THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 iMy^) 
 
 HENDERSON, S. (of Jefferson Co., Tenn.), and 
 Hamill, E. J., (of Tuskegee, Ala.). Discussion on 
 Methodist Episcopacy. Charleston, 1856. $4.50 
 * The famous Henderson-Hamill Debate which 
 gained Dr. Henderson a dLstinguished reputation. 
 With biographical sketch of the author inserted. 
 The appendix relates to historical matters in 
 Tennessee, Texas, Ala., etc.
 
 Henderson, Rev. Samuel, D.D., a native of 
 Jefferson Co., Tenn., was born March 4, 1817; 
 united with the church in September, 1832. 
 Reared to the business of a practical printer, 
 Avhen quite a youth he removed to Alabama, 
 and established one of the first political news- 
 jiapers of Talladega, which he published and ed- 
 ited for several years. He was ordained to the 
 gospel ministry in the church in Talladega in 1840, 
 this being his first pastorate. Moved to Tuskegee 
 in 1846, where he was pastor for twenty-one years. 
 To the Baptists Tuskegee was, during that period, 
 one of the most important centres of influence in 
 the State. In addition to its refined and wealthy 
 church membership, it Avas the site of the East 
 Alabama Female College, a property whose erec- 
 tion cost our brethren not less than §40,000. It 
 was also the seat of publication of the Southwestern 
 Baptist, the denominational organ of the State, 
 which was conducted with marked ability by Dr, 
 Henderson, it being then one of the most influen- 
 tial religious journals in the whole South. (Se< 
 Alabama Baptist Newspapers.) In 1868, Dr 
 Henderson returned to Talladega County to th. 
 charge of several country and village churches i 
 among the best country churches in the State, 
 where he is pleasantly located on a handsome and 
 fertile farm, and passes his time in visiting the 
 churches, writing for the papers, being one of the 
 editors of the Christian Index, of Atlanta, Ga., and 
 in making further search into the contents of his 
 splendid librai'y. For the last thirty years Dr. 
 Henderson has been among the most prominent 
 and useful of Alabama ministers. Liberally edu- 
 cated at the start, he has become one of our eru- 
 dite men, an able and distinguished preacher, an 
 adviser of first-class judgment, a graceful, cul- 
 tivated, and powerful writer, and withal a sound 
 theologian, thoroughly read-up. Dr. Henderson 
 has published a number of able sermons, review 
 articles, and other strong and well-prepared docu- 
 ments. It was in '<'« ri;c:^Mcc;r.n wjfh tlie Kev. 
 
 'ien '^ '^ 'mapi -sojntijni snraBznduq ponb 'son ^ngpuJi + 
 (•0691 'snepi'.I •i£S '^ 'itS '^a •! ''^^^^O ■emmsQ ip.iiiujaa pouBg) 
 ■mi. im 3.tviM sopiauvd 'jinbui 'm'lS ■^\^ oii einumcp eid ?93!l 
 ajo)EAii!S ; .in^unuis ejunljuadojd pm^s oau '.vnvsS amuSau irasp 
 -dttq lunp '«1!A jniipniojejui nsi-iqo uinJOUBnsuqo BjinAaBj * 
 
 aq:) jo jo^uaapora s'Bav 8i{ sun^K. uaayg jo^ 'ssau 
 ,„-xni9sn pu^ .i9Mod a^gaS ni\JA, 'sanunon uo^i^'m vuv.
 
 A 
 
 DISCUSSION 
 
 ON 
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY, 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 EEV. E. J. HAMILL, 
 
 or Xnit ALABAMA CONFERENCE , AND PASTOR OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL 
 CHURCH, SOUTH, TUSKEQEE, ALA. 
 
 AND 
 
 SAMUEL HENDERSON, 
 
 FASTOE OF THE TUSKEQEE BAPTIST ClIURCn, AND EDITOR OF THE 
 SOUTH WESTERN BAPTIST. 
 
 Published at Hie mulnal isquest of Baptists and Methodists. 
 
 '* Prove all things: hold fast that which is good."— Paul. 
 
 C HARLESTON: 
 SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY. 
 
 22D KING STREET. 
 18 5 6.
 
 Eatered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by 
 
 Rev. E. J. Hamill and Samuel Henderson, 
 
 In the Clerk's Of5ce of the District Court of South-Carolina. 
 
 CHARLESTON: 
 
 JAMES AND WILLIAMS, PRINTERS, 
 
 16 STATE STREET. 
 
 » « « •*! ec
 
 C/) 
 
 tn 
 
 sx 
 
 P "^ ! ' '^ 
 
 /' 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Episcopal Methodism — anti-American, 1 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Episcopal Methodism not anti-American. 
 
 "Wesley's loyalty; Methodists love their doctrines; General 
 Conference cannot change doctrines; Ministers called of 
 God, and sent out by Ilis people; Two orders in the Minis- 
 try; Bishop Hamline's resignation; Apostolic itinerancy; 
 Lay delegation; Peculiar institution; A bishop has no vote; 
 Members tried by their societies; Freedom of opinion; Ap- 
 pointing power of bishops exercised wisely; Bishops hold 
 no Church property; Morbid imagination 13 
 
 REPLY TO LETTER I. 
 
 2* Courtesy extended; Two enquiries; Great names do not change 
 
 *f| error into truth; The power of a religious theory true or 
 
 5, false, in the formation of character; Our Position Defined; 
 
 Cu o Lexicographical definition of terms; Application of these 
 definitions to the subject in debate; Annual and General 
 
 ; Couferences composed only of bishops and travelling 
 
 : preachers; Exclusion of laymen from these bodies; The 
 
 p clergy the basis of representation; Episcopacy never to be 
 
 -* changed; an effort to change it rebuked; The legislative, 
 
 ■^ executive, and judicial departments of government all filled 
 
 ^ exclusively by the clergy; Dr. Bascom's opinion; Methodist 
 
 aj Episcopacy deprives laymen of the right of choosing their 
 
 yj own pastors; Anecdotes of Dr. Rippon and Robert Hall; 
 
 2; The argumentum ad homiuem; Extent of our endorsement 
 
 3 of the article from the Western Watchman 20 
 
 ^ LETTER n. 
 
 Metliodist Episcopacy not anti-Republican. 
 
 Christian discussion profitable; Foreign topics; The Bible and 
 its Episcopacy a foreign importation; Mormon the only 
 Bystem of religion of American origin; Mistakes corrected; 
 The advantages of Itinerancy; The Democratic principle 
 acknowledged, that none should make laws but Ihoso who 
 are subject to them; Itinerants made such by tlie people; 
 Itinerants constitute their oCBcers like legislatures; Power 
 
 443305
 
 ii CONTENTS. 
 
 of the General Conference over bishops; Four points in 
 which Church government should be unlike civil govern- 
 ment; Methodist Church government bears a proper ana- 
 logy to our Federal Government; Fancy slietch of the 
 youth, Bascom; Anecdote; Paul's definition of Episcopos; 
 The Baptist discipline; Government it describes unlilic 
 our civil government; A sad picture; An M?i-E,epublicaa 
 feature; Robert Hall's view of close communion. . . . 
 
 REPLY TO LETTER H. 
 
 The zeal and spirit of Mr. Hamill commended; Precise ques- 
 tion at issue; Foreign topics; Episcopacy a transplant from 
 Europe; Analogy between the Church of England and 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church; Singular way of proving 
 two orders in the Methodist ministry; Bishops Soule and 
 Capers; Mistake corrected; The right of appeal; The part 
 Mr. Wesley and his first preachers took in our Revolution- 
 ary War; Not probable that they would impart tlie element 
 of Republicanism to a religious structure; James 'Kelly, 
 William M'Kendrce, Rice Haggard, and others; An effort 
 to reform the system in 1824 and 1828; insulting answer of 
 the General Conference to sundry memorials; Exclusion 
 and suspension of the reformers; Moral heroism of " fifty 
 females;" Acts xx. 28; No connection between Bible and 
 Methodist Episcopacy; Sophistry in the use of the term 
 "Puseyistic;" Itinerant plan; Episcopacy defined; The 
 "Democratic element;" Baptist anarchy; "Close com- 
 munion;" Specimen of logic; Another '' fancy sketch" from 
 the " youthful Bascom;" Courtesy asked 
 
 LETTER m. 
 
 Methodism like its creed — peace and good will to 
 
 man. 
 Christian courtesy appreciated; A case of twisting; Precious 
 charity of Mr. Graves; Foreign topics again; Sixty Ameri- 
 can preachers; Admirable logic; Robert Hall's opinion of 
 Wesley; Robert Hall repels" the charge of Republicanism 
 from Baptists; Wesley's view of the duty of American Me- 
 thodists; George Washington's prayer for the prosperity of 
 Methodism; Children's teeth not set on edge; Thomas Mun- 
 cer's proclamation; John Matthias' and John Bocold's 
 Republic; Concession; Angels of the churches first among 
 equals; Paul's ordination; Bishop Capers' opinion; Human 
 instrumentality designates the field of ministerial labor; 
 Charles V. not German Emperor by divine right; Correc- 
 tions; Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel's description of the lay 
 
 34 
 
 M 
 
 46
 
 CONTENTS. iii 
 
 management in the English Church; Retraction demanded; 
 What would make the English monarchy exceedingly Dem- 
 ocratic; Supposed one hundred Baptist itinerants; In the 
 business of Baptist State and Southern Conventions we 
 have lay management; What rights and privileges we 
 ignore; O'Kelly's resolution; Cordial acknowledgment; 
 The courtesy returned. . . • C6 
 
 EEPLY TO LETTER III. 
 
 True origin of Methodist Episcopacy. 
 
 Hypothetical argument; Interesting letter from Mr. Wesley; 
 Mr. Wesley the father of Methodhm, not of Episcopal Me- 
 thodism; Ordination of Dr. Coke as superintendent, not as 
 bishop, of the American Societies; Mr. Wesley's account 
 of it; Interesting overture of Dr. Coke to Bishop White 
 and the Lord Bishop of London; ThrHlhifj letter from Pres- 
 byter Wesley to Brsnop Asbury; A sad mistake either in the 
 book of Discipline or in History; The true origin of Epis- 
 copacy; The General Conference persists in calling Mr. 
 Wesley by a name, than which he afiirmed he had rather 
 be '• called a knave, or a focA, a scoundrel, a rascal;" The 
 "bitter pill" suppressed; Two interesting authentic docu- 
 ments placed in juxtaposition; Bishop Bascom doubts the 
 historical probity of Sec. 1st of the book of Discipline; 
 Striking congruity between tlie caption of the article, and 
 the text of Scripture superadded; Being " a little out of 
 temper" distorts one's fancy; unlimited range of discus- 
 sion asked and conceded; Points endorsed in the article 
 from the Watchman; EbuUilions of passion; The cliarge 
 of falsehood repelled, and an explanation asked; A chase 
 after the '"Iron Wheel;" Methodist E])iscopacy not so an- 
 cient as Nebuchadnezzar; Extract from a "i^Iethodist 
 Hymn;" John Wesley and Robert Ilall; Our civil liberties 
 "so strangely" acliieved, despite Mr. Wesley's efforts; con- 
 trast between General Washington's responses to the con- 
 gratulatory addresses from Methodist bishops and Baptfst 
 Churches; The Munster affair; The " unkind cut," the only 
 method of chastising clerical domination; " Three orders 
 of ministers arc recognised;" The "tug of war;" A sad 
 predicament; " Glaring errors;" Reversing propositions; 
 Proof; Constitutional officers of the Ej)iscopal Church 
 not private members; A " solemn demand of an un(juali- 
 flcd retraction" d(.>clined; The predicament in whicij the 
 demanded retraction would place " our Ei)iscopacy ;" 
 Baptist W. Noel; Endorsement of tlic answer of the bish- 
 ops to sundry memorials; The colors struck 82
 
 iv *. CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Methodism. 
 
 More twisting; Encouraging admissions; Mr. Noel on govern- 
 ment of the English Church by worldly politicians; A queer 
 Parliamentary Episcopacy; Danger of Methodist Episco- 
 pacy being controlled by the State, as English Episcopacy 
 is; Retraction refused; Fate of those who would mend our 
 doctrines; Bishop Asbury's claim upon the Methodist Booli 
 Concern; Challenge to publish a Church deed; Freedom of 
 speech again; Parallels upon the title of Bishop; Dr. Coke's 
 injudicious application for re-ordination; Father Jesse Mer- 
 cer's opinion of a Minister's Conference; The strange re- 
 presentation in the Southern Baptist Convention; A Quar- 
 terly Conference metamorphosed into another Episcopacy; 
 Prerogatives of the laity; Reasoning which will determine 
 the funny problem; The Methodist Church government re- 
 sembles our civil government more closely than the Bap- 
 tist Church government does, proved by several logical ar- 
 guments; Twenty Baptist ministers in Canada, threw oflF 
 the yoke of Close Communion; John Bunyan's, Baptist 
 Noel's, and Robert Hall's abhorrence of the same yoke; 
 Connectionalism of Methodism; A Baptist excommunicated 
 for joining a sister Church; Beauties of the Republicanism 
 of the Alabama Baptists, as portrayed by their own histo- 
 rian, Rev. H. Holcombe; a gracious privilege rescinded; 
 Anti-Republioan resolutions of sixteen Baptist Churches; A 
 Baptist's opinion of the persecuting spirit of the Claiborne 
 Baptist Church; The Alabama Baptist State Convention 
 votes that an infernal spirit gets into every Baptist cora- 
 mnnity, however small; Paternal chastisement; Baptist In- 
 quisitorial taxation without representation; The penalty; 
 The modus operandi of assessment; Uncommon submissive- 
 ness; Burns; If Baptists are not equal to angels, a civil go- 
 vernment, framed after the model of their Church govern- 
 ment, would not do; Anecdote 112 
 
 REPLY TO LETTER IV, 
 Interior view of Methodist Episcopacy, by Master 
 
 Artists. 
 Advantages of religious controversy; Discrimination between 
 men and principles; Absolute clerical power unscriptural 
 and dangerous; A peep at the inner vail; Back ground 
 sketch, by Bishop Bascom, and a full portraiture, by Bishop 
 Hamline; Mr. Hamline rewarded with a bishopric; Analy- 
 sis of the picture; Human credulity has some bounds which 
 clerical demands may not pass; A Presbyterian's opinion of 
 the picture; Mr. Hamill's fourth letter; Congratulated on 
 the improvement of his tone and spirit; The " fair" and
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 " clear" disc of Methodism makes John Wesley " start and 
 shudder;"' "Twistification;" Natural mistake; Dexterous 
 use of Mr. Noel's armory; Transparent perversion; Articles 
 of faith and discipline imposed upon the laity without their 
 consent; ,Hudibras: Another Quotation from Hudibras; 
 "Parallels;-' Mr. Wesley in a dilemma; Singular perver- 
 sion of a garbled extract from the Baptist Confession of 
 Faith: Mr. Wesley competent to construe his own act; A 
 digression in pursuit of Mr. Hamill^ Four fundamental 
 points in Baptist Church Polity; Deacons' meetings, asso- 
 ciations, and conventions: A terrible crime against " our 
 free country;" The " decree'^ of an " advisory council;'' All 
 forms of government susceptible of abuse; Reception and 
 expulsion of members in the M. E. Church; Father Mercer; 
 the " standards" on sacramental communion; The Baptist 
 ground occupied by all denominations; Robert Hall's de- 
 nunciation of the inconsistency of Pedobaptists in asking 
 the Baptists to sacrifice a principle from which the practice 
 of each results; Explanation asked 127 
 
 LETTER Y. 
 Methodism. 
 
 Methodism never connected with the State; Bro. Henderson's 
 just denunciation of persecution; points of agreement; 
 Doctrine of the fathers of Trent rejected; Fuller's view of 
 the extent of pastoral care; A bold admission; True cre- 
 dentials; A few drops or a whole pond of water insuffi- 
 cient to regenerate; Bro. Hender.son's analysis of the ele- 
 ments of a Church amended; The great Head of the 
 Church legislates for her, and calls her officers; Exercise 
 of reason not superseded; Conventions and creeds neces- 
 sary; The absence of connectionalism the cause of disorder 
 in the Baptist Church; Exceedingly powerful advice; 
 Agreement with Rob't Hall; A new style of logic; The 
 faith of Methodism not mended; Methodism has a single 
 grand platform of doctrines; Tlie Baptist Church may 
 have ten thousand varying creeds, and, therefore, cannot 
 with accuracy be styled The Baptist Church; The lliwas- 
 pce Baptist Association; Baptist Churches have no legis- 
 lative representatives at all; Their practice better than 
 their theory; Mr. Wesley did prefer the Episcopal mode of 
 Church government; Unique reasoning; Mercer favors a 
 platform similar to that of Methodism; An interior view 
 of the trial of members; The challenge to publish a deed 
 refused; Power of bi.shops in civil maltcrs; The generosity 
 of the Gen'ral Conference in making Ijishops of its ene- 
 mies; Chief business of an Annual or General Conference; 
 Why should tlie laity act in two Ciiurch courts upon the 
 same cases? Distinction between the act of distributing miu-
 
 vi CONTENTS. 
 
 isters and other Church business; Baptist itinerancy a^ain; 
 A Georgia Baptist Conference of ministers; Father Mercer; 
 Church removals like removals by the President; Bishop 
 Hamline's view excessively Republican; A chance for a 
 pretty burst of indignation 154 
 
 Analogy. — Analogy between the Methodist Churchy govern- 
 ment and the United States government, shown in many 
 particulars; Consistency would require the opposers of Me- 
 thodism to seek the destruction of our civil Republic; 
 Other Baptist disorders; Melancholy spectacle; Popery in 
 the Berlin Baptist Church, as their poets say; Opposition 
 preaching; Explanation; Glaring errors; Baptist piety will 
 do good in spite of its defective government; Concession. 172 
 
 REPLY TO LETTER V. 
 
 Methodist Church Property Case. 
 
 The " sun " and " moon " of " our Episcopacy " slightly 
 eclipsed; An interesting engagement between the two 
 wings of the " terrible array with banners;" A circuit rider 
 slain, and a bishop put hms dc combat; " Our Episcopacy" 
 sues " our Episcopacy;" Two important principles evolved 
 in the suit ; Extracts from the speeches of Messrs. Lord 
 and Johnson, the counsel for the claimants; Episcopal Me- 
 thodism an aristocracy, which " admits no constituents;" 
 The decision of the court; Each party recognizing the deci- 
 sion, the one by yielding to, the other by accepting the 
 award; The relative ability of the United States' Circuit 
 Court, and "an obscure local organ," to injure "our 
 Episcopacy;" Sorrowful light; More than a million of the 
 " rank and file" of the " terrible army" slain at " one fell 
 swoop;" More about the " Democratic element." . . . 178 
 
 Friendly greeting; Reasonable expectations disappointed ; 
 The Munster affair again; A civil, not a religious move- 
 ment; A sprinlding of sprinklers among the insurgents; 
 Buck; 'ihc Ink Fish; An interesting syllogism; The " four 
 points" vindicated; Episcopal remedy for Church disor- 
 ders worse than the disease; Dead palsy; Ministers' and 
 deacons' meetings again; A practical question propounded 
 to the laity of the Methodist Episcopal Church; " Hender- 
 sonian" logic; A "strictness of speech" that cuts two 
 ways; No legislative authority given to the Churches by 
 Christ and the Apostles; A stride towards Rome; Some 
 plain questions asked; The advantage which "our Episco- 
 pacy" might ham been to Paul and the primitive Churches, 
 iu rectifying their disorders; " Duplicity;" Not responsible 
 for results, where fads are stated; Unkind insinuation in
 
 CONTENTS. vii 
 
 regard to Bishops WcKendree and Bascom; The "man of 
 straw" betraying tokens of sensibility; The charge of sec- 
 ond-handed quotations, and garbling; An enquiry after the 
 "symbols of faith, called creeds" in the apostolic age; 
 Supposed to be the New Testament; Those who adopt it 
 as their only rule of faith and conduct have something 
 which can be " accurately styled Church Government;" 
 Satisfactory explanation 194 
 
 The Contrast. 
 
 The contrast between Methodist Episcopacy and our civil 
 governments. State and National, in seventeen distinct and 
 fundamental points; The Methodist Episcopal Church the 
 only denomination of Protestants in the United States, 
 from whose ecclesiastical bodies all laymen are excluded 
 by constitutional law; Not a fact contested which has been 
 alleged in the discussion; The " Democratic element" in 
 Episcopal Methodism, if it exists at all, must exist not- 
 withstanding all these facts; Synopsis and application of 
 the argument; Conclusion , 213 
 
 Letter to Messrs. David Clopton, John B. Bilbro, and Robert 
 L.Mayes 226 
 
 LETTER YI. 
 
 The Methodist Book Concern; A valuable auxili- 
 ary of the Gospel; And a holy charity; Hon. 
 Rufus Choate's view of Methodism; The con- 
 trast reviewed. 
 
 Mr. Lord's history of the Book Concern; Built up by the 
 preachers, and therefore, held in trust by them for two 
 holy uses; Its charity like Job; Its control by the ministry 
 praiseworthy; The mutilated resolution; The Court decrees 
 that the General Conference has no proprietary interest in 
 the Preaching Houses; Lay management of the largest 
 revenue of the Church 229 
 
 PBiNcrPLEg OF THE Church PROPERTY Case. — Do civil law- 
 yers understand Church polity better than judicious minis- 
 ters? Legal opinions versus Church standard; Louisville 
 Conventions; Dr. Elliott and Hon. Rufus Choate against a 
 legal Fiction; The Church, South, did not recover its rights 
 upon false principles; The case stated; Principles applica- 
 ble to tlie [Jook Concern property, and inapplicable to 
 Church polity; Pleadings of counsel; Consent of a majority 
 in all departments of the Church to a division of the Book
 
 viii CONTENTS. 
 
 Concern Fund; Plan of separation contingent; Power as- 
 cribed to General Conference wholly unfounded; The veto 
 power of an Annual Conference; Protest of laity in the 
 case of a distinguished minister of the Georgia Conference; 
 Lawyers' opinion of a Church in the Methodist sense; No- 
 tion that the General Conference could become Socinian, 
 or Baptist; Ministers of every Church can become Moham- 
 medans; Another could and would; Methodist doctrines 
 not established by vote; The glory of Christ cannot be 
 voted away; Mr. Benson's testimony; Louisville Conven- 
 tion; Opinion of the most distinguished lawyer in the 
 United States, the Hon. RufusChoate; Methodism proceeds 
 on the plan of our grand secular union; The true sover- 
 eign; The preachers in a mass, acting in obedience to the 
 wishes of the people; The Conference which organized Me- 
 thodism was, in a remarkable degree, analogous to the >^ 
 Convention which created the Federal Constitution, in 
 1787; Annual and General Conferences subordinate agen- 
 cies of the Church; Mr. Wesley testifies that some thousands 
 in the United States desired his advice; Eighty-three 
 preachers cannot be magnified into some thousands; Mr. 
 Choate's only error; The case proves the all-controlling 
 power of the laity 238 
 
 Miscellaneous.— Why Muncer's proclamation is quoted; Bap- 
 tists not ranked with Campbellites; Concurrence Avith 
 Baptist luminaries; An answer; Another serious error; 
 Constituents of the Quarterly Conference; The preacher 
 has no vote in the trial of a member; Logic of the exposure 
 of Baptist disorders 252 
 
 The Contrast.— The contrast twice dead; The Church legis- 
 lates in minor matters only; Distinction between the pro 
 vince of human and divine legislation; How the discipline 
 was formed; Conference laws like Acts of Legislatures; 
 Discipline not amended; Duality of General Conference 
 jui-isdictions demanded by the people; Bishop's term of 
 office like that of the supreme judges: Subject to a like 
 impeachment; General Conference constituted like the 
 United States Senate; Is one State nearly equal to thir- 
 teen in the Southern Baptist Convention? Bishop's power 
 of removal less than the President's; Officers of Method- 
 ism chosen as directly from the people as civil officers; The 
 right of petition as unbounded as in Congress; An absurd- 
 ity exposed; Mr. Wesley's advice; Bishops have no legis- 
 lative powers ; Restrictions upon Annual and General 
 Conferences; What would dethrone Christ as King in Zion; 
 The only right of the clergy in Church buildings; The 
 contrast and the analogy, both exist in their proper places; 
 A pleasant close; The discussion useful; The pious will do
 
 CONTENTS. ix 
 
 good anywhere; Charity indispensable; The publication of 
 
 the discussion, without note or commeut, proposed. . . • 254 
 
 EEPLY TO LETTER S^I. 
 
 Methodist Church Property Case Again. 
 
 Error must be removed before Truth can be established; No 
 foundation for Episcopacy in the Scriptures, according to 
 its most able defenders; Time, place, and circumstances 
 supply its only defence; Manifest perversion and miscon- 
 struction of arguments; The objects for which the Book 
 Fund was raised, not the subject of debate; Changing the 
 issue; Another specimen of Methodist logic; The " holy 
 charity'' not too holy for lay management; A plain state- 
 ment of the case; The question at issue between the parties; 
 Decision of the court; Mr. Choate's " view of Method- 
 ism '' answered by Mr. Johnson, declared sophistical by 
 the court, and overruled; Difl'erence between a General 
 Conference, possessing sovereign power, and the Congress 
 of the United States, possessing limited powers; ^Mr. Wes- 
 ley's letter granting the request of his American children; 
 Application of the principles involved in the law suit to 
 the entire system of Methodism; An inventory of facts; Are 
 legal gentlemen of the first distinction, and learned judges, 
 capable of understanding " the Book of Discipline" and 
 " the History of Methodism." when they are in evidence 
 before them? A trilemma; Some credit ii due the solemn 
 decisions of our National Courts 264 
 
 ToK Standards. — Another appeal to the standards, in search 
 of the "democratic element;'' Watson's Theological Insti- 
 tutes; Prof. C. F. Deems; Judge Longstreet; Lonmzo Dow; 
 Isaac Taylor; Rev. K. Abbey; Aristocracy; An interesting 
 experiment suggested; A transfer of property implies pro- 
 prietorship; Protests; Judicial exposition of Methodism; Au 
 odium which is proof against all " protests;" The " could " 
 and the " would " of the General Conference not subject to 
 the Churches; Not likely that the same men would act 
 dilfercnlly in a General and Annual Conference; Another 
 extract from the Opinion of the Court; Three remarkable 
 conclusions; How a cypher in the premises becomes " an 
 all-controlling" numerical number in the conclusion; An 
 improvement on Bishop Taylor's discovery of Truth with- 
 out evidence; IIow a system of government which "has 
 no constituents" is "modifiod after our gi-and secular 
 union;" Synopsis 285 
 
 M1.SCELLANKOU.S. — Mr. Wesley, and not " the will of the laity, 
 acting through the ministry," the father of American Me- 
 thodism; The Munster insurrectionists sustain no such rcla-
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 tion to the Baptists; The authority of creeds; The Method- 
 ist Church more holy than the Lord's table; The jurisdiction 
 of Quarterly and Annual Conferences; The Book of Disci- 
 pline responsible for the error; The relative power of a 
 Methodist and Baptist pastor; "Anarchy and confusion, 
 called Baptist Church government;" " Tastes will diflFer;" 
 An illustrative anecdote 298 
 
 The Contrast. — A modest pledge; A wonderful draft upon 
 popular credulity; The voluntary adoption of a form of 
 government does not make it Republican; An essential 
 change in the constitution of Methodism not submitted to 
 the laity for confirmation; Judges and military officers not 
 law-making authorities; The constituents of a General 
 Conference and of the Congress of the United States con- 
 trasted; Senate of the United States; Baptist Conventions 
 not legislative bodies, therefore, cannot infringe upon the 
 rights of the Churches; Seventh, eleventh, and fifteenth 
 points not identical with the fifth; Bishop Hamline sta- 
 tioned to guard the eighth point; " Philadelphia Church 
 Advocate;" Question for the Protestant Methodists to 
 answer; " Pi'otests" vs. Facts; The '-Standards;" Bishop 
 Bascom detailed to guard the fourteenth point; Clerical 
 absolutism; Trustees of Church property; Something about 
 " killing and plucking up by the roots," what the fathers 
 of " our Episcopacy" planted; The seventeen points sustain- 
 ed; Mr. Hamill the antagonist of the Circuit Court of the 
 United States, not ours; An important concession the basis 
 of a strange conclusion; Was apostolic Church government 
 "a disjointed system of anarchy and confusion?" The 
 Church government adopted by Christ and his Apostles 
 preferable to that despotic "scheme yclept" Methodist 
 Episcopacy, fastened upon Methodists by Wesley and sixty 
 travelling preachers, in 17S4; Proposition in regard to the 
 joint publication of the discussion; Concession to secure 
 this; lleciprocal coui-tesy; Conclusion. ....... 301 
 
 LETTER VIL 
 The Discussion. 
 Three errors of fact; Their correction requested 317 
 
 REPLY TO LETTER VIL 
 
 Misapprehension of argument; The " first error of fact" may 
 be corrected when the " standards" are mended, and the ju- 
 dicial records of the countiy rectified; Second " error of 
 fact;" Third "error of fact;" The " seventh wonder;" Mu- 
 tual call for the publication of the discussion, by Baptists 
 and Methodists 321
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In introducing the following pages to the public, it is proper that 
 we give a succinct statement of the origin of the discussion, as well 
 as the reasons which have induced us to publish it in this form. 
 
 In the month of April, 1855, au article was copied into the columns 
 of the 'South Western Baptist,' from the 'Western Watchman,' en- 
 titled " Episcopal Methodism, ajjti-Americax.-' [The article from 
 the ' Western Watchman' is inserted in the volume, because of its 
 connection with the discussion.] The pastor of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church in Tuskegee, tne Rev. E. J. Hamill, feeling that in- 
 justice had been done his denomination in that article, wrote a reply 
 to it, which reply was countersigned by three members of his charge, 
 and offered it to the editors of the ' Baptist,' for publication. It 
 was cheerfully accepted; and as the junior editor of that paper. Rev. 
 J. M. Watt, was about retiring from his position, it devolved upon 
 the senior editor to rejoin to that communication. The editor 
 felt called upon, in terms which be could not mistake, cither to re- 
 pudiate the article from the ' Watchman,' or to defend it. And 
 while he freely acknowledged that there was a portion of that ar- 
 ticle obnoxious to the charge of injustice, from which he cheerfully 
 withdrew any implied endorsement which its simple republication 
 involved, he at tlie same time felt bound to maintain, that the main 
 ecope of the argument it contained, was subject to no such charge, 
 and could be, in his opinion, successfully maintained. (Perhaps it 
 is due to the editor, to state, that the article from the ' Watchman' 
 was copied by his junior associate, and In print some time before be 
 saw it.) He therefore took the ground, " That tue Episcopacv of 
 Mktuodism is a.vti-Demockatic and axti-Repcblican; tuat in so 
 B
 
 xii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 FAR AS ITS OPERATION IS UNRESTRICTED BY MODIFYING AGENCIES, IT IS 
 ESSENTIALLY AND NECESSARILY IN DIRECT ANTAGONISM TO THE GENIUS 
 
 OF OUR FREE INSTITUTIONS)" and that its origin and history, up to this time, 
 had developed a series of facts and principles totally irreconcilable tcith Ame- 
 rican Democracy. On the other baud, the pastor of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church maintained, That the analogy between the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church Government and the government op 
 the United States, in those points in which the great Head of the Church 
 has cdlowed scope for human legislation, was striking. This position he 
 believed he could satisfactorily establish, and therefore felt bound 
 to accept the issue tendered in the above proposition by the senior 
 editor of the ' South Western Baptist.' The discussion which was 
 thus commenced, continued in the columns of the ' Baptist,' with 
 occasional intervals, until the latter part of November, 1855_. 
 
 Such, in brief, is the history of the origin of a discussion, which 
 is now offered to the public in this form by the parties, in resjponse 
 to the wishes of their respective denominations, which they, do not 
 feel at libsrty to disregard. As far as can be ascertained, some 
 seventeen Baptist Associations in Alabama, as well as the Florida 
 Baptist State Convention, have called on us to publish it in book 
 form. Several Quarterly Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, South, have united in the same request. A few extracts 
 from the Minutes of some of these bodies, will furnish the reader 
 with our apology for consenting to its publication in this form: 
 
 From the Minutes of the Tuskegee Association. 
 
 " We observe that a very able discussion has lately been carried 
 on through the columns of the ' South Western Baptist,' between the 
 editor and the Rev. E. J. Hamill, relating to the organization and 
 government of a scriptural Church,' and the claims of Episcopacy to 
 a gospel origin, and as contrasted with the genius of our [civil] in- 
 stitutions. Your committee are of opinion that this discussion 
 should be published entire, and that such addenda be furnished by 
 the editor. Elder Samuel Henderson, as shall exhibit the teachings 
 of the Scriptures as to the constitution and government of a pro- 
 perly organized Church. Your committee would recommend the 
 adoption of the following resolutions:
 
 INTRODUCTION. xiii 
 
 " 1. Resolved, That this Association do most earnestly request the 
 editor of the ' South Western Baptist,' EMcpSamuel Hendedsox, to 
 publish, in a more durable form, the discussion lately concluded be- 
 tween himself and the Rer. E. J. HAiiiLL, above alluded to, adding 
 thereto such remarks upon scriptural Church organization and dis- 
 cipline as he may think expedient.* 
 
 '•■ 2. Resolved, That the thanks of this Association, and of the de- 
 nomination generally, are due to Brother Hexderson, for the able 
 manner in which he has conducted said discussion. 
 
 " 3. Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the chair, 
 to raise funds to aid Brother Hexdekson to publish said discussion 
 in book form." 
 
 Extract from the proceedings of the Fourth Quarterly Conference, Tuskegee 
 Station, Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
 
 " "Whereas, a discussion has been going on for some time, in the 
 •■ South Western Baptist,' between Jlev. E. J. Hamill and Rev. Sam'l. 
 IIexderson, on the question of the Republicanism of the govern- 
 ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church: And whereas, we believe 
 the publication of this discussion in permanent form would promote 
 the interest of truth, and effectually defend our Church polity from 
 unjust assaults; therefore, 
 
 "Resolved, By the members of the Fourth Quarterly Conference, 
 Tuskegee Station, Alabama Conference, Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 South, that we do recommend the publication of said discussion in 
 permanent form. 
 
 "Resolved, secondly. That the following persons, J. W. Willis, J. H. 
 Smith, and Dr. R. W. Howard, be appointed a committee to confer 
 with the Rev. Samuel Hexdeksox, and other members of the Bap- 
 tist Church, and take sucli steps as may be deemed necessary in or- 
 der to secure the joint publication of the aforesaid discussion." 
 
 • For the purpose of securing the cooppralion of the Rev. Mr. Ilaniill and the Me- 
 iho'lift bretliren, m the puhlication of the work, as well as to reniler it as acceptable as 
 posftililc to all parties, the Editor of the .S. W. Baptist supposed that liis brethren would 
 not take it amiw, if he declined acceding this request. He has ii» course of prcriaration 
 Mime articles on "Church Government," which he expects to publish in a separate 
 form. In thccoar<eofa few months.
 
 -%: 
 
 xiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 From the 3Iinufes of the Coosa River Bcqjtist Association. 
 " 1st. Resolved, That* we liigbly approve both the spirit and ability 
 which Brother Henderson has evinced in the late discussion in the 
 ' South Western Baptist,' with the Rev. E. J. Hamill, on the ques- 
 tion, "Is Methodist Episcopacy, in its nature and tendencies, anti- 
 Democratic and anti-Republican,'" and request that it be published 
 as early as possible, in a more durable form." 
 
 Tuskaloosa Baptist Association. 
 " 3. Resolved, That we have viewed with decided interest and sa- 
 tisfaction, the progress and result of the late discussion on Methodist 
 Episcopacy, between the editor [of the ' S. AV. Baptist,'] and Rev. 
 Mr. Hamill, of the Methodist Church; and believing that the cause 
 of truth would be subserved thereby, cordially unite in requesting 
 Brother Henderson to give it to the public in a more convenient 
 
 and durable form." 
 
 # 
 
 Central Baptist Association. 
 
 * * * * " Yfe are of opinion that the publication of that discus- 
 sion, in book form, would greatly tend to promote the cause of truth. 
 We, therefore, recommend the adoption of the following resolutions: 
 
 " 2d. Resolved, That the editor of the ' South Western Baptist' be 
 requested, at as early a day as will suit his convenience, to publish, 
 in book form, the discussion between himself and the Rev. Mr. 
 Hamill, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, above alluded 
 to. . 
 
 " 3d. Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed at this 
 time, to procure subscriptions for said book." 
 
 Unittj Baptist Association. 
 
 " 'Wliereas, the discussion on Episcopal Church government, be- 
 tween Revs. Samuel Henderson and E. J. Hamill, as recently pub- 
 lished in the ' South Western Baptist,' has been conducted iu a mild 
 and Christian-like manner, and believing that the same is worthy of 
 being placed iu a more durable form: 
 
 "I. Resolved, That this Association most earnestly request the 
 Southern Baptist Publication Society to publish said debate, with
 
 I 
 
 INTRODUCTION. XV 
 
 such addenda as shall exhibit the teachings of the Scriptures, as to 
 the constitution and government of a properly organized Chuixh, 
 as a part of the religious literature of the Baptist denomination. 
 
 " 2. Resolved, That the thanks of this Association are hereby ten- 
 dered to Brother Henderson, for the able and Christian-like manner 
 in which he has conducted said discussion." 
 
 Alabama Baptist Association. 
 " TTe also recommend the publication of the late discussion in the 
 'South Western Baptist,' between the Rev. Sajiuel Henderson and 
 the Rev. E. J. HiMnx, in book pamphlet form^ with such additional 
 matter on Church government, as the said Rev. S. Henderson may 
 desire.'' 
 
 Liberty Baptist Association, {Chambers County.) 
 "Resolved, That it is the opinion of this body, that the publication 
 of the discussion recently concluded between Rev. S. Henderson 
 and Rev. E.J.Hamtll, on the tendencies of "Methodist Episcopacy," 
 would do much for the advancement of the cause of truth; that we 
 earnestly request Brother Hender.son to publish the same in a dur- 
 able form; that we will assist, as far as our ability will permit, in 
 its extensive circulation; and that acommittee of three be appoint- 
 ed to obtain subscribers to the work." 
 
 Salem Baptist Association. 
 
 "■Resolved, That this Association regards the recent discussion in 
 the ' South Western Baptist,' between Rev. Samuel Henderson and 
 Rev. Mr. Hamill, on the subject of Melkmlist Episcopacy, as peculiarly 
 interesting to the Baptist denomination, and as calculated to en- 
 lighten the people on that subject. 
 
 "Resolved, That we recommend the publication of said discussion 
 in a more durable form. 
 
 ''Resolved, That we appoint a committee of three to correspond 
 with Brother Henderson on the subject of its publication, and to 
 solicit subscriptions for the work." 
 
 judson Baptist Association. 
 " 2. Rcfolved, That the Editor of the ' S. W. Baptist ' be requested 
 to publish tlic discussion above alluded to in book form, at as early 
 a duy as will suit his convenience."
 
 xvi .. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Were it necessary, similar extracts from tbe Minutes of many 
 other Associations could be made. We must add, however, that 
 the Baptist State Convention of Florida, at its recent session, 
 passed resolutions, "joining in the request of the various Associa- 
 tions in Alabama," urging its publication. We would insert these 
 resolutions, but the Minutes of that body are not in our possession. 
 
 Oak Bowery Quarterly Conference, Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
 
 " Whereas, a discussion has been going on for some time, in the 
 columns of the ' South Western Baptist,' between the Kev. E. J. 
 Hauill and the Rev. Sam'l Henderson, upon -the question of the 
 Republicanism of Episcopal Methodism ; And whereas, we believe 
 its publication in permanent form would greatly promote the cause 
 of truth — would commend the beautiful Church polity of Method- 
 ism to the admiration of the candid — and would effectually silence 
 the unjust and groundless clamor against the Republicanism of Me- 
 thodism, now heard from certain quarters: And whereas, the spirit 
 of charity permeating the discussion on both sides, is a noble exam- 
 ple of the christian forbearance we should exhibit toward our oppo- 
 nents; therefore, 
 
 "Eesolved, By the members of the Fourth Quarterly Conference, 
 Oak Bowery Circuit, Alabama Conference, Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, South, that we do concur with the Quarterly Conference of 
 the Tuskegee Station, Alabama Conference, in recommending the 
 publication of the aforesaid discussion, and in the adoption of such 
 measures as will secure the same. • 
 
 SAM'L ARMSTRONG, P. E. 
 Jonathan Ware, Sec'y-" 
 
 Similar resolutions were passed by the Tuskegee Circuit, Ala- 
 bama Conference. P. R. Appleby, Sec'y. 
 
 The pastor of the Methodist Church desires it to be remembered, 
 that the discussion was conducted in a Baptist journal, and was, 
 therefore, known to but few of his Methodist brethren. And, more- 
 over, his ministerial engagements and circumstances over which he 
 had no control, prevented his attendance at any Methodist Annual 
 
 m
 
 INTRODUCTION. xvii 
 
 Conference, and also at any other Quarterly Conference but his 
 own. Nevertheless, in addition to the endorsement of his articles, 
 and the demand for the publication of the discussion by three large 
 and respectable Quarterly Conferences, there are demands, and sub- 
 scriptions for the publication of the work from prominent members 
 of five other stations and circuits in the Alabama Conference of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
 
 It will be seen that the number, respectability, and earnestness 
 of the foregoing requests, emanating from the two denominations, 
 left the parties no alternative. That the subject discussed is one of 
 vast importance, none will deny. Next to those vital principles in 
 the christian economy, which relate immediately to the salvation of 
 the soul, all will co^foss that we must place the relations, rights, 
 duties, and privileges of the citizenship of the commonwealth of 
 Israel. And any effort, humble though it may be, which may serve 
 to devclope these relations, rights and privileges, is not unworthy 
 the candid consideration of all right-minded christians. 'We flatter 
 ourselve.-^ that the following pages will not only serve some good 
 purpose in this respect, but that they will tend to allay the viru- 
 lence of sectarianism — that moral canlicr which now so sadly mars 
 the beauty of Zion — and also illustrate a truth which many good 
 men are loath to believe, that religious controversy is not incom- 
 patible tvith the mutual exercise of the candor, forbearance, and 
 charity which should ever adorn the christian character. 
 
 We, therefore, commit this volume to the charitable indulgence 
 of those who have called for its publication, and to the care of Him 
 without whose blessing, all our labors are in vain. 
 
 E. J. IIAMILL. 
 S. HENDERSON. 
 Tlskegee, January, 1856. 
 
 P. S. We have not felt at liberty to subject our articles to any 
 other revision than a bare correction of typographical errors.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 
 
 From the Western Watchman. 
 
 EPISCOPAL METHODISM— ANTI-AMEPJCAN. 
 
 " We are no Republicans, and never intend to be."— J. Weslkt. 
 
 EPISCOPAL METHODISM IS ANTI-iUIERICAN IK ITS SPIRIT AND 
 TENDENCY, AND A DANGEROUS FOE TO REPUBLICANISM. 
 
 1. Episcopal Methodism was anti-ATnerican in its origin in 
 this country. — In 1784, three regularly ordained clergy- 
 men were sent over from England to this country, one 
 of whom had been ordained a bishop. This bishop or- 
 dained one Francis Asbury as the bishop of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church in America.* The first General Con- 
 ference was held in Baltimore, lt84. This Conference 
 determined that the gpvernmentof the Methodist Church 
 should be Episcopal — that is, a government of bishops. 
 Those who composed this Conference were ministers, 
 and only ministers, though there were then in the Mc- 
 
 • Discipline. Part I. chap. i. sec. 1.
 
 2 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 thodist societies in the United States, 14,988 members ! 
 Now, here we find that the people were never consulted 
 at the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 — they had no representatives present. But a. few min- 
 isters of themselves framed the government without the 
 consent of the 'people, and have held all legislative, ju- 
 dicial, and executive prerogatives under their own con- 
 trol ever since. By virtue of this usurped authority, 
 this body has imposed upon the people articles of faith, 
 without either their advice or consent, and^us has. vio- 
 lated the free exercise of conscience and the right of 
 private judgment on the part of the laity, in respect to 
 matters with which their personal salvation is insepar- 
 ably connected. What more has the Papacy done in 
 controlling the faith of its adherents ? Now, let any 
 one compare the above statement with the Declaration 
 of Eights adopted by the Continental Congress, October 
 14, 1114,* and he will find that the very acts of despot- 
 ism of which our ancestors complained, and which led 
 to the adoption of our glorious Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence, w^ere perpetrated by these originators of Me- 
 thodist Episcopacy in the United States. Americanism 
 recognizes the right of the people to frame their own 
 government. Episcopal Methodism violated this right 
 in its origin. It is, therefore anti-American in its 
 origin. 
 
 2. Episcopal Methodism is anti-American in the sup- 
 port it gives to this unwarranted assumption of power. 
 
 * Declaration of Rights. — " Resolved, 4, That the foundation of 
 English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people 
 to participate in their legislative council."
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 3 
 
 The laws of the Methodist Episcopal Church are made 
 by the General Conference. The General Conference 
 is composed of travelling preachers. The members of 
 the General Conference are appointed by the Annual 
 Conferences — the Annual Conferences are composed ex- 
 clusively of travelling preachers. No one can be elect- 
 ed a member of the General Conference but a travelling 
 preacher. No one can vote for members of the General 
 Conference but travelling preachers.* The people have 
 no representatives in the law-making department ; the 
 General Conference controls the entire Church, both in 
 its faith and practice, and thus destroys the very foun- 
 dation of all religious liberty, and provides a basis for 
 the most absolute despotism. Is not this anti-Ame- 
 rican ? 
 
 Again : the bishops arc appointed by the travelling 
 preachers. They hold their office during life, unless re- 
 moved for crime. The destiny of all the itinerant preach- 
 ers is placed in the bishop's hands ; from his decision 
 they have no appeal ; they must either go to their ap- 
 pointments or cease to be travelling preachers. This 
 places the preachers in a state of dependence on Epis- 
 copal power. They can favor or oppress them in giving 
 them good or bad appointments. They can keep them 
 near home or send them far off. From these circum- 
 stances the bishops acquire unlimited power over the 
 preachers and people. Now, let it be remembered that 
 this power is assumed — not delegated by the people ; 
 they have no representative — no voice — no vote in the 
 government of the Church or in the election of the 
 
 * DiHciplinc. Part I., cliap. iii., sec. 2 and 3, qucs. 1.
 
 4 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 bishops, who are the head of the Church ; and yet, by 
 their money and influence, they support this assumed 
 power. Such support is anti- American. 
 
 3, Methodist Episcopacy is anti-American, because 
 the assumed power wliicli it supports is frequently ex- 
 ercised in an oppressive manner, and may at all times 
 be so exercised. The bishops possess unlimited power 
 over the preachers and the people. No appeal can be 
 made from the bishop's designation of a preacher to his 
 field of labor. The preacher may not wish to go to the 
 field assigned, and the Church may not desire to have 
 the preacher who is sent to them ; but there is no ap- 
 peal. Go he must, and have him the people must, or 
 they are both liable to excommunication from the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church. An instance or two will il- 
 lustrate this point : 
 
 "At the session of the New York Conference, in 1839, 
 it was in some way intimated to the Washington Street 
 Church, in Brooklyn, Long Island, that the Rev. B. 
 Griffin was to be appointed to that charge. The Church 
 accordingly, through a committee appointed for the pur- 
 pose, presented itself before the bishop and remonstrat- 
 ed against Mr. Griffin's being sent to them as their pas- 
 tor. But the remonstrance was disregarded, and Mr. 
 GriflSn was stationed at Washington Street." 
 
 "At the session of the New England Conference, in 
 1841, both of the large societies in Lowell, Mass., peti- 
 tioned for particular preachers ; but they were told that 
 they should not have the men they asked for. One of 
 the Churches (St. Paul's) then requested to be left with- 
 out a supply by the bishop — having made arrangemehts 
 to employ a local preacher. But the bishop regarded
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 5 
 
 not the request, but forced a preacher upon them. In 
 both these cases the preachers petitioned for also added 
 their request to the voice of the Churches ; so that the 
 wishes of both preachers and people were disregarded. 
 
 " The other Church, after being denied the preacher 
 they wanted, selected some four or five others, and 
 stated to the bishop that they would be satisfied with 
 either of them. But no ; they must not have either ; 
 and, to cap the climax of insult, the very man was sent 
 them to whom they had objected. In consequence of 
 rejecting their preachers and electing others, they were 
 publicly declared to be without the pale of the Church. 
 This alarming step of excommunicating whole Churches 
 without the form of a trial, develops another of the anti- 
 American features of Episcopal Methodism — especially 
 when it is considered that the subject was carried up to 
 the bishop, and he approved of it, and pronounced it 
 Methodism."* 
 
 I might multiply instances of this kind, but the limits 
 of this tract will not permit. The simple fact, that the 
 power thus assumed by Methodist bishops, and counte- 
 nanced and supported by the Episcopal Church, may, at 
 any time, be exercised oppressively, is suificient to prove 
 that this system is anti-American ; for Americanism 
 makes no provision for the exercise of oppression, but 
 constantly guards against the abuse even of delegated 
 power. Episcopal Methodism, on the contrary, coun- 
 tenances and supports the oppressive exercise of as- 
 sumed poWcr. It is therefore anti- American. 
 
 4. Episcopal Methodism is anti- American in its direct 
 
 • " Book for the Times," pp. 114-llG.
 
 6 • A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 tendency to suppress freedom of speech and of the press. 
 That this is its tendency, no one acquainted with the 
 system can consistently deny. Let a number of mem- 
 bers of an Episcopal Methodist Society express their 
 conviction that the government of their Church might 
 be bettered, — let them print their views and circulate 
 their opinions, and excommunication is the penalty at 
 once — either for orally discussing the matter, or print- 
 ing their views. Suppose the press was under the con- 
 trol of Episcopal Methodism, it could not utter a senti- 
 ment at variance with the "Discipline" without being 
 placed under interdict. A Methodist preacher cannot, 
 dare not publish a book that shall encourage free in- 
 quiry into Episcopacy, or that will induce discussion 
 of its merits, without the fear of exclusion.* Now, 
 how does Eome prevent the freedom of the press where 
 she has not political power ? By this bugbear of excom- 
 munication. Place the free press of America under the 
 control of Methodist Episcopal bishops, and there 
 could be no free discussion — Republicanism would be 
 strangled and the car of liberty rolled backward. The 
 Methodist Episcopal press now is under the control of 
 the bishops ; the editors of all the papers, magazines, 
 books, tracts, &c., are appointed by the Conference, 
 with the approbation of the presiding bishop. 
 
 * Discipline. Part TIL, chap. Ti., sec. 21. — "Any travelling 
 preacher who may publish any work or book of his own, shall be re- 
 sponsible to his Conference for any obnoxious matter or doctrine 
 therein contained." Compare these facts with the following, in 
 the Declaration of Rights. — "Resolved: That the people have a right 
 peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition 
 the King ; and that all prosecution, prohibitory proclamations, and 
 commitments for the same are illegal."
 
 METHODIST EPLSCOPACY. 1 
 
 If I am an American I must forget it in becoming an 
 Episcopal Methodist. If I love Republicanism, I must 
 not express my preference for it in the government of 
 the Church of which I am a member. Freedom of speech 
 is denied me on pain of exclusion. To speak of Repub- 
 licanism in Church government is to " sow dissension," 
 and that is to bo punished with excommunication. 
 Americanism encourages freedom of speech ; Episcopal 
 Methodism suppresses it ; it is, therefore, anti-xVmerican. 
 
 5. Episcopal Methodism is anti-American in support- 
 ing the assumption of temporal power by its bishops. 
 Why is it that we fear Romanism ? Not simply because 
 the votaries of the pope yield assent to the ridiculous su- 
 perstitions of their debasing religion ; not simply because 
 their priests and bishops exercise oppressively an as- 
 sumed power. This last feature is anti- American in 
 Romanism as w^ell as Episcopal Methodism; but this 
 does not trouble us. If Romanists or Methodists choose 
 to degrade themselves by submission to priests or 
 bishops, and voluntarily sacrifice that liberty which, as 
 freemen, they have a riglit to enjoy, it is their own 
 fault. But the supporting of assumptions to temporal 
 power is just cause of alarm. The effort of Romish 
 bishops to gain the control of all the Catholic Church 
 property, has been loudly decried, and some noble in- 
 stances have occurred where even Roman Catholic con- 
 gregations have determined, in the exercise of their 
 freedom as American citizens, to resist these arrogant 
 demands. But it seems to be forgotten that Episcopal 
 Methodist bishops make the same demand, and this de- 
 mand is submitted to without a murmur, by American 
 Methodists. Wlio hold the deeds for every incli of
 
 8 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ground and every Episcopal Methodist Church in the 
 land ? — The Conference, alias the bishops. Where is the 
 Methodist Episcopal congi'egation that has dared to fol- 
 low the example of the Roman Catholic congregations 
 above alluded to, in opposing this arrogant assumption 
 of temporal power ? Let Americans in the Episcopal 
 Methodist Church blush to be told that, with all their 
 boasted intelligence and freedom, they fear excommuni- 
 cation from their bishops more than Roman Catholics 
 feared the pope's nuncio, or the bulls of Pio None him- 
 self. 
 
 A vast amount ef pi'operty is thus held under the con- 
 trol of Methodist bishops. A lay member of the Church 
 has no voice in the disposition of funds which he him- 
 self aided to raise. The preachers can dispose of it only 
 by suggesting the way in which it may be appropriated. 
 The bishops control it, and may designate it as they 
 s^e fit. 
 
 Now, is there no danger to American liberty from a 
 hierarchy possessing such ample pecuniary resources 
 as these ? Are the bishops of the Episcopal Methodist 
 Church so immaculately pure as to be beyond the reach 
 of selfish and sectarian preferences ? — May the time not 
 arrive when they will consider it to be their duty to use 
 their vast influence and assumed power in politics ? — 
 May they not conclude that they will be doing God ser- 
 vice by using their influence to induce political action 
 which will favor Episcopal Methodism ? The support 
 which they see the lay members of their Churches giv- 
 ing to their assumptions of temporal as well as spiritual 
 power, has a direct tendency to encourage them to ex- 
 ercise that power in controlling the affairs of State for
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 9 
 
 their own advancement, and so as to secure the continu- 
 ance of their power unmolested. The man who can see 
 and feel it right to exdrcise a bishop's office in the Epis- 
 copal Methodist Church, can scarcely see it wrong to 
 exercise a monarch's office in the State ; for both are 
 alike, and equally anti- American. This leads me to the 
 second member of my proposition, viz : 
 
 EPISCOPAL METHODISM IS A DANGEROUS FOE TO REPUBLICANISM. 
 
 I have shown beyond dispute, that it is an ecclesias- 
 tical despotism. Any one who will carefully examine 
 the system, will perceive that Eepublicanism and Epis- 
 coi^al Methodism are perfectly antagonistic. Eepub- 
 licanism admits and insists on the right of the people to 
 frame the government under which they are to live ; but 
 Episcopal Methodism acknowledges no such right. Ee- 
 publicanism provides for the correction of abuses in ad- 
 ministering government, by the frequent election of 
 law-makers by the voice of the people. Episcopal 
 Methodism places it beyond the power of the people to 
 change their law-makers, however oppressive their 
 enactments may be. Eepublicanism provides also for 
 the election, by the people, of executive and judicial 
 officers ; Episcopal Methodism assumes these powers 
 without consulting the people. In a Eepublic, the pub- 
 lic moneys and public buildings are under the super- 
 vision of the sovereign people ; but in the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, these are controlled by the bishops. 
 In a Eepublic, the people choose their own public ser- 
 vants ; but Episcopal Methodism forces on the people 
 such teachers as the bishop may choose to send them.
 
 10 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 I might go on and indefinitely exhibit the features of 
 antagonism between the two. But will not these suffice 
 for any unprejudiced, independent American ? Can it 
 be possible, then, that the influence of this anti- American 
 hierarchy can be anything but injurious to Republican- 
 ism ? In ecclesiastical matters, the laity are but the 
 tools of the bishops and priests — they may become so in 
 political matters. It is a well known fact, developed in 
 the history of the world, that religious liberty must pre- 
 cede civil liberty ; and it is no less true that an eccle- 
 siastical despotism will, sooner or later, if permitted to 
 exert its influence unchecked, beget political despotism. 
 
 This is the direct tendency of Episcopal Methodism — 
 for if despotism be right m the Church it is right in the 
 State — if it be wrong in the State it is wrong in the 
 Church. But Episcopal Methodism declares it to be 
 right in the Church ; it must, therefore, encourage it in 
 the State, So far as the influence of Episcopal Method- 
 ism extends, so far the true spirit of freedom is crushed, 
 and our Republicanism is endangered. 
 
 But again : the very organization of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church is dangerous to the liberties of a free 
 people. Suppose a crisis to arrive in political action, 
 in which the hierarchy of the Methodist Church is inter- 
 ested. From the dependence of all the parts on one 
 great central power, it is easy to perceive ho# the suf- 
 frages of most of the members may be controlled by the 
 bishops. Let the bishop suggest to the presiding el- 
 ders that the interests of their ecclesiastical despotism 
 will be subserved by the election of a certain set of men 
 to office ; the presiding elders use their influence over 
 the preachers, the preachers over the class-leaders, and
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. H 
 
 the class-leaders over their class-members, and thus the 
 balance of power in a political contest may rest in the 
 hands of seven Episcopal Methodist bishops. There is 
 as much danger of this, as there is of Romanism accom- 
 plishing a similar result, provided the occasion requires 
 it. It may be said that the members of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church are too independent to be thus influ- 
 enced ; but while they submit to the degradation to 
 which I have shown they are subjected in Church mat- 
 ters, let them not speak of independence in political 
 matters. Let them become ecclesiastically free, and 
 then it may be hoped that they would dare to become 
 politically free, if the bishop undertook to prevent it. 
 
 I have thus briefly shown that Episcopal Methodism 
 is anti-American in its spirit and tendency, and that it 
 is a dangerous foe to Eepublicanism. I haA'^e shown 
 that it had its origin in usurpation ; that its very or- 
 ganization provides for the support and extension of 
 assumed power, and that this power may be oppressive- 
 ly exercised without restriction. I have shown that 
 Methodist Episcopacy contains in itself the very ele- 
 ments of an absolute despotism, and therefore must ul- 
 timately, unless checked, subvert and destroy our Re- 
 publican institutions. In doing this, I have uttered no 
 harsh epithets ; I have insinuated nothing against the 
 scripturalness of Methodist doctrines, or the piety and 
 godliness of Methodist Church members. I have sim- 
 ply spokeiv as an American citizen, and I call on every 
 true American in the Methodist Episcopal Church to 
 use his influence to effect a radical reform in this mat- 
 ter. The time has come when Americanism and Ro- 
 manism are arrayed in hostile attitudes. Remember
 
 12 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 that you are not prepared to stand by Americanism 
 while you are the subjects of a hierarchy. The taunt 
 will come with irresistible force from the vassals of 
 the pope : " Is despotism any more sinful or dangerous 
 in the Komish Church than in the Methodist?" Oh! 
 then, be Americans — be freemen — throw off your eccle- 
 siastical chains, and then you will be prepared consis- 
 tently to aid your fellow countrymen in breaking the 
 yoke of ecclesiastical despotism with which Eome has 
 bound her ignorant and degraded subjects ! 
 
 April 19th, 1855,
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY 13 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 EPISCOPAL METHODISM NOT ANTI-AMERICAN. 
 
 "Wesley's loyalty ; Methodists love their doctrines ; General Con- 
 ference cannot change doctrines ; Ministers called of God, and 
 sent out by His people ; Two orders in the ministry ; Bishop 
 Hamline's resignation ; Apostolic itinerancy ; Lay delegation ; 
 Peculiar institution ; A Bishop has no vote ; Members tried by 
 their Societies ; Freedom of Opinion ; Appointing power of 
 Bishops exercised wisely ; Bishops hold no Cllurch property ; 
 Morbid imagination. 
 
 Kev. Messrs. Hexdersox and Watt : 
 
 Deur Sirs : I find in your paper of the 19tli April, an 
 article with the caption, " Episcopal Methodism — Anti- 
 American," taken from the "Western Watchman," re- 
 flecting severely upon the Church polity of Methodism. 
 I should not deem the article worthy of a reply^ but for 
 its serious publication in so respectable a journal as the 
 Southwestern Baptist. 
 
 I shall offer no comment upon the presumption or ma- 
 lignity, which could venture to misrepresent so grossly, 
 the Church government and patriotism of the largest 
 body of Christians in the United States, but shall briefly 
 state the theory of Methodism, upon the points in 
 question. 
 
 And first, — It is true that John Wesley, the Methodist, 
 as well as Rev. Thomas Chalmers, the Presbyterian, and 
 2
 
 14 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Kev. Kobert Hall, the Baptist, were good subjects of the 
 English monarchy ; and this being the case, they were 
 not culpable in obeying the injunction — " to fear God and 
 honor the King." 
 
 Secondly, — The charge that the Methodist ministry 
 " has imposed upon the people articles of faith without 
 their consent," is absurd. Is it possible for any sane 
 mind to believe that the Methodist Church swells her 
 numbers by force ? ! ! ! 
 
 Thirdly, — There is no power in any of our Church 
 Courts to change our articles of faith. On page 29, 
 Methodist Discipline, we read, " the General Conference 
 shall not revoke, alter, or change our articles of reli- 
 gion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doc- 
 trines." 
 
 This restrictive rule rests upon the fact, that we be- 
 lieve our articles of religion, and rules of doctrines are 
 taught in the Bible ; and we do not presume to think 
 We can improve Divine legislation. 
 
 Fourthly, — We believe our ministry must be called of 
 God ; the evidences of this call, are gifts, grace, and 
 fruit ; the judge of this evidence, is the society of which 
 the candidate for the ministry is a member; hence, in 
 the Methodist Church, no one can be admitted into the 
 ministry without the recommendation of the laity. 
 
