PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Division 
 Section JO 
 Number 
 
 BX 5330 .B64 1842 
 Holies, Jamas A. 1810-1894 
 The Episcopal church 
 defended 
 
THE 
 
 EPISCOPiL mm DEFENDED: 
 
 WITH 
 
 An Examiuation into the Claims 
 
 OF 
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY; 
 
 IN A SERIES OF LETTERS ADDRESSED TO 
 
 THE REV. ALLEN STEELE, 
 
 WITH HIS REPLIES. 
 
 By James A." Bolles, >^ . . 'l . 
 
 RECTOR OF ST. JAMES' CHURCH, BATAVIA, If. T. 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 BY FREDERICK FOLLETT, 
 
 Batavia, Genesee Co. N, Y. 
 
I .REC.JUN188I \ 
 
 ADVERTISE]\IENT TO THE READER. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Steele to whom these letters are addressed and 
 whose replies are inserted, is considered the most able, learned and 
 eloquent preacher of the Methodist denomination, in this section 
 of the country. In consequence of charges publicly made by him' 
 against individuals, mentioning them by name, and a subsequent 
 attack upon the Episcopal Church in a series of Lectures, this 
 correspondence Avas commenced. But it is now published, not on 
 account of any interest which it possesses as a personal controver- 
 sy, but to meet the arguments by which the Church is at present 
 assailed, in various places, especially by the Methodists. The 
 reader will find in these letters, a nirmber of rare and important 
 facts and documents relating to Methodism; and also a review of 
 the Book of Dr. Bangs, entitled " Original Church of Christ." 
 
 Some of these letters were not sent to Mr. Steele for the reasons 
 stated in the concluding letter. Those which were sent to him, 
 as well as those which were received from him, are herp publish- 
 ed as sent and received. 
 
Batavia, September 7, 1842. 
 
 To the Rev. Allen Steele : — 
 
 Dear Sir — I am informed that some time since, you read a com- 
 munication to your congregation, relating, in part, to myself, — 
 mentioning me by name — and containing such charges, expressed 
 or implied, as were calculated to injure my character and influence 
 in the estimation of this community. 
 
 Now, as I am not conscious of having given any just cause of 
 offence either to yourself oryour Methodist brethren, I cannot with- 
 hold from you the respectful expression of my opinion, that this 
 attack upon my character, is altogether unkind and unjustifiable ; 
 and when I consider the many substantial proofs which my peo- 
 ple have given to you of their regard, I am at a loss to understand 
 the reasons of this sudden attempt to hold us up to the scorn and 
 ridicule of the world. 
 
 True it is, that between you as a Methodist and myself as an 
 Episcopalian, there is a wide difference of opinion on the import- 
 ant subjects of Church government and order, and most happy 
 should I be at any time, in a calm and dispassionate manner, to 
 discuss or examine those differences with you. But such is the 
 nature of your present attack, that no other course seems to be 
 left to me, than plainly and honestly to enter my solemn protest 
 against this extraordinary arraignment, — an arraignment of which 
 no notice had been previously given to me, which forestalls public 
 opinion and which denies to me the common privilege of self-de- 
 fence. 
 
 In the celebrated controversy which took place some years ago, 
 between Bishop Hobart and Dr. Mason, (to which I take the liber- 
 ty of referring you,) the former was accused of " uncharitableness 
 
5 EPISCOPAL CHCECH 
 
 and bigotry," of rn^mtaining the alternative of ^'Episcopacy or 
 perdition;" and it was upon this pretended ground of defence 
 against this exclusiveness of such a doctrine, that the controversy 
 was commenced. But this accusation the now sainted Hobart 
 utterly disclaimed; he declared it to he'' ungenerous and unjust " 
 and quoted the following remarks of Bishop Horsly, as contain- 
 ing the sentiments of his own heart; — and now, as adopting and 
 cherishing the same, I beg leave to quote them and with them to 
 :lose my letter- 
 
 " Though truth in these controversies can be only on one side, I 
 tvill indulge and I will avow the charitable opinion, that sincerity 
 nay be on both. And I will enjoy the reflection that by an equal 
 iincerity, through the power of that blood which was shed equal- 
 y for all, both parties may at length find equal mercy. In the 
 ransport of this holy hope, I will anticipate that glorious consum* 
 nation, when faith shall be absorbed in knowledge, and the fire 
 )f cotroversy forever quenched; when the same generous zeal 
 "or God and truth, which too often in this world of folly and con- 
 usion, sets those at widest variance, whom the similitude of vir- 
 uous feelings should most uriite, shall be the cement of an indis- 
 loluble friendship; when the innumerable multitudes of all na- 
 ions, kindreds and people, (why should I not add, of all sects and 
 )arties?) assembled round the Throne, shall, like the first Christ- 
 ans, be of one soul and one mind, giving praise with one consent 
 o Him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb that was slain 
 0 redeem them by his blood." 
 
 Very Respectfully, &c. 
 
 James A. Bollks, 
 
 Batavia, Sept. 17, 1842. 
 
 •Jev. Mr. Bolles : — 
 
 Dear Sir — Yours of the 1st inst. has been received, and I hasten 
 o reply. If I understand your communication (for there is a 
 agueness about some parts of it which leaves me in doubt as to 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 7 
 
 the extent of meaning you designed to attach to it.) As I under- 
 stand your letter, it contains a complaint of injustice — a challenge 
 to discussion — a threat of exposure, and a profession of christian 
 charity. I will notice each of these briefly. 
 
 And first, you complain of an unjust attack upon yourself and 
 Church. This appears to be based upon the reading of a com- 
 munication to my congregation in which you were called by name 
 and which as you assert contained charges injurious to your char- 
 acter and influence, and that too, when upon your part there had 
 been no just cause of oflence, but many substantial proofs of your 
 regard. In reference to this complaint, I acknowledge the read- 
 ing of a communication addressed to me from the " Leaders Meet- 
 ing of St. John's Church," in which is found the following lan- 
 guage: — "At a Leaders' Meeting held at St. John's Church on 
 the 25th instant, (July) it was unanimously resolved, that you 
 (i.e. myself.) be requested to deliver a few sermons on the subject 
 of the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in order 
 to disabuse the public mind against the eflbrts lately, and now 
 being made to prejudice the community against Methodism, by 
 the introduction of anonymous pamphlets attacking the character 
 and regulations of the Methodist Episcopal Church as lately done 
 by the Et. Rev. William H. De Lancy, Bishop of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church for the Diocese of Western New York, and the 
 distribution of the same by the Rev. James A. BoUes, Rector of St. 
 James' Church, Batavia, Genesee Co., N. Y." I acknowledge 
 that the reading of this communication, if the allegation be false, 
 would have furnished you with ground of complaint. And had I 
 entertained any doubt of its trutli, it would have been proper for 
 me to have either declined reading it, or called on you for infor- 
 mation. But what are the facts in the case ? Will you deny the 
 charge ? It is not necessary for me here to remind you of the cir- 
 culation of Tract No. 4 — a Tract witaout \he name of the author, 
 printer, or publisher — yet used by your Clergy for sectarian pur- 
 poses, and in this place (as is evident) for keeping persons from 
 uniting with the Methodist Episcopal Chuch — a Tract, the mat- 
 ter of which is made up oi garbled extracts and false statements. 
 
8 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 I need not tell you that Avhen the thing became public, and we 
 contemplated an exposure of the attack, you sought for peace, and 
 peace was granted — I need not tell you of the introduction, per 
 your order, in direct violation of your proposed desire of peace and 
 friendship, of Tract No. 5, in which you attack not only us, but 
 all Churches not Episcopal, in your sense of the term, and set up 
 YOUR " Episcopacy or perdition." I need not tell you of the read- 
 ing of Dr. Chapman's Sermons in .your Church, than which, none 
 perhaps, are more exclusive or denunciatory. With these and a 
 large class of similar facts, you are familiar. And can you say, 
 sir, with these facts before you, that there was no cause of offence? 
 And what if (as you claim,) your people had given proofs of friend- 
 ship, are tokens of private friendship to be taken into the account 
 when the Church in which I have been nurtured is assailed? — 
 My Mother branded with hypocrite, imposter, and all her children 
 turned over to the uncovenanted mercies of God, and no hope of 
 heaven held out to them only on the ground of uniting with her 
 defamers. Private friendship/ what has this to do with my offi- 
 cial duties as a Minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, and my obliga- 
 tions to God and the Church of which I am a member? Am I to 
 remain in silence and see my Mother slandered, robbed, murder' 
 ed, because, forsooth, the murderer claims to be my friend? If 
 you take me for a Judas you are mistaken in the man. Rather let 
 thy money and ihj friendship perish with thee, than that I should 
 betray the charge committed to my care. I love my Mother too 
 well not to defend her, especially when she has truth on her side. 
 And as the Minister set over the spiritual interests of the people 
 worshipping in St. John's Church, am I to stand still and see a 
 neighboring minister write hypocrite & imposter upon our Church, 
 our Pulpit, our Altar, our Baptismal Font — upon all our ministra- 
 tions, and because he claims to be my friend, and says he wishes 
 us peace and prosperity, and would deprecate exceedingly any 
 hostility of feeling betv/een us, say nothing? Why, to urge the 
 claim of friendship under such circumstances only adds to the in- 
 jury, insult and abuse, and warrants a conclusion, if it be true, 
 which to you, would be any thing but honorable. By what prin- 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 9 
 
 ciple of High Churchism could you have been governed in lending 
 your influence and money (as you claim you did) for the erection 
 of St. John's Church — nay, be the originator of it, as you have 
 more than once asserted, if, in our ministrations there, as you 
 would now fain have the public believe, we are guilty of stated 
 ■profanation, whereas, if it had not been erected, many of us might 
 perhaps, have found a place at St. James' in the regular succes- 
 sion, and had a part in the covenant mercies of God ? Is this ev- 
 idence of your friendship and regard for our salvation, or proof of 
 a recklessness of our eternal interests? The plea for gratitude, 
 if well founded, would not be to your honor as a High Church- 
 man, but disgrace. 
 
 So far from attacking you, and yours, we claim to act on the 
 defensive, and so an enlightened public will understand it. What! 
 am I attacking you in proving the validity of my credentials, after 
 being published by you as an imposter ? An effort has been made 
 again and again to prejudice this community against Methodism 
 by proclaiming that we are not a Church — had no Ministry nor 
 Sacraments; eflbrts which I could but look upon as Jesuitical, 
 wanton, unauthorized and inconsistent with the charities of the 
 Gospel, and without a parallel in my experience! To remain in 
 silence under such circumstances, I considered would be sin. — 
 Our Church thought so, also, and requested me to disabuse the 
 community, and show to the people that we were a church accor- 
 ding to Scripture and primitive usage. And which, in the name 
 of the Great Head of the Church I commenced doing, and in his 
 name shall endeavor to accomplish to the best of my ability. 
 
 And here let me inquire, what have I done to provoke this at- 
 tack upon us, and our institutions — to provoke " this extraordina- 
 ry arraignment — this efibrt to hold us up to the scorn and ridicule 
 of the world"? Have my ministrations here warranted such an 
 attack — or any atjack? Have I not walked before the people 
 here as a Minister of Peace ? Have I preached a sermon here 
 previous to this defence on a controverted point of Theology as 
 held by Orthodox Churches ? Have I attempted to proselyte from 
 your Church? I challenge an instance. Why, then, have you 
 
10 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 thus attempted to hold us up to the scorn and ridicule of this com- 
 munity? Under these circumstances, if any respect is due our- 
 selves, as we venerate the pious dead and would honor the truth, 
 it becomes our duty to show the attack to be unjust, and that our 
 cause was of God, and no cry of "persecution^ of imrralilude, or 
 threat of a withdrawal of friendship or money, or all, at this late 
 hour, will deter us from this work of justice — nothing but a dis- 
 tinct denial upon your part of the doctrine of the Tracts, (Nos. 
 4 & 5,) as being the doctrine of your Church. 
 
 In regard to your challenge, if you designed it as one, though 
 I am not a man of war, and Phrenologists do not give me a very 
 prominent "War bump," though sufliciently large for all the or- 
 dinary purposes of life, yet knowing "Twice is he armed who 
 knows his cause is just," I shall not decline an examination of 
 our differences, provided the necessary preliminaries can be set- 
 tled, and I am happy to have your avowal that this difference is 
 "wide.'" There is indeed a vast difference between Rotnanism 
 and Protestantism. You are aware, however, that we occupy a 
 very different position than that of Dr. Mason, to which you refer. 
 An honorable peace I prefer to war, but war, to dishonorable 
 peace. As to the threat of exposure, you are at liberty to make 
 any protest to the public against the course I have taken in this 
 defence that you sec proper. I shall abide the issue, nor shall I 
 complain of being " denied the common privilege of self-defence," 
 As I acknowledge no such power in this land of Christian Lib- 
 erty, and no such deprivation of right. 
 
 Your professions of Charity at tJie close of your letter, I take 
 as evidence that your heart is better than your head — for with 
 what kind of consistency with your principles as a High Church- 
 man can you expect that I, a false teacher, an imposter, who 
 claim to be something, a Minister of the Lord Jesus, when I am 
 nothing, that I shall find equal mercy with yourself? AVhat! a 
 Methodist Minister, who has not received the Sacraments of the 
 Church — who has believed, and taught, and practised the most 
 damning heresies, shall, though unbaptizcd, unordained, mingle 
 with the High Churchman around the throne of God, and join 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 11 
 
 forever in the praises of the Most High? Are you sincere, sir? 
 Then where is the jzis d/vinum of your Episcopacy? And why 
 this mighty eflbrt to unchurch your neighbors ? 
 
 In conclusion I will only say, that there are many things in 
 your Church that I admire. I have strong attachments to her — 
 I wish her prosperity in her aggressions upon the territory of sin. 
 But when she attempts to unchurch others, and claims to be the 
 only primitive. Apostolical Church — the Church of the United 
 States — calls the Ministry of other Churches and their ordinan- 
 ces invalid, she must not think it strange if such arrogance and 
 lordly assumption is met with argument and Christian rebuke. 
 In this defence I stand where the early C-entile convert stood in 
 opposing the Jewish bigotry of the Temple — where your ances- 
 tors stood in resisting the usurpations of Papal Rome — nor do I 
 design to abandon these pure doctrines of a pure Protestantism, 
 but Avish it to be distinctly understood, that I have entered an 
 eternal protest against the lordly claims of these self-styled suc- 
 cessors of the Apostles — against the semi-Popery of Oxford 
 Tractarians, and their coadjutors in Western New York. . 
 
 With an ardent desire that we may be mutual sharers in the 
 covenant mercies of God, both here and in that world where big- 
 oted exclusiveness will never be permitted to disturb the peace 
 of its inhabitants, I subscribe myself 
 
 Your very dear (tho' unacknowledged,) 
 Brother and fellow Laborer in the 
 
 Kingdom of our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ, 
 Allen Steele. 
 
 Batavia, Sept. 19, 1842. 
 
 To the Rev. A. Steele :— 
 
 Dear Sir — Although I would not presume to doubt your asser- 
 tion, that " Phrenologists do not give you a very prominent war- 
 bump," yet it does seem to me (and you must excuse this pleas- 
 antry) that the bump of "Ideality" is pretty largely developed, 
 
12 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 for really, your imagination has conjured up a great many spec- 
 tres, with which certainly, I had no design of haunting you. Are 
 you in earnest in supposing that my letter contained a "challenge" 
 in the ordinary acceptation of that term? — or any " threat of ex- 
 posure or of the withdrav/al of friendship or money?" May not 
 an individual propose a calm and dispassionate discussion or ex- 
 amination without sending a " challenge ?" Is there no difference 
 between a solemn protest and a " threat of exposure ?" Can a 
 "withdrawal of friendship or money" be intended, when no such 
 expressions are used, nor any allusion made to them at all ? Is 
 a frank declaration of christian kindness and love, to be regarded 
 as nothing more than a mere " prnjession of charity ? Be assured 
 sir, you have mistaken entirely the spirit of my letter; for, fearing 
 that you might be extremely sensitive, I endeavored to guard it 
 against every thing which could possibly give you offence. 
 
 But what are the charges which you bring against me ? That I 
 havepublishod you a "false teacher and impostor"? — that to inju- 
 ry I have added " insult and abuse"? — that I have " taken you for 
 a Judas" and " written hypocrite and impostor upon your church, 
 your pulpit, your altar, your baptismal font and all your ministra- 
 tions" ? — that I have "unchurched you and turned you over to 
 the uncovenanted mercies of God, and held out no hope of Heaven 
 excepting on the ground of uniting with your defamers"? — that 
 I have "slandered, robbed and murdered your mother," and still 
 claim to be your friend"? — that I have acted towards you in a 
 "jesuitical, wanton and unauthorized" manner," inconsistent with 
 the charities of the Gospel, and without a parallel in your expe- 
 rience" ? — that I am actuated by "Jewish bigotry" and " bigoted 
 exclusiveness" ? — that I am sustaining " the usurpations of Pa- 
 pal Rome" and am a "coadjutor of the semi-popery of Oxford 
 tractarians, in Western New-York" ? Why, such a catalogue of 
 high crimes and misdemeanors ought to consign me to the gal- 
 lows. But I will not do you the injustice to suppose, that all 
 these charges are intended for me, though either directly or indi- 
 rectly you apply them to me, — and though if I should follow your 
 example in imagining others, a still longer catalogue might be 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 13 
 
 easily conjured up from the many strange expressions in your let- 
 ter. These hard names and epithets are more easily employed 
 than substantiated — other and better men than myself have been 
 reproached by them, and therefore my only emotions are those of 
 sorrow, that you should so far forget yourself, as to think the oc- 
 casion sufficient to call them forth. 
 
 But you acknowledge the reading of a document to 3'^our con- 
 gregation, stating thatBishop De Lancey had introduced " anony- 
 mous pamphlets, attacking the character and regulations of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, and that the same pamphlets had 
 been distributed by me," and you assert that " they are used by 
 our Clergy for sectarian purposes, &c. &c. Now you will readily 
 grant, that the fact of *' the Leaders of St. John's Church" hav- 
 ing placed this document in your hands does not make its state- 
 ments true, nor does the fact that you read it to the public and thus 
 gave to it the sanction of your name, make those statem.ents true; 
 for no man or set of men, however honest or sincere, can manu- 
 frcture evidence, where none exists. And so far as Bishop De 
 Lancey is concerned, I fearlesslyassert that there is not the slight- 
 est ground for the allegation brought against him. Nay, some 
 of your own people, your "Leaders" I presume, procured a quan- 
 tity of the Tract No. 4 on Methodism, and together with Dr. Peck's 
 reply, you placed them in the Bookstore either for sale or gratu- 
 itous distribution, and therefore the charge brought against the 
 Bishop, might with much more justice be brought against your- 
 selves. Let this fact be remembered, that the Methodists placed 
 the Tract No. 4, on Methodism, in the Bookstore, and not Bishop 
 De Lancey or myself, as many have been ledto suppose. But v/hat 
 are the only pretended grounds for the allegation ? They are 
 simply these, — that Dr. Peck has stated in his pamphlet, that he 
 " called at a respectable Bookstore in the city of New- York, to ob- 
 tain a copy of Tract No. 4 and was told, that the Bishop of the 
 Western Piocese of this State, had taken all they had on hand for 
 the use of his Diocese." Dr. Peck does not mention the name 
 of the Bookstore nor in what part of the city it was, nor who Avas 
 the individual who gave him the information, nor indeed whether 
 
14 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHDRCH 
 
 tlie person had any connection whatever with the store. Now I 
 ask you, — is this a sufR ;ient ground on which to build a public ac- 
 cusation against the character of a christian Brother I Is there 
 any substantial foundation here for the charges which you have 
 made ? Is this doing to others as we would that they should do 
 unto us ? Would your people or would my people bear me out in 
 making the most serious public accusations against you, founded 
 merely upon the second hand information of some unknown in- 
 formant in the city of New-York ? But more than this, some of 
 your " Leaders," or one certainly, was in formed before that com- 
 munication was made known to your congregation, that Bishop- 
 De Lancey had remarked at the time of his last visit to this place, 
 that he had never seen or read the Tract at all. Was not this in- 
 formation as good as the other, and in all fairness at least, should 
 it not have been communicated in connection with the other 1 If» 
 instead of stating as a fact a mere inference of your " Leaders,'" 
 you had given to the congregation the precise language of Dr. 
 Peck, do you suppose that the sensible members of your flock 
 would have justified the proceeding? Ah! my friend, we must 
 learn a better lesson than this. We must learn not to exaggerate 
 and torture the truth at any time, and especially should we strive 
 to be tender of each other's character and reputation.. 
 
 What a plight are we in ? We have circulated a false report 
 against an absent brother, and as falsehood travels faster than 
 truth, we must forever renounce all hope of being able entirely 
 to undo the wrong ; and can we expect that Methodism, that Epis- 
 copalianism or that Christianity under any form, will be permit- 
 ted to prosper by such efforts as these ? Are not the common ob- 
 ligations of morality as binding upon " those who profess and call 
 themselves christians," as they are upon the men of the world?. 
 Do we not know that a blessing is pronounced upon thai man who 
 " hath used no deceit in his tongue,. nor done evil to his neighbor, 
 and hath not slandered his neighbor "? True, this injurymay not 
 have been intended, and those who have been engaged in it may be 
 "good men and christians;" but this does not excuse the evils of 
 haste and inconsideration, — for we are all old enough to know better. 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 15 
 
 But how is the alleg^ation sustained in reference to myself? 
 All the information that you have upon the subject, you have re- 
 ceived from others. You have never deigned to introduce the 
 matter to me, and yet the opportunity has been aftbrded you again 
 and again, for I have called upon you much oftener than you have 
 upon me. You must excuse me therefore, if I presume that you 
 have been misled as to facts, and that if you. had follow^ed the 
 scripture rule "if thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell 
 him his fault between thee and him alone," then such an explan- 
 ation might have been given as would have convinced you of your 
 error. There never was a congregation formed under auspices 
 more favorable than your own, nor one in relation to which every 
 member of the commvmity was more kindly disposed, and there- 
 fore any complaint that attempts have been made to prejudice the 
 people against you, is altogether out of place. The subscription 
 for your house was a general one, drawn up by myself, and con- 
 taining an appeal to the liberality of all our citizens, and with the 
 exception of the indiscreet and over anxious zeal of a few, nothing 
 has occurred to mar the harmony that existed and ought alwaya 
 to exist between the inhabitants of the same vicinity. Somey 
 however, instead of waiting for that kind of growth which is not 
 the less permanent because it is slow, seemed determined to bring 
 every individual at once into the fold ; and relying upon the ac- 
 knowledged talents and' popularity of their minister, whose servi- 
 ces they could not long expect to enjoy, they determined to make 
 the most of the time ; and forgetting in their haste the common 
 courtesies of brethren, lliey have been, we fear, regardless wheth- 
 er their converts came from the world or from the other estab- 
 lished congregations around them. What was the sentiment 
 once uttered both in your hearing and in mine, when you- 
 were luged to unite in the efibrts making by Elder Marshall ? 
 " we shall get all the converts." Not, is it right or wrong, but 
 *'we shall get all the converts." These efibrts,, however, gave 
 me no concern, nor did I consider them deserving either of notice 
 or complaint ; for though young, I have lived long enough in the 
 world to know, that sensible people cannot easily be moved, and 
 
16 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 that the arts of proselylism are generally well understood and in 
 the end defeat themselves. But when I found that Books were 
 in circulation, such as never before had appeared in this village, 
 to my knowledge, containing the grossest mistatements in rela- 
 tion to the true doctrines of the Episcopal Church, and published 
 under the high sanction of the "Methodist Book Concern;" and 
 when one of those Books was brought to me as coming directly 
 from yourself, then indeed I put two copies of Tract No. 4 in cir- 
 culation, not among your people, however, but my own. Then 
 followed a most unusual ferment in certain quarters, and my name 
 became the theme of conversation in stores and offices, and per- 
 sons wishing to know what awful deed I had done, came for the 
 Tract. As my original number v/as but a half dozen, they were 
 soon distributed and I was obliged to send for a half dozen more, 
 all I have ever had. Among the persons who came for the Tract 
 was a Gentleman of your church, but with much hesitaion, and 
 not until after expressing my desire not to do it, did I give one 
 to him. Under no other circumstances, and in no other way, have 
 I given a single copy to any individual not connected with St. 
 James' Church. 
 
 Suppose, now, that we reconsider these facts. As early as 
 1836 a number of anonymous articles appeared in the Advocate 
 & Journal (Methodist paper,) containing the grossest abuse of the 
 Episcopal Church — so grossly abusive that they were briefly and 
 most efteclually replied to in the Churchman by a Methodist 
 Minister. Soon afterwards, however, these articles were collec- 
 ted together and published in a Book by the "Methodist Book 
 concern," under the deceptive title of the "Original Church of 
 Christ," by Dr. Bangs, and sustained and recommended by reso- 
 lutions of Conferences, &c. &c. — and the said book has already 
 passed through two editions. Then, following this, were two 
 Tracts compiled by the same Dr. Bangs and published by the 
 same " Concern," and intended more immediately for dissemina- 
 tion among the people. In one of these Tracts, among other 
 things, our Bishops are charged with " brutal stupidity, ignorance 
 and wickedness." And again; " Such is the magic influence of 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 17 
 
 the Oil of Consecration, that these men are instantly metamor- 
 phosed into saints, into legitimate successors of the Apostles" ! — 
 In the other Tract, the rites, ceremonies and usages of the Church 
 are taken up and caricatured — Confirmation is represented as a 
 "relic of Eotnish superstition," — prescribed forms of prayer are 
 ridiculed as though our people, in times of sickness &:c., " can in 
 no otherwise pray than as they are directed by a prescribed form," 
 — our Conventions are spoken of as composed of men who " neither 
 fear God nor work righteousness," and our Church is charged with 
 "the allowing of Balls and Theatres." Here let it be remem* 
 bered that we date the beginning of these beautiful specimens 
 of Christian kindness and truth as far back as 1836. But has 
 the Episcopal Church taken any notice of these publications? 
 No sir. Though the provocation v/as a great one, yet the Church 
 has not departed from her invariable rule, never under her sanc- 
 tion to utter a Word of " party slang," or to mingle at all in party 
 controversy. She considers herself a Church, and not a Sect. 
 She feels her security as built " upon the foundation of the Apos- 
 tles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornef 
 stone," and she knows, therefore, that " the gates of Hell cannot 
 prevail against her." All that has ever appeared in her defence 
 has originated with private individuals, in their private capacity, 
 and on their own private responsibility. And now some country 
 clergyman, finding, as I did, that the Books referred to were dis- 
 seminated among his people, that "Leaders" were forgetting to 
 lead in paths of righteousness and peace — some such clergyman 
 has taken the pains during the lust year, to collect the sentiments 
 of Mr. Wesley in relation to the Church — to show what were his 
 intentions in establishing the Methodist Society, and how far 
 these intentions have been departed from — to show who it was, 
 that he regarded as his spiritual Mother, and whether others 
 might not be mistaken as to their parentage ; presuming that the 
 first-bom son would be more likely to know the Mother than the 
 grand-children to the third and fourth generation,* and being 
 
 *Mn. Wksley said tliat he was iho " Father of all the MethoJistB," and 
 he frequently spoke of the Church as ''his Mother." 
 
18 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 unw illing and unable, perhaps, to endure the odium which even 
 this slight attempt would be likely to cast upon him, he has pub- 
 lished those sentiments without name. But at the same time he 
 has given the " edition of Mr. Wesley's Works printed at the 
 Conference Office 1840," as that from v.-hich his extracts are ta- 
 ken » so that every individual may examine the authorities for 
 himself. 
 
 But what are your objections to the Tract ?' That it is " made 
 up of garbled extracU? and false statements" ? Let me tell you, 
 Sir, that you are mistaken in this; and had you compared the 
 extracts with Mr. Wesley's works, I can scarcely believe that you 
 wou'd have hazarded the assertion; for I have myself examined 
 both, and I find not cjily an exact agreement between the copy 
 and the original, but that much more might have been selected, 
 bearing upon the same points, and equally to the purpose. True, 
 the Tract does not profess to give all the writings of Mr. Wesley,, 
 and therefore it contains extracts only, but those extracts are not 
 "garbled," nor do they misstate the genuine sentiments of the 
 author at the time when he wrote them. Let the individual who 
 desires satisfaction examine for himself. 
 
 Again you object that it is " without the name of the Author,. 
 Printer or Publisher." This is an objection which unthinking 
 people will be apt to regard as sound ; but let us consider it as 
 men. If lliere is truth in it, then it is mighty and can prevail 
 witho;it nan)es, and if there is error, then it must fall, and should 
 have no names even for a moment to sustain it; and for my own 
 part, I v.'iih that all works, merely controversial, being more or 
 less mixed with error, were stripped of every extraneous support 
 $nd ivcre allov.-cd to stand upon their own intrinsic merits. What 
 has hitherto sustained the controversial works of Dr. Bangs? 
 Nothing but the name ; and I venture to say that if they were now 
 published anonymous, as they were originally, no well informed 
 Methodist would regard them as authority, and the injury which 
 the\ have done and are destined still to do, would be infinitely 
 less. In all such works let facts be given, and let a reference be 
 made to the source, whence a knowledge of those facts is deri- 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 19 
 
 vcd, and then let each individual be allowed to judge for himself, 
 of the conclusions which those facts warrant. I have great con- 
 fidence myself in the intuitive judgment of the people, especial- 
 ly when no artful special pleadings are resorted to, to bias their 
 minds — and I have still greater confidence in their "sober sec- 
 ond thought," notwithstanding the influence of all such plead- 
 ings. 
 
 Now reflect upon the facts here brought to light, and make it 
 a serious question with the conscience, whether they arc such as 
 to afford a just foundation for the charges which you hai-e pub- 
 licly brought against me. Remember, too, that all the conse- 
 quences which have resulted from that unfortunate step, are in 
 some degree attributable to it. All the heart-burnings, and bick- 
 erings, and evil speakings, even among friends and neighbors — 
 (though thanks to a merciful God, my own people have in gen- 
 eral been enabled to possess their souls in patience) — all the false 
 reports which Rumor, with her hundred tongues, has carried in- 
 to the surrounding country, that I have fallen into the horrible 
 pit of Romanism and Infidelity — that my people are leaving me 
 daily and renouncing all interest in me, and that having, from 
 envy, commenced an attack upon the Mctliodists, I am undeserv- 
 ing of pi!l)iic sympathy and support. "Is this thy kindness to 
 thy friend" ? Is this the treatment o-f a christian brother? Hare 
 I not reason to complain, after a;ll, that you are the man who has 
 *' unchurched his neigh'bor and cast him out of covenanted mercy"? 
 But I forbcnr to dwell upon this point. We hare been forewarned 
 that " if they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, much 
 more they of his household" — that if we would live godh^ in Christ 
 Jesus, we must suffer persecution. And though, as- you suggest, 
 "an enlightened public" may sustain you in tliis, yet I have one 
 consolation of which no earthly power can deprive me, and it arises 
 from the conviction of my own conscience, that "my witness is 
 in Heaven, my record is on high." 
 
 An intimation is contained in your letter, that fearing an ex- 
 posure, I sued for peace, and peace having been granted, then in 
 direct violation of my professed desire, another Tract was intro- 
 
20 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 duced, &c. &c. Of course you do not mean here that any thing 
 of this kind occurred as between you and myself, though one 
 would suppose so from reading your letter, but only that you re- 
 ceived this information, perhaps, from one of your Leaders. Now, 
 as I do not wish to have any controversy with any of these gen- 
 tlemen, I will not deny the fact, but will only remark, that loan- 
 not possibly imagine any thing, from which it could have arisen. 
 Let me suggest, that if the minds of these gentlemen had been 
 in the same state of excitement with 3'our own, then a casual 
 conversation with me, may have been as much mistaken as you 
 have mistaken the purport of my first letter, and that inferences 
 drawn by I Item may have been stated to you as facts coming 
 from me. This is a very common way of mistake, and some re- 
 marks on the subject by Dr. Barns, in his commentary on Ro- 
 mans 3 ; 8th, are exceedingly valuable, to which I respectfully 
 refer you. 
 
 But again you say that no "cry of persecution, of ingratitude, 
 or threat of the withdrawal of friendship or money, or all, at this 
 •late hour, will deter you from this work justice : nothing but 
 a distinct denial on my part of the doctrines of the Tracts, Nos, 
 4 &; 5, as being the doctrines of our Church." Let the reader 
 turn to my letter and see what foundation there is for such talk 
 as this. What " cry of persecution or injustice," what "threat 
 of a withdrawal f)f friendship or of money," or any thing else — 
 what "desire to deter you from this work of justice"? Really 
 I supposed that your Lectures were finished — that having every 
 thing to yourself, and being allowed to go on without molestation 
 or a single word of complaint, you had " accomplished" the whole 
 object, " to the best of your ability," and broken every link in our 
 Apostolic succession, as you declared that you would do. The 
 Lectures were commenced before I left home, and having been 
 absent a little more than three weeks, I supposed that you had 
 finished. But if you have not, then I beg you to go on, and all 
 I ask is, that you will communicate your arguments to me by 
 letter, and I pledge myself, at least to show you some mistakes, 
 into which the best of men are liable to fall ; and not doubting 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 21 
 
 the excellency and sincerity of your character, I shall expect 
 when these mistakes arc pointed out, that you will cheerfully 
 and frankly admit them. 
 
 But to the Tracts. Having seen an advertisement in the Church- 
 man, that some Tracts had been published on " the Christian 
 ministry," I requested the Bookseller, in sending for other books, 
 also to send for some of those, and this is the Tract No. 5, to 
 which you allude. And what does it contain ? An argument to 
 prove the three orders of the ministry as held by the Episcopal 
 Church. I cannot therefore deny that it contains our doctrines, 
 for in the Preface to our Ordination Service in our Prayer Book 
 are these words, " It is evident unto all men, diligently reading 
 Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles lime 
 there have been these three orders in the christian ministiy, 
 Bishops, Priests and Deacons." Surely you" would not have me 
 assume the awful responsibility of denying that, which those old 
 Reformers and Martyrs, Cranmer and Eidley and Hooper, have 
 declared, " is evident unto all men, diligentlyreading Holy Scrip- 
 ture and ancient authors?" 
 
 But let us see what is the faith of your own Church — not what 
 Dr. Bangs says, nor what any individual among your number may 
 say, nor how you manage to explain difficulties, but what is the 
 faith of your Church, as explained in your Boof: of Discipline. Do 
 you not profess to believe in " diverse orders" — more than two 
 certainly, and not less than threcl Is not this the faith of that prayer 
 which you have taken from our Praj-er Book, and incorporated in 
 your services of ordination ? What is the title to those services ? 
 "The form and manner of making and ordaining of Bishops, El- 
 ders and Deacons." In the Episcopal service here, the three or- 
 ders of the ministry arc expressed, and why is it not so in yours ? 
 Would not a plain man so understand it ? But then comes the first 
 service for "the ordination of Deacons," taken from the " Ordin- 
 ation of Deacons" in the Episcopal Church. Your Bishop, laying 
 his hands upon the candidate's head, says, as with us, " Take thou 
 authority to execute the office of a Deacon in the Church of God, 
 
22 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHCRCII 
 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
 Amen." You observe here, that the expression is not in the 
 Methodist Church, but, " in the Church of God."* And surely it 
 it will not be denied that the individual has -professedhj been ad- 
 admitted to one order in the Christian Ministry. 
 
 Then comes the "Form and manner of ordaining Elders," and 
 this is likewise taken from the Form in the Prayer Book of the 
 Episcopal Church. The Bishop, with the Elders, laying his hands 
 upon the person's head, says, " The Lord pour upon thee the Holy 
 Ghost for the office and work of an Elder in the Church of God, 
 nmo commi'lcd unto thee, by the inifosition of our hands, and be 
 thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy sac- 
 raments, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost." Surely it will not be pretended that this is the 
 same order of the Ministry to which the individual had been ex- 
 alted before, when he was made a Deacon ; for evidently it is 
 another ordination and one by which he has received a different 
 name and ampler powers. 
 
 But now comes the "Form of ordaining a Bishop," and this 
 too, v/e find, has been taken from the Form in the Episcopal 
 Church. The address at the laying on of hands is precisely the 
 same — " Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bish- 
 op in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the impo- 
 sition of our hands, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost, Amen ; and remember that thou stir up 
 the grace of God which is given thee by this imposition of our 
 hands, for God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power 
 and love and soberness." The intelligent reader will observe 
 that there is this difference between the " Form for the ordination 
 of Elders" and that " for the ordination of Bishops," both in the 
 Methodist and Episcopal services. When the Elder is ordained, 
 no authority is given to him to ordain others, nor is any thing said 
 
 *Dr. Bangs pretends, that the net of ordin-iiion or conspfration only givpa 
 the individual nutlioriiy to cxerrife his office, " in thrtt pariii ular brunch of'the 
 Church of Christ in which he thinks himself called lo labor as -a Gospel Min- 
 bter." Pa2e24S. 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 23 
 
 about "the laying; on of hands." But in the Form for the ordi- 
 nation of Bishops in both services this question is asked, "Will 
 you be faithful in ordaining-, sending or laying hands upon others?" 
 Now then I ask, can it be pretended after all, that this tfdrd or- 
 dination, so separate and distinct from either of th? others, and 
 conferring powers not confeiTed by either of the others, is still 
 nothing more than that of Elders — that the individual has really 
 been exalted to no higher authority, than that v/hich he possess- 
 ed before? Can it be pretended that this is not as much a third 
 order of the ministry as the Elder is a second and the Deacon a 
 Jirst? Would not the same arguments which destroy the distinc- 
 tive character of Bishop, also destroy the distinctive character of 
 Elder and of Deacon ? Nay, by the same process of reasoning, 
 could it not be shown, that neither of these acts of ordaining con- 
 fer any power at all, and therefore that every order of the minis- 
 try, is a mere nullity, an idle ceremony, a solemn mockery, and 
 altogether unnecessary to make a man a minister in the Church ^ 
 of God ? Here lies the very gist of the controversy between the 
 Methodisti and Episcopalians. We deny the power and authori- 
 ty of self constil tiled Teachers. We say that you pretend to have 
 the three orders of the ministry as held by us — that you have the 
 distinct forms of ordination as set forth in our Prayer Book — that 
 you allow none to ordain but Bishops, and yet that in direct vio- 
 lation of the spirit of your ordination vows and prayers, as there 
 recorded, you are obliged to acknowledge, that Mr. Wesley, by 
 whom your first Bishop was ordained, was nothing more than a 
 Presbyter or Elder; that his ordination, was the same with that 
 by which Presbyters arc now ordained in the Episcopal Church, — 
 that no authority whatever was given to him to ordain others, and 
 consequently, that your pretended Episcopacy cannot be sustain- 
 ed, and that you ought to acknowledge yourselves Presbyterians, 
 in this respect, as you are. We think too, that the use of such a 
 service and such prayers, without intending what they mean or 
 believing what they say, is a most dangerous practice, and one 
 against which we feel most solemnly bound to lift up our warn- 
 ing voice, in notes of tenderness and love, — and we beseech you, 
 
S4 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 therefore, to reflect upon the consequences, should they rise up in 
 judgment to condemn you. Thus to exhort and warn our breth- 
 ren, when we honestly think them to be in danger, is both our 
 privilege and our duly. 
 
 But how are those arguments met? these warnings parried? 
 Why, Dr. Bangs, and Mr. Steele after him, I understand, are driv- 
 en to the necessity of denying that ordination is necessary to a 
 valid exercise of the ministerial office — denying that the Metho- 
 dists do profess to believe ia three orders — endeavoring to show 
 that because the names of Bishop and Presbyter are interchange- 
 ably used, therefore the office is the same— declaring that your 
 third ordination is in fact no ordination at all, but only a setting 
 apart of the individual to a special work, in which he had author- 
 ty before to be engaged, and then inventing a kind of metaphysi- 
 cal distinction between ''order" and qlJicc," as if Bishops and 
 Elders were the same order though a diffl-rent office. 
 ^ Now let your people read the Tract No. 5, and they will find 
 such proofs of the three orders in the christian Ministry, as cannot 
 be overthrown; as address themselves in a calm and dispassion- 
 ate manner, to sensible men ; as make no appeals to the passions 
 or prejudices of any individuals ; as impute no corrupt motives to 
 any denomination of people, and if they are really Episcopal, if 
 they believe their own most solemn prayers and services, and are 
 willing to abide by the faith developed in their " Book of Disci- 
 pline," then instead of calling on me to deny the doctrines of the 
 Tract, tliey will rather thank me for its introduction. 
 
 This is strange indeed ! That because at my request the Book- 
 seller procured a few copies of Tract No. 5 on the Christian Min- 
 istry, the Methodist brethren shoukl be aggrieved— that their Min- 
 ister should call on me to deny its doctrines, and yet, after all, 
 upon examination h is found, that the Tract contains isothing more 
 than the faith of the Methodist Episc. Church as set forth in their 
 formularies of devotion! Why Sir, are you so determined to de- 
 stroy the Episcopal Church, that you are willing to do it even at 
 the expense of your own desolation ? Is this the spirit of the Gos-f 
 spel ? Does this comport with a hearty love for the truth ? If 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 25 
 
 you really have the three orders of the Christian Ministry, as in 
 your Book of Discipline you profess to have, then the Tract is in 
 your favor. But if conscience tells you that you have not these 
 three orders — that Mr. Wesley had no right to ordain Dr. Coke 
 a Bishop, (both being- Presbyters,) then the Tract is against you. 
 Dr. Bangs says a great deal about "dilemmas," and here is one, 
 upon either horn of which, you are permitted to hang. 
 
 Now I come to Tract No. 4, and the doctrines of this Tract too, 
 you call upon me to deny, as the doctrines of the Ep scopal Church. 
 Why, my good sir, have you read the Tract? If you have, 
 you must certainly have perceived that it nowhere, even pro- 
 fesses, to contain the doctrines of the Episcopal Church. Ac- 
 cording to your own acknowledgment it has neither the name of 
 author, printer or publisher, and the very title shows Metho- 
 dism as held hy Weslci/^') that ils design is, to show the opinions 
 and doctrines of Mr. Wesley. Now I should be prettily set to 
 work, to deny the doctrines of Mr. Wesley. Then indeed I might 
 expect severer treatment, than any I have yet received. But if 
 you will point me to any extract which cannot be found in Mr. 
 Wesley, then I will make it known to the public in almost any 
 way that you may desire, and what is fairer still, as those extracts 
 are taken partly from two of Mr. Wesley's sermons, I will engage 
 to read both of them entire to my congregation, provided you will 
 do the same to yours. I refer to Sermons 109 and 139, and this 
 I acknowledge to be a chjllen'^e indeed. 
 
 But let us examine some of the doctrines of the Tract. It teach- 
 es us that the Methodists were orignally " zealous members of 
 the Church of England, not only tenacious of all her doctrines so 
 far as they knew them, but of all her discipline, "even to the minu- 
 test circumstance." Andisnot this the truth, as given by Mr. Wes- 
 ley himself? Certainly it i?, for I have read it, in his " Short 
 History of Methodism," and much more to the same purpose. 
 
 This doctrine, therefore, cannot be denied, and when I consid- 
 er the place where they originated, (Oxford,) together with the 
 great object which they professed to have in viev.-, I cannot but 
 regard it as remarkable, that another movement of a similar na- 
 
26 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 ture should again commence there, under circumstances so strik- 
 ingly the same. God grant that the Oxford Tractarians as they 
 are called, may be enabled to adhere to their present purpose of 
 remaining firm to the doctrine and discipline of the Church " even 
 to the minutest circumstance." Although they may now be op* 
 posed even as the Wesleys were, and names of reproach mayba 
 given to them, still I most ardently hope that no opposition may 
 be successful, in driving tlicm, from the sound principles of the 
 Church. 
 
 But another doctrine of the Tract is, that Mr. Wesley warned 
 his followers not to separate from the Church; and is not this 
 doctrine true? When the question came up, " arc we not una- 
 v/ares, by little and little, sliding into a separation from the Church" 
 did he not say, " O, use every means to prevent this : exhort all 
 our people to keep close to the Church and sacrament. Warn 
 them also against despi,<ing the prayers of the Church — against 
 calling our Society tlie Cliurcli — against calling our preachers 
 Ministers." And speaking of the Church and denying that the 
 Methodists were dissenters, did he not say " we do not, we dare 
 not separate from it. We are not seceders nor do we bear any 
 resemblance to them. We set out upon quite opposite principles. 
 The seceders laid the very foundation of their work in judging 
 and condemning others ; we laid the foundation of our work in 
 judging and condemning ourselves. They begin every where in 
 showing their hearers how fallen the Church and Ministers are; 
 we begin every where in showing our hearers how fallen they 
 themselves are. What they d 5 in America or what their min- 
 utes say on this subject is nothing tons, we will keep to the good 
 old wav." That this is the doctrine of Mr. Vv^esley, I cannot de- 
 ny, for I have just copied it from an edition of his works publish- 
 ed at your ovvn " Conference OlFicc." 
 
 But another doclrino of the Tract is, that Mr. Wesley did not 
 appoint his preachers to administer the sacraments — that he made 
 a great distinction between the fight to preach, and the authority 
 to administer the sacraments, and that he declared that those who 
 did presume to administer the sacraments " renounced the first 
 
DEFE^■DED. 
 
 27 
 
 principle of Methodism, Avhich was wholly and solely to preach 
 the Gospel." Can this doctrine be denied ? Surely not, for it is 
 the whole object of the sermon 139 to unfold and explain it. 
 
 How plainly did he address the preachers, those whom he re- 
 gfarded as commissioned to call dinners to repentance. "It does 
 by no means follow from hence that ye are commissioned to bap- 
 tize or to administer the Lord's Supper. Ye never dreamed of 
 this for ten or twenty years after ye began to preach. Ye did not 
 then like Korah, Dathan and Abiram "seek the priesthood also." 
 Ye knew no man taketh this honor to himself but he that is call- 
 ed of God as was Aaron. O, contain yourselves within your own 
 bounds, be content with preaching the Gospel." 
 
 How prophetically did he forewarn them of the temptations 
 which they would meet with. "Ye yourselves were at first called 
 in the Church of England, and though ye have and will have 
 a thousand temptations to leave it, and set up for yourselves, re- 
 gard them not ; be Church of England men still. Do not cast 
 away the peculiar glory which God has put upon you and frustrate 
 the design of Providence, the very end for which God raised you 
 up." And this sermon was preached in 17S9 — five years after the 
 the time when it is pretended that Mr. Wesley appointed the Bish- 
 ops for America; and such a reference is made, in the sermon, 
 to the Methodists in America, as to show that Mr. Wesley knew 
 how to make a just and reasonable distinction, between the Church 
 of England, considered in all those essential features which con- 
 stitute a true and living branch of the Church Catholic, and the 
 Church of England as connected with the state, which in itself is 
 an accidentalcircumstance, and which her best friends most deep- 
 ly and sincerely regret. 
 
 But to remove all cavil or doubt as to Mr. Wesley's reference, to 
 show that when he declared against separation he did not refer to 
 the Church of England as connected with the State, but to the 
 Church of England as a branch of the Church Catholic or univer- 
 sal — the one body established by our Saviour, — we point you to his 
 remarks in relation to the great reformation, where he acknowl- 
 edges that the " grand stumbling block of all, in the way of the 
 
28 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 sincere members of the Church of Rome, v/as their open anc' 
 avowed separation (the open and avowed separation of Luther 
 and Calvin) from the Church." In this respect you are aware tha' 
 the Reformation in England was distinguished from that on the 
 Continent — the English reformers always protested against sep- 
 aration — their simple object was to reform, not to deslriuj — to re- 
 tain every thing sound, scriptural and apostolic, and to remove 
 only the corruptions, and hence they affirmed that "the Church 
 was no more a difierent Church because of the Reformation, than 
 a man is a difierent man because he has washed his face." This 
 is the distinction to which Mr. Wesley refers, and then he goes 
 on to speak of difl'orent separations from the Reformed Church of 
 England. Of the Baptists he says, that their " warm dispute was 
 concerning one of the external ordinances, and as their opinion 
 hereof totally differed from all the other members of the Church 
 of England, so they soon openly declared their separation from 
 it." Then speaking of the Presbyterians and Independents he re- 
 marks, that " they also spent a great part of their time and strength 
 concerning the circumstantials of religion, and for the sake of 
 these, separated from the Church ;" and with these he contrasts 
 the character of the Methodists, and shows in what manner the 
 latter differed from the former. " They avowedly separated from 
 the Church; we utterly disavow any such design. They sever- 
 ally and almost continually inveighed against the doctrines and 
 discipline of the Church they left; we approve both the doctrines 
 and discipline of our Church." 
 
 Now that these are the doztrines of Mr. Wesley, I cannot de- 
 ny, nor can I see how it is possible for any one to doubt the fact, 
 who is at all acquainted with his writings. So far as the Episco- 
 pal Church is concerned, all I have to say is, that she has never 
 affirmed or denied, to my knov.dedge, any thing which Mr. Wesley 
 wrote, and certainly she has never authorised me to do so. Indeed, 
 I cannot see why yon might not as well call upon some minister 
 among the "Methodist Protestants" to deny these doctrines, as 
 to call upon me, for it isAvell known that one ground of their sep- 
 aration from you, is your manifest departures from Mr. Wesley. 
 
DEFENDED. ^ 29 
 
 However, if you would like to know my opinion of the Tract, 
 this I am ready to give you. Whilst I think it contains a faith- 
 ful account of Mr. Wesley's doctrines, at the same time, I am 
 of the opinion, that it speaks too highly of Mr. Wesley him- 
 self, and that one might conclude from reading the Tract, that 
 Mr. Wesley never departed in his conduct from the sentiments 
 which he so often and so strongly asserted. This I know, is the 
 opinion of many, and that Mr. Wesley himself always persisted 
 in declaring that he had never separated from the Church. But 
 to my mind it is perfectly plain that he acted inconsistently with 
 his principles, — and this is the opinion of those who knew him 
 best. 
 
 Hence his brother Samuel early wrote to his mother, declar- 
 ing, that litry (the Methodists) desigii a scpitralion," and in 
 the same letter, speaking of their rules in relation to men and 
 women sitting apart, (which, by the way, are still retained in your 
 Book of Discipline, though I believe you do not adhere to them,) 
 and to the band societies, he says — " Their societies are sufficient 
 to dissolve all other societies but their own. Will any man of com- 
 mon sense or spirit sufl'er any domestic to be in a bond, engaged 
 to relate every tiling without reserve, to five or ten people, that 
 concerns the person's conscience, how much soever it may concern 
 the family? Ought any married persons to be there, unless hus- 
 band and wife be there together ? This is literally putting asun- 
 der whom God hath joined together. As I told Jack, I am not 
 afraid that the Church should excommunicate him, (discipline ia 
 at too low an ebb,) but that he should excommunicate the Church. 
 It is pretty near." 
 
 So in the following correspondence between John and Charles : 
 the latter you will observe, really understood that his brother had 
 acted inconsistently with his avowed and well known sentiments. 
 These Letters were written as late as 1785, about one year after 
 the supposed ordination of Br. Coke. In the reply of Mr. Charles 
 Wesley, reference is made to the American Revolution as a "cause- 
 less and unprovoked rebellion." — and this, no doubt, was intend- 
 ed as a home thrust at his brother, who had written against the 
 Revolution and declared it a " Rebellion." 
 
