^> IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) to / O S^^. y. ^ :/. 1.0 l.i 118 ^ ^i& 12.0 2.5 |2.2 UUu L25 III 1.4 L8 1.6 — A" 6' — V] <^ /2 0}M ^4 Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. M580 (716) 872-4503 S ^ V "Q V :\ \ 9) V o^ >* is. &?.- (9 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques I. vV 1981 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Instltut a microfiimd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier jne image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la .Ti^thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. S Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur D D D D □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ ere de couleur {i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree oeut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during re»toration may appear within the text. t/Vhenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors dune estauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas ^t6 film^es. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur G Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de Timpress-ion Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire n CZ] n I I Only edition available/ D Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., havo been refilmed to ensure the best possible imaga/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6X6 film^es it nouveau de fa9on d obtenir la meilleure image possible. □ Additional comment^:/ Commentaires suppli^meritaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X [ V 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Nationai Library cf Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Ribliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmS, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies bre filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, ard ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporti^ une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second pla<, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplajres originaux sont film6s an commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol •—<► (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END "). whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, platet, charts, etc., n>ay be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planchea, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre fill/ids d des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le documen> est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd A partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 « 6 M REAl PRIN' • .' - i :;■. ■• '■■'^-,^->«;j' ^t^■ AN ESSAY ON METHODIST CHURCH POLITY, BY REV. THOMAS WEBSTP:R. REAP BEFORE THE ST. OLAIR DISTRICT MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION, HELD AT DRESDEN, JUNE 15tH, 1871, AND PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OP THE ASSOCIATION. " Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good." — St. Paul. HAMILTON : PBINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE CANADA CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE, JOHN STREET 1871. tnn iMiw wM i u iw^ jiiKnnn i yMi iifu - ] I BE. PSIM AN ESSAY ON METHODIST CHURCH POLITY, <^ ■ » BY REV. THOMAS WEBSTER. BEAD BEFORE THE ST. OL ilR DI8TBI0T MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION HELD AT DRESDEN, JUNE 15tH, 1871, AND PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OP THE ASSOCLA.TION. " Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good."— St. Paul. I HAMILTON : P.IMIBD AT TBI OFFIOB OF THK CANADA CHRIBTIAIT ADTOOATll. JOHM eTMl*. 1871. •.:>. '!■ *;';^ •*#-*„: W; -M/l; '•*A ,>«•!• ••■?!« '--i -i? ' > -■ > .. ,4'». :yf ' INTRODUCTION. s, At several difterent times the writer of the following short treatise has been requested by members of our Conference to prepare an essay on the subject of Mathodist Church Polity ; but in consequence of ill health and presSiiig engagements, the matter has been deferred, hoping for a " more convenient season." But some of the events of the present year have thrust the subject upon his attention, and made obvious the inexpediency of longer delaying to comply with the wishes of his brethren. He therefore prepared a brief essay on the question of Methodist Church Government for the June meeting of the Ministerial Association of the St. Clair District. On receiving the essay the Association unanimously requested its publication. Had circumstances permitted, the writer would have been pleased to hav^e gone more thoroughly into the subject ; but this not being the case, in deference to the judgment of his brothrcp, he presents it to the public as it is, believing that it will bo found in accordance with the New Testament Scriptures and the practice of the Apostolic and Primitive Church. F It ■ ■'Sft *■; ,<•....;*■. U- ',' :-li METHODIST CnURCH GOVERNMENT. Methodist Episcopacy — Does it comport with the sacked Scriptures, and the practice op the Primitive Church ? No question in regard to Methodism at the present moment deserves a more careful consideration than the subject of church government, and especially so as there have been, and still are, Methodists both in Europe and America, who profe.