 Fifthly, — Our Church teaches, and our standard writ- 
 ers contend, that there are but two orders in the minis- 
 try, viz., deacons and elders ; and that Presbuteros and 
 Episcopos, are terms used interchangeably, in the New 
 Testament, to express the same office. A single fact in 
 the history of Methodism, will show our view of minis- 
 terial grades more clearly than many arguments.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 15 
 
 Bishop Hamline, of the Northern Methodist Church, a 
 man: of the purest character, voluntarily resigned his 
 Episcopacy, and is now acting- simply as a Methodist 
 Presbyter. Hence, our Episcopacy is a mere supcrin- 
 tendency or presidency ; a kind of permanent modera- 
 torship. , 
 
 Sixthly, — We believe that the distribution of our 
 ministers to their several fields of labor, upon the itiner- 
 ant plan, is the best mode of imitating the Apostles, 
 who went from city to city — a mode admirably adapted 
 to spread scriptural holiness through the lands — and 
 we also think that this distribution of the ministers, and 
 the laws regulating this itinerancy, should be made 
 with a conscientious regard for the well-being of the 
 whole Church, but, by those only who submit to the 
 sacrifices of the itinerancy, and upon whom these laws 
 mainly operate, namely, the ministry ; nevertheless, in 
 all other enterprises, financial or otherwise, in which the 
 laity are equally concerned with the ministry, we admit 
 lay delegation ; for instance, in the commission to lo- 
 cate the contemplated Male College of the Alabama 
 Conference, to meet in Summcrficld next July, we have 
 two lay delegates for one ministerial delegate. AVe 
 have also in our Conferences, joint Boards of Finance, 
 composed equally of laymen and ministers. 
 
 Seventhly, — We have an institution, peculiar to Me- 
 thodism, which places all ranks of our ministry upon 
 the same platform ; that is, all, from the lowest to the 
 highest, have to pass through a periodical examination 
 of character. At our General Conferences, a Committee 
 on Episcopacy, composed of the very men over whom 
 the bishops preside in their several Annual Conferences,
 
 16 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 review the entire judicial acts and personal character of 
 all our bishops ; they summon the bishops before their 
 bar at pleasure, and freely censure or approve, as seem- 
 eth g-ood in their sight. It will not be forgotten by the 
 Southern people, that it was a too free exercise of this 
 power over the bishops, in the case of the excellent 
 bishop J. 0. Andrew, on account of his connection with 
 slavery, which divided our Church into the two great 
 branches. Northern and Southern. 
 
 Eighthly, — There is but a single officer in our Church 
 who is denied the privilege of voting in any and all of 
 our Church Courts, and that is a bishop, who has not 
 even the casting vote in our General or Annual Confer- 
 ences, or in any other Church body. 
 
 Ninthly, — No member in our Church can be tried or 
 expelled by any minister, or body of ministers, but only 
 by a jury of his peers — the members of the society to 
 which he belongs. 
 
 Tenthly, — The charge that "freedom of speech upon 
 Church matters, is interdicted upon pain of exclusion," 
 the facts in the case will show to be utterly groundless. 
 It is true, we would allow no man to promulge Uni- 
 tarianism or Universalism, and still retain his member- 
 ship with us. For any evangelical denomination to 
 suffer this, would be to abandon Christianity ; but upon 
 the minor questions, which may naturally arise among 
 those who have adopted the same faith and practice, 
 the freest expression of sentiment is indulged without 
 blame. 
 
 The free discussion in the General Conference of 1844, 
 upon the question whether or not the Conference could 
 suspend Bishop Andrew, without the least charge
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 17 
 
 against his moral character, which was really done, 
 and the proposition introduced by Dr. Smith, of Virginia, 
 into the General Conference of 1850, at St. Louis, to re- 
 model our whole General Conference system, so as to 
 have two houses instead of one, and in a form analogous 
 to the House of Eepresentatives and Senate of the Unit- 
 ed States ; these facts, with the abundant memorials 
 sent up to every General Conference, are ample testi- 
 mony that the widest latitude of opinion is enjoyed by 
 our entire membership, without censure. I may also 
 add, in contradiction to a reckless statement of the 
 writer in question, that the editors of all our papers, 
 magazines, books, tracts, &c., are elected by the Gene- 
 ral Conference, whether from the ranks of the itinerancy 
 or from other departments, as they please, and without 
 the slightest reference to the wish of the bishops. Dr. 
 Bond, the editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal, 
 in New York, is not a member of any Annual Confer- 
 ence whatever. 
 
 Eleventh, — Of the charge that the power of the bishop, 
 with the aid and advice of the presiding elders, to make 
 appoiulments, "is frequently exercised in an oppressive 
 manner," I remark, if the wiiter had said, that those 
 who arc voluntarily subject to this power are not unfre- 
 quently called to make sacrifices, in going to the moun- 
 tains and swamps, and frontier wilds, to preach the gos- 
 pel to every creature, this is unquestionably true ; but 
 that the acts of these honored men of God, arc ever in- 
 tentionally oppressive, is inci'edible. It is reasonable to 
 assume that these men desire, at least, to promote the 
 interests of Methodism, and will therefore use that 
 power, which they hold under strict responsibility, to
 
 18 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 accomplish this design, and not to defeat it by glaring 
 oppression. Can it be possible, then, that such men 
 would adopt the suicidal policy with which they are 
 charged ? No ! it were impossible, except they were 
 destitute not only of moral character but of re«son also. 
 
 Twelfth, — The charge that "Methodists degrade them- 
 selves by submission to bishops, and that no Methodist 
 congregation has dared to follow the example of some 
 Eoman Catholic congregations, in opposing the demand 
 of our bishops to control all the Methodist Church pro- 
 perty, moneys, and buildings;" this is a charge so utter- 
 ly astounding to me, that I almost feel wanting in self- 
 respect to formally deny it. But, as Solomon says — 
 " answer a fool according to his folly," — I therefore say 
 that our bishops have not a solitary cent's worth of in- 
 terest in our entire Church property. Let any one look 
 at the deeds of the Methodist Church in Tuskegee^ and 
 of the new Methodist College erecting in our town. The 
 proof is at hand. 
 
 Lastly, — It is charged " that the balance of power, in 
 a political contest, may rest in the hands of seven Me- 
 thodist bishops ; they may suggest to the presiding el- 
 ders, these may exercise their influence over the iDroach- 
 ers, these again over the class-leaders, and these last 
 over the class members ;" thus "the suifrages of most of 
 the members may be controlled by the bishops, for the 
 election of a certain set of men to office," and therefore, 
 "Methodist Episcopacy must ultimately, unless checked, 
 destroy our Eepublican institutions." 
 
 This accusation is in full proof that the writer of the 
 article you have copied from the Watchman, is a man 
 of wonderfully creative imagination. DeQuincy's Opium
 
 - . METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 19 
 
 Eater never saw horrid imag-es come trooping more ra- 
 pidly before his fancy. He should be classed with the 
 most inventive of the poets, but for his hypochondriac- 
 ism — a little medical treatment would be of service to 
 him. May he live forever ! But poetry aside ; to affirm 
 that I, for instance, could control the votes of such men 
 as David Clopton, Judge Dougherty, J. B. Bilbro, and 
 Wm, H. Staiford ; and that these can in turn influence 
 the votes of such class-members as J. W. Willis, Robt. 
 F. Ligon, James A. Smith, J. D. Porter, and other Me- 
 thodists ; to affirm this, I say, is about as generous, as 
 just, and as true, as it would be solemnly to assert that 
 the Rev. Samuel Henderson can control at his pleasure, 
 the votes of such Baptists as Chief Justice Chilton, 
 Chancellor Mason, Dr. Battle, and others. I confess, 
 Messrs. Editors, with these facts before me, which I 
 stand ever ready to defend, I was not a little surprised 
 that the article thus reviewed, should have been admit- 
 ted into the columns of the South Western Baptist. As 
 an act of justice to your fellow citizens, I respect- 
 fully ask the publication of this article in your paper. 
 
 Respectfully yours, &c. 
 E. J. HAMILL, 
 Pastor of the M. E. Chitch, TusJiegee, Ala. 
 May 3a, 1855, 
 
 We, the undersigned, respectfully request the public 
 cation of the foregoing in the South Western Baptist. 
 
 Robert L. Mays, 
 JouN B, Bilbro, 
 David CLorxoN.
 
 20 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 REPLY TO LETTER I. 
 
 Courtesy Extended ; Two enquiries ; Great names do not cliange 
 Error into Truth ; The power of a religious theory true or false, 
 in the formation of character ; Our Positiox Defined ; Lexico- 
 graphical definition of terms ; Application of these definitions 
 to the subject in debate ; Annual and General Conferences com- 
 posed only of bishops and travelling preachers ; Exclusion of lay- 
 men from these bodies ; The clergy the basis of representation ; 
 Episcopacy never to be changed | Aa effort to change it rebuked ; 
 The legislative, executive, and judicial departments of govern- 
 ment all filled exclusively by the clergy ; Dr. Bascom's opinion ; 
 Methodist Episcopacy deprives laymen of the right of choosing 
 their own pastors ; Anecdotes of Dr. Rippon and Robert Hall ; The 
 argumcntum ad homincm ; Extent of oiu* endorsement of the 
 article from the Western Watchman. 
 
 It always affords us pleasure to open our columns to 
 any person or community to vindicate themselves from 
 intentional or unintentional misrepresentation. The ar- 
 ticle to which the foregoing- communication refers, pur- 
 ports to have b.een written by an American citizen. It 
 is assumed that he has most grossly, wantonly, and 
 malignantly assailed the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 Far be it from us to be the means of circulating pre- 
 sumptuous and malignant misrepresentations " of the 
 largest body of Christians in the United States." We 
 can assure our good Brother Hamill, that, welcome as 
 he is to our columns, he would have been still more wel-
 
 . METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 21 
 
 come, had he not appended the endorsement to his com- 
 munication, of the three very respectable names, to se- 
 cure its publication. Highly as we respect these gen- 
 tlemen, all of whom are members of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church, we beg leave to assure them that their 
 honored pastor is always welcome to our columns, xoith- 
 out any endorsement. We hope, therefore, that he will 
 never again submit our mutual respect for each other 
 to such an unnecessary implication. 
 
 It is not our purjoose to answer in detail the thirteen 
 points embraced in Brother Ilamill's communication, as 
 it would introduce a range of discussion too extensive 
 for a single article. And moreover we are content that 
 the article from the Watchman, and the present one, 
 shall stand or fall on their own merits. We shall, there- 
 fore, confine our remarks to two very simple enquiries ; 
 these are — 
 
 First, — Is the Episcopal feature of the Methodist 
 Church a legitimate subject of newspaper discussion ? 
 
 Secondly, — Is Church polity, as an element in the for- 
 mation of political character, of sufficient importance to 
 merit the attention of the politician and statesman ? 
 
 And let it be distinctly premised here, that it is not 
 the piety, or even the doctrines of the Methodist Church 
 that we are now to discuss. No Protestant recognizes 
 the seraphic piety and the evangelical doctrines of a 
 Fenelon and a Bossuet in mitigation of the tyranny and 
 crimes of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Our remarks 
 will be confined to the isolated topic of Episcopacy. 
 The most illustrious names of this, or any other age, 
 never converted one error into a truth. And he who ex- 
 pects to shield an error behind the prestige of great and
 
 22 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 good names, no matter if they are as numerous as the 
 stars of heaven, has sadly mistaken the age in which 
 he lives. Whatever of charity we owe to men's per- 
 sons, it is certain we owe none to their errors. He who 
 compromits a principle out of complaisance to any man 
 or set of men, is unworthy to be trusted, either by God 
 or man. But to our first enquiry : 
 
 Is the Episcopal feature of the Methodist Church a le- 
 gitimate subject for n.ewspaper discussion ? Now, we 
 aver that it is ; as much so, indeed, as the ecclesiastical 
 polity of any other denomination on earth. It is a trans- 
 plant from a foreign to an American soil, and is no more 
 exempted from the oi'deal of criticism and serious inves- 
 tigation, than any other article of foreign manufacture. 
 That its type is tho Episcopal Church of England, the 
 established religion of that realm, we presume its most 
 devoted friends will not question. It is not sacrilege 
 for an American citizen to question the right of the 
 clergy to rule a constituency numbering nearly a mil- 
 lion and a half. But we will not suppose that our Me- 
 thodist brethren will claim this exemption; and we need 
 not seriously argue it. 
 
 We come now to consider the second question proposed 
 — Is Church polity, as an element in the formation of 
 political character, of sufficient importance to merit the 
 attention of the politician and statesman ? We think 
 that it is. Ever since the days of Constantino, ecclesi- 
 astical power has been invoked by secular pri,nces, as 
 an essential element in the government of their sub- 
 jects. It is at this day recognized by every despot of 
 Europe, not only as an organic law of his government, 
 but as being essential to enforce his authority. It can-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 23 
 
 not be denied that religion, whether pure and undefiled, 
 or perverted and corrupted, is the most powerful agency 
 which has ever been brought to bear upon human cha- 
 racter. Its unholy and corrupting alliance with every 
 government in Europe, is a recognition of this truth. 
 Even the infidel, Hobbes, defended religion on the ground 
 that it was an essential auxiliary in the hands of kings 
 to rule their subjects. Like the devil and his angels, 
 who lost not their power by the fall, religion loses not 
 its power by being corrupted and perverted to the bas- 
 est of purposes. The most virulent, merciless, and vin- 
 dictive persecutions which have ever darkened the pages 
 of Church history, have emanated from a corrupt Chris- 
 tianity. The reason of this is obvious. Eeligion, based 
 as it is upon the highest authority in the universe, ap- 
 peals to and develops the strongest principles and pas- 
 sions of the human soul ; and these become correspond- 
 ingly potent for good or for evil, according to the power 
 that directs them. When you appeal to a man's religi- 
 ous prejudices, you appeal to the highest principles and 
 motives that can operate upon moral agents. This, wc 
 say, is both objectively and subjectively a necessary" 
 truth. 
 
 Now, we boldly and fearlessly take the ground, that 
 THE Episcopacy of MEinoDisii is anti-Deiiocratic, and anti- 
 Eepublicax — that in so far as its operation is unrestric- 
 ted BY modifying agencies, IT IS ESSENTIALLY AND NECES- 
 SARILY IN DIRECT ANTAGONISM WITH OUR FREE INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 We are aware, that in taking this ground, wc are sub- 
 jecting ourselves to much Unmerited censure — the cen- 
 sure of those who cannot, or more properly will not, dis- 
 criminate between persons and principles. We are
 
 24 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 aware tliat there are those who will regard us as atlack- 
 ing, not a solitary principle in the system of "the largest 
 denomination of Christians in the United States," but as 
 denouncing the entire membership of that denomination 
 as anti-Democratic. But this has no terrors to us. We 
 shall fearlessly speak what we believe to be the truth, 
 be the consequences what they may. We hope to do 
 so, however, in the spirit- of the Gospel. 
 
 As words are the signs of ideas, the most obvious 
 method we can pursue in this investigation is, in the 
 first place, to ascertain the meaning of terms. Pursu- 
 ing this course, we turn to our great national standard, 
 Webster's Dictionary, and find the following definitions 
 of the terms involved in this discussion : 
 
 "Democracy, n,, government by the people ; a form of 
 government in which the supreme power is lodged in the 
 hands of the people collectively, or in which the people 
 exercise the powers of legislation." 
 
 "Eepublic, n., a commonwealth ; a state in which the 
 exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in the hands 
 of representatives elected by the people," &c. 
 
 "Episcopact, n., literally, oversight, or careful inspec- 
 tion ; applied particularly to the government of the 
 Church by bishops or prelates." H 
 
 " Episcopal, «-., belonging to, or vested in, bishops or 
 prelates; 2, governed by bishops." 
 
 Now, when we assert that the Episcopal feature of 
 the Methodist organization is anti-Democratic and anti- 
 Kepublican, wc are but asserting what every school- 
 boy may know in five minutes by turning to his dic- 
 tionary — that a form of government in which the su- 
 preme power is lodged in the hands of bishops or pre-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 25 
 
 lates, the clergy, is in manifest antag'onism with that 
 form of government in which such power is lodged in 
 the hands of the people, or of representatives elected by 
 the people. It were absurd to say that two such prin- 
 ciples ever can harmonize. If the bill of rights set 
 forth in the preamble of all our civil constitutions. State 
 and National, asserts a truth, that " all power is inherent 
 in the people" then we maintain that a government in 
 which the people have no voice, practically sets that 
 truth at defiance. 
 
 Who compose the annual and quadrennial Conferences 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church ? Let the Discipline 
 answer : — " Quest. 3. Who shall attend the yearly Con- 
 ferences ? Ans. All fravelling preachers in full connec- 
 tion, and those who are to be received into full connec- 
 tion." — p. 23. Again : " Qvest. Who shall compose the 
 General Conference, and what arc the regulations and 
 powers belonging to it ? Ans. 1. The General Confer- 
 ence shall be composed of one member for every twenty- 
 one members of each Annual Conference, to be appoint- 
 ed either by seniority or choice, at the discretion of such 
 Annual Conference : yet so that such representatives 
 shall have travelled at least four full calendar years 
 from the time they were received on trial by an Annual 
 Conference, and are in full connection at the time of 
 holding the Conference." — p. 20. And on page 21, on de- 
 fining the limitations and restrictions of the powers of 
 a General Conference, the following items occur : — " 3. 
 They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our 
 government, so as to do away Episcopacy, or destroy the 
 plan of our itinerant general superintendcncy. 4. They 
 shall not revoke or change the general rules of tho 
 3
 
 26 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 United Societies. 5. They shall not do away the privi- 
 leges of our ministers or preachers, of trial by a com- 
 mittee, and of an appeal ; neither shall they do away the 
 privileges of our members, of trial before the society, or 
 by a committee, and of an appeal." 
 
 Now, observe, first, that the Annual Conference is 
 composed, ex officio, of the clergy under appointment of 
 the bishops in that Conference. Even local preachers, 
 no matter what their piety and talents may be, have no 
 voice in its councils. Observe, secondly, that the basis 
 of representation in a General Conference, is^not the 
 membership of the Church, but the aforesaid clergy in 
 each State. In neither an Annual or General Confer- 
 ence is the voice of a layman or his representative ever 
 heard, unless it be by petition — a right which the most 
 perfect despot will allow his subjects. Observe, third- 
 ly, that this distinct feature of the Methodist Church is 
 never to be changed. The General Conference must not 
 *'do away Episcopacy J' It is recognised as an essential 
 organic law of the system, to do away with which, would 
 dissolve the whole fabric. That is to say, the recogni- 
 tion of the rights of the people, the private members, to 
 a representation in the Annual and General Conferences, 
 would be the death-knell of Methodist Episcopacy ! The 
 fathers of this Church have taken the special pains to 
 throw around this special feature of Methodism, the 
 sanctity and power of an irrevocable decree ! ! Any 
 effort to change it meets with a stern rebuke — such as 
 was administered by the General Conference, in 1824, 
 and in 1828, at which a large and respectable body of 
 ministers were expelled from the body, who subsequent- 
 ly formed the Methodist Protestant Church of the United
 
 3IETH0DIST EPISCOPACY. 2t 
 
 States. Call you this Eepublican Democracy ? A nu- 
 merous and respectable body of ministers and laymen, 
 from different parts of the United States, petition the 
 General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 so to modify its basis of representation as to permit the 
 voice of its laymen to be heard in its counsels, is re- 
 buked and denounced as schismatical and heretical, and 
 a solemn act of exclusion is pronounced against them ! 
 And yet there is nothing in Methodist Episcopacy but 
 what harmonizes most beautifully with American De- 
 mocracy ! And when we quote the very language of 
 the illustrious founder of Methodism, John Wesley, — 
 " We are not Republicans, and never intend to be," — ■ 
 and when we attempt to point (iut the featur|s of Me- 
 thodist polity which antagonize with the genius of our 
 free institutions, why, we have a " wonderfully creative 
 imagination. DeQuincy's Opium Eater never saw such 
 horrid images as come trooping . . . before his fancy. 
 A little medical treatment is" the proper remedy for 
 such a distemper 1 All "poetry" Brother Ilamill. It' 
 would tax " the most inventive of the poets " — nay, 
 much more inventive than have produced an " Iliad " or 
 a " Paradise Lost," we opine, to discover the Democracy 
 of Methodist Episcopacy. What an interesting task 
 that would be for an American citizen to sit down to the 
 serious matter of showing that a government by bishops 
 and clergy was perfectly consistent, nay, synonymous 
 with government by the people — that a representation 
 based upon the clergy was equivalent to a representation 
 based upon the people, the private membership of the 
 Church — that a legislative body in which the voice of the 
 people is never heard, or if heard, is only heeded as a mat-
 
 28 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 t'ei- of grace, is equivalent to a-legislative body in whicli 
 the people collectively exercise the controlling power ! 
 
 Again : government is divided into ihree departments 
 — Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. But in neither 
 of these departments are the private members of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church represented. They have no 
 power either to make, expound or execute the law. Even 
 if they pronounce the solemn act of exclusion against a 
 member, it is subject to appeal, and may be reversed 
 by the bishop or bishops : and "the word of a" bishop 
 " is the end of all strife." And that we may not be 
 considered uncharitable in this remark, we make the 
 following extract from the late Bishop Bascom's " De- 
 claration9of th'e Righte of Man." Let every Methodist 
 read and ponder it well. If he will not hear the word 
 of a bishop, (written to-be-sure lefore he became a bishop, 
 yet not the less authoritative with American readers on 
 that account,) he surely will not be persuaded by an 
 humble Baptist editor. But to the extract : 
 
 " Art. G. a government uniting legislative, judi- 
 cial, and executive powers in the hands of the same 
 men, is an absurdity in theory, and, in practice, tyranny. 
 The executive power, in every government, should be 
 subordinate to the legislative, and the judicial independ- 
 ent of both. Whenever, therefore, it happens that these 
 three departments of government are in the hands of the 
 same body of men, and these men not the representa- 
 tives of the people — first making the laws, then execut- 
 ing them, and finally the sole judges of their own acts, 
 there is no liberty ; the people are virtually enslaved, 
 and liable to be mined at any time. In a government, 
 civil or ecclesiastical, where the same men are legisla- 
 tors, administrators; and judges, in relation to all the 
 laws, and every possible application of them, the people^
 
 • METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 29 
 
 whether well or ill treated, are in fact slaves ; for the 
 only remedy against such a despotism is revolt. No 
 constitution can be presumed a good one, embodying 
 the principles of correct government, which does not 
 suflSciently guard against the chances and possibility of 
 mal-administration. All absolute governments owe 
 their character to the manner in which they are admin- 
 istered; whereas, in a representative government, with 
 proper checks and balances, it is the interest, even of 
 the vicious, to promote the general welfare, by conform- 
 ing to the laws. The greater the equality established 
 among men by governments, the more virtue and happi- 
 ness will prevail ; for where, the voluntary consent of the go- 
 verned is tliz basis of government, interest and duty combine to 
 proviote the common weal." 
 
 Finally. Methodist Episcopacy deprives the mem- 
 bership ofiihat Church of the, right of choosing their 
 own pastor^— a right as dear to the Lord's " freed men" 
 as any with which they are invested in the New Testa- 
 ment. The Churches sometimes petition the bishop for 
 some particular person of their choice, but how often 
 are their wishes disregarded ! We recollect some year 
 or two since, of reading in one of the regular journals 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church, some serious articles , 
 against the policy of yielding to this, the most humble 
 method of expressing a wish, in which the ground was 
 taken, if we remember correctly, that if the thing was 
 not stopped, it would virtually "do away with Episco- 
 pacy." And yet wo are called upon to believe— nay, 
 we are considered very uncharitable and bigoted if wc 
 will not believe — that a church organization in which 
 the right of the laity to choose their own pastors— those 
 who are'to break to them the bread of eternal life, and 
 who arc to be supported by their money, and assisted
 
 30 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 by their prayers and sympathies— is absolutely denied, 
 is, nevertheless, quite .consistent with American Demo- 
 cracy ! 
 
 But, says Brother Hamill, "John Wesley,, the Method- 
 ist, Thomas Chalmers, the Presbyterian, and Eobert 
 Hall, the Baptist, were good subjects of the English 
 Monarchy." True, they were ; they were mindful of the 
 Divine injunction, "fear God and honor the King." But 
 is not Brother Hamill aware that the form of Church Go- 
 vernment recognized by Hall, was as pure a Democracy 
 as that recognized by Baptist Churches, even in the 
 United States — and that it has been mainly through the 
 agencies of such men as Eobert Hall, and the Indepen- 
 dents of England, that the act of non-conformity was 
 extorted from the British crown, conferring the right 
 to worship God according to the dictates of one's own 
 conscience I And let it never be forgotten that, in our 
 struggle for independence, the Baptists and Independents 
 of Great Britain were universally on our side. Dr. Rip- 
 pon, pastor of a Baptist Church in London, writing to 
 Dr. Baldwin, pastor of a Baptist Church in Boston, dur- 
 ing the Revolutionary war, says to him— " When the 
 king's armies prevail, there is the cry of mourning, la- 
 mentation and woe amongst us ; but when the Ameri- 
 can army prevails, there is the shout of kings in our 
 camps." Robert Hall, the father of the distinguished 
 orator, and one of the most eloquent Baptist ministers 
 of his age, was an open and avowed friend of the Colo- 
 nies. The following anecdote of him and Dr. Ryland, is 
 worth relating : 
 
 "One evening our conversation turned on the subject 
 of the war with America, previously to the acknowledg-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 31 
 
 mcnt of the Independence of the United States. Mi*. 
 Hall said ' Sir, that war was Very unpopular, and -con- 
 sidered to be very unrighteous by men of true liberty 
 principles. My father, sir, warmly advocated the Ame- 
 rican cause. When I was a little boy, he took mo to 
 the school of Mr. Ryland, at Northampton, the father of 
 Dr. Eyland, of Bristol; this Mr. Ryland was very eccen- 
 tric, a'ad a violent partizan of the Americans; it was in 
 the hottest period of the war, sir, and many persons 
 were very indignant at the conduct of the English Go- 
 vernment. That war, sir, was considered as a crusade 
 against the liberty of the subject and the rights of man. 
 The first night we arrived at Northampton, from Arns- 
 by, sir, the two old gentlemen (my father and Mr. Ry- 
 land) talked over American politics until they both be- 
 came heated, on the same side of the question. At 
 length Mr. Ryland burst forth in this manner : ' Brother 
 S'all, I Avill tell you what I would do if I were General 
 Washington.' 'Well,' said my father, 'what would you 
 do ?' 'Why, Brother Hall, if I were General Washing- 
 ton, I would summon all the American oflBccrs ; they 
 should form a circle around me, and I would address 
 them, and we would offer a libation in our own blood, 
 and I would order one of them to bring a lancet and a 
 punch-powl ; and he should bleed us all, one by one, in- 
 to this punch-bowl ; and I would be the first to bare my 
 arm; and when the punch-bowl was full, and we had all 
 beea bled, I would call upon every man to consecrate 
 himself to the work, by dipping his sword into the bowl, 
 and" entering into a solemn covenant engagement by 
 oath, one to another, and would sicear by Him that sits 
 upon the throne and liveth forever and ever-, that Ave would 
 never sheath our swords while there was an English 
 soldier in arms remaining in America ; and tliis is what 
 I would do, Brother llall.' " — Greene's Reminiscences of 
 Robert Hall. 
 
 But wo must conclude. Brother Ilamill seems to con- 
 sider that it is quite Democratic that the trusteeship
 
 32 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 and location of Colleges should be placed in the hands 
 of a majorifr7 of laymen. Pardon us, Brother Hamill, 
 if we say this has nothing to do with the subject. We 
 are discussing the power of the bishops and clergy over 
 Churches, not Colleges. The privilege of locating a 
 College, or of being a trustee of it when located, has 
 about as much to do with the Episcopal government of 
 your Church, as the appointment of a servant to supply 
 your Annual Conference with water. The Methodist 
 Episcopal Church was no more organized to erect Col- 
 leges than any other Church. The subject of education 
 in that, as in all other denominations, is an appendage, 
 and enters not into its organic features. 
 
 Let us not be misimderstood or misrepresented. The 
 question is not whether Brother Hamill or ourself could 
 control the votes of such men as he names in his com- 
 munication. This is an argumentivm ad kominem, a mode 
 of argument usually resorted to for the want of a better ; 
 but the question is, whether a civil government, organ- 
 ized upon the principles of Methodist Episcopacy, could 
 be called with propriety a Democratic Republican Go- 
 vernment ? We say it could not. How far we have 
 proved this, is left to the candid reader. 
 
 As to the article to which Brother Hamill replies, as 
 copied from the Watchman into our paper, it contain- 
 ed matter proper to be published. It does not follow 
 that editors are considered as endorsing all the senti- 
 ments contained in every article copied into their paper. 
 Nor is it incumbent on them to sift and criticise each 
 argument which such selections maj^ contain. So far as 
 the article in question favors an assault upon Methodist 
 Episcopacy at the ballot box, we repudiate it, for in
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 33 
 
 voting, we never enquire as to what Chnrcli a man be- 
 longs ; but whether he is honest and capable, and 
 whether his views upon important political questions 
 correspond with our own. With respect, however, to 
 the position, which is the leading idea contained in the 
 article, and which we have above discussed, we believe 
 it to be true, and can maintain it.
 
 34 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY NOT ANTI-REPUB- 
 LICAN. 
 
 » 
 
 Christian discussion profitable ; Foreign topics ; Tlie Bible and its 
 Episcopacy a foreign importation ; Mormon the only system of 
 religion of American origin ; Mistakes corrected ; The advantages 
 of Itinerancy ; The Democi'atic principle acknowledged, that none 
 should make laws but those who are subject to them ; Itinerants 
 made such by the people ; Itinerants constitute their officers like 
 legislatures ; Power of the General Conference over bishops ; 
 Four points in which Church government should be unlike civil 
 government ; Methodist Church government bears a proper ana- 
 logy to our Federal Government ; Fancy sketch of the youth, 
 Bascom ; Anecdote ; Paul's definition of Fpiscopos ; The Baptist 
 discijiline ; Government it describes unlike our civil government ; 
 A sad picture ; An wn-Republican feature ; Robert Hall's view of 
 close communion. 
 
 •* He that is first in his own canse seemeth jast, bat his neighbor cometh and' search- 
 eth him."— Proverbs. 
 
 Dear Brother Henderson : 
 
 I thauk you for your kind regard, and hope the fra- 
 ternal feelings cherished for each other, for many years, 
 will not suffer abatement in our discussion. The en- 
 dorsement of my article by my brethren, was proper,
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 35 
 
 because the writer reviewed by me had attempted to 
 degrade them politically. In the preseiit case it is un- 
 necessary, and unendorsed. I cordially accept the invit- 
 ation you hav«' freely accorded me, to a place in your 
 columns. Discussion, conducted upon righteous prin- 
 ciples, is always profitable. Paul disputed daily in the 
 school of one^Tyrannus, and this continued by the space 
 of two years ; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard 
 the word of the Lord — a truly blessed result. xYnd so 
 it has ever been,' wherever truth has greatly extended 
 her conquests over the human mind, she has found in 
 controversy a powerful auxiliary. Hence we are of the 
 same mind upon your first proposition, that the Episco- 
 pacy of Methodism is a legitimate subject^or newspa- 
 per discussion — especially with a magnanimous oppon- 
 ent. The entire system of Methodist doctrines and 
 principles, invites investigation ; it shuns no scrutiny. ; 
 discussion, whether oral or written, but unfolds its wis- 
 dom and its beauty. As you do not controvert the thir- 
 teen points in my communication, except as they bear 
 upon the new issue you make, and as you repudiate the 
 slanderous article, from the " Watchman," in all points 
 save that contained in your proposition, I have done 
 with ^the anonymous slanderer, and cheerfully accept 
 debate on your terms, and contend that " The Episco- 
 pacy of Methodism is not anti-Republican." To give 
 your entire communication a respectful notice, I will, 
 first, dispose of some thoughts in your piece not impor- 
 tant to the controversy, and correct some mistakes into 
 which you have inadvertently fallen. 
 
 You have given us dissertations upon the facts — that 
 great na?nes do not excuse or sanctify errors — that cc-
 
 36 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 clesiastical power has been invoked by princes since 
 the days of Constantino, and that religious opinions, 
 whether true or false, are wonderfully potent in their 
 influence upon the human soul. Thesa are certainly 
 truths ; and I will not presume to dictate to you what 
 amount of elegant dissertation upon foreign topics you 
 may interweave into this debate. My du,ty is, to look 
 only to what bears upon the point in question. If our 
 Episcopal feature were, as you say, a transplant from a 
 foreign soil, it were no less worthy of acceptance on that 
 account ; for our Bible is a foreign importation. Moses, 
 Isaiah, Daniel, Paul, and John, were Hebrews. I know of 
 no system of religion of American origin but Mormonism, 
 and I am sure you have no love for that, though it does 
 baptize by immersion, and denounce infant baptism. 
 
 Suffer me now to correct the mistakes adverted 
 to. You say "the Episcopal Church of England is 
 the type of the Episcopal feature of the Methodist 
 Church." This is a very great error for a man of your 
 erudition. Your valuable time has been spent in more 
 important matters, perhaps, than the study of Church 
 government, or you would not have made so great a 
 mistake. The standard writers of both Churches ^ill 
 tell you there is an essential difference between the two 
 systems. We hold that the Bible makes but two orders 
 in the ministry — they contend, that without a third order 
 a Church cannot exist. " Powell, on Apostolic Succes- 
 sion," a work which our young ministers are required 
 to study, will give you the particulai:s. The next mis- 
 take I will point out, is of great importance to the ques- 
 tion before us. You say, " if private members pronounce 
 the solemn act of exclusion against a member, it is sub-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 3t 
 
 ject to appeal, and may be reversed by a bishop, and 
 the word of a bishop is the end of all strife."- Now, this 
 mistake of yours upon this very imjportant point, is pure 
 fiction, wholl}^ groundless. Our whole body of bishops 
 cannot even so much as vote, whether or not the least 
 of our members. shall be excluded from or reinstated in 
 our membership. With the slight acquaintance you have 
 with our system, you might easily have believed us anti- 
 Republican, or anything else. A better knowledge of 
 our excellent government will increase your esteem for 
 it. Your onslaught upon our Episcopacy, in ignorance 
 of the first principles of our system, demands that I 
 should call your attention to the proverb — " He that 
 answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is fully and 
 shame unto him." 
 
 You think our " Episcopacy deprives our members of 
 the right of choosing their pastors — a right dear to the 
 Lord's freemen." Are you aware that the Wesleyan 
 Methodist Church in England — our much loved mother 
 Church — has no bishops, and yet appoint their ministers 
 upon the itinerant plan, just as we do ? And moreover, 
 our Protestant Methodist brethren in our land, have no 
 bishops, and have lay delegations to the fullest possible 
 extent, and they also appoint ministers to their charges 
 upon the itinerant plan. Your argument is a non 
 causa jpro causa ; you have ascribed that to Episcopacy, 
 which is essential to, and inseparable from itinerancy, 
 whether with or without lay delegation and E[)iscopacy 
 — that is, the principle of sending several ministers in 
 succession to the same charge. This itinerancy you 
 cannot think anti- Republican, for all branches of Me- 
 thodism believe it to be the best mode of spreading the 
 4 
 
 443305
 
 38 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Gospel. It is ia imitation of Apostolic itinerancy. Paul 
 preached from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum — it 
 secures an efficient ministry, not only for the rich cities, 
 but for the sickly savannas, mountain wilds, and bleak 
 places of the earth— it is after the analogy of nature, in 
 propelling the rich blood, laden with nourishment, to 
 the extremities of the human system — it satisfies the 
 thirst for novelty, inlaid in the very structure of the 
 mind, as a basis for education — and as God has given 
 to one " the word of wisdom, to another the word of 
 knowledge, to another faith," &c., as he has sent out 
 men of divers talents and excellencies, to suit the di- 
 verse peculiarities of men ; the appointment of these 
 men successively to the same Churches, will make their 
 varied gifts fully available to the edification of the en- 
 tire membership of the Churches. Your own modesty 
 will admit, I think, that your permanent ministry in a 
 single Church, would be less profitable to that people 
 than a proper succession of labors of such men as your- 
 self and Brothers Tichenor, and DeVotie. And I know 
 that the high appreciation of your character abroad, 
 Tcreates a strong probability, that if you were sent upon 
 an itinerant plan, say to Montgomery and Marion, your 
 labors would be more richly blessed. Thus, both min- 
 isters and members would be blessed by the operation 
 of this Scriptural plan, and many secret griefs and mor- 
 tifications, such as are described in " the Shady Side," 
 would be escaped. 
 
 In this excellent plan of itinerancy, lies the philoso- 
 phy of our whole system — it is the key-stone of the arch 
 — take it away and many parts of our system are super- 
 fluous. We would then have no need for our annual
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 39 
 
 examinations of character, and for the rcceptiott of min- 
 isters into the travelling connection, and much else ap- 
 pertaining to the business of an Annual Conference 
 would cease to be. And strange as it may seem to you, 
 in all the business left to an Annual Conference, were 
 the itinerancy abolished — such as attention to Mission- 
 ary and Sunday Schools, and Tract Societies and Col- 
 leges, in all these, we have lay management, and lay 
 delegation. So that if lay delegation extends not to 
 the control of this distribution of ministers, and to the 
 enactment of laws regulating this distribution, it is be- 
 cause we believe too strongly in the Republican prin- 
 ciple, that laws should be made by those only who are 
 subject to them, and not by those on whom they cannot 
 operate. Moreover, in the very constituting of this iti- 
 nerancy, the representative principle is fully admitted ; 
 for all itinerants arc made such by two distinct acts of 
 the private membership. First, by granting a license 
 to preach, and secondly, by recommending the preacher 
 for admittance into the travelling connection, without 
 which, there is no admission. This procedure is anala- 
 gous to a bill, originating in the House of Representa- 
 tives, and sent to the Senate before it becomes law. If 
 these itinerants, tlius constituted, then go on and ap- 
 point other oflicers for life, it is analagous to the ap- 
 pointments for life by the President ; Heads of depart- 
 ments, and Senate, of Judges, and naval and military 
 officers. 
 
 Anotlier item of our economy which you do not under- 
 stand is this; you know our General Conference cannot do 
 away Episcopacy, but you do not know they can almdst 
 completely divest the bishops of the appointing power
 
 40 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 whenever tliey see proper. It was once voted so to 
 change it, when bishop Soule was elected, but he refus- 
 ed to accept the oiSce, unless they reconsidered the mat- 
 ter and left it as it was ; hence, he was not made bishop 
 until four years afterwards. These explanations make 
 the task of showing that we are not anti-Republican, 
 eas}'. Now, there are four points in which every form 
 of civil government should be unlike Church govern- 
 ment; but I shall contrast the latter with Republican- 
 ism only. In a Republic, the people frame their funda 
 mental laws; but in a Church government^ they are 
 framed by the Great Head of the Church for her; second- 
 ly, in a Republic, the people either directly or indirectly, 
 choose tlieir officers ; but in a Church government, God 
 must first, by His Spirit, call her officers — the ministry 
 — and it is allowed to the Church, in order to guard 
 against impostui'e, only to acknowledge that call ; and 
 then it cannot revoke their powers while their lives aje 
 blameless ; thii'dly, even aliens dwelling in a Republic, 
 must be siibject to its laws ; but aliens to the common- 
 wealth of Israel, may or may not place themselves un- 
 der any Church government ; and, in the last place, a 
 Republic inflicts civil pains and penalties, such as death, 
 upon offenders ; but Church governments inflict no civil 
 pains or penalties whatever, A Church, scripturally 
 organized, must, therefore, blend in its government the 
 theocratic element, for Christ is King; the ecclesiastic, 
 for he hath made such " overseers to feed the Church of 
 God;" and the Democratic element, for by their fruits 
 ye shall know them — 'Who are Christ's appointees. 
 Hence, the analogy between the government of a 
 Church, and that of a Republic, must necessarily be
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 4-^ 
 
 very slender. Nevertheless, within the limitations spe- 
 cified, the Methodist Church government approximates 
 as nearly the model of our federal government as any 
 in the land. 
 
 If you say Methodist Episcopacy is anti-Republican, 
 because it possesses legislative, executive, and judicial 
 powers, we answer, it is another of your grand mistakes 
 — it possesses no such powers. Our bishops have no 
 legislative powers whatever, or anywhere. I have al- 
 ready informed you, they have not so much as a vote in 
 any of our Church councils — they cannot participate in 
 the trial of a member; hence, they have no executive au- 
 thority in any one of our thousands of Churches — they 
 have neither legislative nor executive authority in our 
 General Conferences — they cannot vote in the trial of 
 any of our ministers ; in this respect, they have no exe- 
 cutive authority in our Annual Conferences, and are 
 cut off from participation in its legislation also ; and 
 the small portion of judicial and executive authority 
 they are allowed there, is held under strict respon- 
 sibility to the Eldership over which they exercise 
 this autliority ; and even their appointing power may be 
 changed by a single vote of the General Conference. 
 Hence, the prettily written fancy sketch of the youthful 
 Bascom, is pointless in its assault upon our Episcopacy ; 
 it was dissipated by the clearer wisdom of his man- 
 hood ; it was applicable, even to civil government, only 
 cum. grano sails. 
 
 The indulgence granted to the childish dream of a 
 gifted youtli, in his retention among us, is a good illus- 
 tration of our freedom of speech ; and a suflScient reply 
 to the charge, that ministers were excluded from our
 
 42 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Church, only for holding the very same sentiments. And 
 now, dear sir, as I have corrected your mistaken views 
 of our system, I ask you, solemnly, whether you think 
 it possible that our Episcopacy, composed of men called 
 of the Holy Ghost, promoted to the itinerancy by two 
 distinct acts of the membership, with specified restric- 
 tions upon their authority, and within the limitations 
 which distinguish Church from civil authority, can be 
 anti-Republican ? ! ! ! If you can reiterate the charge, 
 I must say I think your conviction hopeless, and your 
 case will then be an instance of a most excellent judg- 
 ment, overpowered by a stronger prejudice. It will re- 
 mind me of an ancient orator, who, when a tumult arose 
 among the people for want of bread, and he failed to 
 quiet them with the assurance that violence could not 
 create food, remarked, the cause of his failure was, the 
 belly had no ears. If I have failed to satisfy you that 
 we are very good Republicans, it will be because preju- 
 dice is very deaf, and can neither understand facts nor 
 logic. But I hope better things of you. 
 
 From the confident manner in which you brandished 
 Webster, in your attack upon Episcopacy, I must remove 
 the small difficulty which his definition has thrown in the 
 way of your conviction. The word Episcopal may be 
 used in either the Puseyistic, or Romanist, or Bible 
 sense ; we use it in the latter, and Paul is a better de- 
 finer of the word than Webster. In Acts xx. and xxviii., 
 it is said, " The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to 
 feed the Church." Now, the word rendered overseers, is 
 th^ very word in question; it is Episcopous in the Greek, 
 the accusative plural of Episcopos, and may be translat- 
 ed either overseers or bishops, at pleasure. Did Paul
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 43 
 
 then know that a "schoolboy could see in five minutes" 
 that Episcopal, the very word he used, meant something 
 despotic, and in antagonism with Eepublican institu- 
 tions ? A word more on this subject. Paul said, the 
 Holy Ghost (not the people, take notice,) hath made you 
 overseers to feed the flock of God. We should guard, 
 therefore, against the danger of pressing Republicanism 
 into an usurpation of the office, of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 I have in my hand a curious little book, containing a 
 Confession of Faith^ and a summary of Church Discip- 
 line — a Baptist Discipline. It was published for the 
 Charleston Eajitist Association, in 1813. The Articles 
 of Faith were first adopted by a hundred baptized con- 
 gregations in England and Wales, in 1689, and there- 
 after by the Philadelphia and Charleston Baptist Asso- 
 ciations. I find many excellencies in it, and some things 
 which might be improved. It is not anti-Republican, 
 for nothing can be anti-Republican in Church govern- 
 ment, except it distinctly opposes civil laws ; but the 
 Church government it describes, is very much unlike 
 the model of our federal government. On page 6, of the 
 Discipline, it reads, " each distinct Church may exercise 
 every act of discipline, without being subject to the 
 cognizance of any other Church, Presbytery, Synod, or 
 Council whatever." 
 
 On page 58, of the volume, it says that, " messengers 
 of the Churches assembled, are not entrusted with any 
 Church power properly so called, or with any jurisdic- 
 tion over the Churches themselves, to exercise any cen- 
 sures, either over any Churches or persons." And on 
 page 28, " The Baptist Association arrogates no liigher 
 title than that of an advisory council — it is by no means
 
 44 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 to be deemed a superior judicature — it presumes not to 
 impose its sentimeats upon its constituents under pain 
 of excommunication." Now, if our Federal Government 
 were formed on this model, and our Federal Congress 
 were made a mere advisory council, without even the 
 power of uttering censures, much less of making 
 laws, then our government would be a farce; and our 
 executive and judiciarj' would be destroj'^ed. In truth, 
 we would have no government at all. Our State Go- 
 vernment, if formed after this beautiful model, would in 
 like manner be farcical, without a Supreme Court or an 
 Executive, and our country would present the spectacle 
 of an immense number of broken neighborhoods, having 
 severally the supreme power in their hands, and per- 
 fectly denationalized. Verily, this is rather Red-Repub- 
 licanism ! 
 
 It is true, your Associations can declare non-fellow- 
 ship with any Church — that is to say, you can virtually 
 turn out a whole Church, for non-fellowship amounts to 
 this : if they exercise the Christian liberty, dear to the 
 Lord's freemen, of partaking of the Holy Communion 
 with their orthodox brethren — and yet your Association 
 " cannot censure either Churches or persons." It is not 
 mj business to reconcile these contradictions. This 
 view of your Chui'ch government, prepares me to un- 
 derstand the remark, not of an enemy, but of a leading 
 man in your Church, the editor of the Baptist Recorder 
 and Register, New York. I quote from the last S. C. 
 Advocate. He says, " We (Baptists) present ourselves 
 tQ the world, a body rent by multiform divisions, animat- 
 ed by anything but the Spirit of Christ, and illustrating 
 anything but the theory of regenerated Churches." This
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 45 
 
 is a sad picture — I would it were better. I find on page 
 15 of the Discipline, another rather un-Kepublican fea- 
 ture in your economy. " To dismiss a member to the 
 world at large ought never to be done any other way 
 than by excommunication;'* and on page 23, " As con- 
 sent is necessary to a person's coming into the Church, 
 so none can go out of it without its consent." Hence, 
 if a Baptist becomes a Presbyterian, or a ^fethodist, 
 he is invariably expelled. This is Republicanism with 
 a vengeance ! Does it not look like forcing your mem- 
 bers to remain Baptists ? I pass by the fact, page 6, 
 that female members are excluded from all share of rule 
 in your Church. 
 
 In conclusion, I admit all that you aflSrm of Robert 
 Hall's disapproval of the war with the American Colonies, 
 though he was a good subject of the English Monarchy. 
 I reverence the man for his genius, and for his piety, 
 and for his abhorrence of your practice of close com- 
 munion, concerning which he says, page 227, vol. 2, 
 " With mingled surprise and indignation they behold us 
 (Baptists) making pretensions which no other denomin- 
 ation of Protestants assumes ; placing ourselves in an 
 attitude of hostility to the whole Christian world." 
 Again : " There is nothing in the Church of Rome that 
 has excited more indignation and disgust than this very 
 pretension." Lastly, allow me say, the noble spirits 
 among you who attend to the legitimate functions of 
 the ministry, preaching Christ, and him crucified, will 
 do good, whether the deficiencies of your government 
 be few or many. May God speed their holy labors. 
 
 Fraternally yours, &c. 
 May 24th, 1855. E. J. HAMILL.
 
 46 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 REPLY TO LETTER II. 
 
 The zeal and spirit of Mr. Hamill commended ; Precise question at 
 issue ; Foreign topics ; Episcopacy a transplant from Europe ; 
 Analogy between the Church of England and the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church ; Singular way of proving two orders in the Me- 
 thodist ministry ; Bishops Soule and Capers ; Mistake corrected ; 
 The right of appeal ; The part Mr. Wesley and his first preachers 
 took in our Revolutionary "War 5 Not probable that they would 
 impart the clement of Republicanism to a religious structure ; 
 James O'Kelly, "William M'Kendree, Rice Haggard, and others; 
 An effort to reform the system in 1824 and 1828 ; Insulting an- 
 swer of the General Conference to sundry memorials ; Exclusion 
 and suspension of the reformers ; Moral heroism of " fifty fe- 
 males " ; Acts XX. 28 ; No connection between Bible and Methodist 
 Episcopacy ; Sophistry in the use of the term " Puseyistic" ; 
 Itinerant plan ; Episcopacy defined ; The " Democratic Element"; 
 Baptist anarchy ; " Close communion" ; Specimen of logic ; An- 
 other " fancy sketch" from the "youthful Bascom " ; Courtesy 
 asked. 
 
 "But be ye not called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Clirist; AND all ttb 
 ARE Breihren."— Jesus Christ. 
 
 We admire the zeal of Brotber Hamill, in defending 
 Methodist Episcopacy — a zeal truly worthy of the best 
 of causes. Perhaps his discretion may not be so highly 
 commended, even by many members of his own com- 
 munion. Be this, however, as it may, it is evident that 
 he clings to the Episcopal feature of his Church with
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 47 
 
 nnyielding tenacity ; and that if it is ever changed, no 
 part of the glory or shame of such a revolution will ever 
 be his heritage. We repeat, the fervent zeal of our 
 good brother excites our admiration — and we may add 
 that the spirit in which he writes is worthy of all praise. 
 If Episcopal Methodism cannot' be -'Shown to be Repub- 
 lican and Democratic, it will not be for the want of 
 either zeal or ability. We presume Brother Hamill is 
 as competent to discuss this subject as any member of 
 the Alabama Conference. And if he fails in this de- 
 fence, it is fair to conclude that it will be because the 
 polity of that Church cannot be defended before an Ame- 
 rican constituency. 
 
 The precise question at issue between Brother Hamill 
 and ourself is this — is Methodist Episcopacy anti-Democratic 
 and anti- Republican^ We affirm, he denies. He will 
 not consider it strange, therefore, if we rule out every- 
 thing which does not bear upon the main question. 
 
 And here we must correct an impression upon Brother 
 Hamill's mind, in regard to his "thirteen points." He 
 seems to think that, because we did not answer them 
 seriatim, they are .unanswerable. We supposed that 
 in so far as these points involved the main issue in 
 the article from the "Western Watchman," to wit : That 
 Methodist Episcopacy is anti-American — we had ans- 
 wered them to all intents and purposes. So far as that 
 article related to a proscription of Methodists politically 
 for their religious sentiments, wc did, and we do now, 
 utterly repudiate it. IVc ft ght Episcopacy loith different 
 weapms. But so far as that article discussed tlic polity 
 of the Methodist Church as an element in the formation 
 of character, religious or political, wc did regard it as
 
 48 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 falling' within the legitimate range of discussion, and as 
 such it was transferred to our columns. Our brother 
 sadly mistakes us if he supposes that we had "repudi- 
 ated the slanderous article." K we had regarded it as 
 " slanderous," it certainly would not have been pub- 
 lished. But enough of this. 
 
 We are gratified that Brother Hamill concedes that 
 the Episcopal feature of the Methodist Church is a pro- 
 per subject for newspaper discussion. While, however, 
 he admits "that ecclesiastical power has been invoked 
 by princes since the days of Oonstantine — and that re- 
 ligious opinions, whether true or false, are wonderfully 
 potent in their influence upon the human soul," he pro- 
 nounces them "foreign topics .... interwoven into this 
 debate." This to us is not surprising. Wonderfully po- 
 tent in their influence upon the human soul, and yet for- 
 eign in a discussion, in which this very power is the sub- 
 ject of debate. That is to say, the most important ele- 
 ment of power which has ever been brought to bear upon 
 the human mind, for weal or woe, in moulding its habits, 
 prejudices, and principles, is totally foreign in a contro- 
 versy, in which its effects are the very point contested ! 1 
 Our brother has showed his sagacity in excepting to the 
 introduction of such truths in this discussion. But 
 whether these are " foreign topics," will appear in the 
 course of these remarks. 
 
 We took occasion to remark in our first article, that 
 Episcopacy was a transplant from a foreign soil. Bro, 
 Hamill responds, "our Bible is a foreign transportation." 
 True ; and if the question were, whether Episcopacy 
 is of Divine institution, his illustration would be in 
 point. But we submit that he has no right to make
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 49 
 
 such an assumption for Episcopacy. Cbristiauity is 
 one tbiug- — Episcopacy is quite a different thing. The 
 question we are debating is not, whether Christianity 
 or the Bible is anti-Republican— but whether Episco- 
 pacy, as being a vital element in the structure of Me- 
 thodism, a transplant from the despotic powers of Eu- 
 rope, and which was foisted upon Christianity by that 
 licentious tyrant, Henry VIII., is in harmony with Ame- 
 rican Democracy: — whether a principle, which despots 
 regard as essential to the stability of their thrones, in 
 maintaining their power to rule the minds and con- 
 sciences of their subjects, is a safe principle to be incor- 
 porated into the organic laws of " the largest denomina- 
 tion of Christians," in a Republican government. 
 
 Again : To the remark that " the Episcopal Church 
 of England is the type of the Episcopal feature of the 
 Methodist Church," Brother Hamill replies, " This is a 
 very great error for a man of your erudition." Let us 
 see. In the Episcopal Church of England, all the powers 
 of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, are 
 in the hands of the clergy ; and so it is in the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. In the Church of England, the power 
 of ordination is vested supremely in the hands of tlic 
 bishops; so it is in the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 In the English Establishment, the power to supply 
 the Churches with pastors is vested in Episcopal 
 hands ; so it is in the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 In the ecclesiastical councils of the English Church, 
 no layman's voice is ever heard; and in the simi- 
 lar councils of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the 
 principle of representation, on the part of the laity, is 
 equally excluded. In the ecclesiastical polity of Eng- 
 5
 
 50 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 land, the revenues of the Church, which proceed from 
 the people, pass beyond their constitutional control into 
 the hands of its rulers ; and the same is true of the po- 
 lity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, if the late Bishop 
 Bascom is to be believed. To become a member of the 
 Church of England, a man resigns his right of suflTrage; 
 and no less is it true of him who attaches himself to the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. And so we might run this 
 parallel to almost any extent. The truth is, entire 
 chapters and sections of the ritual of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church are transferred, with very slight mo- 
 dification, from the Book of Common Prayer. The reader 
 has but to compare the Methodist Discipline with the 
 Book of Common Prayer, and he will be no little surpris- 
 ed at the likeness between the mother and the daughter. 
 But, says Brother Hamill, "We (Methodists) hold that 
 the Bible makes but two orders in the ministry," by 
 which he means, we suppose, deacons and bishops, or 
 elders, using these latter terms interchangeably. If so, 
 then every elder is a bishop ! Why the ceremonies of or- 
 dination as laid down in the Discipline? Why re-ordain 
 a man to a bishoprick, Avhen he has already been ordained 
 to that office, since bishop and elder are the same ? Our 
 brother has a singular way of proving this. He alleges 
 that because Mr. Hamline voluntarily vacated his po- 
 sition as bishop, and went back into the rank of elders, 
 that therefore bishops and elders are the same ! By 
 parity of reasoning, because Charles V. resigned his 
 crown in his old age, and went into voluntary seclu- 
 sion, therefore a German king is nothing more nor 
 less than a German citizen ! But what say the bishops 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church on this subject ? We
 
 METHODIST EPISCOrACY. 51 
 
 quote first from the senior bishop, Dr. Soule : " I say if 
 this doctrine be a correct one, (that bishops are mere 
 officers of the General Conference,) I have heard for the 
 first time, either on the floor of this Conference, in an 
 Annual Conference, or through the whole of the private 
 membership of the Church, this doctrine advanced : this 
 is the first time I have heard it." — Report of the Debates 
 in the Gen. Con., 1844, pag-e 169. 
 
 The late Bishop Capers spoke as follows on the same 
 point: — "It has been ui'ged that a bishop is only an 
 officer of the Genei-al Conference, and that his election 
 and not his consecration gives him his authorship as a 
 bishop. If a bishop is no more than an officer of the 
 General Conference, wherefore is he consecrated ? A bishop 
 an officer of the General Conference only ! And is it in 
 such a capacity that he ordains and stations the preach- 
 ers of the Annual Conferences ? An officer of the Ge- 
 neral Conference only ! Then were it untrue and blas- 
 phemous to invest him with the office, with these holy 
 words of the consecration service : ' Receive the Holy 
 Ghost for the office and work of a bishop in tlie Church 
 of God, now committed to thee by the imposition of our 
 hands, in the name of the Father and of the Sou and of 
 the Holy Ghost.'" — Debates, &c., page 181. 
 
 And here avo leave Brother Hamill and the bishops to 
 settle tliis point, mooted for the first time in 1844, 
 merely remarking that, as imperfect as our knowledge 
 of " Church government" may be, we have been led to 
 " make this great mistake" by the bishops of his own 
 Church. So much, then, fur tliis " mistake." 
 
 The next "very important point" in which our bro- 
 ther says Ave arc mistaken, is, that exclusion on the part
 
 62 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 of the Church is subject to appeal, and may be reversed 
 by a bishop, &c, In this we are partly mistaken, and 
 intended to make the correction before we read Brother 
 Hamill's communication. We had not observed the 
 distinction which the discipline makes between the me- 
 thod of procedure in the case of a private member and 
 that of a preacher. The preacher has the right of ap- 
 peal to an Annual Conference, the private member to a 
 Quarterly Conference. But the principle we were dis- 
 cussing remains the same, to wit : that the action of 
 a particular Church, in excluding one of its members, is 
 not a finality— that another power is recognized by Me- 
 thodism, higher than the Church. And this power is 
 called by them Episcopacy. This was the main point we 
 we were discussing ; and this, we suppose, will not be 
 pronounced a mistake. And what is true of the final 
 exclusion of members from the Church, is equally true 
 of their reception. The Church, as such, can guard 
 neither the door of ingress nor egress. Who ever heard 
 of a Methodist minister consulting a Church as to who 
 should become a member of it ? 
 
 But it is time for us to take up the main subject of 
 this discussion. Brother Hamill heads his article, 
 " Methodist Episcopacy not anti-Repnhlican." Then it 
 must be Republican. Let us see how far the facts in 
 its history will sustain this assumption. We are not 
 responsible for these facts ; we find them recorded up- 
 on the impartial page of history, and we use them with 
 no unkind feeling to our Methodist brethren. To begin, 
 then, at the beginning : In It 15, Mr. Wesley published 
 a communication in Lloyd's Evening Post, of which the 
 following is an extract^.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 53 
 
 " Now, there is no possible way to put out this flame, 
 [our Revolutionary struggle,] or hinder its rising high- 
 er and higher, but to show that the Americans are not 
 used either cruelly or unjustly; that they are not injured 
 at all, seeing they are not contending for liberty; (tliis 
 they had even in its full extent, both civil and re- 
 ligious,) neither for any legal privileges ; for they enjoy 
 all their charters grant. But what they contend for is, 
 the illegal privilege of being exempt from Parliamentary 
 taxation — a privilege this which no charter ever gave 
 to any American Colony yet — which no charter can give, 
 unless it be confirmed both b}- King, Lords, and Com- 
 mons ; which, in fact, our Colonies never had ; which 
 they never claimed till the present reign. This being 
 the real state of the question, without any coloring or 
 aggravation, what impartial man can either blame the 
 King or commend the Americans ? With this view, to 
 quench the fire by laying the blame where it was due, 
 the 'Calm Address' was written. 
 
 I am, sir, your humble servant, 
 
 JOHN WESLEY." 
 
 About the same time, Mr. Wesley sent out six mis- 
 sionaries to the Colonies, and, as might have been ex- 
 pected, these missionaries reflected his political views. 
 They were all Englishmen. Hence it is said of them, 
 that "they insulted the Americans, calling them rebels, 
 and spoke contemptuously of that cause which the peo- 
 ple had sworn to support And what was the re- 
 sult ? . . . . Hatred and opposition to them wherever 
 they went; until at last, five out of the six fled for their 
 lives, and the sixth, Mr. Asbury, was obliged to lie con- 
 cealed in Mr. White's, in the State of Delaware.* — Let- 
 ters mt Methodist Episcopacy, by A. McCaine, page 40. 
 
 * Sco Appcndi.x A.
 
 64 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Such were some of the fathers of Methodism. To 
 what extent they were capable of nnparting the element 
 of Republicanism to the structure they were about to 
 rear, is left to the good sense of the reader. We have 
 some other interesting facts in this connection, and in 
 regard to the other fathers of this system, to which 
 we may hereafter recur. We beg to be understood 
 as not impeaching the patriotism of the member- 
 •ship of the Methodist Episcopal Church. We believe 
 them to be as sincere Democrats and Republicans — as 
 sincere lovers of their country, as any community of 
 Christians in the United States. We only wish they 
 were in religion what they are in politics. And since 
 religion, whether properly or improperly conceived, is 
 stronger than politics, and has in its history subverted 
 all forms of government, it is reasonable to infer, that a 
 time may come again when the less shall give way to 
 the greater. And the only provision we can make 
 against such an emergency, is, so to consti'uct our eccle- 
 siastical organizations, as to render such a contingency 
 impossible. This, we believe, our Methodist brethren 
 ought to do in their Church polity. 
 
 But let us see to what extent the subsequent history 
 of Methodist Episcopacy' sustains the declaration of 
 Brother Hamill — "Methodist Episcopacy not anti-Repub- 
 lican." We shall only bring out two facts at present, 
 that the reader may see to what extent the polity of 
 "the largest denomination of Christians" in this country, 
 harmonizes with our Democratic Republican form of 
 government. 
 