30 
 
 THE El'ISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 "Plymouth, August 19, 1785. 
 
 " Dear Bkother, — I will toll you niy thoughts with all simplicity, and wait 
 for better inform^ilion. If you agree with nie, well : if not, we can (as ib. 
 Whitefield used to say) p.gree lo disagree. 
 
 For these forty yc.-ivs I h ive heen in doubt concerning that question, " What 
 obedience is due to the Bishops?" O^jedience- 1 always paid to ihem, in obe- 
 dience to the laws of the Innd. It is in obedience to those laws that I hav» 
 never exercised in England tliose powers which I believe God has given me. 
 But this in no wise interferes with my remaining in the Church of England, 
 from, ichich I fuite no mora desire ti siiparaie than I had fifty ijcars ago. I still 
 attend all l!tc ordivavces of the Church at all opportunities; and I constantly 
 and earnestly adcisa all that arc connected with me so to do. 
 
 AH those my re.isons against a sepaniiion from the Church I subscribe ro 
 still. What, then, arc you frightened at ? I no more separate from it nov» 
 than I did in the year 17.}8. I submit still \o Ws governors. I do, indeed, 
 vary from therq in some pointr- of doctrine, a"d some of disciplin", by preach- 
 ing abroad, for instance, by prnying extempore, and by forming societies. I 
 Walk by the same rule I h ivc done for between forty and fifty years. I do noth- 
 ing rashly I It is not likely I should. The h'g'i day of my blood is over. If 
 you will go on kind in hand with me, do. But do not hinder me if you will 
 not help. Perhaps if you bid kept dose to me I might have done better. How- 
 ever, with or without help, I creep on. And as I have been hichcrto, so 1 
 trust I shall always be, your affectionate friend and brother. 
 
 J Weslet." 
 
 The reader will observe the stransfe aclvnowlccljjement of his 
 doubt in relation to " the obedience d'te to the Bishops," and this^ 
 too, a year after it is said thra he had actually decided the mat^ 
 ter, and was fully persuaded that "Bishops and Presbyters are 
 the same order." But to the reply of his brother. 
 
 " Makybone, September 8, 1735. 
 
 " Deau Brother — "-I will tell you my lliouglits with the same simplicity.' 
 There is no danger of our quarrelling; for the second blow makes the quarrclt 
 and you are the last man upon earth whom I should wish to quarrel with. 
 
 "I don't understand what 'obedi.-nce to the Bishops' you dread. They 
 have left ui! atone, and left us to act just as we pleased, for these fifty years. 
 At present, some of them are quite friendly toward us, (particularly toward 
 you.) The churches are open to you; and never could there be less pretence 
 for a separation. 
 
 " You write ' All those reasons against a separation from the Church \ sub- 
 Bcribe to still. What, then, are you frighicnei' at ? I no more separate from 
 it than I did in the year 1785. I submit siill lo its g-orernors. I do, indeed,. 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 31 
 
 Tory from them, by * * * preaching abroad, by praying extempore, and 
 by forming societ'ips,' (m-glu you not add. and by ordaining?) ' I walk by the- 
 Bame rule I have done for between forty and fifty years. I do nothing rashly!' 
 
 " If I could prove your acnul se;);! rali.m. 1 woul I not; neither wish to see 
 it proved by any oilier. But do you not allow that the Doctor has s parated ? 
 Do you not know and app ove of his avowed design and resolution to get all 
 the Methodists of the three kingJoras into a distinct, compact body, a new 
 Methodist Episcnp,! Church of hi? own ? Have you seen his ordination ser- 
 mon. Is the ' hi^li day of ' his ' blood over ?' Does ' do nothing ra.shly ?' 
 Have you not made \'oi.H>clf ihc aii'.hor ofall his actions? I need not remindi 
 you, Qui facit p<T alium fu it per se. 
 
 I must not leave unanswemd your surprising quest'on, ' What, then, are you- 
 frightened at ?' At the Doctor's rashness, and yoiw supporting him in his am- 
 bitious pursuits — It an approaching schism — as causeless and' unprovoked a9' 
 the Aniericati Rel)cliion — at your eternal disgr.ice, and at all those evils which 
 your reasons describe. 
 
 " ' If you will go on hand in hand, do.' I do go on in the old way, m which 
 we set out togelber, and trust to continue ia it till J liiiish my course. 
 
 '• ' Perhaps if you had kept close to me, 1 might have done better.' When 
 you took that Altai step, at Bristol, (ordaining.) I liept as close to you as close 
 could be ; fori wis all tli-' tiin • at yoar eiiiow. You might certainly ' have 
 done better,' if you h id i ik -n m > into your coiun il. 
 
 " I th ink you lnv v.f.w i r i ir,;, tn rcmiic. my fii'-nd. Herein my heart is 
 as your heart. V\ i; ,i ' : l i ] ! i ii. i.-l no man put asunder. We have 
 taken eacli olh^r, . i ll death do us — pan? No; but 
 
 (fternally unite. , .viiich never fjileth, I am your af- 
 
 fectionate frrend and ijiuihcr. C. Wi;slev." 
 
 In a letter to Dr. Chamllor written, only a short time before the 
 above correspondence, Jlr. Charles Wesley saiti, " I can scarcely 
 vet believe, that in hi.j ci;:^;ity second year, my brother, my old 
 intimate frietul and companion should have assumed the Episco- 
 pal character, ordained Elders, consecrated a Bishop, and sent 
 him to ordain the Lay-preachers in America. I was then in Bris- 
 tol at his elbow, yel he never ^avc me the least hint of his intention^ 
 How was he surprised into so rash an action"? 
 
 " Lord Mansfield told me last year that ordination was separa- 
 tion. This my brother does not and will not see; or that he has 
 renounced the princifles and practices cf his whole life; that he 
 has acted contrary to all his declarations, protestations and writ- 
 ings; robbed his friends of their boasting; realized the nag's 
 
32 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 head ordination; and left an indeilibie blot on his name as long 
 as it shall be remembered. " 
 
 These letters should be read in connection with Dr. Coke's let- 
 ter to Mr. Wesley, desiring ordination from him because he wish- 
 ed his "influence in America," and telling him it could be done 
 " in Mr. C's house in his chamber " also Dr. Coke's letter to Bish- 
 op White, in which he acknowledges that he had exceeded the 
 authority given him by Mr. Wesley — that Mr. W. disapproved 
 of his proceedings, and in which he certainly manifested a desire 
 of becoming a real Bishop : and also Br. Coke's letter to Mr. Win. 
 Wiiberforce as late as 1813, in which the same desire is express- 
 ed for the Episcopate in India. But I fear that I have already 
 exhausted your patience, and as the whole subject of Methodist 
 Episcopacy may come up in my next, 
 
 I subscribe myself 
 
 Very respectfully, &c. 
 
 James A. Bolles. 
 
 P. S. There are several things in your Letter to which I should ■ 
 be glad to reply, such as " unchurching others," claiming lo he the 
 only "primitive, Apostolic ChurcJ.,''' ''the Church of the United 
 States,^' " bigoted exc/usiveness,'' &c., but perhaps it maybe time 
 enough for mc to pay my respects to you on these points, when 
 you have declared the works from which these sentiments are de- 
 rived, or where it is that such " lordly claims," as you call theiOj 
 are any where asserted. 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 Batavia, Oct. 7, 1842. 
 
 To the Rev. Allen Steele: — 
 
 Dear Sir — Since the forwarding of my last letter, I have had 
 some fear lest my omission to notice a few passages in yours, 
 should be construed into an intentional disrespect, and therefore 
 I have concluded to send you another by way of supplement. At 
 the same time, too, as this correspondence may be protracted to a 
 considerable length, it has seemed to me not improper to hasten 
 the consideration of some of the topics which must necessarily 
 pass under review. 
 
 You object to the reading of Dr. Chapman's sermons in my 
 Church, " than which," you say, "none, perhaps, are more ex- 
 clusive or denunciatory." 
 
 In the latter part of the summer, long after the ciculation of 
 your Books and Tracts, I gave notice, that for the purpose of in* 
 structing my own people, and especially the younger members of 
 my congregation, in the doctrine, discipline and worship of the 
 Church, I should hold a meeting in the Lecture Room on Sunday 
 evenings. In accordance with this notice no efforts were made 
 to induce the attendance of other people — the time, place and 
 manner of conducting the services were all of the most quiet, 
 peaceable and unobtrusive nature, and nothing could surprise me 
 more than to learn, that the exercise of this plain duty and right, 
 on my part, and in a way so unexceptionable even to the most 
 censorious, should have given you ofl'ence. What must we con- 
 clude but that the subject of Episcopacy is a sore one to you, and 
 oue which you are scarcely willing that the people should under- 
 stand, as it is explained by Episcopalians themselves? 
 
 But is it really true, that the Sermons of Dr. Chapman are open 
 to the objections which you make — that they breath a spirit so ^'cx- 
 elusive anddenuncialorij"? So far from it, that they are univer- 
 sally regarded by all who are aquainted with them, as models of 
 Christian kindness and courtesy. 
 
 There is but one of the sermons, however, which relates par- 
 ticularly to Methodism, and only a part of that (a few pages) is 
 taken up with the oxammation of Methodist Episcopacy, and in 
 ' 3 
 
34 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 order to avoid even the appearance of makin£r any attack upon 
 you, this sermon was passed over, so that in no way publicly or 
 privately, can you say, that I had given you any just provocation 
 for the course which you have seen proper to pursue. True it is, 
 that I was sorry to pass over the sermon referred to, for in all my 
 reading I have never seen a fairer illustration of that divinely 
 charitable spirit, in which all theological controversies should be 
 conducted. Though some might fail to be convinced by the ar- 
 guments, yet no one, I am sure, could be otherwise than charm- 
 ed and captivated by the spirit. For instance, when he comes 
 to allude to the subject of Methodism, the author commences in 
 this way : 
 
 "And here I am compelled by a sense of duty, to speak of a sep- 
 aration from the original Church of a somewhat different charac- 
 ter, although the difference is evidently nominal, rather than reah 
 
 "We have amongst us a denomination, respectable for their 
 numbers and distinguished for the warm fervor of their religion, 
 who, while they reject in terms the ministry of Presbyters, do 
 but conform in terms to that of Bishops. I need not name them. 
 They trace their history to the year seventeen hundred and twen- 
 ty-nine, and had their origin in the partial secession of a pious 
 and talented Presbyter of the Church of England from the pale 
 of her communion." 
 
 With this introduction, in which there is nothing exclusive or 
 denunciatory, the author then goes on to state a feio of the facts 
 in relation to Methodist Episcopacy, and to prove the spurious 
 character of its pretensions, and then he concludes the argument 
 with this declaration. — Presbyterian ordination it undoubtedly 
 has, hit Episcopal it has not. And believe me, brethren, I regret 
 the circumstance. It is no gratification to me that its episcopacy 
 is manifestly spurious ; nor do I take any pleasure in stating these 
 things, except as matters of fact open to the inspection of all, and 
 the legitimate subjects of fair, dispassionate inquiry. In this we 
 are tolerated by the laws of the land, and God forbid that it should 
 be otherwise ; God forbid that we should not speak the truth upon 
 a concern so grave and so solemn, either from an apprehension of 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 36 
 
 the consequences or because the truth may give offence. I have 
 learnt a very different lesson from our Saviour Christ. When 
 speaking 'to those Jews which believed on him,' he said, 'if ye 
 continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye 
 shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.' I have 
 learnt indeed, that Jesus of Nazereth, a man approved of God by 
 miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him, never hes- 
 itated, on all suitable occasions, to discourse freely and unreserv- 
 edly upon all the errors, whether of faith or practice, by which 
 his hearers were liable to be seduced; and I breath no wish for 
 higher authority to exculpate me for presenting the fullest infor- 
 mation upon the subject I have undertaken to discuss. Abuse is 
 one thing, but argument is another. Misstatements are to be se- 
 verely reprehended, but important facts are worthy of all accep- 
 tation. To pretend that they are sometimes of such a nature that 
 they cannot be conveyed in the spirit of meekness and humility, 
 of charity and brotherly kindness, is altogether idle and extrava- 
 gant. Can you not reprove the vices of the sinner without hating 
 his person? Can you not denounce an heretical doctrine with- 
 out inveighing against the heresiarch who maintains it ? Then 
 are there no real graces of Christianity to soften the heart, to an- 
 imate the soul, and give utterance to the lips which should keep 
 knowledge." 
 
 Although this extract is long, and is abundantly sufficient to 
 exculpate the author from the charges of " exclusiveness and de- 
 nunciation," yet the conclusion of the sermon is so excellent that 
 I cannot help extracting it as not undeserving of our imitation in 
 the work in which we are at present engaged. 
 
 " For myself I will yield to none in the tolerant feelings I de- 
 light to indulge. Towards the wise and good of all denomina- 
 tions, my bosom expands with the liveliest fraternal affection and 
 sympathy. I rejoice in the well founded belief that they are 
 Christians, such Christians as adorn the doctrine of God their 
 Saviour, upon earth, and as will hereafter enjoy his blissful pres- 
 ence in heaven. I can, with truth, give the right hand of fellow- 
 ship to all the saints of the Most High God, let their scriptural 
 
36 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 views upon some points be ever so variant, and their ministry and 
 worship ever so adverse to my conceptions of the Primitive Church 
 and the beauty of its holiness. I can pray for them and breathe 
 with them the same prayer to heaven. I can sit down with them 
 before the same table of the Lord, and call him to remembrance 
 with thankfulness as the blessed author of our common salvation. 
 I can this day, with the utmost cordiality, minister to them the 
 emblematic flesh and blood of our redemption. Through life I 
 can make allowance for their imperfections as I wish them to 
 make allowance for mine. I can give honor where honor, praise 
 where praise, is due. And when my last hour is come, I am sure 
 that it will prove no diminution of my happiness to be conscious 
 that I can only hope to enter the mansions of glory in company 
 with m\Tiads on myriads of my fellow Christians of a different 
 persuasion, overwhomwill be pronounced the approving sentence, 
 " Well done, ye good and faithful servants, enter ye into the joy 
 of your Lord. 
 
 "Nevertheless I must, while here below, contend, most earn- 
 estly contend, for the faith of Christ. It matters not to me to 
 what it relates, whether to internal graces or to external order; 
 it is all holy, it is all divine, and it is all imperative. You have 
 no right to say of one Gospel truth, that it is immaterial, or of 
 one Gospel institution, that it is either indifferent or superfluous; 
 that it may be acceded to or resisted at pleasure. Hence I can 
 never reconcile it to my conscience to be so tender of the mere 
 opinions of men, as to lay my hand upon my mouth, and my 
 mouth in the dust, rather than controvert a favorite prejudice or 
 expose myself to an injurious reproach. But while I live, I v/ill 
 endeavor through good report and through evil report, to serve 
 the Lord with fear, and of him only will I be afraid. While I 
 live, although it will be impossible to renounce or even to modify 
 the truths this day delivered, I will not be inflamed by the fires 
 of a persecuting spirit ; I will not suffer this fiend of hell to rankle 
 in my heart; I will not cease to remember that, " now abideth 
 faith, hope, charity, these three, but the greatest of these is char- 
 ity." And still, in defence of the true Church, the true Zion and 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 37. 
 
 Jerusalem so often and sb unjustly assailed, will I neither hold 
 my peace nor rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as 
 brightness and the salvation thereof as a lamp that hurneth." 
 
 Now, my dear Sir, after this long extract from the Sermons of 
 Dr. Chapman, and from the only Sermon in the whole volume 
 which relates directly to Methodism, our readers can judge for 
 themselves of its "exclusive and denunciatory spirit" ; and if I 
 mistake not, they will be apt to think with myself, that you could 
 scarcely have read the Book when you were pleased to speak of 
 it in the manner recorded in your letter. 
 
 But more than this. To the excellency of the Sermons I have 
 the testimony of an individual who was once a distinguished 
 member of your own body, and who, from his peculiar situation 
 as a Layman and a man of undoubted talents and piety, is well 
 calculated to act as umpire between us. I refer to John Esten 
 Cooke, M. D., Professor of the Theory and Practice of Physic 
 in the Transylvania University. Under God, the Sermons of Dr. 
 Chapman were the means of leading his reflections to the impor- 
 tant subjects discussed in them, and the account which he has 
 himself given, is in the following words: — 
 
 " Soon after that time," (after the interest which he had taken in 
 the establishment of a Methodist paper,) "a volume of Sermons by 
 the Rev. Dr. Chapman, for which I had subscribed, was brought 
 home, and for some days no attention was paid to it. At a leis- 
 ure moment, curiosity led me to look into it, when I found the man- 
 ner and style so striking, and the subject so new to me, that I de- 
 termined to read the Book. I had heard that the Church denied 
 the validity of Presbyterian ordination, but had never thought it 
 worth while to enquire into a claim, at first sight, apparently so 
 extravagant. I was determined to see what could be said in sup- 
 port of such pretensions. I read carefully the first seven sermons, 
 by which I was most forcibly struck. The language, chaste — the 
 style, perspicuous — I was carried along without labor, and com- 
 prehended without the slightest eflbrt. The manner of handling 
 the subject was strikingly modest and as charitable as any man 
 could reasonably desire. Supporting the doctrine of the invalidi- 
 
38 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHUKCH 
 
 ty of ordination by Presbyters, and the validity of Episcopal ordin- 
 ation alone, the author proceeds in maintaining the argument 
 without uncharitable reflections, and when he condemns, does it 
 in the mildest language, and often or always with expressions of 
 good opinion of the motives of the opposite party. If there is any 
 thing offensive to any one, in the book, it is a quotation — and quo- 
 tations a man is bound to state as they are stated by the author 
 from whom they are taken. The strength of the direct argument 
 for the doctrine and of that indirect one growing out of the evil 
 consequence of schism, or division from the Church, contained in 
 some of the following sermons, is such, that I was compelled to 
 say to myself, if these facts are so, this doctrine is the truth. 
 
 " Uneasiness now sprung up in my mind. The question arose, 
 What if it be true ? Can you leave your friends, your intimate 
 associates in what has engaged so much of your intention, your 
 eflbrts, your ardent desires for eighteen years, and go to a people 
 who — prejudice whispered — are no people? The answer of con- 
 science was, if it be the truth, embrace it, and leave the conse- 
 quences to him who revealed his will to man for his guidance. 
 The question now was, is this doctrine true ? To determine this 
 without delay, I sought information from ministers of the princi- 
 pal denominations involved in the doubt, as to the validity of Pres- 
 byterian ordination, viz: — the Presbyterians, the Methodists and 
 Baptists. With one consent they all referred me to Miller^s letters 
 on this subject. This book I immediately obtained. Emory and 
 Bangs were also mentioned, and were likewise obtained. Meet- 
 ing Dr. Chapman in the street, I enquired of him also, what were 
 the standard works on this controversy. He also mentioned Miller 
 and stated that Bowden had answered him. He also mentioned 
 Lord King, (by whom Wesley was influenced,) and Slater's ori- 
 ginal draft in answer to King, as well as Potter, on Church gov- 
 ernment, and Hooker's works. 
 
 I immediately commenced reading Miller with great attention — ■ 
 read, over and over, the arguments respecting the order of the 
 Church in the time of the Apostles and for centuries afterwards, 
 with his quotations from such of the Fathers as could be procured 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 39 
 
 conveniently, and with regard to those which I had not, I was en- 
 abled to form a very good idea from comparing him with Bowden. 
 Thus, if he quoted a passage from an author which I had not the 
 means of consulting, Bowden was examined to see what reply 
 was made; if admitted by him it could not be questioned; if not 
 admitted. Miller's reply to Bowden's answer was examined, and 
 if necessary, Bowden's rejoinder to Miller's reply. So that from 
 the two works of each, it was not a difficult matter, with care, to 
 make out what was agreed to by both these able disputants, and 
 what was asserted,hut when answered, not maintained in the re- 
 ply, and therefore given up ; in short, it was not difficult to get at 
 the truth. The result of the whole investigation, after six weeks 
 close inquiry, was a thorough conviction of the truth of the doc- 
 trine that Presbyterian ordination is unauthorized by Scripture, 
 and therefore entirely invalid." 
 
 Such is the statement given by Dr. Cooke, and I hope, there* 
 fore, that no misrepresentations in relation to the Sermons of Dr. 
 Chapman, will so prejudice the serious enquirer after truth, as to 
 prevent an examination of them. Indeed, I cannot look upon the 
 " hue and cry" which has recently been raised throughout the 
 country against the Episcopal Church, denouncing her as " Po- 
 pish, exclusive, intolerant, bigoted," and almost every thing else 
 ■which the imagination can invent, to alarm the community, and 
 which has its origin in the fact that so many are becoming tired 
 of the evils of schism and are returning into the bosom of the 
 Church, — I cannot but look upon this " hue and cry" as a cun- 
 ning artifice to prevent the people from making a serious and so- 
 ber examination into the matter — a kind of attempt to convince 
 the world, that the claims of the Church are really too absurd and 
 ridiculous to merit the serious attention of sensible men. Now, 
 all we ask is, that people will follow the example of Dr. Cooke; 
 that they will read and examine for themselves ; that they will in- 
 vestigate the whole subject calmly and prayerfully; that they 
 will not be satisfied with any popular harangues addressed to the 
 lowest passions of our nature ; that they will not allow any sense- 
 less clamours to drown the voice of reason and religion, but that 
 
40 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 in the fear of God, they will honestly and soberly enquire wheth- 
 er these things be so,^' 
 
 But I pass on to the consideration of some other topics sugges- 
 ted by your letter. 
 
 You will readily grant, that it is a common maxim of justice, 
 admitted in every treatise on ethical science, and explained by 
 Dr. Barnes in his commentary on the passage referred to in my 
 last, that wo individual is responsible for the inferences which oth' 
 ers might draw from his doctrines. This, I say, is a common max* 
 im of justice, admitted in every treatise on ethical science, and 
 one against which a man cannot sin without violating in letter or 
 in spirit the ninth commandment of his Maker. But what is here 
 true as to individuals, is true, also, as to bodies of men. We have 
 no right to charge upon the latter any inferences of our own, or 
 to misrepresent the real doctrines which they teach. 
 
 Suppose, now, that you apply this rule to the doctrines of the 
 Episcopal Church. In the Apostle's and Nicene creeds — creeds 
 which have come down from the purest days of Chtistianity — 
 dhe declares her faith " in one Catholic and Apostolic Church" ; 
 and in the preface to the ordination service, she speaks of the 
 Ministry as an essential part of the Church, and declares, " that 
 from the Apostle's times there have been these three orders of 
 Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons," and 
 that she cannot allow any to minister at her altars who have not 
 received Episcopal ordination. This is the faith of the Church, 
 and upon this faith she has ever acted. But at the same time, in 
 the declaration of this faith she pronounces no direct sentence of 
 condemnation against any who may happen to differ from her in 
 judgment — she consigns no individuals or sects to pains or pen- 
 alties, merehj because they do not receive her testimony in this par- 
 ticular, but allowing them the privilege of thinking and acting 
 for themselves, she claims the same equal and undoubted privi- 
 lege of thinking and acting for herself ; and this right of holding 
 tho faith, in a pure conscience, she thinks she ought to be per- 
 mitted to enjoy in kindness and in charity. 
 
 But suppose, that instead of allowing this privilege to her, you 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 4t 
 
 assert that her principles are subversive of those which are held 
 by every other denomination of Christians; that they are popish 
 and tyrannical; that they unchurch all other sects and consign 
 them over to the uncovenanted mercies of God; that you will, 
 therefore, enter an eternal protest against her lordly claims; that 
 you will break every link in her Apostolic succession, and this 
 fancied superiority she shall not be permitted to enjoy. True it 
 is, that she has as much right to believe in three orders as others 
 have in two or in one ; that in this respect she but conforms to 
 every well regulated society under heaven, because that in none 
 are the officers all upon the same level; — true it is, that she has 
 as much right to believe in a succession of Bishops as others have 
 in a succession of Presbyters, (for all really believe in a success- 
 ion,) ; true it is, that she has no where avowed the intention of 
 " unchurching others or consigning them over to the uncovenant- 
 ed mercies of God" — this is not her language, but the inferences 
 which others have drawn from her doctrines ; still, notwithstand- 
 ing all this, her claims are " exclusive, bigoted, uncharitable, and 
 deserving the execration of the community." 
 
 Now I ask you, my friend, is this the dictate of christian love? 
 Is this the kindness of brethren in Christ? Is this the v/ay to 
 convince us of our error or our sin ? Nay, more, is it morally 
 honest to charge the Church with doing that which she has never 
 done, excepting by inference, and when that inference is one 
 which you yourself, or others for you, have drawn from her doc- 
 trines ? 
 
 Let us consider the expression — to " unchurch'' and " consign 
 people over to the uncovenanted mercies of God." There is some- 
 thing frightful about it, and weak nerves are apt to lift up their 
 hands in holy horror whenever it is pronounced. But what does 
 it mean? where does it occur? In our prayers? in our articles? 
 in any of our authorized expositions of truth? No Sir; but with- 
 in a period comparatively recent, it has originated and been han- 
 ded down, and is now become stereotyped for the use of all who 
 desire to excite a prejudice against the Church. But what does 
 it mean? That the Episcopal Church has undertaken to excom* 
 
42 
 
 THE EPISCOPAr, CHORCH 
 
 municate the good christian people of all other denominations — 
 to cast them out of the Church of Christ and of the promises of 
 his covenans? This, undoubtedly, is the meaning which it is 
 intended to convey, and yet, so far is this from being true, that 
 the great desire of her soul is rather to church than to unchurch 
 them, and her voice of invitation is ever lifted up, urging them to 
 come to her communion. But perhaps I shall be told that it 
 means nothing more than this — that in the opinion of Episcopali- 
 ans, the good christian people of other denominations do not real- 
 ly belong to the Church of Christ, and consequently that they 
 have no claim or title to the covenant promises of membership! 
 Well, suppose that it does mean this, and that this is really our 
 opinion. Have we not a right to this opinion? and if we honest- 
 ly entertain it, is it not our duty to say so? Can it be that we 
 have not the right to speak what we honestly believe to be the 
 truth, even in love ? Although your people may be " good peo- 
 ple," much better and wiser than we pretend to be ourselves, 
 still no one will presume to say that you are infallible, nor that 
 possibly some error may not cleave to you ; and therefore, if we 
 are honestly persuaded that you are in error, is it not both our 
 duty and our privilege to tell you so, provided only, that we nev- 
 er transgress the bounds of christian meekness and love ? — that we 
 never employ the language of intemperate zeal and abuse? Can 
 you justly be angry with us because we tell you what we honest- 
 ly believe to be the truth ? Is this any reason why you should 
 regard us as your enemy ? We are perfectly willing that you 
 should combat this opinion ; that you should endeavor to satisfy 
 your own consciences and to convince us of our mistake, and we 
 do not object to the proper manifestation, on your part, of energy 
 and zeal. But we do deny your right to abuse, or to misrep- 
 resent us, or to heap upon us the language of invective and re- 
 proach. You may tell us that our opinions are exclusive — to this, 
 we do not object; for, we think we can prove to you that they are 
 not; we think that we can prove' to you that sectarianism is more 
 exclusive than Catholicism. But when you go farther than this 
 and call us names of reproach, and stigmatze us as " lordly," 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 " bigoted," " popish," " tyrannical," then we lift up ourhands and 
 tell you to beware, and remind you of the words of Christ, "judge 
 not, that ye be not judged, condemn not, that ye be not con- 
 demned." 
 
 But suppose that our opinions are " exclusive." Does it neces- 
 saril follow that they are unchristian or untrue ? By no means. 
 The christian religion is exclusive, for it excludes all other reli» 
 gions, but it is not, therefore, untrue. The doctrine of one only 
 living and true God is exclusive, for it excludes all other gods ; 
 and yet, who will pretend that it is therefore unchristian or un- 
 true ? The declaration that there is but " one name under heaven 
 whereby any man can be saved," is exclusive, for it excludes ev- 
 ery other name and every other mode of salvation, and yet, how 
 unjust would be the inference that it is therefore unchristian or 
 untrue. Indeed, there is one sense in which all the doctrines of 
 Christianity are exclusive, for they exclude the opposite errors; 
 aud may we not, therefore, reasonably argue, that the very ex- 
 clusiveness of the doctrine of "one holy Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church" IS rather an evidence of its truth than of its falsehood. 
 
 Although in one sense, therefore, all the doctrines of Christian- 
 ity are exclusive, still, in another and a more important sense they 
 are inclusive, for they include all truth, and truth alone can ulti- 
 mately produce the greatest good to the greatest number. The 
 grand question to be considered, therefore, in reference to any of 
 these doctrines is, not whether they are " exclusive," but wheth- 
 er they are true. 
 
 But you must allow me to say, that the Episcopal Church has 
 never, even expressed, the opinion, that the christian people of 
 other denominations are not members of the Church of Christ ; 
 much less can it be shown that she has ever " unchurched others 
 and consigned them over to the uncovenanted mercies of God." 
 She prays for " all who profess and call themselves Christians, 
 that they may hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of 
 peace and in righteousness of life." She invites all who havo 
 " fruly and earnestly repented of their sins, arc in love and char- 
 ity with their neighbors, and intend to lead anew life," to come 
 
44 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 to her communion. At the same time she declares to all, as the 
 voice of the Universal Church at all times and in every place, and 
 from the beginning, that Baptism is the outward act by which alone 
 we can be admitted to the membership of Christ's kingdom, and 
 that the right of administering baptism belongs to that ministry 
 which Christ has established, which has never been destroyed, 
 and which, in her opinion, consists of the three orders of Bishops, 
 Priests and Deacons. This is her solemn testimony and firm be- 
 lief. But at the same time she steps not out of her own rank to 
 praise or censure others. She utters no uncharitable sentence of 
 condemnation against any. She is contented with the plain and 
 simple declaration and manifestation of the truth. Not, of course, 
 tliat the Church has no opinion in relation to the practice of oth- 
 ers, nor that her opinions never come in conflict with others, for 
 truth must ever come in conflict with error ; but that she never 
 pronounces the uncharitable sentence of condemnation against 
 any. And when, therefore, an attempt is made to excite against 
 us the indignation of the community in consequence of this pre- 
 tended ground of defence, we cannot but feel, in the sorrow of our 
 heart, that truth has been violated, and that the cause of Christ 
 has been deeply wounded in the very house of his friends. 
 
 We are conscious, however, that much of this misreprenta- 
 tion arises from ignorance. People do not understand the Church. 
 They read little or nothing in her defence or in explanation of 
 her doctrines and services. Every thing that is said by the i?o« 
 manists on the one hand and by the ultra Protestants on the other, 
 is greedily seized upon, and christian Ministers, taking their ar- 
 guments from some controversial work, without ever examining 
 the opposite side, reiterate in their pulpits the most preposterous 
 statements ; and all this we would not presume to deny, with per- 
 fect sincerity, and simply, because they are really ignorant of the 
 question at issue and of the facts in the case. 
 
 This is the apology which we make. We impute no corrupt 
 motives to any ; we charge them not with intentional misrepre- 
 sentation ; but we trust in God, that the time is not far distant 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 m 
 
 when the people will examine for themselves, and when hoih 
 tides of the controversy shall be well understood. 
 
 In the mean time, we feel no alarm for the Church, for we be- 
 lieve that she is founded upon a Rock ; that she does not depend 
 upon human arguments or earthly power ; and we are verily per- 
 suaded, that those who are fighting against her, are really fight- 
 ing against God, though they themselves may be ignorant of it. 
 
 You speak in your letter of " self-slyled successors of the Apos- 
 tles," and of their " lordly claims," as though there was some- 
 thing arrojjant and preposterous in the claim of Apostolic suc- 
 cession. But suppose, now, that I should retort this language, 
 (which God forbid,) do you think that you are entirely invulner- 
 able ? Do you not know that there are but two ways by which 
 an individual may be commissioned by Christ to act in his behalf 
 and as his ambassador? That he must either derive his com- 
 mission directly and immediately, as St. Paul did, or else he must 
 derive it indirectly and mediately, as Timothy and Titus did, by 
 the ordination of men having authority ? And which, I ask you, 
 is the more arrogant and preposterous and lordly claim — to claim 
 the extraordinarj- and direct commission after the manner of St. 
 Paul, and with none of the miraculous qualifications of St. Paul to 
 sustain the claim, or to claim the commission in that ordinary and 
 common mode which the Saviour has established in his Church? 
 Which is the more arrogant and lordly? But I will not press the 
 question, and therefore turn from it to another. 
 
 What is meant by the Apostolic succession? Did not the Sa- 
 viour commission the Apostles ? Did not they commission others ? 
 Did not St. Paul say to Timothy, " the same commit thou to faith- 
 ful men who shall be able to teach others also ?" And is not this 
 commission of the ministerial office from one to another, from 
 the time of the Saviour to the present — is not this zl succession in 
 the ministry — an Apostolic succession'^ And does not this suc- 
 cession constitute one of the strongest arguments — a standing 
 miracle, I had almost said — for the facts of Gospel History ? And, 
 so far, is it not a fulfilment of the Savior's promise, given to 
 
46 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 the Apostles, " Lo, I am with you alwaj^ even to the eod of the 
 world?" 
 
 But more than this ; is this doctrine of succession peculiar to 
 the Episcopal Church ? Surely not, for it is maintained by all 
 sound divines of every persuasion. What said the Westminster 
 Assembly of Presbyterians? " The receiving of our ordination 
 from Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Churches, and all 
 along through the apostate Church of Eome, is so far from nulli- 
 fying our Ministry or disparaging of it, that it is a great strength- 
 ening of it, when it shall appear to all the world that our Minis- 
 try is derived from Christ and his Apostles, by succession of a 
 Ministry continued in the Church for sixteen hundred years, and 
 that we have a lineal succession from the Apostles.'" What said 
 the late distinguished Dr. Lathrop, a Congregational or Presby- 
 terian Minister of New England? Not long before his death he 
 published two sermons entitled " Christ's warning to the Churches 
 to beware of false prophets, &c." The object of the sermons was 
 to warn the Churches against encroachments of self-constituted 
 teachers, and he proves that the only way in which they can be 
 preserved from them, is by the doctrine of the necessity (>f an 
 external commission, derived by regular uninterrupted succession. 
 This is his language. "Many centuries, it will be said, have 
 elapsed since Christ commissioned his Apostles, and since they 
 ordained their successors ; and how can we know that the success- 
 ion has continued without interruption?" In answer to this ob- 
 jection the author says, " We have the express promise of Christ 
 that he will support his Church and be with his Ministers ' always, 
 even to the end of the world.' When we compare this promise 
 with the institution of the ministry and the mode of introduction 
 which immediately followed, we think it can import no less than 
 that a regular ministry should never cease in the Church, nor ' 
 any necessity occur for departing from the instituted manner of 
 introduction. We have the inslilution,the promise and the Apos- 
 tolic practice, and what more do we need ? The promise so em- 
 phatically expressed, and so clearly interpreted, by subsequent 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 47 
 
 usage, must, we think, be understood as we have stated it. It 
 is, then, by no means necessary that by historical deduclion we 
 should prove an uninterrupted succession; we have a right to 
 presume it until evidence appears to the contrary. If any say 
 that the succession has failed, i/ie burden of proo f must lie wholly 
 on them. Let them from incontestible history show us the time, 
 place and manner in which it terminated ; who were the last 
 Ministers in the line from the Apostles ; who in the new line ; 
 who the Layman that ordained them; and where was the scene 
 of transaction. Until we have this information we rely on the 
 promise of Christ, in the sense in which we understand it." 
 Such was the remarkable confession of this great man, whose 
 intellectual vision enabled him to foresee the disastrous effects 
 which were likely to arise, from the strange doctrine, that every 
 individual, who thinks or feels that he ought to preach, has a right 
 to do so. No wonder, when this inward feeling or impulse is 
 made the on/;/ test of qualification, that the Church of Christ should 
 be rent by every kind of heresy and schism. Thus I might go 
 on and show, by concession of the soundest divines of almost ev- 
 ery persuasion, that the doctrine of the Apostolical succession is 
 by no means peculiar to the Episcopal Church. 
 
 But do you not believe in some kind of succession yourself 7 
 Why, then, the effort which Dr. Bangs has made, (and whose ex- 
 ample, I understand, you have followed,) to prove that Bishops 
 and Presbyters are the same order? Did you not think that if 
 you could prove this, then you would convince your hearers, that 
 Mr. Wesley, who was a Presbyter, had aright to ordain Dr. Coke — 
 a right which belonged to him in virtue of his office, which he 
 had received from others, and they from others, and so on through 
 the corrupt Church of Rome up to the very time of the Apostles 
 themselves ? Jf this was not your object — if, in your opinion, any 
 individual who chooses may administer the sacraments and preach 
 the Gospel — then it can make no difference whether Mr. Wesley 
 was a Bishop, a Presbyter, a Deacon or a Layman ; and no effort 
 wasnecesary, on your part, to establish his right to ordain by vir- 
 tue of his office. But more than this, I find that, in an ancient 
 
48 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 copy of your minutes, (1789,) the question is asked, "Who are 
 the persons that exercise the Episcopal office in the Methodist 
 Church in Europe and America?" And then the answer given, 
 is this, "John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by 
 regular order and succession." (Who did John Wesley succeed 
 in the Episcopal office ?) Really, my good friend, I hope that af- 
 ter this, you will be more cautious as to the manner in which you 
 attempt to ridicule the Apostolic succession. 
 
 The subject is one of great importance and solemnity, and when 
 understood and practised, is the only safeguard of the Church 
 against the assaults of self-constituted Teachers. The Laity 
 are especially concerned in maintaining it, for it alone can relieve 
 their minds from doubt as to the question, whether they really 
 have the sacraments or not. 
 
 But again, in your letter, speaking directly of me, you say, that 
 "efforts have been made again and again to prejudice this com- 
 munity against Methodism" — "efforts which you could but look 
 upon as jesuitical, wanton, unauthorized and inconsistent with 
 the charities of the Gospel, and without a parallel in your expe- 
 rience." These are heavy accusations, and should not be made 
 without the most substantial reasons, and therefore, in the pres- 
 ent stage of our discussion I shall not attempt any direct reply. 
 You have lived in this community little more than a year, and in 
 another year, it is probable, that you will be gone ; and if in this 
 fihort time you have discovered such traits in my character, I can 
 only hope that a longer acquaintance will tend to remove them ; 
 and I am content that those who have had this longer acquain- 
 tance with me, shall be permitted to judge of the justice of your 
 charges. 
 
 But if such efforts have been made, as you pretend, to preju- 
 dice the community against Methodism, then ihey have been 
 made within the last year ; and when you remember how long it 
 is that your people have been almost as sheep without a shepherd, 
 you will at least give me the credit of waiting in my efforts, until 
 they were provided both with a Church, and a Pastor whose abil- 
 ities ore said to be superior to those of any other individual in 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 this section of the country. There is one thing, however, of which 
 you must allow me to remind you ; not that I would accuse you 
 of it, but that I would stir up your pure mind by way of remem- 
 brance, and that is, that it is possible to slander an individual, 
 not only by charging him with crimes which he never committed, 
 but by heaping upon his person those injurious names and scan- 
 dalous epithets which he does not deserve. As in the case of 
 Corah and his company Avhen they accused Moses of being am- 
 bitious, unjust and tyrannical; or in the case of the Pharisees 
 when they called our Lord a blasphemer, a sorcerer, a gluttonous 
 man and a wine bibber; or in the case of those Jews who charged 
 the Apostles that they were pestilent, turbulent, factious and sedi- 
 tious fellows. All these are instances of manifest calumny, and 
 most humiliating is the reflection that many individuals mistake 
 the use of such langtmge for argument. And this kind of slan- 
 der may be more injurious than any other, inasmuch as it may 
 fix upon our neighbor a more heavy and irreparable wrong; for 
 these names include all that the imagination of any individual 
 may choose to invest them with, and being general and indefinite in 
 their nature, specifying neither time, place or circumstance, it is, 
 of course, im.possible to disprove them. In future, therefore, 1 
 propose, that if either of us intend to bring such accusations as 
 you have made above, we shall be very particular in making the 
 sjiecijications. 
 
 You remark that there are many things in the Church which 
 you admire; that you have strong attachments to her, &c. Of 
 all this I have no doubt, and did you but know her better, you 
 would admire her more — her doctrines and her services all im- 
 prove upon acquaintance, and hence we find, that few are will- 
 ing to leave her who have once been brought within her fold. 
 But others have expressed their admiration more warm.ly than 
 yourself. You have read the testimony of the late Dr. Adam 
 Clark, one of the most brilliant lights in your spiritual horizon. 
 
 "I consider the Church of England," said he, "the purest na- 
 tional Church in the world. I was brought up in its bosom; I 
 was intended for its ministry'; I have been a Methodist for half a 
 4 
 
50 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 century ; I have been a preacher for forty-three years, and I am 
 greatly deceived, indeed, if I be not Avithout any abatement a 
 thorough member of the Church of England. Its doctrines and 
 sacraments which constitutes the essence of a Church, I hold con- 
 scientiously as it holds them. I reverence the Liturgy next to the 
 Bible. I proclaim its doctrines and administer its sacraments, 
 not only in the same spirit in which it holds and administers them, 
 but also in the same words or form. I also reverence its order* 
 and highly esteem its hierarchy" [sacred orders] " and have not a 
 particle of a dissenter in me, though I love and esteem all good 
 men and able ministers wherever I find them. But I preach and 
 have long preached without any kind of Episcopal orders. My 
 family fell into decay, and ray education v.'as left imperfect. / 
 would grealhj have -preferred the hands of the Bishop, but not hav- 
 ing gone through the regular courses, I could not claim it." 
 
 Again, when speaking of the Liturgy, Dr. Clark remarks, **It 
 is almost universally esteemed by the devout and pious of every 
 denomination, and is the greatest eflbrt of the reformation next 
 to the translation of the Scriptures into the English language; a 
 work which all who are acquainted with it, deem superior to ev- 
 ery thingaf the kind produced either byancient or modern times, 
 and several of the prayers and services of which were in use from 
 the first ages of Christianity ; and many of the best of them be- 
 fore the name of Pope or popery was known in the earth. As 
 a form of devotion it has no equal in any part of the universal 
 Church of God. It is founded on those doctrines which contain 
 the sum and essence of Christianity and speaks the language of 
 the sublimest piety, and of the most refined devotional feeling. 
 Next to the Bible, it is the book of my understanding and my 
 heart." 
 
 Then we have the testimony of Mr. Watson, another distin- 
 g-uished Divir.e of the Methodist Communion. " Such a Litur- 
 gy," said he, ''makes the service of God's house appear more- 
 like our true business on the Lord's day, and besides the aid 
 which it affords to the most devout and spiritual, a great body of 
 evangelical truth is, by constant use, laid up in the minds of chii' 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 61 
 
 dren and ignorant people, who when at length they begin to pray 
 under a religious concern are already furnished with suitable, 
 sanctifying, solemn and impressive petitions. Persons well ac- 
 quainted with the Liturgy are certainly in a state of important 
 preparation for the labors of a preacher; and their piety often 
 takes a richer and more sober character from that circumstance.'* 
 How does this extract from Mr. Watson rebuke the spirit of those 
 who represent the services of the Church as cold and formal, and 
 destructive to the cultivation of vital religion. 
 
 But what said the great Robert Hall, the distinguished Baptist 
 divine? Speaking of the Liturgy, he said, "I believe that the 
 evangelical purity of its sentiments, the chastened fervor of its 
 devotion and the majestic simplicity of its language have com- ■ 
 bined to place it in the very first rank of uninspired compositions." 
 How strange, with such testimonies in its favor, that so many 
 "who profess and call themselves christians/' should refuse to 
 unite in the devotions of the Liturgy and should presume to im- 
 agine that tliey are too good, as it were, to lift up their voices in 
 its solemn petitions ! 
 
 What said the well knoAvn Thomas Scott, the Commentator ? 
 "I am a Minister of the Church of England, and I hope to continue 
 60, as I prefer her Liturgy, her discipline and her doctrine to that 
 of any other Society of Christians in the Universe." You observe 
 here, that it was not because the Church of England was con- 
 nected with the state, that he preferred it, but because it possess- 
 es those important things which Dr. Clark says " constitute the 
 essence of a Church." 
 
 What said Dr. Doddridge of the Liturgy ? " The langnage ia 
 80 plain as to be level to the capacities of the meanest, and yet 
 the sense is so noble as to raise the conceptions of the greatest."' 
 
 What said Alexander Knox? " I cannot doubt that in the full- 
 ness of time the Prayer Book will be accounted the richest treas- 
 ure, next to the canonical Scriptures, in the Christian Church." 
 
 What said the divines of the Synod of Dort — the celebrated coun- 
 cil of Dutch Reformed Clergymen, assembled in 1619 ? " We havs 
 a great honor for the good order and discipline of the Church of 
 
fig 
 
 THK BPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 England, and hear lily wish we could establish ourselves upon thia 
 model y 
 
 All these testimonies in favor of the Church you will find col- 
 lected in "Dorr's Manual," and in " Odenheimer's Ofiering to 
 Churchmen;" and surely we have reason not only to regard them 
 in some instances, as important concessions, but as reluctant ack» 
 nowledgments of the superior advantages of the Episcopal Church ; 
 for in all that "constitutes the essence of a Church," the Episco- 
 pal Church in this country is the same with the Church of Eng» 
 land, and only differs from her in that which has nothing to do 
 with the " essence of a church," and which is really an injury to 
 the latter. O, how it grieves one's heart, to hear young converts 
 who have but just entered upon the duty of prayer, uttering lan- 
 guage of ridicule and contempt for the hallowed supplications of 
 the Liturgy, and presuming to question the piety of those chris- 
 tians, who love to breathe the fervent spirit of its devotions I How 
 pitiful do the books and tracts of Dr. Bangs appear, when placed 
 in contrast with the noble sentiments of Clark, and Hall, and 
 Doddridge ! 
 
 Sincerely hoping that the remarks which I have now made may 
 find a favorable reception, and be considered calmly, and witli* 
 out prejudice, 
 
 I subscribe myself. 
 
 Very Respectfully, ice. &c. 
 
 James A. Bolues. 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 October 17, 1842. 
 
 To the Rev. Allen Steele : — 
 
 Dear Sir: — As it is now about three weeks since my second 
 communication was sent to yon, I hope you will not think me too 
 impatient, if I express my anxiety for a reply, provided you in- 
 tend to send me one. 
 
 Of course I would not think of urging you to any thing like 
 haste, but having already prepared and delivered a series of Lec- 
 tures, I suppose that you can, without much trouble, so arrange 
 the arguments as to enable me to proceed in their consideration. 
 
 Will you be so kind as to inform me by the bearer whether 
 any reply is to be expected by me, and when it will probably be 
 sent. 
 
 Very Respectfully, &c. 
 
 James A. Bolles. 
 
 Batavia, October 17, 1842. 
 
 Rev. J. A. Bolles: — 
 
 Dear Sir: — Your communication to which you refer, was re- 
 ceived just as I was leaving for Yates county, and since my re- 
 turn, having to remove my family to another part of the village, 
 I have not had a moments leisure to answer it. During the pre- 
 sent week I think I shall be able to reply to such portions of it aa 
 are relevant. 
 
 As to the arrangement of arguments so as to enable you to pro- 
 ceed, you must explain what you mean. I am not aware of what 
 you refer to. 
 
 Yours, Respectfully, 
 
 Allen Steeii. 
 
64 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 Batavia, October 18, 1842. 
 
 Eev. Mr. Bolles: — 
 
 Dear Sir: — My apology for this delay in replying to yours of 
 Sept. 19th, I trust was satisfactory. I have improved the first 
 leisure hour in answering it, though I know of no special object 
 to be gained by any haste in this matter — yet as from some cause 
 you seem to be impatient, I have sought to remove that impa* 
 tience at my earliest convenience. 
 
 A large portion of your lengthy epistle refers to subjects which 
 I cannot consent to discuss in this random, and, as I consider, 
 useless way. I suppose you are a conscientious Episcopalian. 
 This I do not doubt, nor am I so vain as to entertain the thought 
 that any thing that I could say would induce you to change your 
 views of what I call high churchism. On the other hand, though 
 I readily admit your ability to present the argument on your side 
 in its strongest form, yet, as I examined that ground while pur- 
 suing my Theological studies with a member of your Church, I 
 cannot think that any effort of this kind would result in my con- 
 version to the exclusive and high-toned claim nov/ advanced by 
 your leading periodicals. Hence I know of no good that would 
 result from a -private discussion of the peculiarities of our or your 
 church. So far as wrong exists between you and myself, it is 
 proper that explanations should be made when called for, and if 
 possible, the wrong righted. And this may be perhaps satisfac- 
 torily done by private correspondence, and thus far I am willing, 
 in the character of a private correspondent, to travel with you, 
 but not beyond it, without first settling a number of preliminary 
 questions. Judging from your letter, I should think that in your 
 estimation, even this effort at explanation was increasing, instead 
 of narrowing, the cause of the offence, especially if the number 
 of the items named, or the quantity of paper used, are to be taken 
 into the account. And if a similar explanation of differences on 
 Church government and order Avould lead to similar results, it 
 should most certainly be avoided as a thing to be deprecated. 
 You have certainly spared neither time nor material to give me 
 most wholesome advice on the importance of self-government ^ and 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 if I still persist in recklessness, it will not be the sin of ignorance. 
 I trust, however, I shall prove myself a teachable son in the Gos- 
 pel, even though I may be looked upon as illegitimate. After 
 such lessons upon brotherly love and ministerial kindness, and 
 bible morality, from a regular successionisl, you will not think it 
 strange if I express my surprise that in the same document I find 
 the author of these good instructions giving most abundant evi- 
 dence of being guilty of the same offence. But it is one of the 
 frailties of human nature to complain most of those traits in oth- 
 ers, which are most prominent in ourselves. Let us look at a 
 few items of beautiful harmony between the Ministers teachings 
 and the Ministers practice, as furnished by the same letter, and 
 the more so, because example is said to be better than precept. 
 
 You complain of my applying to you "hard names and epi- 
 thets," and speak most affectingly of your sorrowful emotions that 
 I should so far forget myself as to be guilty of so great an offence. 
 Now without permitting my imagination to conjure up mere spec- 
 tres, so horrifying to your feelings, I shall confine myself to the 
 record, and present a few of the beautiful specimens your letter 
 contains "of Christian kindness and truth." In great kindness, 
 in the midst of your essay on brotherly love, I am most affection- 
 ately charged with possessing neither love for the truth, nor the 
 6pirit of the Gospel — of calling you Beelzebub, and persecuting 
 one who lives Godly in Christ Jesus — of having caused you to be 
 charged with falling into the horrible pit of Romanism and Infi- 
 delity — undeserving of public sympathy and support — that I have 
 produced heart-burnings, bickerings, evil speaking, false reporie, 
 etc. — that I have violated the scriptural rule of brotherly inter- 
 course — been reckless of the common obligations of morality, 
 more so .than men of the world — that I have been guilty of de- 
 ceit — of exagerating and torturing the truth — oi slander and false- 
 liood. Such are a few of the mild and very soft epithets that 
 spice your essay on christian kindness. And Doctors in Divini- 
 ty and Leaders in the Church come in for an equal share of your 
 bpotherly affection 
 
 With such discrepancies between precept and example, per- 
 
56 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHUECH 
 
 mit me, while I express my regret that I should have been the 
 occasion of your great sorrow for having, in a moment of excite- 
 ment, as you allege, so far forgotten myself as to use hard epi- 
 thets to recommend to you that very wholsome adage, " Pysician, 
 heal thyself." And while your benevolent heart weeps over the 
 faults of others, forget not to exercise that godly sorrow for your- 
 self which worketh repentance not to be repented of. 
 
