastoral intercourse. 
 Mr. Wesley considered that two years were enough to 
 exhaust both hia resources and his people's interest. 
 If our system, then, is a grievance to the affections of 
 the j)eople in some instances, it is, for the same reason, 
 the less liable to grieve their forbearance in others. 
 
 3. We have need, third ly, to guard against a dispo - 
 sition, occasionally shown in our denser communities, 
 to consider the itinerancy inapplicable t o large cities . 
 Its necessity may not appear so urgent in them as in 
 sparser communities, yet it is unquestionably highly 
 advantageous. Its moral benefits, enumerated in a 
 former part of this work, are as great in the city as in 
 the country, and perhaps much more needed. Its in-1 
 fluence on the spirit of the preacher ; its distribution of I 
 the variety of talents; its tendency to keep alive tliej 
 sentiment of unity and co-operation among us ; in fine,j 
 the whole moral energy of the system may find fullj 
 play in the range of the large city. Sad for our cause 
 is it that we have begun to think otherwise. Experi- 
 ment is the test of truth, and expei-iment has proved 
 the practicability and usefuhiess of an itinerant minis- 
 try in cities. Until this day, our Wesleyan brethren 
 maintain it steadfastly in all their city charges, as well 
 as their rural districts ; and we have successfully main- 
 tained it, so far as respects its annual or biennial 
 changes. 
 
 4. A fourth danger, against which we should be ad- 
 monished, the more emphatically because it is a grow- 
 
 8* 
 
178 cnuRcn government. 
 
 ing one, is the not uncommon habit of negotiating 
 appointments hcticccn pnachfn and people . Bishop 
 Asbury, who so rigorously maintained the integrity of 
 our economy, always contended for the right of the 
 people to represent to the appointing power their pas- 
 toral wants. It is equally just also that the preachers 
 should have a fair representation of their necessities, 
 so far as these can affect their appointments ; but the 
 church has provided, in the office of the presiding 
 elder, an adequate means of such representation. It 
 is his duty to survey the whole field of his district 
 quarterly, ascertaining the condition of its churches, 
 the character and qualifications of its laborers, and 
 preparing himself to represent them fully at the annual 
 conference. This practice of previous negotiation we 
 have no hesitancy in pronouncing an utter infraction 
 of our economy ; such a one as must prove ruinous to 
 it if generally adopted; and such as no high-minded 
 Methodist preacher, who has respect for his brethren 
 or himself, ought to admit. 
 
 I t is unjust and embarrassing to the appointing pow - 
 ers. They are bound to make such a distribution of 
 the ministry as the interests of the ^uJiole church, within 
 the limits of the conference, require ; but these nego- 
 tiations between individual churches and preachers 
 cannot possibly be founded on any such comprehensive 
 view of the common good. If the appointing powers 
 regard them, they must, in most instances, deviate from 
 the only correct principle of making the appointments, 
 and act contrary to their own convictions of what is 
 just. If they ^iisregard them, they expose themselves 
 to the resentment of both the disappointed preacher 
 and charge, impose the severest trials on the pastor 
 
CHUKCH GOVERNMENT. 179 
 
 who may be sent to the latter, and risk, perhaps, its 
 quiet and prosperity. What man, understanding the 
 peculiarity of our economy, and regarding the vows of 
 his ordination, can guiltlessly promote such confusion ? 
 
 It is unjust to all the other churches of the confer- 
 ence. They all have an equal claim on the fair distri- 
 bution of the abilities of the conference. If, however, 
 any previous local arrangements should put beyond their 
 constitutional command any portion of those abilities, 
 they are thus far wronged ; and it is obvious that, if 
 such pernicious deviations from the legal course are 
 persisted in, there is no protection for the injured 
 churches other than the adoption of the same course. 
 And who does not perceive, at a glance, that the result 
 must be an entire overthrow of the itinerant arrange- 
 ment? 
 
 Let us abandon, then, and frown down this unwar- 
 rantable conduct. Doubtless it may be natural enough, 
 and not particularly dangerous, for preachers and the 
 officers of churches to indulge in casual expressions of 
 their mutual predilections, or even to have more seri- 
 ous consultations about their future pastoral arrange- 
 ments ; but never should these measures partake of 
 the character of a negotiation, or extend any further 
 than a conditional agreement, left entirely to be deter- 
 mined by the wants of the whole church, as represented 
 to the appointing powers. And no genuine Methodist 
 preacher or layman, who has mind and heart enough 
 to appreciate the transcendent economy of his church, 
 will perceive in this requirement anything else than a 
 noble disinterestedness, worthy of good men and a good 
 cause. 
 
 5. Fifthly, let us resist the tendency, lately so com- 
 
180 cnuRcn government. 
 
 mon, to di vide circuit appoint ment s into small stations. 
 Most perjilexing evils arc already arising from this 
 policy. They are particularly felt by the episcopacy 
 in the arrangement of the annual appointments. 
 
 Many of these petty stations, especially in the east- 
 ern sections of our work, are too small to afford a com- 
 fortable subsistence to the preacher. Some of our 
 conferences are groaning under the intolerable conse- 
 quences, and yet proceed on inexorably in the very 
 policy which has brought this calamitous state of things 
 upon us — a policy which perplexes our annual appoint- 
 ments ; absorbs, by a large per cent., an undue number 
 of ministerial laborers ; keeps these laborers on a stint- 
 ed support, under which many of them are annually 
 sinking with discouragement ; supersedes, and has in- 
 deed nearly annihilated, in some places, the local min- 
 istiy ; is crippling many of our societies by prematurely 
 insulating them, and thus burdening them with the 
 expense of independent support when they are capable 
 only of a combined one ; — a policy which, in fine, is 
 adapted only to extinguish from our operations the 
 great moral energies of the itinerancy, and spread 
 through our work a sense of enfeeblement and dis- 
 couragement. 
 