 In the year 1*192, one year after the death of Mr. Wes- 
 ley, J^he Rev. James O'Kelly, alarmed at the "exorbi-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 55 
 
 tant powers of the bishops " offered the following reso- 
 lution at a General Conference : 
 
 " Resolved, That after the bishop appoints the preach- 
 ers, at Conference, to their several circuits, if any one 
 think himself injured by the appointment, he shall have 
 the right to appeal to the Conference, and state his ob- 
 jections ; and if the Conference approve his objections, 
 the bishop shall appoint him to another circuit." 
 
 This resolution, after being discussed for three days, 
 was negatived by a large majority ; whereupon the 
 Eev. James O'Kclly, William McKcudree, (afterwards 
 bishop,) Rice Haggard, and others, withdrew from the 
 connection. So sedulously have they guarded that ir- 
 revocable decree, viz : Thou shalt not change or alter 
 any part or rule of our government, so as to do away 
 Episcopacy, &c. Even the right of appeal from the de- 
 cision of a bishop, or, as Brother Ilamill would fain 
 make us believe, the "permanent moderator" of the 
 Conference is denied. This is moderating with a ven- 
 geance ! We leave to our brother the pleasing task of 
 exhibiting the peculiar Repiiblican features of this as- 
 pect of the cherished dogma of his Church. 
 
 In the year 1824, a movement was commenced in the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, among many of the minis- 
 ters and laymen, having reference to such modification 
 of the organic law of that Church, as would secure to 
 the laity an equal representation with the ministry, in 
 their legislative councils. Union Societies were formed 
 in perhaps every State in the confederacy, for the pur- 
 pose of discussing this question and petitioning the 
 next General Conference, which was to meet in 1828, 
 to incorporate this principle' of representation into their
 
 56 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 constitution. Had the membership of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church the right to form these societies, dis- 
 cuss this question, and petition the General Conference ? 
 yes, says Brother Hamill, "The freest expression of 
 sentiment is indulged without blame." Only let " no 
 man promulge Unitarianism or Universalism," or such 
 like heresies, and the most perfect freedom of speech 
 may be enjoyed. " Discussion, whether oral or written, 
 but unfolds its wisdom and its beauty." Well, we pro- 
 pose " unfolding" one of these " beauties" for the admir- 
 ation of the reader. Nothing strikes us like a fact. A 
 living, acting, moving " beauty" is worth ten thousand 
 creations of fancy. 
 
 The original promoters of this movement recommend- 
 ed the formation of these Union Societies throughout 
 the United States, and resolved to publish a periodical 
 pamphlet, one of which we have before us, entitled, 
 " The Mutual Rights of the Ministers and Members of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church," for the purpose of 
 giving the Methodist community a suitable opportunity 
 to enter upon a calm and dispassionate discussion of 
 the subjects in dispute." A " calm and dispassionate" 
 inquiry as to whether private members and local preach- 
 ers had any rights in the Church of Christ, and if so, 
 what those rights were, it might be supposed would 
 have been tolerated with impunity in a Church so pe- 
 culiarly Republican in its organization, as wc would be 
 made to believe Methodism to be. But how was this 
 movement treated? "In Tennessee, fourteen official 
 members were expelled for attempting to form a Union 
 Society !" " In North Carolina, several members of the 
 Granville Union Society were expelled for being mem-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 5t 
 
 bers thereof." "In the fall of 1821, eleven ministers 
 ■were suspended, and finally expelled from the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church in this city (Baltimore,) and twenty- 
 two laymen, for being members of the Union Society, 
 and supporters of the mutual rights." Some " fifty fe- 
 male friends of these suspended and expelled brethren 
 immediately withdrew from the Church, after addressing 
 a letter to the preacher in charge," of which the follow- 
 ing is an extract : — " To find our dear companions, fa- 
 thers, brothers, children, and friends, treated as crimin- 
 als and enemies, persecuted, suspended, and expelled, 
 denounced as backsliders and disturbers of the peace, 
 and ourselves treated coldly and distantly by our former 
 friends, and by our pastors, and all for a mere difference 
 of opinion ahout Church government, is more than we feel 
 bound in Christian charity longer to endure ; and there- 
 fore we feel it our duty, in the fear of God, to withdraw 
 from the Church." Noble women ! Your names deserve 
 to be recorded upon the same page of history with those 
 who signed our Declaration of Independence ! The 
 Protestant Methodist Church will not have discharged 
 its duty to posterity if it fail to preserve your names 
 among its richest memories I 
 
 But in the Conference of 1824, several memorials were 
 presented, " praying that the government of the Church 
 might he made representative, and more in accordance with 
 the mutual rights of the ministers and people." And how 
 were these memorials treated — memorials which sought 
 to incorporate into the Methodist economy the vital ele- 
 ment of our happy civil institutions ? The Conference 
 replied in a circular of some length, in which this re-
 
 58 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 markable passag-e occurs : — " Pardon us if we know no 
 
 SUCH EIGHTS, IF WE COMPREHEND NO SUCH PRIVILEGES !" Wo 
 
 could use as many exclamation points here as Brother 
 Hamill, but we are fearful the stock would become ex- 
 hausted. And moreover, we prefer simply to state 
 facts, and let the reader supply as many as he chooses. 
 We are, therefore, prepared to answer Brother Hamill's 
 question — " I ask you solemnly, whether you think it 
 possible that our Episcopacy, composed of men called 
 of the Holy Ghost, promoted to the itinerancy by two 
 distinct acts of the membership, with the specified re- 
 strictions upon their authority, and within the limita- 
 tions which distinguish Church from civil authority, can 
 be anti-Eepublican ?" The odium of an obtuseness, 
 whether mental or moral, which cannot see either De- 
 mocracy or Republicanism in a system, whose founders 
 threw the weight of their relig-ious character against 
 our revolutionary struggle — whose very father declared, 
 " we are no Republicans, and never intend to be," — the 
 constituted authorities of which, in answer to memo- 
 rials asking for representation on the part of the private 
 members, answer such memorials in the very vernacular 
 of the most absolute despotisms, " pardon us if we know 
 no such rights, if we comprehend no such privileges," — 
 from the communion of which, ministers and laymen are 
 suspended and expelled for discussing and seeking to 
 secure their mutual rights to representation in its law- 
 making power — we say, the odium of an obtuseness 
 which cannot see either "the wisdom or beauty," or the 
 Democracy and Republicanism of such a structure, we 
 must be content to bear. Our "judgment" ni&y be
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 59 
 
 " overpowered b}^ a strange prejudice." PerliajDs the 
 reader Avill be reminded of the well known couplet cf 
 Hudibras : 
 
 " Keen optics, sir, it takes, I ween, 
 To. see what is not to be seen." 
 
 ^^ Pardon us if we know no such rights, if ^ce comprehend 
 no such privileges ! ^^ And. this language was uttered in 
 the "monumental city" of this Union, and in sight of 
 the venerable statue of Washington 1 It was uttered 
 in response to an humble and respectful petition from 
 a constituency asking for a representation in the legisla- 
 tive councils of a body claiming and exercising the right 
 of taxation, the very principle asked for by our fore- 
 fathers, and the denial of which on the part of the Bri-. 
 tish Government, provoked our Ecvolutionary war ! 
 And it was uttered by the constituted authorities of an 
 ecclesiastical hierarchy for which a serious claim is en- 
 tered, that it is "not anti- Republican" — that it possesses 
 "the Democratic dement!^' Is it uncharitable to say that 
 such a reply to such a petition, is enough to flush the 
 cheek of every American citizen with indignation ? 
 
 But Bro. Ilamill excepts to our resort to Webster for 
 a definition of terms, by entering what the lawyers call 
 a special plea. lie seeks to identify Methodist and 
 Bible Episcopacy. Hear him : "The word Episcopal 
 may be used in cither the Puseyistic, Romanist, or 
 Bible sense ; wo use it in the latter — and Paul is a bet- 
 ter definer of the word than Webster. In Acts xx. 28, 
 it is said, 'The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to 
 feed the Church.' " We must again notify our brother.
 
 60 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 that it is Methodist Episcopacy, and not Bible Episco- 
 pacy that we are discussing. We believe that if Paul 
 had more authority in the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 than he has, instead of seven bishops, there would be 
 just as many bishops as there are Churches in that con- 
 nection. Take, for instance, his address to the Church 
 at Philippi : "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of 
 Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Jesus Christ which are 
 at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." Here there 
 was a plurality of bishops in a single Church. We must 
 say, however, that our brother is quite unfortunate in 
 referring to this passage. The verse reads thus : 
 " Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the 
 flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you over- 
 seers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath pur- 
 chased with his own blood." This is a part of Paul's 
 address to "the Elders of the Church at Ephesus." The 
 word "overseers" in the original, as Brother Hamill 
 shows, is Episcopous, ac. pi. of Episcopos, the word 
 usually translated bishop in our version. Substituting 
 this term, then^for the one in use, the passage would 
 read, " over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops." 
 Then there was a plurality of bishops in the Church at 
 Ephesus, as well as at Philippi. Were these bishops 
 pastors ? Of this there can be no doubt. In the polity 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church, does the Holy Ghost 
 or the bishop appoint the overseers ? — or are bishop and 
 Holy Ghost identical terms ? And when so appointed, 
 is it lawful to call them bishops, as the original term 
 imports, or "circuit riders and elders?" Or if it is 
 claimed that the word overseers or bishops in this passage 
 Paul refers to an order of the clergy so designated in
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY 61 
 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church, we ask, is there a Me- 
 thodist bishop on this continent who has the oversight 
 of a "flock" or "Church." We want no better evidence 
 than this passage affords, that Bible Episcopacy and 
 Methodist Episcopacy are the poles asunder. 
 
 But this by the way. TVe do not propose arguing 
 this question now, as it is a manifest changing of the 
 issue— ^a privilege which we cannot recognize in this 
 discussion. 
 
 But did the reader observe the care with which the 
 foregoing sentence was written ? "The word Episco- 
 pal may be used in either the Pusejistic, Romanist, or 
 Bible sense," &c. In no other sense, Brother Ilamill ? 
 We admire the dexterity with which you guard the re- 
 putation of the mother. Why did you not use the word 
 English, or Protestant, instead of Puseyistic ? Was 
 there a lurking suspicion upon j^our mind, that if Eng- 
 lish Episcopacy were place^in the same category with 
 that of Rome, Methodist Episcopacy might share the 
 same fate ? Pardon us if we regard this as the best 
 evidence you could furnish, that our position remains 
 impregnable, your argument to the contraiy notwith- 
 standing — that English Episcopacy is the type of Me- 
 thodist Episcopacy. 
 
 As to the "itinerant plan" of preaching the Gospel, 
 Brother Hamill admits that it has no vital connection 
 with Episcopacy, since it is pursued by the Wesleyan 
 Methodists of England, and by the Protestant Methodists 
 of this country. And he might have added, various 
 other denominations. Presbyterians, Cougregational- 
 ists, Baptists, and many otliers, have adopted the plan, 
 wherever and whenever the exigencies demanded. We 
 6
 
 62 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 protest, therefore, that Episcopacy is not entitled to the 
 credit of that which is common to all forms of Church 
 government ; and that any argument based upon such 
 an assumption, can prove no more for Episcopacy than 
 for Congregational or Presbyterial government. 
 
 We must set our brother right on another point. To 
 our remark that Methodist Episcopacy possesses legis- 
 lative, executive, and judicial powers ; and that inas- 
 much as the laity had no voice in either of these depart- 
 ments of its government, it must necessarily be anti-- 
 Republican, he replies, " It possesses no such powers ; 
 our bishops have no legislative powers whatever or 
 anywhere. . . . They have not so much as a vote in any 
 of our Church councils." Let us say once for all, that 
 in applying the term Episcopacy to the government of 
 the Methodist Church, wc mean that it is a government of 
 the clergy, in contradistinction to, and independently of the 
 people. This we suppose to be the idea represented by 
 Episcopacy in the "Discipline." Why should a bishop 
 care to vote, when he has the whole Conference at 
 command, and can " say to one come, and he cometh • 
 and to another go, and he goeth ?" — when he has but to 
 utter his authoritative voice, and every minister in the 
 Conference marches to his assigned field, without know- 
 ing one moment before the commtind is uttered, what 
 his destination is ? As well might it be said, that be- 
 cause the kings of England never had a vote in Parlia- 
 ment, therefore the British Government is a pure Demo- 
 cracy ! We are astonished that our brother never saw 
 the obvious fallacy of such an argument. But perhaps 
 it was the best apology for Episcopacy he could make. 
 " A Church scripturally organized," says Brother
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 63 
 
 Hamill, " must.therefore blend in its government 'the 
 theocratic element, for Christ is King ; the ecclesiastic, 
 for he hath made such ' overseers to feed<the Church of 
 God :' and the Democratic, for by their fndts ye shall hioio 
 them — who are Christ's appointees." Now, we do posi- 
 tively aver, that we have looked at this sentence time 
 and again, and we cannot discover " the Democratic 
 element." And so anxious are we to find it, that we 
 hereby promise to give any man a copy of the South 
 Western Baptist for one year, who will point out the 
 " Democratic element" in this sentence. It reminds us 
 of a problem we heard in school-boy days, — " If the 
 kitchen be fifteen feet square, how far is it to the 
 spring?" 
 
 As we are not discussing the form of government pe- 
 culiar to the Baptists, the reader will pardon us for per- 
 mitting all that Brother Hamill says on that subject to 
 pass unnoticed for the present at least. That has no 
 sort of connection with this discussion. His very ob- 
 jections to the Baptist form of Church government arc 
 baaed upon the principle in his Church, which places it 
 in antagonism with American Democracy, to wit : thi 
 peopk arc incompetent to govern themselves, and therefore ought 
 to he excluded from the legislative councils of his Church. It 
 may be proper for us to say, in answer to his philippic 
 against us for expelling members, who leave us and 
 join other communions, that we do not believe the 
 same person can be a member of two Churches at the 
 samr; time ; and when such a case occurs, we simply 
 withdraw, our Church jurisdiction and fellowship froni 
 such person. We have no other way of disposing of
 
 64 A DISCUSSION ON ' 
 
 them. When the present question is disposed of, we 
 are ready to discuss that also. 
 
 But, to cap the climax, Brother Hamill brings in that 
 horrible practice among the Baptists of " close com- 
 munion ! " and treats us to an extract or two, from Eo- 
 bert Hall, on that subject. But what puzzles us is, to 
 find out what this has to do with the subject in debate. 
 Thrown into the form of an argument, how formidable 
 it becomes'i Here it is : In the opinion of Baptists, the 
 Scriptures teach, that sacramental communion ought to 
 be restricted to baptized believers ; therefore the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church is a Democratic Republican 
 government. 
 
 We close with another "fancy sketch" from "the 
 youthful Bascom." Whether it is " pointless in its as- 
 sault upon our Episcopacy," is left to the judg-ment of 
 the reader. 
 
 " Art. 11th. No power possesses so fatal a principle 
 of increase and accumulation in itself, as ecclesiastical 
 power. Its facilities for production and multiplication 
 are many and fearful, and should be vigilantly guarded 
 against by all who consider the image of God as close- 
 ly connected with the rights of man. And whenever 
 the growth and manifestation of this power, in any of 
 its innumerable forms and modes of operation, shall clear- 
 ly amount to an invasion of Christian rights, the injur- 
 ed and oppressed should resist the encroachment with 
 manly decision and unjnekliug remonstrance. In every 
 Church where the principle of representation is exclud- 
 ed, in the affairs of its government, the right of private' 
 judgment becomes a nullity, and faith and practice are 
 necessarily, to a great extent, the offsprings of prescrip- 
 tion. The right of deciding what are the will and mind 
 of God, in matters of faith and discipline, by prescrip- 
 tive interpretation, is conceded in the Scriptures to no
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. ' G5 
 
 man or body of men, exclusively. Of course, the right 
 of judgment belongs to all, equally and inalienably; 
 and when the ministry avail themselves of the indifier- 
 ence, inattention, or ignorance of the people brought 
 under their charge from time to time, to constitute 
 themselves their legislative masters and executive 
 guardians, they usurp the dominion of conscience, and 
 although never complained of, are dc facto religious ty- 
 rants, because they assume and exercise rights that do 
 not, and can not in the nature of things belong to them. 
 It should not be overlooked, moreover, that when the 
 ministry are considered by the laity as the sole judges 
 and depositories of faith and discipline, the people lose 
 the only powerful motive, the only direct incentive they 
 can possibly have to inquire and decide for themselves, 
 in the infinitely momentous concerns of truth and duty. 
 Such a monopoly of power by the ministry, tends direct- 
 ly to mental debasement, consequent indecision of cha- 
 racter, insincerity, and misguided zeal." 
 
 We respectfully ask Brother Hamill, whether the same 
 courtesy we have extended to him can be extended to 
 us in some one of the organs of his denomination — 
 whether it would not be just and proper for this discus- 
 sion to appear in the columns of some one of the "Ad- 
 vocates?" Since "discussion, whether oral or written, 
 only serves to unfold its wisdom and its beauties," we 
 shall confidently expect this courtesy to be extended. 
 As a well-known political editor used to say, nous 
 vcrons. 
 
 May 24th, 1855.
 
 66 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 METHODISM LIKE ITS CREED— PEACE AND 
 GOOD WILL TO MAN. 
 
 Christian courtesy appreciated; A case of twisting; Precious charity 
 of Mr. Graves; Foreign topics again; Sixty American preachers; 
 Admirable logic; Robert Hall's opinion of Wesley; Robert Hall 
 repels the charge of Republicanism from Baptists; Wesley's view 
 of the duty of American Methodists; George Washington's prayer 
 for the prosperity of Methodism; Children's teeth not set on edge; 
 Thomas Muncer's proclamation; John Matthias' and John Bocold's 
 Republic; Concession; Angels of the churches first among equals; 
 Paul's ordination; Bishop Capers' opinion; Human instrumental- 
 ity designates the field of ministerial labor; Charles V. not Ger- 
 man Emperor by divine right; Corrections; Hon. & Rev. Baptist 
 Noel's description of the lay management in the English Church; 
 Retraction demanded; What would make the English monarchy 
 exceedingly Democratic; Supposed one hundred Baptist itiner- 
 ants; In the business of Baptist State and Southern Conventions 
 we have lay management; What rights and privileges we ignore; 
 'Kelly's resolution; Cordial acknowledgment; The courtesy re- 
 turned. 
 
 " Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid tospeakevil of dignities." — 
 Petek. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Henderson: 
 
 You honor me in imagining me as fully al>lc to defend 
 Methodism as any of my brethren; I thank you for your 
 high opinion of me; but I would rather you would as-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY, 61 
 
 cribe my success to the fact that truth is powerful. My 
 zeal is certainly worthy of a better cause than the de- 
 fence of my church from the aspersions cast upon our 
 Eepublicanis'ra; but when a minister of so much repu- 
 tation as yourself, endorses the charge; it becomes ne- 
 cessary to show the untarnished beauty of our economy. 
 The successful performance of this task will amply jus- 
 tify my discretion. You welcomed me cordially to your 
 columns in your first communication. Do you now wish 
 " to rule out everything which does not bear upon the 
 main question?" I demur to your self-constituted cen- 
 soi'ship in this case. I do not question your right to 
 show, if you can, the irrelevanc}^ of my arguments to 
 the point under discussion; but for a, party in debate, 
 to claim the power to say in what respect his opponent 
 sliall not even be heard, is an unheard of assiimption. 
 I sh'all not concede this claim, even to the displacement 
 of a single word; nor does this demand speak flatter- 
 ingly of your courage in the premises. 
 
 You do not now, it seems, repudiate anything in the 
 slanderous article which originated this discussion; 
 only in so far as it " relates to a political proscription 
 of Methodists." You then endorse the following posi- 
 tions of that article — Methodist Episcopacy is a foe to 
 human rights — it exerts a paralyzing influence over 
 freedom of thought^ — it has imposed articles of faith upon 
 the people without their consent — Methodists degrade 
 themselves by submission to bishops, in regard to 
 Church property, more than Eoman Catholics — our 
 bishops control our public moneys, ajid buildings — they 
 can control the suffii-agcs of our members, and thus, hold
 
 68 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 the balance of political power in their hands. Is it right 
 Brother Henderson, to be thus 
 
 " Twisting in, and twisting out, 
 Leaving tLe beholder still in doubt '' 
 
 of what yon do alleg-e against Methodism? I must 
 then, deliberately say to you, they are all, and each of 
 them, utterly false; for proof, see my first article, which 
 you have barely deigned to notice. 
 
 I think it due the public to state, that I find a large 
 part of the article from the " Western Watchman," in 
 the Great Iron Wheel, a work written by a Baptist, the 
 Rev. Mr. Graves — a portion of the piece is without -quo- 
 tation marks. See pages 291, 292, 295, 296, 299, 300. 
 A few precious extracts will show the spirit of the au- 
 thor. Mr. Graves charitably classes " ruling elders of 
 the Presbyterian Church, and Methodist Conferences, 
 with Eio None, and styles them big and little popes," 
 (page 45, Iron Wheel). "We see bishops and ruling 
 elders lording it over God's children;" (page 50.) "Any 
 Pedo-Baptist Society is a huge clerical despotism itself;" 
 (page 50). On pages 254, &c., he calls "all Protestant 
 sects harlots and abominations of the earth," and the 
 communing together of Methodists and Presbyterians, 
 " a blasphemous farce, prostituting the holy emblems 
 to the propagation of a falsehood." On page 265, he 
 says " Protestant ministers have usurped Christ's place, 
 and exercise his authority over his Church." You may 
 imagine my surprise then, on discovering that the piece, 
 ascribed in the " Watchman," to some profound philo- _ 
 sopher unconnected with any Church, was surely an ef-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 69 
 
 fusion of the tender mci'cies of the lovely Mr. Graves, 
 whose charity is so strikingly displayed in the foregoing 
 extracts. What meant this concealment of the author? 
 For charity of this description, however, I never gave 
 you credit, and therefore did not look for you to en- 
 dorse the beautiful sayings of such a writer. 
 
 "With regard to those foreign topics — the invoking of 
 ecclesiastical power by princes — the potency of reli- 
 gious opinions — that despots regard Episcopacy as es- 
 sential to their thrones ; what has this to do with 
 Methodism? Have princes invoked its aid? Do the 
 thrones of England, France, Austria, and Eussia, owe 
 their stability to American Episcopal Methodism? Did 
 Nebuchadnezzai-, Alexander the Great, Tiberius, the 
 Eoman Emperor, and the Sultan of Turkey, all owe their 
 thrones to Christian Episcopacy, and that too, of Ameri- 
 can Methodism? Did Henry Y III., that licentious tyrant, 
 foist Episcopacy upon American Methodism? It would 
 be bold reasoning to affirm all this. 
 
 But John Wesley was a loyal subject of an English 
 king; therefore, our Methodist Episcopacy is anti-Rc- 
 publicau! and Methodist Protestantism also! Five out 
 of six Methodist preachers who were Englishmen, fled, 
 and tliercforc, the sixty American Methodist preachers, 
 who in 1784, some .years afterwards, organized the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, were anti-Ecpublican also, 
 and the Church they organized is hostile to our institu- 
 tions. Admirable logic! John Wesley was one of the 
 greatest, purest and most useful men, since the days of 
 the Apostles — a man.of whom your great Robert Hall 
 says, " Wliitfiold and Wesley will be hailed by posterity 
 as the second Reformers of England." Ilowbeit, he Avas
 
 *10 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 no Statesman, and knowing only the aristocratic, and 
 despotic Republics of Greece, Rome, Genoa, Florence, 
 Venice, &c., he may be pardoned for having preferred a 
 limited monarchy, to what he deemed an experiment in 
 government, the glorious results of which no mortal 
 could have anticipated. Rolert Hull himself, thus repels 
 the charge of RepiiUicanism from all dissenters, Baptists and 
 others. " Dissenters are reproached tmth the appellation of 
 Repuhlicans, hut the truth of this charge has neither appeared 
 from facts, nor been supported by any reasonable evidence^' 
 (vol.- 2, p. 82). Is it just to conclude from this, that 
 American Baptists are anti-Republican? I think not. 
 Hear now, how nobly at the close of the war in 1*184, 
 Wesley speaks to Americans. " As our American 
 brethren arc totally disentangled, both from the State 
 and from the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle 
 them again, either with the one, or the other; they are 
 now at full liberty, simply to follow the Scriptures and 
 the primitive Church. And we judge it best that they 
 should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has so 
 strangely set them free." Nobly spoken, John Wesley! 
 Is this a man hostile to our institutions, who says 
 God has made them free? (Bangs' History M. E. Church, 
 vol. 1st, p. 152). 
 
 There is another striking fact in the history of Ameri- 
 can Methodism. They were the first to present a con- 
 gratulatory address to General Washington on his ac- 
 cession to the Presidency. The address and the answer 
 in a few days, says Bangs, (p. 281,) were inserted in the 
 public prints; and some of the ministers and members of 
 other Churches, appeared dissatisfied that the Method- 
 ists should take the lead. " In that address they express 
 confidence that the wisdom and integrity of Washington
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 71 
 
 will preserve the civil and religious liberties transmit- 
 ted to us by the providence of God and the glorious 
 rcTolution." And what does the Great Father of our 
 country reply to them? Does he, while the facts of the 
 revolution were yet new, tell them they are anti-Repub- 
 lican? Xo, but he says, " I TAKE IN THE KIND- 
 EST PART, THE PROMISE YOU MAKE OF PRE- 
 SENTING YOUR PRAYERS AT THE THRONE OF 
 GRACE, FOR ME, AND THxVT I LIKEWISE IM- 
 PLORE THE DIVINE BENEDICTION ON YOUR- 
 SELVES AND YOUR RELIGIOUS COxMMUNITY. 
 GEORGE WASHINGTON." Verily, sir, the prayer of 
 that matchless patriot, offered for the divine benediction 
 upon the Methodist bishops, and the Methodist commu- 
 nity, will bo a shield to our patriotism, which the em- 
 poisoned darts of malignity will never penetrate. The 
 proof, that will establish the anti-Republicanism of our 
 Episcopacy, will also convict the immortal W^ashington, 
 as a traitor to Republicanism. But rob us of these glo- 
 rious facts of Methodism, and let it be granted for the 
 sake of argument, that John Wesley was opposed to 
 our free institutions; would you hold us responsible for 
 it? Would you say " the fathers have eaten sour grapes 
 and set the children's teeth on edge?" Would it be just 
 to frame this anti-Republican bill of attainder against 
 us? No; your conscience responds it is not just. I 
 agree with you, and therefore, will not charge upon you 
 the licentious madness of the German Baptists, or Ana- 
 Baptists, as they have been called. I will refer to it, 
 however, that you may see how unjust it would be to 
 charge you with wliat you utterly detest. 
 
 lu Orchard's Baptist History, one of your own publi-
 
 •72 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 cations, page 349, Thomas Muncer, of Mulhausen, Thu- 
 ringia, is pronounced one of the most eminent Baptists. 
 " Muncer," says Orchard, " stirred up the peasants 
 against the nobles and magistrates of Germany." And 
 D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation gives us the fol- 
 lowing proclamation from him, vol. 3, page 258: " Arise 
 and fight the battle of the Lord. The time is come. 
 France, Germany, and Italy are up and doing. Forwards- 
 Forward, Forward — Dran, Drau, Dran. Heed not the 
 cries of the ungodly. They will weep like children, but 
 be you pitiless. Dran, Dran, Dran — Fire burns — let 
 your swords be ever tinged with blood. Dran, Dran, 
 Dran." ' Signed, Muncer, God's servant against the un- 
 godly. 
 
 " They maintained that among christians who have 
 the precepts of the gospel to direct, and the Spirit of 
 God to guide them, the office of magistrate is unneces- 
 sary, and an encroachment on spiritual liberty — and that 
 e very man may lawfully marry as many wives as he thinks 
 proper;" (Russell's Modern Europe, page 3*12, vol. 1). 
 After Muncer was put to death, John Matthias and John 
 Bocold, formed a singular kind of Republic, in Munster, 
 from which Matthias wrote to his brethren in the low 
 countries, inviting them to assemble at Mount Sion 
 (Munster,) to set out in a body and reduce all nations 
 under their dominion. After Matthias was slain, John 
 Bocold was made king; he took fourteen wives, and 
 with the community over which he reigned, became a 
 fac-simile of Mormonism. I know you repudiate the li- 
 centiousness, and tyranny, of these Baptists, who would 
 have carried fire and sword, like Mahommed, to the 
 ends of the earth, if they had not been overthrown.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 13 
 
 Now, there would be as much logic and justice in charg- 
 ing their crimes upon American Baptists, who abhor 
 them, as in charging Wesley's loyalty upon free Ame- 
 rican Methodists. 
 
 I concede your claims to th# character of a true 
 branch of the Church of Christ, as fully as if these facts 
 had never darkened the history of Baptists ; but not be- 
 cause your succession flowed through this corrupt chan- 
 nel, but because you reverence the New Testament 
 Scriptures; though I wish you had more respect for 
 that religion of the Old Testament, which dictated the 
 glorious Psalms of David, and because the Spirit of the 
 Lord is often found in your assemblies. 
 
 You thought, as you brandished Webster so trium- 
 phantly, that Episcopacy was in mortal hostility to 
 freedom; but when I referred you to a better dcfiner 
 than Webster — Paul — for which you ought to thank me, 
 you admit that Bible Episcopacy is divine, but you think 
 it unlike Methodist Episcopacy. Why? Because all 
 the ciders were bishops. I admit it, and so do all Me- 
 thodist standards. Why not call them so? Because the 
 New Testament calls them both elders and bishops, and 
 for .the sake of marking the distinction in office of hira 
 who is called by his brethren to preside over them as 
 the primus inter pares — the first among equals, custom 
 has harmlessly appropriated the title of bishops to them 
 alone. But Now Testament bishops did not preside 
 over elders. You are mistaken; even in Ephcsus, the 
 Church referred to, there was the angel of the Church 
 of Ephesus,' and John is ordered to write to him. Was 
 this a celeetial spirit? No. Was it the collective body 
 of elders? No;, but one who was in a higher degree 
 1
 
 *14: A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 responsible for the integrity of the Church, It was, the 
 first among equals, a president or moderator, if you 
 please, of elders. Hear Dr. George Campbell, the Pres- 
 byterian: (Eccles. Lect. p. 115.) " Certain it is, that 
 the very names of Chtfrch officers were borrowed from 
 the synagogue, which had also its elders, overseers, 
 deacons, and amongst whom one usually presided, who 
 was called the angel of the congregation, the title given 
 by our Lord to the president of Christian assemblies." 
 Why, then, set an elder, if he be a bishop already, apart 
 by an ordination service to a higher office? Because 
 Paul, who was already an Apostle, was set apart by a 
 very solemn ordination service, for a special work; 
 " When they had fasted and prayed, and laid their 
 hands on them, they sent them away." — Acts xiii. 3. 
 Was this intended to make Paul an arch Apostle? By 
 no means. Well, just such is our ordination. 
 
 Bishop Capers contends, and so do I, that if our 
 bishops were mere officers of the Conference, in the 
 same sense as editors, and might be removed without 
 cause, by a single balloting, they should not be set apart to 
 their office by so solemn a ceremonial ; but he, in the very 
 same passage, expressly disavows high Churchism. Our 
 bishops, sir, if not confined to a single Church, like Paul, 
 " have the caue of all the Churches;" and in the inter- 
 vals of Conferences, faithfully labor in word and doc- 
 trine with the simplest of us. You desire to know whe- 
 ther, in the polity of Methodism, the Holy Ghost or the 
 bishops appoint the overseers? Or are bishop and Holy 
 Ghost identical terms? Ah, that was the unkindest cut 
 of all. Do you wish to insinuate that our bishop is our 
 God? n.not, what can be the meaning of your very ir-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 75 
 
 reverent question? Either the Holy Ghost called you 
 into the ministry, or you have entered into the fold by 
 some other way than the door; and you know what 
 Christ says of such: "But if you were called of the 
 Holy Ghost, I need not say to you that human instru- 
 mentality must designate your special field of labor-/' 
 and so it is with us. I trust to hear no more of such 
 irreverence. Do not, therefore, fight against an Episco- 
 pacy which is an importation from inspired men. 
 
 Bishop Hamline's resignation, with the consent of his 
 brethren, does tell unmistakeably that we hold but two 
 orders in the ministry, jure divino, by divine right; had 
 God instituted a third order, and called him to it, he 
 could not innocently have resigned it without the di- 
 vine permission, as an elder cannot, without sin, aban- 
 don the ministry to which he is called: howbeit, after 
 the example of Apostolic Churches, we may invest any 
 of these heaven-called men with a special presidency. 
 Charles V. was not German Emperor, jure divino, he 
 never was by divine right, which is the point in question, 
 anything more than a German citizen. 
 
 It now becomes my painful duty to correct a whole 
 series of the most palpable misi'epresentations of facts I 
 have ever known made by an educated and respectable 
 minister. It is in the analogy you have drawn between 
 the English Church and ours. In doing this, I shall 
 quote from "The Union of Church and State," by the 
 Hon. and Kev. Baptist Noel, an open communion Bap- 
 tist. You say, that in "the Episcopal Church of Eng- 
 land, all the powers of government, legislative, execu- 
 tive, and judicial, are in the hands of the clergy — the 
 power to supply Churches is in Episcopal hands — in the
 
 ^6 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ecclesiastical councils of the English Church, no lay- 
 man's voice is ever heard — in the ecclesiastical polity of 
 England, the revenues of the Church, which proceed from 
 the people, pass beyond their constitutional control into 
 the hands of its rulers — to become a member of the 
 Church of England, a man resigns his right of suffrage, 
 &c., and so in all these respects is it in the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church." Hear Mr. Noel on all these points 
 seriatim: "Bishops and pastors have no manner of spirit- 
 ual jurisdiction within the (English) Churches, but from 
 the Crown — the Crown may delegate its spiritual autho- 
 rity to ecclesiastical lawyers, who may exercise all 
 €hurch discipline within the Churches in its name — all 
 ministers of the Church of England must acknowledge 
 this supremacy of the Crown in spiritual things, on pain 
 of excommunication." — p. 130. "The Court of Arches, 
 acting by authority of the Crown, will punish any min- 
 ister who, with the concurrence of the whole Church of 
 •which he is pastor, should refuse the communion to any 
 ungodly person whom he could not legally prove to be 
 an open and notorious evil liver." — p. 159. And second- 
 ly — in England, the prelates (or bishops) are nomi- 
 nated by the State. — p. 15. " In England, nearly all the 
 Churches have pastors imposed upon them by the State." 
 Again: "The Crown presents to 952 benefices, arch- 
 bishops and bishops to 1248, ecclesiastical corporations 
 to 181, dignitaries to 1851, colleges to 121, and private 
 patrons to 5096." — p. 211. And I may add, the disposal 
 of these at auction is very common. "The result is, 
 the Churches have pastors forced upon them from these 
 five classes — 1, college-fellows; 2, political adherents of 
 the Government; 3, sons of patrons; 4, sons of wealthy
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 11 
 
 men, who pay for situations for them; and 5, sons of 
 clergymen, who find it easier to educate their sons for 
 the Church, than for any other profession." — ^p. 223. 
 Thirdly — "Anglican curates are totally unrepresented in 
 the sacred synod of the nation."— p. 328. Fourthly— "The 
 supremacy of the State determines the settlement of the 
 pastors within the Establishment, its doctrine and wor- 
 ship, its discipline and government." — p. 135. Fifthly — 
 "all persons holding titheable property, must contribute 
 to the maintenance of the clergy, whether they approve 
 of the contribution or not, since the clergy may enforce 
 the payment of dues by process of law." — p. 120. This, 
 too, from all denominations. "As the State is the own- 
 er of the ecclesiastical property, by which it maintains 
 the incumbents of the Establishment, it has a right to 
 resume those funds." — p. 242. 
 
 In this picture of the Church of England, you have lay 
 managnment to the fullest extent yo%t co7ild desire — lay lords, 
 and members of Parliament, and lay judges, with a lay 
 woman (Queen Victoria,) as the head of the Church — 
 appointing bishops and pastors, and determining doc- 
 trines, worship, and government, and the State taxing 
 Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians, under civil 
 penalties, for the support of the clergy of the Church of 
 England. 
 
 Is Methodist Episcopacy like this, sh-? Docs the State 
 of Alabama do all this for us? In view of this exposure 
 of your most palpable misrepresentations, by so high an 
 authority as the celebrated Baptist minister, the Rev. 
 Mr. Noel, I now formally demand of you, as an honest 
 man, a solemn and unqualified retraction of your glar- 
 ing errors in the points specified.
 
 •J3 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 When youare told our bishops have no legislative 
 power whatever, or anywhere; no vote in the trial of 
 either a member or a minister; neither executive, legis- 
 lative, nor judicial power in our General Conference, 
 and no executive authority in any one of our thousands 
 of Churches ; you seem to give up the question of the 
 anti-Republicanism of our bishops, and say you mean by 
 Episcopacy — a government by the clergy. With the 
 next breath you take back your recantation, and wish 
 to know "Why should a bishop care to vote — as well 
 miglit it be said because the kings of England never 
 had a vote in Parliament, therefore the British Govern- 
 ment is a pure Democracy." Now, without dwelling 
 upon the fact, that king's can dissolve Parliaments, and 
 even queens have ordered them not to attempt to legis- 
 late where they forbade them; that no acts of Parlia- 
 ment become laws of the realm without the signature 
 of the monarch; though Bishop Hamline said "It would 
 be treason for a bishop to unseal his lips in the General 
 Conference," — (Debates, p. 130) ; I will show under what 
 conditions only, the analogy between an English king 
 and an American Methodist bishop would hold good. 
 First; The office of an English king should be elective, 
 like that of the bishop. Secondly ; The Parliament should 
 have the power at every session to inspect his acts, and 
 depose him, and even deprive him of the rights of an 
 English citizen, if he werc"^ guilty of imprudence; just as 
 our General Conference can do with our bishops, for im- 
 prudence. Thirdly;. That he should have no power to 
 either veto or sanction their laws, as our bishops have 
 none. Fourthly; That any member of Parliament, or 
 citizen, might retire with honor from under his jurisdic-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. ig 
 
 tion, as any minister or member with us, can demand a 
 certificate of good standing, with the avowed purpose 
 of joining another orthodos Church. And lastly; That 
 Parliament can materially change the powers of a king 
 by a single vote, as the General Conference can, the 
 power of our bishops. Now, my brother, you need not 
 be astonished if I should pronounce such a monarchy as 
 that, exceedingly Democratic. 
 
 Still you think an itinerancy, constituted such by the 
 suffrages of our people, in two distinct votes, is anti- 
 Eepublican, if it admits no lay delegation. Let us see; 
 suppose, for instance, you had one hundred Baptist iti- 
 nerant ministers assembled in Convention in Montgom- 
 ery, to be scattered to the four winds, in such a way as fre- 
 quently to involve heavy sacrifices, severe labors, great 
 privations, and often pecuniary loss — all cheerfully sub- 
 mitted to, for the sake of preaching the gospel to 
 every creature — would you, could you, think it fair 
 and just, and Republican, that laymen, whose know- 
 ledge of the work and of the men must be limited, from 
 the fact that their business keeps them at home, and 
 who make no such sacrifices themselves, should rise in 
 Convention and order every one of the supposed one 
 hundred Baptist itinerants to their several fields of la- 
 bor, and then quietly return to their homes, leaving the 
 itinerants, who had no voice to appoint them to a single 
 duty, to strike theic tents, and go wherever these home- 
 keeping lay delegates ordered them. I can tell you, 
 from experience, that if you were a regular itinerant 
 Baptist, 3'ou would soon feel, deeply feel, the one-sided- 
 ness of such Republicanism. 
 
 With regard to business in which the laity arc
 
 80 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 equally interested with the ministry — such business 
 as constitutes the entire sphere of operations of your 
 State and Southern Convention — we have already lay 
 delegation and lay management; witness our Joint 
 Boards of Finance, and our Tract, Sunday School, 
 and Missionary operations. Our great Missionary 
 Society, which disburses $160,000 annually — our lar- 
 gest collection, has eight lay and four clerical mana- 
 gers; and so of the rest. If, therefore, a layman de- 
 mands the privilege of scattering one hundred minis- 
 ters to the four winds, and then quietly retul-ning home, 
 you will pardon us. Brother Henderson, if we know no 
 such rights, if we cxnuprdmid no such privileges — it would be 
 a sin against Republicanism, of which we cannot, as pa- 
 triots, be guilty. It was a fit sentiment to be uttered 
 by our bishops in the presence of the statue of that 
 Washington, whose blessings rested on their fathers.. 
 
 But we are anti-Republican because J. O'Kelly's 
 resolution was lost by a large majority! Ah! indeed! 
 Did J. O'Kelly want lay delegation ? Not at all. If 
 the resolution had passed, we would have been no less 
 anti-Republican in your estimation. Had not the ma- 
 jority a right to decline disputing about their appoint- 
 ments? You forget yourself if you call this anti-Repub- 
 licanism. Your frank, out-spoken, cordial acknowledg- 
 ment that Methodists are as sincere Democrats and Re- 
 publicans as any community of Christians in the United 
 States, pleases me. " A corrupt tree cannot bring forth 
 good fruit." I suppose you- include also our noble 
 bishops in this patriotic category. I return the cour- 
 tes}'-, and frankly avow my confidence in the patriotism 
 of American Baptists, and the cheerfulness with which 
 I would see them elevated to the highest offices in the
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 81 
 
 land. I am gratified also with your cordial endorsement 
 of our glorious itinerancy. I begin to have some hopes 
 that you will yet appreciate justly our noble economy. 
 I have prepared a fall reply to every single point of 
 your last communication; but in regard to your wish to 
 give space for other communications in your paper, I 
 withhold a portion of it. 
 
 In conclusion, I remark, I would gladly join you in 
 requesting the publication of these articles in our 
 Church papers. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 E. J. HAMILL. 
 
 June 7th, 1855.
 
 82 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 EEPLY TO LETTER III. 
 
 TRUE ORIGIN OF METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 
 
 Hypothetical" argument; Interesting letter from Mr. Wesley; Mr. 
 Wesley the father of Methodism, not oi Episcopal Methodism; Ord- 
 ination of Dr. Coke as superintendent, not as bishop, of the Am- 
 erican Societies; Mr. Wesley's account of it; Interesting overture 
 of Dr. Colie to Bishop White and the Lord Bishop of London; 
 TJmlling letter from Presbyter Wesley to Bishop Asbury; A sad 
 mistake either in the book of Discipline or in History; The true 
 origin of Episcopacy; The General Conference persists in calling 
 Mr. Wesley ^y a name, than which he afiBrmed he had rather be 
 " called a knave, or a fool, a scoundrel, a rascal;" The " bitter pill" 
 suppressed; Two interesting authentic documents placed in juxta- 
 position; Bishop Bascom doubts the historical probity of Sec. 
 1st of the book of Discipline; Striking congruity between the 
 caption of the article, and the text of Scripture superadded; Be- 
 ing " a little out of temper" distorts one's fancy; unlimited range, 
 of discussion asked and conceded; Points endorsed in the article 
 from the Watchman; Ebullitions of passion; The charge of false- 
 hood repelled, and an explanation asked; A chase after the " Iron 
 Wheel;" Methodist Episcopacy not so ancient as Nebuchadnez- 
 zar; Extract from a "Methodist Hymn;" John Wesley and Rob- 
 ert Hall; Our civil liberties "so strangely" achieved, despite Mr. 
 Wesley's efforts; contrast between General Washington's respon- 
 ses to the congratulatory addresses from Methodist bishops and 
 Baptist Churches; The Munster affair; The " unkind cut," the 
 only method of chastising clerical domination; "Three ordeis of 
 ministers are recognised;" The " tug of war;" A sad predicament^
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 83 
 
 "Glaring errors;" Reversing propositions; Proof; Constitution- 
 al oflBcers of the Episcopal Cliurch not private members; A " so 
 lemn demand of an unqualified retraction" declined; The predic- 
 ament in which the demanded retraction would place " our Epis- 
 copacy;'" Baptist "W. Noel; Endorsement of the answer of the 
 bishops to sundry memorials; The colors struck. 
 
 "Am I therefore become yonr enemy because I'tell yon the truth?"— Paul. 
 
 Up to this time, our argument has proceeded upon 
 the supposition that the books bearing the imprimatur 
 of the " Methodist Book Concern," contained a faithful 
 account of the origin of Episcopacy, as an organic ele- 
 ment in the structure of American Methodism. Its 
 Episcopacy is uniformly ascribed to John Wesley. Our 
 response has been: Suppose we grant this, so far from 
 proving that Methodist Episcopacy is pure Eepublican 
 democracy, it seems to us to prove the very reverse. 
 First, Because Mr. Wesley threw the weight of his per- 
 sonal and ministerial character against our revolution- 
 ary struggle for independence, as we have already 
 shown; and Secondly, Because he expressly avowed on 
 the part of himself and his societies, in a letter to Mr. 
 Mason, dated "January 13th, 1190." seven or eight years 
 after our independence was achieved, " We are no Re- 
 publicans, and never intend to be." A short extract 
 from that letter will be "to our purpose quite." 
 
 "My Dear Brother: — As long as I live the I'Eople shall 
 have no share in choosing either stewards or leaders 
 among the Methodists. We have not nor never had, 
 any such custom. We are no Rep^tUicans, and never intend 
 to fje. It would be better for those who are so minded, 
 to go quietly away." — Wesley's Works, vol. vii., p. 98. 
 
 We say, grantiug all that Methodist authors claim,
 
 84 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 that Mr. Wesley is their patron saint — their spiritual 
 father in respect of Episcopacy as well as other things 
 — it utterly annihilates their claim to Republican De- 
 mocracy in their ecclesiastical polity. 
 
 That Mr. Wesley was the father of Methodism, is con- 
 ceded on all hands. We make this concession to our 
 Methodist brethren with all cheerfulness, since it honor- 
 ably exonerates Christ and his Apostles from all agency 
 in the construction of that system. It came into being 
 in its present form, seventeen hunched and eighty-four years 
 after the. Christian era. But that he is the father of i?p/5- 
 cojjfl-Z Methodism, is not quite so clear. The truth is, 
 Mr. Wesley was a member and presbyter of the Church 
 of England, and so far as we have ever learned, he never 
 withdrew from it to the day of his death. This we 
 think we can prove beyond all cavil, if it should be con- 
 tested. His societies were formed within that Church, for- 
 the purpose of combining more efficiently its piety, ^d 
 for the individual happiness of the membership, without 
 intending that they should leave its communion. 
 
 But whatever may have been his individual views and 
 feelings in this respect, certain it is, that he had not the 
 remotest agency in foisting upon his American children 
 the Episcopal'feature of their organization. Nay, it was 
 done despite his known views and most solemn remon- 
 strances. This we shall now attempt to prove; but be- 
 fore doing so, let us premise that we shall pursue the 
 main thread of this argument, irrespective of all impro- 
 per issues or foreign matter. If we were to follow Bro. 
 Hamill, we know not whither he would lead us. We. 
 shall, therefore, pursue our train of argument, devoting, 
 only such portions of our articles to his communications
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 89^ 
 
 as may be essential to the main points at issue between 
 us. We shall try and be kind to his person, but as un- 
 merciful to "our Episcopacy" as the facts in the case, 
 and our powers of reasoning will allow. Our war is 
 not upon Methodists, but upon their Episcopacy. Wc 
 love our Methodist brethren, because they love our com- 
 mon Lord, and have exhibited a zeal in his cause, wor- 
 thy of all praise; but we repudiate their Episcopacy, 
 because it is, in our honest judgment, of the earth, 
 earthy — it deprives a Bible constituency of their religi- 
 ous rights — and is in direct contravention to the genius 
 of our free institutions, so far as it can mould the cha- 
 racter and habitudes of its votaries in this respect. In 
 the hands of corrupt men, (and who shall undertake to 
 say that such men may never wear its mitre?) it may 
 stain American, as it has already crimsoned European 
 history, with crimes of the deepest die. We fight the 
 principle which concedes such power to any men. We 
 claim for our ascended Lord, the supreme legislative 
 power over his Church; and we claim for that Church 
 the authority to expound and apply his already enacted 
 law, to all possible circumstances and conditions, times 
 and places. 
 
 In the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 section first, it is aflSrmed that, as Mr. Wesley "pre- 
 ferred the Episcopal mode of Church government to any 
 other, he solemnly set apart, by the imposition of his 
 hands and prayer, one of them, viz., Thomas Coke, doc- 
 tor of civil law, late of Jesus College, University of 
 Oxford, and a presbyter of the Church of England, for the 
 Episcopal ofiice; and having delivered to him letters of 
 8
 
 86 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Episcopal orders, commissioned and directed him to set 
 apart Francis Asbuky, then general assistant of the Me- 
 thodist Society in America, for the same Episcopal office ; 
 he the said Francis Asbury being first ordained deacon 
 and elder." Now, it may seem to be a most unwarrant- 
 able assumption on our part to question a declaration 
 80 solemnly set forth in the first page of this little vol. 
 umc, containing " The Doctrines and Discipline of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church." But as the word of a 
 bishop or clergyman is noi per se, infallible — as they are 
 liable to be mistaken as well as other men — we propose 
 subjecting this statement to the crucible to see whether 
 it will come forth as " gold tried in the fire." 
 
 In the letter of ordination, which Mr. Wesley fur- 
 nished to Dr. Coke, there is not the most distant allu- 
 sion to the office of bishop. We have before us a printed 
 copy of this document — declared by Mr. Drew, in his 
 life of Dr. Coke, to be a "faithful copy, transcribed from 
 the original, in Mr. Wesley's own hand writing, preserved 
 among the papers of the late Dr. Coke." The clause in 
 this letter which defines the office to which Dr. Coke 
 was set apart, reads as follows: — "And therefore, under 
 the protection of Almighty God, and with a single eye 
 to his glory, I have this day set apart as a superintendent, 
 by the imposition of ray hands and prayers [being as- 
 sisted by other ordained ministers] Thomas Coke, doc- 
 tor of civil law, a presbyter of the Church of England, 
 and a man whom I judge to be well qualified for that 
 great work." The letter is dated " this second day of 
 September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven 
 hundred and eighty-four," and signed JOHN WESLEY.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 81 
 
 Why it is that this " letter of ordination" has never 
 been printed with the minutes of conference, or inserted 
 in the Discipline, is left to the conjecture of the reader. 
 And yet it is the very document on which the bold de- 
 clarations are made, that Mr. Wesley "preferred the 
 Episcopal mode of Church government" — that he set 
 apart Dr. Coke to " the Episcopal oflBce"— and that he 
 " commissioned him to set apart Francis Asbury .... 
 for the same Episcopal office." Or if there is any other 
 authority, it has never been produced, though challeng- 
 ed time and again. 
 
 In 1791, that is, six or seven years after he was or- 
 dained by Mr. Wesley, Dr. Coke addressed a letter to 
 Bishop White, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, of- 
 fering in behalf of himself and Mr. Wesley, to use their 
 "influence to the iitmost," which "was not small," to 
 transfer " above 60,000 adults in" the " society in these 
 states ; and about 250 travelling ministers and preach- 
 ers; besides a great number of local preachers, very far 
 excelling the number of travelling preachers," together 
 with the " congregations in these states amounting to 
 750,000," provided Bishop White will consecrate him, 
 Dr. Coke, bishop. Now, why was this overture made, 
 if he had already been " set apart by the imposition of 
 -hands and prayers" "to the Episcopal office?" Failing 
 in this overture. Dr. Coke made a similar application to 
 the Lord Bishop of London, about eight years after- 
 wards, declaring that " our numerous societies in Am- 
 erica would have l)cen a regular Presbyterian Church, 
 if Mr. Wesley and myself had not taken the steps which 
 we judged it necessary to adopt." But "his Lorship"
 
 88 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 would not " impart the Holy Ghost" to the doctor, and 
 there, so far as we know, the matter ended.* 
 
 But we have evidence direct and emphatic — such as 
 it would be madness in any sane man to contest — that 
 Mr. Wesley never dreamed while he was setting apart 
 Dr. Coke to the office of superintendent, that that cere- 
 mony would ever be metamorphosed into an " JEpiscopal 
 ordhiaiion,'' as the Discipline affirms. Let the reader 
 distinctly observe that Dr. Coke's " ordination letter" 
 bears date September 2d, a. d. 1784. Four years after 
 this, as the reader will see from the date, Mr. Wesley 
 addressed the following letter to Francis Asbury, whom, 
 the Discipline declares he (Wesley) deputed Dr. Coke 
 to ordain to the " Episcopal office." 
 
 "London, Sept. 20th, 1788. 
 
 There is, indeed, a wide difference between the rela- 
 tion wherein you stand to the Americans, and the rela- 
 tion wherein I stand to all the Methodists. You ai-e the 
 elder brother of the American Methodists; I am, under 
 God, the father of the whole family. Therefore I natur- 
 ally care for you all, in a manner no other person can 
 do. Therefore I, in a measure, provide for you all; for 
 the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could 
 not provide were it not for me — were it not that I not 
 onl}' permit him to collect, but support him in so doing. 
 
 But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid 
 both the doctor and you differ from me. I study to be 
 Utile, you study to he great; I creep, you strut along; I 
 found a school, you a college — nay, and call it after your 
 own names! beware! Do not cease to be somethivg ! 
 Let me be nothing, and Christ be all in all. 
 
 One instance of this your greatness, has given me 
 great concern. How can you, how dare you suffer your- 
 
 * See Appendix B.
 
 * METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 89 
 
 self to be called a Ushopl I shudder, I start at the very 
 thought. Men may call me a kvMve, or a fool, a rascal, a 
 scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never, by my 
 consent, call me a bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, 
 for Christ's sake, put a full end to this! Let the Presby- 
 terians do what they please, but let the Methodists 
 know their calling- better. 
 
 Thus, mj'- dear Franky, I have told you all that is in 
 my heart, and let this, when I am no more seen, bear 
 witness how sincerely 
 
 I am your affectionate friend and brother, 
 
 JOHN WESLEY." 
 
 Now, after these solemn declarations on the part of 
 Mr. Wesley, what can we think of the authorities of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, for continuing' to publish, 
 in every impression of their Discipline, not only that Mr. 
 Wesley " preferred the Episcopal form of their Church 
 goverament," but that he absolutely did ordain Dr. 
 Coke to the " Episcopal office 1" These are historic fads 
 — we simply state them, and leave the reader to make 
 his own comments. The true origin of Ejnscopacy, as an 
 organic element in Methodism, as developed in " Lee's 
 History of Methodism," is this: 
 
 "In the course of the year (1181,) Mr. Asbury re- 
 printed the general minutes, but in a different form from 
 what they locre before. The title of this pamphlet was as 
 follows: 
 
 "A Form of Discipline for the Ministers, Preachers, 
 and Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Ame- 
 rica; considered and approved at a Conference held at 
 Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, on Monday the 2'Ith
 
 90 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 day of December, 1784, in which the Eev. Thomas Coke, 
 LL.D., and the Rev. Francis Asbury, presided. Ar- 
 ranged under proper heads, and methodized in a more 
 acceptable manner." 
 
 "This was the first time that our superintendents ever 
 gave themselves the title of bishops* in the minutes. They 
 changed the title themselves without the consent of the confer- 
 ence; and at the next conference they asked the preach- 
 ers if the word bishoj> might stand in the minutes, seeing 
 it was a scriptural name, and the meaning of the word 
 lishop was the same with that of superintendent. 
 
 " Some of the preachers opposed the alteration and 
 wished to retain the former title, but a majority of the 
 preachers wished to let the word bishop remain." — Le^s 
 History of Methodism, page 128. 
 
 The above will account for Mr. Wesley's letter to Mr. 
 Asbury, in 1788, the j'ear after the title of bishop was 
 assumed instead of superintendent, in which he says 
 " Men may call me a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, 
 and I am content; but they shall never, by my consent, 
 call me a bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for 
 Christ's sake, put a full end to this!" 
 
 Now, let the reader observe, that the next year after 
 Mr. Wesley wrote this letter to Mr. Asbury, the very 
 first question and answer on the minutes of Conference 
 are the following: 
 
 " Who are the persons that exercise the Episcopal office 
 in the Methodist Church in Europe and America? 
 
 * It is somewhat remarkable that as soon as Mr. Wesley's name 
 was left out of the minutes, the term .bishop was. introduced into 
 them.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 91 
 
 "Ans. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury." 
 
 It is fair to presume that Mr. Asbury had Mr. Wes- 
 
 le3''s letter at the time he and Dr. Coke were presiding 
 
 at the Conference of 1T89; for in his Journal, vol. ii. p. 
 
 45, we find the following entry: 
 
 "1189. — South Carolina, March 15th. We reached 
 the city, having rode two hundred miles in about five 
 days and two hours. Here I received a bitter pill from 
 one of my greatest friends." We suppose this " bitter 
 piW was the above letter. Now what right had Messrs. 
 Coke and Asbury and the American Conference to con- 
 nect the name of John Wesley with a title against which 
 he had protested in such unmeasured terms — a title, ra- 
 ther than wear which, he would choose to be called 
 " a knave, a fool, a rascal, or a scoundrel?" It was 
 certainly due the old man, that his name should not 
 be mentioned in any such connection. If they were de- 
 termined to adopt the Episcopal form of government, it 
 was obviously incumbent on them to have taken the re- 
 sponsibility on themselves, and allowed their minutes to 
 speak the truth. But, instead of this, the letter was 
 suppressed, and its contents, so far as they were con- 
 cerned, never would have seen the light of day. Nay, 
 the first thing done at the Conference next preceding 
 the reception of this letter, was, solemnly and bofore 
 God, to publish to the world the name of John Wesley 
 as a bishop of the Methodist Church! "Ilis name was 
 used," says the Rev. Mr. McCaine, who was thirty years 
 an eld(5r in that Church, " to give a degree of sanction 
 to their measures, which it was thought would disarm 
 resistance, if any were offeredj and by this means was
 
 92 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 an Episcopal government established; the name of John 
 Wesley being offered as a passport to all the contem- 
 plated ecclesiastical honors." 
 
 Now, let us apply the foregoing facts to our argu- 
 ment. The " Discipline" alleges that Mr. Wesley " pre- 
 ferred the Episcopal form of government," — Mr. Wesley 
 solemnly protests that he had rather be called " a 
 knave, a fool, a rascal, or a scoundrel," than to be called 
 hishop! The "Discipline" declares that he ordained Dr. 
 Coke to the " Episcopal office" — neither the word Episco- 
 pal nor bishop occurs in the ordination letter. The "Dis- 
 cipline" avers that he commissioned Dr. Coke to ordain 
 Francis Asbury to the " same Episcopal office" — four 
 years after the date of said letter of ordination, he 
 (Wesley) writes to Mr. Asbury, " For "my sake, for 
 God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this"— 
 [" suffering yourself to be called a bishop."'} The " Dis- 
 cipline" affirms that the Episcopal mode of government 
 was adopted in ^84, the year on which it is assumed Dr. 
 Coke appeared in America with letters of Episcopal au- 
 thority from Mr. Wesley — and yet seven years after 
 this, to-wit, in 1791, Dr. Coke applied to Bishop White 
 for ordination to that office; and in 1199, he made a si* 
 milar application to the Lord Bishop of London — that is, 
 he made two unsuccessful efforts to be ordained to the 
 office of bishop, after both the " Discipline" and the 
 Minutes of Conference solemnly declare that he was a 
 bishop! What a pity the holy link in the succession 
 could not have been supplied! What an awful disaster, 
 that in attempting to stretch it across the ocean, the 
 mystic chain snapped asunder!
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 
 
 93 
 
 Suppose we place two or three of these documents in 
 juxtaposition, and see how beautifully they will har- 
 monize: 
 
 Look at this: 
 
 Discipline, pages 1-2. 
 
 "As he (Mr. Wesley) preferred 
 the Episcopal mode of Church 
 governmeat to any other, he so- 
 lemnly set apart, by the imposi- 
 tion of his hands and prayers, 
 one of them, viz: 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 Epis- 
 copal office; and having delivered 
 to him letters of Episcopal orders, 
 commissioned and directed him 
 to sot apart Francis Asbury, 
 then general assistant of the Me- 
 thodist Society in America, for 
 the same Episcopal office," &c. 
 
 Minutes of Conference for 
 1789. 
 
 "Who are the persons that 
 exercise the Epiicr.pal office in the 
 Methodist Church in Europe and 
 America? 
 
 "Ana. John Wesley, Thomas 
 Coke, Francis Asbury." 
 
 AXD THEN AT THIS: 
 
 Extract from Mr. Wesley's let- 
 ter to Mr. Asbury, dated 
 
 " London, Sept. 20, 1788. 
 
 * * * * One instance of this 
 your greatness gives me great 
 concern. How can you, how dare 
 you suffer yourself to be called 
 
 bishop? I SHUDDER, I START at the 
 
 very' thought. Men may call me a 
 knave, or a fool, a rascal, a scoun- 
 drel, and I am content; but they 
 shall never, by my consent, call 
 me a bishop! For my salie, for 
 God's sake, for Christ's sake, put 
 a full end to this." * * * * 
 
 I am your affectionate friend 
 and brother, 
 
 JOHN WESLEY." 
 