 My saynigs might have been hard, but nothing is harder to 
 crrorists than truth, and if better men have had these same char- 
 ges urged against their principles, it is only evidence that the ex- 
 clusive nature of these principles, in themselves disconnected 
 from all extraneous circumstances, are a provocation of no ordi- 
 nary magnitude, for better men than myself have urged them. 
 Hard epithets! What, High Churchmen talk of hard epithets 
 npplied to them by,ths Methodists I And of whom did they learn 
 these epithets? What harder ones were ever applied to your 
 Church by Mother Eome than you have applied to us, from Wes- 
 ley down to the present da3^ The early history of Methodism 
 would give you beautiful specimens of epithets applied copiously 
 by the sanction of your Ministers, in the shape of brick-bats and 
 eggs, when the arguments to prove that we were not orthodox 
 " were Apostolic blows and knocks." True, that in Tract No. 4 
 those hard epithets have softened down into an intimation that 
 we are an ignorant, fanatical set of enthusiasts, Avith a few aspir- 
 ing leaders who, waiting until Wesley was out of the way, went 
 to work and organized something which they called a Church ; 
 bat that we are not a Church — have no ministry, no sacraments, 
 no divine warrant — but are living in a state of sin against God, 
 and advises the christian, the man of the world, the Methodist 
 himself, as they would avoid hell and secure heaven to keep clear 
 of Methodism. (How kind, how affectionate.) And in Tract No. 
 5, it is softened dov.-n to the charge of having •'no authorized 
 ministry, no sacrament, no covenant, no church, and being out of 
 Ihe covenant we are out of the promise, out of God's mercy and 
 favor, and have no pledge, no assurance of salvation, and in the 
 conclusion are most graciously consigned over to those on whom 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 fi7 
 
 the wrath of God now tihideth. What splended specimens of the 
 spirit recommended by Paul in the 13th chap, of I. Cor. And if 
 you wish any further specimens almost any number of your 
 Churchman will supply you. What else than policy has produced 
 even this change in the kind of weapons used. Surely we have 
 had substantial proofs of your kindness. And here, perhaps, I 
 may as well notice what yon say of the substantial proofs your 
 people have given of friendship. I conclude you refer to the con- 
 tributions of the members of your Church for the erection of St. 
 John's Church. Suppose you make out the bill as credit and 
 enter per contra the a.mount St. James Church has received from 
 Methodists for the last twelve years, and on which side, do you 
 think, the balance would be struck? A little arithmatic some- 
 times is beneficial in settling difficulties, and it may be benefi- 
 cial here in giving stability to your substantial proofs. But should 
 it be found in j-our favor, I do not suppose you will contend that 
 so small an amount purchased the right of sending us silently to 
 perdition ; certainly in receiving your contributions we understood 
 no such contract, and if it is urged, shall demur, and chose to re- 
 fund the balance. 
 
 You complain that I have violated the scriptural rule, "If thy 
 brother trespass," etc., and that if I feel injured by your circula- 
 ting the tracts or in any other matter, that it was my duty to have 
 introduced the subject to you, etc. Let us see how the Minister 
 Has practiced on this principle of Bible equity. Surely one be- 
 longing to the true Church should not complain of a schismatic, 
 for a departure which he practices himself. But to the proof. 
 You labor to make out that the attack was all on our part, and 
 that you circulated the tracts and resorted to other means merely 
 in self-defence. If this was true, why did you not obey the scrip- 
 tural rule " If thy brother," ect., and yet, though I have been with 
 you certainly as frequent as you have with me, " you never deign- 
 ed to introduce the matter tome." Thou that teachest the law, 
 dost thou transgress the law? Now if v/hat yon attempt to prove 
 i.s true, that I was first in the offence, then are you guilty, by your 
 own exposition of scripture, of violating the scriptural rule of 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 brotherly conduct, and if I am not first in the offence then yoa 
 concede your main ground of complaint. As you are fond of di- 
 lemmas here is one on either horn of which you may take your 
 choice to hang. 
 
 You complain of my speaking evil of an absent brother with- 
 out sufficient or, indeed, any cause. And what treatment have 
 absent brethren received from this teacher of brotherly kindness ? 
 "What kind of language, in your attempt to make out a cause of 
 my evil speaking, ha-ve you used in the same document, in refer- 
 ence to absent brethren? Why, that Drs. Peck and Bangs, men 
 whose moral chracters are as pure and whose intellectual strength 
 is equal to Bishop De Lancy's, the testimony of the former is wn- 
 worUiij of confidence, and the latter is guilty of falsehood ! Where 
 in the report of the "Leader's Meeting," or any of my sayings 
 of absent brethren, will you find so wanton an attack upon chris- 
 tian character? But I am sick of such stuff, and will pursue this 
 point no further, especially as these specimens will show you the 
 importance of being a little cautious. And although you may 
 think it assuming for a schismatic, a mere pretender, to council 
 one in " regular orders," yet I would seriously recommend a self 
 application of the wholsome advice you have so freely given to 
 your neighbor. 
 
 In regard to your explanations, I readily grant you have shown 
 both tack and talent, and furnished evidence that you are not an 
 undisciplined disputant — lliat you can manage a bad cause to the 
 best advantage. By your dwelling on matters irrelevant, you 
 evidently labor to divert attention from the point in issue, and 
 show more of the character of a special pleader than in my mind 
 is consistant with private correspondence of Ministers. Surely 
 there is no need of reviewing the history of the whole Church to 
 show which of us is guilty in the matter between us. What has 
 the publication of articles in the Christian Advocate and Journal 
 in 1836, to do with the matter novv^ in controversy ? Do your peo- 
 ple take that paper? if not, they could not be injured by them, 
 and if they do, if they were so efi'ectually reviewed in the Church- 
 man, (your paper,) and that by a Methodist Minister, and if the 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 articles were so grossly abusive and destitute of argument as you 
 assert, surely the antidote was more than sufficient, without the 
 aid of Tracts No. 4 & 5, in 1842. These articles you would have 
 us think, were very powerful things, and yet, in another part of 
 your letter you speak of them, in book form, as worthless, and 
 that if they had not the name of their author they would have no 
 influence; but in the Advocate they were published without his 
 name, — put this and that together. 
 
 1836 you fix as the date of the Methodist attack upon your 
 Church. Were I disposed to go into an investigation of this point, 
 I might show you some beautiful specimens of Christian kindness 
 and truth in your periodicals, in reference to our Church, bearing 
 a much earlier date, and which have all the characteristics "o/" 
 parly slang,'' though your Church never takes a part in " party 
 controversy," for she is on the rock (I thought it was Christ's 
 Church and not the Protestant Episcopal Church) and fears not 
 her security. I wonder what you call your Church — what con- 
 glitutes it, and by what kind of logic you would justify " party 
 slang and party controversy" on the part of her ministry in defend- 
 ing her, when she would not be justifiable in it herself. These 
 are some of the mysteries which mere pretenders do not under- 
 stand. 
 
 What has our matter to do with Dr. Bangs' works ? If you feel 
 yourself competent to join issue with him in reference to his er« 
 roneous statements, I presume he will not decline the engage- 
 ment, and perhaps you might find that he is as well acquainted 
 with the history and canons of your Church as some of your Min- 
 isters. At all events, I think you will find it easier to call his 
 statements hard than to prove them false. You charge me, in- 
 deed, of circulating a copy of his work, and so far it may be rel- 
 evant to the case in hand, and this is the only ground of complaint 
 tliat you have given as the cause of your action against us, that 
 is relevant. Let us examine this point carefully, for if you fail 
 here, you must exhonerate me from the charge of commencing 
 the war, and admit that we have acted on the defensive Yo»i 
 charge me with commencing this difficulty by circulating among 
 
60 
 
 TnS EPISCOPAL CHCKCn 
 
 your people books such as never before had appeared in this Til- 
 lage, containing the grossest mistakes in relati m to the doctrine 
 of your Church. Had you obeyed that rule of scripture you so 
 much admire, and come to me, you might have learned your mis- 
 take. I never circulated such books in this or any other village, 
 I never circulated copies, or a copy, of Dr. Bangs' work on an 
 *' Original Church of Christ," to any members or member of your 
 Church. It is true, a member of my congregation, not of your 
 Church, at his own special request and upon the profession of his 
 being an honest inquirer in reference to our organization, did ob- 
 tain for his own use, a loan of the only copy of that work I ever 
 owned. Was this a crime ? And yet this is all of the offence. 
 
 And now let us see with what grace you talk of the foment" 
 produced among our members by your circulating Tract No. 4L 
 On your discovering in the house of a member of my congrega- 
 tion the book complained of, was there no excitement manifested. 
 Did you not put a copy of Tract- No. 4. into his hands, so, if pos- 
 eible, to counteract the influence of Dr. Bangs' arguments, or was 
 you first in furnishing him with such instruction ? In either case 
 who was doing the v/ork of a peaceable Pastor? But there is 
 more in this fact in which you hinge the whole of your efforts 
 against us. With the circumstances of the case you were made 
 acquainted, and the gentleman told you himself, how he obtain- 
 ed the book on his own special request, and assured you that I 
 had acted only the part of a christian friend in lending it to him, 
 for which he was grateful. And yet, with a knowledge of these 
 facts, you and your people, silent as you say they have been, have 
 published it from one end of the village to the other, that I com- 
 menced this war by circulating among your feofle books of the 
 most abusive character. Never was there a greater slander or a 
 more positive falsehood uttered, and by what rule of brotherly 
 kindness have you given currency to this known falsehood? You 
 possessed a knowledge of the facts at the time you gave it cur- 
 rency, and can christian charity say that you did not intend to 
 slander me? You designed, at least, to shelter yourself at the ex- 
 pense of — (not to use hard epithets) a brothers character, and 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 61 
 
 yot, in all your intercourse with me "you never deigned to ex- 
 plain it to me." As you are fond of references, permit me here 
 to refer you to the ninth item in the Decalogue, as containing 
 wholsome advice. 
 
 I will not stop to notice the hundred-and-onc stories that you 
 people have put into th^ mouth of Madam Rumor, " That the sain- 
 ted wisdom of the Methodist Episcopal Church is employed in 
 furnishing me with sermons to preach down St. James' Church, 
 and that this was the object in sending me here, etc. etc. Now, 
 certainly, this can exist only in fancy, for the members of your 
 Church have possessed themselves in peace — they never stoop to 
 party slang — it is these ranting Methodist that do all the harm 
 on both sides, and are accountable, for all the evils that grow out 
 of party excitement. So taught the Pharisees in the days of the 
 Apostles, and thus has exclusiveness and intolerance ever taught. 
 
 There are some other items in connection with the origin of 
 this attack, which would carry it back earlier than the date of the 
 book's leaving my library, and which would show that other rea- 
 sons might account for its origin than those given in your letter. 
 "The haste of a few to build up a church," would show that the 
 benevolence of the Rev. J. A. Bolles manifested in his liberal do- 
 nation for the erection of St. John's Church, was indebted to a 
 Tcry peculiar principle. I trust it will not be necessary to men- 
 tion them, nor should I have odverted to them but for the singu- 
 lar course you have taken in your letter. I will only say on this 
 point, that those who live in glass houses should be cautious how 
 they throw stones, for with what measure you meet it shall be 
 meeted to you again. Let not him that girdeth on the harness 
 boast himself as he that lakcth it off. 
 
 You mistake my meaning altogether in reference to the doc- 
 trine of the Tracts. Nothing is intimated by me of what forms 
 a large portion of your lettejj. You affirm that Tract No. 5 con- 
 tains nothing more than the faith of the Methodist E. Church. 
 This is strange, indeed! Why, then, did the author withhold 
 his name, from fear of the storm that the Methodists would raise 
 against him, if his name was out, as you intimate ? Do the Meth- 
 
62 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 dists so much dread to have their doctrines published 1 Your 
 apology for this nameless author is worthy of a Knightship, and 
 reminds me of the French Revolution, when the v/atchword of a 
 certain class was, "Strike, but conceal the hand" — a method of 
 warfare very convenient to the assailant under certain circum- 
 stances, and when the attack is of a certain character, which I 
 will not name, lest you should charge me with using hard epi- 
 thets. Does the Methodist Episcopal Church believe that Bish- 
 ops are, by divine right, an order superior to, distinct from, and 
 have powers, authority, and rites incompatible with Presbyters, 
 simply as Presbyters — that the Bishops of this order are the sole 
 successors of the Apostles as ordainers of other Ministers and 
 governors, both of Pastors and people — that this succession is a 
 personal succession, viz., that it is to be traced through an histor- 
 ical series of persons validly ordained as Bishops, transmitting- 
 in an unbroken line this Episcopal order and power to the latest 
 generation — that no Ministr;/ is valid except it have this Episco- 
 pal ordination, and that all ordinances and sacraments are vain 
 except they be administered by such Episcopally ordained Min- 
 istry ? No, we deny every one of these positions, and yet this ia 
 the doctrine of Tract No. 5 — the doctrine of Bishop Taylor, of the 
 Oxford Tract men — ^but not the doctrine of many eminent men, 
 both in the Church of England, and her defective representativt 
 in the United States — not the doctrine of our Church, a tyro mig&t 
 know. I wished to know if it was i/nur doctrine, the doctrine of 
 your Church generally. You affirm that Tract No. 4 contains, 
 not the doctrine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, but merely 
 the doctrine of Mr. Wesley. This is begging the question. Tha 
 Tract assumes that Methodism is not a Church — that it is with- 
 out Sacraments, without a Ministry, its members living in sin 
 against God — that the fellowship you have for us should be the 
 same you have for Abolition and l^oral Reform Societies, and 
 proposes to prove it by Mr. Wesley as the witness. Whether the 
 author made out the case or not is immaterial — the question is, 
 what is the doctrine, the claim set up by the author of the TracL 
 This I have just stated. Is this the doctrine of your Church, 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 was what I asked — is this your opinion of us — is this ihefelloic- 
 ship you have for us, the same 3^ou have for those honorable as- 
 sociations you give us ? Certainly there is nothing abstruse here, 
 nothing difhcult to appr(?hend — but perhaps a direct answer would 
 not be convenient. It was against such claims that I entered my 
 protest as being unchristian, exclusive, and intolerant. And if 
 these doctrines are admitted as being the doctrines of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church — this fellowship, the fellowship for us, 
 my protest stands against it, and we shall know how to under- 
 stand and appreciate this talk of friendship to us. Such doctrines 
 I would oppose in all proper ways, as I would oppose Popery. In 
 regard to what you say of the members of our Church, and the 
 motives of their action in the " Leaders' Meeting," I would re- 
 commend you to obey that scriptural rule, and converse with 
 them. You will probably learn that they had more light on the 
 subject than you imagine. Equally irrelevant are many other 
 things that you have introduced. The whole matter may easily 
 be settled by laying aside evasions and special pleadings, and 
 answering a few plain questions. Let me propose a few which 
 you will answer at your leisure : 
 
 L Will you affirm that Bishop De Lancey has had no agenc}' in 
 introducing Tract No. 4, into Western New York. 
 
 2. That you never circulated said Tract, until you knew of my 
 circulating Bang-s' work, and that to counteract its influent* 
 was the cause of your first circulating it. 
 
 3. That you never sought to prevent persons from uniting with 
 our Church, by attempting to show them that our ordination 
 was not valid. 
 
 4. That the reading of Dr. Chapman's Sermons to the public wa» 
 not as much a defence of the government and order of your 
 Church — not as much an attack upon other Churches, as a 
 similar course of Lectures w^hich y&u yourself might prepare 
 and deliver would be. 
 
 These questions answered in the affirmative by you will re- 
 move the necessity of our defence, so far as that necessity was 
 founded on youi supposed attack on our Church and polity. And 
 
64 
 
 THE EriSCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 SO far as the argument referred to that, it shall be publicly re- 
 tracted. But I do not suppose that you will deny me the privi- 
 lege of presenting to my people my views of Church government, 
 and the evidence of our being a true Church. This I had intend- 
 ed to do in my course of sermons on Christian Theology, in its 
 proper place, and without supposing that by doing it I was giv- 
 ing you cause of complaint. I do not complain of your having 
 read Dr. Chapman's sermons— this you had a right to do. But 
 I do complain of injustice, in your publishing to this community 
 that I commenced an offensive war upon your Church, and that 
 without provocation. This you know to be false, and you know 
 that repeated public efforts were made by you to prejudice this 
 community against Methodism before any public notice was ta- 
 ken of them. And then, in my discourses on the subject I have 
 aimed, not at men, but at doctrine. I have sought to explode 
 what I conceived to be erroneous in those tracts, not in the wake 
 of Dr. Bangs, as you would insinuate, nor by declaring that I 
 would sunder every chain in your succession. I made no such 
 pretensions. I am not so vain as to tell my audience beforehand 
 what I shall do. I sometimes tell what I shall attempt to do, and 
 oometimes enquire if I have done it. If your reporter has missed 
 my statements in other matters as much as in these specimens you 
 have given, I fear you will be farther from the truth than yon 
 imagine the "Leader's Meeting" to be. In no one of my dis- 
 courses did I make any allusion to you, or to any thing that you 
 had done ; all your ground of complaint, therefore, lies in the no- 
 tice from the "Leader's Meeting," and if that is incorrect, I am 
 willing to correct it. But we have more evidence of its being 
 correct than that to which you allude. You speak of my having 
 the field all to myself, etc. etc., and wish me to communicate my 
 argument to you, etc. The first, certainly, is most profound ; a 
 great privilege, indeed, that I have my own pulpit to myself and 
 a right to invite the people to come and hear me. Have you not 
 the same privilege? Have you not had the field to yourself, and 
 for these six months poured forth upon the public mind the pecn- 
 liarities of your Church ? and who has complained of that ? This 
 
DEFENDED-. 
 
 6S 
 
 you had a right to do. I hold myself accountnhle to you for my 
 public administrations in my pulpit no farther than your name is 
 concerned, and if this has been used improperly the remedy is at 
 hand, and wlien I am convinced of the fact, shall be promptly ap- 
 plied. It is sufficient to reply to your modest requst for my argu- 
 ments, that the discourses were, publicly announced, and all wiio 
 ■were disposed could have heard for themselves. 
 
 Hoping that if you write me again, you will be so definite as 
 not to leave room for the play of my imagination to conjure up 
 such dreadful spectres — 
 
 I remain, Yours, kc. 
 
 Allen Steele. 
 
 5 
 
66 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHtTKCB 
 
 Batavia, Oct. 27, 1842. 
 
 To the Rev. A. Steele : — 
 
 Dear Sir — -Your epistle of the 18th inst. I will endeavor to re- 
 view in as brief a space as possible, and shaJl proceed in my next 
 to the investigation of the claims of Methodist Episcopacy, as in- 
 timated at the close of my second letter. You say that " by dwel- 
 ling on matters in-elevant, you undoubtedly labor to divert atten- 
 tion from the point in. issue J' Let us see. 
 
 The first point a.l issue, \yas> that Bishop De Lancey had " in- 
 troduced anonymous pamphlets, attacking the character and reg- 
 ulations of the Methodist E. Church,"" and this charge you pub- 
 licly read from your pulpit. Now, was it not relevant in me to. 
 show, that Bishop De Lancey had done no such thing — that your 
 own Leaders had placed the Tract No. 4, on Methodism, in the- 
 Bookstore — that even allowing the statement of Dr. Peck in all 
 its length and breadth, it did not sustain you in the allegation, 
 and that one of the very individuals wha penned the accusation 
 was informed that subsequently to the appearance of the Tracts 
 in this village,, the Bishop had remarked (not to m,e onlJ^ but to 
 another individual who- gave the information) th^it he had never 
 seen or read the Tract at all ?. And now,, instead' of attempting' 
 to answer these facts — instead of attempting even to show that 
 vou had any grounds whatever for the allegation„you charge me 
 with irrelevancy, and then ask me to " affirm that Bishop De Lan- 
 cey has had no agency fi*; introducing Tract No. 4 into Western 
 New-York." After having yourself affirmed publicly,, that ho- 
 has had such agency, you now seek for information as ta the fact.. 
 
 But another point at issue was, that I had also conmenced 'an 
 attack upon " the character and regulations of the Methodist E^ 
 C, by the circulation of the same pamphlet."' In answer to thi» 
 I replied in substance,, that so. far from commenchig such an attack, 
 the whole difficulty was begun and carried on by yourselves ;• 
 and this I proved, not by mx own word merely, but hy facts and 
 dates about which there could be no mistake, and in relation to 
 which it is impossible for any individual to blind our eyes. And 
 how hav« you answered me upon this poiiit ? Why,, by acknowl- 
 
DEFENDED, 
 
 ettging, virtiiaFFy, all that I asserted ; acknowletlging the exis- 
 tence in this village, of the Books and Tracts which I referred to, 
 long before the publication even of the Tract complained of ; ac- 
 knowledging that you did give to the very individual to who^m I 
 re'ferred, the Book of Dr. Bangs; acknowledging your ignorance 
 at least, as to the time when that Book was given, hy asking nve 
 the question as to time, and offering to take my answer and re- 
 tract your assertion; and now, because some of my people have 
 ventured to say, since the reading of the document of the " Lead- 
 er's Meeting," that you had commenced the attack, you declare 
 that there "never was a greater slander or more positive false- 
 hood uttered," and you more than intimate that I circulated this 
 " known falsehood," intenfionalhj and designedly to shield myself 
 at your expense. ReaMy, Sir, there is something in this part of 
 your letter which astonishes me above measure. At the same 
 time you must allow me to say, that there is also something in 
 these wholesale charges so entirely unsustained by the specifica- 
 tion of facts, and so utterly repugnant to your own virtual ac- 
 knowledgements, that I cannot but regard them as ludicrous in 
 the extreme — so ludicrous, indeed, that I could not take offence- 
 at them if I would. 
 
 True, you say that the individual to whom you gave the Book 
 was a vtcviber of your congregation, and not of the Episcopal 
 Church. But what are the facts ? He has been baptised in the 
 Church — confirmed in the Church — his children have- been bap- 
 tized by me — he has ever regarded himself as a member of the^ 
 Church, and does now, and since the reading of Bang's Book, 
 has come to the communio*?. Arc we to understand that every 
 individual who occasionally attends your services, or who, to as- 
 sist you, has purchased a slip, is. thereby rtoi only a bona fide Meth- 
 odist, but that he has utterly renounced all connection with the- 
 Church? If so, the goo^ people of the various denominations in 
 this village should beware. Was this Methodism in the time of 
 Wesley ? 
 
 True, you say yon " gave him the Book on his own special re- 
 quest," and tliQt " in doing so you acted only the part of a ekris* 
 
68 
 
 THE El'ISCOPAL CIIUKCH 
 
 tain fricViil." Very well. So it was with myself; I gave him 
 the tract at his own special requcdl — not because I tound your 
 Eoolc at his house, as you intimate, but because he brought it to 
 me in my study, and wished to know whether I had any reply. 
 I did not complain because you gave him the Book, nor did I im- 
 peach your motives in so doing, nor sliouid I ever have mentioned 
 the fact luid it not been for the complaints which were made, and 
 for the document of your "Leader's Meeting." But when that 
 document was read, charginji- me with commencing an attack up- 
 on } ou by the circulation of tracts, then, certainly, it was my duty 
 to state the case precisely as it was. 
 
 But another point at issue was, that " the Tract was made up 
 of garbled extracts and false statements." To ascertain the truth 
 of this assertion I compared the extracts with Mr. Wesley's works 
 from which they were professedly copied, and ascertained that 
 you were mistaken. I also oOered, if you would point me to any 
 e.vLtracts not to be found in Mr. Wesley's worlis, that I would make 
 it known to the public in almost any way that you might desire, 
 and what was fairer still, that I would read to my congregation 
 the entire Sermons from which those extracts were principally 
 taken, provided you would do the same to yours. All this it 
 seemed to me, Avas relevant; indeed, the only way to get at the 
 facts. And how have you answered me upon this point? Not 
 by bringing forward a single argument to sustain your original 
 assertion — not by pointing out asingle extract as garbled, but by 
 suggesting that "my apology for the nameless author, deserves 
 the honor of a Knightship," (Knighthood, I suppose you mean.) 
 
 But another point at issue was this, " Nothing but a distinct de- 
 nial of the doctrines of the Tracts No. 4 and 5 as being the doc- 
 trines of the Episcopal Church, could deter you from this work of 
 justice." Thus called upon to deny the doctrines of the Tracts, 
 and threatened if I did not, w'hat was my reply? 
 
 In the first place, in relation to Tract No. 5, I replied, that in- 
 asmuch as it contained an argument to prove the three orders of 
 the Christian Ministry as held by the EpiscopakChurch, it could 
 not be denied by me as to its doctrines — and moreover I went on 
 
DEFKNDED. 
 
 69 
 
 to prove tliat the same are the doctrines of the Methodist Church, 
 not as explained hy yourself and Dr. Banfrs, but as contained in 
 your formularies of devotion. And how have you answered me 
 upon this point ? Not by saying a word in relation to your Bool: 
 of Discipline — ^not by bringing forward a single proof from thut 
 authorized exposition of your faith, that I had misrepresented your 
 doctrines, but by doing precisely what I said 3'ou were in the habit 
 of doing, what Dr. Bangs does, and what I understand you did 
 in your Lectures — denying in the very teeth of your standard, 
 that the doctrines of the Tract are the doctrines of 5'our Church. 
 Although on every occasion of ordination you pray to God and 
 acknovvledge in your prayers, that He has " appointed these di- 
 vers orders in Chrisl^s Church,'" orders so distinct and separate 
 from each other in authority and rights, yet in controversy you 
 declare your belief that they are not of divine appointment, and 
 thus deny the ^^jus divinum^^ of yoiirown most solemn prayers. 
 
 Then in relation to Tract No. 4, I replied that it did not even 
 profess to contain our doctrines, but " Methodism as held by Wes- 
 ley," and consequently that I could neither affirm or deny, and 
 for this simple reason, that the Church has never affirmed or de- 
 nied to my knowledge, any thing that Mr. Wesley ever wrote. 
 And how have you met me upon this point? Not by bringing 
 forward a single Avord from the Tract to prove that it professes to 
 contain our doctrines — not by attempting even any thing of the 
 kind, but by asserting that my course of argument is a " begging 
 of the question." What do you mean by a begging of the ques- 
 tion ? When an individual assumes the very point to be proved, 
 and then reasons upon it and asks questions about it as though It 
 were proved, this is a begging of the question, "a petitio princi- 
 pii", and this is exactly what you have done. You have assumed 
 that the Tract professes, at least, to contain our doctrines; you 
 have even gone farther than this and read in your pulpit some 
 parts of the Tract as containing our doctrines, and then reasoned 
 about them and argued against them, and you have called upon 
 me to deny them, and all this without a Avord of proof connec- 
 ting the Tract with the doctrines of th» Episcopal Church. 
 
70 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHUTICH 
 
 But more than this ; after having declared in the most positive , 
 and peremptory manner that, " no cry of persecution, of ingrat- 
 itude, or threat of the withdrawal of friendship or money, or all, 
 at this late hour will deter you from this work of justice; noth- 
 ing but a distinct denial upon my part of the doctrines of the 
 Tracts Nos. 4 & 5, as containing the doctrines of the Episcopal 
 Church" — you now change entirely the points at issue, virtual- 
 ly acknowledging that you are satisfied on these, and you pro- 
 pose certain questions — questions which have really been answer- 
 ed — and you offer not only to desist, but to retract all you have 
 mid as founded upon my " supposed attack provided that I will 
 answer these questions in the affirmative. Truly you. have for- 
 gotten the old maxim, '■\forlis cadere, cedere non potest.'" 
 
 You must excuse me from entering into any arithmetical cal- 
 culations with you — the honor of looking upon subscriptions of 
 money as the only substantial proofs of friendship, I am content you 
 should enjoy alone; for I have been taught to think and am hap- 
 py in the belief that poverty and friendship are not inseperable, 
 and that the poor man who has not a cent in his pocket, is often- 
 times a more genuine friend than the most liberal "millionaire," 
 especially when that liberality is manifested on paper subscrip- 
 tions. 
 
 You must also excuse me from any attempt to defend myself 
 from the charge of having violated the scripture rule, " if thy 
 brother trespass," &c., for I envy not the intellect of that man who 
 is unable to see that the rule had no application to me until after 
 the reading of your " Leaders" document, and that then I did 
 act upon it as my first letter testifies ; not, indeed, by going per- 
 sonally to you, but by doing that which amounts to the same 
 thing, by addressing you personally, in the mildest language and 
 the most respectful terms. 
 
 Now I come to that which constitutes, in my opinion, the most 
 serioiLS and important part of your letter, and I feel bound to tell 
 you with more than usual plainness, that I do not submit to the 
 accusation of having used towards you any railing language or 
 abusive epithets. In the most solemn manner do I utterly deny 
 
71 
 
 tlie charge, and I appeal to all my letters and to the common sense 
 of the reader to sustain me in this denial. On this point, Sir, 
 you have not confined wurself to the record. You have not quo- 
 ted my language at all in its connections You have made no 
 distinction between the use of abusive epithets and that faithful 
 kind of address which every individual is privileged to make 
 to the heart and conscience of his accuser; an-d when., as a 
 christian, I would shelter myself from the gathering storm of 
 man's indignation, by those blessed assurances which our Saviour 
 has given to all who regard themselves as sufferers in his cause, 
 (then have yviu unjustly represented me as employing the lan- 
 guage, not of the Saviour, but of personal invective^ 
 
 Tell me not. Sir, when speaking of your mode and manner 
 of reasoning against the Chnw'h., 1 asked the questions, is this 
 the spirit of the Gospd ? docs tids comport ivilh a hearty loix o f the 
 truth? 
 
 Tell me not, that I then accused you of "possessing neither 
 love for the truth, nor the spirit of the Gospel,^' for if I had sup- 
 posed that yeu were so entirely destitute of all moral feeling, I 
 should never thus have addressed myself to your conscience, and 
 therefore I now put the questions to you again as founded upon 
 the manner in which you have been pleased to interpret my lan- 
 guage, and I ask j-oii seriously to consider them, is this the spirit 
 of the Gospel? does this comport with a hearty love Jor the trulh?- 
 tell me not, when speaking of those false reports which Ru- 
 mor with her hundred tongues, has carried into the surround- 
 ing country, and which I remarked, were in some degree attributa- 
 ble to that unfortunate step of yours in the reading of the Leod- 
 ■er's document — tell me. not that I then brought a personal accusa- 
 tion against you of " falsehood and slander," for at the same time 
 I acknowledged that all had originated in haste and inconsidera- 
 tion, and expressly to guard against any supposed impeachment 
 either of yotir motives or the motives of those with whom you ac- 
 ted, I acknowledged not only that j'ou were good men and chris- 
 tians, but that 1 did not doubt the excellency and sincerity of your 
 •character. No, Sir, in the honor of leaving the points at issue, 
 
72 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 and attacking the personal character and integrity of your antag- 
 onist — in this peculiar honor — you must stand emphatically alone. 
 The palm I yield to you, and most cheerfully confess that in this 
 particular you have gained the victory, and you may be sure that 
 so far as I am concerned, you will be permitted to enjoy its un- 
 disturbed possession. All that you have said and all that you can 
 say against my moral and religious character, however gratify- 
 ing it may be to the passions and prejudices of some, by the 
 grace of God, I am able to bear; but I cannot and will not bear 
 the reproach of having reproached again. And although I have 
 spoken with some degree of energy and zeal, as I felt called upon 
 to do by the the tenor of your fa-st letter, still, lest it should be 
 imagined by any one that I have intended to impeach the purity 
 of your motives, I will here declare again, and most sincerely, 
 that this has not been my intention, and that I look upon vour 
 character as so connected with the honor of our common Christi- 
 anity, that I should regret to see its integrity assailed. 
 
 But you must not shield yourself from the responsibility of 
 iyour letters, by saying now that they are '■'■private," for a corres- 
 pondence that relates entirely to matters which youweie pleased 
 to publish from your pulpit mentioning me hy name and without my 
 knowledge or consent, cannot be private. Let us look at the facts. 
 You have read a public document in relation to me, emanating 
 from the Leaders of your Church, — you have founded upon that 
 document a course of Lectures, and thus made me responsible 
 for the opinions and sentiments which you were pleased to com- 
 bat, — you have received from me a respectful letter, gi^'ing you 
 a fair opportunity to explain before taking any public notice of 
 your extraordinary course of action,— you have written to me as 
 you supposed, a most triumphant reply, not confining yourself to 
 the Leader's document, not entering into any explanation of that, 
 excepting by way of questions and inucndocs, but going into other 
 and graver charges, aud opening almost every intervening sub- 
 ject between Methodism and the Oxford Tracts, — j-ou have de- 
 clared, with an air of defiance, that I could " make any protest ta 
 the public that I see proper," that you are not only "willing lo 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 73 
 
 abide the issue," but that "i/oitwill not complain of being' denied 
 the common privilege of self-defence, as j'ou acknowledge no 
 8i\ch power in this land of christian liberty, and no such depri- 
 vation of right," — you have now refused in your last letter, to 
 discuss the subjects opened by yourself, and have thus placed me 
 in a situation by which I am compelled either to publish your 
 letters or to subject myself to the charge of withholding your 
 vindication ; and now, after all this, can you pretend that our cor- 
 respondence is private, and that the publication of it would be a 
 violation of the courtesies of gentlemen ? Really, Sir, I will not 
 bclieA'e that you would thus fetter both my tongue and my pen — 
 I will not believe that this is what you intend v/hen you speak of 
 the " private correspondence of Ministers ;" for you must perce-ive 
 that there is no way or shape in which our correspondence can 
 be regarded as frivale, and that I am absolutely compelled either 
 to submit in silence to all your accusations, or else to make a fear- 
 less and honest defence by the publication of our letters. 
 
 Our readers will perceive that so far as I am concerned, it was 
 not my intention to confine our correspondence to matters of a 
 personal nature, but that I wished to enter upon a frank and manly- 
 discussion of those topics which are really of interest to the com- 
 munity at large. It is for this reason that I have endeavored to 
 be brief in this, and I propose in my next to examine the subject 
 of Methodist Episcopacy. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 J.\HES A. BOLLES. 
 
 P. S. There is one thing in your letter to which I feel reluc- 
 tant to allude, but which, as illustrating your ideas of justice and 
 propriety, I eannot entirely pass over. You make the following 
 enquiries: — "Does the Methodist Episcopal Church believe, //tt<^ 
 liiskops arc, hy divine right, an order superior to, distinct from, 
 and have poicers, authorili/ and rites incompatibh: with Preshjtcrx, 
 simply as Presbyters? — That (he Bishops of this order are the sole 
 succeisors of the Apostles as ordainers of other Ministers and gov- 
 ernors both of pastors and people? — That this succession is a per- 
 
74 
 
 THE -EPISCOPAT. CHraCH 
 
 sonal succession, viz. that it is to he traced through an historical 
 series of persons validly ordained as Bishops, transmitting in an 
 unhroken line this Episcopal order and power to the latest genera- 
 Hon? — That no Ministryis valid except it have this Episcopal ordin- 
 ■ation, and that all ordinances and sacraments are vain except they 
 ie administered hy such episcopally ordained Ministry"? Now 
 in answer to these questions, I would say, that if the Episcopal 
 Church believes -all this, then the Methodist Church professes to 
 do the same, for slie has received and adopted into her Book of 
 Discipline the same forms of ordination. But the point to which 
 I would call your attention is, that every part of the above, which 
 is placed in italics, you have copied verbatim without any marks 
 of • quotation, (with the single exception of the -word. rites" for 
 '^rights,") from an English work recently published by a Mr. 
 Powell, and the questions which you have thus put to me are 
 the questions Avhich, according to Mr. Powell, constitute the 
 points of difference between the Oxford Divines and their oppo- 
 nents. You may think that this is all just an-d fair, but I confess 
 it does not seem so to me. 
 
 But more than this. After putting these questions, you then 
 reply — " No, we deny every one of these positions, and yet this 
 is the doctrine of Tract No. 5 — the doctrine of Bishop Taylor of 
 the. Oxford Tract men." Now, without saying any thing of the 
 f;ict, that Tract No. 5 is not one of the Oxford Tracts, as it was 
 first published in this country, I would call your attention to (he 
 mistake which you have made in relation to Bishop Taylor. Mr. 
 Powell has quoted from one of the Sermoiis of Old Jeremy Taylor, 
 as STJStaining the views of the Oxford Tracts, and as he only calls 
 him plain Bishop Taylor, and says nothing about him as the au- 
 thor of " Holy Living and Dying," you seem to have inferred that 
 he is still alive, and is one '"of the Oxford Tract men." Should 
 not such a mistake be a lesson of caution ? 
 
 J. A. B. 
 
THE CLAIMS OF METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 
 
 Dear Sir-. — No one caiii "be more seaisible than I am, of the fol- 
 ly of a controversy between grave anid reverend Ministers, arising 
 •out of the circvilation of so small an affair as Tract No. 4, entitled 
 " Methodism as held by Wesky." That the distribution of a 
 few copies of said Tract, edther with ■or without provocation, 
 should arouse the v/hole Methodist Church, not only in this place, 
 but in others, and that in consequence of it the reputation and 
 character of injiivkluals should be assailed — all this it seems to 
 me is marvellous indeed. 
 
 But at the same time the occasion is one which may well be 
 embraced, for the purpose of examining a subject which should 
 not be allowed to siumber, and which -at all times is a fair and 
 legitimate subject for impartial inquiry, I refer to the claims of 
 
 Methodist Episcopacy," to which I propose to devote the prcs- 
 eJit letter. 
 
 What is Episcopacy? Evidently, it is the having of a Bish- 
 op, (an EpiscojX)s) as an order, dislinct from and superior to, Pres- 
 byters in the Church of 'God. This is the only definition which 
 has ever been received in the Church, which alone distinguishes 
 the Episcopal form of Church Government from the Presbyterian 
 or from any other; and which, as I have already shown, the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church in her Book of Discipline professes 
 to maintain; and thus professing to have the Episcopacy, it is 
 Tight and proper that lier claims should be tested by the well 
 known principles of Episcopalins themselves. 
 
 But that there may be no mistake as to the real claims of this 
 •denomination, I shall here quote a few words from the "Anno- 
 tations of Messrs. Coke and Asbury," in which they are endeav- 
 oring to prove the divine right and institution of Diocesan Epis- 
 copacy. They appeal to the case of Timothy as follows : 
 
76 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 "Timothy was appointed by St. Paul, Bishop of the Ephesians and Tilus 
 was appointed by the same Apostle Bishop of the Cretians, and tliey were 
 Bishops in tho proper Episcopal sense, and they were trai:el'ing Bishops. I'lit 
 Episcopal o^lce in all its parts was invested in thcin." " Tilus, Bishop of Crete 
 WdS required to ordain Elders, and to set in order the things that were wanting 
 in ercn/ ci;*/ ill the Isle of Crete." " Each of those Churches (Epliesus and 
 Cretr) lieloiiwfd to a great Metropolitan City, to which many other cities, towns 
 and village?, w; re considered adjniucd •' " So the other Bishops (as soon as 
 possible) had each as cxtcnsirc Diocese, through which they travelled, and over 
 which lliey superintended,— nor must we omit to observe that eachdioccM 
 bad a College of Elders or Presbyters in which the Bishops presided." 
 
 So they appeal to the Angels of the Seven Churches as " pos- 
 sessing the Episcopal office," and declare that, " all the Episcopal 
 Churches in the World are conscious of the dignity of the Epis- 
 Gopal office," and thus go on to vindicate the order as distinct from 
 tliat of Prcshyters and Deacons. (See p. 7.) 
 
 Before the American Revolution, the Methodists in this coun- 
 ty never pretended to have aa Episcopacy, or any other kind of 
 Ministry authorized to administer the sacraments. Their preach- 
 ers were all Laymen, and went no farther than simply to preach 
 the Gospel, which Mr. Wesley declared was '"the sole and only 
 principle of Methodisyn." The members regarded themselves as 
 a religious Society connected with the Church of England, and 
 80 connected as to disclaim the name of Dissenters; and even 
 now the Episcnjjacij of the Methodists in this country, is entirely 
 repudiated by the Methodists in England ; so much so, that when 
 the Canadian Methodists, a fe-w years since, were admitted into 
 union with the English Wesleyans, it was made an express condi- 
 tion, that they should lay down their assumed Episcopal ordina- 
 tion as derived from the American Methodists. 
 
 Hence the question arises, where did the Methodists in this 
 eountry obtain the Episcopacy ? How did they get it ? Directly, 
 by the miraculous appearance of the Saviour to their first Bishop, 
 as he appeared to St. Paul? or indirectly, through the instrumen- 
 tality of men ? Not directly, but indirectly; through the instru- 
 mentality of John Wesley, by whom, say they, it was conferred 
 upon Thomas Coke, and by him upon Francis Asbury, and thus 
 by "regular order and succession," down to the present time. 
 
 Now, under ordinary crrcumstances, I should think it sufficient 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 77 
 
 for me to show, that John Wesley never had the Episcopacy, 
 either directly or indirectly, and consequently that he could never 
 hare conferred it upon Thomas Coke. But as I wish to intro- 
 duce to the notice of the reader, a number of curious and impoi'- 
 tant documents connected with tliis subject, I shall go further 
 bacli: and endeavor to establish the following proposition, viz: — 
 That we have no good and sufikient reason to believe that Mr, 
 John Wesley ever intended to ordain Dr. Coke a Bishop. 
 
 This is the proposition which I shall endeavor to establish — ; 
 not that we have no reason or evidence at all, but th;it we have 
 no gnod and sufficient reason j and this is a point about which I 
 tliink it will appear that there is considerable doubt. 
 
 I. We know from "Myle's Chronological Ilistor)- of Metho- 
 dism," (p p 75& 76,) that in 17G3 a Greek Bishop visited Lon- 
 don, whose name was Erasmus, and when "5jr. Wesley had 
 made enquiry concerning the rcalUy of his office, and was fully 
 satiafiei that he was a real Bishop, he then applied to him to or- 
 dain Dr. Jones in order to assist him in administering the Lord's 
 supper," and the Bishop acceded to his request. 
 
 Now, can it be, that a man who was so far from believing that 
 he had any authority even to make a Presbyter, that he applied 
 for that purpose to a travelling Greek Bishop — that a man who 
 considered the hands of a real Bishop so essential to a valid or- 
 dination to one of the lower offices of the Ministry, that he was 
 willing to dispense with the performance of that oi'Hce in a lan- 
 guage known to the candidate— (for the same history informs us 
 liiat the Bishop did not understand English nor Dr. Jones Greek) 
 can it be that such a man would afterwards presume, himself, to 
 consecrate a Bishop and confer upon him the power of ordaining 
 others? Eeally the supposition is incredible, and we must have 
 no ordinary evidence to convince us of the fact. 
 
 n. Again we know, that Wesley was an ordained Presbyter 
 of the Church of England, and that as such, any attempt to ex- 
 ercise- the rights of the Episcopate would have been a direct vi- 
 olation of his most solemn ordination vows, for in those voavs, he 
 had declared his belief in the discipline of that Church, and had 
 
78 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHTTRCH 
 
 promised at the altar of his God, so to administer the duties of 
 his office " as that Church had received the same," and in auJ- 
 ordinalion to his Bishop and other chief Ministers. We know not 
 how it would be possible for any Presbyter of the Church at the' 
 present time, more plainly and palpably toi violate his sacred ob- 
 ligations, than to presume to exercise the right of ordination — 
 a right not only withheld in the ordination service, but expressly 
 acknowledged in the Discipline of the Church to belong to Bish- 
 ops alone. And now can it be that such a man- as Mr. Wesley — 
 a man who professed to be more alive to his sacred obligations 
 than others, whose " one desire and design was to he a down- 
 right Bible Christian," who^was called a "Methodist, "'as he him- 
 self informs us, not merely because he was thought to be " right- 
 ous over much," but because he "laid too much stress upon the 
 rubrics and canons of the Cliurch," — who,, in his "Reasons' 
 against Separation," v.Titten at a time when his judgement wa» 
 mature, declared that " his affection for the Church was as strong 
 as ever," and that "he saw his calling, to li^e and die in her 
 communion" — can it be that such a man could' be persuaded by 
 any influences however artful and strong, to violate the most sol* 
 emn of all his vows, and throw to the winds the oft repeated and 
 distiiKrtly expressed determinations of his life ? I do not ask 
 whether he might not change his opinion and openly renounc» 
 his connection with the Church ^s a man honestly convinced of 
 error, but remaining in it and jirofessinw- for it th& warmest at- 
 tachuient, could he so far forget the common obligations of mor- 
 ality, as to trample upon one of the most sacred promises mad© 
 at his holy ordination ? Really, this is another supposition which' 
 we know not how to helieve, and therefore do we declare that it 
 will require no' ordinary evidence to convince us of the fact. 
 
 III. Again, we know that Mr. Wesley, as " the Fath-er and" 
 Founder" of the Methodist Society, often exercised the right of 
 Bending his preachers to particular fields of Eabor, and that in do- 
 ing so, he frequently laid his hands upon them in token, of his 
 blessing ; and this practice he professed to have derived from 
 Acts xiii, 3, where, it seems, that certain Prophets and. TeacKeis: 
 
cefended:. 
 
 79 
 
 laid their hands on EarnaBas and Saul, previous to their depar- 
 ture for a particular work to which the Holy Ghost had appointed 
 themu This transaction which I may have occasion hereaft/jr to 
 explain,, ajid which Dr. Banigs has most erroneously described as 
 a Presbyter ordinationr(a great eiTor as a;ny one may see by read- 
 ing the twcO' diapters together^) — this transaction Mr.. Wesley 
 correctly understood as nothing more than, a parting benediction, 
 and hence m his letter to. Mr- Truro^ (see WtUsou's Life, p.. 
 256,) he thus speaks upon- tlie- subject :•. 
 
 "Paul and BHmnbas werf separated' for the work to which' they were railed. 
 This was not ordaining themi — it was only indiicting them- to the province for 
 which our Lord had appointed them; For this end the Prophets and Teachers 
 fasted, prayed and liiid their hands upon them — a rite which was used, not in 
 ordination only, but in hfessing, and on ni«ny other occasions." 
 
 Hence we argue as Mr. Watso» argues^that when Mt.. Wesley 
 separated any of his preachers for any particuJar field* of labor,, 
 by the imposition of his hands, t'&is was uot intended fey him nor 
 should it be understood by us, as an ordinntion to tlie Ministry,. 
 and hence,, in order to prove the ordination- of Dr. Coke, it is ne- 
 cesary tha* some stronger evidence should be presented thatt 
 merely the impositioa of Mr~ Wesley's hands- 
 
 IV„ Again,, we know from Lee's Histoi'y oS Methodism, (p. p.. 
 127 — 29^) that when the Methodist Societj- Avas first organized 
 in this counti-y- under Messrs.Coke and Asbur}-, these gentlemen 
 were not known as Bishops, the title was not assumed, nor wa» 
 it assumed until about three years after the c-rganization, and 
 then without the knowledge or consent of the Conference. We 
 know, too, that many of the preachers were opposed toithe change,, 
 and that after considerable debate in the Conference vote was 
 passed, not approving of the act, but accediing to the- request of 
 the Superintendents upon Mr. Asbury's e.xplanotionjof theterm^ 
 to allow: it to remain. Had Mr. Wesley actually intended to 
 consecrate Dr. Coke a Bishop in the Episcopal sense,.could there- 
 have beer> any daubt of the fact at that early day, when all tho 
 actors in the scene at Bristol were then alive, and some ȣ whom 
 Ayere present ? 
 
 Y» Again, we know that it was immediately after this ae- 
 
80 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 sumption on tlie part of the Superintendents, (17'S8,) that Mr. 
 Wesley wrote his celebrated letter of rebuke and expostulation 
 to jMr. Asbury : — 
 
 John Wesley to Francis Asbury. 
 
 " London, .'?c;7<eTOAer20tA, 1788. 
 "There Is, indoed, a wide difFerence between the relation v/Kerein yon 
 stand to the AmericniiS, and the relation wherein I stand towWthe Methodists. 
 Yon arc the elder brother of the American Jlcthodists; I ain, under God, th« 
 father of khe wlmle taniily. 7'hereforc, [, naturally care for you all, in a man- 
 ner no other person can do. Therefore, 1, in a nieastire, provide for you a!l ; 
 for the supplies whi'di Dr. Coke provides for you, he could nol provide, wer«f 
 it not for ine — were it not that I not only permit him to collect, hut support 
 him in po doinj^. 
 
 " But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the Doctor and 
 you difier from me. I ttudy to be litUr,, you study to be grcni; I creep, you 
 firut alonpr. I found a sdtoid, you a college. Nay, and call it after your own 
 names! Oh, beware! Do not seek to. be something! Let me be nothing, 
 and Christ be all in all. 
 
 *' One instance of this, your greatness, has pivcn me great concern. How 
 can yoii, how dare you suffer yourself to be called a Bishop ? 
 
 "I shudder, 1 start at the very thought! ]Men may call me a hnare, or a 
 fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they sh»ll never, by my con- 
 sent, call me a Bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a 
 full end to this! Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let Metho- 
 dists know their calling better. 
 
 " Thus, my dear Franky, 1 have told you all that is in my heart, and let thia 
 when I am no more seen, be;ir witness ho«' sincerely, 
 
 " I am your alFectionate friend and brother. r ' 
 
 John WksixT. 
 
 Dr. Bangs may strive to convince his readers, that Mr. Wes* 
 ley here referred to nothing more than " the pomp and ceremony 
 which he had so long been accustomed to associate with the name 
 of Bishop," and which he feared that Mr. Asbury was endeavor- 
 ing to imitate ; and some persons, perhaps, may be so credulous 
 as to believe this most curious and (were not the subject too se- 
 rious) laughable interpretation. But reflecting people will be apt 
 to ask some! such questions as these— -can it be, that after Mr. 
 Wesley had actually conferred the office, he became so much 
 alarmed and frightened at the bare mention of the name ? Can 
 it be that he really believed himself a Bishop, with all the au- 
 thority of a Bishop, and able to confer the same office upon oth- 
 ers, and yet, that he would sooner permit the world to call him 
 " a knave or a fool, a rascal or a scoundrel" than to give hitn Iiia 
 own scriptural and proper title ? After having conferred the 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 81 
 
 Episcopate upon his friend, could he then adjure him by every 
 possible solemnity to disown the fact by disclaiming the very 
 name of his office? 
 