-:s great respect for the opinions of Mr. Wesley, and at the same time treat with cold indifference, if not with supremo contempt, his mature and deliberate preference for episcopacy. He originated and fully prepared the American Methodist system, xnd clearly indicated the same form of church government for his societies in England, to take effect after his death. This fact I shall point out hereafter. One might reasonably expect, therefore, that no real Wesleyan would object to the modified and well arranged system of episcopacy so carefully prepared by the founder of Methodism for his societies, and so wonderfully successful where established. But notwithstanding the spiritual influence and marvelous prosper- ity which have attended the Methodist Episcopal Church, objections have been raised to some of the features of her church polity at different periods since her organization. Her history in this respect is no exception to that of other religious organizations. Objectors were not lacking in the Patriarchal, Mosaic or Apostolic days, nor are they a race likely to die out while human minds are diversified and human judgments are imperfect. Let us not, therefore, allow ourselves to be disturbed " as though some strange thing had happened unto us," because of the desire of a few of our brethren in the United States to change old established usages, and limit the term of the bishop's service. Whether this recent agitation against the present period of episcopal service in the neighboring nation, and against Methodist Episcopacy in XJanada, is any more reasonable, consistent, and charitable than the excitement created in 1793 against Methodist bishops and Methodist Episcopacy by Rev. James 0' Kelly and his followers, or the agitation of more recent date, so ably dealt with by the lamented Bishop Emory in his " Defence pf our Fathers," time and the good sense of prudent men must determine. Methodist Episcopacy has lived through all these and other contests, MltHODlST cnUBOn GOVERNMENT. and hoB come out from them unmutihted in all her fair proportions^ and their most important result has been the more conspicuous exhibition of her scriptural efficiency. Whatever project is success- ful in belittling episcopacy in one country, affects the same Ibrm of church government in all luuds, because the system is precisely the same. We may therefore very appropriately enquire, on general grounds. Is Methodist Episcopucy scriptural, and compatible with the practice of the primitive Church ? And if so, why should the plan be " modified " — as it is called — a word which, as at present used in this connection, means the destruction of a system modelled by the mature) and deliberate judgment of Mr. Wesley after the Scriptures and the practices of the Apostolic Church. And for what? In order to gratify a whim, or obviate an imaginary tendency to prelacy, by creating some sort of a presidency, based on some political model, or a rotatory episcopacy, subject to the excitement and other disadvantages of constant elections. In considering the question before us, the first thing to be ex- amined is the orders of the Christian ministry as presented to us in the New Testament, and accepted and practiced by the M'^thodist Episcopal Church. We learn that Deacons wer j ; ,osen by che Church, and ordained by the Apostles to the sacred office. See the Gth chapter of the Acts. They distributed alms to the poor widows, but they also baptised and preached the Gospel to the people. Their office in relation io the Church is, therefo- e, clearly defined in the Acts and several of the Epistles. Ser A^^s vi., 5 to 8, also the 8th cl^apter and 5th verse. Dr. Bangs, referring to 1 Timothy, iii. 8 to 13, and similar texts, observes in regard to the position of Deacons, " This proves that they were not of the same order with Elders, but were inferior to them" — simply in orders. They, however, went everywhere among the dispersed, publishing the glad tidings of salva- tion. "Allowing the soundness of this conclusion," adds the same writer, that is, that the Deacons were ministers, " It will follow that those churches which admit of no distinction in ministerial order, but reduce all to a level, have departed from the apostolic mode. In their inteniperate zeal against episcopacy, which broke out with such violence among the Independents of England, in the dayB of the Stuarts, they seem to have run into the opposite extreme, by introducing a perfect parity of ministerial orders, as well as of juris- diction, and thus have impaired that beautiful symmetry which we behold in the orders, of powers, and harmonious subordination of the several grades of officers in the primitive Church." It must be admitted that Deacons, as well as Elders or Presbyters, were ordained to the sacred office by prayer and the imposition of hands in the Apostolic, as well as in the Methodist Episcopal Church ; and there is abundant evidence of the importance which M^ITHOmST OBUBCn G0V13NMBNT. ters, of jopal hicU Mr. Wcsl v'y and the fathors in America attaclicd to it, as witness their firm rcfuiial to eountcnauce the nroccodings of certain iealous preachers who took upon themselves to administer the ordinonces without having been set apart to the sacred ofl&ce. It appears unnecessary to multiply facts upon this suljcct, as the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles, the history of the prim'tivo Church, and tho action of Mr. Wesley, all unite to justify us in regard to the order