 But if we should be considered uncharitable in doubt- 
 ing the authority of a fact wliich constitutes the foun- 
 dation stone of the Methodist polity — if the members of 
 that communion should feci " grieved and insulted" as
 
 94 ' - A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 some political editors say, that we should not exercise 
 implicit faith in declarations solemnly made by the au- 
 thorities of that Church just as often as there are im- 
 pressions in the " Discipline" now extant — we beg to 
 summon to our rescue a man whom they will hear — 
 the late Bishop Bascom. In Dr. Bond's Economy of Me- 
 thodism, he quotes Dr. Bascom as saying, " But Mr. 
 Wesley seems not to have contemplated an Episcopacy 
 in any shape. It is, to be sure, asserted in the Preface 
 tg our Book of Discipline; but the oldest preachers in 
 the United States, with whom I have conversed and 
 corresponded on this subject, w^rer saw the warrant. It 
 has been called for by friends and foes for thirty years, 
 lut it is not yet forthcoviing. If such warrant exists, 
 
 why is it that we am learn nothing of ill But 
 
 until such warrant or document from Mr. Wesley be 
 procured, 7, as an individual, must of necessity, continue to 
 doubt the historical probity of the Preface of our Book of Dis- 
 cipline, in relation to this particular," — Economy of Me- 
 thodism, p. 114. 
 
 We claim, then, that Bishop Bascom shall share equal- 
 ly with us the odium of this incredulit}'. If a Baptist 
 editor commits an unpardonable ofience in "doubting 
 the historical probity of the Preface of our Book of Dis- 
 cipline," it is not a little consoling to him to know that 
 a Methodist bishop — the eloquent Bascom — is equally con- 
 demned with him to endure the bitter penalty of that 
 terrible offence. 
 
 And here we must pause in this argument, for the 
 purpose of paying our respects to Brother Hamill's third 
 letter.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 95 
 
 And first, the reader will observe a most beautiful 
 congruity between the caption of his article, " Method- 
 ism, like its Creed — peace and good will to man," and 
 the passage of Scripture he ha^ chosen for a motto — 
 " Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid 
 to speak evil of dignities." The amiable spirit — the 
 " peace and good-will to man" of Methodism, consists, 
 then, in denouncing those who question the right of 
 bishops and clergy to legislate for the Churches, as 
 " presumptuous, self-willed — not afraid to speak evil of 
 dignities." That is to say, if any person see proper to 
 suggest that it would be more in accordance with the 
 genius of our free institutions, for the governed to have 
 some voice in the government — that power, whether 
 civil or ecclesiastical, in the hands of an exclusive class 
 of men, irresponsible to any other power for its exer- 
 cise, naturally tends to accumulation and corruption — 
 he must be classed with those to whom Peter refers in 
 this passage, 4o-wit: "Those who walk after the flesh 
 in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government." 
 Of course, Brother Hamill designs this application of 
 the passage, or he would not prefix it to his article. 
 
 Our brother seems to be a little out of temper. We 
 said in our former article, that v/e should rule out every- 
 thing foreign in this discussion. He understands us as 
 meaning that wc would mutilate his manuscripts to 
 suit our views of relevancy. Not so fast, Bro. Hamill. 
 We simply meant that, according to the common rules 
 of debute, you had no moral right to introduce foreign 
 matters; and that if you did, it was not incumbent on 
 us to leave the main question under discussion, and fol- 
 low all your aberrations from the point or points at is-
 
 96 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 sue between us. Your restiveness on this subject furnishes 
 an impressive illustration of the fact, that Methodist 
 clergymen brook no sort of control when engaged with 
 an alien, or, as your motto suggests, " the presumptu- 
 ous and self-willed." Go on, brother. Whatever you 
 write, whether it be on that horrible practice of " close 
 communion," or the " Munster insurrectionists," or, if 
 you should choose to give us your views of " Mormonism" 
 as Brother Ferguson * has done, (see last paper) we 
 will print it all, without the " displacement of a single 
 word." All we have to say is, that we do not ezactlf see 
 the pertinancy df such topics to the subject we are discussing. 
 
 You charge us with endorsing the following odious 
 articles from the "Watchman:" " Methodist Episco- 
 pacy is a foe to human rights:" the very point we are 
 discussing, Brother Hamill. How could we take the 
 ground that Methodist Episcopacy is anti-Republican, 
 without regarding it as a "foe to human rights?" Fur- 
 ther, that " it exerts a paralyzing influence over freedom 
 of thought" — if suspension and expulsion from your 
 Church for discussing " the mutual rights of ministers 
 and members paralyzes freedom of thought," we humbly 
 submit that we have proved this beyond the possibility 
 of a cavil. " It has imposed articles of faith upon the 
 people, without their consent." Yes, sir, it has. Where 
 and when have the local ministers and private members 
 of your Church, individually or collectively, in their own 
 persons or by representative's, delegated the right to 
 your bishops and travelling preachers, to " impose ar- 
 ticles of faith" upon them? If such right ever has been 
 
 * See Appendix D.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 97 
 
 conceded, it can be proved. " Methodists degrade them- 
 selves by submission to bishops, in regard to Church 
 property, more than Roman Catholics." The famous 
 suit brought by the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, South, to recover their proportion of funds in 
 the " Book Concern," was decided by our civil authori- 
 ties on the ground, that the property of the Church vest- 
 ed in its bishops and clergy; whereas Catholic congre- 
 gations have contested this very point before the same 
 tribunal with success. This we will either prove or re- 
 tract. " Our bishops control our public moneys and 
 buildings." The writer in the Watchman asks and ans- 
 wers thus: "Who holds the deeds for every inch of 
 ground, and every Episcopal Methodist Church in the 
 land? The Conference., alias the bishops." Will Brother 
 Hamill deny this? If so, the proof is at hand to any 
 amount. Finally, the bishops " can control the suffrages 
 of our members," &c. This is not stated as a fact, but 
 as a proposition to be argued from facts. And whether 
 the writer proved it or not, is left to the judgment of 
 the reader. Brother Ilamill is the last man on earth 
 who ought to charge us with " twisting in and twisting 
 out." 
 
 After we had extended to Brother Hamill all the cour- 
 tesy he asked — allowing him, nay welcoming him, to 
 the unrestricted use of our columns, a privilege that 
 wc still accord to him — and in all our allusions to him, 
 using terms of the utmost respect — we say, after all 
 this, judge of our surprise at the following declaration: 
 " Of what you allege against ^fethodism, I must deliber- 
 ately say to you, they are all and each of them, utterly 
 FALSE. For proof, sec my first article, which you have 
 9
 
 98 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 barely deigned to notice." We had hoped, Bro. Hamill, 
 that you were a stranger to Grub-street vernacular — 
 that your Bro. Ferguson, had monopolized that depart- 
 ment "of our Episcopacy." What we have alleged 
 against Methodism is "utterly falsk!"— is it? Let us 
 see. We have said that the Annual and Quadrennial - 
 Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church are 
 composed, ex officio, of the bishops and travelling cler- 
 gy; that neither local preachers nor private members * 
 have any voice in their deliberations; that the basis of 
 representation in the General Conference is not the nu- 
 merical strength of the membership of the Churches, but 
 of the travelling preachers ; that this distinct feature of 
 Methodism is never to be changed, since the " fathers of 
 the Church have taken the pains to throw around it the 
 sanctity of an irrevocable decree;" that in neither the 
 legislative, executive, or judicial departments of govern- 
 ment in your Church, have the laity auy representative; 
 that Methodist Episcopacy deprives the membership of 
 the Methodist Church of the right to choose their own 
 pastors— a right as dear to the " Lord's freed men" as 
 any other he has conferred; that Mr. Wesley, the father 
 of Methodism, after spending a portion of his time among 
 our Colonies,-before the Revolutionary War, and acquir- 
 ing a commanding influence among them, on account of 
 his talents and piety, threw the whole weight of that 
 influence against oui- struggle for national independence, 
 and declared on the part of himself and friends, many 
 years after the war was ended— "We are no Republi- 
 cans, and never intend to be;" that several of his 
 preachers had to flee the country during that war, on 
 account of their Tory principles, and that Mr. Asbury,
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 99 
 
 the first Methodist bishop ordained in America, had to 
 conceal himself from the popular fury for the same rea- 
 son; that large numbers of official and private members 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church were suspended and 
 expelled for promoting- a movement in that Church, to 
 incorporate into its polity the great REPRESENTA- 
 TIVE idea of our civil government; that a respectful 
 petition was presented to the General Conference, in 
 1824, praying " that the government of the Church might 
 be made representative, and more in accordance with the 
 mutual rights of the ministers and people," and that the 
 petition was-met by the stern rebuke of the bishops, — 
 " Pardon us if we knoio no such rights, if ice co??iprehend no 
 such privileges]'^ we say these are substantially the points 
 we had " alleged against Methodism," up to the time 
 Brother Haraill wrote his pi-esent article. ARE THEY 
 " UTTERLY FALSE ?" But perhaps we have mistaken 
 the punctuation of our brother; perhaps he designs the 
 charge to refer only to the article from the " Watch- 
 man." If so, the reader can judge, after reading both 
 articles, how far tlie writer of that article has been con- 
 victed of falsehood. — 
 
 "We are not defending Brother Graves — he is able to 
 do that himself — but discussing Methodist Episcopacy. 
 We must, therefore, wait until our brother returns from 
 chasing the "great iron wheel." 
 
 We said that ecclesiastical power had been invoked 
 by secular princes, to establish and perpetuate their 
 thrones — as well as to carry out some of their basest 
 purposes — and lo! Brother Hamill asks, "Did Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, Alexander, Tiberius, the Sultan, &c. &c. 
 kc, owe their thrones to — American Methodism?" Not
 
 100 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 at all. True, we used to hear a long metre hymn in 
 our boyish days, one stanza of which ran thus : 
 
 " The world, the Calvinists, and Paine, 
 May hate the Methodists in vain; 
 Their doctrines shall be downward hurled, 
 The Methodists will take the uorld." 
 
 But we never dreamed that Methodism reached quite 
 80 far back into antiquity as Nebuchadnezzar. True, 
 we are aware that that renowned king became quite 
 orthodox once, and because some of his subjects chose 
 to worship God contrary to the royal "ritual," "know- 
 ing no such right, and comprehending no such privi- 
 lege," he dealt with them after the true spirit of Epis- 
 copacy, as exhibited in the Romish and English Churches. 
 Perhaps it was some such association of ideas as this 
 that brought up the image of this Babylonish monarch 
 to our brother's fruitful imagination. 
 
 The difference between John Wesley and Robert 
 Hall, was this: Mr. Wesley sent out " superintendents'' 
 and Missionaries, inimical to our cause, and visited in 
 person our Colonies, and then used the influence thus ob- 
 tained, against our struggle with Great Britain for inde- 
 pendence, Robert Hall never did this. His political 
 tracts show what his sympathies were. But Mr. Wes- 
 ley "judged it best that" we " should stand fast in that 
 liberty wherewith God had so strangely set us free!" 
 Very " nobly spoken" indeedl "God has made them 
 free," despite Mr. Wesley's efforts to the contrary. And 
 then it was "so strangeli/" done! If the good old man 
 conld only have " known the rights and comprehended
 
 METHODIST EPISCOrACY. 101 
 
 the privileg-es" for wliich we were contending', perhaps 
 it would not have been so strange after all.* 
 
 But then the Methodists presented a congratulatory 
 address to General Washington, on his accession to the 
 Presidency. This was quite patriotic; but not more 
 so than -similar addresses from other religious bodies, 
 two of whom were before them, if Jared Sparks is 
 right in the arrangement of the Washington papers. 
 But if our brother dwells with so much rapture upon 
 the General's response to this address, in which he "im- 
 plored the divine benediction on" their " religious com- 
 munity," into what ecstacies would it have thrown him, 
 if he had read in that response the following: "While 
 I recollect with satisfaction that the religious society of 
 which you are members, have been, throughout America, 
 uniformly and almost unanimously, tlie firm friends to 
 civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glo- 
 rious Revolution, I cannot hesitate to believe that they 
 will be the faithful supporters of a free yet efficient gen- 
 eral govcrnment."f Yet this was in his response to a 
 
 • See Appendix A. 
 
 t On the accessiou of General "Washington to tlic Presidency of 
 the United States, the various religious denomiuations of the country, 
 in connection with other bodies, presented congratulatory addresses 
 to him, to which he uniformly responded in respectful terms. The 
 following are his answers '• to the bishops of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church in the United States," and " to the General Committee 
 representing the United Baptist Churches in Virginia." They are 
 extracted from "The Writings of Washington,''' vol. xii, pp. 153-155. 
 
 " To the Bishopt of the Methodist Episcopal C7nirch 
 
 in the United Stales.— hiay, 1789. 
 
 " Gextlemev: — I return to you individually, and, through yon, to 
 your Society collectively in the United States, my thanks for the
 
 102 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 similar "congratulatory address" from the Baptists. 
 But we shall make no invidious comparisons. 
 
 The Munster aflfair, of Germany, in the sixteenth cen- 
 tury, is also dragged into this discussion. It is done 
 
 demonstrations of affection and the expressions of joy, offered in 
 their behalf, on ray late appointment. It shall still be my endeavor 
 to manifest, by overt acts, the purity of my inclinations for promot- 
 ing the happiness of mankind, as well as the sincerity of my desires 
 to contribute whatever may be in my power towards the preserva- 
 tion of the civil and religious liberties of the American people. In 
 pursuing this line of conduct, I hope, by the assistance of Divine 
 providence, not altogether to disappoint the confidence which you 
 have been pleased to repose in me. 
 
 "It always affords me satisfaction, when I find a concurrence in 
 eentiment and practice between all conscientious men in acknowl- 
 edgments of homage to the great Governor of the Universe, and in 
 professions of support to a just civil government. After mentioning 
 that I trust the people of every denomination, who demean them- 
 selves as good citizens, M'ill have occasion to be convinced that I 
 shall always strive to prove a faithful and impartial patron of gen- 
 uine, vital religion, I must assure you in particular, that I take in 
 the kindest part, the promise you make of presenting your prayers 
 at the throne of grace for me, and that I likewise implore the Di- 
 vine benediction on yourselves and your religious community. 
 
 GEORGE WASHINGTON.'! 
 
 " To the General Committee, representing the 
 
 United Baptist Churches in Virginia. — May, 1789. 
 
 " Gkxtlemen: — I request that you will accept my best acknowl- 
 edgments for your congratulation on my appointment to the first 
 office in the nation. The kind manner in which you mention my 
 past conduct equally claims the expression of gratitude. 
 
 "After we had, by the smiles of heaven on our exertions, obtained 
 the object for which we contended, I retired, at the conclusion of 
 the war, with an idea that my country could have no further occa-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 103 
 
 with many palliations and qualifications — but still it is 
 done. We intend to notice this at a proper time; but 
 as it is not vitally connected with Methodist Episcopacy, 
 we dismiss it for the present.* 
 
 sion for my services, and with the intention of never again entering 
 into public life; hut, when the exigencies of my country seemed to 
 require me once more to engage in public affairs, an honest convic- 
 tion of my duty superseded my former resolution, and became my 
 apology for deviating from the happy plan which I had adopted. 
 
 " If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension, that the 
 constitution formed in the convention, where I had the honor to 
 preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesi- 
 astical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature 
 to it; and if I could now conceive that the general government 
 might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience 
 insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more 
 zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the hor- 
 rors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious perseoution. 
 For you doubtless remember, that I have often expressed my senti- 
 ments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and 
 being accountable to God alone, for his religious opinions, ought to 
 be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of 
 his own conscience. 
 
 " While I recollect with satisfaction, that the religious society of 
 which you are members have been, throughout America, uuiformly 
 and almost unanimously the firm friends to civil liberty, and the 
 persevering promoters of our glorious revolution, I cannot hesitate 
 to believe, that they will be the faithful supporters of a free, yet 
 eCBcient general government. Under this pleasing expectation, I 
 rejoice to assure them, that they may rely on my best wishes and 
 endeavors to advance their prosperity. 
 
 "^ In the meantime be assured, gentlemen, that I entertain a pro- 
 per sense of your fervent supplications to God for my temporal and 
 
 eternal happincse. 
 
 GEORGE WASHINGTON." 
 
 • See Appendix C.
 
 104 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 As Brother Hamill persists in confounding Methodist 
 "with Bible Episcopacy, we shall devote an article to 
 that subject at an early day. We must correct an er- 
 roneous impression on our brother's mind, in regard to 
 a question or two we asked: " In the Methodist polity, 
 does the Holy Ghost or the bishops appoint the over- 
 seers? Or are bishop and Holy Ghost identical terms?" 
 "Ah!" exclaims our brother, " that was the unkindest 
 cut of alll" Now, God forbid that we should speak un- 
 kindly of any one, more especially of a New Testament 
 bishop. We reverence such a man wherever we see 
 him. Paul has described him in his Epistles to Timothy 
 and Titus — portions of holy writ which have been the 
 themes for ordination services among most Protestants, 
 time out of mind. Such a minister we honor, no matter 
 to what denomination he belongs. But when even a 
 good man thrusts himself, or permits others to thrust 
 him into a position not of God's bidding; when man 
 shall attempt to create a " dignitary" in the Church of 
 Christ, higher in authority than either the Church or 
 those whom the^'Holy Ghost has made bishops;" who 
 assumes the prerogative " to change, receive, and sus- 
 pend preachers as necessity may require, and as the 
 Discipline directs; to fix the appointments of the preach- 
 ers for the several circuits; to oversee the spiritual and 
 TEMPORAL business of the Church ; to hear and decide ap- 
 peals of the quarterly meeting Conferences, on questions 
 of law; to choose the presiding elders, to fix their sta- 
 tions, and to change them when he judges it necessary," 
 &c. &c.; we say, when such a dignitary is obtruded into 
 the sacred precincts of Zion — " lording it over God's 
 clergy," (for that is the signification of kkros in Greek,
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 105 
 
 and so old Wickliffe translated it,) — it is not " unkind" 
 in us to rebuke the intruder, even if we should use the 
 stern language of Virgil's priest. 
 
 " Procul hinc ! procul este, profani, 
 • * * Totoque absistite luco!" 
 
 Is it not true that the bishops of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church appoint the " overseers" in that Church? 
 Is it not true that in the New Testament economy, Paul 
 affirms that the Holy Ghost appoints these " overseers?" 
 And when man assumes the prerogatives of that Spirit, 
 the inquiry is pertinent, whether such authority is iden- 
 tical with that of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 As Brother Hamill still maintains that there are but 
 two orders of clergy in his Church, we quote two others 
 of his Church authorities on that subject. Drs. Emory 
 and Bangs, in " Buck's Theological Dictionary," say — 
 "THREE ORDERS of ministers ARE recognized, and 
 the duties peculiar to each are clearly defined." We 
 suppose these eminent doctors, when%riting an article 
 for a standard work, which was intended to give a 
 faithful account of what Methodism is, would not be 
 likely to have mistaken two for three. 
 
 But now " comes the tug of war." Brother Hamill 
 says — " It now becomes my painful duty to correct a 
 whole scries of the most palpable misrepresentations of facts 
 I have ever known made by an educated and respecta- 
 ble minister." And then, after convicting us to his own 
 entire satisfaction, concludes by making the following 
 very modest and delicate demand: " I now formally dc 
 viand (.') of you," (Episcopal to the core!) " as an hoi-
 
 106 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 est man, a solemn and unqualified retraction of your glar- 
 ing error's in the points specified I" 
 
 On reading this, we really felt our humble self in the 
 predicament of an old poet: 
 
 " To laugh were want of goodness and of grace; 
 And to be grave, exceeds all power of face." 
 
 The " points" we suggested are these : That in the 
 English Church, the powers of government are in the 
 hands of the clergy; that the power of ordination is 
 vested in the hands of its bishops; that the right of 
 supplying the Churches with pastors, was in the same 
 hands; that in her ecclesiastical councils, (chapters 
 they are called) the laity are not represented; that the 
 revenues of the Church, collected from the people, pass 
 beyond their constitutional control into the hands of its 
 rulers; and that the right of suflfrage is denied to its 
 private members. All these, with a single exception, 
 as they relate to the Church of England, are " paljmhle 
 misrepresentations of fadsf Then the converse of each 
 one of them, except one, is true I Let us see how they 
 will sound. In the Church of England, the powers of 
 government are not in the hands of the clergy, i. e. it 
 is not Episcopacy, since Episcopacy means, according 
 to Webster, (pardon us, brother, for introducing Web- 
 ster again, if you please, as it is a prevailing opinion 
 that he is competent to define a common English word,) 
 " the government of the Church by bishops or prelates." 
 That the right of supplying the Churches with pastors 
 is NOT in Episcopal hands — then the Churches have a 
 right to choose their own pastors! True, the Crown, 
 
 
 #.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. lOt 
 
 the lords of the manor throughout the realm, ecclesias- 
 tical corporations, dignitaries, and college Churches, as 
 by constitutional law, officially connected with "the 
 Church," have the right to nominate persons to the va- 
 rious benefices within their several jurisdictions; but 
 the confirmation of these nominations is in the hands of 
 the bishops. So we understand the following, from the 
 Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, Art. Episcopacy. 
 " The jurisdiction of a bishop, in England, consists in 
 collatiug to benefices," (presenting to benefices,)" grant- 
 ing institutions on the presentation of other patrons; 
 commanding induction; taking care of the profits of va- 
 cant benefices for the use of the successors," &c. 
 
 Now, if we can imderstand the language of Episco- 
 pacy, (though, no very great adept in the "speech of 
 Ashdod,") the above clearly shows, that an appointment 
 to a benefice by " other patrons" must be confirmed by 
 a bishop before the appointee can legally enter upon 
 his office. And moreover, the point we were seeking to 
 establish was, that the Churches, as sucli, in the estab- 
 lishment, had no right to choose their pastors. It would 
 seem that it was impossible for our brother to have 
 mistaken our meaning. But to proceed with the "points 
 specified." In the ecclesiastical councils of the English 
 Church the laity are represented! That is, Episcopacy, 
 is tiot Episcopacy! "A dean and chapter," says Buck, "are 
 the bishop's council, to assist him in the aflairs of reli- 
 gion;" — a "dean presides over at least ten canons or 
 prebendaries;" a chapter is "a community of ecclesi- 
 astics belonging to a Cathedral or college Church." 
 The revenues of tlie Church, collected from the people,
 
 108 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 do NOT pass beyond their constitutional control, notwith- 
 standing, Mr. Noel's averment that " all persons holding 
 titheable property must contribute to the maintenance 
 of the clergy, whether they approve of the contribution 
 or not" — Methodists, Baptists, all nonconformists — they 
 all have the " control " of their funds, after the payment 
 is "enforced by process of lawt" And finally, that the 
 right of suffrage is not denied to its private members ! 
 Then they can act with the "council to assist him (the 
 bishop) in the affairs of religion," by their chosen repre- 
 sentatives, at least 1 All this we are asked to do! to 
 reverse our original propositions!! 
 
 Now, we did not take it upon ourselves to inform our 
 readers that the Church of England was established by 
 law, and that the crown, by consequence, was the high- 
 est recognized officer — the head — of that Church. We 
 really thought we might take it for granted that this 
 was known by men of common intelligence. In the 
 days of King Henry VIII, the right of appointing the 
 Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, the highest ecclesiastic in 
 the realm, belonged ta the crown. But when Elizabeth 
 came to the throne, because the Scriptures declared 
 that a woman was not permitted to speak in the Church, 
 this prerogative was waved by the Queen, and the ap- 
 pointment of that dignitary, ever since, we believe, has 
 devolved upon the " chapter." 
 
 Must we say to Brother Hamill, that the constitution- 
 al officers of the Church of England, whether they be 
 king, queen, lords, noblemen, or patrons, are not pri- 
 vate members? If the laws of the realm invest them 
 with a portion of Episcopal authority, whether they are
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 109 
 
 preachers or not, are they not part and parcel of that 
 Episcopacy? Is not the Crown the great embodiment 
 of this Episcopacy — the head of the Church — defender 
 of the faith? Are official members of Churches to be 
 regarded as private members, simply because they do 
 not preach? 
 
 Sincerely do we thank Bro. Hamill for his quotations 
 from Mr. Noel. The reader has in these extracts a 
 pretty fair portraiture of the corruptions and tendencies 
 of Episcopacy. What Episcopacy in England now is, 
 Episcopacy in America may be hereafter. Read these 
 extracts from Mr. Noel again, and then say, what are 
 we to expect from the daughter, when the mother prac- 
 tices such abominations as these? There may be " lay 
 management to the fullest extent" if the constitutional 
 officers of the Church are laymen; but we submit, there 
 is not much lay representation in that management. 
 
 Shall we make an " umjualified retraction" of these 
 " glaring errors," Brother Ilamill? We should like to 
 do so on several accounts. First, we should like to 
 please you in such an affair. We do not like to dis- 
 obey clerical " demands." Secondly, if we could do so, 
 it would wonderfully strengthen our argument in regard 
 to the anti-Republican nature and tendencies of Method- 
 ist Episcopacy. For the sake of strengthening this ar- 
 gument, we could wish — sincerely wish — thatj^ou could 
 prove that we were mistaken in every one of these 
 points. In that case, you would succeed in proving 
 what? Why, that an Established Church in a Monarchi- 
 cal Government, is more Democratic in its structure 
 than the Methodist Episcopal Church of the free Com- 
 
 10
 
 110 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 monwealth of the United States 1 1 Shall we "retract" 
 and leave your Church " alone in its glory?" No; we 
 cannot do so, until we have some better evidence that 
 we are mistaken, than has yet been furnished. 
 
 The sum and substance of all these extracts from Mr. 
 Noel, may be stated in a few words. The Episcopal 
 authority in the English Church, whether in the hands 
 of the Crown, lords, noblemen, prelates, or what not, as 
 its constitutional officers, is corrupt and corrupting — 
 as it is not amenable to the people, no check can be in- 
 terposed upon its abominations — its piety is a libel 
 upon the Christian name — and therefore, although 
 holding a high position among its dignitaries, he with- 
 drew from it, and connected himself with the Baptists, 
 and was soon followed by several hundred members of 
 his former charge. 
 
 As we are not arguing the congruity of Methodist 
 Episcopacy with English monarchy, we leave our friend 
 to present as many points of contrast between an Eng- 
 lish king and a Methodist bishop, as his imagination can 
 supply. 
 
 And so you endorse the answer your bishops gave to 
 the memorials of local preachers and private members, 
 praying for the right of representation in the law-mak- 
 ing councils of your Church — " Pardon us if we know 
 no such rights, if we comprehend no such privileges!" 
 Well, we do not wonder that you have struck your usu- 
 al caption from your articles, " Methodist Episcopacy 
 NOT anti-Eepublican." How a government, whose con- 
 stitutional authorities can answer a petition from its 
 citizens asking to be represented in its legislative, exe-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. Ill 
 
 cutive, and judicial departments, that they " know no 
 such rights, that they comprehend no such privileges," 
 can nevertheless be Democratic or Republican, would 
 puzzle a Jesuit to see. We are not astonished, there- 
 fore, that Brother Hamill has taken down that sign. 
 
 But our space will not allow us to proceed further. 
 We say in conclusion, that the publication of these ar- 
 ticles in some one or more of the Methodist journals, is 
 left entirely to the negotiation of Brother Hamill. 
 
 June 7th, 1855.
 
 112 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 LETTER lY. 
 
 METHODISM. 
 
 More twisting ; Encouraging admissions ; Mr. Noel on government 
 of tlie English Cliurch hy worldly politicians ; A queer Parlia- 
 mentary Episcopacy; Danger of Methodist Episcopacy being 
 controlled by the State as English Episcopacy is ; Retraction re- 
 fused ; Fate of those who would mend our doctrines ; Bishop As- 
 bury's claim upon the Methodist Book Concern ; Challenge to 
 publish a Church deed ; Freedom of speech again ; Parallels up- 
 on the title of Bishop ; Dr. Colie's injudicious application for re- 
 ordiuation ; Father Jesse Mercer's opinion of a Ministers' Confer- 
 ence ; The strange Representation in the Southern Baptist Con- 
 vention ; A Quarterly Conference metamorphosed into another 
 Episcopacy ; Prerogatives of the laity; Reasoning which will de- 
 termine the funny problem ; The Methodist Church government 
 resembles our civil government more closely than the Baptist 
 Church government does, proved by several logical arguments ; 
 Twenty Baptist ministers in Canada, threw off the yoke of Close 
 Communion ; John Bunyan's, Baptist Noel's, and Robert Hall's 
 abhorrence of the same yoke ; Connectionalism of Methodism ; A 
 Baptist excommunicated for joining a sister Church ; Beauties of the 
 Republicanism of the Alabama Baptists, as portrayed by their own 
 historian. Rev. H. Holcombe ; A gracious privilege rescinded ; 
 Anti-Republican resolutions of sixteen Baptist Churches ; A Bap- 
 tist's opinion of the persecuting spirit of the Claiborne Baptist 
 Church ; The Alabama Baptist State Convention votes that an in- 
 fernal spirit gets into every Baptist community, however small ;
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY 113 
 
 Paternal chastisement ; Baptist inquisitorial taxation without re- 
 presentation ; The penalty ;. The modus operandi of assessment ; 
 Uncommon submissivcncss ; Burns ; If Baptists are not equal to 
 angels, a civil government, framed after the model of their Church 
 government, would not do ; Anecdote. 
 
 " Fair as the moon, clear as the snn, terhble as an army with banners." 
 " Out ol thine own month will I judge thee.."— Luke. 
 
 Brother Henderson : 
 
 We are gratified that you "love our Methodist 
 brethren, because they love our common Lord, and have 
 exhibited a zeal in his cause worthy of all praise." A 
 good tree bringcth forth good fruit. How does this de- 
 claration square with your " honorably exonerating (of) 
 Christ and his Apostles from all agency in the construc- 
 tion of Methodism." More twisting, my dear brother. 
 Still we accept gratefully the— all praise for zeal in the 
 Lord's cause, and leave the twistification in your undis- 
 turbed possession. 
 
 Admission after admission of the excellence of our 
 system, falls almost unconsciously from your lips. Our 
 love and zeal for the Lord, so praiseworthy — " we are 
 as good Democrats and Republicans as any in the land," 
 — "the credit of it (our glorious itinerancy) belongs to 
 all forms of Church government" — you no longer " ar- 
 gue the congruity of Methodist Episcopacy with Eng- 
 lish Monarchy." Really this is encouraging; it fully re- 
 compenses me for the task of rectifying your opinion of 
 our excellent Church government. I continue this hope- 
 ful work. 
 
 Let Mr. Noel inform you more perfectly of the power 
 of English bishops, in confirming the nominations of lay 
 patrons to benefices. " If deans and chapters refuse to
 
 114 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 elect the prime-minister's nominee, each member of the 
 chapter is liable to the intolerable penalties of a p-a- 
 munire. No cases of a refusal occur, the patronage of 
 a prime-minister carries him through all diflficulties." — 
 p. 181. Hear Queen Elizabeth's threat to the Bishop of 
 Ely; " Proud prelate, you know what you were before 
 I made you what you are ; if you do not immediately 
 comply with my request, by God, I will immediately un- 
 frock you," — Noel, p. 41. Again: you wish to know 
 "if tiie laws of the realm invest them (Queen, Lords, 
 Parliaments, &c.) with a portion of Episcopal authority, 
 are they not part and parcel of Episcopacy?"! I Hal hal 
 Episcopacy, indeed! You are like one who has had a 
 hard fall: objects multiply before your vision. Hear 
 Noel once more ; " Anglican Churches are placed 
 under the ecclesiastical government of worldly politi- 
 cians, assembled in Parliament, including Roman Ca- 
 tholics and Unitarians." — p. 400. How do you like this 
 lay delegation? You answer, " An Established Church 
 in England is more Democratic than the Methodist 
 Church in the United States." That is to say, an union 
 of Church and State is better Democracy than a separa- 
 tion of Church and State. Well done, Brother Hender- 
 son! I did not think you capable of making so anti- 
 Republican an avowal 1 We do certainly eschew all 
 such Democracy as that. You think " what Episcopacy 
 in England now is. Episcopacy in America may be." 
 Fie! fie! Brother Henderson. Pray do not charge our 
 civil government with the design of uniting Church and 
 State. 
 
 You ran a parallel between the Methodist Church and 
 the Church of England. I showed you, upon the autho-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 115 
 
 rity of Mr. Noel, the marked contrast, in specified points, 
 between the Churches, and asked of your candor a re- 
 traction of the comparison. You evade the issue, and 
 refuse it. Let the public judge between us. 
 
 You re-assert that " we impose articles of faith upon 
 our people without their consent." Now, it is known 
 to the world that every one who joins our Church, vol- 
 untarily subscribes to the articles of our faith, which 
 cannot be changed by any Church power whatever: be- 
 cause they are Bible truths. Does not a candidate for 
 membership in your Church do the same thing? If any 
 join us, who will be " carried about with every wind of 
 doctrine" and 
 
 " Who think religion is intended 
 For nothing else than to be mended,'' — Hudkrab, 
 
 we are soon happily relieved by the first proselyter who 
 comes along, and bears away his dupe triumphantly. 
 
 The Methodist Book Concern is not the property of 
 the bishops, as you wrongfully state; it is held by the 
 entire body of ministers in the several Conferences, for 
 specified purposes: first, the dissemination of religious 
 literature; and secondly, that the profits of the Concern, 
 if any, shall be applied to the relief of the deficient or 
 distressed preachers, and the widows and orphans of the 
 holy dead. Bishop Asbury, one of its founders, the man 
 who soared so gloriously to the tops of the highest 
 mountains, in extreme poverty, to preach the Gospel, 
 said, " I am resolved not to claim any property in the 
 Book Concern; it shall be sacred to invalid preachers." 
 &c. Every solitary contributor to this fund, contributed 
 to it with the express understanding that it should be
 
 116 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 so used. Is it, then, anti-Republican to obey the voice 
 of the people who created it, in carrying out their wish- 
 es in this useful and sacred charity? Catholic congre- 
 gations have never contested any such point. They 
 have no Book Concern at all, that I know of. With re- 
 gard to Church buildings, I now call on you to publish 
 the deed of any Methodist Church in the land, and let 
 the public see for themselves whether your charge is 
 true or false. Is it Grub-street vernacular to pronounce 
 utterly false, the charge that bishops can control the 
 suffrages of our members? ! t 
 
 Your own articles prove our unlimited freedom of 
 speech; from them we learn that the Methodists have a 
 queer way of punishing freedom of speech, by making 
 the disaffected, such as McKendrcc and Bascom, bishops 1 
 The noble ladies whose relatives were expelled, tell us 
 themselves, their kindred " were denounced as back- 
 sliders and disturbers of the peace." And your own 
 Baptist Discipline says, p. 20, " W7i.en a member breaks the 
 peace of the Church by jamglings and dispntings, he shall be 
 suspended." Your verbose attack upon the mere title of our 
 bishops, I summarily dispose of in the following paral- 
 lels: 
 
 Look at this : Then at this : 
 
 " I-firmly believe I am a scrip- He solemnly set apart Thomas 
 
 tural Episcopos, as much as any Coke, a presbyter of the Church 
 
 man in England." — John Wesley, of England, for the Episcopal 
 
 " Their father in the Lord, may office." — Methodist Discipline. 
 
 be called the bishop or overseer of " The way appointed by Christ 
 
 them all. — John Wesley. — Watt's for the calling of any person to 
 
 Wesley, p. 135. the oflBce of bishop or elder in the 
 
 " A bishop must be blameless." Church." — Baptist Discipline, p. 
 
 —Paul. 66.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. lit 
 
 It is objected that Mr. Wesley reproved Mr. Asbury 
 for assuming the title of bishop, though he thought him- 
 self a scriptural Ejpiscopos. To the assumption of the 
 title, simply, because of its abuse, I allow Mr. Wesley 
 was opposed, but not to the thing signified by it. And 
 our American brethren showed a laudable independence of 
 Mr. Wesley, in preferring the scriptural term, bishop, to 
 its synonym, superintendent. But neither Mr. Wesley, 
 nor the Baptist Discipline, nor Paul, meant to call those 
 who chose to be styled bishops rather than superinten- 
 dents, either knaves, fools, or rascals. Bishop Asbury 
 kindly says, " These unpleasant expressions of the dear 
 old man, (were) occasioned by the misrepresentations 
 of others." What a tempest did you awake to waft a 
 feather ! 
 
 Dr. Coke injudiciously, perhaps, would have submit- 
 ted to re-ordination, just as Timothy allowed Paul to 
 circumcise him, not because he would not have been a 
 good minister, or bishop without it, but to enlarge his 
 influence. 
 
 Upon the subject of " a Conference Episcopacy" — of 
 ministers, hear Father Jesse Mercer, that good old 
 Georgia Baptist, Memoirs, p. 269, " If all the ministers 
 of our order in the State, had at once formed a Miniilers' 
 Meeting, with a view to maintain the unity of the faith 
 in the Churches, and had co-operated in the work of the 
 ministry, all those distracting controversies which have 
 broken the peace, and spoiled the beauty of our 
 Churches, would have been prevented." Was this anti- 
 Kcpublican? 
 
 Methodism delights in lay delegation, in all matters 
 wherein the laity arc equally concerned with the minis-
 
 H8 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 try — ^in financial, missionary, and other boards. But 
 we guard against such an irregular representation as 
 formed the constituents of your last Southern Conven- 
 tion, in Montgomery. In that Convention, called South- 
 ern, and in which, therefore, fourteen States should 
 have been nearly equally represented, there were two 
 hundred and four delegates; one from Florida, none 
 from Texas, &c., and ninety-four of them from Alabama. 
 Now suppose our Congress had two hundred and four 
 delegates, and ninety-four of them from Virginia, one 
 from Florida, none from Texas, &c., would you call this 
 a Representative Congress? I trow not. 
 
 You are pleased to term our Quarterly Conference, 
 " an Episcopacy." Ha! hal And if the party himself, 
 who feels aggrieved carries his case before it, it is anti- 
 Republican! I suppose you know our highest authori- 
 ties condemn a reference. Once more allow me to say 
 of the judicial, and executive power of our laity, without 
 the vote of the laity, none can be licensed to preach ; none 
 can be received into the itinerancy; none can be received 
 into the Church. As I myself received hy vote of the Chvrch, 
 fourteen into full connection, on the very Sabbath before 
 your article appeared, affirming the membership had no 
 voice in this matter. I add also, that the suffrages of 
 the laity, are indispensable to every Church act, in every 
 one of the thousands of our Churches. Besides their 
 management in all of our grand enterprises. 
 
 I have now followed you step by step, and examined 
 thoroughly, and fairly, the ground of your charge, first, 
 against our bishops; secondly, against what you term 
 our Conference Episcopacy; and lastiy, against your 
 newly-invented Quarterly Conference Episcopacy; and
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 119 
 
 I find your accusation of anti-Republicanism, in every 
 case utterly groundless. If, therefore, you still imagine 
 Methodism anti-Republican, a similar style of reasoning 
 will determine your funny problem, of the distance of a 
 kitchen fifteen feet square from the spring — it will prove 
 anything. 
 
 I now affirm that the Methodist Church government, 
 resembles more closely our civil government, than the 
 Baptist Church government. In proof of this, I use the 
 argumenlum ad hvminem — recognized in logic as a legiti- 
 mate argument. I state it thus: Our Federal, and I 
 might add, our State government is Republican. That 
 which approximates most closely to it, is most Republi- 
 can. But the Methodist Church government, is more 
 nearly after this model, than the Baptist Church govern- 
 ment; therefore, the Methodist Church is more Repub- 
 lican than the Baptist Church. Now for the proof, that 
 the Methodist Church is more perfectly after this Repub- 
 lican model. The Methodist Church does not usurp au- 
 thority over the conscience of her members, in debarriiig 
 them from holy communion with their orthodox breth- 
 ren, at the Lord's table; but the Baptist Church does 
 deprive them of this Christian liberty. In this respect," 
 American Baptists are far behind, perhaps, a majority 
 of their English brethren. Those great lights of your 
 Cliurch, John Bunyan, Baptist Noel, and Robert Hall, 
 abhorred the practice of close communion; and the last 
 named, expressed himself in indignant terms in refer- 
 once to the tyranny of this practice. I know not 
 whether your members chafe under this restriction, but 
 I do know, that constituted as my mind is, it would be 
 impossible for the Methodist Episcopacy, and entire
 
 120 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Church, to place upon my neck so galling a yoke as 
 this — which forbade me to commune with my dearest 
 kindred, were they never so pious, if they followed not 
 with us. Twenty Baptist ministers in Canada have re- 
 cently resolved to submit no longer to this arbitrary 
 dominion over their conscience. No power could com- 
 pel me to debar from the Lord's table Christians whom 
 I knew to be living temples of the Holy Ghost, even if 
 I thought their baptism utterly defective. If, therefore, 
 liberty be at all synonymous with Republicanism, we 
 are certainly in this respect, more Republican than the 
 Baptist Church. 
 
 Again: " Each Baptist Church is not subject to the 
 cognizance of any synod or council whatever; nor have 
 Associations any Church power properly so called, nor 
 any jurisdiction over the Churches themselves — to exer- 
 cise any censure," &c. — Baptist Discipline, p. 58. If, 
 therefore, our civil government were framed on this 
 plan, we would have no legislature properly so called, 
 nor judiciary, nor executive, and hence no government 
 at all; our country would be a vast chain of broken 
 neighborhoods, perfectly denationalized. But the con- 
 nectionalism of Methodism, binds us together into one 
 great harmonious whole, with due restrictions upon 
 every several part; it is therefore more after the model 
 of our civil, government. 
 
 Again: Methodism grants an honorable dismissal to 
 any member, who desires to withdraw and join a sister 
 Church; but the Baptist Church will not allow a mem- 
 ber to withdraw and join a sister Church, without the 
 censure of excommunication. — Baptist Discipline, p. 23. 
 Our Republic will allow a citizen to expatriate himself,
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 121 
 
 without censure; but despotic governments will not 
 allow this; therefore in this, our Church resembles our 
 civil government, and yours the government of despots. 
 Again: Your own historian furnishes us with many 
 striking instances of what he himself terms anti-Repub- 
 lican legislation in the Baptist Churches of Alabama; 
 such instances as are unequalled elsewhere in the his- 
 tory of the orthodox Churches of our Republic, I quote 
 from the " History of Alabama Baptists," by Rev. Hosea 
 Holcombe, endorsed by the Alabama Baptist State Con- 
 vention, 1835. He says — " Here we see the separating 
 line drawn; here we see the large body of the denomin- 
 ation in Europe and x\merica, excluded by the minority, 
 and comparatively a small one." — p. 98. This is con- 
 trary to the principle of Democracy, that majorities 
 should rule. Of a Church called Bethel, he says, " A re- 
 solution was once passed in this Church, that each mem- 
 ber should enjoy the liberty of doing as he pleased in 
 missionary matters — give or let alone, as he deemed 
 right." Gracious privilege, was it not? — to give a mem- 
 ber the liberty of using his om'u money, in sending a 
 Baptist ministry to tliose destitute of the Gospel 1 
 Verily, the members should have been thankful for so 
 Democratic a grant! But their y)y would have been 
 short; for he says, " This was foimd too Befuhlican for the 
 jirmcher, and l)y his influence it was rescinded." — p. 108. 
 Again: A friend, writing to him of the Claiborne Baptist 
 Church, saijs, " 1 need not tell you the foundation of all was 
 laid by that cursed anti-j>iissiona,ry spirit which, while it cries 
 out frer/lom , Rcpubliainisvi, (tc, wo^dd fetter the consciences 
 of those vho h'lve been benevolent in their practice; and I have, 
 been led to the conclusion, that if the power was by them posses- 
 11
 
 122 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 scd, the conscience is not all they tcould bind; hut the body 
 would be doomed to endure all the horrors of a dungeon, if 
 they were permitted to escape tJie lash." — p. 114. This is a 
 clear case of anti-Republicanism. You will please take no- 
 tice, it is not I, but a Baptist, who prefers this charge. 
 Once more: Speaking of the Conecuh River Association, 
 p. 246, he says, " A division has taken place, sixteen 
 Churches declaring in favor of tM anti-Repicblican, anti- Chris- 
 tian, and anti- Gospel resoht ions." I will not dwell longer 
 at present upon the numerous cases of awful, tyranni- 
 cal, and anarchical legislation in the Baptist Churches 
 of Alabama, so deeply deplored by your good Brother 
 Holcombe. Your own commendable devotion to the 
 missionary cause, tells plainly, that if you " had been in 
 the days of your fathers, you would not have been par- 
 takers with them;" nevertheless these sad results are 
 justly chargeable upon your defective Church gavern- 
 ment, which gave scope for such sad legislation; I 
 think with Jesse Mercer, that an union of ministers, 
 like our Conference, for instance, would largely have 
 prevented such disorder. 
 
 From the records of your last State Convention in 
 Montgomery, published in your own paper. May 31st, I 
 fear the same evils still exist in your community. I 
 find in the report of the Committee on Education, adopt- 
 ed by the Convention, and I suppose, approved by your- 
 self — a report presented by jour excellent brother-in- 
 law, my old friend, Brother Talliaferro, of Talladega, the 
 following language: " God forbid that we should ever 
 lift up our voice against the independent or congrega- 
 tional form of government held to by the Baptist 
 Church, (we would not oppose Christ and his Apostles)
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY, 123 
 
 but against their frequent abuse of it, we would lift up 
 our voice like a trumpet, and tell our people of their 
 transgressions. "We would go further, and become ex- 
 orcist; for if the Holy Messiah would not assist us 
 against a demon so loathsome and filthy, (sectional pre- 
 judice,) we would, if Satan would for once depart from 
 bis usual policy, form an alliance with him, and it should 
 be proclaimed to an astonished world, ' Satan bad cast 
 out Satan.' This infernal spirit gets into every Baptist 
 community^ however sviall, magnifies their territory into the dig- 
 nity and importance of an enqnre, makes their existence depend 
 upon the ill success or downfall of every other interest unpro- 
 motive of their ownJ' This is awfully severe; but it is 
 the language of your late Convention, and I imagine I 
 may justly call it yours also. Of the truth of it, you 
 yourselves are the best judges. Modesty and charity 
 forbid me speaking so harshly of the Baptist Church as 
 you have done in the above extract; but I suppose chas- 
 tisement from your own household is considered pater- 
 nal, and therefore allowable, when a similar castigation 
 from a stranger would be warmly resented. 
 
 You have been free to charge us with taxation with- 
 out representation, albeit to recommend the support of 
 the ministry without threatening Church censure, can- 
 not be properly called taxation. The nearest approach 
 to taxation proper, and almost without representation, 
 I have ever known in any Church in our free country, 
 was in the action of your own ministers' and deacons' 
 meeting, Tuskegee, April 27th. There were present at 
 that meeting, fifteen ministers, fifteen deacons, and 
 twelve private members. It is fair to assume that these 
 fifteen ministers represented thirty Churches, each niin-
 
 124 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ister representing two Churches. On looking over the 
 list of deacons and private members, I find that nearly 
 half the deacons, and ten out of twelve of the private 
 members, were from the Tuskegee Church; so that the 
 remaining twenty-nine Churches were represented, apart 
 from the ministers, by about seven or eight deacons and 
 but two private members — a very slender representa- 
 tion, truly. At this meeting, which it would be a mis- 
 nomer to call a representative assembly, the question is 
 asked, " What should be done with a Church member 
 who, having the ability, refuses to give as God has pros- 
 pered him, for the support of the gospel?" " Ans. He 
 should be labored with and admonished, and if he per- 
 sists in his covetousness, he should be excluded from 
 fellowship." In another part of the same minutes, you 
 define the passage "as God has prospered him," thus: 
 " each member furnishing the deacon a statement of the 
 value of his property and income, so as to enable them 
 to make a pro rata distribution among the members." It 
 was by no means impi'oper, in the big-souled Baptists 
 of Tuskegee, for such are many of them, to have recom- 
 mended liberality; but to demand that statement of 
 the value of both property and income of the members, was 
 rather too inquisitorial; and then to threaten exclusion 
 against any who refused this inquisitorial taxation, was 
 altogether too hasty a measure. Look at the practical 
 workings of the rule. Imagine a deacon asking a plant- 
 er the value of his lands, negroes, and nett proceeds of 
 his crop; requiring a merchant to give a statement of 
 his assets, properly classed, as good or doubtful, and 
 his liabilities, the probable loss on unsaleable goods, 
 the amount of his sales, and the nett gain thereof, all
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 125 
 
 expenses being- paid. Imagine the deacon inquiring of 
 
 the money-lender, " What amount, Brother , have 
 
 you loaned out on interest?" And if he shaved notes, as 
 unfortunately is sometimes the case, the nett profit 
 of the transaction? All these particulars — for a state- 
 ment of the value of property and income involves them 
 all — given under the threat of exclusion from fellowship, 
 and as the mis-called representative assembly ordered 
 it. I think, sir, you will find your decree impracticable. 
 If, however, your members submit to it, it is their busi- 
 ness, not mine. I should, however, be glad to know it; 
 for I should then frankly admit that your members bear 
 off the palm from all Churches for docility and submis- 
 siveness to the powers that be. Very sure am I, that 
 every Methodist Church I have known, would be rather 
 refractory under this yoke. 
 
 " O wad some power the giftie gie ua, 
 To .see ourselves as others sec us, 
 It wad frae many a blunder free us, 
 
 And foolish notion." — Burns. 
 
 I think highly of the ability of your people for self- 
 government, notwithstanding the numerous defects of 
 your Church government. I know they would not wish 
 to frame a civil government upon so disjointed a plan. 
 If they did, I would assuredly think them sadly defec- 
 tive in law-making skill; or if the civil government 
 framed after tliis pattern, were found sufficient for their 
 wants, I would then regard them as angels, infallible in 
 intellect and immaculate in heart — incapable of misde- 
 meanors, and who, therefore, would need no government 
 at all. But to err is human.
 
 126 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 With this demonstration of the fact, that the Method- 
 ist Church government is more after the model of our 
 civil government than yours, if you think your go- 
 vernment better, it will be like the preference of the 
 Irishman, who said, " The moon was more useful than 
 the sun, for the sun gave light in the day-time, when we 
 did not need it, whereas the moon shone when it was 
 dark." For your argument I have given you argument; 
 for your railing, my only answer is — silence. I have 
 spoken in the fear of God, and, I trust, kindly, as I 
 would promote and not retard the success of the gospel 
 in all the tribes of God's Israel. 
 
 Your fellow-servant in Christ, 
 E. J. HAMILL. 
 
 June 2l8t, 1855.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 121 
 
 REPLY TO LETTER lY. 
 
 INTERIOR VIEW OF METHODIST EPISCOPACY, 
 BY MASTER ARTISTS. 
 
 Advantages of religious controversy; Discrimination between men 
 and principles; Absolute clerical power unscriptural and danger- 
 ous; A peep at the inner vail; Back ground sketch by Bishop 
 Bascom, and a full portraiture by Bishop Hamline; Mr. Ham- 
 line rewarded with a bishopric; Analysis of the picture; Human 
 credulity has some bounds, which clerical demands may not pass; 
 A Presbyterian's opinion of the picture; Mr. Hamill's fourth let- 
 ter; Congratulated on the improvement of his tone and spirit; 
 The " fair" and " clear" disc of Methodism makes John Wesley 
 " start and shudder;" " Twistification;" Natural mistake; Dexter- 
 ous use of Mr. Noel's armory; Transparent perversion; Articles 
 of faith and discipline imposed upon the laity without their con- 
 sent; Hudibras; Another quotation from Hudibras; " Parallels;" 
 Mr. Wesley in a dilemma; Singular perversion of a garbled ex- 
 tract from the Baptist confession of faith; Mr. Wesley competent 
 to construe his owm act; A digression in pursuit of Mr. Hamill; 
 Four fundamental points in Baptist Church polity; Deacons' Meet- 
 ings, associations and conventions; A terrible crime against " our 
 free country;" The "decree"' of an " advis&fy council;"' All forms of 
 government susceptible of abuse; Reception and expulsion of 
 members in the M. E. Church; Father Mercer; The "standards" 
 on sacramental communion; The Baptist ground occupied l)y all 
 denominations; Robert Hall's denunciation of the inconsistency 
 of Pedobaptists in asking the Baptists to sacrifice a principle from 
 which the practice of each results; E.xplanation asked. 
 
 " As certain also of your own poets have said. "—Acts xvii. 28. 
 
 Religious controversy, conducted in an elevated tone 
 of Christian principle and candor, ever has and ever will
 
 128 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 be a most prolific source of blessing to tbe Church and 
 to the world. For the time being, it may create an un- 
 due and even unpleasant excitement; but the perma- 
 nent good it accomplishes, far outweighs its temporary 
 evils. So long as truth is held to be dear to its vota- 
 ries, so long will its maintenance devolve upon them 
 the arduous and often unwelcome task of defending it 
 against all the conflicting claims of error. Indeed, truth 
 and error must, in their very nature, forever antagonize. 
 " I have come," says Christ, " to set fire upon the earth; 
 and what will I if it be already kindled?" And again: 
 " Every plant which my Heavenly Father hath not plant- 
 ed, shall be rooted up." The truth is, God himself pro- 
 claimed war against sin and error in the very instant 
 of their inti'oductiou to this world: " I will put enmity 
 between thy seed and her seed." And this war has 
 been going on ever since, and will continue until one 
 party or the other shall be totally exterminated. It will 
 be a sad day for truth when its friends, out of complais- 
 ance to popular opinion, or out of a sickly, sentimental 
 catholicity, can quietly see its virgin form hewed in 
 pieces, and perverted to purposes alien to its original 
 intendment, and never lift their voices in its defence. 
 And when error shall assume the sacred vestments and 
 symbols of religion, and come to us habited " as an au.- 
 gel of light," beseeching us to accept of its protection 
 and patronage, it were treason against the throne of 
 Omnipotence to yield to its overtures. Then the Chris- 
 tian — he who loves God Idler than man — ought to grasp 
 the sword of the Spirit, and pierce the " stolen livery" 
 with as little compunction of conscience, as if it were 
 furnished from the wardrobe of perdition.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 129 
 
 Thus much, then, in regard to reh"gious controversy 
 in general. We have already stated, in reference to the 
 subject under immediate discussion, that we are con- 
 tending vs^ith no man or set of men, as such. We are 
 fighting a principle, upon which we cannot detect the 
 divine signature — a principle which transfers into Epis- 
 copal hands the rights and privileges of the Churches of 
 Jesus Christ — which reverses the whole govermental 
 economy of the Kingdom of Christ, by making the Churches 
 the, servants of the ministers, instead of the ministers the servants 
 of the Churches — and which, if unrestricted by other modi- 
 fying agencies, will go on accumulating, until the history 
 of Episcopacy in America will be but too faithful an echo 
 of its history in the old world. We challenge any man 
 to show a solitary instance in which such unlimited, 
 supreme, and irresponsible power has been claimed by 
 the clergy in any period of ecclesiastical history, where 
 it has not ended in corruption, intolerance, and unre- 
 lenting persecution — where it has not ultimately become 
 the right arm of political tyranny. We care not how 
 pious, honest, numerous, and forminable, the present 
 friends and apologists of Episcopacy may be in this 
 country. It is all the more dangerous for this. We 
 proclaim it upon the house-top — we nail the thesis to the 
 door of each and every of its adherents, be they num- 
 bered by thousands, millions, or hundreds of millions — 
 that the history of Episcopacy, up to the period of its 
 establishment in this country, is written in carnage and 
 blood. And when such a system of intolerance, bigotry, 
 and persecution rears its head in this happy land of 
 freedom, religious and political — we care not how its 
 lineaments may be softened by the pencil of artists — we
 
 130 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 care not with what meekness and discretion its mitre 
 may be worn by its present dignitaries — it is an as- 
 sumption of power which God has never delegated even 
 to angels. And we proclaim eternal hostility to such 
 an unwarrantable assumption of power on the part of 
 any set of men, however wise their heads or good their 
 hearts. Said an intelligent and well read member of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church to us, not a year ago, 
 in urging the importance of there being a variety of 
 sects in the world, " The tendency of ecclesiastical 
 power ever has been, and ever will be to corruption." 
 
 We have been, up to this time, attempting to deline- 
 ate the exterior of Methodist Episcopacy — occupying 
 the attention of the reader with such views of it as 
 would naturally strike the attention of the casual ob- 
 server. 
 
 We now propose entering within the vail, taking 
 with us two artists of established reputation, whose 
 names will impart a value to their picture, which will 
 not only give it a place in every Methodist parlor, but 
 also in the parlor of every well-wisher to Church and 
 State. We mean Bishops Bascom and Hamline. The 
 first shall sketch the back-ground — the second shall paint 
 the portraiture. 
 
 "Art. Sth. Where all the power and forms of govern- 
 ment are held and managed by a few, who act without 
 delegated right by consent of the people, the authority 
 of tlie rulers is absolute, and the people are disfran- 
 chised of all right, in the various relations existing be- 
 tween them, as subjects, and those who hold the reins 
 of government. Such a government must always lead 
 to mental debility, will depress the moral vigor of a 
 people, and necessarily abridge the liberty of reasoning
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 131 
 
 and investigation. In all governments of this kind, 
 right is the creature of fortune, and the slave of caprice. 
 Those who live under a government, which denies to 
 the people the right of representation, blindly engage 
 to submit to the will of others, right or wrong, and 
 must continue to do so, or else deprive themselves of 
 all the advantages of the community in which they live, 
 in order to get rid of its evils. The enactment of all 
 laws and rules, therefore, should be with and by the 
 consent of the people, and their execution strictly under 
 their control." 
 
 No contemptible limner, this Henry B. Bascom. But 
 now for the portraiture. We quote from the " Debates 
 in the General Conference, held in the City of New York, 
 1844," pages 128-129. 
 
 " Mr. Hamline said — * * * * ^he class-leader, 
 by mere eccentricity, becomes unpopular in his class. 
 The pastor at discretion removes him from his office. 
 The exhorter or unordained local preacher proves unac- 
 ceptable, and a Quarterly Conference refuses to renew 
 his license. The itinerant pastor is not useful in his 
 "charge and the bishop or the presiding elder deposes 
 him from his charge or from the pastoral office, and 
 makes him an assistant. The presiding elder impairs 
 his usefulness on a district, not bj'' gross wrt/feasauce, 
 but by a slight 7rt/5fcasance; or oftener still because ' he 
 is not popular,' and the bishop removes him to a station 
 or a circuit, and perhaps makes liim an assistant. I 
 speak not now of annual appointments, when the term 
 of the itinerant expires by limitation, but removals by 
 the bishop or the presiding elder in the intervals of con- 
 ference, which always iniply a deposing from office, as 
 well as a stationing act. In all these instances, the 
 manner of removing from office is peculiar. First: It is 
 summary, without accusation, trial, or formal sentence. 
 It is a ministerial, rather than a judicial act. Second: 
 It is for no crime, and generally for no misdemeanor,
 
 132 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 but for being' 'unacceptable.' Third: Most of these re- 
 movals from office are by a sole agent, namely, by a 
 bishop or preacher, whose will is omnipotent in the 
 premises. Fourth: The removing officer is not legally 
 obliged to assign any cause for deposing. If he do so, 
 it is through courtesy, and not as of right. Fifth: The 
 deposed officer has no appeal. If indiscreetly or unne- 
 cessarily removed, he must submit; for there is no tri- 
 bunal authorized to cure the error, or to rectify the 
 wrong. But we believe that there are good and suffi- 
 cient reasons for granting this high power of removal 
 to those who exercise it. It promotes religion. It binds 
 the Church in a strong and almost indissoluble unity. 
 It quickens the communication of healing influences to 
 the infected and the enfeebled parts of the body ecclesi- 
 astical. In a word, it is a system of surpassing energy, 
 and ' is worthy of all eulogy.'" 
 
 Mr. Hamline was elevated to the rank of bishop, after 
 making the speech from which we have taken the fore- 
 going extracts, and at the very same Coyiference. So that 
 we may regard his exposition of Methodist Episcopacy 
 as having been endorsed by the General Conference of 
 the United States. 
 