 But plainly, Mr. Wesley commences his Letter by reminding 
 Mr. Asbury of the difference between them, in relation to all the 
 Methodists — one was " the Father of the whole family," the oth- 
 er was only an " elder brother of the American Methodists," — 
 one "cared for all," the other for a part; and then having stated 
 the difference between them, as showing that he had a peculiar 
 right to speak and be heard, he commences his reproof and 
 makes it ten fold heavier by the consideration, that if Mr. Wes- 
 ley, the father and founder, did not presume to consider himself 
 a Bishop, how could one of his sons ! how could Mr. Asbury ! 
 And how severe the allusion to the Presbyterians ! They were not 
 endeavoring to ape the manners of royalty, but they did confound 
 the distinction between Presbyters and Bishops, and called their 
 ministers Bishops. Mr. Asbury had no peculiar affection for 
 them, and hence says Mr. Wesley, " Let the Presbyterians do 
 as they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better." 
 
 What trifling with our common sense for an individual to tell 
 us that Mr. Wesley only referred to the name, and this in conse- 
 quence of its pompous associations ! Had not Mr. Wesley been to 
 this country and did he not know the trials and privations which 
 at that early season a Scriptural and Apostolic Bishop would have 
 to endure? Did he not know of many self-denying and devoted 
 Bishops — martyrs and confessors of his own beloved Church — 
 and had not the name been hallowed in Scripture and by the 
 Spirit of the Living God ? No, Mr. Wesley could never have ob- 
 jected merely to the name — it was the assumption of the office, the 
 presuming to be that which Mr. Wesley never had seriously in- 
 tended, and which we have reason to believe brought down his 
 gray hairs in sorrow to the grave. After all this it will require 
 no ordinary evidence to convince the impartial enquirer that Mr. 
 Wesley ever consecrated Dr. Coke a Bishop. 
 
 VL But again, we know that Mr. Wesley was a thorough go- 
 ing and high-toned monarchist, especially at the close of his life, 
 
83 
 
 THE EMSCOP-AL CHURCH' 
 
 sustaining the King and Parliament in all their measures against 
 the American Colonies, declaring the men of the Revolution tO' 
 be "rebels," expunging, in consequence, the names of the Amer- 
 ican Methodists from the General Society, (see Hampson's life,, 
 voL 3d p 134,) and using all his tremendous influence, which Dr. 
 Whitehead compared to that of a " mighty torrent gathering 
 strength in its progress," and which could effect " the opinions of 
 between 4 & 500,000 people on any important occasion which 
 might concern the Society or the nation at large." (see White- 
 head's Life, vol. 2. p 474.) 
 
 Who has not heard of his " Calm Address to our American 
 Colonies" — " a hundred thousand copies of which were dispersed 
 throughout England and Ireland, the effect of which, exceeded 
 his most sanguine expectations" — great quantities of which were 
 sent to this country and their circulation suppressed, — and which- 
 provoked the following celebrated rebuke from. Junius? 
 
 "I have read your Address to the Americans with much surprise and con- 
 cern. That a man, after a long life devoted to the awful concerns of religion,, 
 and a rigidity of morals strikingly contrasted to the limes, should, in hisold age> 
 step forth a champion in a political controversy, is a parado.x only to be solved, 
 by a reflection on the gancral motives of such compositions. They exhibit 
 proof, Sir. Wesley, that the most perfect men have hopes on earth as well as- 
 in heaven; and, indeed, you have the modesty not to forbid i>s to believe so." 
 
 " When you. df liver your opinion, you say, you may be the better believed 
 because unbiased; and thea express yourself in this unguarded language — 'I 
 gain nothing by the American.s nor by '.he Government, and probably never 
 shall.' This is not only an invitation to the Minister to reward your pious la* 
 bors, but a thorn in his foot, if bp overlooks them. Had you said, and pusi. 
 tivcbj never will, I should then, as I av/ays have, believed you to be an honest 
 and pious man." 
 
 " And now, Mr. Wesley, I take my leave of you. You have forgot the prc- 
 '>ept of your Master, that God and Mammon cannot he served toge'.her. Yon 
 iia ve one eye upon a pension and tlie other up to heaven — .one hand stretched 
 out to the King, the other raised up to God. I pray that the first may reward 
 yon and the last forgive you." 
 
 Who has not read Mr. Wesley's surprising justification of this 
 
 " Calm Address" — first published; in " Floyd's EVeniiog ^E^st," 
 
 and now to be founiin his journal of November 1775. 
 
 " Sir, I have been seriously asked, 'from what motives did you publish your 
 Calm Address to the American Coloni-ie?' I seriously answer, not to get 
 money. Had that been my motive I should have sv.'elled it into a shilling 
 pamphlet," &c. 
 
 " Wot to get preferment for myself or my biath^'s children," &c.. 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 S3 
 
 " Not to please any man living'," &c. 
 
 "Least of all did 1 write to inflame any ; just the contrary. I contribntecT 
 my will towards putting out the ih.me, which rages all over the land ; this I 
 have more opportunity for observing than any otlier man in England ; and I 
 see many pouring oil into the flame by crying out, ' How unjustly, how cru- 
 elly th« King is using the poor Americans, who are only contending for their 
 liberty and thcirlegal privileges.' 
 
 '' Now, there is no possible way to put out this flame or hinder its rising 
 higher and higher, but to show that the Americans are not used either cruelly 
 or unjustly ; that they are not injured at all, seeing that ihey are not contend- 
 ing for liberty; neither for any leg-il privileges; for they enjoy all that char- 
 ters grant But what they contend for is, the iilc^^al privilege of being exempt 
 from taxation — a privilege this, which no charter ever gave loany Anierican col- 
 ony yet, which no charter can give, wliich, in fact, our colonics never had, 
 which they never claimed till the present reign, and probably they would not 
 have claimed it now, had they not been incited thereto by letters from Eng- 
 laad. One of these letters was read according to the writer, not only at the 
 Continental Congress, but likewise .in many Congregations ihronghoyt the 
 combined provinces. This being the real state of ibe question without any 
 coloring or aggravation, what impartial man can cither blame the King or 
 commend the Americans. With this .view, to quench the fire, by laying the 
 blame v/here it is due,, the Calm Address was written." 
 
 But more than this, — who has not lead the author's suppli- 
 ment to this "-Calm Addres," written about two years after, in- 
 1777, and entitled, " A Calm Address to. the inhabitants of En- 
 gland," and in which is found such language as this throughout — 
 
 "Brethren! Countrymen! What arc' the reflections which now naturally 
 arise in your breasts? Do you not immediatety observe that after this huge 
 outcry for liberty which has echoed through America, there is not the very 
 shadow of liberty left in the confederate provinces. There is no liberty of the 
 Press. A man rnny more siifely print against the Church in Italy or Spain, 
 than publish a tittle against the Congress. There is no relfgious liberty, for 
 ■what Minister is permitted to follow his conscience in the execution of his of- 
 fice? There is no civil liberty." &c. 
 
 "Do you not observe, wherever these bawlers for liberty govern, there is 
 the vilest slavery? No man there can say that his goods are his own. They 
 are absolutely at the disposal of the mob or of Congress." 
 
 And for this frightftil picture of America he professed to have 
 the authority of letters from eminent individuals. 
 
 " Do. you ask, says a gentleman who writes from Philadelphia, what is the 
 present state of these provinces.? You may sec in Ez. kl' Ts roll — such is the 
 condition of this country 'It is written within and witliniit, lamentation and 
 mourning and wo.' See vol. 6:of Wesley's Works, p 3:^0. 
 
 Now it is not because I wish to. hold up the, memory of ,Mr. 
 Wesley to' odium, in consequence of his political o^Mnioas -and 
 prejudices, that I have introduced these facts, for.sensible peo- 
 ple have never considered him more than a man, and they will 
 
84 
 
 THE BPISCOPAt OnUBCH 
 
 know how to make allowance for all such frailties in his charac- 
 ter. It is not because I wish to show that his views and opin» 
 •ions are not always to be relied upon, — although there is pretty 
 good evidence here, that having mistaken the political condition 
 of America, he may not have acted altogether wisely when pro- 
 viding for our religious wants and interests. It is not because I 
 wish to rebut the miserable attempt which has been made to er» 
 cite a prejudice against the Church, as somehow or other connec» 
 ted with the Church of England, and therefore unfriendly to th» 
 liberties of the country, — although Methodist Ministers should 
 be careful in this particular, lest the force of their "historical re- 
 membrances," shall be turned against themselves. It is not be- 
 cause I would speak of the many worthy and excellent member* 
 of the Methodist Society as holding the same views and opinions, 
 although when some among tliem are so much influenced by tha 
 mere authority of human names, it is not wonderful that tha 
 name of their acknowledged " father and founder" should giv« 
 weight and importance to his sentiments. It is not because I 
 would bring to light the singular inconsistency of Mr. Wesley, 
 in sending his congratulatory letter to the Methodists in Ameri- 
 ca, for that " liberty wherewith God had so strangely set thena 
 free," and which, in his opinion, was no liberty at all. No! for 
 none of these purposes have I expressly introduced the extracr&, 
 but simply to show that a man so loyal to the King and Parlia* 
 ment in all things, could scarcely be expected to turn immediately 
 around and violate one of the established laws of the same King 
 and Parliament. And this, certainly, he must have done, if, as 
 it is pretended, he consecrated Dr. Coke a Bishop, in the city of 
 Bristol; for it was one of tlie established laws, that no individu- 
 al should be ordained a Bishop in England "without the consent 
 of the King and Parliament ;" and this law referred, not only to 
 the ordination of Bishops to act as Bishops in England, but totho 
 ordination of Bishops in England, for any part of the world. Did 
 Mr. Wesley violate the law ? No ordinary evidence can convinca 
 as of the fact. 
 
 VII. Again, we know that Dr. Coke is said to havo been ox>- 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 85 
 
 Gained a Bishop, Sept. 2, 1784 — that immediately after he set 
 sail for America and arrived in New- York on the 3d of Novem- 
 ber — that a general Conference was called and held its session 
 in Baltimore on the 24th Dec. — taat at that general Conference 
 Mr. Asbury is said to have been ordained at three different times 
 and by three separate ordinations, 1st a Deacon, 2d an Elder, 3d 
 a Bishop — that soon after the closing of the Conference Dr. Coke 
 left the country for England, and arrived in England in time to 
 attend the Engish Conference which commenced its session on 
 the 26th of July. 
 
 Now the question arises, how was he received in Encjland ? 
 As a Bishop? As even the Greek Bishop, Erasmus, had been 
 received before? as possessing a power and authority superior to 
 Presbyters? superior to Mr. Wesley himself? So far from it, 
 that Mr. Watson acknowledges that "he used no such title, and 
 ^ade no such pretension." 
 
 But more than this. In the "History of the Rise and Progress 
 i)f Methodism," I find the following record: "In the Conference 
 bf 1791, Mr. William Thompson was chosen President, and Dr. 
 Coke Secretary^'' "In 1792 Mr. Alexander Mather was chosen 
 President, and Dr. Coke Secretary;" and so in three following 
 Conferences we find the same Dr. Coke acting, not as Bishop, 
 not even as Superintendent, but Secretary. Can it be, then, that 
 Mr. Wesley really intended to confer the Episcopate upon Dr. 
 Coke — to make him a Bishop by a triple ordination — to give 
 him any " fuller poioers" than those which he possessed as a sim- 
 ple Presbyter, and this not merely in the Methodist Society, but 
 "in the Church of God," according to the ordination service in 
 the Book of Discipline ? Can this be believed, and yet " no such 
 title be used, no such pretension be made," and no kind of res- 
 pect be paid either to the man or the office, in consequence of 
 Mr. Wesley's ordination, and this in the very place where it is 
 said that all the powers of the Episcopate were, indeed, confer- 
 red? Here, then, is another reason why no ordinary evidence 
 can convince us of the fact. 
 
 VIII. But again we know, that in the "Annotations" of Messrs. 
 
SS THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 Coke and Asbury, this reason is given for the exercise of certain 
 Episcopal duties; for in answer to the questions, "What is the 
 Bishop's duty," and "Why," — it is said, "iWr. Wesley did so." 
 *^ He presided in the Conferences:; fixed the appointments of the 
 preachers for their several circuits, changed^ received or suspended 
 preachers — superintended the temporal and spiritual business, and 
 consecrated two Bishops, Thovias Coke and Alexander Mather^ 
 , (mg before the present Episcopal plan tooJc place in America, the 
 other afterwards.'" 
 
 Now, without speaking of the strange reason here given for 
 the exercise of important " temporal and spiriluaV duties hy 
 Christian Ministers ; without remarking upon the extraordinary 
 fact that the practice and writings of the Ajxjstles seem to have 
 been forgotten, and the example of Mr. Wesley held up as bind- 
 ing, or at least sufficient for them; without alluding particularly 
 to the acknowledgment, that when the first Bishop (Dr. Coke) 
 was consecrated, the present Episcopal plan" had not taken 
 place, I would direct attention especially to the fact that a new 
 Bishop is here introduced — one whose name is not generally to be 
 found in the catalogue, and who, it is probable, never claimed 
 for himself this high and exalted dignity. Mr. Alexander Math- 
 ■er, a Bishop! When did his consecration take place? After 
 that of Dr. Coke, we are informed; but when? Has no record 
 been kept of the trans-action? Does wot every body know that 
 the most remarkable characteristic in all Mr, W^esley's writings, 
 is the minuteness of his private journal, taking notice of the most 
 trivial incidents, and yet, in no part of his works can I find any 
 allusion to Mr. Mather's consecration. There are letters to Mr. 
 Mather and letters respecting him, but not the slightest reference 
 to him either as a Bishop or as possessing any higher authority 
 than a plain Methodist preacher. True it is, that I find this re- 
 cord August 1st, 1785, " Having with a few select friends, weigh- 
 ted the matter thoroughly, I yielded to their judgment, and set 
 upart three of our well tried preachers, John Pawson, Thomas 
 Hanby and Joseph Taylor to minister in Scotland." Now these 
 men, it seems, were already preachers, and their setting apart, 
 
DEFENDED, 
 
 87 
 
 consisted in sending them to "minister" in a particular field of 
 labor. Was any thing more intended by Mr. Wesley? Has he 
 not explained his condnct in his remarks upon the case of Bar- 
 nabas and Saul? In what other way did he consecrate Mr. Ma- 
 ther, a Bishop? And may it not he, after all, that this is the 
 only way in which he ever consecrated Doctor Coke ? 
 
 Here, then, for the present, I s^iall rest the question, and pro- 
 ceed in my next, to the examination of the direct testimony. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 J. A. B. 
 
THE CLAfflS OF METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 
 [continued.] 
 
 Dear Sir — With all the light, which the facts stated in my 
 preceding letter, are able to shed upon the subject, I come now 
 to an examination of the direct and positive evidence by which 
 the claims of Doctor Coke are supposed to be sustained, and bj 
 which it is maintained, that Mr. Wesley really intended to con- 
 secrate a Bishop for America. 
 
 The reader will remember the proposition in my last — not that 
 there is no evidence, but that there is no good and sufficient evu 
 dencc; and from what has already been said, I think every indi- 
 vidual must at once acknowledge, that no ordinary evidence should 
 convince us of the fact. We require such proof as shall overbal- 
 ance the difficulties and objections. 
 
 I. The first witness whom I shall call to the stand is Dr. 
 Whitehead, the author of the first published, and the most au- 
 thentic and valuable Memoir of Mr. Wesley; his most intimate 
 and confidential friend, who was with him in his last moments, 
 and preaclied his funeral sermon; who was requested immedi- 
 ately after by the English Conference to write his life, and was 
 one of the individuals to whom Mr. Wesley left his manuscripts 
 by will. 
 
 What is the testimony of Dr. Whitehead? 
 
 " It is not easy" (says Dr, W. vol. 2, p 415,) to assign a sufficient reason 
 why Mr. Wesley in Wis cighiij-sccond ijcar s\\ou\A (lep;iit from a line of con- 
 duct he had liitherto so slrictly observed; especially if he acted according to 
 liis own judfreinent, and of his own free choice. However this may be, a plan 
 was proposed in private, to a few Clergymen who attended the Conference thi» 
 year, (1784) at Leeds, thai Jlr. Wesley should ordain one or two preachers (ot 
 the Societies in America. 
 
 But the Clergymen opposed it. Mr. Fletcher was consnlted by letter, who 
 advised, that a Bishop should be prevailed upon, if possible, to ordain them; 
 and then Mr. Wesley might appoint to such offices in the Societies as he 
 thought proper, and give them letters testimonial of the appointmeuta ho bad 
 
DEFEXDED. 
 
 (pven them. Mr. Wesley well knew, that no Bishop would ordain them at 
 bis recommendation, and therefore seemed inclined to do it himself. In this 
 purpose, however, he appeared so languid, if not wavering, that Dr. Coke 
 thought it necessary to use somefurther means to urge him to the performauee 
 of it. Accordingly, August 9th, Mr. Wesley being then in Wales, on his way 
 to Bristol, the Doctor sent him the following letter." 
 
 Here, before giving the letter, let us pause to reflect. 
 
 We find that now for the first time in the history of Metho- 
 dism, the plan of ordination, is proposed, — not of a mere setting 
 apart or appointing to certain fields of labor, as had heretofore 
 been done, but of actual ordination. This plan, however, did not 
 then embrace the ordination of a Bishop to organize a "Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church in America," but of "one or two preachers 
 for the Societies.^' Up to this time, it will be remembered, all 
 tJie preachers in America were Laymen, — they did not presume 
 to consider themselves Ministers authorized to administer the sa- 
 craments; and Mr. Asbury had written to Mr. Wesley informing 
 him of their destitute condition, in this respect, and of a " schism" 
 in consequence of some of the preachers attempting to adminis- 
 ter the sacraments, which " schismatical spirit," Mr. Asbury had 
 "beat down;" and then Mr. Asbury was requested "to take 
 proper measures, that the people might enjoy the privileges of 
 other Churches, and no longer be deprived of the Christian sa- 
 craments." We understand, therefore, that this "plan propos- 
 ed" at Leeds, was for nothing more than the ordination of one 
 or two preachers, not to ordain others, not to act as Bishops, but 
 to supply the present necessities and administer the sacraments 
 to the people. 
 
 We find, that this plan, was not openly proposed to the Confer- 
 ence, as so important a measure afit'ctiiig the whole body and be- 
 ing confessedly new, certainly should have been ; but " in private, 
 to a few Clergymen,''' — and we find that by these Clergymen even 
 this plan was opposed; and Mr, Fletcher, the well kiipwn author 
 of the " Appeal, &c.," whose writings will ever be held in high 
 estimation by all Christians, and whose influence then, among 
 the Methodists was scarcely less than that of Mr. Wesley him- 
 self, advised ordination, not by Mr. Wesley, but by a Bishop, 
 and showing thereby, that in his estimation, Mr. Wesley was no 
 
90 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 Bishop in the proper :acceptation of that term, nor possessed of 
 any power of ordinatioru 
 
 We find, also, that Mr. Wesley had then arrived at that period 
 ■of life, when his faculties began to wane, — when as a means of 
 prudence, in human laws, men are not generally ellowed even to 
 sit in judgement upon the temporal interests of the world, and 
 when, considering the frailties of human nature, it is not won- 
 derful that he should seem inclined to do it himself^ and this, not 
 because he thought that he possessed the power, but because 
 ■^^ he knew that no Bishop tcould ordain them." 
 
 Here it may be stated that th-e Episcopal Church in Connecti- 
 cut had already organized under the new state of things, and had 
 elected Dr. Samuel Seabury their Bishop, who was then in En- 
 gland for the purpose of obtaining the Episcopate, and was final- 
 ly consecrated in Scotland on the 14th of November of the same 
 year, before the meeting of the Conference at Baltimore an the 
 24th of the succeeding month, when Dr. Coke was received. 
 This fact will account for the haste of Dr. Coke, and for the rea- 
 son why Mr. Wesley knew that " no Bishop would ordain them." 
 We find, also, that notwithstanding Mr- Wesley's inclinations^ 
 he was still " Zaji^'WKZ, if not wavering," and ,as his letter, which 
 we are to consider hereafter will show, he had some ^'scruples" 
 of conscience. Hence, in using some further means to urge him 
 to the performance of it," Dr- Coke wrote to him the following 
 letter, referred to above by Dr.. Whitehead; 
 
 •' Honored and Dear Sir, 
 
 "The more matareiy I consider the subject, the ino>-e exjfcdientit appear* 
 to mc, thai tlie power of ordainatg others, slioutd be rcceired by me from you, 
 by the imposition of your liands; and that you should lay hands upon brother 
 Whatcoat, and brother Vasey, for the following reasons ; 1. It seems to me 
 the most script\iral way, and most agreeable to the practice of the primitive 
 churches, 2. I inarj want all Uie influence in Anverica, which you can throw 
 into my scale. Mr. Brackenbury infonne^i me at Leeds, tJiat he saw a letter 
 in London, from Mr. Asbury, in which l>e observed, that be would not receive j 
 any person deputed by you witii any part of the superintendency of the work j 
 invested in him; or words which evidently implied «o much. I do not find any, ' 
 the least degree of prejudice in my mind agains-l Mr. Asbory, on the contrary 
 a very great love and esteem: and am determined not to stir a finger without 
 1)18 consent, unless mere sheer necessity obliges me; but rather to lie at hia 
 iVet in rU things. But as (he journey is long, and you cannot spare me often, 
 tind it is well to prcvid« against ^ ecmts, ajid au authority fortaaUy received 
 
•DEFENDED. 
 
 ffrom you, will (l am oonscioua of it) be fully admitteS by the people, and my 
 exeroising the office of Ordination without that formal authority may be dis- 
 puted, if there be any opposition in any other account: I could therefore ear- 
 mestly wish you would extend tliat power, in this instance, which I have not 
 ihe shadow of doubt hut God hath invested you with for the good of uur con- 
 nexion. I think you have tried me too often to doubt, whether I will in any 
 degree use tlie power you are pleased to invest me with, furtlier thanl believa 
 nbsolutely necessary for the prosperity of the work. In respect to my breth- 
 ren (Whatcoat and Vasey) it is very uncertain indeed, whether any of the 
 clergy mentioned by brother Rankin, will stir a step with me in the work, ex- 
 cept Mr. Jarratt; and it is by no means certain that evea he will choose to 
 join me in ordaining: and propriety and universal practice make it expedient, 
 that 1 should have two Presbyters wilh me in this work. In short it appears 
 10 me that every thing should be prepared, and every thing proper to be done 
 that can possibly be done zAis side thewatcr. You can do all ihisia Mr. C — n'» 
 house, in your chamber; and afterwards according to Mr. Fletcher's advice 
 f Mr. Fletcher advised ordination by a Bishop'] give us letters testimonial of 
 the different offices with which you have been pleased to invest us. For the 
 purpose of laying liands on brothers Whatuoat and Vasey, I can bring Mr. C. 
 •down with me, by which you will have two Presbyters with you. 'In respect 
 to brother Rankin's argument, lhat you will escape a great deal of odium by 
 -omitting this, it is nothing. Either it will lie known or not knnv/n; if not 
 'known, then no odium will arise: but if known, you will be obliged to ac- 
 iknowledge that 1 acted under your direction, or suffer me to sink under the 
 weight of my enemies, with perhaps your brother at the head of them. I shall 
 ■entreat you to ponder these thijigs. 
 
 Tour most dutiful 
 
 T. COKB." 
 
 " Thisletter," says Dr.'Whitehead, affords matter for several observation* 
 both of the serious and comic kind; but 1 shall not indulge myself on the oc- 
 casion it 90 fairly offers. The attentive reader who examines every part of 
 it, will be at no loss to conjecture to wbose influence we are to impute Mr. 
 Wesley's conduct in the present business. That Mr. Wesley should etiffer 
 ■himself to be so far influenced, in a matter of the utino;_;t importance both to 
 bis own character and the Societies, by a man, of whose judgement in advis- 
 ing, andlalents in conducting any affair he had no very high opinion, is truly 
 astonishing; but so it was! Mr. Wesley came to Bristol, and, September Ist, 
 ©very thing being prepared as proposed above, he complii-d wilh the Doctor's 
 •earnest wish, by consecrating him one of the Bishops, and Mr. Whatcoat and 
 Mr. Vasey, Presbyters of the new Methodist Episcopal Church in America. 
 No doubt the three jrentJetnen were highly gratified wilh their new titles- at 
 "we often see hoik young and old children gratified wilh gilded toys, though 
 clumsily made, and of no real value or use excepting to quiet the cries of tfaosa 
 tpr whom they are prepared." 
 
 Again says Dr. Whitehead, speaking of Dr. Coke's redsonn — "All this ii 
 'inielligiWe and clear, and I atii confident these reasons would have satisfied 
 anynwn, in similar circumstances, who had considered ordination as amcrt 
 talking -horse, to gain influence and dominion." 
 
 Here, then, is the testimony of Dr. Whitehead, and although 
 it is evident that he regarded the ordination of Dr. Coke to the 
 Episcopate by Mr. Wesley as a matter of joke rather than of se- 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHUBCH 
 
 n'ous considerntion, so far as it concerned his real title to that 
 office, still it is testimony unequivocal to the fact that in hia opia- 
 ion, Mr. Wesley did intend so to ordain him. 
 
 But after all, this is only the opinion of Dr. Whitehead, deser- 
 ving indeed of great respect, but at the same time not being foun- 
 ded upon any documents under the hand of Mr. Wesley himself, 
 nor upon any express declarations from him so far as we know, 
 we may certainly be permitted to dissent, or at least to examina 
 the facts stated by him, and see whether they bear him out in tbs 
 opinion. 
 
 What says the letter of Dr. Coke ? Evidently it does not come 
 out plain, and express the desire that Mr. Wesley should conse- 
 crate hiiji a Bishop. Merely for the sake of "expediency," not 
 because he thought that Mr. Wesley could really confer upon 
 him any authority which he did not before possess, but to givB 
 him greater "influence," and enable him to meet the objections 
 which might be urged against him on his arrival in this country 
 — for these reasons he desired only a "formal" ordination, not a 
 real one, but one which should look like it, and be acknowledged 
 by the people, and especially by Mr. Asbury, who might stand 
 in his way, as he had some reason to fear. It was this power, 
 the power of giving his influence, which he thought without a 
 shadow of doubt, God had invested him with, and this not for 
 the good of the Church, as he would have said if he had refer- 
 red to any other power, but "for the good of our connexion." 
 
 In all this letter there is no appeal to Mr. Wesley actually to 
 consecrate him a Bishop — no exposition of his design to establish 
 a new Church, and no acknowledgement of Mr. Wesley's au- 
 thority over him in the Ministry. And besides this, he desired 
 Mr. Wesley to perform the act, the formal act, in secret, and ejf- 
 pressed his intention to keep it a secret, unless it should become 
 absolutely necessary to divulge it, and therefore it might not bt 
 known. Surely then it may be that Mr. Wesley was imposed 
 upon, unintentionally perhaps, but nevertheless imposed upon, 
 and that he never intended to do that which Dr. Coke afterwards 
 claimed, and, it may be, thought, he did. There is much room 
 
•ertainly to doubt, and therefore no good and sufficient reason to 
 belicTe, that he ever seriously intended, to consecrate Dr. Coke 
 a Bishop. 
 
 II. I come now to another branch of testimony — the opinions 
 of the English Methodists at the time. Did they belieTe that 
 Mr. Wesley had " departed from the line of conduct which h« 
 had hitherto so strictly observed," and that he had really con!e- 
 trated Dr. Coke a Bishop? On this subject Dr. Whitehead give* 
 
 the following facts under the head of " Opinions & Debates," 
 &c. "on the new plan of ordination," (Chap. 5, vol. 2.) 
 
 '■ The following is part of a letter," says lie " from bne preacher to anothe*, 
 #1ieii the report that Mr. Wesley had ordained some of the preachers, first bf- 
 gKn to bo circulated in the Societies. It may serve to show us what opinion 
 tiie uninfected itinerants entertained of this strange business:"' " Ordination 
 •mong Methodists! Amazing indeedl I could not force myself to credit th« 
 report which spread here, having not then seen the minutes, but now [ can 
 doubt it no longer. Aud so we have MeUiodkt Parsons of our oicn ! and a new 
 mode of ordination-to-bc-sure, on the Presbyterian plan ! Id spite of a miilion 
 dsclarations lo the contrary I I am fairly confounded. Now the ice is broke, 
 let us conjecture a little the probable issue of this nno thing in the earth. Yoo 
 •sy we must reason and dcl)ate the matter. Alas! it is too late. Surely it 
 never began in the midst of a multitude of councillors. Who could imagine 
 thst this important matter would have stole into being, and be obtruded upon 
 ibe body, without their being so much as apprised of it or consulted on 60 
 weighty a point? Who is the father of this monster, so long dreaded by th« 
 father of his people, and by most of his sonsf Whoever he be, time tpillproc* 
 hiiH to be a felon to Methodism, and discover his assassinating knife sticking 
 /a$t in the rittds of its bodij." 
 
 " Another old preacher," says Dr. Whitehead, writing to his friend, deliw- 
 •rshis opinions to the following purpose. "1 wish they had all l)een asleep 
 when they began this business of ordination; it is neither Episcopal nor Pr**- 
 ^j/terian, but a mere hodge-podge of inconsistency." 
 
 Now these extracts introduced by Dr. Whitehead for the pur- 
 pose of showing the general sentiment which prevailed among 
 the itinerating Ministers, are certainly enough for the purpose, 
 and I confess that they are more than enough to prove that in 
 their opinion, Mr. Wesley had actually introduced a new plan of 
 ordination, or rather that a new plan had been introduced. But 
 notwithstanding all this, we are still disposed to defend the mem- 
 ory of that great man, and to demand stronger proof, something 
 njore unquestionable than the mere opinions of methodist preach- 
 ars then living ; something about which there can be no mistake. 
 
94 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCff 
 
 III.. The next witness therefore whom I shall call to the stands 
 is Mr. Charles Wesley, the younger brother and coadjutor of Johiv 
 who began with him at Oxford, and continued with him, labor* 
 ing as faithfully ia the cause of his divine Lord and Master, and; 
 with eqiial success, though with less prominence;, and who car- 
 ried with him to the grave an unblemished reputation as an hon- 
 est and consistent Christian minister. (See Appendix.) 
 
 What is his testimony? About four months after the suppos- 
 ed ordination of Dr. Coke, he wrote a letter to the Rev. Dr. Chand- 
 ler, of the Episcopal Church, who was then in London. An ex- 
 tract from that letter I gave you in my second communication,, 
 but will here transcribe the whole as a valuable and important 
 document connected with the history of Methodism. 
 
 Ren. Charles Wcsleij to Dr. Chandler. 
 
 London, April 28ih, 1785.. 
 
 Rf.verkno and Dear Sir — 
 
 As you are setliiig ou: for America, and I fora more (li.?tant country. I thinL 
 il needful to leave with yon i - .;■ - i, ,!i my.self, and my companions through, 
 life. At eight yesirsolj, it hy n)y fither, rector of Epworth,. 
 
 to Westminster f i houl, ,i : lie i-at" of iv.y elder brother Samuel, 
 
 9 strict Churchniun, wl.t. !•: -i .-.i < ■ ■ in liisowii |.rin<:i|.I.?j. In 1727 1 •kom- 
 elecved student of Christ Church. },'ly brother John was then fellow of Lin- 
 coln. 
 
 The first year at college I Io?t in divevinno. The n.-.\t I betook myself to 
 etudy. DHigence led nie i-i • .•- <: ' ! ••■ -r to the weekly sacra- 
 ment, aud persuaded two •■i.ipany me; and like- 
 wise, to observe the mctii - -. Acs of the universi- 
 ty. This gained me the i::: ,.J --i.-. '.; . .. In ha!}* a year ray 
 
 brother left his curacy of Epworlh and came to our assistance. We then pro- 
 ceeded regularly in our studies, and in doing what good we could to the bodie* 
 ami souls of men. 
 
 I took my degrees, and I ■ ■' ' ..f - •'! •••• ' Oxford; bof 
 
 my brother who always !■ . i ■ to accom- 
 
 pany him and flir. Ogleihi , :y eiitoringin- 
 
 to holy orders; but he over-r; ■. i.i' ;.i ; i ' i - ■ ■ .J. incd deacon by 
 the bishop of O.xford, on Si;nd;iy, and the nc.\t, priest by ilie lashoj) of London. 
 
 Our only design was to do all the good ■.ve crjnld, as ministers of the church 
 of England, to which we were fin-.! ' •! "i '■}' ■ i! K-ation and princi- 
 ple. My brother stiil acknowlcil. - ! , Inirch in the world. 
 
 In 1736-we arrived as mission, i, !■ '-rollier took charge of 
 
 Savannah, and I of Frederica; waiii' , i -n ■ i m ; nii.ty of prttacbing to th« 
 Indians, I was, in the mean time,, secretary to-Aii-. Ogiethorpe. and also sec- 
 retary of Indian affairs. 
 
 The hardships of lying upon the grownd', &c: soon threw meibto a feverand 
 dysentery, which forced me in half a year to return to Knaland. My brother 
 leturaed the next year. S.tlllwehad no plan bat to serve God and. the church 
 
DEFENDED.. 
 
 of England. The lost sheep ofithis fold were our principal care: not excluding 
 any Christians of whatever denomination, who were wilLng to add the power 
 of godhness to their own particular form. 
 
 Our elder brother Saniiie was alarmed nt our going on, and girongly express- 
 ed hie lenrs "f its endiiii; ill a sep.tiati'jn from the church. All our enemies 
 prophesied the same. 'I'his coiifinned us the more in our resolution to contin- 
 ue in our calling', which we constantly avowed both in public and private, by 
 word and peeaching, and writing; exhorting all our hearers to follow our exam- 
 ple. 
 
 My brother drew up rules for our Society, one of which was, constantly to 
 attend the church prayers and sacrament. WUeii we were no longer permitted 
 to preach in the churches, we preached (but never in church hours) in houses, 
 or fields, and' 60IU from thence, or rather carried, multitudes to church, who 
 had never been there before. Our society, in most places, made the bulk of 
 the congregation both at prayers and sacrament. 
 
 I never lost my dread of a separation, or ceased to guard onr society against 
 it. I frequently told them, "I am your servant as long as you remain mem- 
 bers of the church of England, but no longer. Should you ever forsake her 
 you renounce me." Soiue of our lay-prcnchors very early discovered an incli- 
 nation to separate, which induced my brother to publish reasons against a sep- 
 arations, As often as it appeared, we beat down the sehismatical spirit. Jf 
 any one did leave the church, at the same time he loft our society. For fifty 
 years we kept the sheep in the fold, and having tilled the number of our days, 
 only wailed to depart in pence. 
 
 After our having continued liicnds fornbovc seventy years, and fellow-labor- 
 ers for above fifty, can anything but death part us ? 1 can scarcely yet believe, 
 that in his eiglny-eccond year, my brother, my old intimate friend and com- 
 panion, sliould have assumed the episcopal ch^iracler, ordained elders, conse- 
 crated a bishop, and sent him to ordain the lay-preachers in America. I was 
 then in Biistol at his elbow; yet he never gave me the least hint of his inten- 
 tion. How was he surprised into so rash an nt-tion 1 He certainly persuaded- 
 himself that it was right. 
 
 Lord Mansfield s;iid to me last year, that or(?/na«jora was separation. This my 
 brother docs not, and will not see; or that he \v\s renounced the principles and 
 practices of his whole life; that he line acted cniurary to all his declarations, pro- 
 testations and writings; robbed hia friends of their boasting; realized the nag's 
 head ordination; and left an indelible blot on his name, as long as it shall be 
 remembered. 
 
 Thus our partnership here is dissolved; but not our friendship. 1' hf.ve ta- 
 ken him for belter for worse till death us do port, or rather reunite us, in love 
 inseparable. I have lived on earth a little too long, who have to see this evil 
 day; but I shall very soon be taken from it, in sttadfiist liiiih that the Lord will 
 maintain his own cause and cairy on his work, and fulfil his protnisc to his 
 afaurch; " Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world." 
 Permit me to subscribe myself. Reverend and dear Sir, 
 
 Your faithful and obedient servant and brother, 
 
 Charles Wesley. 
 
 T. S. What v.-ill become of these ponrshc(^p in the wilderness, the American 
 Methodists? How have they been betrnyed into a separation from the church 
 of Eiigland, which their preachers and tlicy no more intended than the Metho- 
 dists here?' Had they had patience a litile lonser, ihcy would have seen a real 
 primitive bishop \n America, diili/ consecrated hi/ three Scotch bishops who had 
 their conscciationfrom the English bishops, and are acknowledged by them as 
 the same with tbetnselves.. There is, therefore, not the least difference between. 
 
96 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 the tnsmberi of biihop Ssabury's church, and the membert of the charch of 
 ■England. 
 
 You know I had the happiness to converse wilh thnt truly npoitolic man, 
 who is esteemed by all that know him, as much ng by you and me. He told 
 tne he looked upon the Msthndiels in America as sound members of the churchy 
 and was leady lo ordain any nf their preachers, whom he should find duly qual- 
 iliod. His ordination would be indeed genuine, valid and episcopal. But whit 
 are your poor Methodists now? only a new sect of Presbyterians. And nflet 
 my brother's death, wliich is now bo vtry near, what will be their endT They 
 will lose all their influence and importance; they will turn aside to vain jang- 
 Itngs; they will settle again upon their lees, and, like other sects of diasentert, 
 eajBie to nothing. 
 
 " In August," says Dr. Whitehead, "Mr. Charles Wesley took 
 
 •ourage and wrote to his brother on the subject," from which 
 
 letter the following extracts are given. 
 
 " I have been reading over and over again yonr reasons against a separation, 
 ««d entreat you in the name of God, and for Christ's sake to read them again 
 yoarself wilh previoiig prayer; and stop and proceed no further until you receivf 
 an answer to the enquiry, Lord icliat icouldst thou hare me to du? Every word 
 of your eleven pages deserves the deepest consideration; not to mention my tes- 
 timony and hyinns. Only the aevenih I could wish you to rend — as a prophecy 
 which I pray God may never come to pass. Near thirty years since then, yoti 
 hare stood against the im|K>rtunate solicitations of your prencbers, who have 
 ■carcely at last prevailed. I woe your natural ally and faiihful f iend, and while 
 you continued faithful lo yourself, we two could chase a thousand. If they had 
 not ditidal us, they could nezer hare overcome you. But when once you began 
 crdMininir for America, I knew, and you knew, that your preachers here would 
 never rett, till you ordained them. You told me, ' they would separate by and 
 by.' The Doctor tells us the same. Hie ' MctAorfisi Episcopal Church" at 
 Baltimore was intended to beget, a " JVAtAorfisi Episcopal Church here. Yon 
 know he comes armed with your authority to make us all dissenters. One of 
 your " Sons" assured me that not a preacher in London, would refuse orders 
 from the Doctor. It is evident that all seek their own, and prefer their own in- 
 terest to your honor; which not one of them scruples to sacrifice to bis own am- 
 bition. Alas! what trouble are you preparing for yourself, as well as for me, 
 and for your oldest and truest and best friends. Before you have quit^ broken 
 doicn the bridge, stop and consider. If your eons have no regard for you, have 
 tome regard for yourself. Go to yonr grnre in peace; at least suffer me to go 
 first, before this ruin be under your hand. So much I think you owe to iny 
 fether, to my brother and to me, as to stay till I ntn taltcn from the evil. ] am 
 wi the brink of the grave, do not push me in, or imbilter my last moments. 
 Let us not leave an indelible blot upon our memory, — but let ug leave behind 
 M the name and character o( honest men." 
 
 It was in answer to this, that Mr. John Wesley wrote the lettei 
 dated Plymouth, in my second communication, to which for that 
 and for the reply of Charles, the reader is referred. 
 
 After giving these letters Dr. Whitehead remarks : 
 
 " Mr Charlei Wesley haa epoken chiefly of tbe impropriety of the ftep hta 
 Wqiher hid taken in ordaining Dr. Coke, and others in the character of a bishop; 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 97 
 
 t)ut it will he proper to ma'ke m observation or two on the validity of his pro- 
 •ceeding. Tlie gener.ii position he- lays down is, that " Bishops and Prcshijlers 
 were the same order and had the same right to ordain." Upon this principle 
 iic ordained or consecrated Dr. Coke. Now, the rcn/ act of ordaining implies 
 41 superior right or a superior authority. If it be alhivved thiit Mr. Wesley had 
 a superior rigdt to ordiiiii tiie Doctor, then tiie general position is false. If it 
 •be said he had a superior authority but no su|;erior right, then it will Ibllow that 
 Mr. Wesley e,\er(-i>fd superior authority without any right so to do: which is 
 the very thing for whi .li he is blamed. In both cases, the ordination must be 
 ■void and ol' no ellect. 
 
 Bnt according to Lard King [whose authority Mr. Wesley pleaded] the gen- 
 eral position is not strictly or universally true. Frona a comparison of various 
 testimonies of an' ipiit church writers, he draws this conclusion, ' that the 
 Presbyters were (liifcn nt from the Bushojis in grade, or in degree, but they 
 were equal to them in ordinc or order. He tells us that the Bishop was the 
 proper Pastor or incuniLicnt of the Cliurch over which lie presided, and thut the 
 Presbyters in th-it Church were only liis ;i?sistaats or curates, and therefore 
 <;ould do Eoihiiii: in his ch'in h wilhout his direction or permission. But what- 
 ever superioi ^1 i;i-ii'i(i hiul over the I'rcsbyters of hisown church, it teas sol- 
 emnly and piil'in lii finij'i rrrd iipav lum, by the general suffrage ot the Presby- 
 ters and people o\ ?r wimiii he was to pn slde. I suppose that if any Presbyter 
 tiad assumed ilie epi?i op;il character withodt such choice and public ordination 
 to his oi'Hce, he would have been e.xconiiiiunicated by the other churches. But 
 Mr. Wesley was never publicly clecleil by any Presbyters and j)eople to the 
 ofHceof a Bdshop, nor even consecrated to it; which made his bf other Charles 
 
 * So easily are Bishops mad^, 
 
 By man's or woman's whim, 
 IVeslcy his hands on Coke hath laid 
 
 But who laid hands on him*. 
 
 The answer is, nohodv. His episcopal authority, was a mere gratuitous as- 
 sumption of power to hinisell, coiiir.irv to the usage of every church, ancient or 
 modern, where the order ol Bishops had been adniiltcd. 1 here is no prece- 
 dent either m the ?\cw '1 cstanientor in chureli hisiorv, that can jusiilyhis pro- 
 ceeding in this aflair. And as Mr. Wi-slcy h id received no right to exercise 
 <piiCO/)«/ autlioviiv, either Irom any Bisli«|)[-, Presbvtei s or people, he certain- 
 ly could not con\ ev nny ri'j;ht to others. His ordinations, there] ore. arc spuri- 
 ous and of no ralidili/. 
 
 " i\or can Mr. \\ e>Iev s jiraciicc of orii. i" be pi--.;ilied bv those reason* 
 
 which Presbyterians adiinee in lavor ol tli- ir i^wn ne iliod ol ordaining to the 
 ministrv; for Mr. \\ esley onl iiurd not as a I'lcslivier, but ^ Bishop! his 
 ordinations, therefore, were not I'n yl-ntci luu, nor will the arguments for Pres- 
 byterian ordinations appK- to ilir-in. 
 
 Let us review tbe an;un:enis uii ilos Euiijecl reduced to a few propositions. 
 
 1st. Mr. Wesley in ordaining or eonseeviitiii;: Dr. Coke a Bisliop, acted in 
 direct contradiction to tiie princi|)le on which he attempts to defend his prac- 
 tice of ordaining at all. 
 
 2nd. As Mr. Weslev was never elected or elinsen bv anv church to be a 
 Bishop, nor ever consecrated to the olo. e i iiIm r |.v ).i-!in| ., ,i; I're-hvters, he 
 had not the shadow of ri'j:ht to eX'Tei-.' ci,; H-eiiul :nii lu'i i i v m (irJuiiung others 
 according to ilie rules ol anv eiicK li luien ei or mudern. 
 
 :-ird. Had he po-s..,-.--,l ili.w;..-/,/ i,.,.rd.ni. eiilirr as a Bishop or Presbyter, 
 (though he neve; ,1, ! i.M.i a i 1-, i.virr. ) Ins onlinauoiis bcnm done m 
 secret, were renderei! ilii.r,.bv invalid a;i.l .i| no clicet, aceejiding to the estab- 
 lished order ot the Primitive church and ol all Protestant churches, 
 7 
 
98 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCHS 
 
 4tli. The consequence fiom the wliole is that the persons whom Mr. We*. 
 Icy ordained hiive no more right to exercise the ministerial functions than thry 
 had before kc laid his hands upon them, 
 
 A schenif" of ordinulion so full oi' coiifjsion ami absurdity, as that ?moDg 
 the Meihodists, can surely never tiliaie on Mr. Wesley: it must have pio- 
 ceedecl from some morn c/uioiic brain, where wild confusio-- reigns. Nor can 
 I easily believe tluit Mr. ^Vc.-!t■y would ever have ailopted so mis-shapen a 
 brat, had not bin cle.ir i.ercopiion of tilings been rendered feeble and dim, by 
 ilaltery, per^iiasioit and -c'^r. 
 
 But 1 u illinyly ' ' ■ V ' is very unpleasant, and most siticerely 
 
 with that hi.>:li 111 ■ long the Meihodisis and the memory 
 
 of it v»ere bui i' li . practice, w^hich in niy view of it 
 
 is pregnant vjith ii'i.^i In. ,, Hun,-, i-j , > uever to be raisec', 1 would learthe 
 niemory of it from these pa^es, as soon as they are printed." Whitehead's 
 Life, vol. 2, p 430-!). 
 
 Such is the testimony of Mr. Charles Wesley, together with 
 the comments of Dr. Whitehead. 
 
 Now after such a mass of testimony coming from the te^t 
 sources, it may seem to be highly presumptuous for any one to- 
 doubt whether Mr. Wesley really intended to consecrate Dr. Coke 
 a Bishop;- and yet I think it -nail appear m the sequel that this 
 is a point after all, which may be fairly qnestioiicd, for wc havo 
 no where fo-intd as yet any plain acknowledgement on the part of 
 Mr. Wesley, nor any document under his hand declaring ths- 
 fact. 
 
 IV. I pass on therefore to the testimony of Dr. Coke, and for' 
 the purpose of saving time, I shall at once admit that he often 
 claimed to hare been consecrated a Bishop by Mr, Wesley; and' 
 it has already been seen that soon after his arrival in this country^ 
 ho met the Conference assembled in Ballimore, and there- pre- 
 tended to consecrate Mr. Asbnry a Bishop by a triple ordination^ 
 On that occasion, "he preached a Sermon in which he labored 
 to defend the new state of things," and to con-vince the people, 
 not that he had received a mere "formal poicer,^' but a real and 
 valid authority from Mr. Wesley himself- In relation ta that 
 Sermon Dr. Whitehead remarks as follows : — 
 
 " Dr. Coke begins this defence by the most severe censures on the Clergy 
 lind on the English hierarchy. It v, -,;iid answer no valuable purpose to trans- 
 cribe them, but it may be '.m II to l.' tm- tiie very striking ditlerence between 
 the proceedings at the co;iim iic nu ni n( Meilmdisni, and the practice naw 
 adopted. ' We are not seeeders," s:iiJ Mr. Wetiley, 'nor do we bear any ■'e- 
 senihlance to them. We set out upon 'luite opposite principles. The secederi 
 
DEFEKDED. 
 
 99 
 
 laid the very foundaiion of their work in judging and condemning others; wo 
 laid the foundation of our work in judging and condemning ourselves. They 
 begin every where in showing their hc-ar^.>rs how f ill' m \l< - C'l^nrck and Minis- 
 ters are; we begin every where in sliowing our h'-ai ! i ;:ie\ llii'in- 
 eelvesare.' Ur. Coke, in laying the IbuMdation of his i i i America, 
 adopted ilie pritu iples and praciice, in this respect, oi . .: S i : , ;i[id o^uitied 
 those of the old Methodists. He idLs Mr. WcsUyij ^un- /; ,,• fj'n r. i.i a iMcr 
 from Ireland, that lie would as soon commit aduUonj, as pniud. ^mhlirlij against 
 titc Churcli." 
 
 " Dr. Coke puts this question into the month of an olijector, ' but whnt right 
 have you to ordain V ' The Siuue right,' nnswers the Dr. 'as most of the Re- 
 formed Churches of Christendom — our nrtiination in tlie lowest view, being 
 equal to any < < I'l- /V.-Vv/ " ■ •v ' ' w/,;»» witk tkrea Prebyters oft.lic Ck. 
 e/Englanil. : :: lieve himself when he- wrote this 
 
 Bentence. head, ' that ihe presence of liirea 
 
 Presbyters !i: I i .. -.ily requisite essentially necessary to 
 
 fri\t validity to iiii !;!.• Tresbylerians! I apprehend not. 
 
 Nor do I know ar;\ i di^icnlcrs among whom such a secret or- 
 
 dination, would he li 
 
 "Again Dr. Coive ;-i;ii;)cji.s .m Tbj-ctor to ask — ' but what rio.lit have you to. 
 exerc'ibe ihc cpiscoj/al ojjice V ' To me,' replies tiie Dr., ' moM manifest and 
 clear. God h-is been [jlea^ed by Mr, VVesh-y, to raise up in Amerir'n and Eu- 
 rope, a nun I v. ' ■ ■ - •.v^'<\ known liy ih,- r,,i m,.- < j' / 'in-Ji <ls. The whtila 
 bodyhav^' ' ci 'd il.i i i^iao, ; ( 1; . i 1: i.t un.i.^r Christ. 
 He hoaah, ir lolif'ioiis oKl^^r - . ■ , ; ::; toiiie lowest, 
 by liim?elior I, .\ ■'!■,•, ;i i • , \ Church of . 
 fiee, which ha j :r.-A . ,i .'• ■•■d to his 
 charge, hut a:- t.--:-. ' - ' .' j \ M ;-r n 1 nig 
 deliberalion, he s in- I ' s miiulppen- 
 dent Church; hut hi: lorml tli-: ,uoii ,-jo H-i.l L-:"f^yty' th.: Chi;r,:h of Knsland} 
 he loved its rites and ccremonic3, and therefore adopted titem in moat instance3 
 in the present case.' 
 
 "It is not ea^y,' snys Dr. Wliitelie- J, « to mnl'o ol,c,"p..,i;o,]s on an argu- 
 ment like this, v. ii:!-inM''!';ng inicj Ir\ 1 .-r too prcnt severi- 
 ty on the olirer. f!r.-vity, fh'-rc'o;-,', V, |i| ;, ily. 'J'ii- Dootor 
 gtates the miitlr^r thi,. , ' .!!»■ \\r.],:y : ; -li ic- .' llie rcli-.inus 
 oiricers I'rom thi- inglie-t to ilie !o\-.'''^;, (.i!!:-)!!^- ih-- ., ' , - 1,-/ liin]:-( !f or 
 his delegit.-,_and wc-Kre fuily p-r.-nuded there is vn dm) ij.-.'. which ho 
 judges expedient for the people, but as cssi-niial to Kit Malum lit n.is power to 
 ordain.' 
 