 We hesitate not to express here to the church our 
 strong conviction, that its course, in this respect, is one 
 of the most ominous circumstances in its present his- 
 tory ; and that its future integrity and hope, as a pe- 
 culiar system of Christian labors, depend on an early 
 and determined resistance to the downward tendency. 
 
 Let us not be misunderstood. We do not insist that 
 the sections of our work thus afflicted should return to 
 the old system of long circuits, requiring four, six, or 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 181 
 
 eight weeks to compass them, nor to even such, how- 
 ever much smaller, as must require the use of horses ; 
 but we do say that there is no other alternative than 
 that many of our societies must sink, or, by a limited 
 circuit system, combine for mutual support. This com- 
 bination might be limited, in each instance, to but four 
 or five appointments. They may be all within a circle 
 of some five or ten miles radius, and thus have little 
 or no necessity for horses, but give healthful walks, 
 and a much more comfortable support to the preach- 
 ers, and relief from insupportable pressure to the feeble 
 appointments. 
 
 Our Wesleyan brethren in England present us with 
 the model. Such is the English estimation of the 
 moral advantages alone of the itinerancy, that though, 
 in their maturer field, the pecuniary expediency of it 
 scarcely exists, yet they retain the plan, as we have 
 said, in its full vigor. Even the rich and crowded 
 societies of Liverpool, London, Manchester, Birming- 
 ham, &c., are included in circuits, and the preachers 
 pass from one to the other by incessant changes. A 
 proposition to do away this arrangement would be con- 
 sidered a blow aimed at the foundation of the economy 
 of Wesleyan Methodism. Yet most of their circuits 
 do not require horses, or long absence of the preacher 
 from his local residence. The esprit du corps of the 
 ministry and people is kept alive by this course ; the 
 local ministry is called into co-operation with the itin- 
 erant, and a motive is thus given them to study and 
 improve ; new or feeble societies are easily supported, 
 by being attached to efiicient circuits ; the preachers, 
 without exception, get a good support, and a conscious- 
 ness of competency is diffused through the whole body. 
 
182 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 This is what we want. For example, it is often the 
 case that we have some four or more small appoint- 
 ments withm a few miles of each other, each having 
 its own preacher, but all so feeble that no one of their 
 pastors gets a competent support, and no one of the 
 appointments rises above pecuniary embarrassments. 
 Now, if these four societies were combined into a cir- 
 cuit, having three preachers instead of four, the three 
 preachers could (by the aid of a local preacher, who 
 would visit each appointment but once a month, or even 
 without such aid) supply each with about its present 
 amount of preaching, and thus save the present ex- 
 pense of the fourth preacher, to be distributed among 
 the three. We give this as a very moderate example. 
 In much of our territory the arrangement could be 
 more extensively applied. 
 
 Look, for a moment, at what would be some of its 
 advantages in the section of the country where it is 
 most needed. From the latest statistics we estimate 
 that there are at least five hundred and fifty societies 
 in the New-England conferences ; for safety, say five 
 hundred. Suppose, now, that the expense of one in 
 three of these societies could be saved as above, it 
 would give us the present expenditure of more than 
 one hundred and sixty-six societies thus redeemed. 
 If we take this expenditure at the small amount of one 
 hundred and fifty dollars per annum for each, it will 
 give us twenty -four thousand nine hundi'ed dollars ! 
 Nearly twenty-five thousand dollars now uselessly, nay, 
 we will venture to say, worse than uselessly expended, 
 would be saved, to be added to the support of our now 
 suffering ministry. We say this amount is now worse 
 than uselessly expended, for we verily believe that the 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 183 
 
 success of our preacliers on this itinerant arrangement, 
 and with the comfort of this better support, would be 
 greater than it is on the plan which now involves the 
 twenty-five thousand dollars of additional expenditure. 
 
 But this is not all. One quarterly conference would 
 suffice for each of these small circuits. The districts 
 could be vastly extended, and the burden of the pre- 
 siding elder's support be much relieved in each society. 
 Besides these pecuniary advantages, the consciousness 
 of inefficiency which results from our pecuniary em- 
 barrassments would pass away or be materially relieved, 
 the families of the preachers would be rendered com- 
 fortable, and the preachers themselves be saved from 
 many anxieties and cares which now interfere with 
 their usefulness. 
 
 It is an important question. How can such a reform 
 be effected ? It may be impracticable in respect to old 
 appointments, but a most effectual measure would be 
 for each conference to resolve to receive no new ap- 
 pointment but in connection with one or more old ones, 
 in the form of a circuit, unless it can guaranty an 
 ample support to the preacher. It is difficult, indeed, 
 to reclaim our old societies from their false position, 
 but the measure now recommended can he done. Let 
 the conferences firmly resolve it, as the only remedy 
 of the insupportable evils which are depressing portions 
 of our work, and instruct the presiding elders to regard 
 it as unchangeable as the laws of the Medes and Per- 
 sians. "We may gain fewer new societies than we now 
 do, but we will gain better ones ; and sooner or later 
 work ourselves, in part at least, out of the quagmire 
 of difficulties, " the slough of despond," into which the 
 wretched policy of multiplying petty, self-starving sta- 
 
184 cnuRcn government. 
 
 tions has led us. We soberly believe that we should 
 be much " better off," and do more real good, with but 
 three-fourths our present number of stations, vigorously 
 sustained, than we now can with the additional one- 
 fourth hanging as dead weights on our machinery, and 
 abstracting away the energies of the others. 
 
 If this suggestion were alone adopted, it would pui 
 a stop at once to the growth of the evil. Our present 
 feeble societies, or many of them, if not all, could, m 
 the course of years, work their way up to a position of 
 competency ; and if no more incompetent ones are add- 
 ed, we may some time or other, however distant, rise 
 above our present embarrassments. Our Wesleyan 
 brethren adopted, long ago, this policy, and they owe 
 to it much of their present efficiency. 
 