 Now, reader, it becomes us to speak in a serious tone. 
 Here is an embodiment of ecclesiastical power, growing 
 up under the boughs of the tree of liberty, assuming to 
 do what? Look at it sternly in the face. You cannot 
 plead that an intervening veil obscures the picture. 
 Methodists! look at it! and we have mistaken your al- 
 legiance to the King of kings and Lord of lords, as 
 well as your love of liberty, civil and religious, if, after 
 steadfastly gazing upon it long enough to comprehend 
 its outlines, you do not feel an honest indignation rise 
 in your bosoms at such despotic assumptions on the part
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 133 
 
 of your bishops and clergy. You cannot plead ignor- 
 ance of the existence of this unbridled, unlimited su- 
 premacy of your Episcopacy, for we have dragged it to 
 the light of day, and exposed it to your view. Again 
 we ask, what do these Rabbis in General Conference as- 
 sembled assume? Listen, ye who are charmed with the 
 " Democratic dement^^ in this system of spiritual despot- 
 ism: 
 
 The class-leader may be removed from his office at 
 the discretion of the pastor — the pastor may be removed 
 at the discretion of the bishop or presiding elder — the lo- 
 cal preacher may be suspended at the discretion of the 
 quarterly Conference — the presiding elder may be re- 
 moved at the discretion of the bishops. Now, let it be dis- 
 tinctly noted, that in every step of this disciplinary pro- 
 cess, the very existence of the Church is utterly ignored. It 
 is not even recognized as an advisory council. The 
 constituencies who have to bear the burdens, and who 
 are the parties immediately interested in these offices, 
 arc not so much as consulted in their removal. But 
 then look at the manner in which such removal proceeds. 
 " In all these instauces," (specified above) " the manner 
 of removing from office is peculiar. First: It is summary, 
 
 WITnOCT ACCUSATIC.N', THIAF,, OR FORJIAL SEXTKN'CE. ScCOnd: 
 
 It is for no crime, and generally for no misdemeanor, but for 
 being 'unacceptable.' Tliird: Most of the removals are by 
 a sole agent, namely, by a bishopor preacher, WHOSE 
 AVILL LS OMNIPOTENT IN THE PREMISES.— 
 Fourth: The removing officer is not lc":allv obliged to 
 assign any cause for deposing. If he does so, it is through 
 courtesy, and not as oi right. Fifth: The deposed officer 
 has no appeal. If indiscreetly or unaecessaril}' removed, 
 12
 
 134 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 HE MUST SUBMIT, for there is no trihmul authorized to 
 cure the error or rectify the wrongT Let us condense it 
 all into a Single sentence. The manner of removing 
 from oflSce is summary, without trial or accusation — is /or 
 no crime, only for being unacceptaUe—mo&i\y by a sole 
 agent, a bishop or preacher, whose will is omnipotent in 
 the premises, and who is not bound even io give any rea- 
 son for his act — and the victim of his tyranny has no ap- 
 peal; whether justly or unjustly treated, he must submit! 
 for there is no tribunal to rectify the wrong ! ! All this was 
 solemnly set forth before the General Conference of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States, as an 
 exposition of Methodism as it is, and the author of it was 
 immediatel}' elevated to the rank of a bishop! And we 
 are required to believe that this " peculiar^^ "system of 
 surpassing energy" is '^worthy of all eulogy!" That it 
 beautifully harmonizes with American Democracy! and 
 that he who cannot see the '"'Democratic element" in this 
 system, must possess a "judgment overpowered by a 
 strange prejudice!" There are some drafts upon hu- 
 man credulity that cannot well be honored. Now, in 
 regard to the dogma of transul^stantiation, when a Ca- 
 tholic priest gravely assures us that th,e piece of bread 
 he holds in his hand has been transmuted by some 
 strange spiritual hocus p>ocus, into the veritable flesh of 
 a body that was crucified eighteen hundred years ago, 
 our eyes, touch, taste, and smell to the contrary not- 
 withstanding, it strikes us that it would be perfectly 
 respectful to decline the honor of iirqilicit faith. Or in 
 regard to baptismal regeneration; if an Episcopalian 
 priest or bishop should dip his hand in water, and sprin- 
 kle a few drops in the face of an unconscious child, and
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 135 
 
 pronounce meanwhile the solemn baptismal formulaiy, 
 and then gravely beseech us to believe that that child, 
 although the instant before this ceremony was perform- 
 ed, was beyond the covenant of mercy, is now regenerat- 
 ed and grafted intn Christ,^^ — without intending the slight- 
 est disrespect to his reverence, we would persist in 
 saying, Non ego crediilus illi — we have not been able to 
 see where the Divine being has assigned to a few drops 
 of water an agency which is uniformly ascribed to the 
 Holy Spirit. And when a Methodist Episcopal clergy- 
 man entreats us to believe that a governmental economy, 
 in which a miUion and a half of subjects, (we take the 
 reputed membership of that Church) have no more voice 
 in its legislative or administrative polity, than the sub- 
 jects of the Czar, except the bare privilege o{ submission 
 — an economy in which the will of its self-constituted 
 rulers " is omnipotent in the premises," there being no 
 "tribunaV "to rectify the icrong," — all we have to say 
 is, '' Pardon us if we know no such" Democracy, "if ive 
 comprehend no such" Republicanism. 
 
 And that our Methodist brethren may see that we are 
 not alone in this matter; that they may know what 
 their Presbyterian brethren think of this "peculiar" 
 " Democratic clement" in their Church organization — 
 we will close this part of our argument by introducing 
 a short extract from an article in the " Calvinistic Ma- 
 gazine," written, we believe, by its then editor, Rev. F. 
 A. Ross, now pastor of the Presbyterian Church in the 
 city of ITuntsville, in this State. If they complain of 
 what a Baptist editor has written, what will they say 
 when they read the following from a Presbyterian editor. 
 Referring to the aforesaid exposition of Methodism, by
 
 136 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Mr. Hamline, he says: " Lodk at it, ye members of the 
 Methodist Church. Look at it. Whatl A system, 'worthy 
 of all eulogy." What say you, genius of America? She 
 answers, 'The Methodist system is death to all the institu- 
 tions for which Washington fought and freemen died!' 
 What says the Gospel? The Gospel tells us 'The Me- 
 thodist system is ANTi-CnRiST^^yr it is the very identical 
 priestly power which has crushed and trodden underfoot the 
 liberty wherewith Christ doth make free in every age of the 
 worldP" ******* * 
 
 Turn we now to Brother Hamill's fourth letter. And 
 first of all, we cannot but congratulate our brother on 
 the evident improvement in the tone of the present as 
 compared with his last communication. Its spirit is 
 honorable alike to his head and his heart. "Richard is 
 himself again." Its logic is, however, as yet an open 
 question. 
 
 "Methodism," then, is "fair as the sun, clear as 
 the moon, terrible as an army with banners!" How 
 "fair" and how "clear" it is, we have been trying to 
 discover. The father of it avers, in reference to that 
 feature of it we are discussing, viz., its Episcopacy, that 
 he had rather be called a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a 
 scoundrel, than to be called a bishop/ And if the re- 
 nowned John Wesley could not steadfastly gaze upon 
 its "fair'" and "clear" disc, without " starling and shud- 
 dering," v/e suppose it must have been from the super- 
 abundance of the " terrible" which it reflected. Of this 
 the reader will be able to form a better estimate as we 
 proceed in our analysis of this "system of surpassing 
 energy."
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 13^ 
 
 It seems that our brother cannot comprehend the dif- 
 ference between men and inindfle^. If we express 
 a personal regard to the members of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, and cannot at the same time enlarge 
 our throat to the dimensions of " our Episcopacy," we 
 have a wonderful knack of " twisting." On this prin- 
 ciple, how supremely must Paul have despised Peter, 
 when at " Antioch he withstood him to the face, because 
 he was to be blamed." Personal regard cannot be in- 
 dulged without involving fellowship in all the principles 
 of the object of it! and therefore the command, requir- 
 ing us to "love our enemies" must seaPour lips in si- 
 lence as to their errors and sins! We cannot expose 
 these without the charge of " twbitijicationP (Brother 
 Hamill has declared, and is determined to maintain his 
 independence of Webster.) 
 
 We were arguing the congruity between Methodist 
 Episcopacy and English Episcopacy, and not English 
 monarchy, Brother Hamill. True, it is not surprising 
 that you mistook Episcopacy for monarchy — they are par 
 noUle fratrum — and the mistake you made is quite 
 natural and significant. 
 
 Our brother plies the weapons furnished in Baptist 
 Noel's armory with singular dexterity. He cannot draw 
 too frequently on that rich collection of Episcopal facts. 
 But we opine if "our Episcopacy" had a voice, it would 
 ring a most plaintive appeal in his ear — "From such a 
 defence may the good Lord deliver me!" Right glad 
 are we, too, that something can provoke our good bro- 
 ther to laugh. AVe are happy to know that the frown 
 which lowered ominously upon his brow so recently, is 
 80 soon succeeded by the peals of merriment. That
 
 138 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 constitutional officers should not be privates, is provok- 
 ingly ludicrous! is it? 
 
 Brother Hamill represents us as saying, that " an Es- 
 tablished Church in England is more Democratic than 
 the Methodist Church in the United States." The reader 
 will remember that we said, if he the Rev. E. J. Hamill, 
 (not tve) could prove that we were mistaken in every 
 point of the analogy we drew between the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church and the Established Episcopal Church 
 of England, he would succeed in proving that an Estab- 
 lished Church in a monarchical government was more 
 Democratic than the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
 free Commonwealth of the United States. The perver- 
 sion is so transparent that we really cannot complain 
 of it. ■ 
 
 As to " our evading the issue, and refusing to retract" 
 the points specified, we are perfectly willing to " let the 
 public judge between us." We should be inclined to in- 
 dulge in Bro. Hamill's exercise a little, when he speaks 
 of " evading issues," but wc never could laugh on paper. 
 
 It is complained that we have asserted, that the 
 "bishops and clergy have imposed articles of faith upon 
 their people without their consent." Now, if the con- 
 verse of this is true, it can be proved. Who composed 
 the Greneral Conference at which the doctrines, discipline, 
 rules and regulations of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 were adopted? The bishops and travelling preachers. 
 Were they delegated by their Churches to do this? 
 Why, this is not pretended. The lay membership of 
 that Church had no more connection with its govern- 
 mental, doctrinal, and disciplinary organization, than 
 the aborigines of this continent. And from that time to
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 139 
 
 this, the bishops and clerg-y are the soiu'ce and fountain 
 of all power, spiritual and temporal, which the system 
 involves. And it militates not in the slightest degree 
 against this fact, that persons, in joining the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, impliedly submit themselves to its 
 entire economy. This proves no more for Episcopacy 
 than it does for Roman Catholicism. The question re- 
 curs in each instance: — Was the original authority 
 which established that economy a usurped authority? 
 If not, whence did it emanate? — from God or his 
 Churches? If from God, then the apostles of Method- 
 ism were inspired, and the " Discipline" is of equal au- 
 thority with the New Testament. If from the Churches, 
 sJiow us the authority, and we arc dumb. 
 
 There is a singular fatality attending Bro. Hamill's 
 quotations. He has treated us to a couplet from Hudi- 
 bras, which so beautifully illustrates " our Episcopacy," 
 that we cannot resist the temptation to allude to it. 
 There are those, doubtless, 
 
 " Who think religion is intended. 
 For nothing else but to be mended." 
 
 But who are they? Certainly not those who have no 
 ecclesiastical legislatures — who suppose that Christ and 
 his Apostles did all the legislation necessary for the 
 churches in all ages — who believe that the constitution, 
 doctrines, and discipline, of these churches were drafted 
 by the pen of inspiration, and therefore not likely to be 
 " mended," by general conferences, or any other ecclesi- 
 astical assemblage. Who are they, then, who suppose 
 that religion maybe "mended?" For seventy-one years, 
 the General Conference lias been tinkering with the
 
 140 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 " Discipline," and up to the last session of that body, 
 they were still mending it. Some twenty-oue changes 
 were made in it, we learn, at that time. " Our Episco- 
 pacy," however, has been most sacredly guarded through 
 all these changes. 
 
 As we expect to discuss the " Book Concern," with 
 the " appurtenances thereto annexed," in our next arti- 
 cle, we shall decline any response to this part of Bro. 
 Hamill's letter for the present. 
 
 Episcopacy may well afford to place her mitre upon 
 the heads of such men as McKendree and Bascom, if 
 for nothing else to purchase an indemnity from their 
 merciless castigations. Now do not throw up your 
 hands in holy horror, Bro. Hamill, when we say that the 
 mitre, when placed upon the head, will sometimes have 
 tbe mysterious power of paralj'zing the tongue. It some- 
 times has the effect that your favorite Hudibras ascribes 
 to money: 
 
 " What makes all doctrioes plain and clear? 
 About two hundred pounds a year. 
 And that which was prov"d true before, 
 Prov'd false again ? — two hundred more." 
 
 Let us now look into Bro. Hamill's " parallels." — In 
 the first column we find John Wesley's name attached 
 to two sentences, which we doubt not are genuine, 
 though we could wish that he had given us chapter and 
 verse. The first is this — " I firmly believe I am a 
 scriptural Episcopos (bishop), as much as any man in 
 England. — John Wesley." And so every settled pastor 
 of a Church on earth might have said the same, with 
 equal propriety. Suppose our mutual friend and
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 141 
 
 esteemed brother, Eev. T. Root, pastor of the Presby- 
 terian Church in this place, should say that he was as 
 scriptural a bishop as any man on the American conti- 
 nent, would it be legitimate to publish it to the Avorld 
 that he, Mr. R., "preferred the Episcopal mode of 
 Church government to any other?" — in the face, too, of 
 a solemn declaration addressed to a Methodist bishop, 
 that he would rather be called " a knave, a rascal, or 
 scoundrel than to be called a bishop?" Again: If in the 
 second sentence, Mr. Wesley uses the term bishop in 
 the sense in which it was assumed by Messrs. Asbury 
 and Coke, Bro. Hamill has only succeeded in convicting 
 his venerable spiritual progenitor of talking two ways, 
 thus: 
 
 "Theirjather in tlieLord may "Men may call me a knave, ^ 
 be called the bishop, overseer of fool, a rascal, or a scoundrel, and I 
 them all. am content; but they shall never 
 
 JouN "Wesley." by my consent call me a bishop. 
 
 JouN Wesley." 
 
 And our reply to it shall be in the language of Pas- 
 cal: " How happy is it to have to do with people that 
 talk pro. and con.! By this means you furnish me with 
 all I wanted; which was, to make you confute yoitr selves." 
 
 A New Testament " bishop must be blameless," a 
 Methodist bishop ought to be blameless. 
 
 His second column contains two sentences taken al- 
 ternately from the Methodist Disciplibc, and a Baptist 
 Confession of Faith, and so arranged as to convey the 
 impression that the extract from the Baptist Confession 
 aulorses the one from the Methodist. We do not wish to 
 charge Bro. llamill with garbling the extract from the
 
 142 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Baptist Confession, for this would seem unkind; but let 
 the reader glance at this extract of our brother, and 
 read the following', which is the veritable paragraph he 
 has mutilated: " 9. The way appointed by Christ for 
 the calling of any person fitted and gifted by the Holy 
 Spii'it, unto the office of bishop, or elder in a Church, is, 
 that he he chosen thereunto by the common suffrages of the 
 Church itsdf; and solemnly set apart by fasting and 
 prayer, with imposition of hands by the eldership of the 
 Church," &c. The election and consecration of a Me- 
 thodist bishop at a General Conference by the clergy, and 
 the election and ordination of a New Testament bishop 
 by the Church and its eldership, are as far asunder as 
 the east is from the west. And yet the latter is so mu- 
 tilated and tacked on to the other, as if there were a 
 particle of affinity between them! Surely, surely, it 
 cannot be the defence of truth which requires a resort 
 to such expedients as this. 
 
 We suppose Mr. Wesley knew what construction to 
 place upon his own act, and what he was writing when 
 he addressed the letter to bishop Asbury, fotor years after 
 he and Dr, Coke assumed that title. It is a little singu- 
 lar, that when he makes a thrust at " our Episcopacy,' 
 it is atl "occasioned by the misrepresentations of others;" 
 while in every other respect he is believed and obeyed 
 almost as implicitly as if he were inspired. It seems 
 as if there is but one thing on earth that the Methodist 
 clergy love bettef than they do John Wesley — and that 
 is " our Episcopacy." John must not touch that — if he 
 does, why "the dear old man" has been miserably 
 duped. 
 
 For the sake of unity in this discussion, we have tried
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 143 
 
 to avoid all side issues up to this time. For this pur- 
 pose, we have permitted much that Brother Haraill has 
 said vitally affecting our own denomination, to pass 
 without comment. But a sense of duty constrains us 
 to depart from this course at this stage of the discus- 
 sion — not that we intend to he drawn from the main 
 question — but by way of a short episode, to vindicate 
 our own Church polity from some of the wildest and 
 most puerile attacks it has ever been our fortune to ob- 
 serve. Our brother has set us the example of compar- 
 ing the relative claims of Methodist and Baptist Church 
 government to the favorable consideration of American 
 freemen. We are willing, therefore, that he shall have 
 all the credit and honor of any victory he may obtain 
 over us in this respect, and deposit his laurels upon the 
 altar of " our Episcopacy." 
 
 I. The first question that suggests itself in this con- 
 nection is, "Who are the legitimate constituency of a 
 gospel Ciiurch? With the new Testament in our hands, 
 there can be no difficulty in answering this question. 
 Those who repent of their sins, believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and publicly profess that faith by submit- 
 ting to the ordinance of baptism. In other words, those 
 who have been "l>orn of the Spirit — born of God — called 
 to be saints — justified — sanctified." We prove this, 
 first, from the commission — " Ue that believeth and is 
 baptized, shall be saved ;" — and secondly, from the man- 
 ner in wliich the Apostles themselves understood it — 
 " They that gladly received His word were baptized, 
 and the same day there were added unto them about 
 three thousand souls." "And the Lord added unto 
 them daily such as should be saved." "And many of
 
 144 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized," 
 &c., &c. The truth is, there is not a recorded instance 
 in the New Testament of any person being received 
 into the Church without furnishing reasonable evidence 
 that he had exercised " repentance toward God, and 
 faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." And that such 
 and such only were the constituency of all the Churches 
 planted by the Apostles, is evinced from the additional 
 fact, that all the Apostolic epistles are addressed to 
 them as such — " To them that are sanctified in Christ 
 Jesus, called saints — beloved of God — the faithful in 
 Christ Jesus — the saints in Christ Jesus — faithful breth- 
 ren in Christ — brethren beloved — whose faith grew ex- 
 ceedingly," &c., &c. No man can doubt that if the 
 Apostles uniformly applied such terps as these to the 
 Churches to whom they directed their epistles, they 
 must have been composed professedly at least, of " new 
 creatures in Christ Jesus " — converted to God by the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 II. The second question to be considered is, Whether 
 these persons — these saints — ^faithful brethren in Christ 
 Jesus, &c., are competent to govern themselves. If they are 
 not, who on earth are competent to the -task? The very 
 object of the gospel economy is to teach man this lesson, 
 and to enable him to exemplify it in his relations to the 
 Church. Solomon says, " He that ruleth his spirit is 
 greater than he that taketh a city." Is a king consid- 
 ered competent to govern? The Christian is called a 
 king. Is a priest? He is called also a priest. The 
 Christian has been aptly called " the highest style of 
 man." Is there any other character on earth superior 
 to him in this respect, to whom he can apply for guar-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 145 
 
 dianship? As a nation, we have announced the doctrine 
 to an astonished world, that man is cajjable of self govern- 
 ment; and shall we, in our ecclesiastical organizations, 
 nullify that doctrine among; ourselves? Shall we pro- 
 claim on our civil constitution one thing, and on our 
 ecclesiastical constitutions the reverse? We repeat, if 
 Christians are not competent to govern themselves, who 
 beneath the canopy of heaven are? 
 
 III. The third question suggested is. Whether the 
 New Testament has inculcated any form of Church go- 
 vernment? If it has, we are capable of discovering it; 
 if it has not, then the man of God cannot be thoroughly 
 
 furnished to every ivork. Now, we affirm that the New 
 Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ is the consti- 
 tution of a gospel Church; that the governmental, doc- 
 trinal, and disciplinary economy of the kingdom of 
 Christ is set forth in that holy volume so luminously, 
 " that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err 
 therein;" that " the Bible, and the Bible only, is the re- 
 ligion" of Christians; and that to affirm differently, is 
 either to charge folly upon the Triune God, or unfaith- 
 fulness upon the sacred writers; to submit ourselves to 
 the blind guidance of blind, self-constituted and pre- 
 sumptuous priests, who assume the prerogatives of 
 God himself; and to land finally within tlie crushing 
 embraces of that spiritual Moloch, the Roman Catholic 
 hierarchy. And we believe that this holy volume teach- 
 es the doctrine that Christians are capable of governing 
 themselves. 
 
 IV. The fourth and last question that we shall now 
 suggest, arising out of tliis subject, is the great ques- 
 tion, over which the conflict of every age since Episco- 
 
 13
 
 146 A DISCUSSION ON . 
 
 pal government has set up its impious claim against 
 Church government, has been waged — and it is the ques- 
 tion we are now discussing: Do the Churches belong to 
 the ministry? or conversely — Do the ministry belong to 
 the Churches? We give the question this double form, 
 so as to present to the reader the whole subject matter 
 in controversy in a nut-shell. Episcopacy maintains an 
 absolute proprietorship in the Churches; assumes to es- 
 tablish its doctrines and discipline; appoint its pastors; 
 change their locations at discretion; to receive and sus- 
 pend preachers aa necessity may require; to oversee the 
 spiritual and temporal business of the Church. In a 
 word, it assumes all the attributes, rights, privileges, 
 and immunities of a supreme irresponsible government. 
 Now, in opposition to all these extra-judicial and impi- 
 ous claims to ecclesiastical powers and prerogatives, we 
 maintain that the Chukch of our Lord Jesus Christ — 
 called in tlie scriptures his "body" — "the Bride, the 
 Lamb's wife"- — " royaX priesthood, holy nation, peculiar 
 people," &c., has been invested with all the prerogatives 
 and powers which her ascended Head has ever confer- 
 red upon any agency under heaven; The great Magna 
 Charla of our spiritualcommonwealth confers upon her, 
 under Christ, the sole exercise of ecclesiastical power. 
 This is our entrenchment. It has been planned by infi- 
 nite wisdom, built by infinite power, and guarded by in- 
 finite goodness. It is a bulwark of strength which has 
 withstood the lapse of ages and the waste of empires, 
 the menaces of kings, the assaults of Episcopacy and 
 thunders of the Vatican. And it will continue to tower 
 in majesty and glory until Daniel's sublime prophecy 
 shall be fulfilled: "And the kingdom and dominion,
 
 METOODSIT EPISCOrACY. H7 
 
 and the g^reatness of the kiri)^dorn under the whole hea- 
 vens, shall be given to the people of the saints of the 
 Most Tligh, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, 
 and all dominions shalh serve and obey him." Into the 
 hands of Buch a constituency, it is safe to deposit this 
 power; for then the highest guaranties that heaven can 
 give and that earth can receive are furnisjied, that it 
 will be wielded only for good. The truth is, aecording to 
 the New Testament, the Church can only exist to 
 do good. The very moment she perverts the power 
 commkted to her hands, to base and unworthy yjurpos- 
 es, she ceases to be a Church of Christ, and becomes a 
 sect and synagogue of Satan. These are some of the 
 essential organic elements of Baptist Church polity. 
 Are thy anii- Republican? 
 
 ' We have barely t^>uched upon these topics; but our 
 space will not allow us to expand them. Thi« we shall 
 do as soon as the present discnission is disposed of* A 
 single remark will dispose of everything Hro. Hamill 
 says in regard to ministers' and deac^^jns' meetings, as- 
 sociations, conventions, &c. In his second communicar 
 tion, he objected to such assemblages as these among 
 the IJaptists, because they were mnr (Ay advisory councils; 
 in his present one, he objects to one of these meetings, 
 recently held in Tuskegee, because its action on a cer- 
 tain query, " was the nearest approach to taxation pro- 
 per and almost without representation, he has ever 
 known in any Church in oiir free country." At one 
 
 • We are enj^aged in the pfparation of a Kmall work on " Cliorch 
 OovcmmcDt," which we prop<>-« ofTcring to the pnb)ic in a ffiw 
 moathfl. !> II.
 
 148 ^ DISCUSSION ON ^ 
 
 time they are merely advisory councils; at another, they 
 pass a "decree," to which, if the Churches submit, they 
 "bear off the palm from all, of docility and submission 
 to the powers that be!" Eather hard pressed for ''ar- 
 gument to answer argument." Who is "twisting?" And 
 what do you think, reader, was this terrible crime 
 against " our free country?" First: A query was sug- 
 gested by a certain brother, a private member, to this 
 effect : What is the best method of raising the funds to 
 defray the necessary expenses of the Church? The an- 
 swer was, that each man ought to pay in proportion to 
 his worth, according to the Divine rule: "Upon the first 
 day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in 
 store, as God has prospered him, that there be no gather- 
 ings when I come." — 1st Cor. xvi. 2.- Second: Thatcovet- 
 eousness was idolatry, and that, in the judgment of that 
 meeting, no idolater ought to be retained in the Church. 
 What a monstrous offence this! How shocking to the 
 delicate sensibilities of our brother? What profound 
 concern does he manifest for the honor of his country? 
 All this, too, the mei'e expression of an opinion by a vo- 
 luntary meeting! A privilege guarantied to and exer- 
 cised by every public meeting of the citizens of this free 
 country, upon all subjects of common interest. 
 
 We suppose that we must inform brother Hamill that 
 all forms of government may be abused, not excepting 
 Democracies. It is a significant fact, that the very argu- 
 meyits he is using against the Baptist polity, are the identical 
 arguments ichich monarchists hare ahcays used against popu- 
 lar government. He has picked up a few cases in our 
 histories, in which, under the stfong excitement of some 
 vexed question, a few of our Churches have abused their
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY, 149 
 
 power, and turns these against us, wlien lie himself will 
 admit that they are the exceptions and not the riole; 
 just as the apologists for royalty catch up those occa- 
 sional outbreaks, particularly in our large cities, and 
 construe them into arguments against Republicanism. 
 We challenge Brother Ilamill to show any strifes in the 
 Baptist Churches, more dishonorable to the Christian 
 name, or rnore destructive of human rights, than those 
 which agitated the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1198 
 — 1824; '28, and '44 — and then, growing out of the last, 
 the humiliating spectacle of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, South, versus the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 North, before the United States Court in New York, in 
 reference to the " mammon of unrighteousness," in the 
 famous Book Concern lawsuit. A pretty fair evidence 
 this, that Episcopacy cannot meet every emei'gency it 
 may precipitate upon itself. 
 
 Brother HamUl maintains, that xoithmU the vote of the 
 laity, none can be received into the itinerancy, or into 
 the Church. In the Discipline, are the following ques- 
 tions and answers: 
 
 Qmsl. 1. How is a preacher to bo received? 
 
 Atis. 1. By the Annual Conference.. 2. In the interval 
 of a Conference, by a bishop, or the presiding elder of 
 the district, until the sitting of the Conference. — p. 37. 
 
 Again: 
 
 Qii^M. 1. What are the duties of the elder, deacon, or 
 preacher, who has the especial charge of a circuit? 
 
 Ans. 4. To appoint all the leaders, and change them 
 when /le sees it necessary. 5. TO RECEIVE, TRY, AND 
 EXPEL members, according to the form of the Dis- 
 cipline.
 
 150 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Now, Brother Hamill tells us one thing-, the Discip- 
 line tells us the very reverse. And moreover we have 
 been present, time and again, at the reception of mem- 
 bers into the Methodist Episcopal Church, and never 
 have we heard the concurrence of the Church asked in 
 a single instance. Perhaps this part of the Discipline 
 has been "mended." 
 
 Father Mercer's wish in regard to a general meeting 
 of the ministers of Georgia, was certainly right and 
 proper. But that the expression of such a wish should 
 ever have been metamorphosed in a desire for a " Con- 
 ference Episcopacy," we are sure never could have en- 
 tered the head of any other j)erson except a Methodist 
 clergyman. A voluntary Conference of ministers, for 
 mutual edification and spiritual improvement, is quite a 
 dilferent thing from an ecclesiastical body assembled to 
 enact, expound, and enforce laws upon the Churches. 
 
 We had intended to compare the constitution of Me- 
 thodist Episcopacy with the constitution of the United 
 States, after the example of our brother; but our co- 
 lumns are filled, and we are obliged to defer it, for 
 the present. Justice to our correspondents requires 
 that we shall give at least every other issue to their 
 communications. We think we shall be able to make 
 this part of the subject interesting in some respects. 
 
 As our brother is still haunted by that hydra-headed 
 monster among the Baptists, " dose com7imnion," a,nd as 
 he still seems to consider that it has much to do in re- 
 flecting light upon the "Democratic element," in "our 
 Episcopacy," we suppose we must devote a single pa- 
 ragraph to the elucidation of that subject. Our position 
 is, that the Baptists act, not only upon divine authority.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 151 
 
 but also upon a principle adopted by every denomina- 
 tion of Christians on earth, so fai* as we know. That 
 principle is, that Baptism is an indispensable pre-requisite to 
 sacramental communion. In the Methodist Discipline, 
 pages 86-81, the following question and answer occurs: 
 
 Quest. How shall we prevent improper persons from 
 insinuating themselves into the Church? 
 
 Ans. 1. Let none be received into the Church until 
 they are recommended by a leader with whom they have 
 met at least six months on trial, and have ;been baptized. 
 
 Probationers may be allowed tocoiiimune, "provided 
 they have been baptized," says Remington, who was 
 twenty years an elder in that Church, " and not with- 
 out." And with this agrees " Hibbiard on Baptism," a 
 work endorsed by the General Conference of the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church, and recognized as a text-book 
 for young ministers, for the third year in their course of 
 study. On page l74, he says: " It is but just to re- 
 mark that in one principle the Baptist and Pedo-baptist 
 Churches agree. Tlioy both agree in rejecting from 
 communion at the table of the Lord, and in denying the 
 rights of Church fellowship to all wBo have not been 
 baptized. Valid baptism they consider as essential to 
 constitute visible Church membership. This aLso -we 
 HOLD. The only (question, then, that here divides us is, 
 what is essential to valid baptism?" The conclusion, then, 
 is inevitable, if we are to believe their own standard au- 
 thors, that the Methodist Episcopal Church hold. that 
 baptism is a pre-requisite to the Lord's supper, and the 
 door of admission into tlic Church. If Bro. Ilamill will 
 turn to the 213th page of Hall's Works, a volume from 
 which he has often quoted, and with M'hich he seems
 
 152 ^ A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 peculiarly charmed, he will receive the following rebuke 
 from the "eloquent open-communion Baptist:" " Let it be 
 admitted that baptism is, under all circumstances, a 
 necessary condition of Church fellowship, and it is impos- 
 sible for the Baptists to act otherwise. The recollection 
 of this may suflSce to rebut the ridicule and silence the 
 clamor of those who loudly condemn the Baptists for a 
 proceeding- which, were they but to change their opinion 
 on the subject of baptism, their own principles would 
 compel them to adopt. They both concur in a common 
 principle, from which the practice deemed so offensive 
 is the necessary result. Considered as an argiimeninm 
 ad kominem, or an appeal to the avowed principles of our 
 opponents, this reasoning may be sufficient to shield us 
 from that severity of reproach to which we are often ex- 
 posed, nor ought we to be censured for acting upon a 
 system (principle?) which is sanctioned by our accus- 
 ers." With what sincerity can he, or indeed the Pedo- 
 baptists generally, use the arguments of Eobert Hall 
 on the communion question; they all, as denominations, 
 without exception, when equally with Baptists, repudi- 
 ate his premises? No, Brother Hamill, you have cer- 
 tainly too much perception not to see that the legitimate 
 question at issue between Baptists and Pedo-baptists, 
 relates to baptism, and not to sacramental communion. 
 It is close baptism, not close communion. 
 
 Our brother takes leave of us this time rather abrupt- 
 ly. A slight frown gathered upon his browl Don't be 
 crusty, Brother Hamill. If you have succeeded in 
 " answering argument with argument," you ought to 
 have quit in a better humor. We are not conscious of 
 having used reproachful or insulting language to him. 
 
 i
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 153 
 
 And as we are an alien, and liave never been accus- 
 tomed to "a will omnipotent in the premises," we an- 
 swer his clerical command of " silence!" — " Pardon us 
 if we know no such right, if we comprehend no such 
 privilege !" 
 
 Will Brother Hamill please inform us distinctly, whe- 
 ther the charge of falsehood in his last communication 
 was intended to refer to the facts we "had alleged 
 against Methodism" up to the time of the writing of his 
 article, and which we specified in our answer; or whe- 
 ther he intended it to refer to the positions in the ar- 
 ticle from the "Watchman?" We are actuated by the 
 kindest of feelings and the best of motives in making 
 this request. 
 
 ■ June 21st, 1855.
 
 154 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 LETTER Y. 
 
 METHODISM. 
 
 THE STRIKING ANALOGY BETWEEN THE METHODIST CHURCH GOV- 
 ERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Methodism never connected with the State; ^o. Henderson's just 
 denunciation of persecution; points of agreement; Doctrine of 
 the fathers of Trent rejected; Fuller's view of the extent of pas- 
 toral care; A bold admission; True credentials; A few drops or 
 a whole pond of water insufficient to regenerate; Bro. Hender- 
 son's analysis of the elements of a Church amended; The great 
 Head of the Church legislates for her, and calls her officers; Ex- 
 ercise of reason not superseded; Conventions and creeds necessary; 
 The absence of connectionalism the cause of disorder in the Bap- 
 tist Church; Exceedingly powerful advice; Agreement with Rob't 
 Hall; A new style of logic; The faith of Methodism nt)t mended; 
 Methodism has a single grand platform of doctrines; The Baptist 
 Church may have ten thousand varying creeds, and, therefore, 
 cannot with accuracy be styled The Baptist Church; The Hiwas- 
 see Baptist Association; Baptist Churches have no legislative 
 representatives at all; Their practice better than their theory; 
 Mr. Wesley did prefer the Episcopal mode of Church government; 
 Unique reasoning; Mercer favors a platform similar to that of 
 Methodism; An interior view of the trial of members; The chal- 
 lenge to publish a deed refused; Power of bishops in civil mat- 
 ters; The generosity of the General Conference in making bishops 
 of its enemies; Chief business of an Annual or General Confer- 
 ence; Why should the laity act in two Church courts upon the
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 155 
 
 same cases? Distinction between the act of distributing minis- 
 ters and other Church business; Baptist itinerancy again; A Geor- 
 gia Baptist Conference of ministers; Father Mercer; Church re- 
 movals like removals by the President; Bishop Hamline's view 
 excessively Republican; A chance for a pretty' burst of indig- 
 nation. 
 
 ANALOGY. 
 
 Analogy between the Methodist Church government; and the United 
 States government, shown in many particulars; Consistency would 
 require the opposers of Methodism to seek the destruction of our 
 civil Republic; Other Baptist disorders; Melancholy spectacle; 
 Popery in the Berlin Baptist Church, as their poets say; Opposi- 
 tion preaching; Explanation; glaring errors; Baptist piety will 
 do good in spite of its defective government; Concession. 
 
 " Walk about Zion, and go round about her; tell tlie towers thereof; mark ye well 
 her bulwarks; consider her palaces; that ye may tell it to the eeueratiou following." — 
 Psalms. 
 
 " I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say." 
 
 Brother Henderson: 
 
 As Methodism has never for a moment been connect- 
 ed with the State, in any laud; not even for a period as 
 brief as the mad sway of that " most eminent Baptist, 
 Thomas Muncer" or as tho wild and licentious tyranny 
 of John Matthias, and John Bocold of Leyden: and as 
 she has therefore, never in a sing-lc instance, lent her- 
 self to any form of civil government, as an instrument 
 of oppression, I may freely leave to your ready pen, the 
 task of portraying the evils of the union of Church and 
 State; and of denouncing with just severity the cruel 
 persecutions, raised from time to time, by Church au- 
 thorities, under the sanction of the State. — My only aim 
 will be, to demonstrate the claims of Methodism to Rc- 
 publicanism of the highest excellence.
 
 156 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 I can cordially endorse all you have to say upon the 
 value of controversy, when conducted fairly, amicably, 
 and in a Christian spirit. I agree with you still further 
 in the strongest condemnation of any Episcopacy, which 
 claims to be a third order in the ministry of Divine 
 right, in which alone is vested the right of ordination, 
 and of g'overnment in the Church, and without which 
 third order, as some sects contend, there were no Church 
 at all, even though the incumbents of this third order, 
 falsely called apostolic, were heretical in doctrine, and 
 impious in life; as the Tridentine fathei's affirmed, that 
 " a bishop might become a priest of Jupiter, or a priest 
 of Baal, and still be a priest of Jesus Christ." (Camp. 
 Eccles. Lects.) Such assumptions I regard as anti- 
 Christian, and as the very corner-stone of the Papal 
 hierarchy. 
 
 Methodists do not claim ordination from- a higher 
 source than a presbyter, called also in the Scriptures, a 
 bishop; which latter appellation with us is, by custom 
 only and not by divine appointment, restricted to the 
 designation of him whom we elect to be the primus inter 
 pares — first among equals ; like the Angel of the Church 
 of Ephesus, who was first among the associate bishops 
 of Ephesus. In this sort of presidency or moderator- 
 ship, involving in a modified sense, what Paul had — 
 " the care of all the Churches" — there can be nothing in 
 conflict with the qualifications of a bishop, as described 
 in the Bible. Your great Fuller says, " Nor would, ther 
 influence of the first missionaries be confined to a single 
 congregation, but by a kind of parental authority, 
 would extend *to all the societies that might be raised 
 by means of their labors." — (Bap. Lib. vol. iii. p. 330.)
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY 157 
 
 I will make the still bolder admission, that I do not 
 care to claim a place even in a succession of Presbj'te- 
 rial ordinations, running back to apostolic times: for 
 all successions at Ihe hands of men, have come to us 
 thi'ough corrupt channels. Give me direct succession 
 from heaven, by the Spirit's call, entitling me to minis- 
 terial credentials; and then, as a matter of order and 
 expediency merely, 1^ it be acknowledged by the laity, 
 and endorsed by a prayerful imposition of hands of holy 
 brethren. 
 
 I do concur with you heartily also, in rejecting' 
 the absurd doctrine, that a few drops of water, or even 
 a whole pond of water, can, by the sprinkling or the 
 immersion, either of an infant, or an adult, " perform 
 the work uniformly ascribed to the agency of the Holy 
 Spirit." Thus far I suppose we are of one mind. 
 
 Your analysis of the elements of a Church, is partially 
 correct, but may need some emendation. Let us see. — • 
 What is a Church? Ans.: " A company of men having 
 the form, and seeking the power of godliness, united to 
 help each other to work out their own salvation." 
 Secondly: Are they competent to govern themselves? 
 Ans.: They arc, within certain limitations: First, that 
 Clirist alone can frame their fundamental laws; and 
 next, that the spirit of God shall choose their ministers 
 or overseers; but these things being done for them by 
 the great Head of the Church (for in these things Church 
 government is essentially different fr(jm civil govern- 
 ment), they may then judge who are called by Christ 
 to tlie holy ofUcc — to bear some sort of rule in the 
 Church of God, as Paul saitli, " Kemember them which 
 liave the rule over you, who have spoken unto y^u the 
 14
 
 158 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 word of God, — and may do also whatever else is neces- 
 sary to good government. Thirdly: Has the New Tes- 
 tament inculcated any form of Church government? 
 Ans.: "The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary 
 to salvation," yet they do not supersede the necessity 
 for the legitimate exercise of reason; nor do they go 
 into detail to such an extent, as to make void the func- 
 tions of associations, conferenceSj synods, and conven- 
 tions; and in view of the brevity of the Scriptures, the 
 variety of mental character, the fallibility even of good 
 men, and the propriety of securing harmony of action, 
 the common sense of all ages has dictated the necessity 
 of drawing up symbols of faith, called creeds, articles, 
 or confessions of faith, to serve as points of union among 
 Christians, and as defences against the encroachments 
 of error. Fourthly: Do the Churches belong to the 
 ministry, or the ministry to the Churches? Ans.: 
 Neither; but both if faithful, to the Lord, who placed 
 those called by His Spirit to the ministry, " over us in 
 the Lord."— Eph. I, v. 13. 
 
 A government of this description is certainly in no 
 wise anti-Republican; nevertheless, to that form in 
 which these elements exist in the Baptist Church, there 
 is wanting that beautiful connectionalism, with its 
 checks and balances, which makes Methodism so close 
 an imitation of our civih Republic. It is this want of 
 government, properly so called, which renders the Bap- 
 tist Church so unlike our federal government, and which 
 produced the terrible disorders in your Georgia and Ala- 
 bama Churches, referred to in my last communication. 
 Your lame apology for those disorders; for the wretch- 
 ed anarchical legislation lamented by your own historian;
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 159 
 
 for the existence of that " infernal spirit which gets in- 
 to every Baptist community, however small," if your 
 last Convention is correct; and for the exceedingUj x>ower- 
 fid advice given in your Tuskegee legislation on taxa- 
 tion; which advice threatens exclusion against any of 
 your members who dare refuse such inquisitorial tax, 
 I think it unnecessary to disturb. I shall not tear away 
 that fig-leat concealment of your nakedness. 
 
 I am happy to inform you, furthermore, that I agree 
 with the great Egbert Hall upon the question of close 
 communion; I concur with him most heartily, in both 
 his premises, and conclusion. Whenever I can accredit 
 any man as a true minister of Christ, in the highest 
 functions of the ministry', namely, preaching the gospel 
 of Christ, I will freely invite him to partake of the Lord's 
 Supper with me, even were he baptized by a Papist, or 
 never baptized at all. I know of no Methodist minister 
 who would be guilty of the absurd inconsistency of re- 
 pelling, on the ground of baptism, whether valid or not, 
 from the Lord's table, one whom he himself acknow- 
 ledged as a minister of Jesus Christ. 
 
 You still cling ft)nd]y to the allegation, that in our 
 free land, where every one may worship God under his 
 own vine and fig tree, " we impose articles of faith upon 
 our people without their consent; if it is not so, the con- 
 verse can be proved," namely, " the people frame them." 
 Is is true, that if the people do not frame articles of 
 faith, these articles are imposed on them without their 
 consent, when they voluntarily subscribe to them? I ! 
 This is sheer nonsense. Did preachers manufacture 
 them? By no means; for wc acknowledge none but 
 Christ as the legislator of the Christian Church; and
 
 160 A DISCUSSION ON . - 
 
 both preachers and people believe God himself revealed 
 these doctrines in his word. This proving of the con- 
 verse, is a style of logic peculiarly your own. Hedge, 
 Blair, Whateley, and other logicians, had not discovered 
 that if a particular proposition be not true, the converse 
 must be true. It is unquestionably Hendersonian, and 
 worthy of a copyright. Look at its application to cur- 
 rent topics. " It is a very hot day, sir." " No, sir, it is 
 only moderately warm for the season." Well, sir, if it 
 is not a very hot day, the converse must be true— it is a 
 Yerj cold day." Most lucid logic 1 Our fathers taught 
 that the Holy Scriptures contained all things necessary 
 to salvation (Dis.); when they preached the word, our 
 people, like the Bereans, searched the Scriptures to see 
 whether these things were so; and the word of the Lord 
 was glorified in the voluntary addition to our Church of 
 the multitudes who would enjoy this salvation; and both 
 bishops and people have failed to discover, during the 
 existence of American Methodism, any necessity for 
 mending our articles of faith. 
 
 It is true, the Methodist Church, like the Presbyterian 
 and other Churches, has but a single grand platform of 
 doctrines for our entire membership; one God, one faith, 
 one baptism into Christ's death, (not into his burial, for 
 his burial was a mere circumstance, in no wise essen- 
 tial to the atonement.) We do not, therefore, upon the 
 organization of every Church, or every Conference, call 
 upon our members to form a new set of articles of faith; 
 if we did, the articles thus framed might be eighteen 
 centuries too late; and then our twelve thousand Me- 
 thodist Churches might have as many varying creeds, 
 agreeing in some points, and differing in others, as
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 161 
 
 there are Churches. In that event, it would be as great 
 a fallacy to style these thousands of our Churches, with 
 their varying creeds, the Methodist Church, as it is to 
 give the appellative which denotes unity, namely, the 
 Baptist Church, to the ten thousand Churches, having 
 frequcntl}' dissimilar creeds, which agree with you upon 
 questions of baptism. Hence, in strictness of speech, 
 there can be no such thing as the Baptist Church; un- 
 less it be some particular society claiming that title; 
 for common sense teaches, that when thousands of 
 Churches severally try their skill at creed-making, and 
 manufacturing so many distinct confessions of faith, 
 they cannot be one Church, unless diiference and unity 
 mean the same thing. This is the rather true, when 
 we consider that every one of fliese Churches claims 
 independent jurisdiction in every respect, as the mi- 
 nutes of the last Hiwassee Baptist Association, N. C, 
 in the following language testify: " We have no high- 
 sounding titles, as pope, cardinals, ruling or presiding 
 elders, synods, assemblies, or conferences, to hear and 
 decide upon appeals, and to pass laws for the govern- 
 ment of the Church. We meet together for mutual com- 
 fort and edification, not to decide upon appeals, nor to 
 make laws." — Carolina Baptist, June 6th. 
 
 Now, I humbly submit it to your good judgment, 
 whether the members of numerous Churches thus go- 
 verned, with their several distinctive peculiarities, and 
 without any law-making department, properly so called, 
 for the aggregate Churches, and hence, of course, with- 
 out any representatives at all, whether lay or clerical, 
 invested with legislative power, can with any accuracy 
 be styled the Baptist Church? I tliixdc not. I submit
 
 162 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 also, that where there is no legislature — and your own 
 authorities tell us 3'^ou have none — there can be no le- 
 gislative representatives; so that after all your invec- 
 tives against our representation, it turns out, that in 
 your anomalous system, neither your ministry nor your 
 people have any representation at all. 
 
 Nevertheless, I frankly admit the practice of your 
 Churches is better than your theory. The common 
 sense of your people ignores the theory of your govern- 
 ment, and by extra legislative and extra judicial acts, 
 secures in ordinary cases the benefits of government. 
 But in all unusual or diflScult cases, your Churches are 
 utterly at fault; and the good and wise among you, like 
 Father Mercer, of Georgia, and the Baptist historian, 
 Holcombe, of Alabama, bewail in hopeless bitterness 
 the sad dissensions, distractions, divisions, anarchy and 
 despotic acts of legislation of your people. Wo have 
 no desire to frame the Methodist Church govei'nmeut 
 after the pattern of this system of anarchy and confu- 
 sion, inaccurately styled Baptist Church Government. 
 It is by far too much unlike our federal government, to 
 suit the Republican spirit of Methodism. 
 
 You have charged our bishops with duplicity, in affirm- 
 ing that Mr, Wesley preferred the Episcopal mode of 
 Church government to any other. Your proof is, his 
 letter to Mr. Asbury, objecting to the title of bishop. 
 I showed you that even the Baptist Discipline recog- 
 nizes the title of bishop, and that Mr. Wesley consider- 
 ed it a scriptural synonym for presbyter, though he pre- 
 ferred we should not use it, because it had been un- 
 righteously appropriated by prelacy, from which our 
 brethren reclaimed it, and restored it to its original
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 163 
 
 sense — an act commended in the Life of Wesley, by 
 Moore, who first published the much naisrepresented 
 Asbury letter. Mr. Wesley did prefer the Episcopal 
 mode of Church government. The Minutes of the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church in America, were published 
 six months after their adoption, at Mr. Wesley's press, 
 and uflder his eye; and Dr. Coke defended them in Mr. 
 Wesley's presence, and without contradiction, on the 
 ground that he had done nothing- without the direction 
 of Mr. Wesley; and for four years we were styled a 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, before Mr. Wesley reprov- 
 ed Asbury for allowing himself to be called bishop. — 
 (Stevens' Church Polity, p. 100.) So much for garbling 
 our Church documents. 
 
 I have informed you that every itinerant is constitut- 
 ed such by two distinct acts of the members, and that 
 the suffrages of the laity are indispensable to every 
 Church act, in everyone of the thousands of our Churches; 
 and tliat no bishop, nor even preacher in charge, can so 
 much as vote in tlie trial of a member. You tell us the 
 Discipline says the reverse of this; that the preacher is 
 received by the Annual Conference, &c. Very true, 
 sir; the Annual Conference does receive preachers. It 
 would be singular Republicanism which could force 
 them to appoint preachers to the pastorate whom they 
 thought unworthy. But tlien, if j'ou were better ac- 
 quainted with our Discipline, you would learn that it 
 requires candidates for the itinerancy to bo licensed 
 first by the people, and then recommended by the Quar- 
 terly Conference; without which license and recom- 
 mendation, the Conference can receive none into the 
 itinerancy. How sadly you have mistaken the charac-
 
 164 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ter of our entire system. Your reverse logic is of a 
 piece with your converse logic. Unique specimens of 
 reasoning. 
 
 Let your own Mercer instruct you into the propriety 
 of our course. " The ministry is to ministers, what the 
 Church is to common brethren; and a man might as 
 soon be introduced into the fellowship of the CMiurch 
 without being received by the members of the Churcli, 
 as any one can be brought into the fellowship of the 
 ministry Avithout being received by the ministry." — Me- 
 moirs, p. 453. Again: he fixes the minimum number 
 who may constitute a Church, at seven; and then, the 
 ministerial office being elective, he says, "In that case, 
 not seven, but four against three, and these three may 
 be the strength of the Church, appoint one of them- 
 selves to the office of gospel minister. Is it possible 
 that such an appointment can give to any one an au- 
 thoritative claim on all Churches and ministers, to their 
 cordial acceptance and brotherly companionship? Be- 
 sides the door it would throw open to vile speculation, 
 and base electioneering. Once establish the rule, that the 
 Church has the only and sole authority to induct into 
 the ministerial office, and that it is elective, and you have 
 opened the flood-gates to error, and exposed the Church 
 to feuds and destruction." — (p. 454.) Well spoken, 
 Brother Mercer, though you have come upon the plat- 
 form of Methodism to utter it. 
 
 Our ministers do summon oifenders to trial ; still an 
 interior riew of our Discipline would show you that we 
 try them by members only. As for what you may or 
 may not have heard of the concurrence of members, 
 asked on receiving members, I cannot answer; but I
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 165 
 
 presume you will not think I go't up a case of the recep- 
 tion «f fourteen members into full connection by vote 
 of the Church, for your special benefit, and in anticipa- 
 tion of your denial of that custom only a few days after. 
 You will understand Methodism better before I have 
 done with you. 
 
 Your refusal to meet my challenge for the publication 
 of the deed of any Methodist Church in the laud, I take 
 as a silent abandonment of yoiir position on the pro- 
 perty question; and I await patiently for your denoue- 
 ment of the mystery of the Book Concern. 
 
 With regard to the power of our bishops to control 
 the suiFrages of our people in civil affairs, I think you 
 are well enough acquainted with Methodists to be as- 
 sured, that if our bishops could be found silly enough to 
 attempt such control, they would not only meet with 
 moral resistance, but in many instances would be for- 
 cibly convinced of their error by very striking argu- 
 ments. 
 
 Our venerable bishops McKendree and Bascom, who 
 had spoken so freel}'' upon questions of Church govern- 
 ment, you insinuate, were bribed into silence by elec- 
 tion to the Episcopal ofiSce. The members of Confer- 
 ence who elected them must have been af a happy 
 temperament indeed, to liave rewarded those who 
 " mercilessly castigated " them with the highest honors 
 in their gift. "Would your Convention do likewise? 
 Seriously, the insinuation is utterly unworthy of you. 
 You cannot possibly credit it yourself If you duly 
 consider the Scripture, "With what measure you mete 
 it shall be measured to you again," you will Ijc more 
 chary in future, of your flings at the memory of the holy 
 dead.
 
 166 A DISCUSS rON ON 
 
 Upon a careful consideration of the reasons you have 
 offered to prove Methodism anti-Republican, I find your 
 proofs evince an entire misapprehension of Methodism. 
 You have created a man of straw, and battled valiantly 
 with your own misconceptions of our system. My prin- 
 cipal business, therefore, in this discussion, has been to 
 rectffy your mistakes concerning' ns. 1 have already in- 
 formed you that almost all the business of your irregularly 
 constituted Conventions, is transacted in our system, by side- 
 societies; such as Education, Tract, Missionary Societies, and 
 Boards of Finance; in all of which we have as much lay dele- 
 gation, and lay management, as you could ask for; and that 
 in everything, in which the laity is equally concerned 
 with the ministry, it is the genius of Methodism to de- 
 light in lay co-operation. But in the Annual and Gen- 
 eral Conferences, whose chief business is the examina- 
 tion and reception of ministers, and their distribution 
 on the itinerant plan — a plan which you yourself have 
 highly commended — and the framing of laws regulating 
 that reception and distribution, we admit no lay dele- 
 gation, save in the financial and other enterprises spe- 
 cified. Why should tve have lay delegates to examine and re- 
 ceive ministers in Conference, when lay mcmhers have already 
 acted on the very same cases in their respective Church courts, 
 and the only candidates who can apply for admission 
 into the itinerancy, have come up iipon the recommen- 
 dation of the laity? 
 
 And with reference to the appointment of these min- 
 isters to their several fields of labor, I have already 
 shown you, that if you had a hundred Baptist itinerant 
 ministers assembled in Convention, to be scattered to 
 the four winds upon a self-sacrificing mission, you could
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. IGt 
 
 iieUher think it just, no?- expedient, nor Repidlican, that a Bap- 
 tist layman should arise upon the floor of the Convention, and 
 command every one of these hundred Baptist itinerants to strike 
 their tents and go ic hit her soever he ordered them, while he him- 
 self suhnitled to no such sacrifices, and qtiietly returned to his 
 secular pursiiits at home. Such Republicanism would be 
 a bitter pill to these supposed Baptist itinerants; they 
 would soon come to the conclusion, that they knew no 
 such rights, and comprehended no such privileges. You 
 have been verj^ careful not to notice this distinction, 
 which I have drawn between the act of distributinsr 
 ministers upon the itinerant plan, and the support of 
 other grand Church schemes; the first illustrated in the 
 case of the supposed Baptist itinerants, and the second 
 in Missionary, Financial, and other Boards, which at- 
 tend to business like that of your Conventions, and in 
 which, there is as much lay management with us, if not 
 more, than you can possibly boast of in your system. 
 You have gone even farther than we have in calling 
 ministers* meetings without any lay delegation what- 
 ever; for you have done this, without the reason which 
 exists among us for doing it, namely, the appointment 
 of ministers to their field of labor, in which none should 
 have a voice but those who submit to like sacrifices. 
 You have called ministers' meetings, as Father Mercer 
 informs us, without any business of this sort to be 
 brought before them, and only, according to Mercer, 
 " to prevent distracting controversies, and to keep the 
 beauty of the Church from being marred." 
 
 Your remark that, this was only a wish of Father Mer- 
 cer, shows that you are not well posted up in the his- 
 tory of Georgia Baptists, It was not merely a wish; on
 
 168 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 the contrary, such a ministers' meeting- was actually 
 organized in Eatonton, in October, 1838, but it was 
 found difficult to secure a general attendance, and in 
 two or three years it languished into non-existence. 
 Memoirs, page 265. Father Mercer lamented its discon- 
 tinuance, and affirmed it was because " they were turned 
 every one to his own way, and that young ministers have 
 had the rearing of themselves in the churches, and have 
 been so long accustomed to direct their own course, 
 that it will be hard to bring them to submit to the dis- 
 cipline of a ministerial union." I find also upon a care- 
 ful reading of the History of the Alabama Baptist, page 
 124, that when you plan a system of itinerancy upon a 
 small scale, your ministers associate themselves for the 
 work, and make among themselves their own arrange- 
 ments, for the supply of the given field with itinerant 
 labor. If, thprefore, a Conference of ministers transact- 
 ing business in which none but themselves are equally 
 interested, and that, too, with a lay board of finance 
 added to it, be anti-Republican, how much more anti- 
 Republican must a Conference of Baptist ministers be, 
 who are without lay delegation, and who have no itine- 
 rant business to justify their exclusiveness. " Take 
 the beam out of thine own eve," &c. 
 
 You have rejoiced over your quotation from Bishop 
 Hamline, as one that findeth great spoil. What a pity 
 to spoil your pretty piece of funl Mr. Hamline said, 
 " The class leader becomes unjiopular and the preacher 
 removes him; the itinerant preacher is not xhstful in his 
 charge, and the bishop or presiding elder deposes him 
 from his charge or pastoral office, and makes him an 
 assistant. The presiding elder impairs his usefulness
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 1G9 
 
 on a district, not by gross malfeasanee, but by a slight 
 misfeasance, or oftener still because he is not popular, and 
 the bishop removes him to a circuit." 
 
 In all these instances, the removal is summary, with- 
 out trial; it is for no crime, and generally for no misde- 
 meanor, htt far being unacceptable. These removals are 
 by a sole agent whose will is omnipotent in the premi- 
 ses, &c. Do you think Brother Henderson, that in these 
 removals, " the very existence of the Church is utterly 
 ignored?" 
 
 Why, sir. Bishop Hamline tells us, they are made be- 
 cause of eccentricity, unacceptahility or unpopularity, with 
 the Church; and hence, in every instance specified by 
 him, according to the wish of the Church, which is cer- 
 tainly sufficiently Republican. But further, do you 
 know the design of Mr. Hamline's speech? the grand 
 object for which it was made? If not, I will tell you 
 then: it was to prove that the General Conference 
 could remove every one of our bishops from office if it 
 saw proper, without any crime, or misdemeanor what- 
 ever, and even without accusation or trial, and summa- 
 rily — that the authority of the Conference over the 
 bishops, was omnipotent. 
 
 In the very next paragraph to that quoted bj^ you, 
 Mr. Hamline says: "I shall argue our authority to de- 
 pose a bishop summarily, for improprieties morally 
 innocent, which embarrass the exercise of his functions." 
 Debates, p. 129. The conference acting on these prin- 
 ciples, suspended Bishop Andrew. Is it possible that 
 an Episcopacy which may be removed summarily, with- 
 out trial or the slightest impeachment of moral charac- 
 ter, can be anti-Republican! I! You are particularly un- 
 15
 
 110 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 fortunate in quoting Mr. Hamline's speech, in support 
 of your groundless allegation. If the sentiments of that 
 speech be true, we are excessively Republican, and our 
 bishops are more perfectly shorn of power than any 
 other ministers in our body. Moreover, had you pos- 
 sessed a copy of that speech, and not gotten it at second 
 band, you would have better understood the nature of 
 the removals he speaks of — that they do not affect in 
 the smallest degree the Christian or ministerial jights or 
 functions of the party removed. He says: "My mind, 
 sir (if not my words), has all along distinguished be- 
 tween orders and oflSce." The summary removals which 
 I have noticed, are from ofSce, not from the ministry. 
 In regard to ordained preachers, these two rules will 
 hold: 
 
 First: they cannot be expelled from the ministry sum- 
 marily, but must have a trial in due form. Secondly: 
 they cannot be expelled for improper conduct, but only 
 for a crime forbidden in the word of God. These rules, 
 with few exceptions, will apply to private members; 
 they cannot usually be expelled from the Church with- 
 out trial, or the offer of trial; (I add, too, by a jury of 
 their peers) nor for improper conduct. 
 
 The mistaken view you have taken of Mr. Hamline's 
 speech, and the blunder you committed in referring to 
 it, will punish you justly for your readiness to take our 
 Church documents in a garbled form, from the hands of 
 our enemies. The fact that the summary removals are 
 not from the ministry, will extinguish your momentary 
 joy, and leave only a mortifying consciousness of ignor- 
 ance of our system. The removals, then, which you 
 imagined to be so utterly anti-Republican, are exactly
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. m 
 
 similar to the frequent removals made by the President 
 of the United States, when he transfers summarily, and 
 without trial, the captain of one naval vessel to the 
 command of another, or the general of one division of 
 the army to the command of another division. 
 
 Bishop Andrew might still have preached the gospel, 
 administered the sacraments, or presided over a Church 
 or district, in perfect accordance with the wish of the 
 General Conference which suspended him from the Epis- 
 copal office. His orders were not touched; it was only 
 his permanent moderatorship over the Conferences 
 which was affected by the suspension. 
 
 The President of the United States does immensely 
 more of this work of summarily removing from office; 
 and his removals aflFect the parties removed to a vastly 
 greater extent, in both powers and emoluments. The 
 executive officers of our government, under the Presi- 
 dent, are not supposed to be divinely called to their 
 office, and their removal utterly extinguishes their of- 
 ficial powers — as in the removal of the Cabinet, and 
 Custom House officers, governors of territories, and the 
 recall of ambassadors. These removals do not, how- 
 ever, impair their rights of citizenship. But in the 
 Church, the ministers thereof are called by the Spirit of 
 God, to their sacred work; hence, nothing but crime 
 can subject them to be divested by any Church power 
 whatever, of their ministerial prerogatives. Can you 
 not favor us with a pretty burst of indignation at the 
 utterly anti-Republican right of summary removal with- 
 out trial, accusation, or appeal, by the President of the 
 United States. Do " look it sternly in the face," and try
 
 l'^2 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 your chivalry on this despotic assumption, " growing 
 up under the boughs of the tree of liberty!" 'ha! ha! ha! 
 Your companion in arms, Mr. Ross, of Brownlow Re- 
 view notoriety, seems to have fallen into the same ditch, 
 I leave you to sympathize with him, and when he again 
 pronounces Methodism Anti-Christ, I will tell him Bro. 
 Henderson says, not so, sir; " Methcdists love our com- 
 mon Lord, and have exhibited a zeal in his cause (and 
 of course, not the cause of Anti-Christ) A^f)rthy of all 
 praise." When your nerves recover from the shock 
 they have received at the idea of summary removal from 
 office, for unacceptability to the people, by an agent 
 whose will is omnipotent in the premises: albeit, he 
 himself is subject to a like removal, if he use this power 
 improperly, you will see in this feature of the govern- 
 ment of Methodism, a striking likeness to that feature 
 in our civil government, which reposes similar power, 
 but to a vastly greater extent, in the President of the 
 United States. 
 
 ANALOGY. 
 
 I again repeat, sir, there are differences, such as I 
 have before shown, between Church government and 
 civil government; namely, that in the Church, Christ is 
 the sole legislator; Christ calls the ministry to their 
 sacred office; the Church can inflict no civil pains and 
 penalties whatever; and in the Methodist Church, at 
 least, if not in the Baptist Church, the members can 
 withdraw at pleasui-e. Within these limitations, the 
 government of the Methodist Church is as perfect a mo- 
 del of our civil government, as any Church on the Ame-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. IIS 
 
 rican continent can possibly he, and far more perfectly 
 like the government of the United States than your 
 Church government. Look at the points of resemblance. 
 Everywhere with us, the right of trial by jury is acknow- 
 ledged. In our Conferences, the Denwcratic principle 
 is established, that none should make laws but those 
 who are themselves subject to them; but that in all 
 things in which the laity are equally interested with 
 the ministry, namely, in all our grand financial and 
 other enterprises, they have equal suffrage and manage- 
 ment. The itinerancy is constituted by two distinct 
 acts of the membership, who first pass upon the quali- 
 fications of the candidates for the itinerancy, before the 
 Conference can receive them; and then the itinerancy, 
 like our legislatures or Congress, which elect their 
 Speakers or President of Senates, elects its own officers. 
 Our State legislature elects its Senators; so, also, does 
 our Annual Conference its members of the General Con- 
 ference. The Senate of the United States confirms the 
 nominations of the President to the Cabinet, to the 
 Courts of Europe, and, most important of all, the nom- 
 inations to a lifetime office in the Supreme Courts of the 
 land — the Judiciary of the United States. And tli^e 
 officers in turn appoint their subalterns, until, often, the 
 chain of appointments is removed several links from the 
 people. So, also, our General Conference appoints our 
 bishops and editors; only that in the Methodist Church 
 government, our appointments are not carried by many 
 links so far from our people as in tlie civil government. 
 The analogy between the two governments, within the 
 limitations specified, is the closest, perhaps, that ever 
 existed in our free country. If you charge such a go-
 
 174 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Vernment with being anti-Republican, consistency, it 
 peems to me, would demand of you that you should de- 
 vote your talents to the destruction of our civil govern- 
 ment, of which the government of Methodism is so per- 
 fect a model. 
 