 " Now, If ;he.<!e words contaiTi any thing like an argument, tl>ey m-nst meaa 
 that the njfucrs whom Mr. Wesley had always appointed were Otvrch officers, 
 and conscquent'y that his Socielii-s were chvrchrs. If this be ik i f!ir meaning 
 then the words which go before, have no imiupdi'ite c onn' -.i. n • , i,'; i!,,- con- 
 clusion draw:; from them. The premises and the conclu; i n . . i ; iw a k of 
 two things toialiy diiferent, and therolore, the one could not iairrrcd from 
 the other. But the minutes of Contcr-^nce and Mr. Wc-lcy's other writings 
 testily In the most expre.=a manner, that ,the Meihodist Societies were not 
 einir.-hcsr that the appoimnients and rnles he made, were nothing more than. 
 prndcntiiil rr!_".datio.i!;, wliicli be chanced an circumstances altered. It can- 
 not, tliTi loir, I,.- ai-jncl ;a:it l,,-, :,,!-- Wesley had always exercised tho 
 power of iiial.ii);,' iii-iiiiiyi:ial re_MiI,iiiour.. (ni- the government of his Societies^ — 
 he had a neht t.) m-daiu any cimrc'i olTi<-tr lie might deem expedient; which 
 is a thing quite difk-rent front what he foid hitiierto attempted to do, and cott^ 
 •ctjuenily no right to da U, coofj anse out of his former practice,' 
 
100 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 " But there is another view of this argument,' continues Dr. Whitehead, 
 'which inakeo it appear slili more absurd. Whatever ^oiecr Mr. Wesley had 
 always exercised over his Societies, it was no proof of his right. Power and 
 right are two things. Power does not imply right; otherwise the power of 
 speech would imply a right to speak treason; the power of deceiving and rob- 
 bing would imply a right so to do. Whatever right, therefore, Mr. Wesley 
 might have, for making prudential regulations for the Sofiieties, it cannot bo 
 proved from his poiccr. But Dr. Coke here brings forward Mr. Wesley'* 
 potvcr, and his former practice of it, that he may do whatever he may think 
 expedient for the good of the people. Now if a man in common life were to 
 plead his former practice in proof that he had a right to do what he might judge 
 e.xpedient in future, and should act upon this principle, 1 suppose he would 
 soon be sent to Bedlam nr to ?>'o wir Ue." 
 
 Dr. Whitehead proceeds, '' I : li;ill only notice one article more, in the Doe* 
 tors Sermon. Besides,' s.r li ■ 'In H-'iiitinn to this, we have every qualifica- 
 tion for an Episcopal Cbiir. '•. j ii:-t i.f .M.-.viM<lii;i, a Church of no small 
 note in the primitive tiiii' . ; ': ^i.nrs. Our Bishops or 
 
 Superintendents as ii:e, nil! . . h •> .• !• •• ■ ..-ted or received by the 
 
 whole body of our Minisu-.., l!iruii^!:(_)iu llir coiiliiiciit assembled in general 
 Coi;fi-rence, 
 
 "Now the truth of the fact is," says Whitehead, "that the ordinations 
 among the Methodists boar no resemblance to the ordinations in any primitive 
 Church, either that of Alexandria cr any other when deemed regvlar.* 
 
 "Lord King, on whose authority Mr. Wesley seems to rest his cause, tell» 
 ns, — 'at the ordinrainn of ilie CIcrL'y, ilio v>!i(.!r Imily of die jieople were pres- 
 ent. So an African Synod, hcjil in v.",-, n I ■ i : > ordination of 
 ministers ought to be done with lu i , of the peo- 
 ple; that the people being presriii ,.; , J may be de. 
 tected, or the merits of the good .1; ;im ! .--i i;i <h - i iJii may be just 
 and lawful, being approved by the suiFragc of ;ill,' I'o the tame purpose, 
 speaks Clemens Romanus, an apostolic man, who Iri-.iiii? been acquainted with 
 the Ajjostles themselves, l-.iirw tlioir customs in all the Churches. Pie shows u» 
 in his first epistle to the C"!ii;:liinii<, that the i-ustom was to ordain, with tha 
 consent of the leholc Churc'i. i ),-i^: n says, in his 8lh Homily on Leviticus, 
 ' la ordaining a Minister, ///,' /in -i rrc cf ilic /)co/ilc is necessary.' The testi- 
 monies of the ancient v/n;(^i s nn ihis head arc very nuirit-rous, and might easily 
 be produced, but the authoiitics already meiuioncd will luirdly be disputed. 
 It is, indeed, evident from the Apnslolic Constituiions, Lib. 8, cap. 4, and 
 other testimonies, that in ili I'' i ;i ' - < f the church, llie people generally chose 
 their own Ministers; aii ! . f an election, their consent and ap- 
 probation was essentially i' !i) iHrcrt opposition to the practice 
 of the primitive church, \.. ■ ■ i rnioii'j ihe Sleihodists were performed 
 in secret. The people were i. ii as.-; nihlLd. They were not consulted, nor even 
 80 much as acquainted, that Jlinislers were lo lie ordained among the Metho- 
 dists as their proper pastors. The whole was perrormed by an arbitrary pow- 
 er, in the exercise of which no re^'^ard v.-as had to the rights of the people, as 
 having either judgement or choice in the matter. But Dr. Coke tells us, 'they 
 have the same qualifications for an episcopal Church, which the Church of Al- 
 
 * The case of the Church in Alrxan.!:ia i- , !■ ,] hv Dr. Bangs. The rea- 
 der will find in the followi;itr wm ks a fnil ami saiisla. i..iy examination not on- 
 ly of this case, but of the others mentioned by hini, in " Slater's Draught," 
 Cooke's Essay, Bowden's Letters, Chapin's Primitive Church, itc. 
 
DEFENDED, 101 
 
 exandria possessed, 'our Bishops,' says he, 'having been elected or received, 
 by the suffrage of (he whole body of our Ministers through the Continent as- 
 oembled in general Conference.' 
 
 Tjiere were but two Bisiiops, so called. Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury. The 
 Dootor was ordained or cmsccratcd (if the reader choose) secretly in England, 
 and received orders to ordain Mr. Asbery in America. Now, surely, these 
 were not elected, in any sense whatever, either by the preachers or people. 
 *But they were elected or received.' When a writer thus links words togeth- 
 er of a different import, as though the meaning amounted to the same thing, 
 we have just cause lo suspect th-it he intends to deceive us. and lead us into a 
 false notion of the sul^ject he is discussing — Rccciccd. perhaps, they might have 
 been, under a system of arbitrary government, which loaves no allernative to 
 the people, nor to ninny of ihe preachers, but that olpassire obedience^ or to go 
 about their business and quit ilie connexion. But their being received in auy 
 way, is nothing lo the point in hand. It is, indeed, maniiest, that the whole 
 afiair from first to last, bears no resemblance to the mode of electing and or- 
 daining Ministers in the purer ages of the primitive Church." See White- 
 head's Life, London Edition, vol. 2, cap. 4, p. 426 — 9. 
 
 Here then wc have the testimony of Br. Coke, — the fact that 
 he pretended to have received authority from Mr. Wesley to act 
 as a Bishop — that in virtue of this authority he proceeded to the 
 consecration of Mr. Asbury, that on that occasion he preached a 
 Sermon in justification of his own conduct and that of Mr. Wes- 
 ley — and we have had several extracts from the Sermon, together 
 with the comments of Dr. Whitehead, whose life of Mr. Wesley 
 was the first published and must be acknowledged the most au- 
 thentic, and who is so far from denying that Mr. Wesley intended 
 to consecrate Dr. Coke a Bishop, that in all his reasoning, he 
 proceeds upon the presumption, that this intention is beyond 
 dispute. 
 
 Can it be then, that this is a question about which there is any 
 room for debate ? One would scarcely suppose it possible, and 
 yet after all I am umvilling to believe it myself, and I have no 
 hesitation in saying that in the sequel it will appear, that in this 
 tespect Mr. Wesley not only may have been misunderstood, but 
 that there are many reasons for thinking that he has been misun- 
 derstood. The reader will remember that in our previous Letter 
 we laid down a number of indisputable positions, all of which 
 appeared to render it impossible for us to believe that Mr. Wes- 
 ley could engage in the performance of such an act — and it was 
 clearly proved that no ordinary evidence should convince us of 
 the fact. He might set apart an individual to a particular field 
 
102 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHTJKCH 
 
 of labor or appoint him to a special work and he might do this "by 
 the iinposiiion of his hands, and still it would not follow that h« 
 had intended to ordain him to any order of the ministry — much 
 less to the Episcopate. 
 
 V. I come now then to the instrument which Mr, Wesley gave 
 to Dr. Coke — the credentials of his appointment — the deed of 
 conveyance, as it were, by which the latter claimed the title of 
 Bisiiop. la such an instrument we should expect to find a clear 
 tiiid accurate description of the thing intended to be conveyed — 
 a full and plain declaration of all that the grantor had given. 
 That instrument is in the following words: 
 
 "To all to M'honi lliesc presents shall come, John Wesley, late fellow of 
 Lincoln College, in Oxford, presbyter of the Church of England, sendelh gree- 
 ting: 
 
 " Whereas many of the people in the southern provinces of North America, 
 who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere m the doctrine and dis- 
 cipliiie of the Church of England, are creatly distressed for the want of minia- 
 lers to administer the pacrar.ients of baptism and the Lord's supper, according 
 to the usage of the same Church: and whereas there does n-ot appear to be 
 any other way of supplying' iheni with niicisters— 
 
 "Know all men, th-'.t L John IVcsleij, think myself to be providentially 
 called at this thne to set apart f-oine persons for the work of the ministry in 
 America. And therefore, under ;h • !■: : -' li.Mi nf almighty God, and with a 
 single eye to his glory, I have tin i! :, i:t;is a f uiicriiitcndent, by the 
 
 imposition of my hands, and pr.i \ ' . ird bv oth"r ordained minis- 
 
 ters,) Thomas Coke, doctor ofcivii l.i.., a pr-.- Svtor of'ihe Church of England, 
 find a man whom 1 j>iil,'::e to be well ([iialified for that great work. And I do 
 hereby reroiiiinend bun to all wliom it may concern, as a lit person to preside 
 over the Hoc!; of Cliri^t. In testimony whereof, I have hcr<^unto set my hand 
 nnd seal, this second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
 seven hundred and eighty-four John Wesley," 
 
 Let us examine this instrument Vvith care. The writer in the 
 first place describes himself — not as a Bishop — not as claiming 
 under any title whatever the right to ordain others, but a " Pres- 
 byter of the Chtrch of England" — and therefore as a Presbyter 
 of that Church most solemnly bound not to transcend the duties 
 and obligations of his peculiar office. He then sets forth that 
 *'many of the people in the Southern Provinces of North Amer- 
 ica, desire to co-nliuue under his care," — not that they wish to 
 separate from him and form themselves into an independent So- 
 ciety or Church under any other individual, but that they wish to 
 continue under Jiis care. But more than this, that these people. 
 
DEFENT>ED. 
 
 103 
 
 "•s/i7/ adhere to (he doctrine and disciplint of the Ch. of England" 
 — not that in corisoquence of any recent changes in the civil gov- 
 ■orninent of the country, they wisli to change their religion — not 
 that they have become dissatisfie<l with the Chujwh of v/hich they 
 are members either as to its doctrine or discipline, nor that they 
 are desirous of violating any -of its regulations; but that they 
 "still adhere to it," and this in spite of Revolutions and blood- 
 shed, for these events though they may change the outward con- 
 dition of the Church and affect its ^nembers, yet they cannot de- 
 stroy it. The Methodists in America therefore did not then wish 
 to separate, nor did Mr. Wesley intend that they should. 
 
 He then proceeds to say, that these people "are greatly dis- 
 tressed for the want of ministers to administer the Sacraments 
 of Baptism and the Lords Supper, according to the usage of the 
 same Church" — ^not that they were distressed for the want of 
 6ome individual to ordain their lay-preachers and act as Bishop 
 among them, nor for the want of some individual to organize them 
 into a separate and independent body, hut the Revolution had 
 unfortunately compelled most of the regularly ordained Clergy- 
 :men of the Church of England, especially in the Southern Pro- 
 vinces to leave the countn,', {see Hawks' History) and these peo- 
 ple in common with other members of the Church, were greatly 
 -distressed for the want of the Sacraments, which "according to 
 the usage of the same Church," can only be administered by 
 Clergymen Episcopally ordained. 
 
 Having set forth these facts, Mr. Wesley then proceeds to de- 
 clare, that he " thinks himself providentially called to set apart 
 some persons for the work of the ministry in America;" — not 
 that he considered himself authorized to ordain any one to the of- 
 f.ce of the Ministrij, hxxi providentially called upon, — from the po- 
 sition which he occupied in the providence o£ God as the "Fath- 
 er of all the Methodists," io set apart some- persons for the tcork 
 of the ministry in America — to send over same of the regularly 
 •ordained Clergymen, belonging to his connexion and under his 
 •care, to feed these " sheep in the wilderness." 
 
 " And therefore under the protection of Almighty God and wiib^ 
 
104 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 a single eye to his glory" — not being influenced by any sinister 
 designs, not intending any thing more than is here expressed, 
 "I have this day set apart as a Superintendent, by the impositioa 
 of my hands and prayer (being assisted by other ordained min- 
 isters) Thomas Coke, Doctor of Civil Law, a Presbyter of the- 
 Church of England," &c. — not that he had ordained Thomas 
 Coke according to the Ordination Service of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and admitted him to the order of a Bishop in the Church 
 of God, — but that he had "set him apart as a Superinfendent,"' 
 in a particular field of labor, where otPier ministers were to be- 
 sent, and where it was necessary that some one shoald act a» 
 Su-perintendcnl ; — not that Superintendent and Bishop are the 
 same thing, or convertible terms, for this is not the case. Every 
 Bishop is in one sense a Superintendent indeed, but not every 
 Superintendent a Bishop, for we have Superintendents of Socie- 
 ties, of Schools, of Colleges, &c. and yet in virtue of their office 
 as Superintendents, it would be absurd for them to claim to be 
 Bishops in the Christian Church. 
 
 Having thus examined this important document, the only one 
 v/hich can be regarded as a source of authority to Dr. Coke, I 
 think we are fully authorized to draw the following conclusions r 
 
 1st. That xohrn this document was written, Mr. Wesley did not 
 intend that the Methodists in this country should separate from 
 the Church of England, nor did he think that they desired to 
 do so. 
 
 2d. That when this document was written, Mr. Wesley had no 
 design of establishing a new "Methodist Episcopal Church," in 
 America, nor did he intend to do any thing more than to make 
 some provision for the administration of the Sacraments to his 
 people, and this " according to the usage of the Church of Eng- 
 land," which had never been established here by Taw, and whicl» 
 as a pure braneh of the Church of Christ could as \TelI exist here: 
 after as before the Revolution, 
 
 3d. That Mr. Wesley did not then intend to ordain or conse- 
 crate Dr. Coke to any office whatever in the Christiain ministry^ 
 but only to " set hiri apart as a Superintendent." 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 105 
 
 4th. That 171 virtue of the authority here conferred upon him,, 
 Dr. Coke could not lawfully exercise the office of a Bishop in th& 
 Church of God. 
 
 VI. Now it will be remembered that this important document 
 was signed on the 2d September, 1784, and if we should soon 
 find another document \vritten some days after, Avhich appears to- 
 be inconsistent with this, the reader must not be alarmed ; he 
 must remember the age of the author, the person who is with 
 him, the remark of one of the Preachers quoted by Dr. White- 
 head about "inconsistencies," and more than all, he must let m& 
 assure him that there are still other documents which may ex- 
 plain the mysteries of this. 
 
 LETTER n. 
 
 " Bristol, September 10, 1784v 
 To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbiiry, and our brethren in iNorth America: — 
 
 By a very uncommon train of providences many of tiif provinces of Nortb 
 America are totally disjoined from the mother country, and erected into inde- 
 pendent states- The English government has no power over them, either civ. 
 il or ecclesiastical, any more than over the states of Holland. A civil author, 
 ity i? exercised over them, partly by the Congress, partly by the provincial as- 
 semblies. But no one eitherexercisesorclaims any ecclesias^lical authority at 
 all. In this peculiar situation some thousands of theirihabitants of those states 
 desire my advice, and in compliance with their desire 1 have drawn up a littl* 
 sketch. 
 
 Lord King's account of the primitive church convinced me many years ago, 
 that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same 
 right to ordain. For many years I have been importuned, from lime to time, tO" 
 exercise this right, by ordaining part of our travelling preaclier.s. But I hav© 
 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 1 be- 
 longed. 
 
 But the ease is widely different between England and North America. Her» 
 there are bishops who have a legal jurisdiction. In America there are none, 
 neither any pari^Ii tninister: so that for some hundreds of miles together therd 
 is 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 1 violate no 
 order, and invade no man's right, by appointing and sending laborers into th» 
 harvest. 
 
 I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbnry to be joint 
 superintendents over our brethren in North America; as also Richard What- 
 coat and Thomas Vasey tb act as elders among them, by baplizmg and admin- 
 isteringthe Lord's supper. Anrl I have prepared a liturgy, little differing from 
 that of the Church of England, (I think the best constituted national chnrch in 
 the world,) which I advise all the travellinir preachers to use on the Lord's day 
 in all the congregations,reading the litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays, 
 and praying extempore on all other days. I also advise the elders to adminis^ 
 ter the supper of the Lord on every Lord's day. 
 
fflS' THE EriSCOPAL CmjRCH 
 
 If any one will point out a more rational and Scriptural way of feeding and 
 ■l^iding these poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embrace it. At pres- 
 «itl cannot see any better method than that 1 have taken. 
 
 It has indeed been proposed to desire the English bishops to ordain part of 
 tfur preachers for America. But to this I object, I 1 desired the bishop ol 
 London to ordain one, but could not prevail. 2. If ihey consented, we knew 
 the slowness of their proceedinge: but the matter admits of no delay. 3. If 
 they would ordaiu them now, they would expect to govern \hem. And how 
 grievously would this entangle us! 4. As our American brethren are now 
 totally disentanr;Jed, both from the state and the English hierarchy, we daro 
 not entangle them again, either v. iih the one or the other. They are now at 
 Cull liberty, simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive churches. And 
 we judge it best that they should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God ha* 
 .•D strangely made them free. JoH."i Wkslet. 
 
 Now after examining this document with care, we think wo 
 may be justified in drawing the following conclusions: 
 
 1st. That Mr. Wesley had ''drawn up a Utile sketch," w4iich 
 he considered applicable to the peculiar ccclesiastiml condition of 
 the people of these Provinces, and that this "little sketch" was 
 not the same as the Liturgy which is afterwards mentioned ; for 
 he says, " and I have prepared a Liturgy," Iszc. 
 
 2d. That inasmuch as this " lillle sketch" has never been giv» 
 «n to the world, we have an undoubted right to conjecture what 
 it contained; and that the conjecture which many have made, 
 who have examined Mr- V/esley's political opinions, and who 
 hare considered what he says about the reasons for his sketch, 
 that, " 710 one either claims or exercisss any ecclesiastical authority 
 at all,'' — may be true, viz., that the "little sketch" contained 
 «ome plan for the exercise of " Ecclesiastical authority" over the 
 inhabitants of these Provinces. 
 
 3d. That the Book of Lord King, and the freedom of these 
 Provinces from Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, are here pleaded by 
 Mr. Wesley, not in justification of any ordination of Dr. Coke, 
 (for according to his opinion Dr. Coke had been made a Bishop 
 when he was ordained a Presbyter,) but in justification of his or- 
 dination of " travelling preachers" — preachers not already ordain* 
 ed as Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey, and enabling them to admin> 
 ister the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 
 
 4th. That there is nothing in this document which declares 
 that Mr. Wesley had ordained Dr. Coke, but only that he had 
 
DEFENDETX. 
 
 107 
 
 -appointed him and Mr. Asbury joint fiwperintendenls and that 
 whatsoever office or power Mr. Wesley had conferred upon Dr. 
 •Coke, he had also conferred upon Mr. Asbury, Avho was then 
 more than 3000 miles from him, and could not therefore havo 
 been ordained hy him. 
 
 5th. That there is no declaration in this document that Mr. 
 Wesley had even ordainedMessrs. Whatcoat and Vasey, but only 
 that he had "appointed them to act as Elders^' — an expression 
 which he could scarcely have used had he been fully convinced 
 that he had made them really Elders in the Church of God, — and 
 we know as a matter of indisputable Historj- that one of these 
 gentlemen (Mr, Vasey) was so far from considering himself an 
 Elder in fact by this appointment, that he was afterwards ordain' 
 »<d such in lids country by Bishop While. 
 
 6th. ^ That so much of Mr. Wesley's advice as relates to the 
 ase of the Liturgy is plain and express, and tliat the Methodists 
 in this country sliould be more careful to follow his plain and ex« 
 press directions than they are to adhere to those which, at best, 
 •are doubtful and inferential. 
 
 7th. That the reasons which Mr. Wesley gave, for not apply- 
 ing to the English Bishops for ordination are apparently good, but 
 unsuslained by the following facts: — 1st. That the person whom 
 Mr. Wesley desired the Bishop of London, Dr. Lowth, to ordain 
 ■was a " preacher who wished to come over to this country as a 
 ■Chaplain in Lord Cornv/allis' Army," (see Andrews' Letter,) and 
 therefore the refusal of the Bishop to ordain him, under those 
 circumstances, did not imply his unwillingness to ordain under 
 the circumstances of the present case, according to the advice of 
 Mr. Fletcher. 2d. That the English Bishops have never claim- 
 ed the right to govern those v.-hom they ordained for this country. 
 
 Sth. That Mr. Wesley did not intend this document to be 
 used as evidence that he liad ordained Dr. Coke a Bishop, or 
 that he had directed him to ordain Mr. Asbury a Bislmp, for all 
 this would be utterly at variance with the letter which he after* 
 wards sent to the latter; and finally that there is no such evi- 
 dence of the intended ordination or c»nsecration of Dr. Coke a& 
 
103 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 aught to be afforded in a case of so much importance, not only to 
 the spiritual interest of men, but to the reputation and character 
 of Mr. Wesley himself. 
 
 VII. I come now, therefore, to another branch of Testimony, 
 viz., the confessions of Dr. Coke; and here, in order to bring this 
 letter to a close as soon as possible, I shall submit the documents 
 with but a few observations, not doubting that the reader *ill 
 necessarily draw such conclusions as will sustain me in the po- 
 sition I have taken. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Dr. Coke to Bishop White. 
 This leUer is reprinted from Bishop VVhite'o Memoirs of the Protestant Epieco- 
 pol Church, first edition, pages 424 to 429. 
 
 Right Rev. Sir, 
 
 Permit me to intrude a little on your time upon a subject of great importnncei 
 
 You, I helicvc, are conscious that I was brought up in the church of Eng- 
 land, and have been urdniiied a presbyter of that church. For many years I 
 Was prejudiced, even I thinlc to bigniiy, in favor of it: but thrmiuh a variety of 
 causes or incidents, to mention which would be tedious and ui-eless, my mind 
 was exceedingly biassed on the oiher side of the question. In cniisequence of 
 this, I am not sure but I went farther in the eepnraiinn of our cliuith in Ameri- 
 ca, than Mr. Wesley, from whom I had received my cDmmission, did intend. 
 He did indeed solemnly invest me, as I'ar as he had a ri'jht so to ilr, wiih Epis- 
 copal authority, but did not intend, I think, ihat nn cniirc sepiirnlion should 
 take place. He, being pressed by our I'ricnds on this side of the water for min- 
 isters to administer ihe sacramenlstn them, (there lieing very few clergy of the 
 church of Englnnd then in the United Stn;c9,) went farther, I am sure, than ho 
 Would have gone, if he had ibresecn some cvenls which lollowed. And this I 
 am certain of — ihnthe is now sorry liir the separation. 
 
 But what can l)e done f ir a re-union, which I much wish for: and to accora. 
 plish which Mr. WcsIpv, I have no doubt, would use hie influence to ihe ut- 
 most? The aflection of a very considerable number of the preachers, and most 
 of the people, is very strong townrds him. nntwiihitandin!,' the excessive ill us- 
 620 he received from a few. My interest also is not snmll: and both his and 
 mine would readily and to the utmost lie need tn accomplish that (to us) very 
 desirable object; if a readiness were shown by the bishops of the protestant epis- 
 eopnl church to re-uniie. 
 
 It is even to your church, an object of great importance. We have now about 
 60,00.) adnlis in our society in these states, and about 250 travelling ministsrs 
 and preachers; besidea a great number o," local preachers, very far exceeding the 
 number of travrllina; preachers; and some of those local preachers are men of 
 very considerable abilities. But if wo number the niethodists as most people 
 number the members of their church, viz. by the families which constantly at- 
 tend the divine ordinances in their places of worship, they will make n larger 
 body ihan yon probably conceive. The society, I believe, may be safely multi- 
 plied by five on an average to give ns our stated congregations; which will then 
 amount to 300,000. And if the calcula:ion which, I think, 8 >me eminent 
 witers have made, be just, that three fifths of mankind are un-adult (if I maj 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 109 
 
 nse ihc expression) nt any given period, it will follow that nil the families, th» 
 adults of which form our cungiegalioiis in these stnies, amount to 750,000. 
 About one tifih of those are blacks. The work now extends in length from Boa 
 ton tu the euiuh uf GeiM gin: and in breadth fr om the Atlantic to lake Champlain, 
 Vermont, Albany, llcdsuine, Holeiein, Kentucky, Cumberland, &c. 
 But there art in-.iny hindrances in the way. Can they be removed? 
 
 1. Our orduiMcd ministers will iu)t, ought noi, to give up their right of ad- 
 ministering the bncraiiienis. 1 don't think that the geneiali y of ihem, perhaps 
 none ol' them, would reiuse to submit to a re-ordination, i( other hiiidrancea 
 were removed out of the way. I must here observe that beiwoen 00 and 70 
 only out of the two luiiidred (ind f.Uy hnve been oid lined presbyters, and about 
 (iO deacons, ((inly.) 'Vln; ,Mefbyter3 are the clioicest of the whole. 
 
 2. The other iircaeiiers n iuld hardly submit to a re-unmn, il ihe possibility 
 of their rising up to (irdinntion depended on the present bishops in America. 
 Because thou;^h they aru all I think 1 may say, zenlous, pious and very useful 
 men, yet they are not acquainted with the lerirncd iKngungcs. Besides, they 
 would argue, — If the present biBho|)e would wave the article of the learned Ian- 
 guages, yet tbeir successors might not. 
 
 My desire of n re-union is so sin^'cre and earnest that thefe difficulties oI- 
 most make nie tiemble: andyet something iinisi be done before thedentb of Mr. 
 ^Ve8ley, o herwise 1 shall despair of success: lor though iny influence among 
 ihc methodists in these stnies as well as in Europe is, I doubt not, increasing, 
 yet Mr. Asbury, vvuose induencc is very cn|jilal, will not easily comply', nay, 
 I know he will be exceedingly averse to it. 
 
 ]n Europe, where some steps ha;! been taken, tending to a separation, all is 
 at an end. Mr. Wesley is a determined enemy to it, and I have lately born» 
 an open nnd suecessiul lefiiniony a[ninfi it. 
 
 Shall I be luvoreil a |m i va le i nicrview with you in Philadelphia? I shall 
 be there, God wdlni /. on Tiir^day, the 17ih cd'May. If this he agreeable, I'll 
 beg of you ju^t lo mlo iIv ii in a note diiecled to me, at Mr. Jacob Baker's, 
 merchant, Market slik.i, I'lnladelphia: or, if yon please, by a few lines sent lo 
 me by the return of ilic postal Philip Rogers, Esq. in Baltimore, from yourself 
 or Dr. M.Tgaw, and I will wait upon you with my friend Dr. Magow. We can 
 then enlarge on these subjects. 
 
 I am conscions of it, lliat secrecy is of great importance in the present state 
 of the business, till the minds of you, your brother bishops, and Mr. Wesley, bo 
 eircumetantia'ly known. 1 nuin: therefore bog that these ibings be conlined to 
 yourself nnd Dr. Magaw, till I hnve the honor of seeing you. 
 
 Thus, you see, 1 hnve made a bold veniure on your honor nnd candor, nnd 
 have opened my whole heart to you on the subject as far as the extent of a small 
 letter will allow me. If you put equal conlidencc in me, you will find me can- 
 dtd and faithlnl. 
 
 I have, n u%v iibs'andin:'. brrn 'jnilty of inadvertencies. Very lately I found 
 mysclt obliged fl'Tilie pn i i vi i ; g of my conscience ) lo write a iienitenlial letter 
 to the Rev. Mr. .foiaii, \. li;eh rrave him great sntislacliiui: and Ibr the same 
 reason I must wriio ainiiher to ilie Rev. Mr. Peiiigrew. VVIien I was lust in 
 America, I prepared and eoiri i ted a greet variety of things for our tiingazines, 
 indeed almost every iliiiig ihr.t wa.s printed, exeepl gome loofe hints which I had 
 taken of one of my journevs, and which I left in my hurry w ith JMr. Asbury, 
 without any correction, entreating that no pari ofihcm might he printed which 
 would be improper or olfensive. But through great inadvertency (I mippose) 
 lie suHered senie reflections on the cbniacters ol the two above-mentioned gen- 
 tlemen to be inserted in the magazine, for which I am very sorry: nnd jjrobnbly 
 ehall not rest till I have made iny acknowledgement more public; though Mt. 
 Jarratt does not desire it. 
 
110 
 
 THE EPISCOPAI.. CHDRCn 
 
 I am not sure whether I have not also offended you, sir, by accepting of on* 
 • f theofTers ninde ine by you and Dr. Mai^aw ol' the use of your churches abont 
 aix years ago on my first visit to Philadeii>hia, without iiilbriiiiiig yi>u of our 
 plan of 8e])nr!iti in from the church of Enghind. If I did ofiend, (na I doubt I 
 did, especiidly f om what you said on ihc subject to Mr. Richard Dallam, of 
 Abin^'ton,) I sincerely beg yours and Dr. Magaw'a pardon. I'll endeavor U> 
 •mend. i!ut, alie! 1 aui a fiail, weak creature. 
 
 I will intrude no longer at present. One thing only I will claim from yonr 
 enndor — that if you have no thMi:;h;8 of improving this proposal, you will burrv 
 this letter, and take no mort notice of it (lor it would be a pity- to have us en- 
 tirely alienaied from encb other, if we cannot unite in lbs manner my ardens 
 wishes desire.) But if y )u-w;ll further negotime the busincas, 1 will cxplrti* 
 my mind still more fully to you on the probabilities of success. 
 
 Jn the meantime pormit me, with grea' respect, to subscribe myself, 
 Right. Rev. sir. Your very humble eervantin Christ, 
 
 Thomas Cok»,. 
 
 nichmond, April. 1U 1791. 
 
 The Riyht Rev, F.r.her in God, Bishop White. 
 
 You rnu8t e.xcnsp iiucrlhieations, &c. aa I am juet going into the country, and- 
 tave no time to tranecribc. 
 
 This letter yvwi given to the public in 1S04', in consequence of 
 a denial of the I'ael of such application, by the Methodists in Ma- 
 ryland. 
 
 In this letter Dr. Coke expressly acknowletJges, that he " went 
 farther in the separation of oiur Church in America than Mr- 
 Wesley, from whom he had received his commission, did in- 
 tend" — that " Mr. Wesley himself went farther than he would 
 have gone, if he had forseen some events which followed" — that 
 " the generality of the ordained ministers, perhaps none of them,. 
 would refuse to submit to a reordinatmi," and he speaks of him- 
 self only as a " Presbyter of the Church of England," though he 
 says, that iVfr. Wesley " did indeed invest him, as far as he had 
 a right, to do, icHh Episcopal aiUhorilijy 
 
 In the Mcmoifs of llie Church, Bishop White has recorded th» 
 following facts as having taken place at an interview with Dc 
 Coke some time after the above communication — that "Dr. Coke 
 read a letter which he had written to Bishop Seabury, similar to 
 that which he had written to the author; but with the diOerenco 
 of his suggesting to Bishop Seabury as follows — TJ)at although 
 the Methodists would have confidence in any engagements,.which 
 fhould be made by the present Bishops ; yet there might in fu- 
 ture be some, w ho on the arrival of their inferior grades of preach^ 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 Ill 
 
 ers to a competency to the ministry, would not admit them as 
 proposed in the letter — that to guard against the danger of thi?, 
 llicrc would he use in consecrating Mr. Asbiiry to the Eyiscopacy — 
 and that although there would not be the same reasons in his 
 (Dr. Coke's case) because he was a resident of England; yet as 
 he should probably, while he liccd, occasionally visit America, H 
 would not be fU, considering he toas Mr. Asbury's senior, that ho 
 should appear in a lower character than this gentleman. These 
 were, in substance, the sentiments he expressed; and on reading 
 this part of the letter, he desired the author to take notice, that 
 he did not make a. condition of what he had there written." (Se»- 
 Bishop White's Memoir's, p. 170.) 
 
 What an extraordinary state of things is here unfolded ! Can; 
 it be that Dr. Coke really believed that h,e had consecrated Mr. 
 Asbury a Bishop ? Can it be that he felt himself to be a Bishop 
 in virtue of any authority which he had received from Mr, Wes- 
 ley? Is there any sensible man who can read this statement,, 
 without perceiving that it contains a full confession on the part 
 of Dr. Coke, and, (so far as he represented Mr. Asbury) of Mr. 
 Asbury, that neither of these Gentlemen looked upon themselvcs- 
 as genuine Bishops in the Church of God; such Bishops as hai 
 been truly and validly consecrated to that high apd holy ofBce.. 
 
 But here is anocher letter of Dr. Coke's taken from the corres» 
 pondence of Mr. William Wilberforce, the well known Philaar- 
 thropist. 
 
 LETTER Vl. 
 Rev. Dr. Coke to Wm. Wilberforce, Esq. 
 
 At Samuel Hague's, Esq, T 
 Leeds, April 14, 1813. ) 
 
 Dear and highly respected Sir: — 
 
 A subject which appears to me of great moment lies much upon 
 my mind ; and yet if is a subject of such a delicate nature, that I 
 cannot venture to open my mind upon it to any one, of whose 
 candor, piety, delicacy, and honor, ! have not the highest opinion, 
 euch a character I do indubitaby esteem you, sir,- and as such, 
 I will rua tlic risk of opening my whole heart to you upon tha- 
 point* 
 
112 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 For at least twelve years, sir, the interests of our Indian Em- 
 pire have lain very near my heart. In several instances I have 
 made attennpls to open away for missions in that country', and 
 even for my going over there myself. But every thing proved 
 abortive. 
 
 The prominent desire of my soul, even from my infancy, (I 
 may almost say,) has been to be useful. Even when I was a De- 
 ist for part of my lime at Oxford, (what a miracle of grace!) use- 
 fulness was my most darling object. The Lord has been pleas* 
 ei to fix me for about thirty-seven years on a point of great use- 
 fulness. M}' influence in the large Wcsleyan connexion, the in- 
 troduction and superintendence of our missions in diflerent parts 
 of the globe, and the wide sphere opened to me for the preaching 
 of the Gospel to almost innumerable large and attentive congre- 
 gations, have opehed to me a very extensive field for usefulness. 
 And yet I could give up all for India. Could I but close my life 
 in being the means of raising a spiritual Church in India, il 
 would satisfy the utmost ambition of my soul here below. 
 
 I am not so much wanted in our connexion at home as I once 
 was. Our committee of privileges, as we term it, can watch 
 over the interests of the body, in respect to laws and government 
 as well in my absence as if I was with them. Our missionary 
 committee in London can do the same in respect to missions; 
 and my absence would only Kialcc feel their duty more in- 
 
 cumbent upon them. — Auxjii.:! v rn|.:.;ii:!ecs tlnough the nation 
 (wliich we have now in coii;i iiijiiaiii'ii) will amply supply my 
 place, in respect to raising money. There is nothing to influ- 
 ence me much against going to India, but my extensive sphere 
 for preaching the Gospel. But this I do assure you, sir, sinks 
 considerably in my calculation, in comparison of the high honor 
 (if the Lord was to confer it upon me in His Providence and grace) 
 of beginning or reviving a genuine work of religion in the im- 
 mense regions of Asia. 
 
 Impressed with these views, I wrote a letter about a fortnight 
 ago to the Earl of Liverpool. I have either mislaid the copy of 
 it, or destroyed it at the lin:c, for fear of its falling into improper 
 hands. After nn ii)tio:!i;clion, drawn up in the most delicate 
 manner in my ;•, i took notice of the observations made by 
 Lord Cast'ore.:v, li in ilw' House of Commons, concerning a reli- 
 gious establishment in India connected with the established 
 church at home. I then simply opened my situation in the Wes- 
 leyan connexion, as I have staged it to you, sir,above. I en- 
 larged on the earnest de&ire I had of closing my life in India, cb» 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 113 
 
 Berring that if his Eoyal Highness the Prince Regent and the 
 government should think proper to appoint me tlicir Bii^hop in 
 India, I should most cheerfully and most gratefully accept the 
 olfer, I am sorry I have lost the copy of the letter. In my let- 
 tor to Lord Ijivor])ool, I observed, lhat I should, in case of my 
 appointment to the Episcopacy of India, return most fully and 
 faithfully mto the bosom of the established Church, and do every 
 thing in my power to promote its interest, and would submit to 
 all such rcstrii-fio'.is in the fulfilment of my ofltce, as the govern- 
 ment and tiic lii'iieh of bi::hops at home should think necessary — 
 lhat my priiiic i K'livc \\;is to be useful to the Europeans in India; 
 and that my second (though not the least) was to introduce the 
 Christian religion among the Hindoes by the preaching of the 
 Gospel, and perhaps also, by the establishment of schools. 
 
 I have not, sir, received an answer. Did I think that the an- 
 Bwcr was withheld, because Lord Liverpool considered me a.s 
 acting very improperly by inakinj- the request, I should take no 
 further step in the business. This maybe the case; but liis 
 Lodship's silence may arise from other motives ; on the one hand, 
 because he did not choose to send me an absolute refusal ; and, 
 on the other hand, because he did not see it proper, at least just 
 now, to give me any encouragement. When I was in some doubt 
 this morning whether I ought to take the liberty of writing to 
 you, my mind became determined on my being informed about 
 three hours ago, that in a letter received from you by Mr. Hey, 
 you observed tiuit the generality of the House of Commons were 
 set against granting any thins; of an imperative kind to the Dis- 
 senters or Methodists in favor of sending missionaries to India. 
 Probably I may err in respect to the exact words which you used. 
 
 I am not conscious, my dear respected sir, that the least degree 
 of ambiiion influences me in this business. I possess a fortune 
 of about I2G0/, a-year, which is sufTicient to bear )ny travelling 
 expenses, and tc^'nable mo to make many r!',iv;tabIo donations. 
 I have lost two dear wives, aisd am now a wid'/wer. Our lead- 
 ing friends throughout the connexion reci'ivc m*- and treat me 
 with the utmost respect and hospitplitv. I nin (|niie surrounded 
 v.-ith friends who sfrcatly love mo; l iit India still cleaves to my 
 lieart. I sincerely believe that my sirono- inclination to spen"d 
 the remainder of my lif-^ in India oriii;i!iates in the Divine Will, 
 whilst lam called upon to use the secondary means to obtain the 
 end. 
 
 I have formed an intimate acquaintance with Dr. Buchanan, 
 and have written to him to inform him that I shall make him a 
 
 y 
 
m 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 visit within a few days, if it be convenient. — From his house I 
 intend, Deo volctUe, to return to Lea:ls, for a day, and then to set 
 ofl'' next week for London. The latter end of last November I 
 visited him before, at Moat Hill, his place of residence, and a 
 most pleasant visit it was to me, and also to him 1 have reasoQ 
 to think. He has been, since I saw him, drinking of the sam& 
 bitter cup of which I have been drinking,.by the loss of a beloved 
 wife. 
 
 I would jvist observe, sir, that a hot climate peculiarly agrees 
 with me. I was never belter in my life than in the West Indies 
 daring the four visits I made to that archipelago, and should now 
 prefer the torrid zone, as a climate, to any other part of the worlds 
 Indeed, I enjoy in this country, though sixty-five years of age,, 
 such an uninterrupted flow of health and strength as astonishes, 
 all .mV acquaintance They commonly observe that they have- 
 perceived no diftcrencc in rae for these last twenty years. 
 
 I would observe, sir, as I did at the commencement of my let- 
 , * ter, that I throw myself on your candor, ] t -, honor. If I, 
 do not succeed in my views of India, ;i ;wn anJong- 
 
 the preachers that I had been taking, persuasion: 
 that I am in the Divine Will in so doing,) ii .;il':.v more or less, 
 aflect my usefulness in the vineyard of my Lo;!d, and that would 
 very much afllict me. And yet, notwithstanding this, I cannot- 
 satisfy myself without making some advances in the business.. 
 I consider sir, your brother-in-law, Mr. Stephen, to be a man of 
 eminent worth. I have a very high esteem for him. I know 
 that hii! yea is yea, and what he promises he certainly will per- 
 form. Withcnl some promise of confidence he might (if he wera 
 
 acquainted v.iih the present business) mention it to M. y 
 
 with wh::>:.i, I ku nv, Stephen is acquainted. If Mr. 
 
 were aequ.aiu'.e.l wit'u ihe steps I am taking, he would,.! am near- 
 ly sm-e, call immediately a meeting of our comittee of privileges^ 
 and the consequence might be favorable to ]»y influence, and 
 consequently to my suefulness among the Methodists. But my 
 mind must be cased. I ii-uist venture this letter, and leave th» 
 whole to God, and r'uier Him, str, to yon. 
 
 I have re- i ■ ^ e that Lord Eldon had, (indeed I am 
 
 sure of it,) ;., low has an esteem for me. Lord Cas- 
 
 tlercagh one. , , co Mr. Alexander Knox, then his private 
 secretary in Ireland, his very high regard for me : since that time 
 I have had one interview with his lordship in London. I have 
 been favored on various occasions with public and private inter- 
 Tiews with Lord Bathurst. I shall be glad to have your advice 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 113 
 
 whether I should write letters to tliose noblemen, particularly ta 
 the two first, on the present subject; or whether I liad not better 
 suspend every tiling-, and have the pleasure of seing you in Lon- 
 don. I hope I sh;ill have that honor. I shall be glad to receive 
 three or four lines from you, (don't write unless you think it may 
 be of some immediate importance,) signifymg that I may wait 
 on you immediately on my arrival in London. 
 
 I have the lionor to be, with very high respect. 
 My dear Sir, your very much obliged, 
 very humble, and very faithful servant, 
 
 T.Coke. 
 
 Vin. I come now to the cJuiraclcr of Dr. Coke. In the Mcth- 
 edist Book of Discipline is the following declaration, that the 
 Rev. John Wesley, " preferring the Episcopal mode of govern- 
 ment to any other, solemnly set apart, by the imposition of his 
 hands and prayer, Thomas Coke, Doctor of Civil Law, late of 
 Jesus College in the University of Oxford, and a Presbyter of 
 the Church of England, for the Episcopal office," Of this de- 
 claration, by which thousands have been deceived, Dr. Coke wa's 
 the author, and hence the question arises, was he a man whose 
 testimony in this matter can be relied upon without doubt? 
 
 This is a proper subject of inquiry, and one about v/hich it is 
 absolutely necessar}' for us to be satisfied, before we can justly 
 be called upon to give our assent to the above mentioned declar- 
 ation. Now, in answer to the question I shall present the fol- 
 lowing facts, and leave the reader to form his own estimate of 
 the Doctor's character. ' . 
 
 In his se^iman at the ordination of Mr. Asbury, "ho bc"-an his 
 defence by the most severe censures on the Church of England," 
 and yet in a letter to Mr. Wesley, he declared that " he would 
 as soon commit adukery as to preach against the Church." 
 
 For the use of the Methodists in this country, he wrote the fol- 
 lowing which is published in some of the older books of Disci- 
 pline, — "We are thoroughly convinced that the Church of Eng- 
 land, to which we have been united, is deficient in several of the 
 most important parts of christian discipline, and that (a few min- 
 isters and members excepted) it lias lost the life and power of 
 
116 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 relig-ion. We are not ignorant of the spirit and designs it has 
 ever discovered in Europe of rising to pre-eminence and world- 
 ly dignity by virtue of a national establishment, and by the most 
 servile devotion to the will of temporal governors; and we fear 
 the same spirit will had the same Church in these United States, 
 (though altered in its name,) to similar designs and attempts." 
 And yet this same Dr. Coke, not only applied for admission into 
 •'this same Church in these U. S.," but*in a letter ro Mr. Wil- 
 berforce written in 1790, about the same time with the above, he 
 said "There is one point I feel desirous of touching upon, as*' 
 sured that your candor will excuse my further intrusion on your 
 patience. Some have said (from the steps I was unavoidably 
 necessiated to take on the continent of America) that I would, if 
 possible, separate the whole Methodist connection in England 
 from the established Church. I do assure you, sir, upon the hon- 
 or of a gentleman, and (which is in my viev/, and also I am con- 
 fident, in yours, absolutely greater,) on the solemn word of a 
 christian, that the assertion is utterly false. I not only wish for 
 no such thing, but would oppose a separation from the establish' 
 mcnt with my utmost influence, even if that, or a division of the 
 connection was the unavoidable alternative." So much for the 
 Doclor's consistency. 
 
 IX. Now for the fact that lie claimed a number of things 
 which did not really belong to him. From the introduction to 
 Dr. Adam Clark's Commentary we learn, that ho claimed to bet 
 the author of Dadd's Commentary, which he v. as not. From the 
 "Life of Mr. Samuel Drew," we learn that he emjiJoyed Mr. 
 Drew for a pecuniary compensation, to write for him, and that 
 " of the following works bearing the name of Thomas Coke, L. 
 L. D., Mr. Drew was virtually and principally the author:" 
 
 "A Commentary on the New Testament," 2 vol. 4 to. 1807, 
 "The Recent Occurrences of Europe, oonsidered in relation to 
 Prophecies fulfilled and unfulfilled," IS03. 
 
 "A History of the West Indies, Natural, Civil and Ecclesias- 
 tical, with an account of the Missions instituted in those Island.<," 
 3 vol., 1S03 to 1811. " Six Letters in reply to the Kev. Melviila 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 Horn, in defence of the Doctrines of Justification by faith, and the 
 Witness of the Spirit, ISIO. 
 
 " The Cottager's Bible, containing a short Exposition and Prac- 
 tical Reflections on each chapter." 4 vol. 1710. See Life of Sam- 
 uel Drew, by his Son, p. 327. So much for the Doctor's honesty. 
 
 X. Now for Dr. Whitehead's description of his character. 
 Expressing his regret that Mr. Fletcher did not accept Mr. Wes- 
 ley's proposal to appoint him his successor. Dr. AVhitehcad re- 
 marks, " He," Mr. Fletcher, " would have done much good while 
 he lived, and have prevented many of the evils which have since 
 taken place. He would at least have prevented the influence 
 which a person" (Dr. Coke named in the Index) " some years af- 
 terwards acquired in the connexion, with talents very inferior to 
 most of the preachers ; who has been the chief means of introdu- 
 cing innovations into the original plan of Mclhodiim, which have 
 already produced much mischief, and threaten much more in the 
 issue; and whose rash and inconsistent conduct, on s^everal occa- 
 sions, has brought the whole body of preachers into disgrace, 
 and embarrassed them with many difficulties," vol. 2. p. 356. 
 So much for the Doctor's general reputation. 
 
 XI. Now for his management with Mr. Wesley and his in- 
 fluence over him. 
 
 "In the latter end of the summer preceding Mr. Wesley's death, 
 a certain person" (Dr. Coke named in the Index) "who htid long 
 been trying varions schemes to acquire a superior influence over 
 both preachers and people, endeavored to persuade Mr. Wesley, 
 that if he disposed of his literary property by his will only, his 
 next of kin would claim it; that a deed of assignment was neces- 
 sary to prevent their claims. Mr. Wesley denied that this would 
 be the case, and resisted the proposition of making a deed of as- 
 eignment. Being, however, frequently worried on the occasion, 
 he at length, in company with this same person, applied to his 
 confidential solicitar on the question; who told him that his liter- 
 ary property was personal estate, his will was a competent instru- 
 ment to convey, and that no Deed of assignment was necessary. 
 The party who wished for a Deed of assignment that might an- 
 
118 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHtJKCH 
 
 6wer his purpose, was not discouraged by this response, but af» 
 terwavds wrote to the same Solicitor, for his further opinion on 
 the subject, and received the same answer in writintr. Finding 
 Mr. Wesley's Solicitor not of an accommodating disposition, 
 whose integrity must be sacrificed, he applied to another, a total 
 stranger to the metliodist economy, and therefore wrote under 
 his direction. A deed of assignment was drawn up to answer 
 the purpose intended. Things being thus prepared, theoW gen- 
 tleman was carried privately to a friend's honse, to execute this 
 deed, five months before he died ; a time when his weakness was 
 so great, we may venture to say, he could not sit five minutes to 
 hear any thing read, erpecially in the forms of law, without fal- 
 ling into a doze ; so that there is not the least probability that 
 Mr. Wesley knew the contents of the deed he executed, or had 
 any suspicion of its tendency or of the design of its author. It 
 is very certain that the body of the preachers were ignorant of 
 this scandalous transaction, in which an advantag'e was taken of 
 age f.nd infirmities, by one or two individuas, to gain the man- 
 agement of a large and increasing annual revenue to serve the 
 purposes of their own ambition." Vol. 2. p. 463. So much for 
 the Doctor's management with Mr. Wesley. 
 
 XII. Now, although this mass of strange and extraordinary 
 facts, is calculated in some respects to confuse the mind, and to 
 confirm the declaration of the Preacher quoted by Dr. Whitehead, 
 who called this "Methodist Episcopacy a hodge podge of incon- 
 sistencies," still I think, the following conclusions must be drawn: 
 
 1st. That however much Mr. Wesley may hafe departed 
 from the principles and practice of liis former life, still he never 
 intended that the Methodists in this country should separate en- 
 tirely from the Church. 
 
 2nd. That although he may have assumed the Episcopal of- 
 fice and ordained Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey, and authorized 
 them to administer the sacraments, still he never intended to be 
 understood as having pretended to ordain Dr. Coke, but only to ap- 
 point him a Superintendent and a joint Superintendent with Mr, 
 Asbury, and both under him as the "Father of the family." 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 119 
 
 3rd. That if he was really convinced that "Bishop and Pes- 
 byter was the same order," then he could not have intended to 
 ordain Dr. Coke, who according to this theory, was already a 
 Bishop, ancl consequently his justification on this ground was 
 intended to apply to the case of Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey. 
 
 4th. That whatever may have been his convictions as to Bish- 
 op and Presbyter, still in his letter to Mr. Asbury he most pos- 
 itively denied the identity of Bishop and ISuperiniendent. 
 
 5th. That the confessions of Dr. Coke are abundantly suffi- 
 •cient to show that, whatever may have been his pretensions 
 among the Methodists, still he never really believed that he was 
 a validly consecrated Bishop in the Church of God. 
 