 What is our present course ? It is about this. A 
 preacher occasionally visits a neighboring village, and 
 is instrumental in the conversion of a few individuals, 
 or the outer scintillations of a revival reach the place, 
 or perhaps a few members remove to it. A class is 
 formed. The pastor supplies them occasionally with 
 preaching. A few of their neighbors unite with them, 
 and a hall or school-house is procured, at an annual 
 expense, for meetings. The neighboring stationed 
 preachers and local preachers ai'e called upon to sup- 
 ply them till conference. As the conference approaches 
 they grow sanguine. They count their friends in the 
 little community, project a chapel to be built in the 
 course of a year or so, and straightway ask the presid- 
 ing elder for a preacher from the next conference! 
 The elder, backed by no such rule of conference as 
 we have recommended, must either concur, or for- 
 feit their favor. The preacher arrives. He finds 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 185 
 
 some twenty or thirty members, probably. He is 
 placed, with his young wife, recently, it may be, from 
 her comfortable, parental home, in a couple of cham- 
 bers. A few dollars come in quarterly, upon which 
 they make out to subsist — to "scrape along," as the 
 saying is. Perhaps some interest takes place in the 
 congregation — some souls are converted. The excite- 
 ment brings in, for a time, a larger congregation than 
 usual. And now some warm-hearted brother recalls 
 the projected chapel. All are sanguine. The lot is 
 purchased, and the building rises, is finished, and dedi- 
 cated with singing and shouting. But what next? 
 Why, a large debt, eating away its very foundations ; 
 calls, incessant calls for money ; the congregation dis- 
 couraged, and falling away ; the preacher is sent begging 
 among the other churches, most of them groaning un- 
 der the same failures, and appears at the next confer- 
 ence, worn with care, and it may be something worse, 
 imploring a removal to an appointment where his suf- 
 fering family can find relief. 
 
 Sheer absurdity, this ! How could such a handful 
 of poor brethren, however zealous, support a preacher, 
 pay the presiding elder, build a church, and gather a 
 congregation, amidst the competition and contingencies 
 of these times ! How much better for the ministry, 
 and for themselves, if they could be attached to some 
 neighboring station, contributing to it their proportion 
 of support, and receiving from its regular pastor occa- 
 sional preaching, and at other times the labors of a 
 local preacher, till time and growth should enable them 
 to stand alone vigorously and respectably ! 
 
 The arrangement we recommend would tend to 
 preserve the sentiment of unity among the societies. 
 
186 cnuRCn government. 
 
 By assembling together, and doing their respective 
 business as a common rcsponsibihty, their several in- 
 terests as societies become identified, in their sympa- 
 thies, at least ; and that pure old homebred feeling which 
 once made Mctliodists regard all their churches as but 
 one family is brought again into play. This common 
 sympathy is worth much. It is a most precious ele- 
 ment in the public sentiment of any organization, and 
 it is not without its practical advantages in the mutual 
 encouragement and mutual aid which it often j^rompts. 
 
 This combination of appointments brings together a 
 greater amount of experience and wisdom than can be 
 usually assembled in the quarterly conference of a sin- 
 gle appomtment. Two good old maxims say, that in 
 "•union there is strength," and "in the multitude of 
 counselors there is wisdom." Often the local affairs 
 of a society become perplexed by misunderstandings 
 and parties among its members. These influences go 
 into the quarterly conferences, and may defy all sober 
 or impartial proceedings. How much safer would it 
 be, in such instances, to combine with neighboring 
 and disinterested charges, the cooler and unbiased 
 judgment of which might control such party aberra- 
 tion ! 
 
 This advantage would especially be found in cases 
 of trial. It sometimes happens that local excitement 
 against a defendant renders an impartial trial almost 
 impracticable, even when appealed to the quarterly 
 conference ; and doubtless many a good man has gone 
 to his grave, feeling, through his whole life, the cruel 
 injustice of such partial proceedings. On the present 
 plan such cases are, to a considerable extent, put be- 
 yond local prejudices, by being subject to the examin- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 187 
 
 ation and decision of all the societies united in the 
 quarterly conference. 
 
 This arrangement, then, has its advantages as well 
 as disadvantages. By reviving the sentiment of our 
 mutual relations, it will tend to fit us for more thorough 
 co-operation in all our common interests. Its incon- 
 veniences we do not consider serious. It is sometimes 
 asked, what interest the representatives of the different 
 societies can have in each other's separate business? 
 "WHiat Methodist can hear such a question without af- 
 fliction and mortification ? We never hear it without 
 recalling those good days of the universal trial and uni- 
 versal triumph of Methodism, when no parish limits, 
 no circuit bounds, no district, or even conference lines, 
 were sufficient to demark the common feeling of suffer- 
 ing, and yet of exulting victory, which characterized 
 the connection. Away with the petty locahsms of 
 these times ! Let us feel that we are one in the Lord ; 
 that our great work is not to rear up local temples, 
 which, like the shell of the oyster, are to incrust and 
 bind within their limits our whole ecclesiastical being, 
 but that it is to spread holiness over the land and the 
 world ; and that every local pulsation is but the beat- 
 ing of the great common heart. Let the afflictions of 
 our brethren everywhere be considered our afflictions, 
 and their success ours. 
 
188 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 IMPORTANCE OP THE PRESIDING ELDERSHIP. 
 
 It represents the unity of our societies — Combines many effec- 
 tive means of usefulness — Necessary to the annual arrangement 
 of the appointments — Cannot be superseded by bishops or dis- 
 trict chairman. 
 