of Deacons as acknowledged by our body. Why then should any of our people be ashamed of our practice, or be driven from a scrip' iral position by the sneers or ridicule of those who, while proi'ossiiig to be Wesleyans, arj adverse to the episcopal system of church polity r.s existing in the Methodist Episcopal Church by Mr. Wesley's . wn recommendation. So far as it regards the order of Elders or Presbyters, in the Apostolic or modern churches, there appears to bo but little differ- ence of opinion, and therefore it is not necessary to prove c rumitted to their trust. It is not at all likely that this was the first ordination of either Barnabas or Paul, because they had been preachers for years prior to this event. It will be remembered that Larnabas was an old disciple, and that he introduced Paul to the brethren at Jerusalem about three yea fter his conversion. By consulting 1 Timothy ii. 7, we are informed by Paul him- self, that he had been ordained a 'preacher, and an Apostle, and yet he was ordained to a special work at Antioch, And we learn further that not only was it the business of Paul and BaruaHas to preach, raise up aud confirm the churches, but to ordain Elders in every church. Acts xiv. 23. And such is the office work of our Bishops. They are appointed io travel through the work as exten- sively as possible, preach the word, preside at the Conferences, or councils of the Church, and ordain the brethren that the Church may recommend as su'tuble persons to minister to the people. Paul, m his epistle.^ to Timothy and Titus, clearly conveys the if'oa of distinction between the position of Deacons and that of ElderG, although both had a right to preach and baptize. Yet Elders were evidently considered superior in point of order to Deacons, while Bishops and Elders were clearly the same in ministerial order, and at the same time some of the Elders or Pres- byters had a more general oversight of the work than others, as iu the case of Paul himself, lor he had " the care of all the churches." He was in fact a General Superintendent in the Methodist accepta- tion of that term. He was the same in order with his brethren the Apostles, but superior to some of them in office or jurisdiction, And this is all that has ever been claimed for our Bishops ; nor is there anything assuming in tbe title of Bishop more than in that or Elder. He is simply an overseer — an equal in orders, but i superior in office, by the sufl'rage or consent of his brethren. And curely there oan be nothing arrogant in the acceptance of such a position at the choice of the General Conference or council of the Church. To METHODIST CHUBOH OOVERNMENT. ihe of et to in tes- iu 3." bta- the Lad iere ler. in kere [tbe iTo speak, then, of prelacy in connection with Methodist Episcopacy conveys an idea of power over God's heritage which has no existence in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Anything like prelacy, as that term is generally understood, has never been claimed for our Bishops in any portion of tha world, by any part of the church, nor has it been sought for by any of those who have ever been appointed to the episcopal office. Thus far in the United States and Canada the Bishops have been a devoted and most laborious class ot men. They have not, as a body of ministers, been surpassed as earnest workers by any similar number of church officers on this continent. Why, then, should we be fearful where no danger exists ? We can see no valid or scriptural reason, therefore, why we may not follow the example set us at Antioch, and ordain one or more of our Elders to take the general superintendency of the Church. Titus had the general charge in Crete, and wrs authorized to "ordain Elders in every city." He, therefore, made provision for the proper administration of the ordinances, and tho congregations wore thus supplied with pastors who might in all things be able to attend to the spiritual wants of the people, according to the direction of the Apostles. In due time Paul and Barnabas, after having made an extensive tour among the Gentiles, as well as among some of the churches already established, returned to Antioch, and reported to the Church the success of their Gospel labors. But a difficulty having arisen in consequence of some who came down from Jerusalem, who insisted on circumcision in addition to faith as a condition of salvation, Paul, Barnabas, and certain others of the brethren were requested to go up to Jerusalem to confer with " the Apostles and Elders and brethren" in regard to this matter. ^ The Apostles and Elders alone, it would appear, met in council, or as we would call it, a Conference, the Church having a right to be present. James, who, it is admitted by both Catholics and Protest- ants, was Bishop of Jerusalem, evidently presided at this general Christian Concil. Peter, Paul, and Barnabas were the chief speakers in opposition to those Pharisees, who, having united with tho Christians, were the advocates of circumcision. And, after the debate was ended, James, as presiding officer or Bishop, gave his decision. See the 15th chapter o^ the Acts, and Dr. Clarke's note on the 13th verse. We have, then, this fact, that James not only decided in accord- ance with the views of Paul and Barnabas, but advised a pastoral letter to be sent to the churches, giving them proper instructions in the things of God. And Paul