 With reference to the disorders in the Methodist 
 Church, they are exceptions — few and far between — but 
 with the Baptist Church, they are of common occurrence. 
 Of course, you will not condemn the Southei'n Methodist 
 Church for instituting legal process for the recovery of 
 rights, denied by an abolition sentiment. Moreover, the 
 very suit in question was conducted in so kind a spirit, 
 as to elicit the admiration of the legal gentlemen con- 
 nected with it. That your disorders are of common oc- 
 currence, is not surprising to any one who considers the 
 incongruous elements of your system of government; 
 which cannot properly be called a government at all. 
 They exist at all times. Hear the language of the Bap- 
 tist papers, your own recent exchanges: " The Bible 
 Union, at its anniversary, refused to disclaim fellowship 
 with the sentiments of Alexander Campbell." 
 
 Again: "What a melancholy spectacle is now exhibit- 
 ed^ the Baptist denomination, in some sections of our 
 country; brethren who ought to love each other, have 
 been indulging in mutual criminations of character, so 
 virulent, as would inevitably have produced bloodshed, 
 had the same epithets been employed in political con- 
 troversy." — (Biblical Recorder, N. C, June 1th.) "The 
 object of the leaders of the Bible Union is to rule or ruin 
 the denomination." — (Tennessee Baptist.) From the 
 preamble and resolutions of the Alum Creek Baptist 
 Church, Ohio, we learn that " Peter Fitzgerald had been
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. ' 115 
 
 excluded, and had manifested no repentance for the 
 crimes for which he was excluded." Two j'ears after 
 his exclusion, the Berlin Church, in the same county, 
 investigated the charges against Fitzgerald, and ac- 
 quitted him. The Alum Creek Church thereupon re- 
 solved, " That we, as a Church, do solemnly protest 
 against thcKionduct of said Berlin Church and council 
 in said premises, as immoral in its tendency, and, as 
 such, tee disclaim fellowship ^cilh all such acts of Popery. 
 J. Frey, Moderator."' — (Journal and Messenger, Cincin- 
 nati, June 1st.) So it" seems you have some Popery in 
 your Church, as your own poets say. Once more: " In 
 the mountains, a custom iong prevailed, that Churches 
 considered it a part of their Republican privilege to 
 choose their pastoral supply from year to year:" accord- 
 ingly, Thomas Stradlcy, anticipating this result, resign- 
 ed his pastoral charge, but the party opposed to him, 
 not being ready to carry out their point, deferred the 
 election until the next meeting, at which twenty voted 
 for him, and fifteen for James BIythe. On Sunday, when 
 Stradlcy went to preach, " James BIythe and his party 
 set up opposition preaching, within sixty or seventy 
 yards of the Church." This is stated in a letter from 
 Thomas Stradlcy, Jr., to the Carolina Intelligencer, 
 June 14th. Such are a few of the specimens of all 
 kinds of disorder existing in the Baptist Church to this 
 very day. 
 
 I will gladly relieve your mind upon the question of 
 the falsity charged upon certain positions taken against 
 Methodism. If you look over my letters again, you will 
 find 1 have not apjilied the term falsehood to any thing 
 connected with our discussion. I pronounced the au-
 
 ne A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 thor of the article from the "Watchman," a slanderer. 
 I affirmed that certain propositions extracted from jit 
 were false. I add now, that they were grossly slander- 
 ous.' You know the distinction between the terms false 
 and falsehood— the former simply denies the truthful- 
 ness of the matter in qiiestion — the latter charges the 
 author of it with lying. Saul of Tarsus, when he deemed 
 Christ an imposter, no doubt, uttered what was untrue, 
 yet he was not a liar; but when Peter denied his Mas- 
 ter, he uttered a falsehood, or in plainer speech, he lied. 
 Under the influence of prejudice, and in almost total ig- 
 norance of our sj'stem, you have sadly misrepresented 
 Methodism; in sincerity, no doubt, or you would not 
 have opened j'our columns for this discussion. Never- 
 theless, the positions which were false in the " Watch- 
 man," are no less false in your endorsement of them. 
 And no less untrue are your own glaring errors, which I 
 have so often been called to correct; such, for instance, 
 as that great mistake affecting vitally the rights of 
 membership- in our Churches — that a bisliop can rein- 
 state an expelled member, and " the word of a bishop is 
 the end of all strife." And now, brother, I wot that 
 through ignorance you did it, as do also other rulers 
 among you. Your fault lies not in being unacquainted 
 with Methodism, but in attacking us without provoca- 
 tion, when you knew not what you did. .It is not con- 
 genial with my spirit to point out the defective work- 
 ings of your disjointed government. I would rather 
 look upon the Christian enterprise and sweet piety of 
 many of your members. 
 
 Nor do I look upon your government as anti-Repub- 
 lican. I cannot use the word in so loose a sense; for
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. HI 
 
 nothing can be anli-'Repiiblica.n but that which would 
 overthrow a Republic; and I have no feai's that you will 
 attempt that: albeit your system be never so unlike our 
 civil government, to which Methodism bears so striking 
 a resemblance. And withal, the good sense and piety of 
 your members will make you prosperous, in spite of the 
 defects of your ecclesiastical economy. 
 
 With assui'ances of Christian I'egard, 
 
 I subscribe myself, yours in Christ, 
 
 E. J. HAMILL. 
 
 August 16th, 1855.
 
 178 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 REPLY TO LETTER Y. 
 
 METHODIST CHURCH PROPERTY CASE. 
 
 The "sua" and "mooa" of "our Eiuscopacy" slightly eclipsed; 
 Aa interesting engagement between the two wings of the " terri- 
 ble army with banners;" A circuit rider slain, and a bishop put 
 hors de combat; " Our Episcopacy" sues " our Episcopacy;" Two 
 important principles evolved in the suit ; Extracts from the 
 speeches of Messrs. Lord and Johnson, the counsel for the claim- 
 ants; Episcopal Methodism an aristocracy, which " admits no con- 
 stituents;" The decision of the court; Each party recognizing the 
 decision, the one by yielding to, the other by accepting the award; 
 The relative ability of the United States' Circuit Court, and " an 
 obscure local organ," to injure "our Episcopacy;" Sorrowful 
 light; More than a million of the " rank and file" of the " terrible 
 army" slain at " one fell swoop;" More about the " Democratic 
 element." 
 
 Friendly greeting ; Reasonable expectations disappointed ; The 
 Munstcr aflair again; A civil, not a religious movement; A 
 sprinkling oi sprinklers among the insurgents; Buck; The Ink Fish; 
 An interesting syllogism; The " four points" vindicated; Episco- 
 pal remedy for Church disorders worse than the disease; Dead 
 palsy; Ministers' and deacons' meetings again; A practical ques- 
 tion propounded to the laity of the Methodist Episcopal Church; 
 " Hendersonian" logic; A "strictness of speech" that cuts two 
 ways; No legislative authority given to the Churches by Christ 
 and the Apostles; A stride towards Rome; Some plain questions 
 asked; The advantage which " our Episcopacy" might have been to
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. It9 
 
 Paul and the primitive Churclies, in rectifying their disorders; 
 "Duplicity;" Not responsible for results, where /arts are stated; 
 Unkind insinuation in regard to Bishops McKendree and Bascom; 
 The " man of straw" betraying tokens of sensibility; The charge 
 of second-handed quotations, and garbling; An enquiry after the 
 "symbols of faith, called creeds" in the apostolic age; Supposed 
 to be the New Testament; Those who adopt it as their only rule 
 of faith and conduct have something which can be " accurately 
 styled Church Government;" Satisfactory explanation. 
 
 " Now, therefore, tliere is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with 
 anotlier. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather eufler yourselves 
 to be defrauded?"— I Cor. 6, 7. 
 
 "Money is a defence."— Solomon. 
 
 It is proper that we again state the precise question 
 at issue in this discussion. It is important that the 
 reader should have it always distinctly before his mind. 
 The question is this: is Methodist Episcopacy in its nature 
 and tendencies, anti-Democratic and anti- Republican? In 
 taking the affirmative of this proposition, we have dis- 
 tinctly stated from the commencement, that we are not 
 attacking the patriotism of any man or set of men. We 
 have been discussing a principle in ecclesiastical polity, 
 which has in all ages of the world tended to abuse and 
 corruption. We have been attempting to show that 
 there is nothing in the Methodistic complexion of Epis- 
 copacy, which has inclined us to change our opinion of 
 its nature and practical results. Its origin and history 
 up to this time, so far as our means of information ex- 
 tend, point unmistakcably to the same spiritual and 
 temporal tyranny, which has marked its progress in 
 every age of the world, since it first extinguished the 
 rights of the Churches in the third and fourth centuries. 
 And in pursuing our object, we have found it necessary
 
 180 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 to bring to light some plain and startling facts — all of 
 which has been done with no unkind feeling to a living 
 soul. That there is a complexion of narrow-minded re- 
 ligious prejudice, which cannot comprehend how plain 
 truths, told in a plain way, in regard to an organic 
 principle of governmental economy, can comport with 
 personal good will and christian charity, is by no means 
 surprising. But then to yield to such an influence, 
 would be to sacrifice principle to policy — the authority of 
 God to the authority of man — and practically to declare 
 that every reformation which has ever been attempted 
 in religion, morals and civil government, has been a 
 curse to the world. And this we are not prepared to 
 admit, even out of complaisance of " the largest denom- 
 ination of Christians " in this country. The more exten- 
 sive and wide-spread the evil, the greater the cause for 
 alarm. 
 
 We now propose to examine the " Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church Property Case," as argued and decided in 
 the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District 
 of New York, printed and circulated under the auspices 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South and North. 
 We shall try and be as brief as possible, so as to dis- 
 pose of it in a single article, though we assure the read- 
 er that a volume could be profitably written upon this 
 single case. 
 
 And lefus premise here, that if the "Democratic ele- 
 ment" really exists in the system, it certainly could not 
 have eluded the perception of the learned counsel and 
 Court who argued and adjudicated that case. If ever 
 an occasion offered itself in which to elucidate the ar- 
 cana of " our Episcopacy," surely this was the occasion.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 181 
 
 The whole history of its establishment and practical 
 working's, for nearly three-quarters of a century, was 
 placed in evidence before the Court, and expounded with 
 distinguished ability by the most learned counsel on 
 both sides. The powers of the clergy, the bishops and tra- 
 velling preachers, was the point to be argued and decided 
 before that august tribunal. We shall recognize the 
 " Property Case," thee, as involving an authentic, re- 
 liable exposition of Episcopal Methodism. 
 
 When the ministers of an}' denomination assume the 
 management and control of its property, they not only 
 adopt the very principle which all civil despots have 
 done to enslave the people, but are guilty at the same 
 time, of departing from the great work to which they 
 profess to have been called by the Holy Ghost. The 
 tribe of Levi, who were the spiritual teachers of reli- 
 gion, were not allowed to own one foot of land, or in- 
 deed any other kind of property. The Apostles them- 
 selves would not so much as consent to disburse the 
 benefactions • of tl>e Church at Jerusalem, among the 
 poor, but asked the Church to elect seven deacons, a 
 kind of board of managers, to attend to this business, 
 so that they " could give themselves entirely to the 
 word of God and prayer." Observe, they did not ap- 
 point these deacons themselves, but requested the 
 Church to do it. We beg the- reader to observe this 
 principle, as we proceed to analyze this "case." 
 
 In 1844, the General Conference assembled in the 
 City of New York. A case was carried up to it 
 from the State of Maryland, to this effect: A Mr. Hard- 
 ing, a travelling preacher, liad been deposed from the 
 ministry by the Maryland Conference, because he was 
 IG
 
 182 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 a slave holder. Possessing the right of appeal, he ap- 
 plied to the General Conference for relief. That body, 
 by a very large majority, covfii-med the action of the 
 Maryland Conference, in deposing Mr. Harding. Im- 
 mediately the question recurred — If we depose a com- 
 mon circuit rider for being a slave holder, what shall we 
 do with a hishop who is guilty of the same crime! Bishop 
 Andrew, of Georgia, (than whom a more amiable, meek, 
 and pious man perhaps never endured the mitre,) was 
 known to be a slave holder. This was the great question 
 of the occasion. It brought on the engagement between 
 the two wings of the "terrible army with banners.", And 
 never, within the history of this Eepublic, has ecclesi- 
 astical domination made such arrogant assumptions to 
 interfere with the civil, social, and domestic institutions 
 of the country. Here is an aspect of Episcopacy which 
 may well alarm the fears of the Christian and the pa- 
 triot. A General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church of the United States arraigns one of its first 
 officers, and holds over him the penalty of degradation, 
 and for what? For the crime of being a slave holder! — as- 
 suming to interfere with an institution in the States, 
 which the most rabid abolitionist declares Congress can- 
 not do! 
 
 Well — the measure was carried. Bishop Andrew uas 
 instructed to suspend the exercise of the functions of his bishop- 
 ric, until he manu^mitted his slaves. Whereupon the Southern 
 members of the Conference brought in a solemn protest 
 against the measure, as " extra judicial." That protest 
 was answered by a committee appointed on the part of 
 the majority. Dr. Capers (the late bishop) introduced 
 a scries of resolutions contemplating a peaceful separa-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 183 
 
 tion of the South from the Xorth, and the org-anization 
 of a Southern General Conference. These resolutions 
 also ceded to the Southern members, provided they 
 should form such an organization, " all the Churches, 
 schools, colleges, cemeteries," &c., lying within their 
 specified territory, and authorized the managers of the 
 " Book Concern" to negotiate an equitable division of 
 its funds with such commissioners as might be appoint- 
 ed from the South. These resolutions were passed by 
 a decided majority. And here let it be distinctly not- 
 ed, that the bishops and clergy at this Conference, as- 
 sumed an absolute proprietorship in " all the Churches, 
 schools, colleges, Book Concern," &c., belonging to the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. Time 
 and again the impression has been sought to be made, 
 during this discussion, that, " with regard to the busi- 
 ness in which the laity are equally interested with the 
 ministry — such business as constitutes the sphere of 
 operations" of Baptist Conventions, State and general, 
 they (the Methodist Episcopal Church) "have already 
 lay delegation, and lay management" — and that it is 
 only "the privilege of scattering" the " ministers to the 
 four winds," appointing them to their respective fields 
 of labor, that the laity have no voice. — See Bro. Hamill's 
 third letter. Are the laymen of that Church " equally 
 interested with the ministry," in the Churches, schools, 
 colleges, cemeteries, Book Concern? &c. Bro. Ilamill 
 will not deny this. And yet, when the bisliops and 
 clergy in General Conference assembled, assert an ab- 
 solute proprietorship in, and a right to dispose of, all this 
 immense aggregation of Church property in the United 
 States, not a single layman's voice was ever heard in
 
 184 . A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 the council that argued, or the vote that decided the 
 fate of this measure I Nay, further: in the parties liti- 
 gant in the famous lawsuit we propose reviewing, as 
 appears upon the face of the " bill," there is not the 
 name of a single layman upon either side! 
 
 But to proceed: After the Conference adjourned, sun- 
 dry scruples suggested themselves to the minds of the 
 Northern managers of the " Book Concern," as to whe- 
 ther the seceding party, (the Southern division,) could 
 be legitimately recognized as a Methodist Episcopal 
 Church — whether the admission of such a principle 
 would not destroy the unity of the Church — whether the 
 Church have the right to cut itself in twain, and thus 
 commit a kind of moral suicide, &c. &c. They, there- 
 fore, refused to enter into the negotiation with the 
 Southern commissioners, as directed by the General 
 Conference. Under the leadership of Henry B. Bascom, 
 than whom they could not have chosen a more chival- 
 rous generalissimo, the Southern wing of the "terrible 
 army with banners" organized its forces, and immedi- 
 ately issued a summons to the Northern wing of the 
 " terrible army with banners," to " meet them at Phillppi!" 
 when and where, with " weapons of warfare that were 
 carnal," they should decide who was to heir the "images 
 and superscriptions" of Uncle Sam. 
 
 We wish that time and space would allow us to enter 
 into the full merits of this case. We have only time to 
 establish two points which directly bear ujDon the ques- 
 tion we are discussing. 
 
 First: That the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United 
 States, in its governmental economy, is nothing more nor less than 
 the bishop and travelling clei-gy.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 185 
 
 Secondly: That they have no constituents. They are 
 sovereign, and are accountable to no power on earth 
 but to their own consciences. 
 
 Now for the proof of these propositions. Mr. Lord, 
 one of the counsel for the claimants, spoke as follows: 
 " In vain you look into this Methodist system, prior 
 to 1808, for any restrictions on the General Conference 
 of that Church. If that body had chosen to become So- 
 cinian; if it had chosen to adopt the Presbyterian or 
 Baptist forms, either of government or of doctrine, it 
 was in its power to do it. There was no limit. They 
 represented the Church — they were tlie Church. The 
 Church dispersed its light from the preachers. The 
 laity were not known in the governing body. Matters 
 of doctrine, discipline, and everything were in the go 
 verning body. If tliat was so up to 1808, what was 
 that body after that period? It was the same General 
 Conference^ — Prop. Case, p. 163. 
 
 The Hon. Eeverdy Johnson, who also represented the 
 Soullieru Commissioners in that case, spoke thus: "This 
 Church, be it remembered, even unto the present time, 
 and I spcaTi it in no oiTensive sense, as regards its gov- 
 ernment, has been absolutely, since the days of Wesley, 
 an aristocracy. Laymen have had, and now have no 
 voice in it. If there is a layman within the sound of 
 my voice, he knows he has no voice now. Heretofore, they 
 have been satisfied with the government. They have 
 acted upon the saying of Pope, — 
 
 ' For forma of government let fools contest. 
 That which is best administered is Ijcst.' 
 
 They perhaps will be found changing their opinion, 
 wlicn thfv find it is not always best administered.
 
 186 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 4 
 
 " Now I want to know, if tlie entire sovereign power 
 of the Church was in the ministers, the preachers, what 
 other body on the face of God's earth was there in 1808 
 upon which to devolve the power of dividing the Church, 
 which must have been in the ministers, than the Confer- 
 ence of 1808. The ministers made the Church. The 
 ministers, in the governmental- sense, are the Church. 
 The sovereigns are the ministers, and if it be a part of 
 the sovereign power, in a body of this description, to 
 divide itself, then that power existed in the Conference 
 of ministers of 1808, or it is gone. The admission is, 
 that it cannot be extinguished. It is absolute, inherent, 
 and alienable, as my brother, Mr. Choate, admitted. A 
 body unlimited in the authority to create, is equally un- 
 limited in the authority to destroy, responsible only to 
 their consciences for the manner in which either author- 
 ity is exercised." — Meth. Ch. Properly Case, p. 331. 
 
 Again: on page 328, speaking of the action of the 
 Conference of 1784, Mr. Johnson said — " They admit no 
 constituency. The time is perhaps cmnivg when, in all pro- 
 bahility, they will be obliged to admit one for the good of the 
 Church. They resolve for themselves, and for themselves 
 ALONE, as the possessors of ALL ECCLESIASTICAL 
 POWER known to the Methodist Church, to carry out the 
 particular organization authorized by John Wesley, 
 without any other authority than his, and their own convic- 
 tion that the good of the Church demanded such a spe- 
 cial and particular organization." And still further, on 
 page 329, Mr. J. continues: "No modicum of power was 
 left elsewhere. The Church was not to look elsewhere 
 for any portion of aitthority." We could quote much 
 more to the same purpose, but this is sufficient.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 18 Y 
 
 Now, let us sum up this evidence. Here are two of 
 the first lawyers in the Union, employed by the com- 
 plainants, the commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, South, to defend their right to an equitable di- 
 vision of " Church property" before the United States' 
 Circuit Court, relying wholly upon the evidence which 
 they furnished to their hand, declaring what? That the 
 Conference of 1784, composed of sixty travelling preach- 
 ers, with Messrs. Asbury and Coke at their head, in 
 adopting the doctrines and discipline of that Church, 
 " admit no constituency" — that " not one particle of 
 power was left elsewhere — that laymen have had, and 
 now have no voice in it — that the ministers compose the 
 Church — that in a governmental sense they are the 
 Church — thcit it is ahsohUely an ARISTOCRACY — that it 
 possesses unlimited power to create and to destroy — that 
 it could have become Socinian had it chosen to do so — 
 and that it is responsible lo no tribunal on earth but 
 tlie consciences of those who wield its authority!" All 
 this, and much more of like character, was solemnly 
 pronounced, as already intimated, by two of the ablest 
 lawyers of the United States, before one of the highest 
 judicial functionaries of the country, as an exposition 
 of Methodist Episcopacy, and published to the world 
 under the auspices of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 South and North! And yet for daring to question its 
 Republicanism, we are to be denounced by its patented 
 journals as a (lema<rogue, a higot, an ignoramus, a legitimate 
 child of the father of lies! 
 
 But we have higher evidence than all this to sustain 
 our position. After the case was elaborately argued 
 by such men as Johnson, Choate, Lord and Wood, Judge
 
 188 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 JSTelson delivered the opinion of the Court, from which 
 we make the following extract: 
 
 "2. As to the power of the General Conference to 
 authorize a separation of the Church organization. 
 
 The Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States 
 was established, in its g'overnment, doctrine, and disci- 
 pline, by a General Conference of the travelling preach- 
 ers in this communion, in 1784. Down to that time, the 
 Methodist Societies in America had been governed by 
 John Wesley, the founder of this denomination of Chris- 
 tians, through the agency of his assistants. During 
 this year, the entire government was taken into the 
 hands of the travelling preachers with his approbation 
 and assent. They organized il, established its doctrines 
 and discipline, appointed the several authorities — su- 
 perintendents or bishops, ministers and preachers — to 
 administer its polity, and promulgate its doctrines and 
 teaching throughout the land. From that time to this, 
 the source and fountain of all its temporal power are 
 the travelling preachers in this connexion in General 
 Conference assembled. The lay members of the Church 
 have no part or connexion with its governmental organ- 
 ization, and never had. The travelling preachers com- 
 prise the embodiment of its power, ecclesiastical and 
 temporal; and, when assembled in General Conference 
 according to the usages and discipline of the Church, 
 represent themselves, and have no constituents: and 
 thus the organization continued until the year 1808, 
 when a modification took place." — Appendix Prop. 
 Case, pp. 10, 11. 
 
 The " modification " to which Judge Nelson alludes, 
 relates to the organization of a General out of the An- 
 nual Conferences, which occurred in 1808. The Judge 
 then proceeds to show that that modification did not af- 
 fect in the slightest degree the principle he had laid 
 down, to wit: That the bishops and clergy in General
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 189 
 
 Conference assembled embodied all the power, "eccle- 
 siastical and temporal," known in their governmental 
 economy. 
 
 The decision of the Court, then, sustains every posi- 
 tion taken by the counsel. We will state these positions 
 again in still fewer words, confirmed by the extract 
 from the opinion of the Court: All the derived power 
 which the bishops and clergy of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church ever had came, not frovi the Churches, but from 
 John Wesley — they established its doctrines and disci- 
 pline — created its officers to administer its polity — they 
 are the source and fountain of all its power — laymen 
 have no connexion with its governmental organization 
 and never had — and when assembled in General Con- 
 ference according to the usage and discipline of the 
 Church, represent theinselves, AND HAVE NO CONSTIT- 
 UENTS ! No hill of exceptions was filed to this decision. 
 
 The Methodist Episcopal Church, North, jaelded to, 
 and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, accepted 
 the award! Both divisions of the Church stand com- 
 mitted to this decision, as containing a true and faith- 
 ful exposition of the governmental economy of that 
 Church. Why have we never heard these lawyers and 
 Judges denounced as demagogues and bigots — and as ig- 
 norant of the subject they were adjudicating? They 
 aver, that so far as government is concerned, (and that 
 is the ONLY suljjcct we are discussing,) the bishops and 
 travelling clergy are, de facto, the Church- — that in its 
 legislative and administrative economy, its lay members 
 are unknown — that it is an aristocracy — and has no consiit- 
 umls. Now, if all this were untrue, can any man sup- 
 pose for one moment, that the North would have yielded 
 its claim to four liundred thousand dollars, and that the
 
 190 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 South would have accepted it? Is the "Democratic ele- 
 ment" in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, if it 
 ever existed, worth only four hundred thousand dollars^- 
 And yet, to secure that pitiful sum, the six hundred 
 thousand private members in the Southern division of 
 that Church, and, we may add, a larger number in the 
 Northern division, aggregating a million and a half, or 
 nearly so, of American citizens, are recognized by the 
 public records of the country, in their ecclesiastical re- 
 lations, as beloio the rank of common citizens — as being no 
 constituents!! We do not design to introduce degrad- 
 ing comparisons; but we must be permitted to ask, what 
 more humiliating language could be used in regard to 
 the subjects of the most absolute despotisms on earth, 
 than that they " are no constituent si" Methodists! local 
 preachers and private members! lovers of God, of truth, 
 of liberty, and of your country ! 
 
 " If you have nature in you, bear it not!"' 
 
 " The travelling preachers comprise the embodiment of 
 its poicer, ecclesiastical and TEMPORAL; and when 
 assembled in General Conference, according to the usage 
 and discipline of the Church, represent themselves, and 
 HAVE NO constituents!" What more have we ever said? 
 Why is it, we again ask, that Judges Nelson and 
 Betts, tlie Hon. Reverdy Johnson, and his colleagues, 
 have never been held to account for uttering such lan- 
 guage as this? Was it because four hundred thousand 
 dollars depended upon the maintenance of these doc- 
 trines? Or rather was it not because they spoke the 
 TRUTH? Why is it that tliey have escaped the eccle- 
 siastical lash of the guardians of Epis"copacy, religi- 
 ous and political, while " an obscure local organ," to
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. ]91 
 
 use the very delicate and respectful language of a Method- 
 ist contemporary, for alleging nothing more than this, 
 is to be denounced as guilty of " the lowest piece of de- 
 magogueism, and narrow minded ligoiry that has yet 
 transpired?" The United States Court was certainly 
 capable of inflicting a more serious injury upon " our 
 Episcopacy" than an "obscure local organ." And yet, 
 when that decision was announced, the editors of all 
 the Methodist journals, South, congratulated themselves 
 and their Church, upon the successful termination of the 
 suit, and accepted the award of the Court without so 
 much as questioning, so far as we know, a single prin- 
 ciple upon which it was made. "Our Episcopacy" sues 
 "our Episcopacy" at one of the highest judicial tribun- 
 als of the country. The parties litigant prove to the 
 satisfaction of the counsel and judges, that the bishops 
 and travelling preachers " made the Church;" that the 
 bishops and travelling preachers " are, in the govern- 
 mental sense, the Chl-rch;" that "this Church ever has 
 been, and is now ausolutely ax aristocracy;" that they 
 admit no constituency, and have no constituency." And 
 the solemn claim is set up by these champions, that Me- 
 thodist Episcopacy, as a distinct form of government, 
 not only harmonizes with, but wonderfully illustrates 
 and strengthens those great fundamental principles 
 which constitute the substratum of our glorious licpub- 
 lic; that all men are created equal; that all power is 
 inherent in the people; and, that the will of the people, 
 constitutionally expressed, is the law of the land!! He 
 that can believe it, let him! All wo have to say is, we 
 envy not the huge dimensions of that credulity, Avhich 
 can swallow that camel.
 
 192 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Such, then, was the engagement between the two 
 wings of this " terrible army with banners." Let us 
 now survey the field of battle, after this " terrible" con- 
 flict, and try to estimate the " loss and gain" upon each 
 side of the combatants. The Southern wing of the 
 "terrible army" lost a circuit rider (Harding) and had a 
 bishop (Andrew) put hors de combat, among the regular 
 officers of the line. The Northern wing lost about four 
 hundred thousand dollars, which, of course, was gained 
 by the Southern wing, and which, to that extent, com- 
 pensated for the loss of their officers. But now as to 
 the "rank and file" upon either side — the heart sickens 
 at the scene of carnage. 
 
 " If you have tears, prepare to shed them now." 
 
 • 
 
 Up to the time of the commencement of this engage- 
 ment, it was understood by the official organs of the 
 two wings, that the " constituency," the common sol- 
 diers of the "terrible army," amounted in the aggregate 
 to about one million two or three hundred thousand. — 
 But alas! from the dispatches which have reached us 
 from the scene of conflict, signed and sealed by the pro- 
 per officers, not one common soldier survives, to com- 
 memorate in verse or history, the deeds of valor which 
 were performed at Philippi! The dispatch reads — 
 " THEY HAVE NO CONSTITUENTS !" They had 
 claimed up to that date, " a constituency" of between a 
 million and a million and a half. At the close of the en- 
 gagement. Judge Nelson declares there is none! no, 
 not one! Marathon, Actium, and Waterloo — Saratoga, 
 New Orleans, and Sebastopol — hide your diminished 
 heads! Here is a "terrible army with banners," which,
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 193 
 
 at one fell swoop, annihilates a " constituency" of al. 
 most a million and a half ! 
 
 But look at another aspect of this power claimed for 
 the bishops and travelling clerg-y in General Conference 
 assembled. Says Mr. Lord, one of the counsel for the 
 complainants, and of course good authority with the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, South, " If that body (the 
 General Conference) had chosen to become Socinian; 
 if it had chosen to adopt the Presbyterian or Baptist 
 forms, either of government. or doctrine, it was in its 
 power to do it." What! change the whole Methodist 
 denomination in the United States into a Socinian bodj^? 
 Or into a Presbyterian or Baptist organization, both in 
 discipline and doctrine? "Yes," says Mr. Lord, "there was 
 no limit; they represented the Church; they were the 
 Churcs;" "They admit no constituents," responds Mr, 
 Johnson; " "They have no constituents," says the Court! 
 Now, so far as we know, none of the organs of that 
 Church had ever denied these positions of the counsel and 
 Court. Indeed, upon their successful maintenance, de- 
 pended the issue of the pending suit. If the sovereign 
 power did not belong to the bishops and clergy of that 
 Church, they had no right to divide its property. But 
 if the sovereign power did reside there; if "not a modi- 
 cum of power was left elsewhere," — then, as a matter of 
 course, that power could be exercised upon all questions 
 of doctrine or discipline without being responsible to 
 any authority for its exercise " but their own con- 
 sciences." Need we ask, can the most stubborn incre- 
 dulity itself deny, if this be a faithful exposition of Epis- 
 copal Methodism, that it is a syste.m of CLERICAL 
 ABSOLUTISM. 
 
 n
 
 194 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Now, reader, do you not agree with us, that it will 
 take a microscope of a hundred fold more power than 
 has yet revealed the wonders of a universe in a single 
 drop of water, to discover the "Democratic element" in 
 a system which "admits no constituents" — which "has 
 no constituents!" 
 
 We congratulate Brother Hamill upon his safe return 
 to the people of his charge. With a right good will, we 
 again bid him welcome to our columns, sincerely trust- 
 ing that his respite will enable him to enlighten us more 
 fully upon the Democracy of " our Episcopacy." Again, 
 also, must we commend him for the very kind spirit 
 which pervades his article. It is so very different from 
 that which has been manifested towards us by sundry 
 of his brethren, in several of the "Advocates,"* that the 
 task of responding to it is a real pleasure to us. We 
 trust that this discussion will prove one thing to the 
 sensitive and censorious, and that is, that it is j^ossible 
 for Christian men to discuss their differences with the kindest 
 feelings to each other, as well as in a Christian spirit. 
 
 We had hoped, after the lapse of so many weeks, that 
 our brother was preparing an article entirely upon the 
 question at issue between us. When lo! the very first 
 paragraph contains another allusion to the " madmen of 
 Munster," as they are called. On reflection, however, 
 we suppose that the Munster insurrection has about as 
 much connection with Methodist Episcopacy, as Me- 
 thodist Episcopacy has with American Democracy. We 
 suppose we must inform our brother that that movement 
 
 * See Appendix D.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 195 
 
 in Germany was not a religious, but a political one. Its 
 promoters were what were subsequently known in Eng- 
 land as "fifth monarchy men." Various sects were en- 
 gaged in it. One of its leaders, on one occasion, sprin- 
 kled several hundreds of his followers with a mop — 
 somewhat after the manner Mr. Wesley supposed John 
 sprinkled the crowds that came to his ministry on the 
 banks of the Jordan. Now, it strikes us that this is not 
 exactly Baptistic. Buck says: "It must be acknow- 
 ledged that the true rise of the insurrection of this period 
 ought ;aot to be attributed to religious opinions." A great 
 part were Ana-baptists. * * * A great part, also, 
 were Roman Catholics, and a still greater part had no 
 religious principles at all." 
 
 Then follows a pretty long episode upon " close com- 
 munion" and "Baptist anarchy." Indeed, most of the 
 article is taken up with the latter subject. Now, Bro. 
 Ilamill, if you could demonstrate, not only to the satis- 
 faction of every Methodist, but of every thinking man on 
 earth, that Baptist Churches in this country were line- 
 ally descended from the Munster insurrectionists — nay, 
 further, that the first Baptist Cliurch was organized in 
 the botfomlcss pit, and was one of the " unclean spirits" 
 which John saw issuing from the mouth of " the boast," 
 — what would all that have to do with the plain, practi- 
 cal question at issue between us — "Is Methodist Epis- 
 copacy anti-Republican?" Ichthyologists inform us, that 
 there belongs to the finny tribe, a singular species, 
 wliich has the power, when pursued by an enemy, of 
 throwing out a dark, muddy substance, which has much 
 the samo effect upon the water that a cloud has upon 
 the atmosphere. And having created this pavilion of
 
 196 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 darkness, it very dexterously eludes the pursuit of its 
 foe. It is called the "■Ink-JlshP Verbum sat. 
 
 Seriously, Brother Hamill, what would "Hedge" pro- 
 nounce of your logic, if the foregoing were adduced as 
 specimens? You set out to show, what? Why, " the 
 striking analogy between the Methodist Church govern- 
 ment and the government of the United States." This 
 you do, first by appealing to the insurrection among the 
 peasants of Germany, in the sixteenth centuiy; second- 
 ly, to " close communion," as you call it, as practised 
 among Baptists; and thirdly, to Baptist anarchy! .That 
 is — there was an insurrection in Germany, in the six- 
 teenth century — moreover, the Baptists practise " close 
 communion," — and still further, (how astonishingly cu- 
 mulative the argument?) Baptist Churches sometimes 
 get into confusion: Therefore, there is a "striking ana- 
 logy between the government of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church and the government of the United States!" 
 Shades of Locke,'Eeid, and Hedge! what profound rea- 
 soning! But, as already intimated, that penetration 
 ■which can evolve the " Democratic element" in " our 
 Episcopacy," can find no difficulty in demonstrating the 
 logical connection between the premises and coficiusion 
 of the above argument. 
 
 The fotir points we suggested as organic elements in 
 a New Testament Church, are "partly correct," but 
 " may need some emendation." Well, what are these 
 emendations? First, as to the constituency of a gospel 
 Church, Brother Hamill's answer varies from ours only 
 so far as to include, we suppose, " seekers." But as we 
 did not set out to ascertain the constituency of a Me- 
 thodist, but an Apostolic Church, there is no need of a
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY 191 
 
 serious reply. Our position remains impregnable, that 
 in the Apostles' age, Churches were composed of "saints, 
 faithful brethren, the sanctified, saved," &c. Secondly: 
 to our question — Are these saints and faithful ones com- 
 petent to govern themselves — he answers: "They are, 
 within certain limitations." These limitations are, that 
 Christ has given the fundamental laws — that the Spirit 
 calls men to the ministr}' — that the Church may judge 
 who are called to the holy office — positions, these, which 
 Baptists have held from time immemorial — and finally, 
 " to bear some sort of rule in the Church of God, as Paul 
 saith, ' Remember them who have the rule over you,' &c., 
 and may also do whatever else is necessary for good govern- 
 menir Pretty large margin, this, Brother Hamill. 
 Wlio are to judge of what is necessary for " good 
 government," the rulers or the governed? It reminds 
 us of the last article in the rules of a well known aca- 
 demy in a neighboring State: Tliat as no system of 
 rules could meet every emergency, especially in the 
 government of naughty boys, much would be left to the 
 discretion of the teachers. Eeader, is not our brother 
 demonstrating the "democratic eleiuent" with a vcnge. 
 ancc? Thirdly: Has the New Testament inculcated 
 any form of CMiurch government? His answer to 
 this is somewhat like " our Episcopacy," a little diffi- 
 cult to understand. If, however, we can comprehend 
 his meaning, he answers it negatively. He thinks, from 
 the " brevity of Scripture, the variety of mental charac- 
 ter, (he fallibility of even good men,^^ &c., that "confessions 
 of faitli, or creeds," may "serve as points of union 
 among Christians, and as defences against the encroach- 
 ments of error." Now, there is but one way to test the
 
 198 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 correctness of any principle; and that is, to observe its 
 practical operation. A few plain questions and answers 
 may suggest to the mind of the reader all that need be 
 said upon this point. What divides the various denomi- 
 nations of Christians from each other? Creeds. What 
 keeps up this division, and makes it more marked every 
 year? Creeds. What is the first thing that every new 
 sect does- that springs up in the country? It "draws 
 up a symbol of faith, called a creed." Does this effect 
 a " union" of this sect " among Christians?" It separates 
 its members /rom all other Christians. What is the first 
 step to effect a union among all Christians? The de- 
 struction of that which now separates them— their 
 creeda. What is .the next step? The adoption of the, 
 Bible, and the Bible only, as the entire rule of faith and 
 practice. 
 
 The truth is, human creeds may make pretty good 
 servants, but most wretched masters. Our brother 
 gives one very singular reason why this discretionary 
 power should be left in the hands of men. It is the 
 ^'fallibility even of good mew.'" Human fallihility, it 
 seems to us, is a pretty good reason why "even good" 
 but uninspired men, should not be trusted to draft a 
 constitution for a divine government. As to " creeds " 
 being barriers to "error," we think the reverse. We 
 think that they foster 6rror. A Presbyterian denounces 
 Methodism as " anti-Christ." A Methodist avers that 
 the cherished dogma of Presbyterianism, " eternal, par- 
 ticular, and unconditional election," emanated from the 
 bottomless pit, and that it will return thither. Are they 
 loth rightl And how long will it take their " creeds" to 
 effect a union among these " Christians?" But, Fourth-
 
 METHODSIT EPISCOPACY. 199 
 
 ly, to the question : Do the Churches belong to the min- 
 istry, or the ministry to the Churches? our brother 
 responds: "Neither, but both," &c., and to prove this, 
 he refers to a passage, upon which all despotic hier- 
 archies have always insisted, " expounding it with a 
 richness and an unction as if the very substance of 
 God's message to man were therein summarily compre- 
 hended," says Isaac Taylor. The passage is this — • 
 " Obey them that have the rule over you in the Lord." 
 But in what were they to obey them? Why clearly in 
 their spiritual instructions and admonitions? Ministers 
 are members of the Churches, ^and as S"eh have all the 
 riglits of other members. The office to which they are 
 called, is a spiritual, not a temporal office. The injunc- 
 tion is purely a spiritual one, for the Apostle immediately 
 adds, " they (these ministers) watch for souls." Does it 
 need a serious argument to prove that Churches have 
 the right to control that which emanates from them- 
 selves — the property? Yet, Judge Nelson, as we have 
 seen, declares that in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 " the travelling preachers comprise the embodiment of 
 its power, ecclesiastical and temporal," &c. So that 
 Episcopal Methodism places in the hands of its bishops 
 and travelling clergy all power, spiritual and temporal, 
 known in its organization. " Not a mpdicum of it is left 
 elsewhere." It is, therefore, in the true and proper 
 sense of that term, a system of clerical absolutism. Our 
 brother speaks of the "checks and balances "of the sys- 
 tem. Where arc these " checks and balances?" Bishop 
 Ilamline affirms that they recognize " no tribunal to 
 cure errors or rectify wrongs." Mr. Johnson avers, 
 " they arc responsible to no authority but their own
 
 200 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 consciences " for the exercise of their power. Where, 
 then, are its " checks and balances?" We claim, then, 
 that all our positions remain impregnable. 
 
 But our apology for disorders among Baptist Churches, 
 was quite lame. So, doubtless, the friends of monarchy 
 think in regard to our "apologies" for occasional out- 
 breaks in our popular form of government — such as is 
 now rife in the State of Massachusetts in regard to the 
 fugitive slave law. They could, no doubt, read us 
 many lectures upon monarchy as being a " system of 
 surpassing energy." Now, the only reasons why we 
 cannot accept the remedy which "our Episcopacy" pro- 
 poses for these evils, are, First: It is unscriptural, as 
 we think; Secondly: It is worse than the disease. The dead 
 palsy would free us from all sensations of pain, heat, 
 cold, wounds, and strokes. It is a " system of surpass- 
 ing energy." Indeed, it is a kind of universal panacea 
 for all diseases. Once let it fasten upon the system, 
 and we are molested no more with other " disorders." 
 But ; the reader can supply the commentary. 
 
 That " exceedingly powerful advice," given at the 
 Tuskegee ministers' and deacons' meeting, still haunts 
 ouf brother's imagination. It was an "inquisitorial 
 tax!" Now, reader, we attended that meeting, as we 
 have already infoi'med you, and participated in its pro- 
 ceedings in some humble degree; and the sum and sub- 
 stance of that "threatened exclusion" and "inquisito- 
 rial tax" was this: The members who composed that 
 meeting, expressed their opinions in two resolutions, 
 introduced by a private member — First: That covetous- 
 ness was idolatry, and that no idolater ought to be re- 
 tained in the Church. This is the " threatened exclu-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 201 
 
 sion!" Secondly: That in meeting the necessary ex- 
 penses of our Churches, we ought to obey the rule laid 
 down by Paul, viz.: That every man should contribute 
 " according as God had prospered him." And this is 
 the "inquisitorial taxation!" The issue upon these 
 points is not between us and Brother Hamill, but be- 
 .tween him and God's word. The "fig leaf" was placed 
 there by the divine penmen. Let him "tear it away" 
 if he can. 
 
 Yes, we do cling to the allegation, that your bishops 
 and travelling clergy imposed articles of faith and a 
 form of government upon your members without their 
 consent. The Conference which adopted your Book of 
 Discipline " rcpi'esentcd themselves, and had no consti- 
 tuents," says Judge Nelson. " He who has no right to 
 the thing he possesses," says Dr. Barrow, " cannot pre- 
 scribe or plead any length of time to make his posses- 
 sion lawful." If the original exercise of this power were 
 arbitrary; if it " admitted no constituency ;" if it were 
 underivcd; then its exercise for a thousand years never 
 can make it anything else. We have a practical ques- 
 tion to ask — not I5rother Ilamill, nor any bishop or cler- 
 gyman of his Church, but the laity — those who, but for 
 the occurrence of the " Church Property Case," we would 
 call "the Church," — and it is this: '^ If the adoption of 
 your form of government, your l^piscopacy, were noto an 
 original question, and your General Conference were to grant 
 you the same prioilfge which the National Convention, who 
 formed our federal constitution, gave to the several States, to 
 receive or reject it, HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD 
 VOTE FOR IT? How many of you would adopt, volun-
 
 202 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 tarily, a form of government, if your rulers would allow you 
 the privilege, which would not recognize you as "constituentsV 
 But our logic upon this point is peculiarly "Hender- 
 sonian." Now, we do not aspire to the distinction of 
 founding a new school in logic. True, it does require a 
 new system of logic to evolve the " Democratic element" 
 in a system of government whit>h " has no constituents." 
 But we must beg our brother to believe us sincere when 
 we say, we are too modest to aspire to that distinction. 
 That a certain proposition should be either true or false, 
 " is sheer nonsense," is it? Well, if our brother will 
 enlighten us as to how much truth and falsehood may 
 dwell together in the same proposition, in fraternal sym- 
 pathy, we think he will make an achievement in logic 
 which will bear the palm from us! " Did our preachers 
 manufacture them?" — (faith and discipline, we suppose, 
 he means) — asks Brother Hamill. " They organized it," 
 answers Judge Nelson; "established its doctrines and 
 discipline, appointed the several authorities — superin- 
 tendents or bishops, ministers and preachers — to ad- 
 minister its polity, and promulgate its doctrines and 
 teaching throughout the land." And yet, for saying that 
 the bishops and clergy, in " establishing its doctrines 
 and discipline," imposed them upon the Churches with- 
 out their consent, we utter " sheer nonsense!" "If that 
 body (the General Conference) had chosen to become 
 SociNiAN," says Mr. Lord, " if it had chosen to adopt the 
 Presbyterian or Baptist forms, either of government or 
 doctrine, it was in its power to do it." Why? " Be- 
 cause," says Mr. Johnson, " it admitted no constituency." 
 How is the weather now. Brother Hamill — " hot" or 
 " cold?" Is our "logic lucid" enough?
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 203 
 
 " Our fathers tauglit that the Holy Scriptures con- 
 tained all things necessary to salvation." Yery well; 
 ■we only wish their children would believe them. 
 
 But " in strictness of speech, there can be no such 
 thing as the Baptist Church." True, Brother Hamill, 
 and we thank God for it. Baptists repudiate such ver- 
 nacular as implies such a centralization of power as that 
 phrase does. We have Baptist Churches — but to apply 
 the term " The Baptist Church" to this community of 
 Churches, is a phrase not of our coining. In the New 
 Testament, when a single Church is intended, it is so 
 named — " the Church at Ephesus" — " the Church at 
 Corinth," &c. But when a district of country is alluded 
 to, in which there are several Churches, the phraseology 
 is changed, and we read of " the seven Churches -of- 
 Asia," — " as in all the Churches of the saints," &c. Now; 
 suppose wc adopt Bro. Hamill's "strictness of speech," 
 as applicable to "our Episcopacy" and see how it will 
 work. It is claimed that there are nearly a million and 
 a half of members in the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
 the United States. (It is only, however, according to 
 the latest statistics that we have seen, about one mil- 
 lion three hundred thousaiid.) In the " Church Property 
 Case," it was argued by the counsel, that " the minis- 
 ters were the Church," and decided by the Court, that* 
 these ministers, the bishops and travelling preachers,' 
 when assemlded in Conference, according to tlie rules" 
 and usages of the Church, represented themselves, and' 
 "had no constituents."- Therefore, "in .strictness of 
 speech," the Methodist Episcopal Chui^ch in the United' 
 .States, instead of having nearly a million and a half, 
 have only a mcmbcrHhip of between six and seven thou-
 
 204 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 sand!" "0, what a fall was there, my coimtrymenl" 
 That " strictness of speech," Brother Hamill, is no mean 
 scythe, to cut off so many heads at one stroke. Truly, 
 is "our Episcopacy" a " terrible army with banners!" 
 
 " Where there is no legislature, and your own autho- 
 rities tell us you have none, there can be no legislative 
 representatives." Most truly spoken, Brother Hamill, 
 and we thank you for the compliment. And if you will 
 not esteem it arrogance in us, we will undertake to en- 
 lighten you a little now, and more hereafter, when this 
 discussion closes, upon Baptist sentiments on this sub- 
 ject. We do most religiously believe that Jesus Christ 
 and his Apostles and evangelists did all the legislation 
 necessary for his Churches in all ages. We believe that 
 the "creed" and "form of government" which they draft- 
 ed, and which is known as the New Testament, is the 
 product of infinite wisdom. As Christ only can know 
 what is pleasing to himself, we are afraid to " add 
 to" or " take from " that document, a single "jot or 
 tittle." If it had been written by uninspired men, like 
 " our Book of Discipline," it might have needed " mend- 
 ing;" but, as it emanated from Him who "saw the end 
 from beginning" we feel incompetent to add anything 
 to it by our " legislation." If we can understand and 
 apply its teachings to the objects intended, it is all that 
 we aspire to. The lustre of the sun at mid-day would 
 not likely be much increased by the addition of a few 
 flickering tapers. 
 
 We confess, Brother Hamill is leading us into some 
 light upon the sacramental communion question. He 
 informs us that he would not hesitate to administer the 
 communion to persons baptized in any way (and so we
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY 205 
 
 say, provided they have been baptized) ; and that Roman 
 Catholic baptism is just as current as any other (a 
 pretty long stride toward Rome, we think); and still 
 further — if they have not been baptized at all, and give evi- 
 dence of a desire to flee the wrath to come, &c., he is 
 ready to commune witli them. We say Brother Hamill 
 is enliglitening us — First: we begin now to understand 
 the import of a phrase quite common among his breth- 
 ren. It is very usual for them to characterize their de- 
 nomination as " a branch of the Church." Methodism 
 was established b^ a " presbyter" of the Church of Eng- 
 land. The English Church was established by a Catliolic 
 King, Henry VIII. So that the English Episcopal Church 
 becomes the connecting link between " the branch" and 
 the original " stock." Our brother's Roman Catholic 
 proclivities are quite significant. Traces of the family 
 likeness are preserved with singular faithfulness and te- 
 nacity even to the third generation. But, secondly: it 
 matters not whether the applicant for communion has 
 ever been baptized in any way, or by anybody; our bro- 
 ther will not refuse the communion to him on that ac- 
 count! Well, " a decent respect for the opinions of man- 
 kind" has always induced writers on religious subjects 
 to give one of two reasons at least for every item of 
 faith and practice which they may adopt. Either, first, 
 it is taught in the Scriptures, or, secondly, it is taught 
 in the " Fathers." That is, it is either scriptural or tra- 
 ditional. True, there is a wide diflerence between the 
 two; but as already intimated, it is common even 
 among Catholics to allege one or the other of these. 
 But our brother does neither. Now, we say, if there is 
 a single precept or example in all God's word to autho- 
 18
 
 206 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 rize the administration of the Lord's Supper to an un- 
 baptized person, it was in his power to have produced 
 it. But this he has not pretended to do. And as to the 
 other, to wit: the teachings of the "Fathers" we will 
 quote for our brother's special edification, the declara- 
 tion of Dr. Wall: " No Church ever gave the communion 
 to any persons before they were baptized. Among all 
 the absurdities that were ever held, none ever main- 
 tained that any person should partake of the communion 
 before they were baptized."— Hist. Inf Bap., part ii. ch. 
 9. Were it necessary, we could mSke similar quota- 
 tions from Justin Martyr, Jerome, Austin, Bede, &c., 
 among the ancient fathers ; and from Drs. Manton, Dod- 
 dridge, Dwight, &c., among modern divines. 
 
 Will Brother Hamill answer us the following plain 
 questions, without any circumlocution? 
 
 First: Does the Discipline authorize him to administer 
 the communion to any person who is guilty of that for 
 which he would be excluded from the Methodist Ejjis- 
 copal Church? 
 
 Second: Would a man be excluded from that Church 
 for persistently inveighing against its doctrines and 
 discipline? And 
 
 Thirdly: If such offensive person should happen to 
 be a Presbyterian or a Baptist, would the offence be 
 less on that account? 
 
 If our brother had lived contemporaneous with Paul, 
 he might have saved that Apostle a deal of trouble. 
 He might have said to him: " Why, Paul, why don't you 
 frame your ecclesiastical government after the model of 
 'our Episcopacy 1' Why put yourself to the trouble of 
 writing to the various Churches, entreating them to ar-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 20T 
 
 rest the tide of 'anarchy and confusion, inaccurately 
 styled . . . Church government?' Just accept our pa- 
 nacea for all these evils — our 'system of surpassing en- 
 ergy' will soon quell all these 'disorders' which give 
 you so much pain! Let them know that 'the will' of 
 their pastors and teachers 'is omnipotent in the pre- 
 mises;' that they are not 'constituents;' that 'not a mo- 
 dicum of power' has ever been committed to them. Do 
 this, Paul, and, my word for it, the Churches will no 
 more be troubled with 'anarchy and confusion!'" "True," 
 Paul might have replied, "we have already exhorted the 
 Churches to 'Stand fast in the liberty where with. Christ 
 hath made them free, and to be not entangled again with 
 the yoke of bondage;' and with what face can we now 
 recall that exhortation. No! We have no such custom; 
 neither the Churches of God." 
 
 Then, too, we have "charged the bishops with du- 
 plicity," &c. We have quoted what Mr. Wesley said, 
 and what the bishops and travelling preachers did, and 
 left the reader to draw his own inference. One party 
 says that Mr. Wesley "preferred the Episcopal mode of 
 Church government to any other, and that he ordained 
 Thomas Coke, LL.D. to the Episcopal office," &c. The 
 other party (Mr. Wesley) says, he "had rather be call- 
 ed a knave, afovl, a rascal, or a scoundrel, than to be call- 
 ed a bishop!" We have put these two statements to- 
 gether; and if "duplicity" is the result, we are not 
 answerable. 
 
 In Baptist Churches, men enter the ministry by the 
 joint co-operation of the Church and its eldership; so 
 that Brother Mercer's opinions arc just those which arc 
 entertained by all his Baptist brethren.
 
 208 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 We have not "abandoned our position on the Church 
 Property question" yet, Brother Hamill, as you will have 
 seen in the first part of this article. As to the publica- 
 tion of a "deed" of some Methodist Church, that were a 
 work of supererogation, since we have the decision of the 
 United States Circuit Court upon the " Property Ques- 
 tion." If the right to the " Church property" does not 
 vest in the bishops and travelling preachers, how could 
 they have transferred "all the churches, colleges, ceme- 
 teries," &c. &c., South, to the Southern division of that 
 Church? How could they have divided the " Book 
 Fund?" Tht laws of the country fmve settled that question. 
 
 But our insinuation in reference to Bishops McKen- 
 dree and Bascom " was utterly unworthy of " us I Let 
 us see. Before they were elevated to the bishop's chair, 
 they were loud in their denunciations of this "system of 
 surpassing energy." McKendree went so far as to 
 withdraw from the Conference, on account- of the des- 
 potic sway of its bishops. Bascom declared that its 
 rulers were ^^ de facto, religious tyrants, because they as- 
 sumed and exercised rights that do not and can not in 
 the nature of things belong to them." — Rights, t&c, Art. 
 It. After the mitre was placed upon their heads, all 
 these cotnplaints were hushed. That silence was ominous of 
 something. They were but men — were not beyond the 
 power of temptation. If they had retracted their for- 
 mer positions and gained nothing by it, then our brother 
 might with some propriety say that "insinuation was 
 unworthy of us," and that we "could not credit it" our- 
 self. If, for example, A and B were to be heard in the 
 streets of our town, denouncing one of the political par- 
 ties of the country as being de facto, political " tyrants,"
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 209 
 
 &c. ; and soon afterwards were suddenly to become si- 
 lent, and be promoted to some high position of honor 
 and profit by that same party, it would look a little sus- 
 picious; and people would talk, and they would likely 
 express what they believed. The/«c<5 are undeniable; 
 the inference is not unreasonable.* 
 
 Moreover, we "have misapprehended Methodism" — 
 have "created a man of straw," and battled him "vali- 
 antly," &c. Perhaps so. A certain Methodist clergy- 
 man, not a thousand miles from Tuskegee, recently said 
 in the presence of a number of friends, that neither we 
 nor Brother Ham ill understood Episcopal Methodism! 
 Ih what impenetrable mj'stery must "our Episcopacy" 
 be enshrouded, that it cannot be understood by either 
 friend or foe! But however this may be, "our man of 
 straw" is lifting "a long, loud, general" note of madden- 
 ed fury, through its "Advocates;" which means some- 
 thing. 
 
 For the extent to which Methodism admits "lay dele- 
 gation and lay management," see first part of this 
 article. 
 
 But we misapprehended Bishop Hamline's remarks in 
 our last, because, forsooth, we quoted them "second- 
 handed." Now, our brother ought to inform himself a 
 little better before he makes grave assertions of this 
 kind. We quoted Bishop Hamline, to prove the autho- 
 rity of the clergy, from a bishop down to a circuit rider. 
 We quoted him to prove that the system of Methodist 
 Episcopacy was one of clerical absolutism; that their 
 will was "an end of all strife," or, as he expresses it, 
 
 • See Appendix E,
 
 210 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 "omnipotent in the premises^ And we maintain that the 
 quotation was apropos, and rightly construed. We quot- 
 ed, too, from a copy of the Minutes of that Conference, 
 in our possession. If our brother will step into our office, 
 and will believe his own eyes, we think we can prove to 
 him that we have no occasion to use "second-handed 
 quotations"^ from any source, upon any point involved 
 in this discussion. Does he suppose that we have ever 
 doubted the power of the General Conference to depose 
 or expel a bishop, in the face of the fact that Bishop 
 Andrew ^vas deposed for being a slave-holder? 
 
 We "blundered" forsooth, in quoting from Bishop 
 Hamline's speech 1 Did we not quote him accurately? 
 Did we not quote all that referred to the immediate 
 point we were discussing — to wit: the power of the 
 bishop, elder, and circuit rider? Was it expected that 
 we should transfer the entire speech into our columns? 
 The charge of " garbling" is too puerile to be seriously 
 answered. 
 
 In saying that " the word of a bishop was the end 
 of all strife," we said nothing stronger than that " his 
 will is omnipotent in the premises." — But we deem it 
 due to all parties to state that a bishop as such cannot 
 reinstate an expelled member. The Quarterly Confer- 
 ence and the Annual and General Conference can. The 
 principle is the same, however. It is this — that the 
 clergy of the Methodist Episcopal Church can reinstate 
 an excluded member or preacher over the head of the 
 very Church from which he was expelled. The power 
 that does this, is " our Episcopacy." 
 
 But we must close. In our next article, we propose 
 presenting "A striking" cow^rasi " between the govern-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 211 
 
 ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the govern- 
 ment of the United States." With the avowed intention 
 of presenting' the harmony oi Episcopacy and Eepubli- 
 canism, our brother fills up most of his article in berat- 
 ing the Baptists for their anarchy. What a philippic 
 could our brother write against the Apostolic Churches 1 
 Taking Paul's declarations in regard to the incestuous 
 person, I Cor. v. 1, or his account of " brothers going 
 to law with brother," as " our Episcopacy" recently did; 
 or James' question, " Whence come wars and fightings 
 among you?" &c., how eloquently could he discourse of 
 the " anarchy and confusion" of these Churches? Hav- 
 ing gleaned from various sources some half a dozen 
 cases of "disorders and strifes," among the "ten thous- 
 and" Baptist Churches in the United States, he gravely 
 alleges, that these are to establish the general principle, 
 that " anarchy" is rife throughout the whole denomination! 
 " What lucid logic!" It is a work, too, " not congenial 
 with his spirit.". (!) Very well: When a man sets out 
 to do one thing, and does another, it creates a suspicion 
 that it is not very uncongenial. By the way, it is not 
 a little amusing to hear our brother talk about " rulers 
 among us," (the Baptists,) after demonstrating to his 
 own satisfaction the "anarchy and confusion" of Bap- 
 tist Churches. We had supposed that " anarchy and 
 confusion " reigned where there were no " rulers." And 
 docs he really suppose that those who adopt the New 
 Testament " as their only rule of faith and practice," 
 really have "no Church government?" Baptists, like 
 other "even good but fallible men," may err in the ap- 
 plication of the principles of the inspired volume in cer- 
 tain cases, but to say that those who adopt it as the
 
 212 A DISCUSSION ON / 
 
 only standard of appeal in all cases both of doctrine 
 and discipline, have no government, is just saying, that 
 Christ and his inspired Apostles were either incompe- 
 tent or indifferent to the task of furnishing rules to 
 govern the very bodies which they themselves organ- 
 ized. Wliere are the " symbols of faith, called creeds," 
 which were "points of union among Christians" in the 
 Apostolic age? Are they the New Testament? If so, 
 had they no " Church government V Or if not, how comes 
 it that those who have the same constitution which they had, 
 have " what is inaccurately styled . . . Church govern- 
 ment?" To such absurdities are " even good but falli- 
 ble men" driven, who, forsaking the inspired rule, "hew 
 out to themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that can 
 hold no water." However, for his decided proclivity to 
 " look upon the Christian enterprize, and sweet piety 
 of many of our members," we are greatly obliged. And 
 we assure him that similar characteristics among our 
 Methodist brethren ever have, and ever will, we trust, 
 awaken our kindest Christian regards, their Episcopacy 
 to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 August 16th, 1855. 
 
 We accept our brother's explanation of the charge of 
 " falsehood." The point of our complaint was in refer- 
 ence to the facts we had stated, not the arguments we 
 had used.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 213 
 
 We have waited several weeks on Brother Hamill, 
 and received nothing more from him; and as the Asso- 
 ciations and Fall Meetings are at hand, and as we ex- 
 pect to attend a number of them, we desire to close the 
 discussion as early as possible. AVithout any further 
 delay, therefore, wc publish the following as our last 
 article: 
 
 THE CONTRAST. 
 
 The contrast between Methodist Episcopacy and our civil govern- 
 ments, State and National, in seventeen distinct and fundamental 
 points; The Methodist Episcopal Church the only denomination 
 of Protestants in the United States, from whose ecclesiastical 
 bodies all laymen are excluded by constitutional law; Not a fact 
 contested which has been alleged in the discussion; The " Demo- 
 cratic element '•' in Episcopal Methodism, if it exists at all, must 
 exist notwithstanding all these facts; Synopsis and application of 
 the argument; Conclusion. 
 
 Letter to Messrs. David Clopton, John B. Bilbro, and Robert L. 
 
 Mayes. , 
 
 *' Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they 
 that are great exercise antbority upon them. But it shall not be so among you."— Je- 
 
 • C8 ClIRIBT. 
 
 " Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. 
 Can he then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels m the 
 form of kings, to govern him? Let history answer this question." — Thomas JEfFER- 
 
 • ON, the Apostle of American Republicanism. 
 
 " As long aj [ live, tue People shall have no share in choosing either stewards or 
 leaders among the Muthodisls. We have not. nor ever hail, any such custom. We are 
 no Republicans, and never intend to be."— JoH.N Wesley, the Apostle of Americaa 
 Methodism. 
 