 One of the most important offices of our economy 
 is that of the presiding elder. We have no hesitancy 
 |in saying that no other function of the system — not 
 \excepting the episcopacy itself — is capable of greater 
 i usefulness, or could not be sacrificed with less peril. 
 *The episcopacy could not possibly proceed without it ; 
 but the presiding eldership might possibly operate the 
 system without the episcopacy, though with clumsy 
 inefficiency — the episcopacy exerts great and salutary 
 influence through the church by its itinerant preaching 
 and counsels ; but the influence of the presiding elder- 
 ship is on a scale more effi^ctive, because more syste- 
 matic. Yet is there a disposition often shown to 
 question its utility. Such misgivings must be con- 
 fined, however, to those who have not examined its 
 important relations to the whole economy of the 
 church. 
 
 Let us notice some of them. 
 
 1. It is imp ortant as a representative of the nnity of 
 our work — no unimportant advantage in these days, 
 when our appointments are becoming so much insu- 
 lated from each other, and individualized in their 
 spirit. The presiding elder is still a link of relation- 
 ship between them. He belongs to them all through- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 189 
 
 out his district ; and his incessant journeys from one 
 to another keeps alive the sense of a common interest 
 and a common sympathy. We have repeatedly re- 
 ferred to the value of this sentiment j should it ever 
 be extinguished, we shall learn its importance. 
 
 2. The presiding eldersh i p is a comUnation of th e 
 most effective offcial functions. Its incumbent is a 
 traveling evangelist, and travels on the largest definite 
 scale. His preaching among the churches of his dis- 
 trict is not casual, or by sufferance, but regular and 
 authoritative, an official duty. What, now, we ask, 
 might not be the achievements of a mighty man of 
 God in such a sphere? How might he go from 
 church to church sounding the evangelic trumpet, 
 advocating the great interests of the age, and lead- 
 ing on the subordinate ministry from, victory to 
 victory ! Assuredly, if such a function is not use- [/ 
 ful, the fault must be more in the officer than in II 
 the office. 
 
 Further : he has official oversight " of all the elders 
 and deacons, traveling and local preachers, and ex- 
 horters" on his district, to give them counsel respect- 
 ing their ministerial conduct, direct their studies and 
 labors, reprove their faults, and adjust their differ- 
 ences. Assuredly, a man of capacity and energy may 
 find here an enviable field of usefulness ; his district 
 may be a line of battle, whose whole movement is at 
 his command. How many recruits may he rally into 
 the ministerial corps ! how may he impress the apos- 
 tolic character on the youthful evangelists under his 
 guidance! how cheer them in the hour of despond- 
 ence, inspirit them in the day of declension or indo- 
 lence, and guard them in the time of excitement and 
 
190 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 revival ! Such an ofTice might certainly befit an 
 apostle. 
 
 Again : he haB charge of the ad mini stration of dis - 
 cipline throiTp;hout his district. He is "to take care 
 that every part of our discipline be enforced." He 
 is to preside at the trials of local preachers, and in the 
 court of appeals. His office supposes him thoroughly 
 acquainted with the discipline of the church ; many of 
 the preachers on stations and circuits may, from their 
 youth or habits, be deficient in this importimt know- 
 ledge. A defect in the administration of discipline, 
 especially in cases of trial or dispute among brethren, 
 may devastate a whole church. How important, then, 
 is that office which extends its supervision over all 
 such cases, which presents at the altar of every 
 church, in cases of exigency, the mature experience 
 and skill of sanctified age, to advise and moderate 
 parties, or, if need be, adjudicate their appeals ! How 
 much discord and ruin may it not prevent ! 
 
 " By keeping," says a venerable authority, "a watch- 
 ful eye over all the traveling and local preachers in 
 the district, administering advice and admonition as 
 occasion may require, a presiding elder may restrain 
 irregularities in their early stages; correct small 
 offenses before they ripen into evils which would dis- 
 grace the church, and injure the cause ; and thereby 
 prevent many of the charges and trials which otherwise 
 would fall upon individuals to their injury, if not their 
 ultimate ruin." — Hedding on Discipline, pp. 30, 31. 
 
 But still furt her : he presides in the quarterly con - 
 feren ces, and thus has a perio dical examination of all 
 the financial and other interests of the charge . Its 
 official management, its fiscal difficulties, its pastor, 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 191 
 
 local preachers, extorters, class-leaders, and stewards, 
 its past success, and its means for the future, all come 
 under his review and influence on these occasions. 
 Not only at these regular periods, but at all times and 
 places on his district, can he officially interpose for 
 the welfare of the church. Does a difficulty arisen 
 between the preacher and people? The presiding 
 elder steps in to remove it. Does a schism occur,/ 
 threatening the quiet or the existence of the church ? 
 He is the official mediator between the parties. Does -- 
 the pastor fail in health or apostatize ? He provides 
 a substitute. Does a difficult case of discipline occur? ' 
 He comes as adviser or judge of appeals. Is a new < 
 church projected ? He counsels in regard to its exe- 
 cution, its deed, and its means. Do young men of ^ 
 talent appear to be called to the ministry of the word? 
 He examines them, directs their preparation, and as- 
 signs them fields. Is not this a sphere for the largest "*- 
 ability and usefulness? And when it is considered 
 that a great proportion of our ministry is composed of 
 young men, and that it receives little, if any, training 
 before the period of actual service, such an official 
 oversight becomes doubly important. 
 
 3. The pres iding eldershjp is a necessary auxiliary 
 to the episcopacy in making the annual ap p ointm ents. 
 This is its highest necessity . We have shown the 
 impossibility of a successful itinerancy based on annual 
 negotiations between preachers and people, and its 
 equal impossibility in the hands of a committee of 
 both. A committee specially devoted to the inspec- 
 tion of the ministry and the churches, traveling among 
 them to ascertain their capabilities and necessities, is 
 the only secure mode of managing this critical ma- 
 
192 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 chinery. Such a committee are our bishops and pre- 
 
 i siding ciders. The people, e specitdl j, should uphold 
 the offic e as essential to their intere s ts in the arrangc - 
 \ment of the appoi ntmen ts. How could the bishops 
 possibly make these appointments with proper dis- 
 crimination, unaided by such helps ? The former are 
 few in number, and travel through the whole nation ; 
 how can they know the qualifications of all the 
 preachers, the cu*cumstances of their famiUes, and 
 the wants of all the churches ? 
 