took Silas as his travelling companion and went in one direction to visit the churches, and Pirnabas took John Ma-^k with him as his assistant, and went in another direction to visit the churches. Paul had, it is true, lost confidence in Mark, 10 METHODIST CHURCH GOVEENMENT. because he had at one time left the work, and therefore he preferred Silas. But Barnabas thought that Mark should have another trial. And although Paul and JRarnabas differed as to the propriety of taking Mark out again, yet they were evidently both intent on accomplishing the same great purpose, namely, the " confirming the churches " in the faith of the Gospel, and turning the heathen " from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God." We learn the following facts from the word of Divine revelation : 1st. That Deacons were ''ordained" to their office by prayer and imposition of hands, and that they were authorized to preach and baptise. 2nd. Paul assures us that he was " ordained a preacher and an Apostle," and he was also with Barnabas at Antioch ordained by prayer and imposition of hands, in order to enter ou a more general and specific work of preaching and ordainiug pastors for the newly established churches. Let us now take a glance at church history, and learn what Dr. Stillingfleet has to say on this question. He says, " In the first primitive church the Presbyters all acted in common for the welfare of the Church, and either did or might ordpin others to the same authority with themselves, because the intrinsical power of order is equally in them, and in those who were after appointed governors over presbyteries. And the collation of orders doth come from the power of order, end not merely from the power of jurisdic- tion. It being likewise fully acknowledged by the schoolmen tHat Bishops are not superior above Presbyten, as to the power of order." /rcMicMm, page 273 ; Young's Methodism, page 297. And again, pages 281-2, the same author observes, — " When the Apostles were taken out of the way who kept the main power in their own hands, of ruling their several presbyteries, or delegated some to do it, ^ * -'= the wiser and sraver sort considered the abuse following: the promiscuous use ol this power of ordination, and, withal, havinii in their minds the excellent frame of government of the Church under the Apostles and their deputies, and for prevent- ing of future schisms and divisions among themselves, they unani- laously r.grec I to choose one out ol' their number who was best qualified for tie manaejemcnt of so great a trust, and to devolve the exercise of the power of ordination and jurisdiction to him ; yet so as that he act nothing of importance without the consent and con- currence of the Presbyters, who were still to be as the common council to the Bishops. This I tnke to be the true and just account of the origin of episcopacy in the primitive Church, according to Jerome ; which model of government, thus contrived and framed, sets forth a most lively character of that great wisdom and modera- tion which then ruled the heads and hearts of the primitive Chris- tians, and which, when men have studied and searched all other ways, * * ^ y/[\\ be found the most agreeable to the primitive METHODIST CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 11 the 'er in :ated the aad, mt of ivent- inani- best the yet so d con- mmon 3count ing to form, both as asserting the due interest of the presbyteries, and alloT iog the due honor of episcopacy, and by the great harmony of both, carrying on the aflfairs of the Church with the greatest unity, concord and peace. Which form of government I cannot see how any possible reason can be produced, by either party, why they may not with cheerfulness embrace it." If we, then, take Dr. Stillingfleet's version, and that of Lord King, referred to by Mr. Wesley, as a correct statement of the views r.nd usages of the primitive Church, and look at the apostolic action, we can seo at once that the IMethodist Episcopal Church is, in its government, the same with the Christian Church in the first ages. Aside from any pretence to inspiration in a scriptural sense, Mr. Wesley endeavored to model his Methodist church polity as nearly like the Apostolic Church as possible, and it would be hard to show that he did not succeed in exactly accomplishing his plan so far at least as American Methodism is concerned. It will be discovered by a reference to our Discipline that the Methodist Episcopal Church recommends suitable persons for the ministry, and that our Conferences — like the first presbyteries — act as Councils to cur Bishops, who are the same in order as the Elders, but the Bishops arc, by < ommon consent, the chief among their brethren in ofiice, having been elected to the power of jurisdiction by the Elders, in order to take the general oversight of the work, to preside at the Conferences, and to ordain those to the ministry who have been recommended by the constituted authority of the Connexion ; and to preach upon every available occasion. A Bishop's appointment in the Methodist Church is no sinecure. The Bishop's authority is a delegated power, conferred upon him by the Elders, under certain constitutional rules, and consequently, he is in the hands of his brethren composing the General Conference, to direct and control according to the well defined iaws ot the denomination. The actual