 Wc come now to the interesting task of tracing the 
 contrast between our Republican institutions and Me-
 
 214 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 thodist Episcopacy. Brother Haroill has given us the 
 " striking analogy" — we propose presenting the oppo- 
 site side. And let us again begin at the beginning. 
 
 First. Tne Constitution of the United States, and the 
 Constitutions of each State of the confederacy, were 
 formed by representatives chosen by the People in their 
 sovereign capacity. The Constitution, or Book of "Dis- 
 cipline and Doctrines" of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 was formed by sixty clergymen, appointed and sum- 
 moned to their work by two Englishmen, Asbury and 
 Coke. There was not a single layman, or a layman's 
 representative, in the Conference of 1784, that drafted 
 it. " They admitted no constituency P "They were absolutely 
 an aristocracy^''^ 
 
 Secondly. The Constitution of the United States, and 
 of each State, when drafted by their several Conven- 
 tions of representatives from the people, were, by spe- 
 cial ordinances, submitted back directly to the People 
 for their ratification. The Constitution of Methodist 
 Episcopacy was adopted and/orce^ upon their (we wish 
 we could say " constituency," but by the decision of the 
 United States Circuit Court, " they have no constituen- 
 cy,") membership without even the form of a voluntary 
 recognition of such power as was assumed by said Con- 
 ference. No layman was ever asked to cast his suf- 
 frages by way of adopting that document. 
 
 Thirdly. Amendments to the Constitution of the United 
 States, and of the several States, before they are con- 
 sidered binding, are submitted to their respective con- 
 stituencies for their ratification: Amendments to the 
 
 * Ch, Prop. Case, page 331.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. * 215 
 
 Constitution of Methodist Episcopacy, though more or 
 less of them are made at every General Conference, 
 we believe, are foisted upon the Churches, nolens volens, 
 by the mere prerogative of this body. In this, also, 
 " they admit no constituency — they have no constituency."'^ 
 
 Fourthly. The President and Vice President of the 
 United States, and the Governor of each State, the 
 highest oflScers recognized by the General and State 
 governments, are chosen directly by the People every 
 two, three, and four years, thereby securing a frequent 
 reckoning with these oiEcers, and preventing any abuse 
 of the power thus delegated to them : The bishops of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church are chosen for life, or dur- 
 ing good behavior, by the clergy who compose the General 
 Conference, and who, when assembled, " rejyresent them- 
 selves^ and have no constituents." They are " responsible 
 only to their own consciences " for the manner in which 
 they exercise their " unlimited ecclesiastical and tem- 
 poral power." 
 
 Fifthly. The Congress of the United States, and the 
 Legislatures of the several States, are composed of del- 
 egates elected by the suffrages of the several States, or 
 by the people of the several States, and hold their offices 
 one, two, three, and six years, and are, therefore, re- 
 sponsible directly to the people for their official conduct: 
 The Annual and Quadrennial Conferences of the Method- 
 ist Episcopal Cljurch are composed, ex officio, " of the 
 bishops and travelling preachers," and their representa- 
 tives. Xo layman of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 ever cast a single ballot for a representative to either a 
 State or a General Conference. 
 
 ' Appendix to Prop. Case, page 11.
 
 216 ' A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Sixthly. In our civil institutions, the basis of repre- 
 sentation is the entire population of the United States, 
 and of each respective State, except in the Senate of 
 the United States, in which, for wise purposes, the sov- 
 ereignty oi' eSich. State is .represented: In the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, the iasis of representation is the 
 travelling clergy in the bounds of each State. 
 
 Seventhly. The Congress of the United States, and 
 the Legislature of each respective State, admit and re- 
 present a constituency, to whom they are responsible 
 for their acts and doings: But the bishops and travel- 
 ling preachers in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 " comprise the embodiment of its power, ecclesiastical and 
 tefnporal; and when assembled in General Conference, 
 according to the usage and discipline of the Church, 
 represent themselves and have no constituents." So afi&rms 
 Judge Nelson, in Property case. 
 
 Eighthly. Our civil Constitutions recognize " checks 
 and balances " — tribunals to " correct errors and rectify 
 wrongs," — thus affording relief- to the injured and op- 
 pressed sufferer: In the Constitution of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, " the will " of the circuit rider, or 
 elder, or bishop, in removing an o£Bcer, " is omnipotent 
 in the premises" — if an incumbent "is unjustly removed, 
 he must submit " — since " there is no tribunal to cure the 
 error or rectify the wrong"." So affirms ex-bishop 
 Hamlinc. 
 
 Ninthly. In our State and'National governments, the 
 people possess and exercise the right, directly or indi- 
 rectly, to choose every officer. Legislative, Executive, 
 and Judicial, to enact, expound, and administer law, 
 from the President of the United States down to the 
 rnost humble functionary recognized in our civil polity:
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 211 
 
 In the system of Methodist Episcopacy, the bishops and 
 travelling preachers appoint every officer from a bishop 
 down to a class-leader, "being responsible only to their 
 own consciences " for the manner in which this author- 
 ity is exercised. Their " will is omnipotent in the 
 premises." 
 
 Tenthly: The right of petition for redress of griev- 
 ances, is clearly recognized by the Constitution of the 
 United States, and of each State. But when such a 
 right is attempted to be exercised by the local preach- 
 ers and private members of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, the least privilege which any form of govern- 
 ment can recognize, the bishops of that Church answer: 
 *^ Pardon us if we know no such rights, if we comj^rehend no 
 such jyrivilcges."*^ 
 
 Eleventhly: The government of the United States, and 
 of each State, is a government of the people and their chosen 
 representatives — a Democratic Republic: The Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, " as regards its government," says 
 the Hon. R. Johnson, in his speech, in the " Church Pro- 
 perty Case," "has been absolutely, since the days of Wesley, 
 AN ARISTOCRACY I Laymen have had, and now have, 
 no voice in it." "If there is a layman within the sound 
 of my voice," continues Mr. Johnson, " he knows he has 
 no voice noio.''^ — Property Case, p. 331. 
 
 Twelfthly: Congress, and our State legislatures, are 
 bodies of limited powers; they have no authority what- 
 ev.er to change or modify our present forms of civil go- 
 vernment: The General Conference of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, is "the source and fountain of all its 
 
 • Ch-cular of Gen. Con. of 1824. 
 19
 
 218 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 temporal power," says Judge Nelson; nay, it "compris- 
 es the embodiment of its power, ecclesiastical and temporal."- 
 It is "a body unlimited in its authority to create," says 
 Mr. Johnson, and "equally unlimited in the authority to 
 destroy; responsible only to their consciences for the 
 manner in which either authority is exercised." " If 
 that body had chosen to becomQ Socinian," says Mr. 
 Lord, one of the counsel for the claimants — " if it had 
 chosen to adopt the Presbyterian or Baptist fonns, either 
 of government or doctrine, it was in its poicer to do it; there 
 WAS NO LIMIT. They represented the Church; they were 
 
 THE Church The laity loerc not known in the 
 
 governing body. Matters of doctrine, discipline, and 
 everything, were in the governing body. If that was 
 so up to 1808, what was that body after that period? 
 It was the same General Conference^ — Property Case, p. 
 
 163. 
 
 Thirteenthly: The first paragraph of the constitution 
 of the United States, alleges that "We, the people of the 
 United States, in order to form a more perfect union, 
 establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide 
 for the common defence, promote the general welfare, 
 and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our 
 posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for 
 the United States of America." 'The first section of the 
 " Book of Discipline" alleges that, as Mr. Wesley " pre- 
 ferred the Episcopal mode of Church government to any 
 other, he solemnly set apart, by the imposition of hands 
 
 and prayer .... Thomas Coke, LL.D a presbyter 
 
 of the Church of England, for the Episcopal office; and 
 having delivered to him letters of Episcopal orders, commission- 
 ed and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury, ....
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 219 
 
 for the same Episcopal office." That is, the people of the 
 United States established their form of government; 
 Onk man^, John Wesley, according to the Discipline, autho- 
 rized the establishment of the government of the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church. The truth of this statement 
 in regard to Mr. Wesley's ordaining Dr.. Coke "to the 
 Episcopal office," we have already examined, and, as we 
 think, proved it to be entirely inexact; but as the govern- 
 mental economy of that Church is to be ascertained by 
 the Discipline, it is right and proper that we should re- 
 fer to all its statements in this connection, as if they 
 were true. 
 
 Fourteenthly: In the goyernment of tlic United States, 
 and of each separate State, the legislative, executive, 
 and judicial departments of government, are placed in 
 the hands of three distinct classes of officers, each operat- 
 ing as a check upon the others. Thiis, the President of 
 the United States, and the governor of each State, being 
 elected by the people, and therefore representing their 
 sovereignty, possess the veto power to check hasty or 
 unconstitutional legislation. And Congress and State 
 legislatures possess the power of passing a law by a. 
 two-third vote, notwithstanding the veto of the chief 
 executive, thus interposing a salutary check upon this 
 prerogative. And the judiciary, being the exponent of 
 the constitutionality of all laws, l)ecoines another check 
 upon the legislative department. But in the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, the legislative, executive, and judi- 
 cial departments of government are all in the same 
 hands. And this body of men are not the representa- 
 tives of the people, but, as Judge Nelson declares, 
 " when assembled in Conference, represent themselves, and
 
 220 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 have no constituents." "Where such a body of men," 
 says the late Bishop Bascom, " first make the laws, then 
 execute them, and, finally, are the sole judges of their 
 own acts, there is no liberty; the people are virtually en- 
 slaved, and liable to be ruined at any time." — Rights, dec. 
 Art. &, In a word; all power, legislative, executive, 
 and judicial, known in the governmental economy of 
 that Church, is lodged in the hands of its clergy. "Not 
 a modicum of power," says Mr. Johnson, " was left else- 
 where." 
 
 Fifteenthly: The great fundamental principle which 
 lies at the basis of our civil governments, State and 
 National, is, that they are representative. In the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church, iii'* 1824 and 1828, an efibrt 
 was made by numerous petitioners, local preachers and 
 private members, to modify their form of government, 
 so as to make it representative, and the memorialists 
 were sternly rebuked by the bishops of that Church, in 
 the very language of despotism itself: "Fardon tbs if toe 
 know no such rights, if ice comprehend no such jprivileges!'' 
 The only efforts which have ever been made to incor- 
 porate into -its economy the essential element of Eepub- 
 licanism, have been and are now denounced as schism- 
 atical, and its promoters suspended and expelled from 
 the ministry and Church; and yet there is a most 
 striking analogy between Methodist Episcopacy and 
 our Republican form of government!! Nay, further, if 
 a man doubts its Republicanism, he is to be denounced 
 as a "bigot," a " demagogue," and sundry other amiable 
 epithets must be applied to him by the champions of 
 this hierarchy! Now, we do solemnly protest, that a 
 man's Christian charity ought not to be measured by the
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 221 
 
 dimensions of his throat to swallow "our Episcopacy!" 
 We do protest that it is possible for a man to base his 
 love for his fellow Christians upon some other "points 
 of union" besides this " system of surpassing- energy" — 
 that he may love their virtues without endorsing their 
 errors — and that personal piety may be one thing, and 
 clerical absolutism may be a different thing. 
 
 Sixteenthlv. Our civil Constitutions, State and Na- 
 tional, recognize the principle, "That all power is inherent 
 in the people:^' In the Methodist economy, all poxcer is in- 
 herent in the clergy. — " If they had chosen to become 
 Socinian .... they could have done so. There was no 
 limit," said Mr. Lord. Property Case, p. 163. 
 
 Seventeenthly. In our civil government, the property 
 is held by the people, and even the small pittance which 
 is used for State and National purposes, is subject to 
 the direction of their representatives: In the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, the Church property is held and dis- 
 posed of by the clergy. Even the trustees who hold 
 the property, are to be appointed by the " preacher 
 in charge, or the presiding elder of the district, all of 
 whom are to be members of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church." Discipline, last edition, p. 218. The appoint- 
 ment of these trustees is the amount of "lay representa- 
 tion and lay management" of which our brother so 
 frequently boasts. This "lay representation and lay 
 management" amounts to about as much as the " re- 
 presentation and management" of ordinary'- clerks in a 
 mercantile establishment. They can only execute the 
 orders of the bishops and clergy of the General or State 
 Conferences. This every reader can see by turning- to 
 the Discipline, pp.209, 214 and pp. 256, 257.-
 
 222 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 We could trace this contrast much further; but the 
 foregoing points are deemed sufficient for our present 
 purpose. We will only add, in closing this part of the sub- 
 ject, THAT THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 
 IS THE ONLY DENOMINATION OF PROTEST- 
 ANTS ON THIS CONTINENT, FROM WHOSE EC- 
 CLESIASTICAL COUNSELS ALL LAYMEN ARE 
 EXCLUDED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. If aline 
 were drawn upon the subject of Church government 
 between all professing Christians in this country, on 
 one side of it would be arrayed the Methodist Episcopal 
 and the Roman Catholic communions — on the other all 
 other Protestant denominations. To what extent Me- 
 thodists are charmed with their company, and how long 
 they will keep it the future must show. We have not 
 placed Methodism there. This was the work of its first 
 apostles. We have only hung the lamp of truth over 
 the arcana of the system, and are not responsible for its 
 revelations. Other hands must apply the corrective. 
 
 The reader will observe, that not one fact that we 
 have alleged in connection with the origin and history 
 OF Episcopal Methodism in this country, has ever been 
 CONTESTED BY Brother Hamill. Hc has attempted to 
 show that some of our deductions were illogical and un- 
 charitable. The FACTS he has not pretended to meet. 
 He has occupied the most of his time and space in de- 
 ploring in quite pathetic terms, the "Munster insurrec- 
 tion,'' "close communion," and "Baptist anarchy." Of 
 course, if he thus permit "judgment to go by default;" 
 if, having of his own free will taken issue with us upon 
 a plain, practical question, he sees proper to leave us to 
 discuss that question, and busies himself with other is-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 223 
 
 sues which liave no more to do with the one he set ont 
 to discuss than the Eastern war has to do with the state 
 of the weather, it is not our concern. It only shows the 
 utter impossibility of harmonizing Methodist Episcopacy 
 with the genius of our free institutions. And now, if 
 the " Democratic element" really does exist in the go- 
 vernmental economy of Methodism, it must exist in that sys- 
 tem nolwit/istanding all these fads. That is to say, it must 
 exist in a system of government, the basis of whose re- 
 presentation in its ecclesiastical councils is, not the nu- 
 merical strength of tlie membership, but the travelling 
 clergy; whose constitution was adopted w^holly by the 
 ministry, without so much as submitting it to its mem- 
 bership; whose rulers, when assembled in General Con- 
 ference, according to the usage and discipline of the 
 Church, represent themselves, and "have no constitu- 
 ents;" M^hich is "absolutely an aristocracy;" whose func- 
 tionaries can remove all inferior ofiBcers without the 
 forms of trial, the removed party having no alternative 
 but submission, there being "no tribunal to cure the er- 
 ror or rectify the wrong;" whose bishops, in answer to 
 respectful petitions, to make the system RcptihUcan , that 
 is, representative, use the very language of despotism it- 
 self — "Pardon us if we know^no such rights, if we com- 
 prehend no such privileges" — whose ecclesiastical coun- 
 cils are "unlimited in the authority to create, and 
 equally unlimited in the authority to destroy; responsi- 
 ble only to their own consciences for the manner in 
 which either is exercised;" whose legislators possess 
 the power, according to Mr. Lord, to change the whole 
 Methodist denomination into a " Socixian" body; whose 
 government, according to the Discipline, originated with
 
 224 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 one man, Mr. Wesley; whose legislative, executive, 
 and judicial powers are vested in the same men, there 
 not being "a modicum of power left elsewhere;" who, in 
 direct contravention of that vital principle which lies at 
 the basis of our government, " that all power is inherent 
 in the people," place all "ecclesiastical power" in the 
 hands of the travelling clergy; whose chief officers, the 
 bishops, possess the power of sending six thousand min- 
 isters to any and every part of the country, from Maine 
 to California, and from Florida to Oregon, nokns volens, 
 regardless, too, as to whether such arbitrary appoint- 
 ments shall comport with the wishes of those who are 
 to support them ; and finally, whose funds and property 
 are under the supreme control of the same ecclesiastical 
 bodies, composed entirely of the clergy; we say, the 
 "Democratic element" must exist in this system, if it 
 has any existence at all in it, notwithstanding all these 
 facts! No, Brother Hamill, the system of Episcopal 
 Methodism may, like some forms of government in Eu- 
 rope, be "a system of surpassing energy!" And to 
 those who look upon "energy" as the ^' sine qua novH^ of 
 government, it maybe " worthy of all eulogy!" But, 
 whatever other virtues "our Episcopacy" may possess, 
 and we shall not undertake to say but what they are 
 many, we do think that so far as " Democracy" and "Re- 
 publicanism" are virtues, "It is weighed in the balances 
 and found wanting." What principle in the govern- 
 mental economy of Methodism would have to be com- 
 promitted, to change this government into an aristo- 
 cracy, or even monarchy? Suppose our legislators, 
 State and National, should take it upon themselves to 
 form our civil government after the model of Episcopal
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 225 
 
 Methodism, is there one man in a million who would 
 pretend to call it a "Democratic Eepublican govern- 
 ment?" A system of government "which admits no 
 constituents — which has no constituents — which is ab- 
 solutely an aristocracy"— such a system a Democratic 
 Republican government, forsooth! Why, the virgin 
 form of the "goddess of American liberty," rising up out 
 of that system, would be the greatest monstrosity that 
 ever haunted the distorted fancy of Brother Hamill's 
 opium-eater! He who can evolve Democracy from such 
 a system of polity, would find no difiiculty, we opine, in 
 lifting the stone of Sisyphus ■ from its depth profound, 
 and rolling it to the top of the Dwahalagiri mountain. 
 
 We have accomplished our task, with what success it 
 becomes us not to say. We have not adduced a single 
 fact but what has been sustained by evidence the most 
 conclusive; nor have we used a single argument which 
 was intended to have any more weight with the reader 
 than it had on our own mind. Truth — xot victory, has 
 been our aim. And as truth Is always consistent with 
 itself; as it can, above all things else in "the universe, 
 afford to be magnanimous, we have freely and cheerfully 
 opened our columns for the full and unreserved discus- 
 sion of the governmental economy of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. Controversy, conducted in a right 
 spirit, is by far the most successful method of develop- 
 ing and establishing the truth, for the obvious reason — 
 that the statements of the parties interested are each subjected to 
 the most rigid scrutiny; and whatever survives such an 
 ordeal, is recognized by the historian as reliable mate- 
 rial for his work. 'Many of the important facts which 
 are connected with the origin and history of Episcopal
 
 226 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Methodism in this country, never would be brought out 
 before the public mind but for discussions of this kind. 
 We disclaim all sympathy with that sickly cant among 
 many professing Christians, which affirms that religious 
 Controversy is essentially and always an evil. And as 
 we do not believe that Methodist Episcopacy has any 
 higher claims upon implicit popular credulity than any 
 other system of ecclesiastical polity of equal pretensions 
 and age, we have not thought it sacrilege to discuss its 
 claims to the confidence and support of American citizens. 
 This we have done to the best of our ability. Sincerely 
 wishing that the cause of truth and righteousness may 
 be subserved by this discussion, we here lay down our 
 pen. 
 
 Letter to Messrs. David Clopton, John B. Bilbro, and 
 
 Egbert L. Mayes. 
 Respected Brethren: 
 
 As your .names appeared on the original communica- 
 tion from your honored pastor, which sprung this dis- 
 cussion, you will excuse me for the liberty I take in 
 addressing you a few words on its conclusion. On read- 
 ing that communication, I could not regard it in any 
 other light than as a formal demand that I should either 
 repudiate the article from the Western Watchman, or de- 
 fend it. It is due to myself to state, that the article was 
 selected and published in the paper by my late worthy 
 associate, several days before I saw it. Indeed, up to 
 the time of the receipt of j'our communication, I had
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 221 
 
 not read it, being absent from home in attendance upon 
 the Georgia Baptist Convention. Immediately, there- 
 fore, after reading the article, I did repudiate that por- 
 tion of it which I deemed justly offensive to your deno- 
 mination. But as I could noi extend this reprehension 
 to that portion of it which referred to the governmental 
 economy of your Church, as an isolated topic of discus- 
 sion, I chose the latter alternative — I chose to defend 
 it. I am sure, you, brethren, will not blame me for using 
 such facts in this controversy as your own history has 
 furnished to my hand. True, I have been abused, mis- 
 represented, and slandered by some members of your 
 Church, in the public prints and otherwise, for daring 
 to discuss this subject. But I beg to assure you, that 
 I do not hold you, nor the large, intelligent, and pious 
 denomination of Christians to which you belong, respon- 
 sible for this unkind treatment. Indeed, your worthy ' 
 pjastor has expressed time and again, his decided dis- 
 approbation of such conduct. And it affords me pleasure 
 thus publicly to bear testimony to the excellent spirit 
 which has marked his course through this discussion. 
 I shall ever cherish for him the kindest and best of 
 Christian feelings. I trust I have not been wanting in 
 reciprocal courtesy. 
 
 It would be indelicate in me to appeal to you to de- 
 cide how far I have succeeded in maintaining the pro- 
 position upon which* your pastor took issue with me. 
 The result is before a much more unerring and august 
 tribunal than either party immediately- interested in the 
 discussion — an enlightened and generous public opinion. 
 With the award of that tribunal, it would be madness in 
 mc not to acquiesce.
 
 228 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Permit me to saj', in conclusion, that I was unwilling 
 to take the position I did in the opening* of this contro- 
 versy, without sustaining it by what I believed to be 
 ample testimony drawn from the most authentic sources. 
 This I could not do within a shorter compass than I 
 have occupied. As I assumed the onus prohandi, I was 
 unwilling to stop short of that measure and kind of tes- 
 timony which I believed would sustain my allegation; 
 and having reached that point, the discussion, so far as 
 I am concerned, is closed. Wishing you grace, mercy, 
 and peace, I am, brethren, without any abatement, 
 Your friend and brother in Christ, 
 
 SAM'L. HENDEESON.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 229 
 
 LETTER YI. 
 
 THE METHODIST BOOK CONCERN ; A VALUA- 
 BLE AUXILL\RY OF THE GOSPEL ; AND A 
 HOLY CHARITY; HON. RUFUS CHOATE'S 
 VIEW OF METHODISM ; THE CONTRAST 
 REVIEWED. 
 
 Mr. Lord'.s history of the Book Concern; Built up by the preachers, 
 and therefore, held in trust by them for two holy uses; Its cha- 
 rity like Job; Its control by the ministry praiseworthy; The mu- 
 tilated resolution; The Court decrees that the General Conference 
 ■ has -no proprietary interest in the Preaching Houses; Lay man- 
 agement of the largest revenue of the Church. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF THE CHUKCH PROPERTY CASE. 
 
 Do civil lawyers understand Church polity better than judicious 
 ministers? Legal opinions versus Church standard; Louisville 
 Conventions; Dr. Elliott and Hon. Rufus Clioate against a legal 
 Fiction; The Church, South, did not recover its rights upon false 
 principles; The case stated; Principles applicable to the Book 
 Concern property, and inapplicable to Church polity; Pleadings 
 o^ounsel; Consent of a majority in all departments of the Church 
 to a division of the Book Concern Fund; Plan of separation con- 
 tingent; Power ascribed to General Conference wholly unfound- 
 ed; The veto power of an Annual Conference; Protest of laity 
 In the case of a distinguished minister of the Georgia Conference; 
 Law7crs' opinion of a Church in the Methodist sense; Notion that 
 20
 
 230 -A. DISCUSSION ON ^ 
 
 the General Conference could become Socinian, or Baptist; Min- 
 isters of every Churcb can become Mohammedans; Another could 
 and would; Methodist doctrines not established by Tote; The 
 glory of Christ cannot be voted away; Mr. Benson's testimony; 
 Louisville Convention; Opinion of the niost distinguished lawyer 
 in the United States, the Hon. Rufus Choate; Methodism proceeds 
 on the plan of our grand secular union; The true sovereign; The 
 preachers in a mass, acting in obedience to the wishes of the people; 
 The Conference which organized Methodism was, in a remarliable 
 degree, analogous to the Convention which created the Federal 
 Constitution, in 1787; Annual and General Conferences subord- 
 inate agencies of the Church; Mr. Wesley testifies that some thous- 
 ands in the United States desired his advice; Eighty-three preach- 
 ers cannot be magnified into some thousands; Mr. Choate's only 
 error; The case proves the all-controlling power of the laity. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 Why Muncer's proclamation is quoted; Baptists not ranked with 
 Campbellites; Concurrence with Baptist luminaries; An answer; 
 Another serious error; Constituents of the Quarterly Conference; 
 The preacher has no vote in the trial of a member; Logic of the 
 exposure of Baptist disorders. 
 
 THE CONTRAST. 
 
 The contrast twice dead; The Church legislates in minor matters 
 only; Distinction between the province of human and divine 
 legislation; How the discipline was formed; Conference laws like 
 Acts of Legislatures; Discipline not amended; Duality of Gen- 
 eral Conference jurisdictions demanded by the people; Bishop's 
 term of office like that of the supreme judges: Subject to a like 
 impeachment; General Conference constituted like the I^ited 
 States Senate; Is one State nearly equal to thirteen in the South- 
 ern Baptist Convention? Bishop's power of removal less than the 
 President's; Officers of Methodism chosen as directly from the 
 people as civil officers; The right of petition as unbounded as in 
 Congress; An absurdity exposed; Mr. Wesley's advice; Bishops
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 231 
 
 hare no legislative powers; Restrictions upon Annual and Gen- 
 eral Conferences; What would dethrone Christ as King in Zion; 
 The only right of the clergy in Church buildings; The contrast 
 and the analogy, both exist in their proper places; A pleasant 
 close; The discussion useful; The pious will do good anywhere; 
 Charity indispensable; The publication of the discussion, without 
 note or comment, proposed. 
 
 "Tt shall even be as wlien a hangry man dreamelh, and behold hecateth.bnt he 
 awaketh and his sonl is empty: or as when a thirsty man dreamelh, and behold he drink- 
 eth, but he awaketh and behold, he is faint. So shall the multitude be who fight 
 asainst Mount Zion."— Isaiah. 
 
 Brother He.vderson: 
 
 Attention to the higher duties of the ministry, in con- 
 nection with a revival in my own charge, and camp 
 meeting labor abroad, with the conviction that my posi- 
 tion has been fully established in -this controversy: 
 namely, that Methodism is Republicanism of the high- 
 est excellence, has delayed my answer to your article 
 on the Book Concern Property Case, and the principles 
 involved in its adjudication, so far as they bear upon 
 the question under discussion. 
 
 An analysis of these principles, will give increased 
 support to my position. A brief history of tins case, is 
 necessary to a correct understanding of them. It is 
 furnished to my hand by Mr, Lord. lie says; "When 
 Methodism was organized as a separate Churcli, in ad- 
 dition to the means of instruction afforded by preaching, 
 it was very obvious that a great want was to be sup- 
 plied in the furnishing of religious literature to its peo- 
 ple; and one of their preachers organized a system of 
 publishing iKjoks in this country. It was originally es- 
 tablished in Pliiladelphia. This preacher, whose name
 
 232 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 was Cooper, lent a small sum of money to the object, 
 and invested it in books. They were sold among the 
 denomination; and out of the profits a small capital 
 was gradually formed, which was employed in publish- 
 ing books. This came to be a matter of some magnitude, 
 and in 1836, it had been removed to New York, and 
 become an extensive establishment. It was then de- 
 stroyed by fire, and afterward reinvigorated, and from 
 that time to the present, it -has gone on with great 
 prosperity, so that it has accumulated a capital of about 
 $T50,000. It was early provided that the preachers 
 should see that their congregations were supplied with 
 books. 
 
 " They were very faithful men; stimulated not by a 
 love of gain, but by the higher purpose of religious de- 
 votion. Of course, a fund thus constructed, could not 
 but become considerable. Your honors will have your 
 attention called to the fact, that it was really the result 
 of the devotion and services of the preachers. It was 
 not like many charitable funds, a fund growing out of 
 the donations of wealthy men, but it was in its main 
 features the earnings of this system. Its profits, after 
 providing capital enough to carry on its business suc- 
 cessfully, were devoted at an early period to one single 
 purpose, in two or three branches. That purpose was, 
 the making up of the deficiences of travelling preachers 
 and providing for the supernumerary, superannuated 
 preachers, the wives and children of preachers, and the 
 widows and orphans of deceased preachers. — (Church 
 Property Case, p. I and 2.) It was a 'charity which 
 grew out of actual laborious, self-denying, beneficial 
 services, just as much as any savings' bank or life in-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 233 
 
 surance. — (p. 152.) Every preacher was an agent in the 
 diffusion of the literature of the Church; a wise — very- 
 wise plan — wise for the people, and wise for the govern- 
 ment of the Church. But it was the act of the preach- 
 ers; it was the labor of the. preachers that made this 
 the great Book Concern which it ever came to be. This 
 was a "business most strictly and directly connected 
 with the ministry of this Church, calling not only for ac- 
 tivity and labor on their part, but pecuniary accounta- 
 bility on the part of every preacher, in every Methodist 
 circuit. — (p. 154 ) It was intended to create a fund for 
 the first great object of enlightening this Methodist com- 
 munity as to religious truth; and that the second great 
 object was, that when this institution should be carried 
 out, the preachers themselves might have some little 
 stimulus for activity, and that they should be entitled 
 to look for an absolute support from this fund for the 
 wants of old age, and the wants of their dependents, and 
 the wants of their poor and suffering brethren. I* ask, 
 if there ever was a fund which provided so equitably 
 and justly, a retiring pension for those men, who for a 
 trifling salary, not enough to pay for a fashionable din- 
 ner, served year after year in the wilderness, and spent 
 their best days in toil. — (p. 155.) It was a retiring 
 pension, or savings' bank for the supernumerary and 
 worn out preachers, and their widows and orphans." — 
 (p. 157.) 
 
 The foregoing extracts from Mr. Lord's speech, show 
 us both the ground and the kind of right to property in 
 the Book Concern, held by the travelling preachers of 
 the Methodist Churcli. First: That the right to it grew 
 out of the fact, that it was mainly the product of their
 
 234 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 own earniiigs, from a small capital created by them- 
 selves, and by themselves managed under all the pecu- 
 niary liabilities to which business of every sort is sub- 
 ject. And secondly: That this Book Concern property 
 was held by them in trust for two distinct and specified 
 purposes, and cannot be alienated by them for any other 
 uses whatever; no, not even for any other religious en- 
 terprizes. These objects are, first, the diffusion of reli- 
 gious knowledge, and then the relief of indigent and 
 distressed preachers, and the widows and orphans of 
 deceased preachers. The first-named of these objects, 
 all must pronounce a laudable Christian enterprize, emi- 
 nently worthy of a band of gospel ministers, and the se- 
 cond, a holy charity, which, like Job, "Becomes eyes to 
 the blind, and feet to the lame, and a father to the poor, 
 and brings the blessing of him who was ready to perish 
 upon those who manage it; and causeth the widow's 
 heart to sing for joy." Of this latter object of the Book 
 Concern, Mr. Lord says: "Now, until we get to the be- 
 neficiaries, we find no person having anything but a 
 mere administrative right — a mere agency, and, as to 
 selection, no discretion."— (p. 149.) Mr. Wood says, 
 (p. 319) "The Methodist Church are not the benefici- 
 aries, they are the managers of this charity, for the sake 
 of others — they have no right to apply it to any other 
 interest in the Church, or at least so much of it as may 
 be required to fulfill the end designed, to supply the 
 beneficiaries." Said I not true, then, that property thus 
 created, and held for such holy uses, is a valuable auxi- 
 liary of the gospel, and a holy charity? Can any ration- 
 al man pronounce such an institution, contemplating 
 such holy ends, anti-Republican?!! Does the fact that
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 235 
 
 the capital was created by preachers, that its increase 
 was the profit of their labors, and that this holy charity 
 is administered by preachers to their suffering- breth- 
 ren, their widows and orphans, constitute it anti-Repub- 
 lican? Xo, brother Henderson, it is not only not anti- 
 Eepublican, but it merits more praise than to coldly 
 affirm it is in harmony with Republicanism. The law- 
 yers who called it a Avise institution, might have added, 
 it was one of the holiest and most benevolent -institu- 
 tions in the land. Suppose yourself and a score of Bap- 
 tist preachers began a noble enterprise of this kind, fur- 
 nished a small capital for the purpose, assumed the re- 
 sponsibilities, and devoted the profits of your labors to 
 such blessed uses; what would you, what could you 
 think of the soundness of judgment of that man, who 
 should denounce this wise design as anti-Republican? 
 Would you liot say, "Friend, you are mistaken; some 
 strange prejudice has blinded your mind, or you would 
 commend and not censure our noble object; if we as 
 ministers, choose to devote a portion of our means and 
 of our labor to tlie work of offering you a holy literature, 
 and give a portion of our earnings to relieve the dis- 
 abled veterans of the cross, who have ministered unto us 
 in holy things, whose right have we infringed, that you 
 should consider us as enemies of our land? We have 
 wronged no man; we have defrauded no man. If you, 
 as laymen, are emulous of imitating our holy example, 
 what hiudercth you? Go, write, publish, and circulate 
 a holy literature, and expend your profits upon what- 
 ever noble objects of charity you see proper, and 'we 
 do rejoice therein, yea, and will rejoice.' " Who 
 would deny the justice of this rebuke? None; not one.
 
 236 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Such, then, is my reply to any who gainsay the fact, 
 that the Book Concern, no matter whether the ministry 
 or the laity administer its holy uses, is a valuable auxi- 
 liary of the gospel, and a holy charity. 
 
 In the above explanation of the character of the Book 
 Concern property, I have frankly admitted that it is 
 held, not by the bishops, but by the entire body of itiner- 
 ants, for specified uses; and that no other department 
 of our Church has the smallest control over it. I do not 
 only defend this right of the preachers to manage this 
 charity of their own creation, although none but the in- 
 digent beneficiaries are enriched by it one farthing, but 
 I warmly eulogize the scheme, and with a free heart. 
 Nevertheless, with equal frankness and boldness, I un- 
 equivocally deny that our bishops or our Conferences 
 hfvve any similar property in our Churches, &c.; or that 
 they have even the shadow of a shade of any kind of 
 property in our Churches, or any other right beyond the 
 privilege of appointing preachei's to them from our An- 
 nual Conferences. 
 
 I challenged you in a former letter, to publish the 
 deed of any Methodist Church in the land; the record 
 was at hand; you could have seen it at any moment. 
 You did not choose to do it, but quoted in part, and re- 
 member, only in part, a resolution passed at the General 
 Confei-ence, in view of a probable division of the Church. 
 The part of the resolution which you omitted, gave a 
 sense entirely difiercnt from what seems to be the mean- 
 ing of your mutilated extract. The resolution is as fol- 
 lows: "That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, in meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, &c., 
 within the limits of the Southern organization, shall be
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 23 1 
 
 forever free from any claim set up on the part of the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church, so far as this resolution can be 
 of force in the premises."' Does this resolution justify your 
 declaration, that the bishops and clergy assumed an ab- 
 solute proiDrietorship in, and a right to dispose of, all the 
 churches, schools, colleges, &c., of the Methodist Epis- 
 capal Church in the United ^States? Look at it again, 
 and particularly look at the emphatic clause, which you 
 neglected to quote, which omission changes entirely 
 the sense of the resolution, namely: " so far as this reso- 
 lution can be of force in the premises. How far could it 
 have been of force in the premises? Why, just so far 
 as to release the Southern Churches from the claim the 
 Church, Xorth, could have set up. What claim did the 
 Church, North, think they could possibly have set up 
 over the property in Southern Churches? Simpl}^ this, 
 and thie- alone, and not the shadow of a claim beyond 
 this: that if the Southern Methodist Church had been 
 declared a secession by the Court, and the Church, North, 
 had been so minded, they could, had not this resolution 
 interdicted it, have appointed preachers to these 
 Churches. This is the sole point referred to in this re- 
 solution. The only right ever claimed by our bishops 
 or Conferences, in our church buildings, is the right" of 
 sending Methodist preachers — created such by the laity, 
 and by. them recommended for the itinerancy — to preach 
 the gospel in these buildings. Tlie lawyers say (p. 208) 
 " That body (General Conference) had, however, no pro- 
 prietory interest in the preaching houses, and could only trans- 
 fer its jurisdiction over them, which is done by the resolutions, 
 and the proceedings under them." But our Disciplines are 
 scattered broadcast over the land; look into them and
 
 238 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 see the form of our Church deeds, and let prejudice no 
 more utter so groundless a charge. 
 
 I again repeat, that in all things in which the laity 
 are equally concerned with the ministry, Methodism has 
 lay delegation, and lay management, to the fullest ex- 
 tent ; in, for instance. Missionary, Tract, Education, 
 Sunday School, and other Societies, and in Conference 
 Financial Boards. And that these are by no means in- 
 ferior interests of the Church, you will admit, when I 
 repeat that the Missionary Society, which has more lay 
 than clerical managers, disburses annually by far the 
 largest revenue of our Church, about $160,000. As for 
 our College operations, you have an example of them 
 here in Tuskegee, immediately tmder your eye. Who, 
 I ask, are the trustees of our Tuskegee Female College? 
 Are they preachers? Who are now organizing the fac- 
 ulty? Are they preachers? No, you know them, and 
 have every opportunity to see to what extent laymen 
 control these interests. But you inquire, are not the 
 laity equally interested witii the preachers in the Book 
 Concern? I answer, by no means; the preachers, not 
 the laity, furnished mainly the capital, made the earn- 
 ings by their labor, and disburse the profits, not to in- 
 digent laymen, but to distressed preachers. -Who, then, 
 should control it? Plainly, those who alone would suffer 
 from its mismanagement. — Principles of Chur.ch Pro- 
 perty Case. 
 
 The foregoing expose of the character of the property 
 held by the Methodist Church, will prepare us for an 
 easy understanding of the principles involved in the 
 Church Property Case, in which the right of the South- 
 ern Church to a due proportion of the Book Concern
 
 METHODIST EPISCOrACY. 239 
 
 fund, was contested by the Church, North, under the in- 
 fluence of abolition sentiment. I here premise tliat the 
 opinions of legal gentlemen, such as the learned coun- 
 sel engaged in the Church suit, upon questions such as 
 the following: What are the rights of property which 
 the courts of our country will recognize? are worthy of 
 the highest respect. But upon questions of Church pol- 
 ity, whether in the Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian 
 Churches, those who are not connected with these 
 Churches, however great their legal attainments, can- 
 not possibly understand them a^ thoroughly, as judi- 
 cious ministers of these Churches, who are familiar with 
 the evei-y day operations of their respective Church 
 systems. 
 
 I have all along in this discussion supported my ])osi- 
 tion from acknowledged Church standards, and not from 
 the. mere opinions of those unconnected with either of 
 our Churches. You had the standards of our Church 
 before you, in the very book whence you extracted these 
 legal opinions. When you sought to condemn us, you 
 should luive attempted it from those standards. Your 
 failure to do this, and your resort to the mere opinions 
 of only a portion of the counsel engaged in the case — 
 opinions which had been, in advance, solemnly protested 
 against by no less an authority than the Louisville 
 Convention of the Church, South, which protest was ac- 
 tually in evidence before the Court — and opinions, too, 
 which were exactly opposite to the opinions of the most 
 distingui.slied lawyer employed in the case, and, indeed, 
 the most distinguished lawyer in the United States, the 
 lion. Rufus Choate, of Boston — and oi)inions, which 
 have also drawn forth from Dr. Elliot, and others, of the
 
 240 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Church, North, bitter condemnation; though you seem 
 to have strangely mistaken us, in supposing that either 
 the Northern or Southern Churches silently assented to 
 these opinions — ^this resort, I say, to proof of this de- 
 scription, is prima facie evidence of the weakness of 
 your cause, and of the groundlessness of your allega- 
 tions. 
 
 It may be asked then, did the Church, South, recover 
 its property upon false principles? I answer, no. There 
 were principles set forth in the debate, which were false 
 in their application to all other matters of Church polity, 
 but true in their application to the Book Concern Fund. 
 With reference to this fund, the entire travelling minis- 
 try of the United States had no constituency — they 
 were the only body in the Church, who had any voice 
 at all in the disposing of this fund — they were the only 
 department of the Church which had any control o-ver 
 it, and simply because it was of their own creation: 
 they were the Church, in the governmental sense of the 
 term, so far as this fund was concerned, but no farther. 
 The application of these principles to other matters of 
 Church polity, was a false statement of our Church 
 government, but their application to this fund was just, 
 and, therefore, the Court righteously adjudged us our 
 rights in the case. 
 
 The case stood thus: The Book Concern property was 
 held by the entire body of travelling ministry, for speci- 
 fied uses. Secondly: The Annual Conferences delegated 
 to the General Conference their entire control over this 
 fund, placing upon them but a single restriction, which 
 restriction was, that they should carry out the design 
 of the founders of this charity: namely, that they should
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 241 
 
 not appropriate the produce of this fund to any other 
 purpose than for the benefit of the beneficiaries therein 
 described; and so the General Conference became the 
 manager of this fund, and the Annual Conferences dis- 
 bursed the proceeds to the beneficiaries thereof. Thirdlj^: 
 The General Conference, thus clothed with full powers, 
 could have divided, without any separation of the 
 Church, this fund into two or twenty parts, provided 
 that the intention of this restrictive article was secured, 
 that the proceeds were disbursed to the proper benefi- 
 ciaries. Fourthly: The division of this fund with the 
 Church, South, secured the proceeds of it to the very 
 same beneficiaries, and no others, intended in the re- 
 strictive article; and, therefore, the General Conference 
 had the power to make this division; and in view of 
 the necessity for separate ecclesiastical jurisdictions, 
 growing out of the diverse views of the two sections of 
 the Church upon the slavery question, wisdom dictated 
 the propriety of this division of the fund. And, lastly: 
 The majority of Annual Conferences of the United 
 States — the only primary bodies having any claim over 
 this fund — approved of this division; and though the 
 two-thirds majority required to change the restrictive 
 article, was not obtained; yet in consideration of tlie 
 fact that the design of this article was as ^fiectually 
 secured after the division of the funds with the Church, 
 South, as before, it was decided, to be no bar to this 
 division of the property. Therefore, the will of the major- 
 ity of tlie General Conference of 1844, and the will of tlie 
 majority of Annual Conferences which approved of the 
 measure thereafter, should be executed. 
 21
 
 242 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 The plea set up in bar of this measure was, that the 
 beneficiaries to whom the Southern Conferences would 
 distribute these proceeds, did not answer the descrip- 
 tion of such in the discipline — they were not members 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church — they and their Con- 
 ferences were a secession from the Methodist Church. 
 It was replied that, in the Church, South, " there was 
 no deviation in morals or doctrines, in rites, ceremonies, 
 or usages — that there is no sort of pretence of any de- 
 viation in doctrine, nor anything in morals, in practice, 
 or in Methodist usages, or that we a^re heterodox in the 
 shade of a hair." In everything we are alike; and, 
 therefore, if the fund were divided with the Southern 
 Church, it would not promote doctrines contrary to 
 those cherished by the creators of this charity. AVe 
 have done nothing for which we should be stigmatized 
 as a secession; we have only asked for a duality of 
 jurisdictions, instead of an unity of jurisdiction of the 
 General Conference; and we had weighty reasons for 
 making this demand. 
 
 The preachers representing the Annual Conferences, 
 and the people in the Northern section of the Church, 
 declared it was the sentiment of the Northern people, 
 that it would operate greatly to the prejudice of Me- 
 thodism in that section, if a bishop connected with 
 slavery were permitted to exercise Episcopal functions 
 among them — and accordingly suspended a blameless 
 bishop. Thereupon, the Southern preachers represent- 
 ing the Annual Conferences, and the people in the South- 
 ern section of the work, knowing the strong indignation 
 which would inevitably be excited by an attempt to de-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 243 
 
 grade a holy man from the office of bishop, on account 
 of his connection with slavery, asked that provision 
 should be made for a separation, contingent upon the 
 demand of the people of their section for such division. 
 The preachers representing the Church, North, wisely 
 conceded that contingent demand, and took all the pre- 
 liminary steps necessary to consummate the separation; 
 provided that the facts which were to be developed, 
 proved that the Southern preachers had rightly inter- 
 preted public sentiment. They separated — the South- 
 ern preachers returned to their homes. Primary assem- 
 blies were called — as Mr. Fancher, counsel for the North, 
 said: "The most excited meetings soon occurred in all 
 parts of the South, and the most indignant resolutions 
 werG passed." AVith one consent, they demanded an im- 
 mediate separation from the Church, North. The con- 
 tingency provided for by the General Conference was 
 become a certainty. And to complete all the steps ne- 
 cessary to perfectly exonerate us from the charge of se- 
 cession, the entire body of Annual Conferences took ac- 
 tion directly upon the moneyed interests involved in the 
 division, and thus indirectly upoR the question of the 
 division itself; and a majority of them voted that the 
 Church, South, should have her just proportion of the 
 funds of the Church. 
 
 Here, then, we have the General Conference consent- 
 ing to the division, if the sentiment of the people de- 
 manded it — the majority of the Annual Conferences of 
 the United States also consenting to it— the laity of the 
 entire South demanding it — and the laity of the Church, 
 North, the only remaining party in the case, being sa- 
 tisfied that their abolition sentiments had accomplished
 
 244 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 the suspension of Bishop Andrew, and the separation 
 not affecting their Church relations at all, did not, in 
 their primai'y assemblies, raise any voice againat this 
 division, which they could have done had they seen pro- 
 per; and therefore it is only justice to say, that they 
 also tacitly consented to this division. Thus we see the 
 majority, in all the departments of the Church, consent- 
 ing to a duality of jurisdictions; and though there was 
 not two-thirds majority of Conferences, wrongly suppos- 
 ed necessary to a division of the funds of the Church, 
 yet there was a majority in favor of separate jurisdic- 
 tions, and being one in all things else, we are not, there- 
 fore, a schism or secession, and so were righteously ad. 
 judged by the Court. 
 
 That these were the true principles upon which the 
 rights of the South rested, aud upon which the Court de- 
 cided in favor of the South, though not presented in this 
 form, is evident from the fact, that in all the pleadings 
 of the counsel, there is a constant reference, not only to 
 the action of the General Conference, but also to the ac- 
 tion of the majority of the Annual Conferences, in favor 
 of the plan of separa^on, and to the almost universal 
 demand of the laity of the Southern Church for that se- 
 paration. Some, however, of the counsel, and only some 
 of them, in their zeal to repel the charge of schism from 
 the Church, South, thought proper, contrary to the opinion 
 of other counsel to take the position, that the General 
 Conference had almost enough power to divide the 
 Church independently of the action of other departments 
 of the Church. Nevertheless, fearful of the weakness of 
 this position, they took good care to show that the en- 
 tire laity of the South demanded the separation, and that 
 a majority of the Annual Conferences sanctioned it.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 245 
 
 Now, the idea that the provision of the General Con- 
 ference for a division of the Church, would have been 
 binding upon the Annual Conferences and the laitj', if 
 public sentiment among- them had not demanded it, is 
 plainly absurd; for, upon the very face of the articles 
 of separation, as well as in the debates of that Confer- 
 ence, and in the protest of the South, the fact stands out 
 pi'ominently to view, that the plan of separation was to 
 be executed only upon a given contingency; that is, the 
 laity and ministry of the Southern Church should de- 
 mand it. If this contingency did not become a fact, the 
 plan of separation was to be void and of no effect. 
 Moreover, the action thought necessary to consummate 
 the division, was to be laid before all the Annual Confer- 
 ences for their assent; and, as Mr. Fancher says: " The 
 Southern preachers were to feel the 2>ulse of j^ublic sentiment,^' 
 and act accordingly. Therefore, the assumption that the 
 General Conference claimed and possessed the power to 
 divide the Church, independently of the Annual Confer- 
 ences and of the laity, was wholly gratuitous, and con- 
 trary to the facts in the case, and unnocessar-y for the 
 support of the just claims of the South. 
 
 If the Annual Conferences had vetoed the action of the 
 General Conference, it would have been a nullity; and 
 if the laity, in their primary assemblies, had protested 
 against it, tliat protest would have been of as much 
 force, as it was in the case of a distinguished preacher 
 of tlie Georgia Conference, who opposed the plan of 
 separation, and was required to vacate his charge of 
 the Columbus station; it would have made the plan null 
 and void.
 
 ^4Q A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Nevertheless, I have already admitted that in so far 
 as the control of the Book Concern Fund, which was the 
 property in suit, was concerned, the preachers who cre- 
 ated it had the sole control of it. They were, with 
 respect to it, aiid to it only, the Church, in a govern- 
 mental sense, ai^ hgd np constituency in this matter; 
 and in the maria^etnent of this fund, tli&laity-4iad no 
 voice. But, as the same 4awygrsays, (p. 330,) and as 
 our discipline teaches, " The Church, in a Methodistic 
 sense, is the connexion of good and pious men, who 
 make the Bible their creed, and hold fasl to that only 
 which is there expressly disclosed, or may be thereby, 
 by clear reasoning, established." This is what your 
 own witness declares to be the Methodistic sense of the 
 term Church: the very sense of the term Church I am 
 explaining in my analysis of Methodism. And I am 
 sure, very sure, that I much prefer the Methodistic idea 
 of a Church, to a legal fiction wholly groundless, in fact, 
 and in theory. And in the Methodistic sense, I know, 
 no lawyer, nor any other reader of our discipline, could 
 afiSrm that our itinerant preachers had no constituency, 
 in the verj- face of the fact so plainly stated in our dis- 
 cipline, that none can be licensed to preach among us 
 without the vote of the laity; and none can be received 
 into the itinerancy without a vote of the laity, recom- 
 mending the candidate to be received; so that every 
 itinerant has been constituted such by two distinct acts 
 of the laity. The affirmation that the itinerant preach- 
 ers had no constituency, must therefore, have been made 
 in some other than a Methodistic sense; and if made in 
 any other than a Methodistic sense, it has nothing to
 
 METHODIST EPISCOrACY. 247 
 
 do with, and should have no place in, a just exposition 
 of Methodism. 
 
 But Mr. Lord said, " If the General Conference had 
 chosen to become Socinian, if it had chosen to have 
 adopted the Presbyterian or Baptist forms, either of 
 government or of doctrine, it was in its power to do it." 
 Most assuredly they could, as individuals controlling 
 their own action; any member or members of them, in 
 our free country, could have adopted any of the systems 
 specified; nay, more, he might with equal justice have 
 said, they could have bp.come Mohammedans, or Budhists; 
 and so could any member or members of yonr associations, or 
 conventions, or of Presbyterian Synods, or assemblits. The 
 members of our General Conference could have done 
 this, contrary to that restrictive article, which j'ou for- 
 got to mention, and which forbids the altering of our 
 doctrines to the shade of a liair. Still, there is another 
 could and another would too, behind all tliis matter — that 
 is, the Annual Conferences cx)uld have taken every one 
 of these delegates on their return home, and have tried 
 and expelled them, and they xvould most certainly have 
 done it too. If Mr. Lord meant that the members of the 
 General Conference could have changed so mucli as a 
 hair's breadth our articles of faith, even if there had 
 been no restrictive article forbidding it, aud then 
 escaped ecclesiastical penalties, he was most egregi- 
 ously mistaken. 
 
 A little knowledge of the history of Methodism, would 
 convince you, that no General Conference, either in the 
 United States, or in England, has ever established or 
 changed our doctrines by vote. We have always acted 
 on the principle that, wc should not add new doctrines
 
 248 A DISCUSSION ON ■ ^ 
 
 to, nor expunge old doctrines from, the Gospel of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. We have thought there was some- 
 thing of temerity in the idea of voting, for instance, 
 whether Christ were divine or not — whether he were 
 the King of kings, and Lord of lords, or a mere worm 
 of dust. We cannot with so facile a movement, bestow 
 infinite crowns upon Christ, nor tear them from his brow, 
 and, therefore, do not consent that such doctrines shall 
 be subject to majorities. We propound such truths as 
 heaven's legislation, and whoever joins our Church, 
 thereby declares his faith in them, not as man-made, 
 but as heaven-revealed truths. 
 
 The excellent Mr. Benson says, " Well was it for both 
 preachers and people, that all their doctrines, and the 
 essential parts of their discipline, which, taken together, 
 may be termed the constitution of the Methodists, were 
 decided upon and recorded before the existence of a Con- 
 ference. No member of the Methodist Conference, how- 
 ever respectable for parts or piety, would be suffered in 
 that assembly to make the truth of any doctrine of Me- 
 thodism or essential part of its discipline, a subject of 
 debate, (Mem. p. 121). And for this sulficient reason, 
 that God has not imposed upon us the duty of amend- 
 ing his own legislation." 
 
 The notion that the General Conference had no limit 
 to its power but the six restrictive rules, had been 
 solemnly protested against by the Louisville Conven- 
 tion, which organized upon the demand of the laity, the 
 Church, South, in the following language: a protest 
 drawn forth by the doctrine that a General Conference 
 had no restriction upon its power to depose a blameless 
 bishop. " Very few, indeed, of the more fundamental
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 249 
 
 and distinguishing elements of Methodism, deeply and 
 imperishably imbedded in the affection and veneration 
 of the Church, and vital to its very existence, are even 
 alluded to in the restrictive articles. This theory as- 
 sumes the self-refuted absurdity, that the General Con- 
 ference is in fact the*government of the Church, if not 
 the Church itself. With no other constitution than these 
 mere restrictions upon the powers of the General Con- 
 ference, the government and discipline of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, as a system of organizing laws and 
 well-adjusted instrumentalities for the spread of the 
 gospel, and the diffusion of piety, and whose living 
 principles of energy have so , long commanded the ad- 
 miration of the woi'ld, would soon cease even to exist." 
 (Prop. Case, p. 131). "Such wild and revolutionary 
 assumptions* so unlike the faith and discipline of Me- 
 thodism, as we have been taught them, we are com- 
 pelled to regard as fraught with ruin and mischief to 
 the best interests of the Church," (p. 132.) 
 
 The Hon.'Rufus Choate, of Boston, the most eminent 
 lawyer employed in the case, states correctly the rela- 
 tive powers of the several departments of the Church. 
 He. says of what he styles "that old, grand, well com- 
 pacted, and once beautiful community — the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church: for the administration of local busi- 
 ness it has local judicatories: for the conduct of its ge- 
 neral affairs procee/ling upon the plan of our grand secular 
 union, it has a general body."-^(p. 264.) So Mr. Choate, 
 it seems, tliouglit there was a striking analogy between 
 our Church and the Federal Government; and like sen- 
 timents were entertained by John C. Calhoun and Daniel 
 Webster. Of the organization of American Methodism,
 
 250 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Mr. Choate justly says: "The true sovereign, then, I 
 submit, the true sovereign, by which alone it can be de- 
 stroyed, may be s.aid to be the preachers in a mass, act- 
 ing in obedience to the wishes of the people, in strong 
 
 "and general demand of the laity for a separate organi- 
 zation, through the advice of Mr. Wesley, and upon their 
 own judgment of expediency and duty, and convened 
 for the express purpose of doing that work. SO THAT 
 IT WAS IN A REMARKABLE DEGREE ANALO- 
 GOUS TO THE CONVENTION WHICH CREATED 
 THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN 1787. The 
 true creator of the Church was the general and col- 
 lective will of American Methodism, acting through the 
 laity, and through the preachers. It was a great eccle- 
 siastical Convention of the Methodists of America." — 
 (p. 268.) "After this Church was created, it had, and 
 it necessarily must have had, administrative bodies 
 through which, in various spheres, to carry on its daily 
 business. Such are the officers of the Church, such are 
 the Annual Conferences, such are the Quarterly Confer- 
 ences, and such is, or such, at least, was, in 1792, the 
 General Conference. These, all of them, are subordinate 
 executive agencies of the principal, the constituent — the 
 ChurchP 
 
 That Mr. Choate was correct in his view of the part 
 performed by the laity, in the organization of Methodism, 
 is proved beyond all question, by Mr. Wesley's letter, 
 recommending the organization of the American Church, 
 and by his letters of ordination delivered to Dr. Coke. 
 He "says: " «Some thousands of the inhabitants of these 
 [United] States desire mi/ advice." And hence he gave 
 
 _ them his views of a scriptural Church. Again: In the
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. * 251 
 
 ordination letter, be says: "Many of the j)^oiih in the 
 Southern provinces of i^orth America desire to continue un- 
 der my careP &c. — (Bang's Church Hist., p. 154.) Now, 
 you will observe that, at that time, .there were less than 
 fifteen thousand members, iucludicg- blacks, and only 
 eig'hty-three preachers ; therefore, if any man can im- 
 peach the veracity of Mr. Wesley, and magnify eighty- 
 three preachers into some thousands of the inhahitants of 
 these States, he may then, and not until then, truthfully 
 deny that the laity had anything to do with the organi- 
 zation of American Methodism. 
 
 Mr. Choate's only error in imagining that we had not 
 legally withdrawn from the Church, North, was, that he 
 thought a majority of Annual Conferences less than two- 
 thirds, insufficient, and this, with informalities in the 
 action of the laity, prevented a legal division of the 
 Church; therefore we could not, under law, recover our 
 just rights. But the plain principles of justice under- 
 lying the case — the fact that the two Churches were 
 identical in doctrines and usages — that the leading de- 
 partment of our Church liad consented to the division — 
 that Southern preachers were, equallj" with Northern 
 preachers, creators of this fund — and its proceeds, if di- 
 vided with the South, would be distributed among simi- 
 lar beneficiaries, determined the Court, notwithstanding 
 any apparent informalities in the action of the Annual 
 Conferences and of the laity, to order the South a just 
 proportion of tliis property. 
 
 Hence the Book Concern Property Case, proves that 
 concern to be a valuable atuxiliary of the gospel, and a 
 holy charity. And the principles involved in its adjudi- 
 cation demonstrate," that in all grand as well as minor
 
 252 ' A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 movements in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the laity 
 exercise an all-controlling influence; and that the go- 
 vernment of Methodism, in all respects in which the 
 Bible gives scope for human legislation, is modelled, as 
 Mr. Choate says, after our secular union. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 I will briefly dispose of your miscellaneous matter. I 
 think with your judicious correspondent from Mississippi, 
 that it is not just to charge the conduct of Muncer — 
 ^Hhat most eminent Baptist," and of his licentious and tyr- 
 anical band, upon modern Baptists; albeit, his celebrat- 
 ed Drau, Dran, Dran proclamation, shows upon the very 
 face of it, that it was a religious persecution. He says: 
 " The ungodly will weep like children, but be you piti- 
 less," &c. I quoted it to show that it was equally illo- 
 gical and unjust to charge Weslej^'s love of the British 
 Monarchy upon American Methodism. 
 
 With regard to creeds; so long as there is a copy ex- 
 tant of the "Confession of Faith, and Baptist Discipline," 
 from which I quoted so often in this discussion, and so 
 long as you' require the subscription of ministers to your 
 wi'itten Articles of Faith, as you have done even here, 
 in Tuskegee, I feel it would be injustice to you to class 
 you with the Campbellites, who object to creeds. 
 
 Concerning open communion, I repeat, I concur with 
 your great lights, John Buny.an, Baptist Noel, and Eo- 
 bert Hall, and with the last named, in both his premises 
 and conclusions. 
 
 In answer to the question, whether I would admit any 
 one to communion who had been expelled from the Me-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 253 
 
 tliodlst Churcb, and had joined another Church, I re- 
 mark — if not expelled for immoral conduct, I would. 
 
 I have been called repeatedly, in this discussion, to 
 correct your errors ; you may call them errors of fact, 
 or errors of opinion, just which you please. I must 
 again correct a very serious error, involving the rights 
 of membership. You now admit that a bishop cannot 
 reinstate an expelled member, but you say the Quarter- 
 ly, Annual, and General Conferences can, and the prin- 
 ciple is the same; you are altogether mistaken. All the 
 Annual and General Conferences in America cannot re- 
 instate a lay member, or have anj^thing whatever to do 
 with his trial. A member, if he himself choose, can take 
 his case up by appeal to the Quarterly Conference, and, in 
 Tuskegee, this Conference has not a single preacher out 
 of some fourteen members, except myself The presid- 
 ing elder has not even the casting vote in it. Nor has 
 the preacher in charge so much as a casting vote in the 
 trial of a member before the Church. In this particular 
 you have more power over your members than I have 
 in my charge. 
 
 You have frequently asked for the logic of my ezpos^tre 
 of the disorders of the Baptist Church, in its bearing up- 
 on the point under discussion. I have answered, it was 
 the argumeniuvi ad homimm — the point was, if j'our sys- 
 tem be Republican, much more is ours. It was to de- 
 monstrate the superiority of what the Hon. Rufus 
 Choate calls that grand, beautiful, well compacted or- 
 ganization — the Methodist Church government, over the 
 system of sad anarchy and confusion, called Baptist 
 Church government. It would have been more agreeable 
 to you, no doubt, if I had stood on the defensive only, and 
 22
 
 254 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 not instituted a comparison between the two systems; 
 but tastes will differ. If I have failed to pay my res- 
 pects to every solitary argument you have advanced, I 
 am not aware of it. 
 
 " THE CONTRAST." 
 
 I now examine, as a finale, the " Contrast" you ima- 
 gine yourself to have discovered between Methodism 
 and Republicanism; an examination not very necessary 
 after the foregoing review of the principles involved in 
 the Church suit, and an exposure of the fallacies of the 
 legal fictions, which were the chief support of the "Con- 
 trast." I pursue the work, however, intending that that 
 contrast shall be numbered with the things which are 
 "twice dead, plucked up by the roots." 
 