 Would you supersede the presiding elder by mult i- 
 plying the bishops? In order to do it adequately, 
 you must have about as many of the latter as of the 
 former ; and, therefore, as much, if not more, expense 
 than you now have. What advantage, then, could 
 there be in the change ? It would be about as well 
 to change merely the name of the presiding elders, 
 and call them bishops. 
 
 It h as been suggested that this ofTicc might be 
 superseded by that of *"• district chai rman. " AYe need 
 only give, in reply, the opinion of a good judge. 
 B ishop Hedding rem arks : " An opinion has been 
 frequently offered, of late, that the office of presiding 
 elder might be dispensed with ; or that we might pro- 
 fitably substitute for it that of ' chairman of the dis- 
 trict,' who should also be preacher in charge in a 
 circuit or station. But this change would be liable 
 to many objections and difficulties. In most parts of 
 the work, the whole time of the presiding elder is 
 needed to perform the duties required of him. And 
 where a district consists mostly of stations, there is 
 need of a presiding elder being present with the 
 preachers and people more of the time than a stationed 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 193 
 
 preacher possibly could be, to enable him Ho set in 
 order the things that are wanting,' and to prepare him 
 to give such representations of the wants of the people, 
 and of the gifts and qualifications of the preachers, as 
 are absolutely necessary at the conference to enable 
 those who fix the appointments of the preachers to 
 perform that difficult part of our work as it should be 
 done. But one says, 'Make the districts ^smaller,* 
 Then more 'chairmen' would be necessary; and, 
 upon the whole, as much time, traveling, and expense 
 required as are necessary under the present system ; 
 for the district would have to pay the 'chairman' 
 proportionally for the time he employs in the district, 
 as well as for his traveling expenses. Besides, such 
 a station as would be suitable for a ' chairman,' would 
 require all his time and labor, and, between the two 
 charges, he would be liable, in part at least, to neglect 
 both. Finally, I have seen that mode tried in several 
 instances, and I never knew it work well. The peo- 
 ple in the station would say, ' Half the service of a 
 preacher is not sufficient for us ;' and the district would 
 reply, 'Half the service of a presiding elder is not 
 sufficient for us.' " — Hedding on Disciplinej p. 37. 
 
 Let us guard, then, against innovation in so import- 
 ant a part of our machinery. If the time may come 
 when circumstances will admit its modification, most 
 clearly that time has not yet arrived. 
 9 
 
194 CnURCU GOVERNMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 METHODISM A SPECIAL SYSTEM. 
 
 Special in its origin — In its agents — In its measures — In its 
 spirit — Practical importance of this view of it. 
 
 It is important to our continued prosperity that we 
 bear in mind the special charaoter of our mission as a 
 Christian sect. Our system is an onerous one, and 
 can be borne only from this conviction. 
 
 Methodism is a special system, and every Methodist 
 ought to he a special Christian. Its whole history 
 and character are impressed with the marks of a 
 special design. It originated at a special time, a 
 period in which Dr. Watts declared that "religion 
 was dying in the world;" and when Butler assures 
 us that Christianity was " treated as if it had at length 5 
 been discovered to be fictitious." « Just at the time," | 
 says Wesley, " when we wanted little of filling up the ) 
 measure of our iniquities, did two or three clergymen ) 
 of the Church of England begin vehemently to call] 
 sinners to repentance." Few periods in the history] 
 of the English Church were darker. Natural religion 
 had become the substance of preaching; Arianism 
 and Socinianism, under the influence of such men as 
 Priestley, Whiston, and Dr. S. Clark, were current 
 among the learned ; the most giant advocates of skep- 
 ticism England has produced — Hobbes, Bolingbroke, 
 Hume, and Gibbon — were appearing, or had just 
 appeared, in the conflict with Christianity; while, 
 across the channel, the strongholds of the Reforma- 
 tion were yielding to a Deistical theology; and the 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 195 
 
 French philosophers were spreading moral contagiont 
 through Europe. At this dark period did God raise; 
 up Wesley, Whiteiield, and their co-laborers, and[ 
 thrust them out, to revive the elementary doctrines i 
 of Christianity, and exemplify again the apostolic} 
 spu'it and labors. 
 
 Not only did^itaris^ oio. special time^_ but the men 
 who '^^iZ2!^^l!^i4.'^iJi^^^^^£^^^LP^.^i We feel that we 
 do not hazard much when we say that, in the group 
 of its earliest characters, we meet with some who 
 were the most remarkable in their respective spheres 
 that have appeared since the foundation of Christian- 
 ity — Wesley , one of the g^ reatest of ecclesj asticaljegis- 
 lators ; Whitefield, the most esitraordinary pulpit 
 orator; Charles Wesley, the best. of sacred poets; 
 Fletcher, one of the most^^rofoundhQolemi^ ; Coke, 
 the greatest leader jof modern Asbury, the 
 
 most laborious of bishops ; and two commentators^ 
 Clarke and Benson, one among the most learned, and 
 the other among the best of j)ractical expositors. 
 Who can doubt the evidence of divine Providence 
 displayed in the co-existence and co-operation of 
 these remarkable men ? While Wesley was employ-] 
 ing his wonderful powers in constructing and esta-{ 
 blishing the economy of Methodism, Whitefield wasl^ 
 rousing for it the popular sympathies by his eloquence, \ 
 and preparing especially other sects for the influence / 
 which time has shown it was destined to exert upon | 
 them ; Charles Wesley was imbodying its tenets and j 
 spirit in verse, and preparing for its future hundreds { 
 of thousands an unrivaled psalmody ; Fletcher was | 
 defending, with a battle-ax, which nothing could with- ( 
 stand, its theology, and vindicating it as much by his ! 
 