 Gth. That the character of Dr. Coke was such as to lead us 
 to believe, not only that he had " exceeded the authority given 
 him by Mr. Wesley," as he expressly acknowledged, but that he 
 claimed to be more than Mr. Wesley ever intended, — and final- 
 ly, whatever may be our convictions as to the origin and claims 
 of Methodist Episcopacy, still it is proved beyond all contradic- 
 tion that there is no good and sufficient reason to believe that Mr. 
 Wesley ever intended to consecrate Dr. Coke a Bishop. Quod 
 ■crat demonstrandum. 
 
EEVIEWOF THE '-ORIGINAL CHUKCII OF CHRIST," 
 BY DR. BANGS. 
 
 Dear Sir — I know not how it would be possible for me to make 
 to you a fairer proposition, than that you should communicate 
 the substance of your Lectures against the Church, so as to give 
 mo the opportunity of examining the arguments which you em- 
 ployed. Having delivered those Lectures in public, I should 
 naturally suppose, that you were careful not to make any asser- 
 tions which j-ou could not substantiate; and your compliance 
 with my proposition, would not only enable you to give them a 
 more permanent and lasting form, but you could fortify your ar- 
 guments by any replies wiiich you might choose to make to my 
 objections. However'as you have been pleased to decline that 
 proposition, and to turn me over to Dr. Bangs, I intend in this 
 letter to examine some of the prominent arguments of his book; 
 and those who heard your Lectures can judge whether his argu- 
 ments are in any respect the same as those, which were employed 
 by you. 
 
 I. Dr. Banns infoiTns us that " the Methodist Ep. Church was 
 organized before the Protestant Episcopal Church fiad an exis- 
 tence," (p. 26.) A Methodist writer somewhat earlier than Dr. 
 Bangs, has made a discovery still greater than this; for, after 
 speaking of the Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, Dutch Re- 
 formed and Quakers as organized societies in Europe before the 
 Revolution, and intimating that they were consequently dissolv- 
 ed in this country by that event, he then comes to the sage con- 
 clusion, that the Methodist E. Church not only preceded the 
 Episcopal, but was "the first, that toas organized on the American 
 continent.^''* All this is said for the purpose of rejecting, with 
 becoming indignation, the charge that the Methodists have sep- 
 arated from the Church; and no doubt it has quieted the mind 
 of many a brother whose conscience has been troubled by the 
 sin of schism. But what must a man think of the intelligence 
 
 * Rise and I'rogress of the iNIethodist Churcli, p. 3l4. 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 131 
 
 it his readers who will venture upon such assertions as these? 
 What would be thought of the Lawyer who should attempt to 
 wrest from some of our Churches the property which was given 
 to them bejore the Revolution, on the ground that that event and 
 the changes consequent in their organization, had destroyed their 
 identity? What must we think of the Divine who betrays such 
 an utter ignorance of the true nature of the Christian Church, 
 as to imagine that it can be so easily destroyed? 
 
 "Where was j'our church before the consecration of Bishop 
 Seabury or Bishop White, or before the American Revolution?" 
 How very like the question which was sometimes addressed to 
 the Reformers — "Where was your church before Cranmer?" 
 But the Reformers found no difficulty in answering the question. 
 Nay, they were glad of the opportunity not only of pointing to 
 the time when the Church existed in England entirely free from 
 papal corruptions, but of proving that the Reformation was no 
 more the birth day of the Church than it was the creation of the 
 world. And so we answer to all such miserable and "ad cap* 
 tandam" arguments, and tell you that you might as well talk 
 about the discovery of the American continent at the time of the 
 Revolution, as to talk about the establishment of the Church io. 
 this country tfien. 
 
 Previous to the Revolution, the Church in this country was un- 
 der the Episcopal supervision of the Bishop of London ; but im- 
 mediately after that event, arrangements were made for procur- 
 ing an independent episcopate, and for that purpose the Diocese 
 of Connecticut had organized and elected the Rev. Samuel Sea- 
 bury, D. D. tlieir Bishop, who was consecrated in Scotland on the 
 14th of November 178i — more than a month before the organ- 
 ization of a Methodist Episcopal Church at Baltimore. Bui 
 enough upon such a point as this-. 
 
 II. The next argument of Dr. Bangs which I shall notice, is 
 this, " The lerms Bishop and Presbyter or Elder, signified in the 
 primiUoe Church, the same, order of ministers," p. 38. This posi- 
 tion lies at the foundation of his work; from it he draws his oth- 
 «r conclusions on the right of ordir^tion; by it he defends Mr. 
 
122 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 Wesley, and attempts to overthrow the present position of the 
 Episcopal Church; and in his complete success in establishing 
 this position, h<5 secras to glory as with the triumphs of victory. 
 Having laid down this position, the author enters upon a long and 
 learned argument to prove it; examining the etymology of the 
 word " Bishiip;" taking up those passages of Scripture in which it 
 is used synotiomously with Presbyter or Elder ; quoting from Cle- 
 mens Romanus, Polycarp, Irenasus, Cyprian and Jerome, among 
 the ancients — from Cranmer, Cox, Mann, Stilliriglcet, Bishop 
 White and others among the moderns, — and he then concludes on 
 the 87th page, that "he shall here rest the question respecting 
 the identity of Bishops and Elders or Presbyters, having fully 
 sustained his position 
 
 1st, From the Scriptures, 
 
 2nd, From the Primitive Fathers, 
 
 3rd, From the most respectable ecclesiastical writers in 
 in the English Church, 
 
 4lh, From the testimony of Bichop White," &;c. 
 Now the truth is, the learned Doctor might have spared him- 
 self the trouble of so long an argument in proof of his position; 
 for if he had said at once, that every Episcopal Avriter without 
 exception, and every other individual who. knows any thing at al! 
 about the Scriptures or the Primitive Church, all admit his fun- 
 damental position, and have never presumed to question it, then, 
 certainly, he would have hit the thing exactly. For strange as 
 it may seem to the reader v,-ho is unacquainted with the real ques- 
 tion at issue, and the grounds of the Episcopal Church, this is so 
 —all admit the Doctor's fundamental position. What says Mr. 
 Chapman ? " We attach no importance whatever, to mere names, 
 it is the office and the duties appertaining to that office about 
 which we are alone solicitious. At the very time when accord- 
 ing to the Scriptures, Bishop and Presbyter were convertible 
 terms, and delsignated the same individual minister, there exis- 
 ted the lower order of deacons and the higher order of Apostles; 
 and it is for this three fold ministry that we contend, and not for 
 the names by which it was at any time distinguished. If it could 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 123 
 
 be shown that Apostles were not superior to the then second or» 
 der of bishops or presbyters, there would indeed be some foun- 
 dation for the argument, but their superiority being universally 
 acknowledged, it falls to the ground, being only calculated to 
 gratify the subtle disputant on the one hand, and to secure the 
 credulous proselyte on the other." 
 
 "While we accede, therefore, to this interchangeable use of 
 (he words, bishop and presbyter, in the Scriptures, we fearlessly 
 and confidently assert, that it ended with the Apostolic age, and 
 was not afterv.-ards employed by the primitive christians. 
 
 Not only does Eiisebius, the historian say, " Those very persona 
 tocrc called Apostles, whom bjj uwge nf speech the Church nnto 
 calls hishops," — but the celebrated Thcodoret, has furnished us 
 with the following just solution of this merely apparent difficulty 
 — "The same persons were anciently called presbyters and bish- 
 ops, and those now called bishops were called Apostles ; bnt in 
 process of time, the name of Apostle was left for those who were 
 truly Apostles, and the name of bishop was restrained to those 
 who were actually called Apostles; thus Epaphroditus was the 
 Apostle of the Philippians, Titus of the Cretans and Timothy of 
 the Asiatics." 
 
 "A more triumphant vindication of Episcopacy cannot be im.« 
 agined. Theyv/ho succeeded to the apostolic ofhce, out of rev- 
 erence to such of their predecessors as were immediately called 
 by Christ, appear to have relinquished to them the more digni- 
 fied title of Apostle, and to have appropriated to themselves the 
 humbler name of Bishop, originally bestowed upon the second 
 order of the ministry in common with that of Presbyter; but 
 thenceforward exclusively attached to the first and never after- 
 wards resumed by the second. The change was only in name, 
 the two offices, or orders, remained as separate and distinct as 
 they were before. It was precisely as if by the common consent 
 of the American people, springing from gratitude for the servi- 
 ces and veneration for the memory of Washington, it should be 
 determined for the future to appropriate to him alone, the title of 
 President, and to all his successors in the presidential <ificc crea» 
 
154 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 ted by the Constitution, what is now regarded as the less digni- 
 fied name of Governor. It would not abstract one iota from the 
 constitutional privileges and powers attached to the office itself. 
 Its incumbent would still superintend and govern as he now 9ti* 
 perintends and governs; and he would be considered the merest 
 trifler, who should have the folly to assert, that a change of 
 names had produced a materia! change in official rank and au- 
 thority." (Chapman's Sermons, p p. 77 — 73.) 
 
 Here, then. Dr. Bangs might have found a complete answer tt> 
 all the conclusions drawn by him from the interchangeable use 
 in the Scriptures, of the names Bishop and Presbyter, and not 
 only here, but in every work on the subject of Episcopacy, by the 
 writers of the Church, this fact is allowed, and fully explained to 
 have no connection whatever with the true question at issue. 
 
 " In support of this view of the subject," says Dr. Bangs, " we 
 refer the reader to Acts xx, 17, 28, where St. Paul addresses 
 himself to the Episkopoi, which are called in our translation el- 
 ders in verse 17, and overseers [Bishops] in verse 20, a proof this, 
 that these men had the oversight of the church at that time, and 
 that there were a plurality of them in the city of Ephesus. They 
 could not, therefore, have been diocesan Bishops, unless we ab- 
 Eurdly suppose that there were several dioceses in one city. 
 Hence it follows most conclusively, that those denominated El- 
 ders or Presbylcrs were the same as those denominated Bish' 
 ops:' p. 39. 
 
 Now, all this is very true — these men whom the Apostle as- 
 sembled were indeed all elders oxpreshyters or hishnps — they w.ere 
 all connected with the Church in the large city of Ephesus, and 
 consequently were not f/joresfl?: Bishops in the present sense ; but 
 does all this prove that there was no order in the ministry supe- 
 rior to them, — that they were not subject to some kind of a dio- 
 cesan bishop? for what was the apostle himself who had assem- 
 bled them to2:ether and <rivcn them his charge, and what was 
 Timothy who v/as afterwards placed over them as their Apostle, or 
 as we should now say, their bishop ? In this very passage then, 
 if the learned Doctor had been locking for things instead of 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 names, he might have found two orders in the christian ministry 
 entirely separate and distinct from each other in authority; and 
 then if he had turned back to Acts 6, he might have found an- 
 other order entirely distinct from either of these two, and there 
 denominated deacons. What would we think of the man who 
 ehould gravely attempt to prove that all the Presidents in the 
 United States held the same oflice because they all possess the 
 «ame general name; or that all the Judr^es in the county belong 
 to the same rank and possess the same authority for a similar 
 reason? 
 
 Can the Doctor prove that the higher office held at first by the 
 twelve Apostles, and which all must acknowledge was entirely 
 distinct from either or any of the others — can he prove that this 
 office was not continued in the christian church and was not 
 intended to be continued so long as the Church shall exist? 
 "That's the question." Not a question of names, but a ques- 
 tion relating to one of the most important fads which can occu- 
 py the attention of the christian, especially at the present time, 
 when so many are striving to rend into pieces the seamless ga> 
 ment of Christ. Episcopalians believe, — and a great majority 
 of the christian church are with us in this belief, and the whole 
 christian v.'orld, as we think, for fifteen centuries — that the ojlct 
 held by the Apostles has been continued and is possessed by I'lose 
 whom we now call bishops, and for this faith we are ready to 
 give a reason to every man that asketh, " with meekness and 
 fear." Do you tell us that this is mere assumption — a lordly and 
 arrogant claim ? As well might you tell the christian who be- 
 lieves that he has been brought out of darkness into God's mar- 
 vellous light, that from a stranger and an outcast he has been 
 made a fellow-citizen with the saints and of the household of 
 God, that it is all assumption, a lordly and an arrogant claim, — 
 for he has the sure word of God for the foundation of his faith, 
 and so have we We point you to the Saviour's promise, when 
 lhat ofiicc was created and its ministers commissioned — "Lo, / 
 cm tcith yiiii alway even In the end of (he KorJ.d" and we tell you 
 ihat we pud ni lias promise a pledge of perpetuity v.-hich no sii>- 
 
126 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 eere believer is able to gainsay, and which evidently refers, no» 
 to the Apostles as individuals, as mere men, but as ojjiccrs in thfr 
 christian church who were to live by themselves and their suc» 
 cessors until the end of the world. We tell you, too, that the 
 commission which was bestowed upon the Apostles, conferred 
 the power, and consequently enjoined the duty on their part, of 
 bestowing the same commission upon others, for the Saviout 
 eaid, "as m'j Father hal'i sent me, even so, send I you and when 
 you look at this declaration in connection with the very act ia 
 which the Saviour was then engaged, you must perceive that it 
 could import nothing less than this — as my Father hath sent mo 
 with power and authority to commission you, eiicn so send I you,, 
 with power and authority to commission others.. Here all boast- 
 ing is excluded. The Saviour himself, not presuming to tak» 
 this ofhce, but acting as one sent and holding a commission, and 
 so the Apostles likewise and their successors after them, and all 
 that God alone may be glorihed as the only source of ministerial 
 authority and power. 
 
 But more than this, we point you to the divinely recorded fact 
 that this office was continued; that one of the first acts of the- 
 Apostles after the Savior's Ascension was to commission Matthi» 
 as, by elevating him from the inferior rank of the seventy to thai 
 of an Apostle ; — and although to get rid of the difficulties in this 
 ease, you may imagine with Dr. Bangs and a few others, that 
 the Apostles here transcended tlieir authority, and that to reprove- 
 them for it, the Savior afterwards appointed St. Paul, yet we re- 
 ply to you that this is an unfounded suggestion, a species of in- 
 fidelity, which denies the plenary inspiration of the Apostles, and 
 which allows their most solemn acts to be received or rejected 
 according to the fancies of men. And we tell you moreover that 
 we have much more reason to believe that the immediate appoint- 
 ment of St. Paul to the same office, was rather intended to teach 
 them that their number should not be confined to tu'elvc, as they 
 might perhaps have supposed, but that they should go on in the 
 appointment of others as the Church increased. At all eventa 
 we find that so far from regarding the appointment of St. Pa;il 
 
DEFENDED.. 
 
 127 
 
 tn a reproof, they did go on in the appointment of others, to th* 
 fame rank and Apootleship. Such v/ere Barnabas and Sylva- 
 nus, Timothy and Epaphroditus, Titus and James the Just, all 
 not only called Apostles kit exercising the peculiar duties of that 
 office ; and to so many had the number increased, that in the year 
 96, when the Revelations of St. John were written, some were- 
 '■^ false Aposlles,^^ men who pretended to hold this office without 
 authority— a fact which not only proves that the office was con- 
 tinued, but that something more was necessary to entitle a mart 
 to it than his own fancy or unfounded assertions. 
 
 And although from the necessities of the case, these Apostles, 
 had no distinct charge or settled Dioceses at first, as the Chris- 
 tians themselves had no established houses of worship or settled 
 habitations, yet we find that these external regulations were all 
 attended to, long before the close of the Apostolic age, as Timo- 
 thy be(tame settled over the Churches of Ephesus, Titus over 
 those of Crete, James over those of Jerusalem, and Epaphroditus. 
 over those of Philippi. All these are incontestible proofs from 
 the Scriptures, that the Apostolic office was continued in the- 
 Church — and when we remember that from the very nature of 
 the case no dduiled account of its organization could be expected 
 in the Apostolic v,-ritings as well from their historical brevity aa 
 from the fact that they were all addressed to the members of the 
 Church with whom its organization must have been familiar, the 
 evidence which is here afibrded is more than sufficient to satisfy 
 an ingenuous mind. 
 
 But as it is not my intention to enter into any extended argii- 
 ment on this subject, but only to notice the prominent objection* 
 of Dr. Bangs, and incidentally to throw out suggestions which 
 may. lead the reader to investigate the treatises on the subjecjt,! 
 must now pass on to another point. 
 
 III. "Having proved that Bishops and Presbyters Avere the 
 same orderof ministers in the primitive church," says the learn- 
 ed Doctor, " it remains for us to inquire into the powers possessed 
 by them;" and then he proceeds to show that they possessed the 
 poioer of ordination. 
 
123 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHTJRCII 
 
 1st, From Acts 13: 1—3. 
 2nd, From I Timothy. 4: 4. 
 
 3rd, From the example of the Church at Alexandria. 
 
 Now, before cxamininfr ilic instances here given cf Presbyter 
 ordination, as the Docter supposes, I will briefly state the cpin- 
 ion of Episcopalians npon this subject, and this without a singla 
 exception among our Clergy, so far as I am acquainted. 
 
 All believe that the commission to ordain others was given to 
 the Apostles alone, and that they alone, and their successors in 
 that office in the primitive church exercised the right ; that no in- 
 instance of Presbyter ordination can be found in the Scriptures — 
 that no atlc7nj)loC the kind was ever made before the third centu- 
 ry; that every such ordination was then declared null and void, 
 andthat on this subject up to the time of the Reformation, there 
 is an unbroken chain of testimony. Thus, in 324 tl;c Council of 
 all the Egyptian bishops assembled at J^lexandria under Hosius, 
 declared nail and void the ordinations performed by Collulhus, 
 a presbyter of Alexandria, who had separated from his bishop and 
 pretended to act as a bishop himself." ( Athanasius t. 1st. p. 193.) 
 Thus, in the first Council of Seville, so decided was the opinion 
 of the church and so great was the danger felt to be, of any de» 
 parture from the estaljlished mode of ordaining, that the ordina- 
 tions performed by the bishop of Agaba were declared null, be- 
 cause an assisting Presbyter was accustomed to read the prayer of 
 ordination on account of the bishop's blindness, who, however, laid 
 his hands on those who were to be ordained. Thus Jerome in 
 the 4th century, a Presbyter, who went farther than any othef 
 ancient writer whatever, in identifying the offices of the Bishop 
 or Apostle and Presbyter, and who is sometimes quoted as au- 
 thority for ministerial parity, yet in his utmost zeal to elevate the 
 ofiice of presbyter, he expressly acknowldges to the form.er the 
 sole prerogative of ordination — "What does a Bishop do," sayo 
 he, "which a Presbyter may not do, rxcrptivg ordination."* 
 
 These are only a few instances of the historical facts bearing 
 
 • See PalfUpr on thi? Church, vol. 2, p 414. 
 Cbapin's Primitive Churtli, p'200 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 opon this subject; and Episcopalians, therefore, are all united in 
 their helief as Lo Ilia proper and aiUkorizcd minisler of ordination — 
 that this right belongs to the highest order, the bishop now, since 
 the change merely in name, the Apostle then, in the prinriitive 
 church. 
 
 At the same time there are some who think, perhaps, that or- 
 dinations performed by Presbyters may be valid in cases of abso- 
 lute necessilij; there are some who think that it is unnecessary 
 for us to afiirm positively, that ordinations performed by Presby- 
 ters are really incalid, but by far the greater number believe 
 that on this subject'as well as on others, we should fearlessly de- 
 clare the truth, as we believe it to be revealed, let the consequen- 
 ces be what they may, whether men will hear or whether they 
 \yill forbear. 
 
 Now there is no dispute as to the fact that the Apostles and 
 their successors held and exercised the right of ordination. Thus 
 Paul and Barnabas ordained presbyters in every Church. Tim- 
 othy and Titus were left at Epbesus and Crete to set things in 
 order and to ordain presbyters in every church. The seven dea- 
 cons were elected by the people, but ordained by the 'Apostles. 
 Here, then, all are agreed, and the only question to be consider- 
 ed is, did the presbyters or elders excercise the same right? No 
 one has ever pretended that any express authority was given to 
 them for that purpose as it was given to the Apostles, but did 
 they exercise it ? Dr. Bangs says they did; and appeals, 
 
 1st, To Acts 1.3 ; 1 — ,3. " Now there were in the Church that 
 was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas and 
 Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Gyrene, and Man- 
 aen which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and 
 Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost 
 said, separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I 
 have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and 
 laid their hands on them, they sent them away." On this pas- 
 sage Dr. Bangs remarks as follows : — " From the whole, //icre/bre, 
 I conclude that St. Paul received his credentials as an accredited 
 minister in this presbyterial College at Antioch, from the hands. 
 
 9 
 
130 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 of men over whom he afterwards exercised a spiritual jurisdic- 
 tion ; and therefore a body of elders, or of " prophets and teach- 
 ers," may impart authority to an equal to become their superior 
 in office. This, therefore, as I have before remarked, is so far 
 from being an unusual thing, that it occurred, as it seems, in th© 
 present case, at the very foundation of the christian Church. 
 But the fact more especially established in the passage before us 
 is, that the ordination was originally in the body of Presbyters, 
 else these usurped that which did not belong to them." 
 
 Now, in answer to all this sage reasoning and multiplication 
 of " therefores," we say that the learned Doctor ought to have 
 proved, 1st. That the transaction here recorded was an ordina- 
 tion; 2nd, That the ordainers were mere Presbyters ; 3rd, That 
 St. Paul v,-as not already an Apostle, and that an Apostle might 
 be re-ordained by a company of inferior officers. 
 
 But neither of these things can be proved; for 1st, The tran- 
 saction was not an ordination, as the reader has seen in my pre- 
 vious letter was the opinion of Mr. Wesley, and as every indi- 
 vidual may see who will open his Bible and read both the 13th 
 and 14th chapters together, — he will there find that Paul and Bar- 
 nabas went on a special mission to various places, and at the con- 
 clusion of the narrative it is said, "and after they had passed 
 through Pisidia, they came to Pamphj-lia; and when they had 
 preached the word in Pcrga, they went dov/n into Attalia; and 
 thence sailed to Anfioch,from whence they had been rccoinmcndcd to 
 the grace of God, for the isork wich they fulfilled.'^ Here, then, 
 Vfe find that the work of the ministry for which they had been 
 ordained according to Dr. Bangs, but " for which they had beea 
 recommended to the grace of God," according to the inspired 
 penman, was fulflied. 
 
 The case is so plain that even Dr. Barnes, in his commentary 
 on the passage remarks, that, "it was a temporary designation^ 
 (not a pcrjnanent office,) to a missionary enterprise in extending 
 the Gospel, especially through Asia Minor and the adjacent re- 
 gions, and accordingly, when they had travelled through Seleu- 
 oia, Sec, they returned to Antioch, \\^\\n<^ fidnllcd the work, to 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 131 
 
 which they were separated." But 2!y, " prophels and teachers" 
 might be Apostles, for certainly i!.':c^, were both propLets^tmd tea- 
 chers, as our Saviour himself was called, and no reason whatev- 
 er can be given for limiting the expression to mere presbyters. 
 Hence, therefore, allowing it to have been an ordination, it can- 
 not be proved to have been a Presbyter ordmation. 
 
 But Sly, The idea that St. Paul was here ordained or conse- 
 crated, i.s entirely excluded ]ry the fact, not only that he had then 
 been an Apostle for a period not less than 17 years according to 
 the most accurate computations, but that he himself specifies hia 
 own case, us peculiar and different from that of others who were 
 made Apostles after the Saviour's ascension, inasmuch as he be- 
 came an Apostle, "no^ of 7ncn, nor by ?nen," and this strong ex- 
 pression, "not of men nor by men," utterly for])ids the thought 
 of any human agency whatever in his particular case; and this 
 fact that the Apostle so often speaks of his case as peculiar and 
 distinct from' others, is an evidence of the ordinary necessity of 
 some external act of ordination. 
 
 But21y, Er. Bangs appeals, to 1st Timothy 1; 4, where St. 
 Paul saj's to Timothy, " neglect not the gift that is in thee, which 
 was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the 
 presbytery." On this passage the Doctor remarks, " allowing 
 what our opponents contend for, that Timothy was an Apostle or 
 Bishop in their sense of the term, then it would follow that these 
 presbyters conferred orders upon one who Avas superior to them- 
 selves — the same as Mr. Wesley and those elders associated with 
 him, conferred the oflice of Supcrinledent or liishoy—for I con- 
 tend not about names — upon Dr. Coke." p. 91. 
 
 Most graceful announcement, from a man whose whole book is 
 founded upon the Scripture use of the names presbyter and bish- 
 op, as synonimous, and who in this very passage confounds the 
 ecclesiastical name of Bishop, with the ordinary name of Super- 
 intendent! Well, indeed, might the learned Doctor refuse to con- 
 tend about the latler names! But let us examine the passage. 
 
 Now, if the casual reader takes it for granted, without exam- 
 
132 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 ination, fhat the word "presbyter" in this passage, means a com- 
 pany of ministerial prcsbi/ters, then the passage will be an evi- 
 dence to him that presbyters had something to do with the ordi» 
 nation of Timothy; but if he will take his Greek Testament and 
 Lexicon, and study the subject, by looking at the meaning of 
 the word and the various places where it is used, then he will 
 find that "presbytery" may have a very different rendering; or 
 if he will examine the best commentators upon the passage, such 
 as Calvin, Grotius and McKnight among the dissenters, then he 
 will find, that the word may mean a Council of any elderly per- 
 sons. Apostles as v.-ell as presbyters, or it many mean the office o{ 
 the presbyter ate, and does not refer ia this case at all to the or- 
 dainers. But if he eschews Greek and Commentators, and wish- 
 es to understand the matter by himself and by reading the ver- 
 nacular, then he may turn to the II Timothy, 1 ; 6, where it is 
 said, " Wherefore I prl thee in remembrance that thou stir up the- 
 gift of God, which is in thee, hy the f litting on of my hands -y'* 
 and here he will find that St. 'Paul the Apostle was the principal_ 
 and efficient ordainer of Timothy; that he even presumes to say 
 that this " gift of God" was conferred "ly the laying on of his 
 hands;" that his language is exclusive of all others as engaged 
 with him in actually bestovi ing the gift, and conseqnently that 
 if it was done with the la^ ir.g on of the hands of presbyters, then 
 they were only present and assisting as is frequently the case 
 now, without any body's dreaming that they are the ordaincrs, 
 Who does not know that in cases of ordinations now, in the Epis- 
 copal Church, presbyters are present, laying on their hands with ■ 
 the bishop, not as conveying authority, but as assisting, giving 
 assent, and increasing the solemnity? If the reader desires a 
 more critical and exigetical examination of this point, he is re- 
 spectfully referred to the following works: — "Episcopacy tested, 
 by Scripture," " Cook's Essay on the invalidity of Presbyterian 
 ordination," " Chapin's Primitive Church," &c. 
 
 But enough has been said to prove that this case, referred to 
 by Dr. Bangs, is not a case of Presbyterian ordination; that Tim- 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 133 
 
 cthy v/as not ordained hj presbyters at all, nor with presbyters 
 alone, — and consequently that Mr. Wesley's ordination of Dr. 
 Coke has found no support here. 
 
 Now, the two cases of pretended Presbyter ordination which 
 we have considered, and by which Dr. Bangs endeavors to sup- 
 port his theory, ake the onlv cases recokded in the scriptures 
 WHICH ARE EVER BROUGHT TO TROVE THE POINT — the Only instan- 
 ces which look at all like any thing of the kind, — and all who 
 place their dependence upon this kind of ordination, are com- 
 pelled to rest iheircause, so far as Scripture is concerned, uiwn 
 these two instances alone. 
 
 What must reasoning and reasonable men, and especially 
 christians who desire to build upon the Bible — what must they 
 say of a cause which has no better foundation than this! How 
 can any individual with a knowledge of these facts, and who sin- 
 cerely intends to make the Scriptures the only rule of faith and 
 practice — how can he ieeX sccurc and safe, in receiving the sacra- 
 ments at the hands of those, who, to say the least, have no indis- 
 putable bible authority to administer them — who have never been 
 admitted to the christian ministry by any other authority than 
 the doubtful one of yreshjter ordinal ion! Let no one be angry 
 with me for asking this question — and if any are inclined to be 
 so, let them consider whether it is not the probing of (he con- 
 science, which has excited them, and whether, therefore, it is 
 not their duty as christians, prayerfully to investigate the subject 
 as one of practical interest and importance to their souls. 
 
 But to Dr. Bangs. "Having thus adduced Scripture authori- 
 ty in favor of our position," says the Doctor, " let us now enquire 
 whether the practice of subsequent periods of tlie Cliurch corrob- 
 erates the interpretation we have given of ihcsc vScriptures. In 
 respect to ordination itself, there is but littk,' said in the writings 
 of the primitive fathers; yet that little, plainly proves that it was 
 done by presbyters." Alas! what must the reader think of this 
 assertion, who is acquainted with the writings of the primitive 
 fathers? But we go on — " Indeed there was no need of asserting 
 in so many words, that presbyters did ordain others, because as 
 
134 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 li.shopsand -prcshylers were of the same order, whatever was done 
 by one in virtue of his ecclesiastical order, was done hy the other, 
 — so that if bishops administered ordination, the presbyters did 
 the same; and as this Avas generally understood as of right be 
 longing to them, it was quite unnecessary to mention it as if it 
 were a ma'itcr of doubtful disputation. However we have some 
 testimonies even to this point." 
 
 Here let us breathe a moment, for such kind of reasoning as 
 this, l)y a grave divine, pnts one rjiiile out of breath. 
 
 Bishons aiiJ I' -'/Vteis, as the reader has seen, were indeed 
 the sar,;i_' order, as Tht'udiijrcl informs us, the first order of 
 
 the mini,-!ry A. !iM • . ore originally callod Apostles, assumed the 
 name of Li-li".!:,, i.i!;, nf rc. pcct to llic Apostles; then and after 
 the apostolic ngc, ihey wo'c qnilc a ditibrent order. But thero 
 is much more up m lliis point than the passage from Theodoret. 
 Thus, St. Hilaiy in tlie 3d century says, "Those who arc now 
 called Ijirdie;;?, ^vtre originally called Apostles; but the holy 
 Apostles being- dcud. 'de :-e vrho were ordained after them to 
 GOVERN the c-/i«.T/V;;, d )e di i: not decent to assume to them- 
 selves tlie name of Apeijliee, I/Ul dividing the names bishop and 
 presbyter, they left to the presbytery the name of presbyters, and 
 they thernse!vc:j \vere called I'ishops." 
 
 Now we are ])reparcd to go on, remembering that it is not 
 enough for the ]<>e.rncd Doctor to prove that Bishops ordained, but 
 he must sliow thai ]irosbvtcrs did f-o, and the testimony ought to 
 be clear upon such a point as tliis. What is it? 
 
 Thus saith Firmillian, — 'AH power and grace is constituted 
 in the church where seniors preside, who have the power of bap- 
 tizinif, confirming and ordniniiig.'' "What these scn/ors wero 
 may be seen from a parallel passage in Tertullian, where he says 
 that, " In the ecclesiastical courts cpprnvcd elders preside, not 
 distinguished for their opulence, but worth of character." 
 
 " But the passage more in point than any other, is that from 
 Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, who e: pressly affirms that 
 the twelve presbyters, constituted by Mark, upon the vacaitfy 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 135 
 
 of the sec, did choose out of their number, one, to be head over 
 the rest, and the other eleven did lay their hands upon him and 
 made him Patriarch." 
 
 These are the Doctor's testimonies and all tlial he has pretend- 
 ed to bring from ancient authors, and although to all these we 
 might briefly reply, that they do not prove a single instance of 
 presbyter ordination — the seniors and elders both in Firmillian 
 and Tertullian, referring as well to bishops as presbyters, and the 
 presbyters in Alexandria making one of their number a patriarch, 
 by no means implying absolutely that they ordained him to any 
 office in the ministry — but as these instances have been undoubt- 
 edly collected from Miller's Letters, I will transcribe a short por- 
 tion of Dr. Bowden's reply to them, — and the reader can judge 
 how it is that assertions are made on this subject which have been 
 a thousand times refuted. I begin with Dr. Bowden's sixth let- 
 ter addressed to Miller. 
 
 "In my la|^, I finished a pretty long list of testimonies from 
 the writings of St. Cyprian, and proved, I am persuaded, beyond 
 the possibility of refutation, that he and all his contemporaries 
 did believe and assert the divine institution of Episcopacy. I 
 shall now close the evidence from the Cyprianic period, by con- 
 sidering your quotation from Firrnillian, bishop of Caesarea. In 
 an epistle addressed to Cyprian, he thus speaks; 'But the other 
 heretics also, if they separate from the Church, can have no pow- 
 er or grace, since all power and grace are placed in the Church, 
 where Elders preside, in whom is vested the power of baptizing, 
 of imposition of hands, and ordination.' You add, ' this passage 
 needs no comment. It not only represents the right to baptize 
 and the right to ordain as going together, but it also expressly as- 
 cribes both to the Elders v.-Jio preside in the churches.' 
 
 'This needs no comment!' Concise enough, to be sure! But 
 there are some of your readers who will, I hope, venture to think 
 for themselves. To such I address the following observations: 
 1st. Firmillian v/as a very distinguished bishop, and contem- 
 porary with Cyprian, from whose works we have extracted such 
 a body of evidence, that bishops in his day, were an order supc- 
 
136 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHUKCn 
 
 Tior to presbyters, as cannot possibly be controlled. 2nd. Fir- 
 millian appears to have been perfectly of the same mind with 
 Cyprian, in all matters relating to the discipline and government 
 of the church, as any one may see who will read the whole of 
 the 7oth epiritlt'. 3rd. Firmiliian was the disciple of Origen, 
 and we have seen that he asserted the divine institution of Epis- 
 copacy. From these considerations we have strong ground to 
 presume, that Firmiliian liad the same sentiments with respect 
 to Episcopacy, that all his contemporaries had. 
 
 But what amounts to more than presumptive evidence, Fir-- 
 millian in this very letter e-xplains what he means by elders. 
 "How is this," says he, "that when we see Paul baptized his 
 disciples again after John's baptism, u-e should make any 
 doubt of baptizing thrM who return from heresy to the church, 
 after that unlawful and profane baptisim of theirs, unless Paul 
 was less t'iau these Bishops of whom we are spcalcing now, that 
 these indeed, might give the Holy Ghost, by imp^tion of hands, 
 but Paul was insufficient for it." Now we see of what kind of 
 elders Firmiliian was speaking; it was expressly Bishops, to 
 whonr belongs the supreme povver, of baptism, confirmation and 
 ordination. It has been made as clear as any matter of fact can 
 be made, [refering to his former letters,] that bishops in the age 
 of cyprian, were the supreme ministers of the sacraments, and 
 the sole ministers of confirmation and ordination; and Firmilli- 
 an's ascribing these powers to elders, would prove decisively to 
 every impartial person, that by tnera he meant bishops, even if 
 he had not said so himself; but when he calls those who were to 
 lay their hands upon the returning heretics, by the appropriate 
 name of bishops — such bishops as he and Cypnan were — there 
 cannot be the shadoAV of a doubt remaining. And here let me 
 add, that when the appellative bishop is used by the writers of 
 the third century, it is always used in the appropriate sense ; and 
 presbyters are never called bishops, as has been fully proved by 
 Pearson and Dodwell. 
 
 Now, I will give you another quotation from the 75th epistle, 
 which will answer the double purpose of strengthening the above 
 
i 
 
 DEFENDED. 
 
 137 
 
 proofs, if they need it, and showing Firmillian's coincidence of 
 opinion with Cyprian and the other African bishops, and his 
 master Origen, in regard to the divine institution of diocesan 
 Episcopacy. After showing- from Scripture, that the church wa3 
 founded upon Peter and the other Apostles, he says, "where 
 we may observe that the power of remitting sins was granted to 
 the Apostles (whosoever sins ye remit, &c.,) and to those church- 
 es, which they, v/uen sent forth by Christ, formed and founded, 
 and to those bishops icho succeeded !hcm, in a due and regular 
 course of vicarious ordination. Under what other notion, there- 
 fore, can we consider these adversaries of the one Catholic Church, 
 whereof we are members, these enemies of ours, 'f us, I say, 
 who are successors to the Apostles,''^ S^r-. Here Firmillian declares 
 himself and Cyprian, and the other Bishops of his time — bishops 
 in the appropriate sense of the word — bishops who had many 
 presbyters and many congregations under them — bishops who 
 had the jftwer of the keys, and the sole power of confirmation 
 and ordination — he declares, I say, these diocesan bishops to he 
 the successors of the Apostles, holding by vicarious ordination, 
 the very commission which they held, and then, by irresistable 
 consequence, diocesan episcopacy is a divine institution. If any 
 man can doubt what sort of elders or Seniors, Firmillian speaks 
 of, all I have to say is, that he has the power of doubling, cer- 
 tainly, at his own disposal. 
 
 I shall now close the testimonies of the third century with the 
 usual quotations from TertuUian, who as you justly observe "be- 
 gan to flouristi about the year 200" ; as he was converted to Chris- 
 tianity twenty-five years before that period, he is a good witness 
 for the government of the church, both in the beginning of the 
 third century and in the latter part of the second. Let it also 
 be remembered that he was a presbyter of the church of Car- 
 thage, but never attained the Episcopal dignity. The quotation 
 which you have given from Tertullian I claim for episcopacy. It 
 has been proved from Origen that in the early part of the third 
 century diocesan episcopacy prevailed in the church. Indeed 
 all the testimonies I have produced from the different writers of 
 
138 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 that age prove the same thing- ; for it is ridiculous to talk of any 
 change a few years before those men lived, when they so posi* 
 tively, so repeatedly and so unanimously found episcopacy up« 
 on apostolic institution. Tertullian, we shallfind, bears h4s teS* 
 timony to the same thing- in the following passage ; " The chief 
 or hisj'hest Priest, who is the Bishop, has the right of giving bap- 
 tism, and after him the presbyters and deacons; but not without 
 the Bishop's authority. " Now what would a man who has no 
 hypothesis to m:nntiii, tKinlc aiul say of tbis passage ? Certain- 
 ly, he would say, here it;: evident that Tertullian spealis of an 
 order or grade, to which he gives the title of High Priest and 
 Bishop and which, of consequence from .the very title, must be 
 possessed of powers superior, not only to those of the deacon, 
 but also of the presbyter. And this is not only implied in the 
 title, but the writer also gives an instance of the superiorty of 
 the bishop in ascribing to him as its source, all the power which 
 the inferior orders have to baptize; and the same must be true 
 also of whatever otlicr powers they are possessed. Now if this 
 be not the meaning of Tertullian, then I do declare, that I have 
 not intellect enough to discover the meaning of as plain a pass- 
 age as was ever written. 
 
 Thi-3 too is exactly the language and precisely the sentiment 
 of Cyprian, and his contemporaries, as has been proved adsati- 
 etatem. They all aii rl'he to the bishop the supremacy of the 
 keys ov sacrament, and all t!ie power Vi'hich the inferior orders 
 exercise in the church; and the bishop's power they acsribe to 
 the apostolical commission, and that commission to Christ, and 
 thus they make out the divine institution of episcopacy. And 
 this, i aver, Vv-as the universal opinion, so far as the records of 
 anliq;;;ty inform us, from the first foundation of the christian 
 church. 
 
 But another tcstimonj' from Tertullian is the follow'n::;, "we 
 have also churches founded by John; for though I'Jarcion re- 
 jects his apocalypse, yet the order or succession of bishops, when 
 traced up to its original, will be found to have John for its au- 
 thor, in the churches which he planted." In this passage Ter- 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 139 
 
 lulHan asserts that St. John founded churches and that he or- 
 dained bishops for them — such bishops as existed at the close of 
 the second century — who were the high priests of the church, 
 and having authority superior to presbyters and deacons. If any 
 thing can be more decisive than this, I know not what it is. 
 
 The next quotation from TertuUian is of the same nature with 
 the last. He challenges the heretics — " Let them produce the 
 originals of their churches, and show the order of their bishops, 
 so running down successively from the beginning, as that every 
 first bishop among them shall have had for his author and pred- 
 ecessor some one of the apostles, or apostolical men who contin- 
 ued with the qpostles ; for in this manner the apostolic churches 
 bring down their registers ; as the church of Smyrna from Poly- 
 carp, placed there by John ; the church of Eomo from Clement, 
 ordained by Peter: and so do tlie next prove their apostolic ori- 
 gin, by exhibiting those who were constituted their bishops by 
 the apostles. " 
 
 Here again we have Episcopacy of apstolic institution ; Bish- 
 ops placed over the churches by apostles themselves — not stand- 
 ing moderators [or superintendants] but officers who had power 
 out of the presbytery as we'll as in it; and much more power 
 when out than in — not Eectors of parishes with a tribe of useless 
 curates about them; .but those ofTir.ers who authorized Prebyters 
 to administer the sacraments, and of consequence to dispense the 
 word pf life. These were Tertullian's bishops, and these he tells 
 us were the bishops established over the churches by the npos- 
 lles." 
 
 Dr. Bowden goes on to introduce other testimonies from Ter- 
 tuUian, but I must refer the reader to his letters. 
 
 Nov/ for the statement of Eutvchius in relation to the churches 
 of Alexandria — that Avhich Dr. Bangs says, " is mors to the point 
 than any other" — this is the reply of Bowden to Miller v»ho 
 made a similar assertion. 
 
 "lam not a little surprised to find you Quoting Eutvchius 
 for your purpose. Had you read Pearson, I can luivdly think 
 that you would have ventured to do it. He proves him to have 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 been an author upon whom not the least dependence can be placed, 
 when the fact did not happen in or near his own time. Of this 
 take the following evidence. 
 
 1. Eutychius was Patriarch of Alexandria in the fciitk century, 
 I ask them from whom did he derive his information ? From 
 any writers of the first five centuries? Not one of them says 
 that the preshyters of Alexandria consecrated their Bishops. — 
 From the records of the church at Alexandria? Amrus Ebnol 
 when he took that city, burnt all the books therein. What re- 
 gard then is due to an author who quotes no authorities, and lived 
 too late to know any thing of the origin of the church of Alexan- 
 dria, but what is to be derived from the primitive writers ? 
 
 2. Eutycliius appears to have been very little conversant with 
 the church of Alexandria, in the early ages. In some well known 
 particulars he contradicts the best writers of antiquity. He says 
 St. Mark came to Alexandria in the ninth year of Claudius, and 
 suffered martyrdom in the first year of Nero ; and that under the 
 government of Nerb, St. Peter dictated to St. Mark, in the city 
 of Rome, the Gospi'l which n-ocs under the name of the latter. 
 
 This eontraiii'jts Eusebius who says that St. Mark died in the 
 eigth year of Nero. Eutychius in this particular contradicts him- 
 self also; for he says that St. Peter was put to death in the 
 twenty second year after the Lord's passion ; that is before the 
 government of Nero. Nor do any of the ancients say that St. 
 Mark did not write his Gospel, till his return from Alexandria to 
 Rome, or t!iat he ever did return. . On the contrary it appears 
 from EuselMus that he wrote his Gospel bffore hi; lucnl m/o Egypt. 
 
 3. Eutychius ignorance of the churoh of Alexandria, in the 
 primitive times, will appear from what he says concernig Ori- 
 gen, the most noted man of the age in v/hich he lived. Euty- 
 chius saj's, " in the time of the Emperor Justinian, there was 
 one Origen, bishop of the Mangabenses, who asserted the doc- 
 trine of the transmigration of souls, and denied the resurrection; 
 that Justinian sent for Origen to Constantinople, and that the 
 bishop of that city excomniunicated him." Almost every sylabU 
 of this is false. Origen never was a bishop, and he lived in the sec-^ 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 141 
 
 ond and third centuries, but Justinian lived in the fifth and sixth. 
 
 Dr. Bovvden gives many instances of Eutychius' mistakes in 
 relation to matters which 'happened before his time, and having 
 declared that he, " has now given abundant proofs that Eutychi- 
 us is not entitled to the least credit, for any thing he asserts con- 
 cerning the primitive church," he then goes on to show from 
 witnesses who lived at the time and unimpeachable — the same 
 witnesses upon whom we rely to prove the authenticity of the 
 Scriptures, that the primitive church of Alexandria formed no 
 exception to the other churches established by the apostles, but 
 was under the care of the Diocesan Bishops properly ordained 
 from the time of St. Mark. But I must refer the reader to his 
 letters. See also Chapin's primitive church where all the testi- 
 mony is collected and the succession of the Bishops given. 
 
 So much for the church at Alexandria and the testimony of 
 Eutychius, which Dr. Bangs acknowledges is, " the raosl to th$ 
 point." In a note, the learned Doctor, (in answer to a writer in 
 the Churchman whom he abuses, but whose language, he does 
 not dare to give) endeavors to sustain the credit of Eutychius, by 
 Uvs quotations from Moshcim,. neither of which speak of him a» 
 authority, and only one of which, I believe, can be found in that 
 author, and which is as follov/s; — " Among the Arabians (in ihs 
 tenth . century) wo author acquired a higher reputation than Eu- 
 tychius, bisliop of Alexandria, whose annals, with several other 
 productions of lii;; pen arc siii! extant." Here it is evident that 
 Mosh'jim is not ;-pcaI;ing of Eutycliiiis as aiil'inrity nor as a wit- 
 ness to matters which happened centuries before his time, but 
 only of his reputation as a writer especially among the Arabians. 
 Really I might say wiili ' ': '' , .■nivrng the Methodists no 
 vvpter has acquired a ' i than Dr. Bangs, whose 
 
 primitive church is still nud yiJ no one would think that, 
 
 by this declaration I intended to speak of him as a good witness, 
 especially to matters v. liich happened in the first nf.-es of Christi- 
 anity; far from it. What vituperation and abuse wcuid be heap- 
 ed upon the head of the poor Episcopalian, who shrmld presume 
 to bring forward a writer in the lenlh century, as testimony to the 
 
142 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHUKCH 
 
 to the true constitution of the primitive church? What changes 
 would be rung about "popery" and tlie " dark agesi" 
 
 Before leaving this part of mj'^ subject; let me say to the reader 
 that the testimony of all the writers of the first three centuries of 
 Christianity to the apostolic institution of Episcopacy, is as full, 
 clear and unequivocal as it is upon any other subject whatever; 
 and it would be just as absurd for an individual to attempt to 
 prove from their writings thnt they did not believe in the inspi- 
 ration of the Scriptures, as that they did not believe in the divine 
 authority of Episcopal government. To be convinced of this, 
 needs no better evidence, that is aflbrded by Chillingworth, the 
 great apostle of Protestantism, in his essay, entitled, "The Apos- 
 tolical Institution of Episcopacy demonstrated." In an American 
 edition of his work, recently published and which may or ought 
 to be found in the|Library of every Divine, on page 522, the read- 
 er may see this essay; and the course of the author's demonstra- 
 tion is as follows: — 
 
 1st. "Tint this government (Episcopacy) v.t.3 received iiniversallv in th« 
 eliurcli, eilli'T in the Apostles' time or presently alter, !i so evident and imques- 
 timui/ilf , i.'iitl i!ic most learned adversaries of this gocernmcnt do tlicmselccs con- 
 fes:~it." 
 
 Under this head the author gives the confessions of these learned adversaries, 
 and then s'ates, 
 
 2nd. "That seeing that the Episcopal government is confessedly so ancjenf» 
 and sn catholic, it cannot with reiison be denied to he apostolic." 
 
 Utidcf this head the autlior proves that "so great a cliariife, as befv.'een pres- 
 byteriul government and episcopal could not possibly have prevailed all ih« 
 world over in a little time," nor could it have been produced without some re- 
 cord, much commotion. &c., and then he concludes as follows: — 
 
 "Wlicn I shall see, therelore, all the fablcsin the metamorphoses acted, and 
 
 pr ^ ■ ti!'" ■:: vurn Im r.:\ 111' and' anstocracies m 
 
 ti' ■ ' ■ ' , i, : i ■ ,1. I ; 1 I he2in to behove 
 
 t:r>: i , . 1 . - :i- h during the'Apos- 
 
 tl'-. A ..,,.! V ' v!ri,i-' and will of 
 
 fi.i'. . . .'l-i I,:.' ;i ■ ■ ■ into 
 
 ei'" ...... I'l I'.- 1 ■ .: ! , ■ . , 1 irv 
 
 hu::.:u, .-.-.I ;ui, liavn:--;..,/ . ; ^ • . 
 
 ♦•JCi.i«co:):»l govcrnnieiit is nc-kiiovv ;> fl^-v.i i.. wiivc Lcca umvcrsuiiy rjceived 
 in the Church presently after the Apostles' limes. 
 
 "B tv. i-f.Mi the AdosiIcs times and tnis presently after, tnere wa.s not lira* 
 ei-.OMfiii ii>i-. niM- no;v-ihi;ity of. so great an alteration. And therefore there wa« 
 no sueti ar.i iIU/m u, uretended. And tnereiore Episcopacy be tnrr confessed 
 tn be so an ■ :i' ; n I ( aitioiic. must be granted also to be Aposlolic: quod erat 
 demonstraiiiJuni. ■ 
 
 Can it be true, as I have heard, that the " Pastor of St. Johns" 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 143 
 
 introduced Mr. Chillingworth to his audience as opposed to the 
 divine instituion of episcopacy? Most sincerely do I hope, that 
 no individual who attended those Lectures may noie be able to 
 recall his name, as having been given in the list of authorities. 
 
 Having thus examined the instances of Presbyterial ordination 
 which the learned Doctor has given from the Scriptures, and also 
 his statement in relation to the church at Alexandria, I come now, 
 to consider the modern authors whom he quotes as sustaining 
 hit: positions. 
 
 I. Lord King. " The quotations Vv'hich I shall produce," says 
 the Doctor, "are taken chiefly from Lord King's account of the 
 constitution, discipline and worship of the Primitive Church. 
 And that the reader may rely upon these as correct, I will re- 
 mark, that the a«tl or has fully verified all his quotations, by in- 
 serting the originals themselves in the margin of his book, which 
 any reader of it may consult for himself." 
 
 Now, after this, one would expect, that the learned Doctor 
 would give some actual quotations from Lord King, but this ia 
 not the case ; not a single one does he give. As, for instance, 
 he goes on, "Clemens Roraanus sometimes mentions many 
 bishops in the church of Corinth, whom he also calls in other 
 parts of his epistles preshtjlers.'^ Eut this is not a quotation from 
 Lord King nor is it marked as such, nor is it a quotation from 
 Clemens Romanus, nothing of the kind, but the mere assertion of 
 Dr. Bangs, without any authority whatever, his inferences per- 
 haps from King's bock; and so it is with all that follows under 
 the same head. Is this a fair way to give quotations ? But now 
 for Lord King himself. 
 
 It is true that his Lordship •■ ' ' '. , with tlie above title, 
 not against the church, but l'.- , :ui a^i-eeablc in some 
 
 particulars to primitive usage ui.-'. iIil ■ .1. i'j allowable, but utter- 
 ly opposed in every thing to snch a performance as that of Mr. 
 Wesley upon Dr. Coke, in his private chamber at Bristol. And 
 what are the facts aboui tliis L.n L ? Why, it was so completely 
 and satisfactorily replied to by hlatcr in his " Originrl Draught," 
 and in a friendly v.-ay, that his Lordship instead of replying to 
 
144 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 Slater, presented him with a lucrative benefice at his disposal, as 
 a reward for his triumph. See advertisement to Slater's Draught. 
 Must not a man be hard pushed for arguments who will resort 
 to Lord King ? especially at the present time, and when he wish- 
 es to introduce the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers, — men 
 whose writings can now be found in every well selected library? 
 