power of the IMcthodist Episcopal Church in Canada is in the General and Quarterly Meeting Conferences ; and in the United States the power is in the Annual and the General Conferences, now composed of ministers and laymen. The Bishops arc simply the executive officers of the Church, made such '..y their peers, for pru- dential reasons — exercising the delegated power conferred upon them by the Elders. But "if, by death, expulsion, or otherwise, there is no Bishop remaining in the Chur5h,the General Conferences," in both countries, have ample authority to elect a successor or suc- cessors for the episcopal office, " and any three or more Elders ap- pointed for that purpose by the General Conference, may ordain the brother or brethren, so elected, to the episcopa) office." The Bishops are, in the strictest sense of the word, the servants of the Church. They are as fully controlled by church law as any private 12 METHODIST CHURCH GOVERNMENT. member of the body, both as it regards their moral and religious character, and they ere held amenable to the General Conference for their ministerial conduct and all of&cial actions. It is hard to conceive how denominational checks can be more strongly applied than they are in the case of our Bishops. To " modify " Methodist Episcopacy, as some desire, would be to maim it. Mr. Wesley has given us a " modified episcopacy " in the proper sense of the term, agreeing with the New Testament Scriptures and the usages of the primitive Church. The next point to be considered is, Did Mr. Wesley design the episcopal form of church government for the Methodists of British America and Europe as well as for those of republican America ? I need not do more in this place than refer to the fact that Mr. Wesley, assisted by Elders, ordained Dr. Coke, who already had been ordained a Deacon and a Presbyter in the Church of England, to the office of General Superintendent, and that he also ordained Messrs Whatcoat and Vasey Deacons and Elders, and sent them to America with the Doctor, in order to organize the societies into a regular church. These facts are admitted on all sides. But it is contended by those opposed to Methodist Episcopacy that Mr. Wesley planned the episcopal form of church polity for the Methodists of the United States onl^, because the revolutionary^ war had separated the old American colonies from Great Britain, and therefore it was on political grounds alone that the episcopal form of church government was prepared for the Methodists of the new republic, and consequently that Methodist Episcopacy is not suited to any portion of British America. This is an incorrect representation of Mr. Wesley's great design. He evidently intended the episcopal form of church government for all America. It was because the Church of England was no longer the established church of the United States that he had no further scruples with regard to the ordination of preachers for America, and not because the United States was no longer a dependency of England. His words are, " By a very uncommon train of providences, many of the provinces of North America are totally disjoined from the British Empire and erected into independent states. The English Government has no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the States of Holland. A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by the Congress, partly by the State Assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation some thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice, and in compliance with their desire I have drawn up u little sketch. " Lord King's account of the primitive Church convinced me, many years ago, that Bishops and Presbyters are the same orders, and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years I MSTHOmST CHUBOH OOYEBNMBNT. 18 i:,:' > ipire t has than over But all. these I have me, Jders, lars I iiW have been importuned, from time to time, to exercise this right by ordaining part of our travelling preachers. But I have still refused, not only for peace sake, but because I was determined as little as possible to violate the established order of the national church to which I belonged. " But the case is widely different between England and North America. Here there are Bishops who have a legal jurisdiction. In America there are none, and but few parish ministers. So that for some hundred miles together there are none either to baptize or administer the Lord's Supper. Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end, and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order, and invade no man's right, by appointing and sending laborers into the harvest. " I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francisi Asbury to be joint Superintendents over our brethren in North America, as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey to act as Elders among them, by baptising and administering the Lord's Supper." It is evident from these statements of Mr. Wesley to the American brethren that he had no special reference to a political policy, but his action in relation to the ordination of Dr. Coke and others for the Church in America was based on the consideration that no national church had then an existence in America, and hence he invaded no ecclesiastical right in the provision made for his American societies. In making this provision for his American societies he had