106 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 'spirit as his logic ; Coke was developing its plans of 
 foreign conquest ; Asbuiy, the great pioneer of Ame- 
 rican revivals, was applying its energies to the new 
 circumstances of this hemisphere ; and Benson and 
 
 i Clarke followed, fortifying it firmly on the foundation 
 of the Scriptures. These were the leaders ; but the 
 subordinate instruments were likewise marked by 
 strong cliaractei-i,^tic.-, di-^tinguishing them as the men 
 raised up by Gk)d for an extraordinary purpose. 
 
 The mmsures of Methodism bear the same special 
 chamcter. Dr. Chalmers has characterized it as 
 " Christianity in earnest." Effect, and immediate 
 h effect, is its uniform intent. "Wesley and his coad- 
 jutors preached the common doctrines of the gospel, 
 but distinguished them more_clearly, and emphasized 
 them more strqn^y, than others ; insomuch that they 
 struck the public attention as new truths. They were 
 not content with the limits of church edifices, but be- 
 took themselves to the open air. Stationary labors 
 would not satisfy their zeal; but they went up and 
 down the land preaching by night and by day ; they 
 " ran to and fro, and knowledge increased." Method- 
 ism could not delay its great designs by waiting for a 
 ministry qualified by the old course of preparatoiy 
 education, but revived the apostolic example of a lay 
 ministry. It could not allow these the limited labors 
 of a single charge ; but, hastening them from place to 
 place, it revived the means by which the apostolic 
 ministry conquered the world — an itinerant ministry, 
 Not content with its itinerant laborers, it called into 
 use its less available energies, by establishing the new 
 departments of local preachers, exhorters, and leaders. 
 While it retained the more formal means of grace, it 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 197 
 
 either introduced or adopted the class-meeting, the 
 hand-meeting, the prayer-meeting, the camp-meeting, 
 the love-feast, and the ivatch-night. Thus it studied 
 to apply every energy, and to apply it in the most 
 productive manner. The effective system of American 
 Methodism exemplifies well this, its practical energy. 
 It is a vast and powerful machinery. Our general 
 conferences, annual conferences, quarterly conferences, 
 leaders'-meetings, and class-meetings; our gradations 
 of labor — bishops, presiding elders, circuit preachers, 
 exhorters, and leaders — form a series of instrumen- 
 talities unequaled in the economy of any other Pro- 
 testant denomination. 
 
 Not only has it been thus special in the circum- 
 stances of its origin, in its characters and measures, 
 but also in its spirit. 'V\Tiat candid observer, however 
 he may question some of its peculiarities, will deny 
 that a more than common share of the divine influence 
 has been vouchsafed to it, and that its system has been 
 extraordinarily productive ? "We assert it, not boast- 
 fully, though gratefully ; and, as an unquestionable fact 
 of its history — a fact which ought to be particularly 
 regarded, if we would appreciate the system and 
 mission which God has appointed us. How is it 
 otherwise that such general and constant revivals 
 have prevailed under it; that so many thousands 
 have been rescued by it from the lowest conditions 
 of vice; that such multitudes have passed from 
 within its pale joyfully to the church triumphant; 
 and that a number, exceeding by one-third the next 
 largest sect in the land, are still marching under 
 its banners to the same heavenly Jerusalem? — 
 This special success is the result of a special 
 
198 cnuRcn government. 
 
 energy; and all men, -vvhosc eyes are open, be- 
 hold it. 
 
 Mctliod]sm_i^ essentially vital and op erative : it 
 must ever be so : it is an absolute necessity of its 
 system. And herein we observe a peculiarity which 
 ought to strike most impressively its friends, as guar- 
 antying, with the divine blessing, its perpetual in- 
 tegrity and prevalence. ^^1. other sectariari.Jbrms^ 
 Christi9JiityJbave_declni§d. Congregationalism, with 
 its simple rites, became a lifeless system of reli- 
 gious common-places. Protestant Episcopalianism 
 degenerated into a spiritless ritual. All the dis- 
 tinctive and essential traits of each have co-existed 
 with a general absence of vital religion. The state 
 of the English Church when Methodism began was 
 an example of the latter ; the state of the New-Eng- 
 land church before Edwards, of the former. B^jijve 
 can hardly conceive pf Methodism In pucli a state. 
 While these sects have lost their vitality, Avithout 
 losing any of their distinctive traits, Methodism abso- 
 lutely cannot tints decline zvithout the extinction of all 
 that is distinctively Methodistic in its system. It seems 
 in this view a final form of Christianity — a millennial 
 system. How can we conceive of a lifeless laity im- ^ 
 [bodied in classes, and meeting weekly to converse of 
 \ Christian experience ? Or of a dead ministry leading Jr 
 •the pilgrim life of itinerants? Or of such a laity 
 hearing, and such a ministry preaching, the distinctive ^^ 
 doctrines of Methodism — distinguishable conversion, 
 ^the loitness of the Spirit, and Christian perfection ? 
 Herein, then, is Metliodism unique : it cannot, like 
 other sects, decline seriously, and retain its distinctive 
 character : it can only fall by a revolution of its whole 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 199 
 
 practical system : it must lose its identity, and be no 
 longer Methodism. We do not assert its infallibility, 
 but its singular security. It may experience such a 
 revolution; but the impediments and the improba- 
 bilities are extraordinary. 
 
 In aU these respects Methodism is marked with a 
 special character and a special purpose. Wesley said 
 that its purpose was to "spread holiness over the 
 land ;" but it is greater ; it is to " spread holiness over 
 the world." It was raised up not merely to resuscitate 
 the English Church, but to affect all Protestant Chris- 
 tendom, either by its direct influence or by its example. 
 It is a missionary church in its plans, a revival church 
 in its spirit; and such it promises to be until the 
 world is redeemed, if we but preserve its peculiarities. 
 
 We repeat, it is important that we bear in mind 
 this special character of our cause. 
 