 Another author relied upon by Dr. Bangs, is bishop Stilling- 
 /leet, of whom he speaks as follows: 
 
 "Bi-hop Stiilingfioet has given evidence in his Irenicum, of a 
 most dilli'Tcnt and impartial research into the records of the 
 Church on this subject, and from whose learned book I have bor- 
 rowed the two last quotations. But why sliould I quote any par- 
 ticular passage of his book, since his entire performance, is taken 
 up in a most successful attempt to establish the fact, that bish^ 
 ops and presbyters are identical as to order, and that therefore 
 tliey possessed the inherent right of Consecration, before their 
 liberties were restrained by episcopal encroachments, or by their 
 own voluntavy act, for the sake, as they thought, of greater 
 peace and uiianiuiit}-? Yet, as the judgement of such a man 
 after a most laborious investigation, should have great weight 
 in settling controversies of this sort, let us hear him in his own 
 words." 
 
 Now, what are the facts in relation to Bishop Stillingfleet? 
 They are briefly these. He wrote two books on this subject — 
 the one called the " Irenicu7n," and the other the "Unreasonable- 
 ness of Separation" — the former written when he was twenty- 
 four years old, the latter when he was forty-five — the former was 
 written " with a view to moderate the violent controversies which 
 the dissenters unceasingly kept alive against the Church," and 
 under the influence of his feelings on this point he "made con- 
 cessions which he afterwards not only regretted, but utterly re- 
 nounced, and this not only in his latter worlc, but in every way, 
 by sermons and addresses. Hence in the preface to his book on 
 the " Unreasonableness of Separation," and referring tohislren- 
 icum, he says, "Will you not allow one single person, who hap- 
 pened to write about these matters, when he was very young. 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 145 
 
 in twenty years time of the most busy and thoughtful part of his 
 iif, to see reason to alter his judgement." In a sermon preached 
 -on the occasion of an ordination at St. Paul's, "when his judg- 
 ment was perfectly matured, and his reading had become more 
 extensive and better digested," he declared, "I cannot find any 
 argument of force in the New Testament, to prove that ever the 
 christian churches were under the sole government of Presby- 
 ters;" and again — " This succession was not in a mere president 
 ■cy of order, but the bishops succeeded the Apostles in the govern- 
 ment over those churches;" and again," Tliere is as great reason 
 to believe the Apostolical succession to be of divine Institution, as 
 the canon of Scripture or the observation of the Liord''s day." And 
 in his "Unreasonableness of Separation," he asserts, that, "the 
 case of Timothy is an uncontrollable instance of diocesan Epis- 
 copacy." 
 
 Now, I ask, was it right, was it honest in Dr. Bangs, who must 
 have known these facts, as they have been reiterated again and 
 again, tlius to attempt to sustain his arguments by the authority 
 ■of bishop Stillingfleet ? Did he think that his Methodist breth- 
 ren were so ignorant and credulous as to allow themselves to be 
 <iuped and deceived, by such a manifest imposition? Must they 
 not regard it as a bare faced deception ? Yes! truly, " the judge- 
 ment of such a man after a most laborious investigation should 
 have great weight in settling controversies of this sort." But 
 when the judgement of such a man is given, we are solemnly 
 bound to give his best and most sober and most deliberate judg- 
 ment. Common honesty requires that we should fully and fairly 
 state all the material facts in the case. Have I a right to say 
 that my neighbor's opinion are so and so, when he himself has 
 informed me that they are not so — that although they were so 
 once they are not so now ? And this expressly for the purpose 
 of influencing the judgment of others in a matter of the most 
 grave and serious interest ? Dr. Bangs had a right to use the ar- 
 gument of the Irenicum or any other book which he chose, with 
 due credit, but he had no right to give the judgment of bishop 
 Stillingfleet in the way he has, for it was not his judgment, 
 
 io 
 
146 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CnUKCH 
 
 But another authority introduced by Dr. Bangs is Bishop White^ 
 as follows : 
 
 "The next evidence which I shall bring forvvaid in favour of 
 the truth we are endeavouring to establish, is the late Bishop. 
 White. At the close of the Revolutionary war, before the in- 
 dependency of these United States had been acknowledged, tha 
 Clergy of the English Church not meeting with encouragement 
 from the Bishops of England, in their application for an Ameri- 
 can Episcopacy, the Rev. Mr. White, then a Presbyter of the- 
 Church, wrote a pamphlet, entitled, 'The case of the Episcopal 
 Church in the United States considered.' In this pamphlet which 
 was published in 17S3, the author proposed the electing and con- 
 secrating a bishop by the hands of presbyters, pleading the law- 
 fulness of it from the exigencies of the times." 
 
 Now, that Bishop White did write a pamphlet with the above: 
 title, IS true, b'.it that he ever proposed either in that pamphlet or 
 in any other lo be found among his acknoivledged writings, "the 
 cli'cting and tlic consccralrng of a Bishop ly the hands of freshi,'- 
 ters,'" is as gross and palpable a mistake as even Dr. Bangs can; 
 ultcr. 
 
 The facts about that pamphlet, are these. The temporary ef- 
 fect of the Revolution, upon the Church, it is not to be denied,, 
 was disastrous in the extreme ; for many of the Clergy who had 
 been supported here by the " Society for propagating the Gospel," 
 were compelled to return home, and the enemies of the church,, 
 with great magnanimity, took that opportunity to array the pas- 
 sions and prejudices of the people against her, and this, notwith- 
 standing that some of the ablest defenders of, and actors in thfr 
 Revolution (Bishop White among the former and Vv''ashington 
 among the latter) belonged to her fold. Under these disastrous 
 circumstances ilie members of the church were "scattered and 
 pealed," and Bishop White for the purpose of preventing their 
 entire alienation, v.vote a pamphlet in which he "proposed," to 
 use his own words, "the combining of the Clergy and of repre- 
 sentatives of the Congregations, in convenient districts, with a 
 representative body of the whole, nearly on the plan subsequently 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 147 
 
 adopted. This ecclesiastical representative was to make a de- 
 claration approving of Episcopacy, and professing a determinaiion 
 to possess the succession when it could be obtained.'" 
 
 But to obviate objections to this plan, especially from those 
 who were unwilling to act at all in such a matter Avi'ihout a Bish- 
 op, Dr. White endeavored to show, that the case was one of abso- 
 lute necessity, the arrangement proposed a mere temporary expe- 
 dient, and therefore, in his opinion, not inconsistent with Episco- 
 pal government. His arguments upon that point, however, were 
 seized upon by Dr. Linn in the controversy which was carried on 
 in the Albany Centincl, some years ago, and an attempt was 
 made to draw from them some acknovvledgemenls unfavorable to 
 the claims of Episcopacy, But the Bishop himself wrote to Dr. 
 Linn, and drew from him a confession of mistake. All the Let- 
 ters pro and con. were subsequently collected by Bishop Hobart, 
 and published in a volume cnlitled, "Essays on Episcopacy," 
 and to that the reader is referred. 
 
 In his memoirs of the church. Bishop White thus alludes to 
 the subject. " Many years after the publication of the pamphlet, 
 a clergyman of standing in an Anti-Episcopalian Society, alledg- 
 ed some passages of the performance as sustaining ordinations 
 not Episcopal. But he had the candor piibiicly to acknowledge 
 his mistake when it was pointed out to him." 
 
 I may here add, that the learned Dr. Bangs has gone farther 
 than any other writer in misrepresenting the sentiments of that 
 pamphlet, and to him belongs the peculiar honor of having dis- 
 covered, that it proposed the electing and consecrating of a Bish- 
 op hj the hands of presbyter s." What comments can be pnade upon 
 such a statement, without transgressing the ordinary rules of de- 
 corum ! 
 
 IV. But another argument of Dr. Bangs is, that John Wes- 
 ley was a "Reformer" — "called, sustained and sanctioned by 
 the head of the Church" — and asking the question, "was it not 
 necessary for the reformation and salvation of the people, for Mr. 
 Wesley to adopt those measures," the Doctor replies, "I tliink it 
 was." Now, without any comments on the horrible blasphemy 
 
148 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 here uttered, as though any thing had been left by the SaTi'our 
 unfinished, which was really '■'■necessary for the reformation and 
 salvation of the people" — such blasphemy as is only equalled by 
 Mr. Wesley himself, when he asked, in his "Appeal," what per- 
 son could have been less liable to objection than myself, whom 
 the Almighty has employed?" — without any comments upon 
 this, I pass on directly to the assertion, that Mr. Wesley was a 
 " Reformer of the people." Let it be acknowledged that he was, 
 and that his labors were crowned with extraordinary success. 
 What then ? Had he a right or has any other man a right, sim- 
 ilarly situated, to violate or change any of the established ordi- 
 nances of the christian church, without an express commission 
 from heaven, and such a commission as can be established by 
 undoubted miracles ? Surely not ; for the Church is a divine 
 institution — "■the Church of God which he hath -purchased with his 
 own Hood;'''' and the christian ministry is not only an essential 
 part of the Church, without which it could no more exist, than 
 any other Institution can exist when it has not a duly constituted 
 succession of officers, but it is a part which the Saviour himself 
 established. Hence we say, that neither Mr. Wesley nor any 
 other man, no matter what his talents or his success as a preach- 
 er of the Gospel, has a right to change or alter or modify any 
 part of the Church of Christ, without an express and undoubted 
 warrant from Christ himself. Had Mr. Wesley such a warrant ? 
 Was he even an inspired man? Nay, may not his extraordina- 
 rv success as a reformer in morals and religion, have contributed 
 more than any thing else to lead him astray, so that instead of 
 making him more humble and guarded in not going beyond the 
 commandment of the Lord to do either more or less, he became 
 self-confident and unmindful of his own sacred obligations? 
 Who can read the history of his life without perceiving, in many 
 particulars, the workings of this self-confident and delusive spir- 
 it so natural to man? Take, for instance, his controversy with 
 Mr. Whitfield. Here we find him declaring that, " he had an ini- 
 mediale call from God to preach and publish to the v/orld, thatMr. 
 Whitfield's doctrine is highly injurious to Christ." And at the 
 
DEF ENDED. 
 
 149 
 
 same time we find Mr. Whitfied also declaring, that " he had his 
 doctrines from Christ and his Apostles and was taught them of 
 God" — that " the Holy Spirit from time to time had led him into 
 a knowledge of divine things, and directed him by reading the 
 Scriptures and watching upon his knees, even in the minutest 
 circumstance, as plainlj' as the Jews were directed, when con- 
 sulting the Urim and Thummim at the High Priest's breast." 
 And thus it was, that both of these extraordinary reformers, be- 
 came so deceived and deluded as to believe that they were real- 
 ly inspired, and that one was commissioned to preach against the 
 other. Most honorable is it to Mr. Whitfield that he made to 
 the world a full and frank confession of this delusion. " I do 
 confess," said he, "that imagination has mixed itself with the 
 work I have performed. I own, too, that I have made impress- 
 ions without the written word, my rule of acting. I have been 
 too bitter in my zeal ; wildfire has mixed with it, and I find I have 
 written and spoken too much in my own spirit, when I thought I 
 was writing and speaking entirely by the assistance of the Spirit 
 of God." See Nott's Sermons. 
 
 Now, instead of allowing that Mr. Wesley was an inspired 
 man, or that he had a right to change or modify any of the in- 
 stitutions of heaven, in consequence of his wonderful success as 
 a preacher of the Gospel, we rather take him as an illustrious 
 example, to show the dangerous tendency of the doctrines which 
 Dr. Bangs upholds. And we say, that if such a man, v/ith all 
 his talents and acquirements, became so deluded and deceived 
 by a vain and self confident spirit, how much greater is the dan- 
 ger to weaker minds and less established characters ! 
 
 Here let it be remembered (though in some respects a digress- 
 ion) that the Episcopal Church does not deny the necessity of an 
 inward call of the Holy Spirit, to qualify every individual to as- 
 sume the great and solemn obligations of the christian ministry. 
 On the contrary, the Church addresses this question to everyone 
 who is presented as a candidate for that office — "Z)o you tliink 
 that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghosl, to lake upon you 
 this ojlce and ministration?" And unless the candidate can con- 
 
150 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHUECH 
 
 scientiously answer that he, '■'■thinks so,^' he is never ordained. 
 But the church does not look upon the -man's assertions in this 
 respect as the host proof of his inward call. She rather follows 
 the example of primitive times, when the Apostles said to the 
 brethren, "look yc out seven men of honest report, full of the 
 Holy Ghost and of wisdom whom i-ce may appoint over this busi- 
 ness;" and when tlio candidates are thus presented by the breth- 
 ren with tlie tcf tinicny of their approbation, the church believes 
 that this is much better evidence of an inward call, and should 
 be so regarded by the condidates themselves, than any fancies 
 or feelinr^s v^-hich they may possess. And certainly we may be 
 permitted to think that if any man had presented himself before 
 the Apostles, as " full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom," merely 
 upon the testimony of his own inward assurances however strong, 
 he would ! ^ ■ 1 a ',i ^ ntly rejected by them, for that very 
 reason, ■: <\ to enter upon the duties of such an 
 
 oflice and ; <. ] ecd we cannot but think that the case 
 
 of such a man, in tomo particulars at least, would have resem- 
 bled that of Simon, wh^ desired to exercise some of the duties of 
 the ministry, and that the Apostles would have said to him as 
 they did to Simon, " thou hast neitner part nor lot in this matter,' 
 for thy heart is not ri";!!! in the sij^Iit of God." 
 
 fjut v.-liat is i l'.is di'cti-inc of succc'iv as it seems to be upheld by 
 Dr. Bano-,5, and p'a.'r.dr'd hv liic followers of every Eeformer? 
 Can it be, ilirt succ , s us wo undorsland and perceive it, is any 
 test of truth, or any proof of a divine commission? We think 
 not; for that which now appears to us so successful may in the 
 end turn out to be a positive detriment to the cause of Truth ; arid 
 v/e believe this to be emphatically the case with all such divis- 
 ons in the christian church as that which Mr. Wesley most un-' 
 wittingly made. AVe are verily persuaded that, if "those who 
 profess and call themselves christians," were all "baptized by 
 one spirit into one body," as the Saviour intended they should 
 and prayed- that they mic^ht — and each individual member, in- 
 stead of being "puffed up" with his extraordinary gifts, should 
 "esteem other better than himself" — and all "striving togetk- 
 
DEFENDED* 
 
 151 
 
 'er^^ in tlieir several stations "for the faith of the Gospel," then 
 indeed, the prayer of Jesus would be answered, -and the implied 
 promise of that prayer fulfilled, the world would believe that 
 tJod had sent him. But so long- as professing christians are not 
 united among themselves, especially upon the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of the christian ministry, and every individual is allowed 
 to preach every thing which comes into his head, without any 
 regard to the doctrines of the church, which the Apostle declares 
 is "the pillar and ground of the Truth;" and so long as profess- 
 ing christians themselves h-ave little or no faith in Christianity as 
 a divine Institution, containing all that is necessary for the re- 
 formation and salvation of the v.'orld, which cannot be improved 
 by the hand of man, and which no Reformer, however eminent 
 his abilities or successful, his cfnii 's, lias a right to modify or 
 change, so -long must it be c ^ li Hdelily will increase, 
 
 that false prophets will mr.lti; Christians, instead of 
 
 making any positive advances lu tiie demolition of the kingdoms 
 of sin and Satan in Pagan and heathen lands, will -scarcely be 
 able to maintain their position at home. 
 
 But let the Methodist himself test this doctrine of success. 
 Let him go to the Turk and urge the success of Mr. Wesley as 
 a proof of his divine mission, and exhibit before his eyes, if you 
 please, the half million of followers to which the number has been 
 reduced in England. What would the Mussleman say ? Look 
 to Mohammed and see the number of 'lis followers, amounting 
 to more than a hundred and forty-millions. And then, if success 
 is really any test of truth, the Methodist would be compelled to 
 fall down and wor.ship the false Prophet of Mecca. But is it 
 said that no comparison can be drawn between the success of 
 Mr. Wesley and that of Mohammed or of any other acknowl- 
 edged delusion— that the followers of the former were really con- 
 verted from error to truth, from sin unto God. Let this be ac- 
 knowledged — although we have reason to believe that there 
 is some truth in every delusion, and enough, it may be, by the 
 grace of God to produce a radical change in the afiectionsof the 
 heart — still the illustration is sufficient to show that vicre success 
 
152 
 
 THE EriSCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 is no test of correctness. And besides this the Apostle teaches 
 us rather to rejoice than to weep whenever Christ is preached, 
 though we cannot always approve of the manner, and notwith- 
 standing even he may be preached, "of envy and strife and con- 
 tention." Allowing, therefore, that Christ is truly preached, by 
 the mutitude of sects which are continually starting into exis- 
 tence, and that so far good is done, still it does by no means fol- 
 low that these sects are right, or that they ought to be approved 
 by the members of the christian church. 
 
 But we may take another view of this subject in order to show 
 the fallacy of the argument which is based upon success. If 
 success be any test of correctness, then the want of success must 
 be a proof of error. Will the learned Dr. Bangs maintain this 
 latter doctrine? Will he apply it to the Jev/ish Church during 
 the time of its captivity and sa}', that in consequence of that cap- 
 tivity, it was not in reality the church of God? Will he apply it 
 to the christian church during the time of the Arian heresy, or 
 during the period of the dark ages, and say that the Church of 
 Christ did not then exist? Or will he acknowledge the justice 
 of the argument which the infidel sometimes brings against Chris- 
 tianity, that if it were really divine, then it would produce a more 
 decided effect upon the character and conduct of the world ? But 
 I have no time to dwell lenger upon this point, and therefore pass 
 on to the consideration of another subject. 
 
 V. In the latter part of Dr. Bangs' book, the learned author 
 attacks the Apostolic succession and the divine institution of 
 Episcopacy in particular. His first argument is as follows : — 
 
 "They (Episcopalians) hold, it must be remembered, that this 
 third order of the ministry is a dioine rfght. Now, what is ne- 
 cesarv to constitute a divine right? It must be divinely institu- 
 ted. It must rest on an express and imjilicit command of God. 
 Nothing less than this will suffice to constitute any ordinance or 
 ceremony divine. But it requires more than this to establish the 
 doctrine of the divine institution of diocesan episcopacy, as held 
 by a portion of the Protestant Episcopalians. "They must bring 
 an explicit command that this institution is of perpetual obligation 
 
DEFENDED, 
 
 153 
 
 in the church, in all ages, and under all circumstances." p 198, 
 Now, before examining the objection here brought before us, 
 let me remind the reader that every truth is not only liable to ob- 
 jections, but that nothing is easier than to start objections to the 
 best established facts. The ingenious Atheist can find many ob- 
 jections to the truth of the existence of God. The ingenious De- 
 ist is at no loss for arguments to overthrow the divine authority 
 of the Scriptures, and there is no peculiar doctrine of the Bible 
 which may not be doubted and denied by the cavilling sceptic ; 
 indeed, it is the peculiar habit of Infidelity to demand, on all 
 these points, more proof, and especially to declare the necessity 
 of some kind of proof which possibly cannot be brought. The 
 Church, therefore, does not expect that the divine institution of 
 episcopacy, as a fact affirmed and believed in by her, will ecape 
 without being called in question by those who are rather dispos- 
 ed to start objections, than to examine evidence. She knows 
 that this is the fate of every truth to be opposed and denied, but 
 at the same time she knows that it is her duty and province to 
 deal in the positive — to affirm the truth as she has received it, 
 and this notwithstanding the province of infidelity to deal in the 
 negative, to deny the truth which the Church affirms. Let no in- 
 dividual imagine, therefore, that the institution of Episcopacy is 
 not founded upon divine right, because Dr. Bangs or any other 
 man is able to find objections to it, and such objectsons as may 
 be plausible to those who are unacquainted with the subject. 
 
 But what says the learned Doctor? Nothing can have a di- ' 
 vine right which is not divinely instituted; and to be divinely 
 instituted, "it must rest on an express and explicit command of 
 God." " Nothing less than this will suffice to constitute any or- 
 dinance or ceremony divine." Having laid down these proposi- 
 tions the author goes on to demand this "positive proof," and in 
 the supposed absence of it, he declares, that " there is no such 
 command in the Bible," that "there is no such divine right," 
 and therefore, that Episcopacy "rests solely on an assumption of 
 human authority and is binding upon no man." 
 Now, in answer to all this reasoning, we reply, 1st, That the 
 
164 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHUECH 
 
 proof which the Doctor here demands is really afforded, that the 
 establishment of the apostolic office, being an order in the min* 
 istry confessedly superior both to presbyters and deacons, by tho 
 Saviour lumselj\ amounts to nothing less than a divine command 
 for its observance ; and that the subsequent practice of the church 
 in the apostolic age is proof positive, that he intended it to be 
 continued. We say, too, that all the express ai>d positive pre- 
 cepts requiring the obedience of christians to the lawful authori* 
 ty of the ministry, are nothing more nor less than so many com- 
 mands and precepts requiring obedience to that divinely consti- 
 tuted ministry, which then existed, and which the Saviour and 
 his Apostles established. 
 
 We reply in the 2nd, That there is no foundation whatever for 
 the Doctor's asumption, that "nothing less than an express and 
 explicit command of God will suffice to constitute any ordinance 
 or ceremony divine." We deny in toto, this strange assertion, 
 and we consider it not only strange and unfounded, but utterly 
 inexcusable, as coming from a man v.-ho professes to be a "Mas- 
 ter in' Israel." Can the Doctor find an ''express and explicit 
 command" for the observance of tlie first-day of the week in- 
 stead of the seventh? and yet, in the absence of such com- 
 mand will he presume to say, that " il rests enlirelij en an assurnp' 
 (ion of human authority, and is therefore binding upon no munV 
 Can the Doctor find "an express and explicit command" for the 
 admission of females to the Lord's Supper 1 and yet in the ab- 
 sence of such command will he deny to them the ordinance and 
 declare that they are not bound to receive it? Can the Doctor 
 find an express and explicit command for Infant Baptism? And 
 yet, merely in consequence of the absence of such command will 
 he take the ground of the Baptists, and afurm that this ordinance 
 "rests entirely on an assumption of human authority, and is, 
 therefore binding upon no man?" Can the learned Doctor even 
 find an "express and explicit command" for the divine right of 
 the cannonical books of Scripture? and yet in the absence of 
 f/ach command will he take the ground of the Deist and declare, 
 that they " rest entirely on an assumption of human authority, 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 155 
 
 and are therefore, binding upon no man ?" Now will the learned 
 Doctor inform us what respect is due to the opinions of a divino 
 whose arguments " rest entirely on an assumption of human au- 
 thority," and whose reasonings are so unfounded and absurd as 
 to be " binding upon no man ?" 
 
 Again, says Dr. Bangs — "This doctrine of an unbroken suc- 
 cession, being a bugbear by which weak and timid minds have 
 been frightened into a belief that the true Church is to be found 
 only among those who can trace their origin through an uninter- 
 rupted line of bishops of a third order in the ministry, deserves 
 farther consideration. Hence I promised, in my lasi, to look at 
 those ecclesiastical tables to which reference has been made by 
 Dr. Chapman and others." 
 
 "Now, on turning to the tables of Moshcim I find the follov/- 
 ing note of the historian at the commencement of his calalog-tje: 
 ' The succession of the first bishops of Rome is a matter full of 
 intricacy and ohscurifi). We shall, however, follow the learned 
 Bishop Pearson.' Following this guide Mosheim places Linus 
 whom St. Paul mentions in his second epistle to Tiniolhy, at the 
 head of the list, and ^as succeeding Paul and Peter. According 
 to this, Linus died in the year 79, about forty-sis years after the 
 crucifixion. Now, the question is, from whom does the Historian 
 derive his information respecting the list of bishops? Undoubt- 
 edly from Eusebius. Well, what does he say respecting the cat- 
 talogue which he furnishes? In book 4th, chap. 5, he says — 
 " We have not acertained, in -any way, that the times of the bish- • 
 ops of Jerusalem have been regularly preserved on record, for 
 tradition says that they lived but a very short time." 
 
 Now, allowing that the learned Doctor has here stated the 
 truth, (which, however, I shall be under the necessity of show- 
 ing is far from the case,) yet allowing that Mosheim speaks of 
 "the succession of the first bishops of Rome as a matter full of 
 intricacy and obscurity," and that Eusebius declares that "the 
 times of the bishops of Jerusalem have not been regularly pre- 
 served on record," what would naturally be the inference of any 
 sensible man? That there was no succession of bishops at all 
 
156 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 either in the churches of Jerusalem or Rome? Certainly not ; 
 for the very fact that the succession is thus spoken of, not as a 
 doubtful matter in itself considered, but only as obscure or intri- 
 cate or not preserved in its order, is proof positive that some kind 
 of succession really existed. If some historian should say that 
 there is much intricacy and obscurity in relation to the histories 
 of Greece and Rome, would any sensible person, therefore, con- 
 clude that no such nations existed as Greece and Rome? Or if 
 it should be said that the times of the various Sovreigns of Eu- 
 rope had not been regularly preserved upon record, could it, there- 
 fore, be inferred, that there had never been any Sovreigns at all? 
 Or apply these observations to the various versions and manu- 
 scripts of Scripture, and because there is much intricacy and ob- 
 scurity in relation to them, as all must acknowledge, are we, 
 therefore, to conclude that no such versions and manuscripts re- 
 ally existed ? Nay, rather, would not such observations absolute- 
 ly imply their existence? Who doubts the fact that there has 
 been. a regular succession of Presidents of the United States, and 
 yet, notwithstanding their recent origin, how many are there 
 v/ho could accurately relate their times? Who doubts the fact 
 that there has been a regular succession of Bishops in the Amer- 
 ican Episcopal Church, and yet, we presume Dr. Bangs would 
 find some iiitricacy and obscurity in making out the list? 
 
 But the fact is, the learned Doctor does not seem to consider it 
 at all important for him to quote his authorities correctly, or to 
 state the real sentiments of the authors to whom he refers. The 
 passage Avhich I have recited and whi:h I now propose to exam- 
 ine, is only a specimen, and by no means the most injurious to 
 his reputation as a fair and candid writer. 
 
 1st. As to Dr. Chapman. It is not true that he refers to Mo- 
 sheim as furnishing any tahles of his own, but only to the fact that 
 in writing the history of the Church he is obliged to acknowledge 
 the existence of successive bishops in every period beginning 
 from the first, and presiding over the churches, and this acknowl- 
 edgement on the part of Mosheim who was a dissenter. Episco- 
 palians regard as a reluctant confession to the truth. 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 157 
 
 2nd. As to any tables furnished by Mosheim, or that he says, 
 " the succession of the first bishops of Rome is a matter full of 
 intricacy and obscurity," all this we utterly deny. One of the 
 translators of Mosheim (McClaine) appends to his Translation, ex- 
 fressly as his own, some " Chronological Tables" of Bishops and 
 Sovreigns, and he is the person (not the Historian, as Dr. Bangs 
 alHrms,) who makes the observation about intricacies and obscu- 
 rities. At the same time, however, notwithstanding these intri- 
 cacies and obscurities he has been enabled to furnish us with a 
 catalogue of Episcopal successions beginning with the Apostles 
 and coming down to our own age. 
 
 3rd. As to the artful change which the learned Doctor has 
 made from the Bishops of Rome to those of Jerusalem, and this 
 expressly for the purpose of sustaining the testimony of his Mo- 
 sheim by the testimony of Eusebius, in relation to the former 
 Church, we have nothing more to say, than that such a change 
 would not probably have been made could the Doctor have found 
 any thing at all to his purpose in the latter author. And as- 
 there are several copies of Eusebius in this place, the reader is 
 referred to that work, where he will find a " Tabular view of the 
 order of the Episcopal succession," in the churches of Rome, Je- 
 rusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Laodicea and Cesarea, all given 
 without any expressions of doubt or intricacy or obscurity as to 
 the fact. 
 
 4th. As to the quotation which the Doctor has given from 
 Eusebius, I would remark that it is the only one in which he has 
 used the exact words of the author, although he professes to do 
 so in several places; and yet such is the n;anner in which he 
 quotes him, that he has entirely perverted his meaning ; for when 
 Eusebius says, " the times of the Bishops of Jerusalem have not 
 been regularly preserved on record, for tradition says that they 
 all lived but a very short lime," the author refers simply to the 
 length of time during which they lived as Bishops, and not to any 
 uncertainty r -^co the fact of their existence. This will be evident 
 to the rea' i by considering the v>'hole passage. Having conclu- 
 ded SO' remarks about the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria as 
 
15S 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 follows, "Alexander, Bishop of Eome died, having completed 
 the tenth year of his ministrations — Xistns was his successor; and 
 about the same time Primus dying [in Alexandria] in the twelfth 
 year of the Episcnpale, was succeeded by Justus" — the author 
 then goes on in the next chapter to speak of the Bishops of Jeru- 
 salem as follows—" We have not ascertained in any way, that 
 the times of the Bishops in Jerusalem have been regularly pre- 
 served on record, for tradition says that they all lived but a very 
 short time. So much, however, have I learned from writers, that 
 down to the invasion of the Jews under Adrian, there werefftccn 
 successions of Bishops in that Church, all of which, they say, 
 were Hebrews from the first, and received the knowledge of 
 Christ pure and unadulterated; so that in the estimation of those 
 who were able to judge, they were well approved, and worthy 
 of the Episcopatl office. For at that. time the whole Church un- 
 der them consisted of faithful Hebrews, who continued from the 
 time of the Apostles, until the siege which then took place. The 
 Jews then again revolting from the Romans were subdued and 
 captured after very severe conflicts. In the mean tirne as the 
 Bishops from the circumcision failed, it may be necessary now 
 to recoiint them in order from the first. The first then was James, 
 called the brother of our Lord; after Avhom the second was Sim- 
 con, the third Justus, the fourth Zaccheus, the fifth Tobias, the 
 sixth Benjamin, the seventh John, the eighth MattheAv, the ninth 
 Philip, the tenth Seneca, the eleventh Justus, the twelfth Levi, 
 the thirteenth Ephres, the fourteenth Joseph, and finally, the fif- 
 teenth Judas. These are all the Bishops that filled up the time 
 from the Apostles, until the above mentioned time, all of the cir- 
 cumcision." 
 
 So much for the testimony of Euscbius upon this point, and for 
 his meaning when he says that " We have not ascertained that 
 the times of the Bishops of Jerusalem have been regularly pre- 
 served on record," &c. 
 
 "This hypothetical manner," says Dr. Bangs "in which Eu- 
 Bebius speaks concerning the vouchers for what he records doubt- 
 less induced Mosheim to say that the subject was involved ia 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 much " intricacy and obscurity^' Alas ! how muc& easier is it 
 to make mistakes than it is to correct them, and with how much 
 boldness does this reverend divine pervert the truth ! Can that 
 be a holy cause' which compels its advocates to adopt such meas- 
 ures in order to sustain it ? 
 
 Again, the learned Doctor proceeds as follows: — "In the ninth, 
 century, between the pontificate of Leo IV, who died in 855, and 
 that of Benedict III, such were the shameful intrigues by which 
 rival candidates contended for the prize of the popedom, that a 
 certain woman, who had art to disguise her sex for a considera- 
 ble time> is said by learning, ge'nius and dexterity, to have made 
 good her way to the papal chair, and to have governed the church 
 with the title and dignity of pontiff for about two years.' I am 
 aware that the truth of tlus narrative has been called in question^ 
 But Mosheim, whom Dr. Chapman quotes in favor of his ecclesi- 
 astical genealogy, with high approbation, says, that 'during the 
 five succeeding centuries it was generally believed, and a vast num- 
 ber of writers bore testimony to its truth ; nor before the refor- 
 mation undertaken by Luther, was it considered by any either 
 Bs incredible in itself or as ignominious to the Church.' And if 
 being in such a corrupt succession, and receiving episcopal con- 
 eecration, constitute a subject a canonical bishop, I see no reason 
 why Pope Joan may not be considered as good a pope as any of 
 them. This indeed, must be allowed by Dr. Chapman and his 
 converts, or they must at once and forever abandon the doctrine 
 of an unbroken succession. Let them take their choice. Either- 
 allow that an intriguing prostitute was a cunnonical bishop, mere- 
 ly because she was artful enough to mount the throne of the pope- 
 dom, and obtain the blessing of the succession, or acknowledge 
 that this line was snapped assunder by the hands of an artful 
 woman. I think a man who will deliberately place himself upon 
 either horn of such a dilemma, exposes himself to the just rid- 
 icule of all men of sense, and to the commiseration of all women 
 of pietj'. Here, then, is your only fountain, your only sircarn 
 and that this has been abominably polluted and remains so,. con- 
 taminated beyond the power of language to describe, by tha> 
 
160 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 bloody waters of strife and war, and the muddy streams of moral 
 pollution, is put beyond all dispute. And more than all, in the 
 instance referred to, the stream became so turbid that it actually 
 ceased to flow. So sensible were the Romish successionists of 
 the truth of this, that when Luther commenced his reformation, 
 and to defend himself against the rude assaults of his adversa- 
 ries, plunged them headlong into this now turbid and polluted 
 stream ; their friends in order to extricate them went to work to 
 open the channel and to cleanse the fountain. Though Pope Joan 
 had lain quietly intered for five centuries, as having been an un- 
 disputed pontiff", filling the direct line of succession she was now 
 most inhumanly disinterred and her identity called in question! 
 This was cruel. But what can the upholders of error do, when 
 so hard pressed by the advocates of truth? Luther was excom- 
 municated, whWe Pope Joan had long been cannnnizedl John 
 Wesley was a schismatic, while the sJ.e-pnpe had been recog- 
 nized as a connecting link in the imperishalle chain of Apostolic 
 succession. Now, will any man in his sober senses say, that the 
 validity of his credentials as a minister of Jesus Christ, depends 
 upon suck a succession ? That from its having descended to him 
 through such a bastardly lineage, he is therefore legitimately 
 born? Let him say it, who wishes." (Dr. Bangs' Original 
 Church, ps 22S — 231, where much more of the same may b« 
 found.) 
 
 Now, in reference to all this, I remark 
 
 1st. Tnat I sould consider it entirely beneath my notice, if 
 I had not been informed that the worthy Pastor of St. Johns had 
 repeated it in substance to his audience, in the course of his Lec- 
 tures, and if I did not know that our Methodist brethren are very 
 industrious in circulating the story, not only in the Books and 
 Tracts of Dr. Bangs, but by Sermons from the Pulpit. These 
 brethren undoubtedly give it circulation entirely upon the credit 
 of Dr. Bangs, and cannot, therefore, be held wholly responsible 
 for the mistatement, although it is their duty to examine the au- 
 thorities for themselves, and not to depend entirely upon the rep- 
 resentations of any one individual for historical facts. 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 161 
 
 2nd. That there is no truth whatever in the story of the Pa- 
 pess Joanna, as all respectable historians, whether Romish or 
 Protestant, now admit ; and for my own part I see not how it is 
 possible for any decent and respectable scholar, whether chris- 
 tian or infidel, to refer to it as an historical fact. Mosheini 
 relates it as a story, and both in Maclain's and Murdock's transla- 
 tion the reader is cautioned against its reception as truth. Thus 
 in Murdock's Translation we find the following note. " Few, if 
 any, in modern times, admit the reality of a female foye ; and 
 among the English [not Romish] Pope Joan has become a pro- 
 verbial epithet for a fictitious character, which is too ridiculous 
 to be mentioned in serious earnest. None of the contemporary 
 writers mention such a pope; for the passage in Anastasius Bib- 
 liothecarius, who then lived at Rome and wrote the lives of the 
 popes, is undoubtedly spurious. An eye witness could not have 
 written, ^ it is said that a female succeeded to Leo IV,' if he had 
 known it as a fact, nor would he have given currency to such a 
 falsehood had he known it to be such. Nor is this the only proof 
 that the passage is an interpolation. It was itoo centuries before 
 any writer affirmed the fact.''' 
 
 Having thus examined the two translations of Mosheim, I turn- 
 ed to Reese's Encyclopasdia, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica and the 
 American Encyclopaedia, and in each of these works, I found a 
 a denial of the story as a fact and a full exposition of its "■ficti- 
 tious character -j^^ and then it occurred to me that I would see 
 whether even Gibbon would be willing to lend to it the influence 
 of his name as affecting the honor of Christianity. In the 6 vol. 
 p. 207 of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, he gives 
 an account of two female Sovereigns and says, " their reign may 
 have suggested to the dark ages the fable of a female pope;" 
 and then adds in a note as follows, — " The advocates for Pope 
 Joan produce one hundred and fifty witnesses, or rather echoes of 
 the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries. They bear testimony against 
 themselves and the legend, by multiplying the proof that so cu- 
 rious a story must have been repeated by writers of every des- 
 cription to whom it was known. On those of the 9th and 10th 
 
162 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHDKCH 
 
 centuries the recent event would have flashed with a double fofce^ 
 Would Photius have spared such a reproach ?. Could Lautprand 
 have missed such a scandal? It is scarcely worth while to dis- 
 cuss the vai'ious readings of Matinus Polonus, Sigebert of Gem- 
 blours or even Marianus Scotus ; hut a most •palpable forgery is 
 the passage of pope Joan, which has been foisted into some MSS, 
 and editions of the Roman Aiiastasius." 
 
 So much for the story of the Papess Joanna; so mucli for the 
 learned Doctor's dilemma that we " must either allow that an in- 
 trigueing prostitute was a canonical bishop or acknowledge that 
 the line of succession was snapped asunder by an artful woman ;" 
 so much for his assertion that " Pope Joan had long been can- 
 onized;''^ so much for that ^^now turhid and polluted stream,^* 
 into which the Doctor has plunged himself and in consequence 
 of which, "he exposes himself to the just ridicule of all men of 
 sense, and to the commiseration of all women of piety." 
 
 3rd. We reply, that even if the story of Pope Joan were true — 
 an undoubted and indisputable fact— still it would not in the least 
 affect the Episcopal succession either in England or America,, 
 nor would it aflcct the succession, could the learned Doctor prove 
 that fifty of tlie Popes of Rome were females, or any thing else 
 which he might choose to call them. For at the tim.e when Pope 
 Joan is said to have lived and for centuries afterwards, the Bish- 
 ops of England no more went to Rome for consecration than they 
 came to America; and even if the succession of the Bishops of 
 Rome had been utterly annihilated, still it would no mora have' 
 destroyed the English succession than the annihilation of the En- 
 glish succession now would destroy ours. Besides all this, the 
 Church was established in England long before the acknowledg- 
 ment of the supremacy of the Church of Rome either in that 
 country or any v.-here else. Thus says Blackstone in his com- 
 mentaries " The anciml British Church hy whomsoever planted,, 
 was a stranger to the Bishop of Rome and his pretended avt/iority." 
 Commentaries, b 4. c 8. 
 
 4th. We reply, that the Episcopal succession whether in this 
 country or in England or in Rome, or any where else, cannot ba 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 163 
 
 so easily destroyed as many persons seem to imai^ine. Certain- 
 ly it cannot if it is founded upon the promise of the Saviour, as 
 we believe it is ; and to satisfy the mind of a plain christian man, 
 that promise is enough. But for the conviction of cavillers and 
 sceptics and for the information of others, I present the following 
 facts taken from Chapin's Primitive Church, and which -wiU 
 show that this breaking of the links which Dr. Bangs boasts of, 
 is a moral impossibility. Of course I cannot extract the whole 
 of Mr. Chapin's able treatise on the subject, and mnst, therefore, 
 confine myself to a single illustration, referring the reader to 
 that work for better satisfaction. 
 
 " Bishops are said to succeed each other when they follow in 
 the same See or Diocese. Consequently the succession of Bish- 
 ops in a particular Diocese is the list of Bishops who have gov- 
 erned that Diocese, and may be called a succession of Episcopal 
 jurisdiction or government. But it is a very different thing from 
 the Apostolic succession, on which all Episcopal power depends. 
 The difference may be briefly explained thus: WJien one Bishop 
 ordains another he commits to the person ordained the same Epis- 
 copal powers which he himself possesses. Every Bishop, there- 
 fore, receives his authority to minister as a Bishop in the Church 
 of Christ, at the time of his ordination or consecration; and he 
 receives it through hini who ordained or consecrated. Hence, if 
 we wi'sh to trace back the authority of the present bishops we 
 must go, not in the line of Bishops occupying a particular See, but 
 in the line of their consecrators. The one, we shall call the snc- 
 cessionoi Episcopal governors; the other, the Apostolic succession. 
 Our meaning may be explained by an example. All the colo- 
 nies were originally attached to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
 London, and hence each of the Dioceses in this country where 
 there was an Episcopal Church before the Eevolution, would 
 trace the succession of Episcopal governors back to the Bishops 
 of London. But the Apostolic succession is traced through the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, the first Bishops of this country hav- 
 ing been consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Or wb 
 may tra:;e it tljrough the Archbishop of York, as the Archbishop 
 
164 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 of York assisted at the consecration of oiir first Bishops. But 
 we may also trace our Apostolic succession back to the Church 
 of Scotland; for one lawful Bishop is sufficient to confer the 
 Apostolic succession ; and as there are at least three Bishops or- 
 dinarily engaged in the consecration of a Bishop, v/e may trace 
 the Apostolic succession through any of the ordaining Bishops. 
 Nov/, Bishop Seabury was consecrated by Robert Kilgour, Arthur 
 Petrie and John Skinner, Scottish Bishops, November 14, 1784. 
 From him we have received the Apostolic succession thus" — 
 mentioning the person whom he assisted in consecrating, &c. 
 but I omit the names. 
 
 "Again, the Archbishopsof Canterbury and York were assisted 
 in the consecration of Bishops White and Provost by the Bishops 
 of Peterborough, and of Bath and Wells, consequently if either 
 of these four Bishops had received a valid consecration, the con- 
 secration of Bishops White and Provost must also be valid. Now, 
 as every Bishop now living, or that ever has lived in this coun- 
 try, can trace their succession to all these Bishops, all may trace 
 their succession through which line they please. 
 
 " Again, the Archbishop of Canterbury was assisted in the con- 
 secration of Bishop Madison, by the bishops of London and Roch- 
 ester. Now, since all the Bishops now living or that ever have 
 lived in this country, can trace their succession through Bishop 
 Madison, to either of these Bishops, it follows, that if either of 
 these had received a valid consecration, our bishops have been 
 validly consecrated. We see, therefore, that if either the Arch- 
 bishops of Canterbury or York, or the Bishops of London or of 
 Bath and Wells, or Peterborough or of Rochester, or of Ross and 
 Murray, or of Aberdeen, had had a valid consecration, our Bish- 
 ops have all been validly consecrated, and the succession has 
 been preserved unbroken. 
 
 "We have detailed these facts more at large than we should 
 have done, had we not designed to have used them to illustrate 
 an important point in this enquiry which seems not to be well un- 
 derstood. We know that from the second century to the present 
 time, it has required at least three Bishops in the consecration of 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 165 
 
 another Bishop. Now, if it should ever happen, that either one 
 or even two of the three ordaining Bishops, should prove not to 
 be lawful Bishops, the one remaining lawful Bishop would be 
 sufficient to transmit the Episcopal authority. We see, therefore, 
 if Bishops White and Provost and Madison, who were consecra- 
 ted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, had never been consecra- 
 ted at all, but had assumed to themselves the Episcopal office, 
 without any authority, still, all the Bishops in our Church would 
 now be lawful Bishops, as all can trace their succession to Bish- 
 op Scabury. And yet. Bishop Seabury never assisted in the con- 
 secration of but a single Bishop ! And what may seem more sin- 
 gular still, is, that there never has been a Bishop consecrated in 
 the Episcopal Church in this countrj', that could not trace his 
 succession to Bishop Seabury. This will enable the reader to 
 see that the evidence in favor of the Apostolic succesion, is of 
 that high degree of probability, not to say certainly, that the sup- 
 position of a break in it, is one of the most improbable ideas that 
 could ever enter one's head, and that it is next to impossible it 
 should ever occur. It will be seen from this, also, that there may 
 have been ever so many vacancies in the line of Episcopal-govern- 
 ors, without affecting in the least the Apostolic succession. Du- 
 ring this interval all acts peculiarly pertaining to the Apostolic 
 office, must be performed by the Bishop of some other see. This 
 is so obvious to one at all acquainted with the subject, that it 
 would seem unnecessarj' to mention it, if such vacancies had not 
 been spoken of by the opponents of Episcopacy, as breaking the 
 line of succession. But men wise in other matters are liot aware 
 nf the fallacy, because they confound Episcopal government W'ith 
 Apostolic succession." 
 
 Now, from the illustration here given, the intelligent reader 
 will perceive not only that the learned Doctor Bangs, is unable 
 to break the Apostolic succession by any such stories as those 
 of Pope Joan, but that in the provision made for its continuance 
 by the very nature of things, there is clearly manifest the wis- 
 dom of its Founder, and we see in this, as in other facts connected 
 
166 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 with the Gospel, that " the foolishness of God is wiser than men 
 and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 
 
 5th. Finalljr, we say to all the Doctor's arguments drawn 
 from the corruptions of the Romish Church, and by which he has 
 endeavored to ridicule and deride the Apostolic Succession, that 
 they apply with equal force to the uncorrupted j>reservalion of the 
 Scriptures, and that the Infidel has only to put the Bible in the 
 place of succession, and he will find a Book ready made to his 
 hands and adapted to his purpose. We say, also, that the gene- 
 alogy of our Saviour, containing in it the names of Rahab and 
 David, is open to the same kind of ridicule and sarcasm; and al- 
 though, therefore, such a Book will not permanently affect the 
 minds of intelligent people, as all know that the grace and mer- 
 cy of God cannot be destroyed or polluted by the weakness or 
 wickedness of man — as the light of heaven is uncontaminated by 
 the medium tlirougli Avhich it shines and the pollutions of the 
 earth on which it rests — still there may be some who, for a time 
 will be injured by it. In the end, however, we are verily per- 
 suaded, that so far from advancing the cause of Methodism, it 
 will prove anniher "-assassinating knife, sticking fast in the vitals 
 of thai hodij." 
 
ADDENDA. 
 
 The attentive reader has no doubt observed, that Mr. Steele in 
 his last letter, refused to go on any farther in the discussion of 
 those very subjects which had been opened by himself; that he 
 was disposed to confine his remarks entirely to matters of a per- 
 sonal nature, that the "tt*ar" spirit which was manifested in the 
 first of his communications, had greatly subsided, and he even 
 gave me a gentle hint at the conclusion, that he expected no 
 mote letters from me. At this time it was well understood that 
 I intended to publish our correspondence, as the only way to 
 meet the accusations which had been so publicly made, and no 
 doubt it was to prevent such publication that this course was 
 taken. However,- as I did not intend in this way to be deterred 
 from the work which had been commenced, I resolved to " travel" 
 on alone, and therefore prepared the foregoing Letters, to be ad- 
 dressed to Mr. Steele through the Press. After this was known 
 ^nd some alarm existed in relation to the consequences, I receiv- 
 ed the following letter, to which I sent the annexed reply : — 
 
 Batavia, Nov. 7, 1842. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Bolles, 
 
 Dear Sir — As it is now nearly three weeks since I sent yon 
 my answer to your last communication, and as I proposed some 
 questions, embracing, as I thought, th« ground of your complaint, 
 together with an assurance that if there had been wrong upon 
 my part, that wrong should be righted, and as a conviction of 
 wrong must depend upon your answer to my questions, I would 
 still say that I should be happy to receive an answer at your ear- 
 liest convenience. 
 
 As the correspondence between us is a matter of your own seek- 
 sng, you can close it, of course, whenever you are disposed to do 
 
168 
 
 THE EPISCOP;\L CHURCH 
 
 SO. As you deny intending a challenge in your first communi- 
 cation, should you write again, you will please state what you 
 mean by the term "discuss," and whether you do or do not 
 wish to " discuss" publicly the jure divino claims of your Bish- 
 ops. Had I sent a communication to you to invite you to " dis- 
 cuss" any given point, I should suppose that you would have un- 
 derstood it as a *' call" upon my part to debate the question with 
 yon, but as my spectral powers may have deceived me in this, 
 you will please explain, and show the difference between a call 
 to discuss, debate, and a challenge. Though I am not a war 
 character, still, believing truth to be immortal I siiall not decline 
 a discussion, provided, as I said before, the preliminary questions 
 can be disposed of, by which, I mean the questions to be discuss- 
 ed and the place, time and manner of discussion. ^ 
 
 111 examining your last communication more carefully than 
 when I replied to it, I find many more mistakes than those I 
 named. To notice but one, and that one you mark as very em- 
 phatic, viz. That we left Tract No. 4 on sale at the Bookstore. 
 This, I think, you will find to be false. 
 
 Yours Respectfully, 
 
 Allek Steele, 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 169 
 
 Batavia, November S, 1842. 
 
 The Rev. Allen Steele, 
 
 Dear Sir — Your letter of yesterday's date I have perused, and 
 most Avillingly do I embrace the opportunity of entering into 
 such an explanation of my correspondence, as you seem to desire. 
 The whole matter, then, as I understand it, is as follows: 
 
 In the summer, to my entire surprise and without any intima- 
 tion of your intention, I was informed that you read a communi- 
 cation from your pulpit, in relation to me. What that commu- 
 nication contained, of course I did not knov/, but some said it 
 contained one thing, and some another, and by many, probably, it 
 was not well understood, and may have been greatly exaggera- 
 ted. At all events it was a very unusual thing — something which 
 I never heard of before, as occurring between christian ministers, 
 however much they might differ from each other on points of 
 Theology, and however strong might be their antipathies; and 
 whether intended or not, it was certainly calculated to publish 
 me, to hold me up to the odium of the community and to destroy 
 my character and usefulness as an ambassador of Christ. So I 
 felt it, and the more severely, as coming from those whose wel- 
 fare I had sincerely sought, and for whose spiritual good, how- 
 ever much you may suspect my motives, I had most ardently 
 prayed. Then followed a course of Lectures, appointed at a 
 time when the members of the various religious denominations 
 could all attend, to which many came from a distance and e\-en 
 from the neighboring towns, and being founded upon 3'our first 
 communication, they were of course calculated so to connect me 
 with them, as to make me responsible for whatever opinions and 
 sentiments you were pleased to combat. 
 
 The effect of all this, upon my own people especially, I greatly 
 lamented; not because I thought it would permanently draw 
 away any from the Church, but at that time, there was more 
 than usual feeling on the subject of religion, and the dispensa- 
 tions of divine Providence among us, had made a deep and sol- 
 emn impression upon the minds of many. Hence the only course 
 which I thought proper then to pursue, was, to visit as many 
 
170 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHTIECH 
 
 families as I could, and to urge them by all means, not to allow 
 any unkind or uncharitable expressions to escape their lips, but 
 to engage more earnestly than ever in prayer to God for the 
 guidance of his Holy Spirit. This I did, as they will bear me 
 witness; and then, in accordance with an arrangement which 
 had been long previously made, I left the place for a few weeks — ■ 
 partly to attend the convention and partly to pay my annual vis- 
 it to the home of my childhood. 
 