no regard to national boundaries. This is further demonstrated from the fact that he requested the ordination of Mr. Freeborn Garrettson as General Superintendent, in order that he might be sent in that relation to the British possessions. On this subject Dr. Stevens gives us the following historical facts : " Freeborn Garrettson was ordained at the Conference of 1784, and appointed to Nova Scotia. His labors in that province were extraordinary in their extent and success, but they will come under our^notice hereafter. In April, 1787, he returned to the United States, by way of Boston, where he preached in private houses, not being admitted to its pulpits. At Providence and Newport he addressed large assemblies. Arriving in New York, he hastened to the Conference at Baltimore. Wesley had been so impressed by his success in Nova Scotia that he sent a request to the Conference for his ordination as Superintendent, or Bishop, for the British dominions ia America — a vast diocese, comprisicg not only the north-eastern provinces and the Canadas, but also the West India Islands. Dr. Coke,' writes Garrettson, 'as Mr. Wesley's delegate and representative, asked me if I would accept of the appointment. I requested the liberty of deferring my answer until the next day. I think on the next day the doctor came to my room and asked me if I had made up my mind to accept of my appointment. I told him I had upon cert&io 14 HlTBOriST CHURCH GOVERNMENT. conditions. I observed to him that I was willing to go on a tour, and visit those par is to which I waj appointed for one year, and if there was a cordiality in the appointment among those whom I was requested to serve, I would return to the next Conference and receive ordination for the oflBce of Superintendent. His reply was, " I am perfectly satisfied," and he gave me a recommendatory letter to the brethren in the West Indies, etc. I had intended, as soon as Conference rose, to pursue my voyage to the West India Islands, to visit Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and in the Spring to return. What transpired in the Conference during my absence I know not ; but I was astonished, when the appointmcntis were read, to hear my name mentioned to pres'de in the Peninsula.' Wesley was deeply grieved by this disappointment. The biographer of Garrettfjon as- cribes it to the unwillingness of the American preachers to have him so entirely separated from them." Stevens' M. E. Church, vol. 2, pages 324, 325. To attribute a political design to Mr. Wesley in his American scheme is not only incorrect in every respect, but is an act of great injustice to a most devoted servant of Christ. He had declared that the " world was his parish," and like his adorable Master, he was anxious that the Gospel might extend to the ends of the earth. He realized that although Christ's kingdom is in the world, that " it is not of the world," and that the minister of Christ has a God-, appointed right to go into all the " world and preach the Gospel to every creature," without reference to national or political lines. The practice of forming churches according to political boundaries is a merely secular arrangement, and seems to have originated with "Jeroboam the son of Ncbat, who caused Israel to sin." When the ten tribes had revolted from Rehoboam, Jeroboam, fearing if the people went up to worship with their brethren in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, as they were commanded, that their hearts would be drawn away from him and turned again to the princes of the house of David, set up his golden calves at Bethel and at Dan. Thus uader the guise of regard for the convenience of the people, saying to them, " It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem," &c.; but in reality moved by political motives, he established a national church. Similar fears to those of Jeroboam seem ever since to have haunted church and state politicans, and have too often led to not very dissimilar results. To arrange a Christian Church on any political basis, or by national divisions, or to model its government according to any political system is contrary to the well known plans of Mr. Wesley, and at variance with the usages of the Apostles and the command of Christ. To talk, therefore, of one system of church polity for England, another for the United States, and a third for Canada, simply because they have separate civil governments, is a whim of interested politicians, which I have no hesitation in saying is 1IXTH0DI8T OHUROH OOVERNMSNT. 15 lanes with mthe if the )f the irould If the Dan. leople, 1" &c.; ttional have Ito not \n any iment plans ^s and Ihurch Ird for 19, is a ,ing is antiohristian, and therefore God-dishonoring. If such a system had been best for the Church, the Master, or his disciples, would have had one form for the Jews, a second for the Romans, and a third for the Greeks. The great commission is, " Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature," and Mr. Wesley felt that the ministers of Jesus bad a scriptural license to go into any nation under heaven and proclaim salvation to the inhabitants, to raise up churches, and to continue to feed the flock of Christ, over which the " Holy Ghost had made them overseers." The establishing of missions in foreign lands is acccording to cor- rect Gospel principle, and an old Christian practice. But to cut off mission