 First, the ide a of our special charac ter will lead us 
 to hear patiently the special i nconveniences of our sys - 
 tem. The greatest of these, to both people and preach- 
 ers, arise from our itinerancy ; and one of the most 
 serious objections under which our polity suffers is 
 brought against the appointing poiver, upon which the 
 itinerancy is based ; yet this itinerancy, with its epis- 
 copal basis, is the most indispensable feature of our 
 economy. Abolish it, and you cut the locks from your 
 young giant. Besides its moral effect upon the minis- 
 try, by reminding them that here they have no abiding 
 city ; and upon the people, by the constant distribution 
 of our various talents; it is necessary to the support of 
 a large portion of our appointments. Many of these 
 do not afford a full support to the preacher, and thus 
 it must be while there is a frontier to our work ; and 
 
200 CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 such a frontier there must be till the world is evange- 
 lized. Some of them require actual suffering. Me- 
 thodist preachers are of like passions with other men. 
 They know it, and therefore have they adopted a sys- 
 tem which, by its authoritativeness, will not allow of 
 the indulgences and evasions of selfishness, and, by the 
 frequent changes which it effects, distributes and re- 
 lieves the inconveniences which it imposes. What 
 would become of these indigent appointments if the 
 appointing power were vested in the whole conference, 
 or a committee of its appointment, subject to an appeal 
 to the conference? AYlio would appoint himself to 
 such posts? Who would not feel disposed to escape, 
 by all possible means, the embarrassments and suffer- 
 ings which most of our preachers now endure ? Some 
 there might be, who, brave of heart, would court perils, 
 and exult in the brunt of the battle ; but many, without 
 doubt, would seek the securer posts. We have ex- 
 pressed the conviction that one-third of all our appoint- 
 ments would be left unsupplied in a few years after 
 such a revolution in our ecclesiastical polity. We do 
 not depreciate our preachers by this remark. It is 
 based on a correct knowledge of human nature — all 
 w^ho understand human nature will accede to it. Their 
 work is militant. Like men in battle, they know they 
 must suffer — must stand amidst mortifications and per- 
 ils which are rarely matters of voluntary choice ; and 
 therefore, like soldiers in the emergencies of war, they 
 pledge themselves to obey their leaders ; but those 
 leaders are of their own constitution, and the measure 
 of obedience is of their own devising. Selecting the 
 fathers of the ministry for their superintendents, they 
 say unto them, " Here we have no abiding city," and, 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 201 
 
 "though bonds and afflictions await us, yet none of 
 these things move us ; neither count we our lives deai- 
 unto us, so that we might finish our course with joy, 
 and the ministry Avhich we have received of the Lord 
 Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God :" point 
 us, therefore, to the positions most suitable for us. Let 
 them be easy or perilous, secure or dangerous, " here 
 are we, send us." This is the language of a genuine 
 Methodist preacher; and this is not the language of 
 servility, but of a heroic spirit of self-sacrifice, produced, 
 under God, by that truly militant system which some, 
 indisposed to its labors or impatient of its authority, 
 would abolish. Let it be abolished, and the permanent 
 triumphs of Methodism cease — our ministry wiU be- 
 come like other ministries. What other preachers go, 
 or would go, where Methodist preachers go? With 
 all their poverty and illiteracy, are they not the front 
 Hne of the American ministry on the borders of civil- 
 ization? and do they not, in our older communities, 
 perform labors and sustain burdens which few, if any, 
 of the clergy of other sects do ? And how, but by the 
 peculiarity of their system? Let it not be objected 
 that the English Methodist preachers are subject to no 
 such absolute control. If it were true, yet there is no 
 analogy between the cases. There is no English 
 preacher who does not get a comfortable support, either 
 from his people or the funds of the conference. The 
 EngUsh Conference receives no appointment except as 
 a mission, unless it can support a preacher. The most 
 essential differences between the ecclesiastical organ- 
 ization of the Wesley ans and ourselves are : 1. That 
 the highest officer of the former is elected annually, 
 while those of the latter are perpetual. Mr. Newfon 
 9* 
 
202 CUURCU GOVERNMENT. 
 
 remarked, on tliis subject, at our General Conference, 
 that their "president never dies." If the officer is 
 clianged, yet the office is perpetual ; and he, as well as 
 Dr. Fisk, lias testified that the power of the Wcsleyan 
 l)resident is greater than that of the American bishop. 
 2. The appointments of the English preachers are made 
 by a committee. This is virtually the case in the 
 American church, the presiding elders being, to all in- 
 tents and purposes, such a committee, in conjunction 
 with the bishop. And, for our own part, we would 
 rather have such a committee, composed of men who, 
 from their official position, can have a knowledge of 
 the general demands of the work, and are not liable to 
 the interferences of personal interest, than one com- 
 posed of men who have a common place with ourselves 
 in tlie list of appointments. The English preachers 
 were subject to an individual and absolute appointing 
 power until about the time in which their fiscal system 
 allowed of a modification ; and the appointments of its 
 committee are generally *as inexorable as those of our 
 committee of presiding elders and bishops. Indeed, a 
 large majority of Wesleyan preachers have no voice 
 whatever in the proceedings of their conference. But 
 one hundred can act at all., as instituted by Wesley. 
 