 Of course the occurences here were made the subject of reflec- 
 tion ; and I determined as a duty both to you and myself, to take 
 some notice of them ; but not hastily, not by any public and un- 
 expected declaration of my sentiments and feelings; but by that 
 course which the Scriptures have prescribed when there are of- 
 fences "between brethren." Hence the letter which I address- 
 ed to you of September the 7th, my first communication. 
 
 Now, if you will examine that letter carrfiiUy, you will per- 
 ceive that I confined myself entirely to one subject of complaint, 
 viz. your cojmnnnication meniionivg me hy name. Nothing was 
 fsaid about the Church ; nothing about Bishop DeLancey; nothing, 
 even, about your lectures. But after stating the simple subject 
 of complaint as above, I then went on to declare, that I was "not 
 conscious of having given any just cause of offence either to your- 
 self or your Methodist brethren," and therefore, that I considered 
 this attack upon my character unkind and unjustifiable, and 
 remembering the many substantial proofs Avhich my people had 
 given to you of their regard, I expressed myself at a loss to ao 
 count for the reasons of your conduct; for certainly I could not 
 but feel that they, as well as myself, as connected with me by 
 many ties and concerned at least in some degree in my honor 
 and reputation, had cause to be aggrieved. When I spoke of 
 substantial proofs of regard, the idea of money or of subscrip- 
 tions of money for the erection of your house of \vorship, did not 
 enter into my mind. I refered entirely to personal proofs to 
 i/ourself, more valuabe than money and which money cannot pur- 
 chase, consisting in the fact of their frequent attendance upon 
 your services, of the uniform kindness and respect with which, 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 171 
 
 I believe, they have spoken of you, and of the many tokens of 
 esteem for your talents and piety which have thus, and in many 
 ways been extended tov/ards you. Surely then, I had reason to 
 express my surprise at this sudden attempt, &c. — and having ex- 
 pressed my surprise, I then added, ' True it is, that between you, 
 as a Methodist, and myself as an Episcopalian, there is a v/ide 
 diSerence of opinion on the important subjects of Church gov- 
 ernment and order, and most happy should I be at any time, in a 
 calm and dispassionate manner, to discuss or examine those dif- 
 ferences with 3"ou.' Now, the fact of there being a difference of 
 opinion on certain subjects is here suggested as perhaps a reason 
 for your conduct — {True, I say, &c.) but as one which in my 
 opinion was by no means sufficient to account for it, and the 
 more so, as we could at any time, (I was willing,) in a calm and 
 dispassionate manner, discuss or examine our difierences, with- 
 out any injury, at least to the personal character and reputation 
 of either. 
 
 Here, then, again, you have entirely mistaken the purport of 
 my letter, for nothing was farther from my mind than to chal- 
 lenge you to a public debate; a thing which could scarcely be 
 calm and dispassionate in either of us to suggest — which I could 
 not consent to do with you or with any other man — which I 
 should consider about as unbecoming to our characters as duel- 
 ing to the character of a northern gentleman, and which would 
 have, perhaps, about as much effect in establishing Truth as 
 dueling has in establishing points of honor. I know that pub- 
 lic religious debates have sometimes been held by reputable per- 
 sons, as dueling has been practiced bj' them, and I have heard 
 of a man who pleaded this passage of St. Paul in justification of 
 it, "without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness," and 
 hence, he argued, that icith controversy the mystery would be 
 cleared up — however, this is only one of the beauties of prii-ate 
 interpretation, and with all your opposition to Oxford Tracts, I 
 am inclined to think in this instance, j'ou will allow, that the 
 man ought to have sought some better guide to the interpreta- 
 tion of Scripture, than his own perverse inclinations. 
 
172 
 
 THE EPISCOPAI. CHURCH 
 
 But can my letter possibly bear the interpretation you have 
 put upon it ? I think not. 1st, It does not contain even an invi' 
 tatioii, mnch less 3. challenge to any thing, but a simple expression 
 of willingness at any time, <5'C., and of course throwing upon you 
 the responsibility of asking it. 2nd, The words calm and dis- 
 passionate must sufficiently guard it against such an interpreta- 
 tion. 3rd, The word discuss does not necessarily mean a public 
 debate, in your sense at all; for a simple discussion may -be car- 
 ried on by two individuals alone, and by writing as well as speak- 
 ing. 4th, The words or examine, (not and examine,) are evi- 
 dently intended to explain more fully the foregoing word discuss — 
 and in a public debate I am inclined to think, that there could 
 not be much opportunity for a calm and dispassionate examina- 
 tion either by ourselves or the people. 
 
 In the same manner do I think you have manifestly misunder- 
 stood the obviovis meaning of the next paragraph in my letter. 
 Having begun the letter in the first place by stating the occasion of 
 complaint, and confining that to one thing, I then went on to show 
 why I complained, — because I was not conscious, &c., because I 
 thought it an act of unkindness and injustice; because my peo- 
 ple, (Sec, and because our differences, &c., would not justify it, — 
 and then I declared, that such is the nature of your present at- 
 tack that no other course seems to be left to me, than plainly and 
 honestly to enter my solemn protest agains this extraordinarj'^ ar- 
 raignment, &c. Is there any thing here said or intimated about 
 a yuhlic exposure, or any threat of the kind? Surely not. My 
 letter itself contained the solemn protest, addressed yersonally to 
 you, and so I wished you to receive it. 
 
 Then in conclusion, that you might not misunderstand my mo- 
 tive in addressing j'ou, and presuming from what I had heard of 
 your lectures, that you had entirely mistaken my feelings and 
 principles, I quoted and adopted as expressing my own senti- 
 ments, one of the most divinely charitable declarations which 
 was ever uttered by the lips of man; and by this I intended, as 
 it were, to let you into my heart — to let you see that I am by no 
 means that monster of bigotry and impiety and intolerance which 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 173 
 
 you might imagine; at least that I do not think I am; that my 
 intentions are to cuUivate the most charitable feelings towards 
 all, though to maintain with firmness whatever I am convinced 
 is the truth; and by such a conclusion to my letter I was in hopes 
 rather to awaken your kindness, than to provoke the feelings of 
 hostility and opposition. But how you have received this portion 
 of my letter your reply will tell. 
 
 Thus have I gone over with my first letter, with an explana- 
 tion of its several parts and the circumstances which gave it birth. 
 Of course I did not know what you would do about it, nor what 
 shape our correspondence might assume, or indeed, Avhether it 
 would assume any shape. But when your reply came, I could 
 scarcely have been more surprised had you entered my room with 
 a " posse comitatus" to drag me to prison. However, having 
 slept upon the matter, I concluded at all events not to "g'c/ mnd," 
 and so long as you did not " call me a Bishop," to use the lan- 
 guage of Mr. Wesley, I would be content that you call me any of 
 the names mentioned by him in his letter to Mr. Asbury. In 
 this spirit I endeavored to write my reply, entering into a frank 
 statement of all I knew in relation to the Tracts, concealing 
 nothing material to the questions at issue, and stating nothing 
 which I do not believe can be fully established by the most indu- 
 bitable testimony. Af the same time, perceiving from your en- 
 tire misunderstanding of my first communication, that there was 
 little probability of our coming to any agreement personally, I 
 then determined to follow the lead which you had given me, 
 (notwithstanding your talk about preliminaries,) and discuss the 
 questions of Methodism and Episcopacy; and then, at the con- 
 clusion of our correspondence to lay the whole before the public, 
 to enable the people before whom you had arraigned me, provi- 
 ded they were so disposed, to examine both sides of the contro- 
 versy. Hence I worded my second letter in such manner as to 
 let you understand my determination, and your letter in reply, 
 affords conclusive evidence that in this respect you did not mis- 
 take me. 
 
 But inasmuch as there were several things in your first letter 
 
174 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 relating to the Church, to which I had not particularly replied jn 
 my second, I commenced immediately an additional communica- 
 tion, as a kind of supplement to the former, and intended to send 
 it to you so soon as your answer should be received. Hence my 
 impatience at your delay, for I wished to hasten the business, 
 and I Avas anxious to send to you the supplement, which was fin- 
 ished the fiftt week, hut which I could not with propriety send 
 without knowing the course you were disposed to pursue. Then 
 came your reply, in which you confined yourself principally to 
 personal matters, saying that mij ^'■epistle refers to subjects which 
 you cannot consent to discuss in this random way," refusing " to irav- 
 e/" with me any farther than necessary to correct the terong, in 
 mentioning ma hy name, and about which, certainly, I had no far- 
 ther explanations to make, and then in conclusion, you gave me to 
 understand that you did not much expect to hear from me again, 
 for you said (notioilhstandmg your quesiionsj "hoping if yoir 
 
 WRITE TO HE AGAIN," &C. 
 
 Here, then, were several plain intimations of your determina- 
 tion to retire from the correspondence, and considering the per- 
 sonalities of your letter,. I could not much regret it. However, 
 my own mind was immediately made up — if you would not 
 "travel" with me, to travel on alone ; and this I have done. I 
 have prepared a series of Letters addressed to you, and I am hap- 
 py to say that they are nearly ready for the Press, so that you will 
 have nothing more to do, than to answer them at your leisure, 
 provided you are so disposed. Your letters will be published 
 without any corrections from me, only I intend to send you the 
 " proof sheet," for your revision. My letters I intend to publish 
 as sent to you, (all that have been sent, of course,) unless an im- 
 material note be omitted in relation to the opinions of Dr. Bangs, 
 or quotation from him, of which I did not keep a copy — and 
 also the introduction of the entire letters of Messrs. John & Ch's, 
 Wesley, which for the argument then, it was unnecessary whol- 
 ly to transcribe. 
 
 When you shall make a full and plain reply to that part of 
 my letter asserting that the Tract No. 4, on Methadism,, was placed 
 
BEFENDED. 
 
 I7& 
 
 m the Bookstore by one of your own members and not by me or 
 any agency of mine, and this, as one would naturally suppose, 
 either for sule or graluitous distribution, and when you shall tell 
 all you know about it,, as to the manner in which> they wer© pro- 
 cured, and by whom they were placed there for some purpose 
 or other, when this is done, then if your statement shall contra- 
 dict the material- facts of mine, I shall be compelled to bring for- 
 ward my proof. But until this is done,^ I shall consider the im- 
 portant fact in the matter, to be confessed by you.. 
 
 Now, my dear Sir, I have a few remarks to make o>f a some- 
 what diflerent nature from any that have gone before. In my 
 correspondence with you,. I have endeavij(-ed not to manifest a 
 captious spirit;, not to seize upon a few unguarded expressions 
 and torture them to your injury, and although you may think dif- 
 ferently, yet I do assure you there are many things in your let- 
 ters, to which I have been unwilling even to refer, but which 
 might easily be made to react with much force upon yourself.. 
 Take, for instance, your boast of not having preached on contro- 
 versial subjects, &:c» How strange a boast for you to make; 
 when contrasted not only with the fact that according to your 
 own acknowledgement you intended to do. so, at the conclusion 
 of your evening Lectures, to which all denominations are espe- 
 cially invited, but with the more important fact that not a year 
 had elapsed before you found yourself in the utterance of the 
 most unfounded charges against a neighboring body of chris- 
 tians, and that very body the one, which had given you its aid 
 in building you up and from whicii your sect originally sprung. 
 In a single year — a time too short to test the talents and integri- 
 ty of any man — and you have committed' an act which, to say 
 the least,, was hasty in the extreme, and which in its results, may 
 be almost as cruel to yourself as to me. 
 
 But of all that is passed I freely forgive j'oii, and not only for- 
 give you but acquit you of all blame, for I do not believe thi^ 
 matter has originated with you. On the contrary, I am per- 
 suaded that you and a few other e.xeellent members of your 
 church, have allowed themselves to be controlled by one or tiQa 
 
176 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 individuals, and for the sake of pleasing them, and yielding to 
 their misguided prejudices and judgments, you have acted incon- 
 sistently with your own sober convictions. By them your mind 
 has been poisoned in reference to me, and to the members gener- 
 ally of the Episcopal Church. Hence the attempt which was 
 made on the first opening of your house, to place it in an atti- 
 tude of rivalry to us, and this unhallowed feeling of rivalry has 
 led them on from one step to another until the opportunity was 
 seized upon to direct their efforts against me, and if possible, to 
 break me down, as standing in their way. 
 
 But I have lived in this community too long, and I know the 
 people of this village too well, to believe, that they will allow 
 this effort to succeed. There are many generous hearts in your 
 own congregation, who will remember the past, who have often 
 sympathized with me in the duties and trials of my office — who 
 know, that in darker days than these I did not fear to lift up my 
 voice against every kind of immorality and sin, whether in high 
 places or low, who have found me no proselyting friend in sea- 
 sons of affliction and distress, and to them I am confident I might 
 safely go for protection against the assaults of such individuals 
 as those to whom I have alluded. 
 
 And though my success as a minister among my own people 
 has not been equal to my hopes and expectations, and I have 
 many things to lament and bewail in myself as well as in them, 
 yet, when I consider the peculiar difficulties of my situation — 
 the harrassing task of a weekly preparation for the Pulpit year 
 after year — the little time which is consequently afforded me for 
 pastoral visiting— the limited experience which I possessed in all 
 these matters when I came here — when I remember these, I can- 
 not but feel that I have much cause for gratitude to God — and I 
 do not believe, therefore, that the friends among whom I have 
 thus labored, and who have stood by me so long, are now pre- 
 pared to cast me off a wilfully false and slanderous defamer of the 
 brethren. No, sir, against all such charges, originating not 7vith 
 you, nor with your people generall}'-, but with one or two individ- 
 uals, I feel that I am standing upon a rock, and am protected 
 
DEFENDED. 
 
 177 
 
 above and around and within me by many invincible shields, so 
 that however poisonous their arrows, they fall harmless at my 
 feet. 
 
 This letter you will please to receive in reply to your last— 
 thouo;h referring in the conclusion to the tone and temper of your 
 previous communication. A direct reply to that, however, will 
 appear in the pamphlet which I intend to publish. As the pa- 
 pers for that pamphlet, which are already prepared, will swell it 
 to a considerable size, I shall not now be able to admit any fur- 
 ther communications. Bui if you will take up the subject of Epis' 
 copacy or any other siihject connected with the Episcopal Church, 
 and discuss it in writing, in any shape you please, and settling your 
 own preliminaries, then 1 engage to follow you, and we will publish 
 it either in numbers or when the 2Phole correspondence isfjiished — 
 or if you like this expression better, we will leave the whole to 
 the disposal of the public. 
 
 Sincerely believing that I have written nothing which forbids 
 me the happiness of subscribing myself 
 
 Your friend and brother in Christ, 
 
 James A. BotLss. 
 
 12 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 A 
 
 "reasons against SErAEATING FROM THE CHURCH." 
 
 The following reasons against separation were published by Mr. 
 John Wesley, and read among the Methodists, expressly for the 
 purpose of " breaking down the schismatical spirit^ How appli- 
 cable they are to the present state of things in that denomination, let 
 the reader judge : 
 
 " Because it would be a contradiction to the solemn and repeat- 
 ed declarations which we have made in all manner of ways, in 
 preaching, in print and in private conversation. 
 
 Because on this, as well as many other accounts, it would give 
 huge occasion of oSence to those who seek and desire occasion ; 
 to all the enemies of God and truth. 
 
 - Because it would exceedingly prejudice against us many who 
 fear, yea, who love God; and thereby hinder their receiving so 
 much, perhaps any further benefit from our preaching. 
 
 Because it would hinder multitudes of those who neither lore 
 nor fear God, from hearing us at all. 
 
 Because it would be throwing balls of wild fire among them 
 that are now quiet in the land. We are now sweetly united to- 
 gether in love. We mostly think and speak the same thing. 
 But this would occasion inconceivable strife and contention be- 
 tween those who left and those who remained in the church, as 
 well as between those who left us, and those who remained with 
 us: nay, and between those very persons who remained, as they 
 were variously inclined one way or the other. 
 
 Because, to form the plan of a new church, would require infi- 
 nite time and care, (which might be far more profitably besiowed) 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 179, 
 
 with much more wisdom, and greater depth and extensiveness 
 of thought than any of us are masters of. 
 
 Because, from some having barely entertained a distant thought 
 of this, evil fruits have already followed; such as a prejudice 
 against the clergy in general, and aptness to believe ill of them ; 
 contempt not without a degree of bitterness, of clergymen, as 
 such; and a sharpness of language towards the whole order, ut- 
 terly unbecoming either gentlemen or christians. 
 
 Because we have melancholy instances of this, even before our 
 eyes. Many have, in our memory, left the church, and formed 
 themselves into distinct bodies. And certainly some of them 
 from a real persuasion, that they should do God more service. 
 But have any separated themselves and prospered ? have they 
 been either more holy, or more useful than they were before? 
 
 Because, by such a separation we should not only throw away 
 the peculiar glorifying which God has given us, " That we do and 
 will suffer all things for our brethren's sake, though the more we 
 love them, the less we be loved;" but should act in direct con- 
 tradiction to that very end, for which we hclieve God hath raised tit 
 up. The chief design of his providence in sending us out, is un- 
 doubtedly to quicken our brethren. And the first message of all 
 our preachers is, to the lost sheep of the church of England. 
 Now, would it not be a flat contradiction to this design, to sep- 
 arate from the church ? These things being considered, we can- 
 not apprehend (whether it be lawful in itself or no) that it is law- 
 ful to us ; were it only on this ground, that it is by no means ex- 
 pedient. 
 
 It has indeed been objected, that till we do separate, we can- 
 not be a compact, united body. 
 
 It is true, we cannot till then be a compact united body, if you 
 mean by that expression, a body distinct from all others; and we 
 have no desire to be so. 
 
 We look upon oui-selves, not as the authors or ringleaders of 
 a particular sect or party; it is the fartherest thing from our 
 thoughts ; but as messengers of God to those who are Christiana 
 in name, but Heathens in heart and life; to call them back to 
 
m 
 
 API-ENDIX A. 
 
 that from which they are fallen, to real, genuine Christianity* 
 
 We are therefore debtors to all of them, of whatever opinion and 
 denomination; and are consequently to do all that in us lies, to 
 please all for their gOod to edification. 
 
 We look upon the Methodists, so called, in general, not as any 
 particular party; (this would exceedingly obstruct the grand de- 
 sign for which we conceive God has raised them, up) — but as liv- 
 ing witnesses in, and to every party, of the Christianity which 
 we preach; which is hereby demonstrated to be a real thing, and 
 visibly held out to all the world. 
 
 We look upon the clergy, not only as a part of our brethren-, 
 but as that part whom God, by hi^ adorable providence, has cnjl* 
 ed to be watchmen over the rest, for whom, therefore, they aro 
 to give a strict account. If these men neglect their importartt 
 charge; if they do not watch over them with all their power, 
 they will be of all men most miserable, and so are entitled to 
 our deepest compassion. So that to feel, and much more to ex- 
 press either contempt or bitterness towards them, betrays an ut* 
 ter ignorance of ourselves and of the spirit which we especially 
 should be of. 
 
 Might it not be at least a prudent rule, for every Methodist 
 preacher, not to frequent any dissenting meeting ? Tliough wo 
 blame none who have always been accustomed to it. But if we 
 do this, certainly our people will. Now this is actually separu' 
 ting from the Church. If, therefore, it is, at least, not expedient 
 to separate, neither is this expedient. Indeed, we may attend our 
 a.ssemblies and the church too, because they are at different hours. 
 But we cannot attend both the meeting and the church, because 
 they are at the same hours. If it be said, '* But at the church we 
 are fed with chafi"; whereas, at the meeting we have wholesome 
 food:" We answer; 1st. The prayers of the church are not 
 chaff; they are substantial food for any who are alive to God. 
 2nd. The Lord's supper is not chaff, but pure and wholesome fflr 
 all who receive it with upright hearts. Yea. 3rd. In almost all 
 the sermons we hear there, we hear many great and important 
 truths. And whoever has a spiritual discernment may easily 
 
181 
 
 separate the chaff from the wheat therein. 4th. How little is 
 the case mended at the meeting? Either the teachers are new- 
 lighl-mcn, denying the Lord that bought them, and overturning 
 his gospel from the verj' foundation ; or they are predestinarians, 
 and so preach predestination and final perseverance more or less. 
 Now, whatever this may be to them that were educated therein, 
 yet to those of our brethren who have lately embraced it, repeat- 
 ed experience shows it is not wholesome food; rather to them it 
 has the effect of deadly poison. In a short lime it destroys all 
 their zeal for God. They grow fond of opinions and slrifc of 
 tcords. They despise self-denial and the daily cross; and to 
 complete all, wholly separate from their brethren. 
 
 Nor is it expedient for any Methodist preacher to imitate the 
 dissenters in their manner of praying: neither in his tone; all 
 particular tones, both in preaching and praying, should be avoid- 
 ed with the utmost care. Nor in his language; all his words 
 should be plain and simple, such as the lowest of his hearers both 
 use and understand. Nor in the length of bis prayer, which 
 ehould not usually exceed four or five minutes, either before or 
 after sermon. 
 
 If we continue in the church, not by chance or for want of 
 thought, but upon solid and well weighed reasons, then we should 
 never speak contemptuously of the church, or anything pertain- 
 ing to it. In some sense, it is the mother of us all, who have 
 been brought up therein. 
 
 In order to cut off all jealousy and suspicion from our friends, 
 and hope from our enemies, of our having any design to separate 
 from the church, it would be well for every Methodist preacher, 
 who has no scruple concerning it, to attend the service of the 
 church as often as conveniently he can. And the more we at- 
 tend it, the more we love it, as constant experience shows. On 
 the contrary, the longer we abstain from it, the Ic^s desire we 
 have to attend it at all." 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 B 
 
 THE CHARACTER OF THE TWO BROTHERS JOHN AND CHARLES WESLEY, 
 IS THUS DRASVN BY SOUTHEY. 
 
 " Entirely as these two brothers had agreed in opinions and 
 principles, and cordially as they had acted together during so 
 many years, there was a radical difference in their dispositions* 
 Of Charles, it has been said, by those who knew him best, that 
 if ever there was a human being who disliked power, avoided 
 preeminence and shrunk from praise, it was he; whereas no con- 
 queror or poet was ever more ambitions than John Wesley. 
 Charles could forgive an injury; but never again trusted one 
 whom he had found treacherous. John could take men a second 
 time to his confidence, after the greatest wrongs and the basest 
 usage; perhaps because he had not so keen an insight into th« 
 characters of men as his brother; perhaps bccbuse he regarded 
 them as his instruments, and thought that all other considerations 
 must give way to the interests of the spiritual dominion he had 
 acquired." Southey's Life, 2 vol. p 138. 
 
APPENDIX. C. 
 
 18S 
 
 c 
 
 DISCIPLINE OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHDHCH. 
 
 For the purpose of obtaining information upon the subjects in* 
 dicated in the following letter, I wrote to an intelligent farmer 
 of this neighborhood, who is a Methodist Protestant — a man of 
 undoubted probity and excellency of character, and who, as 1 
 knew, had paid considerable attention to the internal regulations 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church: 
 
 My dear friend — As I know you have paid considerable atten- 
 tion to the Liscipline of the M. E. Church, I take the liberty of 
 asking you Tor a concise statement of facts upon that subject. 
 What are the powers of their bishops? What the authority of 
 their Ruling Elders? Who compose their Conventions or Con- 
 ferences, and what position do their Laity occupy in the admin- 
 istration of the temporal and spiritual affairs of that denomina- 
 tion ? What are the points of discipline against which as a Meth- 
 odist Protestant, you protest? If you will be so kind as to give 
 me the simple facts in relation to the subjects referred to above, 
 you will much oblige 
 
 Your friend, &;c. 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir — I received your note containing five in- 
 terogations relating to the "Discipline" of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church. The limits of a single letter will not allow me to do 
 justice either to myself or the subjects of inquiry; but as you 
 desire a "concise statement, of the simple facts," I will give 
 them to you, so far as I understand the letter and spirit of the 
 said Discipline. 
 
 1st. " What are the povvers of their bishops ?" 
 
 If you allude to the discipline of 1784, when they adopted a 
 " moderate Episcopacy," believing the succession from the Apos- 
 tles to be a fable, &c., and their bishops as nothing more than 
 
181 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 Pastors and Presbyters, and their powers the san:ie, then I would 
 say, that the Bishops had not the cares of the world upon them. 
 But if yoa allude to 1789, when the Episcopacy obtained the 
 Legislative powers of the Church, and they declared themselves 
 Bishops, "by regular order and succession;" and to 1790, when 
 they declared themselves invested with fill powers to act du- 
 cisivELY in ALL TEMPORAL matters, (see Minutes,) then I am pre- 
 pared to give a "concise and simple" ansv/er to your inquiry. 
 You will observe that the title given to said Church is indicative . 
 of the officers whose prerogative it is to govern the church, and 
 in whom is vested the executive poiver. Neither in the ordina- 
 tion service nor in any part of the Discipline is the government 
 mentioned as being vested in the Elders or Deacons, but that they 
 must give up their own will (p. 36,) and submit entirely to the 
 will of their bishops, (p. 135.) Now, to understand more fully 
 the extent of the "powers of their bishops," you must also ob- 
 serve, that the M. E. Church claims to be one and indivisible, so 
 that they have no church in Buffalo, Batavia or Eochester, nor in 
 any one of the states, nor in anj' number of the States less than 
 the whole, and thus as their church identity extends from the 
 rivers unto the ends of the earth, so extensive are the powers of 
 their Bishops, for they oversee the whole, both in ^'temporal and 
 npiritual concerns." (p. 26.) They have the sole and exclusive 
 jurisdiction and executive authority, as the head over Elders, 
 Deacons and preachers, in all the annual conferences, (p. i25,) to 
 send them when and where they think proper;* they have power 
 to make, form, divide, subdivide and reunite districts, (157) cir- 
 cuits, stations, &c. ; to ordain Bishops, Elders and Deacons, (p. 
 26;) to receive, change and suspend prcacliers, (p. 26,) to ap- 
 point their presiding Elders, (25-2S,) to preside in person, by a 
 presiding Elder or preacher in charge, in every judicial depari- 
 
 * In lookin? at tlic VI Section o{ llie Discipline, conteining Missiona, I 
 perci-ive thn! ihe Bishops possess power to transfer preachers to nny part of 
 the United States, to Texas or to Africa — and that loo, not only without their 
 consent, but agaiuft thtiricill! page 179, vivs. "Whereas a mission is to be 
 ejtabliihed by » Biihop either among the aboriginces of our country or 
 
APPENDIX C. 
 
 mcnt which they claim as such, from the General Coi^ferenco 
 down to a committee for the trial of a Lay-member (25, 89 ;) 
 they possess a life ■power and control over church property, (26- 
 159, see also deed of settlement and note at the end of said deed 
 167,) the aggregate amount of the whole not less than /iir mill- 
 ions of dollars, and constantly increasing. The travelling preach» 
 ers are tenants of the parsonages and chapels at will, and at tho 
 «nd of each year may be removed by the bishop; this places the 
 preachers in a state of dependence on Episcopal power, which is 
 claimed by divine right. 
 
 2nd. " What the authority of their Ruling Elders?" 
 
 If you mean the presiding Elders, they are the vice-gerents of 
 the Bishops; thus situated, they go by the Episcopal will in all 
 their acts, (30, 124,) and therefore, they cannot see or feel thp 
 rights, interest or will of preachers or people, only as they view 
 thern connected with, and subservient to the interests of the of- 
 fice of which they are deputic". 
 
 ;jrd. "Who compose their Conventions or Conferences." 
 
 " The General Conf'rencc shall be composed of one memher 
 for every fourteen members of each annual conference," with 
 the Arch, or Senior Bishop at their head. (19.) The travellinij 
 preachers compose the annual Conferences, with a Bishop at 
 their head; the quarterly conferences are composed of travelling 
 and local preachers, and travelling preacher's officers, viz. Exhort- 
 ers. Stewards, Leaders, '■'and none else," (p. 29,) with a Bishop 
 at their head. Thus you see, that Lay'inembers, as such, are ex- 
 cluded from the Legislative, Executive and judicial powers of 
 «aid Church. 
 
 4th. " What position do the Laity occupy in the administra- 
 tion of the temporal and spiritual aflairs of that denomination"? 
 
 In the temporal concerns they can build Chapels and Parson- 
 ages for their Bishops, to be occupied by the travelling preach- 
 ers who are nominal owners only, (159, 167.) They can pay 
 their money to the Preacher's officers — the Stewards— for tho 
 BQpport of the travelling preachers, their wives and childrer». 
 The Laity, as such, are not allowed by any rule of Discipline ta 
 
186 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 "occupy any position," other than above, in the administration 
 of the temporal concerns of that denomination. The Church 
 property is held by Trustees who are appointed by the vice-Bish- 
 ops, (167,) subject to such rules only as the General Conference 
 may from time to time, choose to make, (163.) The Laity there* 
 fore have in reality no Church property. The Stewards who 
 " transact the temporal business," are appointed by the travelling 
 preachers, who act for the Bishops. Thus you see the position 
 of the Laity. They have no voice even in electing Trustees or 
 Stewards. As to the position of the Laity in administering the 
 " spiritual affairs" of said Church, I would say, that virtually they 
 have none at all, other than subjects. There is no rule in their 
 'Discipline which secures to the Laity a voice in making or ad- 
 ministering their laws, or in any part of the Executive or Judi- 
 cial departments; — they have not the right of challenge to a Ju- 
 ry who have been packed by the preacher to try them; they do 
 not even occupy tlie position of constituents^ being disfranchised 
 of that palladium of every man's freedom — the sacred rights of 
 suffrage ! The General Conference monopolizes all suffrage and 
 representation to travelling preachers — nay, the Laity, as such, 
 are not even recognised as belonging to the Church, but only "to 
 the denomination." If I understand the phrases of some of their 
 preachers and writers, the travelling Preachers, Elders and Bish- 
 ops, by a misnomer, call themselves " The Church''.' /* (See 
 Vindication — Repository No. 7, p. 232. Also, Snelhen, p. 159.) 
 
 5th. "What are the points of Discipline against which, as u 
 Methodist Protestant, you protest"? 
 
 To all the above that is not in accordance with a free repre- 
 sentative government. To that part of the Discipline where it 
 is stated that " Mr. Wesley preferring the Episcopal mode of 
 Church government, ordained Dr. Coke," &c. as not being true, 
 and to the assumption of the Episcopacy in 17S9, claiming to be 
 Bishops "by regular order and succession," (see Minutes.) To 
 
 * Thus.'for inst.mce, in one pliice they say — " The Rules by which the JUeth' 
 oditt Episcopal Church governs its manbers." 
 
APPENDIX C. 
 
 187 
 
 the principle, that all power in every department emanates from the 
 travelling ministry, and no fart from the local ministry and people. 
 To the concentration of every kind of power, executive, legisla- 
 tive and judicial, in the same hands, and to the fact that these 
 officers are not responsible for the exercise of this power to any 
 but themselves. To the denial of the right of suffrage to tha 
 Laity, and to that part of the Discipline which is liable to be con- 
 strued into a prohibition of the freedom of speech and of the Pressj 
 (90.) This has been done in Baltimore, and many other places, 
 where the reformers were expelled for publishing, reading and 
 circulating the "Mutual Rights," a paper containing communi- 
 cations against the unwarrantable and assumed powers of the 
 Episcopacy. Finally, to the whole system, its tendency and ope" 
 rations, we do most deliberately and solemnly protest, as being 
 anti-Christian and unrighteous. We believe that the Episcopal 
 power as exercised in said Church, is wrong in principle, that it 
 is in a wrong place and v^rong country, and that it v/ill ultimate- 
 ly lead to wrong consequences, reducing religious liberty beloAV 
 the standard of civil. That such a system should obtain in this 
 land of freedom is mysterious, and I am surprised that the people 
 belonging to that denomination should tamely submit to it, espe- 
 cially if they " read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the whole," 
 as their Bishops desire they should, (p. 4.) W e do not object to 
 the doctrines and means of grace, but to the fudamenlal princi- 
 ples of the government itself (not the administrators thereof) wo 
 do object. 
 
 Yours Respectfully, 
 
 P. S. It is contended by some of the travelling ministers and 
 writers in the Methodist Episcopal Church, that " the entire pow- 
 er is with the people^'; that the " Quarterly Conference shall havo 
 authority to license proper persons to preach and renew their li- 
 cense annually," &c. "Here," say they, "we hope you will 
 learn that the entire power of constituting the ministry in the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church is in the hands of the people, and 
 tliat all the Bishops, Elders and Deacons in the Church, cannot 
 
188 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 authorize one person to preach the Gospel, in the Methodist So- 
 ciety, should the Church of which he is a member give their neg- 
 ative." But, I ask, who compose the Quarterly Conferences? 
 The Bishop, presidiri:^ Elders, one or more travelling Preachers, 
 Stewards and Class Leaders. Is one of these a representative 
 oT the people? No! not one. The Ministers are there in their 
 own riijht as Ministers. The Class Leaders are there by appoint* 
 rnent of the Ministers; the Stewards likewise — not one is cho- 
 sen by the people to represent them in the Conference. If all the 
 lay-members of the Methodist Episcopal Church should meet to- 
 gether in one vast convention, to elect even a single class leader, 
 they could not do it. Let them try it in one or in a hundred 
 conventions, and it will be found that they cannot put a letter in 
 the Book of Laws, nor take a letter from that Book. The "fn- 
 tire jinwcrs'^ of the members of said Church are precisely like the 
 powers of the Centurion's servants, to do as they are commanded. 
 This is their enlira powers," nor do they possess a whit more 
 or less. 
 
 Airainst the "///// powers" we were Protestants; forten years 
 we protested. Twice during that time, did the men with " full 
 powers"* set us at nought. " They knew no such rights." — 
 They scoraed our memorials ; they turned some of us out of their « 
 doors, and while the doors were open some of the other prisoners 
 went out of their own accord. And because we had protested, 
 and had been expelled for our protestations, we chose the name 
 of Protestants, and being Methodists still, we said that we would 
 be called Methodist Protestants. Acknowledging the Lord Jesu.s 
 Christ as the only divine head of the Church, and the word of 
 God as the sufficient rule of faith and practice, in all things per- 
 taining to godliness, and being fully persuaded that the repre- 
 fentative form of Church government is the most scriptural, and 
 the most congenial to our views and feelings as fellow citizens 
 with the Saints and of the household of God. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 • i. «. The Gcnr ral Conference, 
 
ArPENDIX D. 
 
 189 
 
 D 
 
 TEE lilGHTS CF THE LAITY IN THE rKOTESTA.NT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 *' T!)e Laity are recognized as a distinct and independent order 
 in the Protestant Episcopal Church. They have a constitution- 
 al or chartered right to act in all the legislative affairs of tho 
 Church, without exception — and this not as they happen to be 
 members of legislative bodies, but as a snparcUc and indeyendent 
 order, always represented in those bodies. 
 
 To be somewhat more particular: 
 
 I. The Laity have a right to manage their own parochial af* 
 fairs, as members of separate and independent parishes'; to elect 
 their own Ministers and settle them, to hold corporate funds, u> 
 appoint their own parish officers, fire, and finally to elect or ap- 
 point and send lay-delegates from the several parishes to represent 
 ihem in the Diocesan Conventions. 
 
 IL They have a right, as a separate order, in the Diocesan 
 Conventions, in the discussion and passage of all legislative acts ; 
 in tho appointment of all conventional committees and oflicers; 
 in the election of standing committees; in the regulation of ec- 
 clesiastical discipline, &c. ; and finally in the election of all the 
 Diocesan Bishops of the Church, and in the election of Clerical 
 and Lay-Deputies to the General Convention. 
 
 in. They have a right as i:ieuibers of the Standing Commit- 
 tees to act directly as well as representatively, in advising the 
 Bishop; in deciding upon the election of Bishops by other Dio- 
 ceses, and u}X)n the resignation of Bishops; in short, in exercis- 
 ing all the manifold and important functions of that body, and 
 especially in recommending all candidates for orders, first to be 
 received as candidates by the Bishop, and afterwards to be Dr- 
 ained by him. 
 
 We believe that in this last mentioned fact, (as in others) the 
 Laity in the Protestant Episcopal Church exercise a power be- 
 joad that exercised by them in any other denomination wbatev- 
 
190 
 
 Al-PENDIX D. 
 
 cr. No person can be either received as a candidate for orders, 
 or afterwards be ordained, without the consent and recommenda- 
 tion of the standing committee. 
 
 IV. They have a right, as an order, in the General Conven- 
 tion, to act in the arrangement and regulation of all the creeds 
 and formularies of the Church and modes of public worship; in 
 all the legislation of that body; and, finally, in the recommenda- 
 tion and appointment of all the Bishops of the Church. 
 
 V. They have a right to a fair trial by disinterested persona, 
 in any cases of ecclesiastical discipline, and a right not only to 
 protect themselves from arbitrary or oppressive treatmient in such 
 cases, but also to punish those who would thus tyrannise over 
 Uiem. 
 
 VI. Finally, they have a constitutional and chartered rights 
 and the power also, to protect themselves in the full and perpet- 
 ual enjoyment of all their rights. 
 
 The point vi'hich we wish our readers to observe most atten- 
 tively in these statements is this — that the Laity are always re- 
 garded (and constitutionally regarded) in the Protestant Episco- 
 pal Church, as a separate and independent order; and their influ- 
 ence is felt, not only as they happen to be good debaters or hap- 
 pen to number more or less in our ecclesiastical body, but as they 
 are a constituent body — so that whether they lead or not in the 
 debates, or whether they are few or many in the body, they have 
 always as an order, their independent and legitimate and coo- 
 trolling power." (Vail's Comprehensive Church.) 
 
' APPENDIX K. 
 
 191 
 
 E 
 
 AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT THE CinCULATION OF "THE EPISCOPAL 
 CHURCH DEFENDED." 
 
 Among the first persons to whom the Prospectus of this work 
 was shown, was the Rev. Allen Steele. Some months after- « 
 wards, however, the following article appeared in a Methodist 
 paper published at Auburn, and was accidently seen by me in 
 the Post Ofiice of our village: 
 
 "MORE JESUITISM IN THE PROTESTANT E. CHURCH 
 EXPOSED. 
 
 "Batavia, Jan. 31, iai3. 
 
 To the Editors of the Northern Advocate : 
 
 Dear Sirs — My attention has, within a few days, been called 
 to an advertisement in the Gospel Messenger, a newspaper pub- 
 lished at Utica and edited by the Rev. Dr. Rudd, of the Protes- 
 tant Episcopal Church, of which the following is a copy:" 
 
 [Here follow the Title of the Pamphlet and tlie Advertise- 
 ment, to which the reader can refer.] 
 
 "As the prospectus of this forthcoming work, thus advertised, 
 contains statements calculated to mislead especially my Metho- 
 dist brethren, and as it has already induced some of them to be- 
 come subscribers to it, under the impression that it would indeed 
 be made up of a series of letters being a correspondence between 
 the Rev. Mr. Bolles and myself on the subject of Protestant and 
 Methodist Episcopacy, I deem it my duty publicly to apprise my 
 brethren and friends of the errors thus set forth and announced, 
 desiring all who may read the work to suspend their opinions un- 
 til my reply shall be given, which will be prepared and publish- 
 ed in such form as the circumstances demand and at as early a 
 period as time will allow after I have been permitted to peruse 
 the work named in the above prospectus. 
 
 The advertisement here copied sets forth several points which 
 
192 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 are not true. 1. It is not true that this work will be made up of 
 n correspondence between Mr. Belles and myself on the subjects 
 named. 2. It is not true that it will contain my replies to letters 
 thus stated to have been addressed to me. 3. It is not true that 
 I have publicly made charges against individuals, ' mentioninff 
 them hy name.' 4. It is not true that I have made ' an attack 
 upon the Episcopal Church in a series of lectures.' And, lastly, 
 it is not true that this correspondence was commenced in conse- 
 quence of such reputed or here named attacks. How far the ay- 
 fscrtion that ' the reader will find in these letters a number of 
 rare and important facts and documents relating to Methodism' 
 will be sustained will he more clearly seen when the work cau 
 be read and reviewed. 
 
 The greater amount of matter which this work will embody, 
 and stated to be contained in letters to me, I am sure has never 
 been before me. A very few letters from Mr. Bolles I received 
 and to a few only replied, and not to those few under the imprcs- 
 eion that there was any design to create a correspondence for 
 publication. 
 
 Conceiving that by these statements I shall sufficiently apprise 
 my brethren and friends of the character of this announced book 
 to prevent their being led astray by its pretensions, I will let the 
 matter here rest until I can have an opportunity to read Mr. 
 Bolles' work and understandingly give it a more extended notice. 
 
 Allen Steele." 
 
 After reading the above article, and ascertaining that an un- 
 ■usual number of the papers in which it was contained, were sent 
 to this village, though not a single, copy had heen sent to me, I wrote 
 for the Northern Advocate a reply; but the Editor EEFUSEID 
 TO PUBLISH IT!! For this reason the reply is inserted here. 
 Comments are unnecessary. 
 
 THE CHARGE OF "JESUITISM" EEFUTED. 
 To the Editor of the Northern Advocate: 
 
 Dear Sir — Your paper of the 9th inst. under the head of 
 •* Afore Jesuitism in the Protestant Episcopal Church Exposed," 
 
ArPENDIX E. 
 
 19D 
 
 contains an article signed Allen Steele, to which I beg leave, 
 through the same medium, to make the following reply. 
 
 That the Rev. Mr. Steele should differ from me, in matters of 
 opinion, is by no means singular; but that there should be such 
 a vast difference in our recollection of matters of fact, is marvel- 
 lous indeed, and can only be accounted for on the supposition, 
 that one or the other of us is entirely deceived. Which it is, 
 time will show. 
 
 Without intending to impeach his motives therefore, I am un- 
 der the necessity of saying, that I cannot agree with him at all, 
 in the statement which he has been pleased to make in the arti- 
 cle referred to above. My ov.-n belief is, that my correspondence 
 with Mr. Steele was commenced in consequence of charges pub- 
 licly made by him against individuals, menliiming them by name, 
 and a subsequent attack upon the Episcopal Church in a series 
 of Lectures — that I am now engaged in the publication of that 
 correspondence — that this publication will contain Mr. Steele's 
 replies, and including those replies, will he made up of Letters ad' 
 dressed to him on the subjects named in the title page of the Book — 
 that Mr. Steele had an opportunity of replying to every thing 
 which he chose at the time, and consequently that my advertise- 
 ment makes no pretensions which will not be fully sustained. 
 
 All these, I believe to be facts, and such facts as the Book it- 
 self, when published, will show beyond all contradiction are too 
 plain and palpable to be denied. 
 
 But more than this. I am confident that the Book which I am 
 about to publish, will show that Mr. Steele has no cause whatever 
 for complaint; that my language towards him in all my letters is 
 respectful and proper — entirely free from every railing accusa- 
 tion; and that I have even offered to go over the whole subject 
 again, and said to him in these very v/ords — if you will lake up 
 the subject of Episcopacy or any other subject connected with the 
 Episcopal Church, and discuss it in writing, in any shape you 
 please, and settling your own preliminaries, then, 1 engage to fol- 
 low you, and we will publish it either in numbers or when the whole 
 correspondence is finished. 
 
 13 
 
194 
 
 AiTEXDIX . E. 
 
 But I will say no more at present in reply to the extraordinary 
 statement which Mr. Steele has been pleased to publish; his 
 charge of "Jesuitism," not upon me only, but upon the whole 
 Episcopal Church, is a solemn thing, and what he must answer 
 for at another tribunal than that of public opinion. 
 
 The Printer who is publishing my Book is a member of Mr. 
 Steele's congregation, and as it will soon be out, every individ- 
 nal can read and judge for himself. 
 
 James A. Bolles, 
 Rector of St. James' Church, Batavia, N. Y. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PiCE. 
 
 Advertisement to the Reader 3 
 
 Letter to Mr. Steele. His public accusations against 
 individuals complained of. Christian charity. Quo- 
 . tation from Bishop Hobart 5—6 
 
 Reply of Mr. Steele His acknowledgement of the 
 public mention of individuals. His justification. 
 Tracts No. 4 and 5. General charges against indi- 
 viduals and against the Church 6 — 11 
 
 Letter to Mr. Steele. His personal accusations no- 
 ticed. Bishop De Lancey. Dr. Peck. Dr. Bangs. 
 Tract No. 4 not " garbled." Tract No. 5. The 
 three orders of the Ministry. The Methodists pre- 
 tend to have them. Their Book of Discipline exam- 
 ined on that point. The doctrines of Mr. Wesley. 
 Samuel Wesley. Charles Wesley's letter to John. 
 Dr. Coke 11—32 
 
 Supplcmenta?. letter to Mr. Steele. Dr. Chapman's Ser- 
 mons. The charge of being " exclusive and detViin- 
 ciatory." John Esten Cooke, M. D. His examin- 
 ation of Episcopacy and conversion to the Church. 
 Unchurching others. Exclusivenes., Ignorance of 
 the Church. Apostolic Succession. Concession of 
 Dr.Lathrop. Succession once claimed by the Meth- 
 odists. Slander. Testimony of Adam Clark. Mr. 
 Watson. Robert Hall. Thomas Scott. Dr. Dod- 
 dridge. Synod of Dort 33—52 
 
196 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Letter to Mr. Steele. Wishing to know whether he 
 intends to repl}-. Suggesting to him the propriety 
 of arranging the arguments of his Lectures against 
 the Church 63 
 
 Reply of Mr. Steele. His reasons for delay — promises 
 a communication — is ignorant of what is meant by 
 the arguments of his Lectures 53 
 
 Heplij of Mr. Steele. He complains of irrelevancy — 
 refuses to discuss the subjects of Methodism and 
 Episcopacy. " Brotherly love and ministerial kind- 
 ness." Dr. Peck. Dr. Bangs. Tracts No. 4 and 
 5. Questions proposed. Leaders's Meeting .... 54 — 75 
 
 Letter to Mr. Steele. The charges of irrelevancy, of 
 commencing an attack upon the Methodists, and of 
 using abusive language, all refuted. Mr. Steele's 
 quotation from Mr. Powell. His mistake in relation 
 to Bishop Taylor. A Lesson of caution 66 — 74 
 
 Letter to Mr. Steele. An examination into the claims 
 of Methodist Episcopacy, proposed. What is Epis- 
 copacy? The real claims of the Methodists. Mr. 
 Wesley never intended to ordain Dr. Coke a Bishop. 
 The Greek Bishop Erasmus. Mr. Wesley a Pres- 
 byter of the Church of England. His interpretation 
 of Acts XIII; 3. Messrs. Coke and Asbury not 
 known as Bishops at first. Mr. Wesley's letter of 
 expostulation to Mr. Asbury. Mr. Wesley opposed 
 
 • to the American Revolution. Dr. Coke not receiv- 
 ed as a Bishop in England. Alexander Mather, 
 not a Bishop ' 75—78 
 
 Letter to Mr. S.'erle. The claims of Methodiit Episco- 
 pacy, continued. Dr. Whitehead — his testimony. 
 Dr. Coke's Letter to Mr. Wesley desiring his influ- 
 ence in America, English Methodists — their his- 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 1©7 
 
 toTv. Curious anecdotes of. The testimony of 
 Charles Wesley — his letter to Dr. Chandler — his 
 letter of expostulation to his brother. Remarks of 
 Dr. Whitehead. The testimony of Dr. Coke — his 
 Sermon before the Conference at Baltimore. Ex- 
 amination of the Sermon by Dr. Whitehead. Dr. 
 Coke's credentials, examined. Mr. Wesley's letter 
 " to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury and the brethren in N. 
 America," examined. The confessions of Dr. Coke 
 — his letter to Bishop White — his letter to William 
 Wilberforce. The character df Dr. Coke — his in- 
 consistencj' — his want of honesty — his rashness — 
 his management with Mr. Wesley. Conclusion of 
 Methodist Episcopacy 89 — 119 
 
 Letter to Mr. Steele. Examination of Dr. Bangs' " Or- 
 iginal Church." His assertion that " the Methodist 
 Episcopal Ciiiirchwas organized before the Protes- 
 tant Epi;.-copal Church had an existence." The 
 terms Bishop and Presbyter. The Apostolic office. 
 The power of ordination. The case of Colluthus. 
 The case of the Bishop of Agabra. Testimony of 
 Jerome. Opinion of all Episcopalians. Acts XIII; 
 1 — 3, examined. 1st Timothy, 1, 4, examined. 
 Firmillian. Cyprian. Tertullian. Quotation from 
 Dr. Bowden. Eutychius. The testimony of Chil- 
 lingworth. Lord King. Bishop Stillingfleet. Bish- 
 op White. John Wesley a reformer. The argu- 
 ment of success. Anecdote of Wesley and Whit- 
 field. The inwardcall of the Spirit. DivineRight. 
 Extraordinary statement of Dr. Bangs — his perver- 
 sion of Dr. Chapman — of Mosheim — of Eusebius. 
 The story of the Papess Joanna. Conclusion .... 120 — 166 
 
 AODENOA 167 
 
 Letter from Mr. Steele. " Discuss, debate and chal- 
 lenge." Correction of mistake 167 — 16S 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Reply to Mr. Steele. Explanation of the first letter, 
 and of the whole correspondence. Mr. Steele's boast 
 — his extraordinary course attributed to the influ- 
 ence of others — a proposition to discuss the subject 
 of Episcopacy 169 — 177 
 
 Appendix. 
 A 
 
 "Wesley's Reasons againt separation 178 — 181 
 
 B 
 
 The character of the two brothers John and Charles 
 
 Wesley 182 
 
 CU--0« Q 
 
 Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Letter 
 
 to a Methodist Protestant — his reply 183 — 188 
 
 D 
 
 The rig;hts of the Laity in the Pi'otestant Episcopal 
 
 Church '. . . : 189—190 
 
 E 
 
 Attempt to prevent the circulation of the Episcopal 
 Church Defended. Mr. Steele's communication to 
 the Northern Advocate. Reply to said communica- 
 tion 191 
 
NOTE BY THE PRINTER. 
 
 The delay in the execution of this work — the smaller compass 
 into which the matter has been compressed than was contempla- 
 ted in the Prospectus, and the many typographical errors must 
 be attributed to the difficulties and inconveniences necessarily 
 connected with the publication of such a work, in a country news- 
 paper establishment. The following are a few of the errors which 
 the reader is requested particularly to correct : 
 
 Page 6, third line from the bottom, for " 1st inst.," read lih hist. 
 
 20, fourteenth line from the top, for " Dr. Barns," read Dr. Barnes. 
 30, line at the bottom, for "1785," read 1758. 
 
 39, nineteenth line from the top, for " 1 cannot look," read, J cannot 
 Iml luoU. 
 
 98, thirteenth line from the top, for " raised," read rericcd. 
 114, elcvi i'li 1 ■ ! .Ill ill - Imi ' -111. liir "fiivorable," xqaA inifurorahle. 
 122, nil lilngleet," read -S7i7/me-_//txZ. 
 
 125, unty," read covntry. 
 
 128, tw. i: ;i II I' ■ : 1 ''Agaba" re:\A Aguhra. 
 
 142, ele\ t nih line li u i the W'iJ, iur •' needs no better evidence, that is af- 
 
 forded," read, one needs no better eci/lcnte than is afforded- 
 145, third line from the bottom, for " arsunicnt," read argvmcnts.