fields, dismember the Church, and parcel out the mcmber- fihip according to national boundaries, or hind the flocks over to other pastors, is the reverse, though it may be a stroke of worldly wisdom. Such an arrangement has no warrant in the New Testa- ment, nor is it sanctioned by the acts of the Apostles. A scheme of this nature is adverse to Christian liberty, and to individual religious rights. Mr. Wesley had no political designs in view in providing for his societies. He evidently intended that Methodism should be one the world over, both as it regards church polity und doctrines. To establish this point I present the following facts : After establishing the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, if not before that period, Mr. Wesley saw that after his death the societies in England would sooner or later take some decided step by which the Methodist preachers would be able to administer the sacraments to their people. In order to provide for the approaching event, he ordained (in 1789) Mr, Alexander Mather a General Superintendent, and Messrs. Rankin and Moore, Elders, as he had previously (in 1784) ordained Dr. Coke a General Superintendent, and Messrs. Whatcoat and Yasey, Elders. We have also seen that he deputized Dr. Coke to request Mr. Freeborn Garrettson to allow himself to be ordained by Dr. Coke to the office of General Superin- tendent for the British American possessions. Thus it is evident that 'Mr. Wesley designed that Dr. Coke and Mr, Asbury should take the oversight of the work in the United States, Mr. Mather in Europe, and Mr. Garretson in the British American possessions. The three dioceses or episcopal districts were extensive, but the object contemplated by Mr. Wesley could be reached by the four men whom Le designed as General Superintendents. Nothing can be more apparent, therefore, than that Mr. Wesley intended that all the Methodists in the world should ultimately be under the episcopal form of church government. Speaking of the sacramental controversy in the English Conference, after Mr. Wesley's death. Dr. Stevens says, — " When the agitation was raging and extending, the Conference ot 1792 met in London, on the 31st of July. The venerable Alexander Mather, who had 16 METHODIST OHUROH QOVBBNMENT. preached thirty-fiye years, and whom Mr. Wesley had ordained as SuperinteDdent, or Bishop, was elected President." Stevens' History of Methodism, vol. 3, pages 40, 51, 52. " The controversy respecting the administering of the sacraments was continued with as much acrimony after this session of the English Conference as before it. and in the latter part of 1793 Mr. Pawson, who was then the President, expressed himself respecting the condi- tion of the Connexion as follows : " At present we really have no government. It will by no means answer our ends to dispute one with another as to which is the most scriptural form of church government. We should consider our pres- ent circumstances, and endeavor to agree upon some method by which our people may have the ordinances of God, and at the same time be preserved from divisions." Again, adverting to Mr. Wesley's action, Mr. Pawson continues : — " Ha foresaw that the Methodists would, after his death, soon become a distinct people ; he was deeply prejudiced against a presbyterian, and was as much in favor of an episcopal form of government ; in order, therefore, to preserve all that was valuable in the Church of England among the Methodists he ordained Mr. Mather and Dr. Coke, Bishops. These he un- doubtedly designed should ordain others. * * * I sincerely wish that Dr. Coke and Mr. Mather may be allowed to be what they are, Bishops." Such is the testimony of one of the Presidents of the English Conference. Dr. Dixon, another English preacher, re-« marks : — " The constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church is only a development of Wesley's opinion of church polity ; and it may be added, that an imitation of that great transaction in this country would be perfectly justifiable on the ground assumed by by Wesley himself, and held sacred by his followers. If we mistake not, it is to the American Methodist Episcopal Church that we are to look for the real mind and sentiments of this great man." The student of Methodist history will admit the truths herein stated. Why then should we be required to abolish Methodist Episcopacy in order to eflfect a unification of the several Methodist bodies in this country ? Or why should a Methodist union b« demanded only according to national lines ? To yield to such a supercilious de- mand would be an act unworthy the sons of noble Christian sires. If a Methodist union is desirable, let us rally under the broad banner of the Gospel, taking the New Testament, the primitive Church, and Mr. Wesley's views as a basis on which to unite. But let it never be once said of us as a Christian community that Methodism shall, with our consent, be restricted by national or political boundaries, or modelled after the pattern of any civil government. 1^ ordained Stevens* icraments te English Pawson, ihe condi- no means the most our pres- Jthod by the same Wesley's ethodists »s deeply )r of an serve all ethodists 3 he un- dncerely iat they lents of her, re-, lurch is ; and it m this med by mistake B are to I herein # scopacy in this d only )us de- L sires, banner 3h, and t never . shall, ries, or *