 We believe Methodist preachers are almost univer- 
 sally and immovably attached to their present govern- 
 ment. A few aspiring or disappointed spirits may 
 )-evolt; a few more of better integrity may, for want 
 of a close investigation of its advantages, wish for a 
 change ; but the latter generally come out right in the 
 end ; and the foi-mer have never permanently injured 
 us, and have never been succeeded by the providence 
 of God. Meanwhile Methodism has advanced in tri- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 203 
 
 umph. Tens of thousands have flocked to her ranks 
 almost yearly, hundreds of thousands have gone up to 
 heaven from her pale, and hundreds of thousands are 
 on their way. They have been opposed at each step 
 of their advancement, but they have pressed onward. 
 In the village and in the city ; in the wigwam of the 
 savage and the hut of the slave ; on the shores of the 
 Puritans and on the banks of the Columbia; amidst 
 the colds of Canada and the savannas of Texas, the 
 preachers of this " despotic " system are suffering and 
 triumphing. On them and on their fields God has 
 deigned the greatest outpourings of his Spirit in modern 
 times ; and there is but one prospect before them if 
 they will preserve, unimpaired by innovation, their 
 economy and doctrines, and that is, universal progress. 
 Second, it will explain t he indisposition of the church 
 to change its polity, by conforming it to the notions of 
 those who c lamor for what they call a republican 
 church. There are theocratic traits of the Christian 
 church which will not allow fully of such a character. 
 The most ostensible department of the church — the 
 ministry — is not representative. It cannot be created, 
 though it should be sanctioned, by the people. God 
 alone, by the election of his Spirit, can appoint men to 
 preach ; and such as he calls are the divinely author- 
 ized expositors of his truth, and administrators of evan- 
 gelical ordinances and discipline. The question of 
 religious liberty pertains not so much to the church as 
 to the state. Where the civil government imposes no 
 religious system, the rights of conscience are guaran- 
 tied. Under its broad shelter men may properly form 
 the most rigorous religious combinations, provided they 
 can enter into and retire from them voluntarily. 
 
204 CHURCH GOVEKNMENT. 
 
 The appointing power of the Methodist episcopacy 
 we have shown to be one of the most essential features 
 of our pohty. When it is abolislietl, our itinerancy 
 will become a nulhty. And yet this is the peculiarity 
 of our system which is most abhorred by " reformers," 
 so called. And why this hostility to it? Is not its 
 chief pressure on the ministry ? and is it not a creation 
 of the ministry itself? Our bishops do not usurp this 
 high prerogative ; but the ministry itself, as we have 
 shown, maintains ity and appoints the bishops to bear it. 
 The ministry can repeal it if it pleases. AVhy, then, this 
 outcry against an authority which is voluntarily sus- 
 tained by those who suffer its chief inconveniences ? Is 
 it said that " such a prerogative involves undue power ? 
 it is inconsistent with the republican principles of the 
 country ?" &c. We have shown that it is not more so than 
 some usages which the civil policy of our country cre- 
 ates and sanctions. The Methodist community are as 
 true to their country as any other sect ; but they have 
 found their religious economy peculiarly successful; 
 it was not devised, but grew up providentially; and, 
 being assured of the protection of their individual rights 
 by the civil law, they have not deemed it wise to risk 
 its efficiency by attempting to adjust it to the relative 
 rights of its different subjects, but consent to a mutual 
 sacrifice for the common good. Their only object be- 
 ing " the spread of holiness," their only inquiry is. How 
 shall we most effectually accomplish it ? 
 
 Third, the inf luence of thisjim/Ie im pression will he 
 powerful. Let it be the universal idea of the church 
 tliat we may lead on the aggi'cssive movements of 
 Christianity, and our zeal will be redoubled. Hereto- 
 fore we have been surprised at our own success, with- 
 
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 205 
 
 out a definit* inference of its future results. We have 
 exclaimed, " What hath God wrought !" and wondered 
 whereunto it would tend. Standing now far in the 
 front of the rehgious bodies of this great nation, and 
 prominent in the van of those of Europe, we ought to 
 project plans for the future ; and they should be sub- 
 lime ones, befitting the gospel, and comprehensive as 
 our lost world. Our zeal should look forward to the 
 time when Methodist itinerants shall traverse the wilds 
 of Africa and the deserts of Tartary, and shout for joy 
 along the Andes and the Himmalayah. But this is 
 enthusiasm — yes, it is ; yet it does not transcend the ^ 
 power or the promise of God. It is the enthusiasm 
 that inflamed the prophets, and bled on the cross for 
 our redemption; and it must yet tlirill through the 
 church before it will put on its fuU energy. Hereto- 
 fore it has moved by occasional impulses. Ever and 
 anon a glory, as of the latter day, has dawned upon it, 
 but been followed by darkness ; but now good men are 
 looking at the signs of the moral heavens with new 
 eagerness and hope. In all lands great and effectual 
 doors are opening. New means of spiritual warfare 
 are constantly arising. A special providence seems to 
 control the course of civil events. The poHtical arm 
 of antichrist at least is broken, and the crescent of the 
 false prophet but gleams on the horizon. The idea is 
 becoming general in the church that the morning of 
 the latter day is approaching — that the final battle is at 
 hand. In these circumstances, how stands Methodism — 
 one of the largest corps of the evangelical host, disci- 
 plined and hardy by a century of conflicts, possessing 
 energies unequaled by any other sect, and lacking only 
 a more definite conception of its true capability to en- 
 
20G CnURCII GOVEUNMENT. 
 
 able it to send trembling among the powers of dark- 
 ness? We have a better idea of the nature of our mis- 
 sion than of its extent. We work well at the posts 
 which have fallen to us, but show a culpable hesitancy 
 in assuming our true position. Denominations of much 
 less strength are before us in their efforts for education, 
 missions, &c., and their influence on the public mind. 
 Being first in numerical strength, it devolves upon us 
 to be first in all Christian efforts ; but we are not yet 
 second. Our missionary contributions are an example : 
 our present income would be about quadrupled by each 
 member paying only a cent a week. Let the idea of 
 our special mission be generally received, and it will 
 arouse us from this apathy ; and, when once awakened, 
 we shall find our resources a hundred-fold greater than 
 we have apprehended them to be. O that the young 
 generation of Methodists, to whom is committed the 
 future, may understand their " high caUing," and " ac- 
 quit themselves like men !" Let them be admonished 
 that theirs will be a position of rare responsibility, and, 
 if faithfully sustained, as glorious in honor and reward. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 -i