 I premise that the Bible contains all the doctrines 
 and the essential principles of discipline, which govern 
 gospel Churches; and the only scope given to Church 
 legislation is in the minor matters necessary to carry 
 into detail these principles of divine legislation. In 
 your "contrast," you seem to have obliterated the dis- 
 tinction between what is the allotted scope for Church 
 government and the province of divine legislation. In 
 the last-named respect, there is, or should be, a " con- 
 trast" between the Church government of gospel 
 Churches, and the best form of civil government; but 
 in the former respect, that is, within the lawful sphere 
 of Church legislation, it is proper there should be, and 
 in the Methodist Church there certainly is, a most strik- 
 ing analogy between her Church government and Re-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 255 
 
 publicanism. But to particularize, taking up your points 
 seriatim. 
 
 In the first place, you say, " The Constitution of the 
 United States was formed by representatives chosen by 
 the people — the Book of Discipline by sixty clergymen 
 — there was not a single layman's representative in it." 
 Ans. Mr. Choate says: "The Conference which created 
 the organization of Methodism was in a remarkable de- 
 gree analagous to the Convention which formed the Fe- 
 deral Constitution in 1187." They were every one of 
 them elected to the ministry by the votes of the people; 
 they acted in obedience to their strong and general de- 
 mand, and so Avere representatives of the people on the 
 one hand, and, having been called by the Spirit of Christ 
 to the ministry, were representatives of Christ on the 
 other part. Their doctrines and essential points of dis- 
 cipline were already formed to their hand by divine le- 
 gislation, and had been voluntarily subscribed to by the 
 people, and their duty was only to frame minor details 
 in order to obedience to Christ's legislation, and these 
 affected chiefly the ministry themselves. 
 
 Secondly: "The Constitution of the United States, 
 when drafted, was submitted back again to the people; 
 the constitution of Methodism was adopted and forced 
 upon their membership, and no layman asked to cast his 
 suffrages by way of adopting it." Ans. The doctrines, 
 and essential parts of Methodism, being Christ's legisla- 
 tion, and having been voluntarily reicognized as such by 
 every member, by the .act of joining our Church; tlie 
 less important details, bearing chiefly upon the itiner- 
 ancy, which were left for regulation by a Conference 
 composed of ministers elected to the ministry by the
 
 256 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 people, like the less important laws passed by Congress 
 for carrying out the principles of the Federal Constitu- 
 tion, were not submitted back to the people, upon whom, 
 indeed, they had very little if any bearing. 
 
 Thirdl}^: " Amendments to the Constitution are sub- 
 mitted to their respective constituencies; amendments to 
 the Discipline are foisted upon the Churches by the mere 
 prerogative of the General Conference." Ans. Amend- 
 ments are essential changes in the Constitution, to be 
 amended, and therein differ from ordinary legislation; 
 but the essentials of the Methodist Discipline are not, 
 and never have been subject to amendment, either by 
 the laity, or any Conference whatever, because we can- 
 not improve Christ's legislation. Nevertheless, the 
 question of a duality of General . Conference jurisdic- 
 tions, leaving intact all other departments of the Church, 
 all offices, rules, and usages, and therefore being no es- 
 sential change of discipline, was, notwithstanding, sub- 
 mitted back to the people, and decided according to 
 their demands. 
 
 Fourthly: "The President of the United States, and 
 the highest officers recognized by the General Govern- 
 ment, are chosen by the people every two, three, or four 
 years; the bishops of the Methodist Church are chosen 
 for life by the General Conference, and are responsible 
 only to their own consciences." Ans. The duration of 
 their term of office is like the term of office of the Su- 
 preme Judges of the United States, and of the highest 
 executive officers of the army and navy of our country; 
 the appointment of bishops is similar to the appoint- 
 ment of these Judges and high executive officers not di- 
 rectly from the people, and, like them, they are subject
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY 25t 
 
 to impeachment by tlie Senate of the Methodist Church 
 — the General Conference. They have also been called 
 into the ministry for life by the Spirit of Christ; an ad- 
 vantage which cannot be claimed by the civil officers, 
 whose term of office is of equal duration. 
 
 Fifthly: "The Congress of the United States is com- 
 posed of delegates elected by the suffrages of the seve- 
 ral States, or by the people of the several States ; the 
 Annual and General Conferences of the Methodist 
 Church, ex officio, of the bishops and travelling clergy; 
 no layman of the Methodist Church ever cast a single 
 ballot for a representative to either i£ State or General 
 Conference." Ans. The Senate of the Methodist Church 
 — the General Conference — like the Senate of the United 
 States, is composed of delegates elected by the suffrages 
 of the State or Annual Conferences; and. every single 
 member of our State or Annual Confei'ences was consti- 
 tuted such by two distinct votes of the people. More- 
 over, the action of our Annual and General Conferences, 
 unlike laws passed in Congress for the people, is almost 
 wholly restricted to the control of the ministers, who 
 compose these bodies; and wherein it is not thus re- 
 stricted, the laity in their several Churches, or in the 
 side-societies of our Church, have co-ordinate or equal 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Sixthly. " The basis of representation in our civil in- 
 stitutions is the population of the States, except in the 
 Senate, but in Methodism, the basis of representation 
 is the travelling clergy." Ans. Well, it is sufficient for 
 us if we imitate the exception named, in the wisest em- 
 bodiment of Republicanism in the land — the Senate 
 chamber. Still, we have a more equable basis than
 
 258 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 that; our representation depends upon the number of 
 the itinerants, and, therefore, the number of the repre- 
 sentatives of our people ; and much more have we an. 
 equable basis of representation than your last so called 
 Southern Convention, in which, though fourteen States 
 should have been similarly represented, there were out 
 of two hundred and eight delegates, ninety-four from 
 Alabama, and none at all from three Southern States. 
 
 Your Seventhly, is but a repetition of your fifthly, 
 and is answered above. 
 
 Eighthly. " Our civil constitutions recognize checks 
 and balances, tribunals to correct errors, &c. ; but in 
 Methodism, the will of the preacher or bishop is omni- 
 potent in the premises." Ans. Bishop Hamline taught 
 that the will of a General Conference was omnipotent 
 to remove even a blameless bishop; and a fortiori a 
 bishop charged with imprudencies. If this is not a 
 check, what is it? This system of removals, as Bishop 
 Ilamline said, /or unacceplability to tlie people, is like the 
 President's removals of custom house officers, judges 
 of territories, &c.; only that civil removals extinguish 
 official powers, whereas Church removals only change 
 the sphere of action; therefore, the power of removal 
 with us in Church matters, is less than that possessed 
 by the President in civil affairs. 
 
 Ninthly. " In the general government, the people 
 choose directly or indirectly every officer; in Metliodism, 
 the travelling ministry appoint every officer," &c. Ans. 
 I admire your caution in including the indirect choice of 
 every officer; for sometimes that choice is removed several 
 links from the people, as in the case of these high 
 officers, — Federal judges, and numerous executive offi-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 259 
 
 cers of the government. In Methodism, there is an 
 equal, if not greater directness from the people; all the 
 itinerants are called directly by vote of the people, and 
 by the Spirit of Christ, in which last respect, they have 
 a claim to their office unknown to civil officers; and 
 having through faithfulness, "purchased to themselves 
 a good degree," their brethren acknowledge it by simply 
 appointing them as first among equals, which action by 
 our Church Senate rests upon better reasons than civil 
 official appointments not received directly from the 
 people. 
 
 Tenthly. " The right of petition is acknowledged by 
 the general government, but the bishops of the Method- 
 ist Church say 'pardon us if we know of no such 
 rights.' " Ans. The General Conference has never in a 
 single instance denied the right of petition, or of memo- 
 rializing them -upon any subject. The right we deny is 
 the right of a laj'man to order a hundred ministers, 
 more or less, to the four winds, leaving' them to decamp 
 at his dictum, Avliile he returned with quiet dignity to 
 his home. It is like the refusal of Congress to pass 
 laws at the instance of abolition petitions, which would 
 control political and social interests in no wise aflecting 
 them; and, fortunately for us, the acts of Congress have 
 very distinctly replied to such busy bodies in other 
 men's matters. — " We know no such rights, we compre- 
 hend no such privileges." 
 
 Your Eleveuthiy is contained in your fifthly, and an- 
 swered above. 
 
 Twelfth. "Congress is a body of limited powers; but 
 the General Conference is a body unlimited in its au-
 
 260 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 thority to create, and equally unlimited in the authority 
 to destroy; it was in its power to become Socinian," &c. 
 Ans. The six restrictive articles forbidding any change 
 in doctrines and rules, &c. ; the protest of the Louisville 
 Convention against this doctrine; the analysis of our 
 Church government by Mr. Choate; the protest of lead- 
 ing men in the Church, North, and the entire history of 
 Methodism, proves this legal fiction not only to be un- 
 founded, but to be utterly absurd. 
 
 Thirteenth. " The Constitution of the United States 
 alleges that we, the people of the United States, do or- 
 dain and establish this Constitution; the discipline 
 affirms that Mr. Wesley preferred the Episcopal mode 
 of Church government. One man, John Wesley, author- 
 ized the establishment of the Methodist Church." Ans. 
 John Wesley himself, says in his letters recommending 
 an organization, and' letters of ordination to Dr. Coke: 
 Some thousands of the inhaUtants of these States desire my 
 advice, and in com'pUance with their desire, I have drawn up 
 a little sketch. The Conference which organized thje Am- 
 erican Methodist Church, says Mr. Choate, was analogoios 
 in a reimrkahle degree to tJie Convention which formed the 
 Federal Constitution in 1187. 
 
 Fourteenth. "In the government of the United States, 
 legislative, executive, and judicial powers are placed in 
 the hands of three distinct classes of officers; in the 
 Methodist Church, these powers are all in the same 
 hands." Ans. Our bishops have no legislative powers 
 at all ; our Annual and General Conferences have no 
 executive powers at all in any one of our thousands of 
 Churches; and our preachers in charge have only judi-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 261 
 
 cial powers in our Churches, besides other restrictions, 
 too tedious to specify, and withal, the essential parts of 
 our discipline are of Christ alone. 
 
 Your fifteenth is included in your fifth and tenth, and 
 the answer to them is my reply. 
 
 Sixteenth: " Our civil constitutions recognize the prin- 
 ciple, that all power is inherent in the people; in the 
 Methodist Church, all power is inherent in the clergy." 
 Ans. The clergy have no power, so much as to vote in 
 the expulsion of a member; they have no power, so 
 much as to vote upon our doctrines and the essential 
 parts of our discipline. The acknowledgement of the 
 principle that all power is inherent in the people, in 
 spiritual matters, would be an attempt to dethrone 
 Christ as King in Zion. 
 
 Seventeenth: "In our civil government, the property 
 is held by the people; in the Methodist Church it is held 
 and disposed of by the clergy." Ans. The Book Con- 
 cern property is held by the clergy in trust for specified 
 holy uses, and rightfully, for that fund was mainly of 
 their own creation; but in all church-buildings, colleges, 
 &c., they have no property at all, not even to the value 
 of a single cent; they have never claimed any right 
 beyond the privilege of appointing preachers to the 
 Churches. 
 
 Thus endeth the review of " The Contrast," establish- 
 ing the fact, that where there should be a contrast be- 
 tween God's Church and a civil government, that con- 
 trast exists; but within the limited scope given for 
 Church legislation, the analogy between the Methodist 
 Church government, and the government of the United 
 States, is striking. For the contrast between the dis-
 
 262 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 jointed scheme, yclept the Baptist Church government, 
 and our Federal Government, see my former communi- 
 cations. For brevity, I have compared our government 
 with the Federal, and not State governments. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 In conclusion, I congratulate all concerned, upon the 
 pleasant character of the discussion now closing. I 
 thank you for the courtesies you have extended to me, 
 and do cordially reciprocate your kind regards. I feli- 
 citate myself upon the prospect of the publication of this 
 discussion in a permanent form. I believe that it will 
 not only not diminish, but rather increase that holy 
 charity, but too imperfectly cherished by the two 
 Churches to each other; that it will be productive 
 of good to both Churches, and a noble example of the 
 truth, that controversy can be carried on with kindness, 
 and in a spirit of Christian forbearance. 
 
 With this spirit of holy charity resting upon our 
 Churches, they will do good work in the cause of the 
 great Head of the Church, whatever be the merits or 
 defects of their systems of government. But without 
 this spirit, though our preachers " spoke with the 
 tongues of men, and of angels, and understood all 
 mysteries, and all knowledge; though our members 
 gave all their goods to feed the poor, and their bodies 
 to be burned," it would profit them nothing. 
 
 I am satisfied with the discussion, and wish it to go 
 to the world upon its own merits. In view of the cheap- 
 ness of the publication, and its consequent wider circu-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 263 
 
 lation; and that the circulation may be equally wide in 
 both Churches, accompanied as it then will be by the 
 endorsement of both Methodists and Baptists, I hope 
 you will in the magnanimity which you have hitherto 
 shown me, and injustice to me, publish the "Addenda" 
 recommended by the Tuskegee Association, in a separ- 
 ate volume. I propose, therefore, in order to secure 
 these ends, that yourself, and a committee of three from 
 your Church, meet myself and those members of the Me- 
 thodist Church who endorsed my first article, to confer 
 upon and arrange all preliminaries necessary to give 
 weight to the publication of this discussion. 
 With sentiments of Christian love, 
 
 I am your brother in Christ, 
 
 E. J. HAMILL. 
 
 November 8tb, 1855.
 
 264 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 REPLY TO LETTER YI. 
 
 METHODIST CHURCH PROPERTY CASE AGAIN. 
 
 Error must be removed before Truth can be established; No foun- 
 dation for Episcopacy in the Scriptures, according to its most 
 able defenders; Time, place, and circumstances supply its only 
 defence; Manifest perversion and misconstruction of arguments; 
 The objects for which the Booli Fund was raised, not the subject of 
 debate; Changing the issue; Another specimen of Methodist logic; 
 The " holy charity" not too holy for lay-management; A plain 
 statement of the case; The question at issue between the parties; 
 Decision of the court; Mr. Choate's " view of Methodism " an- 
 swered by Mr. Johnson, declared sophistical by the court, and 
 overruled; Difference between a General Conference, possessing 
 sovereign power, and the Congress of the United States, possess- 
 ing limited powers; Mr. "Wesley's letter granting the request of 
 his American children; Application of the principles involved in 
 the law suit to the entire system of Methodism; An inventory of 
 facts; Are legal gentlemen of the first distinction, and learned 
 judges, capable of understanding " the Book of Discipline" and 
 "the History of Methodism," when they are in evidence before 
 them? A trilemma; Some credit ie due the solemn decisions of 
 our National Courts. - 
 
 THE STAXDAUDS. 
 
 Another appeal to the standards, in search of the " democratic ele- 
 ment;" "Watson's Theological Institutes; Prof. C. F. Deems; Judge 
 Longstreet; Lorenzo Dow; Isaac Taylor; Rev. R. Abbey; Aris- 
 tocracy; An interesting experiment suggested; A transfer of
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 265 
 
 property implies propi'ietorship; Protests; Judicial exposition of 
 Methodism; An odium which is proof against all "protests;"' The 
 "could " and the " would " of the General Conference not subject 
 to the Churches; Not likely that the same men would act differ- 
 ently in a General and Annual Conference; Another extract from 
 the Opinion of the Court; Three remarkable conclusions; How a 
 cypher in' the premises becomes "an all-controlling"' numerical 
 number in the conclusion; An improvement on Bishop Taylor "s 
 discovery of Truth w-ithout evidence; How a system of govern- 
 ment which "has no constituents" is " modified after our grand 
 secular union;" Synopsis. 
 
 mSCELLANKOUS. 
 
 Mr. Wesley, and not " the will of the laity, acting through the min- 
 istry," the father of American Methodism; The Munster insurrec- 
 tionists sustain no such relation to the Baptists; The authority of 
 creeds; The Methodist Church more holy than the Lord's table; 
 The jurisdiction of Quarterly and Annual Conferences; The Book 
 of Discipline responsible for the error; The relative power of a 
 Methodist and Baptist pastor; "Anarchy and confusion, called 
 Baptist Church government;" " Tastes will difier;" An illustra- 
 tive anecdote. 
 
 THE CONTRAST. 
 
 A modest pledge; A wonderful draft upon popular credulity; The 
 voluntary adoption of a form of government does not make it 
 Republican; An essential change in the constitution of Method- 
 ism not submitted to the laity for confirmation; Judges and mili- 
 tary officers not law-making authorities; The constituents of a 
 General Conference and of the Congress of the Uiiiied States 
 contrasted; Senate of the United States; Baptist Conventions no< 
 legislative bodies, therefore, cannot infringe upon the rights of 
 the Cliurches; Seventh, eleventh, and fifteenth points not identical 
 with the fifth; Bishop Hamlinc stationed to guard the eighth 
 point; "Philadelphia Church Advocate;" Question for the Pro- 
 testant Methodists to answer; " Protests" vs. Facts; The"Stand- 
 23
 
 2GG A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ards;" Bishop Bascom detailed to guard the fourteenth point; 
 Clerical absolutism; Trustees of Church property; Something 
 about " killing and plucking up by the roots," what the fathers 
 of " our Episcopacy-' planted; The seventeen points sustained; Mr. 
 llamill the antagonist of the Circuit Court of the United States, 
 not ours; An important concession the basis of a strange conclu- 
 sion; Was apostolic Church government •' a disjointed system of 
 anarchy and confusion?" The Church government adopted by 
 Christ and his Apostles preferable to that despotic "scheme 
 yclept" Methodist Episcopacy, fastened upon Methodists by 
 Wesley and sixty travelling preachers, in 1784; Proposition in 
 regard to the joint publication of the discussion; Concession to 
 secure this; Reciprocal com-tesy; Conclusion. 
 
 " We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let ns be called by thy 
 name, to take away our reproach." — Isaiah, iv. 1. 
 
 " For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of ray people slightly, saying. Peace, 
 peace, when there is no peace."— Jer. vili, 11. 
 
 If men's judgments were not warped and distorted 
 by their prejudices and passions, truth would always 
 be a welcome guest. But ever since sin despoiled the 
 handiwork of God, this virgin form of heavenly mould 
 has been doomed to a perpetual war with the lower and 
 baser affections of the human soul. Like the fabled 
 Osiris, she has been hewn in pieces, and the fragments 
 have been scattered to the four winds of heaven, there- 
 by devolving upon her sad friends the task of hunting 
 up these fragments, and by a kind of moral synthesis, 
 restoring her again to her former loveliness and sym- 
 metry. This consummation may be long delayed. Many 
 fierce contests may yet lie between her votaries and the 
 promised victory. But He who has commissioned them 
 to execute this sacred trust will see to it, that their la- 
 bors shall not be intermitted, until every member of the 
 body of this martyred saint shall be restorQd, and " the
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 26t 
 
 Spirit of life from God shall enter into it; and it sLall 
 stand up, and great fear shall fall upon them who see 
 it." 
 
 Now, it must strike every sensible man with all the 
 force of an overwhelming conviction, that the exposing 
 and subversion of error is an essential condition preced- 
 ent to the establishment of truth. A large portion of the 
 labors of our Saviour was devoted to the refutation of the 
 prevailing errors of the age in which he lived upon earth 
 — called in Scripture "the traditions of the elders." He 
 employed no palliating terms by which to call' them. 
 With the integrity and sternness of Divinity itself, 
 he knew nothing of expedients and compromises. De- 
 nouncing these apologists of error as a " generation of 
 vipers" and " hypocrites," woe after woe falls from his 
 lips like so many claps of thunder. " In vain do ye 
 worship me," he says, " tmchmg for doctrines the command- 
 ments of men.^^ And is error less offensive to him now 
 than it was thenl Nay, verily. Whatever is taught 
 for doctrines which bears not the heavenly inscription, 
 should be denounced as " the commandments of men." 
 And he who compromises " one jot or tittle " of divine 
 truth to popular opinion, is unworthy of human or di- 
 dine trust. 
 
 That Episcopacy has no foundation in the Word of 
 God, is freely admitted by its best and most noble 
 friends. Dr. Bangs, quoted by the Rev. Mr. Stevens, a 
 Methodist clergyman, in his "Essay on Church Polity," 
 says: "No specific form of Church government is pre- 
 scribed in Scripture, and tlierefore it is left to the dis- 
 cretion of the Church to regulate these matters, as the 
 exigencies of the time, place, and circumstances shall
 
 2C8 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 dictate to be most expedient, and likely to accom- 
 plish the greatest amount of good; always avoiding 
 any and everything which God has prohibited." Bishop 
 Beveridge, says: "Nothing can be determined" from 
 what the Apostles did in their early proceedings, in 
 preaching the gospel, as to the establishment of any 
 certain form of Church government." Ut supra. To 
 these we may add the testimony of Mr. Wesley, in a 
 letter to Mr. Clark: " I think he (Bishop Stillingfleet,) 
 has unanswerably proved, that neither Christ nor his 
 Apostles prescribe any particular form of Church gov- 
 ernment, and that the plea of the divine right of Episcopacy 
 was never heard of in the primitive Churchr — Works, vol. 
 X. p. 231. So that the only defence. of which Episcopacy 
 admits at all, is that which "time, place, and circum- 
 stances" may suggest. Throwing ourselves even upon 
 this flimsy and miserable subterfuge — a subterfuge 
 which error is always proposing when grappling' with 
 truth, begging only to be recognized as an equal party 
 in the contest — we say, granting all this, we still fight 
 Episcopacy with the weapons which "time, place, and 
 circumstances" have thrown in our hands. As to the 
 "time," it is the middle of the nineteenth century, when 
 man is engaged in making the last great experiment as 
 to whether he is able to govern himself, or whether he 
 must still groan under a sclf-coustitiited despotism, re- 
 ligious or political, " which has no constituents." And 
 then, as to the "place," it is the free Commonwealth of 
 the United States, the favored spot of earth, the asylum 
 for the oppressed of all nations, where all men are re* 
 cognized as equal. If, then, the " place" is to have an 
 agency in modifying ecclesiastical polity, we claim that
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 269 
 
 Episcopacy shall surrender her mitre to that heavenly ap- 
 pointed constituency in the Churches of the saints, whose 
 nobility has been patented by the Triune God ; who are 
 his "kings as priests" — even as civil despots have been 
 made to surrender their crown to that power behind the 
 throne more potent than " cabals" and " star chambers." 
 And finally, as to the " circumstances" — these all point 
 unmistakeably to such a reformation in "our Episco- 
 pacy," as will compel her to "know the rights and compre- 
 hend the privileges" of a " cojistitttency." 
 
 ■ But our purpose is not to introduce a new train of ar- 
 gument in this discussion, for we have already conclud- 
 ed our part of the argument, but simply to respond to 
 Brother Hamill's last communication. And the reader 
 will doubtless agree with our first impression on receiv- 
 ing it from his hands. If it is only as logical as it is 
 lengthy, it is certainly a very stern document. But on 
 wading through it, we found it to be but a reiteration 
 of much of. his preceding articles, adapted only to our 
 two last articles. 
 
 In regard to the " CncRcn Propertt Case," there are 
 but two or three points in his article which merit our 
 attention. He has doubtless given a faithful account of 
 the origin and history of the " Book Concern." With 
 this, however, we have nothing to do. We have been 
 discussing a principle in Episcopal ]\rethodism which de- 
 termined the division of that fund between the North 
 and the South. And this is the first point to which the 
 reader's attention is invited. How Bro. Hamill could 
 have misconstrued the whole drift of our argument upon 
 that case, we are at a loss to determine. After stating
 
 270 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 the benevolent oljects of the "Book Concern," viz: to 
 circulate a religious literature, and support supernumer- 
 ary and superannuated preachers, and the widows and 
 orphans of deceased ministers, he asks: "Can any ra- 
 tional man pronounce such an institution, contemplating 
 such holy ends, anti-Republican?" We utterly deny 
 having pronounced any such thing. We never so 
 much as alluded to the oljects contemplated in the es- 
 tablishment of that " Concern." The objects it contem- 
 plates is one thing — the princij^iles on which it is admin- 
 istered is quite a different thing. Now, Brother Hamill 
 seeks to make us affirm that of the oljects of this fund, 
 which we affirmed of the p-inciples on which an equitable 
 division of it was made between the North and South, 
 by the judicial tribunals of the country. And that Bro. 
 Hamill had to resort to such a subterfuge as this, to 
 meet as plain an argument at least as we are capable of 
 writing, and pervert it to a purpose which never entered 
 our head, is proof demonstrative that he felt incompe- 
 tent to meet it fairly. There is a legal phrase, called 
 " changing the issue," which simply means, that when 
 one party feels unable to meet the main issue involved, 
 he substitutes another which he ccm meet, and pleads to 
 it, as if it were the main point — and this is always equi- 
 valent to giving up the case. We were discussing a 
 principle which determined an important law-suit be- 
 tweeen Northern and Southern Episcopacy. Brother 
 Hamill substitutes the oljects for which the money was 
 raised, involved in the contest, for the principle which 
 decided the law-suit, and makes us affirm that of these 
 oljects, which we only affirmed applied to i\\e principle in
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 211 
 
 " our Episcoijacy" wliich decided tlie suit! Nay, Le 
 riug's the changes upon it, as if he had. made a discov- 
 ery which was forever to vindicate the claims of Epis- 
 copal Methodism to as pure Republican Democracy as 
 ever placed a President in the White House I The ob- 
 jects of the Methodist Book Concern anti-Republican!! 
 Is that the subject we have been discussing-. Brother 
 Hamill? Something has been said in this discussion 
 about " twistifieation." 
 
 The logic of his argument iipon this part of the sub- 
 lect is this, (and the reader will see that it chimes in 
 very well with much that he has heretofore written): 
 The objects for which the book fund was raised, were 
 " pure and holy," nay, " the holiest and most benevolent 
 in the land:" ergo, Episcopal Methodism is decidedly 
 Republican! So much, then, for .this misconception and 
 perversion of our argument. « 
 
 Let it be observed, furthermore, that Brother Hamill 
 does not deny that the book fund is under the sole man- 
 agement of the ministry, (just what we affirmed,) nay, 
 that it ought to be under their management, because it 
 has mainly accumulated under their agency. Here our 
 brother has unconsciously announced a principle which 
 we could wish he had the candor to acknowledge as ap- 
 plicable to the whole system. Let ua explain. The 
 book fund has mainly accumulated under clerical agency, 
 therefore it ought to l>e under clerical management; so 
 affirms Brother Hamill. By parity of reasoning, meet- 
 ing-houses, parsonages, conference colleges, and aca- 
 demies, have been projected and built under clerical 
 agency, therefore they ought to be deeded to them, in
 
 212 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 their General Conference capacity! People have -been 
 added to the Church tinder clerical agency, therefore 
 they ought to be under their rule and management!! 
 What immaculate Republicanism! And then — where 
 did this book fund come from? Are the preachers so 
 well paid for their services, that they have been able to 
 accumulate a fund in the United States, of nearly a mil- 
 lion of dollars, out of their salaries? If so, they have 
 been better paid than we had anticipated. Or is it ow- 
 ing to their superior financial skill, in changing hun- 
 dreds into thousands, with Astorian rapidity? We could 
 scarcely expect this. We once heard of five Yankees 
 who shut themselves up in a room, and swapped cloth- 
 ing until they made five dollars a-piece; but we would 
 not suspect Methodist clergymen as possessing such 
 skill as this. But seriously, we suppose that fund was 
 raised like all other benevolent funds of the various 
 Churches, by a system of agencies, in which the minis- 
 try were mostly employed, in contributions from private 
 members, ministers, and everybody else who felt inclin- 
 ed to give to it. Granted, therefore, that it has been 
 raised mostly through the agency of ministers, and " for 
 the holiest and most benevolent of purposes in the land," 
 does that prove that laymen are too " common and un- 
 clean" to assist in managing this holy and benevolent 
 fund? Is there a peculiar sanctity imparted to it by its 
 having passed through clerical hands, that it must for- 
 ever be placed beyond the management and control of 
 those from whose pockets it was, at least in part, ob- 
 tained? Are they less capable of managing, and more 
 likely to pervert it from its " holy and benevolent de-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. '213 
 
 sign," than the clergy? Eeally, we think our brother 
 has paid rather an equivocal compliment, either to the 
 skill or the integrity of the laity of his Church. 
 
 Passing over some minor matters, which we can well 
 afford to do, we come to the second point in Bro. Hamill's 
 argument; and it is one of far greater importance than 
 the foregoing. It relates to the source whence he has 
 drawn his testimony in the Property Case. It is proper 
 that we again state this case to the reader, so that he 
 can appreciate the relative value of the testimony, as 
 introduced by Bro. Hamill and ourself. 
 
 In 1844, on the degradation of Bishop Andrew for being 
 a slave-holder, a series of resolutions were passed by the 
 General Conference, contemplating a contingent division 
 of Church property between the North and the South. 
 Commissioners were appointed to carry out the provi- 
 sions of these resolutions in case that contingency occur- 
 red — which was the organization of a Southern General 
 Conference, and the adoption of the resolutions by a ma- 
 jority of the Annual Conferences. These commissioners 
 were specifically instructed to negotiate an equitable 
 division of the assets of the Book Concern, with an equal 
 number of commissioners appointed on the part of the 
 South. Immediately after the Southern General Con- 
 ference was organized, tlie commissioners on the part 
 of the South, signified their readiness to discharge their 
 duty, but, from sundry causes, the Northern commis- 
 sioners refused to meet them. Whereupon suit was 
 brought by the Soutlicrn commissioners to recover their 
 proportion of said funds, according to the terms stipu- 
 lated in the resolutions of the General Conference. To
 
 2^4 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 prevent any sort of confusion, we will give a statement 
 of the sliit, as reported and published.by both divisions 
 of the Church: 
 
 " Circuit Court, United States, 
 
 For the Southern District ■ of New York. 
 
 The Honorable Judges Nelson and Betts, Presiding. 
 
 Henry B. Bascom, and others, \ 
 
 vs. C ^^ Equity, 
 
 George Lane, and others. ) 
 
 Counsel for Plaintiffs — Mr. D. Lord, Hon. Eeverdy 
 Johnson, and Mr. Johnson, Jr. 
 
 Counsel for Defendants — Hon. Rufus Choate, Mr. Geo. 
 Wood, and Mr. E. L. Fancher." 
 
 Now, the question at issue between the parties liti- 
 gant in this suit, was, as stated by Judge Nelson, " As 
 to the power of the General Conference to authorize a 
 separation of the Church organization," upon the settle- 
 ment of which question " depended the division of the 
 common property." — A^ipendix to Property Case, p. 10. 
 The counsel for the South maintained that the General 
 Conference had the power to authorize a separation 
 of the Church, and to divide its property. The counsel 
 for the North denied such power to the General Confer- 
 ence, The Court decided this point in favor of the plain- 
 tiffs, and they consequently gained the suit. For this reason 
 we made our quotations from the speeches of the coun-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 275 
 
 sel for the successful party. Mr. Jolinson and his col- 
 leagues maintained that the Conference of 1184, who 
 " organized the Church, established its doctrines and 
 discipline," &c. possessed no more nor less power than 
 the Conference of 1844, only as they restricted, them- 
 selves by " the six restrictive rules." Mr. Choate and 
 his colleagues maintained, on the contrary, that the Con- 
 ference of 1184 was sui generis — that when it organized 
 the Church, it disappeared, and has never convened 
 since. " When that Conference had done its work of 
 creating the Church," says Mr. Choate, " it retired, dis- 
 appeared, and has never again been assembled in the 
 history of Methodism." — Properly Case, p. 266. This 
 was the issue between them. The counsel for the plain- 
 tiffs alleged in proof of their position, that the General 
 Conference had, time and again, exercised all the powers 
 of sovereign t}'; that thoy had extended their jurisdic- 
 tion beyond the territorial limits of the United States, 
 into Canada and Texas; that they had authorized a se- 
 paration of the Canada Conference from the General 
 Conference, in 1828; that they had frequently changed 
 tlie Book of Discipline, &c. &c. And, we repeat it, the 
 South gained the suit — and gained it, too, upon that ex- 
 position of Methodist Church polity furnished by their 
 counsel. We shall still further prove before we close this 
 article, from the decision of the Court, that the doctrines 
 advanced by the Southern counsel, and which we extract- 
 ed into the article Brother Hamill reviews, were trium- 
 phantly sustained. 
 
 And while on this subject, we must correct anothci: 
 very sad blunder into which Brother llamill has fallen. 
 Quoting Mr. Choate as saying that the General Confer-
 
 276 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ence which organized the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 iu 1784, was ^' annlagous to the Convention that created the 
 Federal Constitution in 17 S7," he seems to think lie has 
 made the discovery, which at once and beyond all doubt, 
 assimi],ates Episcopacy to Eepublicanism. Here our 
 brother has evidently shouted before he got happ3^ We 
 are really sorry to deprive him of the last and only plank 
 upon which he has planted " our Episcopacy," particu- 
 larly as the seas are rough. But thankless as will be 
 the task, and painful as is the necessity, we are com- 
 pelled to do it. In what did the analogy between the 
 General Conference in 1784, and the Convention of the 
 States in 1787 consist? In the manner in which the 
 members of each were chosen — by the popular will? No 
 man will pretend this in the face of the fact, that not a 
 single Methodist Society in the Union ever elected a de- 
 legate to that Conference. Mr. Choate himself, though 
 interested to prove that it was called by the Societies, 
 could not do so even to his own satisfaction; for he says: 
 "It may be stated that the true creator of the Chui'ch 
 was the general and collective will of American Method- 
 ism acting through the laity and through the preachers. 
 Or it may be said that it was the collective will of Ame- 
 rican Methodism, expressing itself and acting through 
 an extraordinary Convention, called binder a letter of Mr. 
 Wesley, for that express purpose, which did its work, and 
 then disappeared." — (p. 268.) Observe, Mr. Choate 
 geeks to entrench himself upon both of these positions; 
 so that if the first failed {and it did fail,) he could retreat 
 upon the second. In what, then, did the analogy consist? 
 Why, clearly in this; that they were both extraordinary 
 Conventions, convened for extraordinary purposes, and
 
 METHODIST EPLSCOPACY. 27 T 
 
 which " did their work, and then disappeared." Aiid 
 yet Brother Hamill would impress the reader with the 
 idea that Mr. Choate recognized a beautiful analogy be- 
 'tween Episcopal Methodism, as organized, and our civil 
 government, as organized! when Mr. Choate only alleg- 
 ed the analogy between the Conference of 1*184, as or- 
 ganizing Methodism, and the Convention of 1181, as or- 
 ganizing our Federal Constitution, in the single point, 
 that they each did their work and ceased to exist. 
 Whether pur brother's blindness in this respect is moral 
 or natural, it becomes us not to say. 
 
 As Mr. Choate stated in his speech that " the preach- 
 ers acted in obedience to the wishes of the people," in 
 the Conference of 1784; that that bodj^ was "American 
 Methodism acting through ihe laity and through the min- 
 istry," and .as Brother Hamill seems to endorse that 
 sentiment, we will let Mi". Johnson, one of the counsel 
 for the South, answer both. He says: 
 
 " Where did the predecessors of the Northern preach- 
 ers, from whom all authority is derived, look for the 
 power to call the Conference of 1784, for the purpose 
 for which it was called? To John Wesley, as the per- 
 son in whom, at that time, was vested the entire and exclu- 
 sive sovereign power of the Church. It is unnecessary to 
 inquire whether by virtue of some inherent and inaiien- 
 able right, the power might not have been found in 
 these gentlemen, in 1784, irrespective of the will of 
 Wesley. It is sufficient for me to show, that in 1784, 
 they claimed, and claimed alone, the power they exerted 
 in tlic Conference of that year, under the authority of 
 Wesley, fl.s^ the author, sovereign, and founder of the Chtorch. 
 Who constituted the Conference of 1784? My learned 
 24
 
 278 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 brother who spoke first upon the other side, would have 
 had your Houors to believe, what of course he satisfied 
 himself was the fact, that that Conference was called 
 together not only by the preachers of the Church, but 
 by all the lay members.. There is not a word of trutJi in 
 the statement, altholigh, of course, the learned counsel be- 
 lieved it to be true. It was a general assembly of the 
 preachers connected with the Methodist denomination 
 of Christians, convoked only as preachers, Avithout re- 
 ference to any lay authority, express or implied. Not 
 being as familiar with the history of the Church as my 
 colleague, who was kind enough to undertake to lay 
 before the Court the evidence which is found spread up- 
 on the [records in the case, I inquired, as soon as the 
 statement was made, whether there was any foundation 
 for the assertion that the Conference of 1784, had any 
 other authority for its convocation than the authority of 
 Wesley, and the authority in themselves as preachers, 
 alone connected with the Methodist Association. I found 
 that there was not. If your Honors will tui'n to page 5 of 
 the Proofs No. 1, you will find, that immediately succeed- 
 ing the letter of Wesley, which authorized the separate 
 organization, it is stated: 'To carry into effect the pro- 
 posed organization,' (Wesley's proposed organization,) 
 ' a General Conference of preachers was called, to meet 
 at Baltimore, at Christmas, 1784. Sixty out of the 
 eighty-three preachers then in the travelling connexion, 
 attended at the appointed time. At this Conference, 
 say tlie Annuq^, Minutes of 1785, if was imanin^ously 
 agreed that circumstances made it expedient for us' (that 
 is, the preachers) 'to become a separate body,' &c. 
 They admit no constituency. The time is perhaps coming,
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 279 
 
 when, in all probability, (hey will he obliged to admit one. 
 for the good of the Church. They resolve for themselves, and 
 for themselves alone, as the possessors of all the ecclesiastical 
 power Jcnown to the Methodist Church, to carry out the par- 
 ticular organization authorized by John Wesley, without 
 reference to any other authority than this, and their own con- 
 victions that the g'ood of the Church demanded such a 
 special and particular organization." 
 
 As to the declaration of Mr. Choate, that " for the 
 conduct of its general affairs, it proceeds on the plan 
 of our grand secular union, having a general body," &c. ; 
 we submit, that if Mr. Choate had proven that to the sat- 
 isfaction of the court, he would have gained the case — 
 for this obvious reason: If the General Conference had 
 no more authority as an ecclesiastical body, than the 
 Congress of the United States has as a civil body, then 
 it had no right to authorize a separation of the Church, 
 any more than Congress has a right to destroy this 
 confederacy. The Congress of the United States is 
 governed by a written constitution, adojjied by a poiver 
 superior to themselves, and they dare not violate it. The 
 "General Conference is governed by a constitution 
 adopted by themselves, and which recognizes no power beyond 
 themselves. And hence the court decided, that the preach- 
 ers " when assembled in General Conference, according 
 to the usages and discipline of the Church, represent them- 
 Rclvos, and have no constituents." Mr. Choate, therefore, 
 failed in establisliing his point before the court, and 
 lost the suit. Thrown into an ai'gument, it may be 
 stated thus: Tlie power to dissolve a social or religious 
 compact, is an attribute of sovereignty. The General 
 Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, " accord-
 
 280 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ^ing to the usage and discipline of that Church," may 
 exercise this power. Therefore, the General Conference 
 is the sovereign power of that Church, "responsible 
 only to themselves" for its exercise. And yet Brother 
 Hamill quotes this declaration of Mr. Choate to show 
 the Republicanism of his Churchl 
 
 His quotation from Mr. Wesley's letter, yielding to 
 the wishes of his American children to give them a 
 separate organization, only proves what Mr. Johnson 
 affirms, that he (Wesley) "is the author, sovereign, and 
 founder of the ChiirchJ^ If several thousand Englishmen 
 should petition the Queen and Parliament to pass a 
 certain law, and their wishes should be respected, 
 would that prove that English Monarchy was Repub- 
 licanism. The very fact that Mr. Wesley was petitioned 
 to grant them a separate organization, is a concession 
 that they had no right to form one. If our colonies, 
 after the Revolutionary war, had petitioned Lord North, 
 or King George, for a constitution, instead of forming 
 one for themselves, what an impressive commentary on 
 their democracy!! 
 
 The third and last point in tliis part of Bro. HamiU's' 
 communication, requiring notice, is that which relates 
 directly to the application of the principle above suggest- 
 ed, to the Property Case. After demurring to the ex- 
 tracts of the speeches we made, from Messrs. Lord and 
 Johnson, Brother Hamill says: " It may be asked, then, 
 did the Church, South, recover its property upon false 
 principles? I answer, no." The principles set forth in 
 the debate, were "false in their application to all other 
 matters of Church polity, but true, m their application to 
 the Book Concern Fund," &c. Truly " our Episcopacy"
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 281 
 
 must be an impenetrable mystery. If neither the first 
 lawyers nor the highest judicial functionaries of the 
 United States can understand it, we need not wonder 
 that our wiperlinence has been so sternly rebuked for dar- 
 ing to look into its sublime mysteries! Now, this spe- 
 cial " application" of special " principlas" to special 
 " cases" is a very convenient weapon with which to 
 fight the battles of Episcopacy. If local preachers and 
 private members petition for " mutual rights" in the Ge- 
 neral and Annual Conferences, this special " principle" 
 will apply with special emphasis to that " case," and 
 they are answered with, " pardon us if we know no such 
 rights, if we comprehend no such privileges." If a law- 
 suit is pending between " our Episcopacy," North, and 
 " our Episcopacy," South, in M'hich the stake is nearly 
 half a million of dollars, why then, also, this special 
 " principle" applies with singular appropriateness and 
 profit to this " case." And then the fund has been most- 
 ly raised and accumulated by clerical agency, and is so 
 sacred, and designed for " the holiest and most benevo- 
 lent purposes;" that it must not be managed by any 
 other than clerical hands. In this respect, too, " they 
 admit no constituents; the}" have no constituents." So 
 that at whatever point we direct our search for a " con- 
 stituency" in " our Episcopacy," either in its ecclesiastical 
 or temporal jurisdiction, this special principle applies with 
 peculiar propriety to that special point. We should 
 like to know if the ^m/-/5 are thus destitute of the " De- 
 mocratic element," Avhat is to be pronounced of the 
 whole ? 
 
 But let us look into this chameleon principle, which ap- 
 plies so peculiarly to every case, and which yet leaves
 
 282 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 the whole system perfectly free from its contagion. 
 Now, we assert, that this princi2Jle — the principle of ahso- 
 soliite irresponsiUe clerical power — pervades the whole gov- 
 ernmental ECONOMY OF EPISCOPAL Methodism. Take the 
 following inventory of facts in proof of this assertion. 
 The bishops appoint all the circuit riders and stationed 
 preachers to their charges; the bishops appoint every 
 presiding elder to his circuit; the preachers and elders 
 appoint all the class leaders, stewards, and trustees, 
 who hold church property; the bishops, elders, and 
 preachers remove at their pleasure, all their respective 
 appointees, the removed party having no alternative 
 but s2(,bmission, there "being no tribunal to correct errors 
 or rectify wrongs ;" that in not a single department of 
 their government, legislative, executive, or judicial, are 
 laymen eligible to scats; that both the State and Ge- 
 neral Conferences are composed, ex officio, of the travel- 
 ling preachers and their representatives; that when local 
 preachers and private members petition for a representa- 
 tion in these bodies, they are answered in language, 
 which, if addressed to American citizens in their civil 
 capacity, by our National or State government, would 
 instantly light up the fires of a second revolution: 
 "Pardon us if we know no such rights, if we compre- 
 hend no such 2)rivikges;'' that this body of clergy, in cre- 
 ating the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1184, and dis- 
 solving it in 1844, exercised the highest attributes of 
 sovereignty known on earth; that the General Confer- 
 ence, in transferring "all the property of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, in meeting-houses, parsonages, col- 
 leges, schools, Conference funds, cemeteries, and of every 
 kind,^^ within the limits of the Southern organization, to
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 283 
 
 the Church, South, on the contingency of its organiza- 
 tion, did assert all the proprietorship in said propertj-, 
 which the laws of the country guaranty to any corpo- 
 ration; that in authorizing an equitable division of the 
 " Book and Chartered Fund," the same principle of pro- 
 prietorship is inTolved; and that such facts as these 
 being in evidence before the Court, in the " Church Pro- 
 perty Case," that august tribunal could have made no 
 other decision in that case than that "</«e lay members of 
 the Church have no part or contieclion with its governmental 
 organization, and never had. The travelling preachers 
 comprise the embodiment of its power, ecclesiastical and 
 teviporal; and when assembled in General Conference, 
 according to the usages and discipline of the Church, repre- 
 sent themselves and "have no constituents." 
 
 But Brother Hamill, conscious that the facts and ar- 
 guments we had adduced from the " Property Case," 
 could not be answered, admits that, so far as the "rights 
 of property, which the Courts of our country will recog- 
 nize," are concerned, " tlie opinions of legal gentlemen 
 .... are worthy of the highest respect. But upon 
 questions of Church polity," they "cannot possibly un- 
 derstand them as thoroughly" as those who are " con- 
 nected with their respective Church systems;" and then 
 asks and answers, as before stated, thus: "Did the 
 Church, South, recover its property upon false prin- 
 ciples? I answer, no; there were principles set forth 
 in the debate, whicli were false in their application to 
 all other matters of Church polity, but true in their ap- 
 plication to the Book Concern Fund." Now, this is a 
 species of sjjecial pleading which would do lienor to a 
 Jesuit. Let us look at it: A question of Cliurcli pro-
 
 284 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 pcrty comes np before one of our highest judicial tribu- 
 nals, to be decided; the parties to the suit are respon- 
 sible for the testimony upon either side; the Court is 
 responsible for the application of the law to the state of 
 facts involved in the testimony. On page 25, of the 
 "Church Property Case," it is agreed by the parties to 
 the suit, " that the Book of Discipline of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, printed in 1840, which was the book 
 in force at the time of the Conference of 1844," together 
 with "Emory's History of the Discipline of the Church," 
 "shall be considered as evidence." These "Standards" 
 set forth the general polity of that hierarchy. Either, 
 therefore, the "Book of Discipline" and "Emory's His- 
 tory," contained "principles which were false in their 
 application to all other matters of Church polity, but true 
 in their application to the Book Concern Fund," or the 
 " legal gentleman" who argued the case, and the learned judges 
 who decided it, were incompetent to comprehend the evidence be- 
 fore them! or if they comprehended it, they have wilfully 
 perverted it! "Our Episcopacy" may take either horn of 
 the trilemma. The decision w£ts made, if the judges 
 are to be believed, ^'according to the usages and discipline 
 of the Chiorch," as set forth in its "Standards." J^ these 
 "Standards" are 'false^' the "Fathers" made them so, 
 and the children ought to correct them. If judgment 
 has been perverted, either through the imhecility or cor- 
 ruption of our judiciary. Judges Nelson and Betts ought 
 to be impeached. In either case "our Episcopacy" 
 ought to set herself to work with all possible prompt- 
 ness and energy. The merest petifogger that ever read 
 half a dozen pages in Blackstone, could not hesitate one 
 moment after reading the opinion of that Court, in de-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 285 
 
 ciding-, that the principles on -which that opinion was 
 based, were the essential organic elements of Episcopal 
 Methodism. This, neither Bro. Haniill, nor any other 
 sane man, will deny. If the learned tribunals of our 
 country cannot comprehend "this system of surpassing 
 energy," we humbly submit, that it is time it was 
 simplified to their comprehension. The American peo- 
 ple have been accustomed to regard the opinions of our 
 national Courts with some degree of respect. And it 
 need not surprise this "kingdom of the clergy," if the 
 judicial records of the country shall be believed, their 
 averment to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 THE STANDARDS. 
 
 But we are asked why we did not appeal to the " Stan- 
 dards of our Church," instead of to the opinions of "legal 
 gentlemen," in this discussion; and it is intimated that 
 our "failure to do this is an evidence of the weakness of 
 our cause, and the groundlessness of our allegations." 
 How our brother could make such an intimation as this, 
 with this whole discussion staring him in the face, we 
 are really at a loss to determine. He could not hope to 
 deceive anj'body who has read our articles, for that 
 were impossible, and wo therefore acquit him of that 
 charge. The most charitable construction we can place 
 upon the statement is, that the stress of a dire necessity 
 which knows no law, suspended for a time the opera- 
 tion of every other principle in his heart and mind, but 
 "our Episcopacy;" that, as we had occasion to remark 
 in regard- to another champion of Methodism, it was not
 
 286 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Brother Hamill who did this, but Episcopacy that dwelt 
 ill him. Reader, have we not appealed to these " Stand- 
 ards" from the very commencement of this discussion? 
 Have we ventured to state a single fact, from first to 
 last, which we have not sustained by these very Stand- 
 ards? Has our competitor contested the authenticity of a 
 single one of these fact si Or are we mistaken as to what 
 these "Standards" are? Are the writings of Mr. Wes- 
 ley; the Book of Discipline; the accredited histories of 
 Methodism, issued by the "Book Concern;" the reported 
 proceedings of General Conferences; the speeches and 
 communications of the bishops, doctors, and clergy of 
 the Church; are these, we say, to be recognized as the 
 "Standards" of Methodism? To these we have appealed 
 to substantiate every fact and principle we have alleged 
 through this entire discussion. Two of these " Stand- 
 ards, to-wit: The Book of Discipline and Emory's His- 
 tory, furnished the testimony on which the " Property 
 Case" was decided in the United States Circuit Court, 
 for the Southern District of New York. And yet our 
 "failure to do this is prima' facie evidence of the weak- 
 ness of our cause, and groundlessness of our allega- 
 tions!!" Now, we are perfectly willing for any tribunal 
 on this earth, except the " travelling clergy," to decide 
 whether we have not appealed to " our Standards" quite 
 as often as Episcopacy itself has any right to demand. 
 
 Before dismissing this point, we shall introduce a few 
 more quotations from the " Standards" and other sources, 
 which we think are entitled to some respect in the pre- 
 mises. In Watson's Theological Institutes, a work 
 which we suppose may be dignified by the appellation
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 281 
 
 of " Standard," as it is "the course of study" for tlie 
 miuistry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, we have 
 the following: " To raise into legislators and censors all 
 the members of a Church, the young-, the ignorant, and 
 the inexperienced, is to do them a great injury. It is 
 the sure way to foster debates, contentious, and self- 
 confidence, to open the door to intrigue and policy, to 
 tempt forward and conceited men to become a kind of 
 religious demagogues, and entirely to destroy the salu- 
 tary influence of the aged, experienced, and gifted mem- 
 bers, by referring every decision to members and suf- 
 frages, and placing all that is good and venerable and 
 influential among the members themselves, at the feet 
 of a Democracy." — Vol. ii. p. 594. Why, the veriest 
 apologist of monarchy in Europe, could not have written 
 a sentence exhibiting more supreme contempt for the 
 very spirit and genius of our civil government than this 
 extract from one of "our Standards." The "members of 
 a Church" — the laity — are represented as "ignorant, in- 
 experienced, contentious, -self-confident, conceited, reli- 
 gious demagoguesP^ And then this learned divine, by way 
 of putting upon this assemblage of "conceited men" the 
 crowning odium, calls them "a Democracy!" We opine, 
 that if the lofty pretensions of the clergy were placed at 
 the feet of such a Democracy, there would be a storm 
 raised; there would be "debates and contentious" such 
 as " our Episcopacy" has never witnessed before; and 
 which would^'fTectually sweep away the last vestiges 
 of clerical domination. We can but admire the discre- 
 tion of " our Standards" in not " placing at the feet of a 
 democracy," the "divine right" of the clergy to rule 
 over them.
 
 288 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 The following is from Prof C F. Deems, of North 
 Carolina; and although he may not be exactly a "stand- 
 ard," he is nevertheless a very good Methodist: 
 
 " If we may apply the figure to Methodism, we can 
 very readily see that a government suited to the sooty 
 colliers of England, servants, and the uncultivated, who 
 had grown up amid all the peciiliarities of an aristo- 
 cratic country, might hardly be fit for a Church among 
 whose laymen are presidents, and professors in colleges, 
 judges of supreme courts, senators, and men liberalized 
 by professional learning and polite associations. The 
 fact is, John Wesley formed societies ; ours is a Church. 
 John Wesley did not make government a special study; 
 but, being a strong man and a violent tory, and finding 
 a sect gathering around him to be governed, he seized 
 the reins — he became autocrat; and through his helpers 
 he governed most ably. It was very natural that when 
 our Church was formed, it should be built somewhat 
 after the model of the ' societies ' of Wesley. Is it not 
 • too exact a copy, and may it not need mending? Even 
 if Wesley had made government a study, and was by 
 nature superior to the mass he controlled, there are 
 laymen in our Cliurch in this day, as great natively as 
 Wesley, who have paid much more attention to the sci- 
 ence of government. This is said with great deference 
 and much veneration for many things in the character 
 of John Wesley. He was before his times; ours before 
 him." 
 
 We cannot tell whether we are to regard the author 
 of the " Georgia Scenes," Judge Longstreet, as entitled 
 to be ranked among " our standap.'ds," or not. He is at 
 least a Methodist clergyman, and Presid^t of the Mis- 
 sissippi College; and from that lofty pedestal, he ad- 
 dresses his Methodist brethren, dissuading them from 
 joining the Know Nothing or American party, in the 
 following strains. Alluding to the letter of Mr. Wesley 
 to the Catholics, he says:
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 289 
 
 " That letter was written to show that Protestants 
 would not be safe from oppression under Catholic gov- 
 ernment. No doubt of it in the world. Nor would 
 Catholics be safe under Methodist government, as your 
 plots against them, now, most clearly demonstrate. The 
 truth is, no religious sect is to be trusted with the reins 
 of government. And if I were to take the stump against 
 you, I would say to the honest yeomanrj' of the coun- 
 try: Good people if you think that your liberties will 
 be any safer in the hands of Methodists than Catholics, 
 you are vastly mistaken. And in proof of this nssertion, 
 I would point to the outrages of the Methodist mojurity in 
 1844, which sjylit our Church. I would add in humilia- 
 tion, but in candor: You liave ten thousand times more 
 to fear, just at this time, from Methodists than Catholics; 
 simply because the first are more numerous than the 
 last; because the first are actually in the field for office, 
 while the last are not; because the first are in open war 
 upon the last^ and because the first, by reason of their 
 numbers, are pets of the strongest political combination 
 that ever was formed in this country — secret and oath- 
 bound at that. Suppose their religion does spread, with 
 the unexampled raijidity with wliich yours has, who has 
 a right to object? Will you forbid men to choose their 
 own religion? In all the essentials of Christianity, do 
 they not agree with you? Wesley thought so, and I 
 think so. Do they differ from you wider in faith than 
 your Unitarian confederates?" 
 
 As Brother Ilamill has already declared his readiness 
 to receive and recognize Roman Catholic baptism, nay, 
 that, he would even administer the Sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper to the members of that apostate Church; 
 and as Judge Longstreet, in the foregoing extract, asks: 
 "/n all the essentials of Christianity, do not they («'. e. the 
 Catholics) AGREE with you?" (Methodists) and answers: 
 " Wesley TiiouGiiT so, and I tliink so!" We are led to 
 25
 
 290 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 conclude that Episcopacy is substantially the . same, 
 whether in its Roman, English, or American form. 
 
 As we have not pried into the leaves of the "Index 
 Expurffatorius" of American Episcopacy, we do not 
 know whether the "Life and Writings of Lorenzo Dow" 
 have yet been put under ban. And in the absence of 
 this intelligence, the reader will excuse us if we take 
 his deposition. Speaking of the power of a bishop to 
 send the " travelling clergy" whithersoever he will, and 
 of the general polity of Episcopal Methodism, he says: 
 
 " Did the pope ever have unlimited power, without the 
 voice of any other person, to command six hundred men, 
 and send them when and where he pleased, because it 
 was his will and pleasure to have it so? ' to say to one, 
 go, and he goeth, and to another, come, and he cometh, 
 and to this man, do this, and he doeth it?' 
 
 I know not where it is recorded in history, that the 
 pope did command six hundred men, in their ecclesiasti- 
 cal and clerical capacity, to send them here and there, 
 because it was his will and pleasure so to have it, and 
 that over the country, near two thousand miles, one way, 
 and fifteen hundred, the other. 
 
 How much less is the power of the President of the 
 United States? How much greater the privilege of the 
 citizens, to have a voice by their representatives in the 
 formation of those rules by which they are to be go- 
 verned; and the liberty of speech and of the press, to 
 remark on the rules and conduct of those who form the 
 rules, and their mode of governing. 
 
 The mode of governing in the old world, contains 
 those restrictions, as the result and dregs of the old 
 feudal system; and wherever this mode exists, the prin- 
 ciple must be the same; of which the unlimited, and in 
 many cases, the undefined power of the bishop, and pre- 
 siding elder is a specimen, which some have seen and 
 severely felt." — Wriiings of Rev. L. Doiv, p. 545.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 291 
 
 Again: On pag-e 550, he says: "The Methodist mode 
 of Church government is the most arbitrary and desjyotic of 
 any in America, except the Shakers," &c. 
 
 We make the following quotation from one of the 
 most popular writers in England, of the present day — 
 a gentleman; by the way, whom no man can suspect of 
 being unfriendly to Methodism: 
 
 "Nothing in the compass of literatnre can be at once 
 more sharply logical, or more thoroughly unphilosophi- 
 cal than are Wesley's reasonings in support of ministe- 
 rial ABSOLUTISM, and in enforcing the dut}' of popular sub- 
 MissivENESs. With a heart that would have grieved to 
 injure any man in the smallest matter, he xiiphdda Church 
 theory, on the ground of which HERETICS IN TROOPS 
 MIGHT CONSISTENTLY BE BURNED."— WWeyaw 
 Methodism, by Isaac Taylor, p. 257. 
 
 We make our last extract from a pamphlet, fresh from 
 the press, entitled " Strictures on Church Government, by 
 Rev. R. Abbey, Nashville, Tenn., published by E. Ste- 
 venson and F. A. Owen, Agents for the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church, South, 1855." We suppose that the im- 
 primatur of the "Book Concern" would not be placed to 
 a libel upon "our Episcopacy." Let us, then, take the 
 deposition of " the Rev. R. Abbey." He says: 
 
 "Republicanism is equality with regard to government. 
 But wlion a class or order of persons conies in with rights 
 or privileges or duties over and above the rights and 
 privileges of the community; when you have a privileged 
 class [tlic italics are his] in whom some governmental 
 rights inhere, of cour.se, in so far as this principle ob- 
 tains, be it muf,li or little, it innovates the principle of 
 pure Kf'pnl)licanis'm. Ropul)licanism knows no class or 
 order witli inherent privileges.
 
 292 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Now, what is the name of that ingredient in Church 
 government which inheres in the ministry as a clas dis- 
 tinct from laymen? Th#only name which lexicograph- 
 ers and scientific writers on government give to this 
 principle, is ARISTOCRACY. Then a Christian Church 
 must be, in part at least, aristocratic. If any man does 
 not like that term, I cannot help it. If he does not 
 know its meaning, I advise him to consult a dictionary. 
 If the terra offends his ear, then his ear is either mal- 
 formed or mal-educated. Nothing can offend a healthy 
 ear but an idea. A word cannot." — p. 11. 
 
 Taking the reverend gentleman's advice, we turn to 
 the Dictionary, and find the following: 
 
 Aristocracy, n. 1. A form of government in which the 
 whole supreme power is vested in the principal persons 
 of the State, or in a privileged order. 2. The nobility, 
 or chief persons in a State." — Webster. 
 
 We certainly admire the candor of this writer, in call- 
 ing things by their right names. We rather guess that 
 the American "ear" has'been too thoroughly "?wa//<?rff26rf' 
 or "mal-editcaied" under the influence of our happy com- 
 monwealth, ever to appreciate the peculiar harmony of 
 that sound. We advise the reader to make the experi- 
 ment, say the next Fourth of July. Let him, while his 
 fellow-citizens are celebrating that auspicious day with 
 bonfires and illuminations, repeat " aristocracy, aristo- 
 cracy" a few dozen times, and see whether it will suit 
 the metre of the " star-spangled banner." If he cannot 
 " makb it go," let him forthwith call on some " circuit 
 rider," or " presiding elder," to " raise the tune." And 
 if the music still grates, we advise him to call at once on 
 some of the "doctors" of "our Episcopacy" — and they are 
 neither few nor far between — and submit to an auricular
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 293 
 
 operation. Then shall the "divine right" of this "^nV 
 ileged class'' — this " aristocracy^' — melt upon his tympanum 
 as sweetly as the strains of the harp of ^olus. At least, 
 if it does not, " I cannot help it," says Mr. Abbey — nor 
 can we. We can only advise; and if this " mal-formcd 
 or mal-educated " "ear" is so dull that it will not hear 
 oiu" advice, our skirts are clear. It will be seen that 
 Mr. Abbey agrees with Mr. Johnson, in pronounciug the 
 Methodist Church g;overnment "aw aristocracy.''-' . . 
 
 As to the clause in the resolution transferring " all 
 the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
 meeting houses, parsonages, &c., &c., to the contingent 
 " Southern organization," which declares said resolution 
 binding " so far as" it " can be of force in the premises'* we 
 answer that it did have ^' force in the premises," because 
 this property is now owned by the Church, South, in 
 virtue of the passage of that resolution. Originally, all this 
 property was deeded to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 and in 1844, that Church relinquished its title to it in 
 favor of another organization kuowu as the " Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, South,^' provided such an organization 
 should be established; and this latter org^inization now 
 holds that property, we repeat, in virtue of that relin- 
 quishment. 
 
 But there were sundry " protests" filed to the prin- 
 ciples on which this suit was decided. The " Louisville 
 Conference" protested, "Mr. Elliott and others" pro- 
 tested! This all sounds very well; but what did it 
 amount to? Nothing — absolutely nothing I If the 
 Nortliern division had refused to relinquish its claim 
 upon, and the Southern division bad refused to accept,
 
 294 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 the dividend, on tlie humiliating terms on which it was 
 made, that would have been a sensible "protest." No, 
 Brother Hamill: Your Church, South, gained the suit; 
 but with it " our Episcopacy" gained an authentic ex- 
 position, which has been placed upon the judicial 
 records of the country, and which ten thousand protests 
 can never erase. We do not wonder at your zeal and 
 ingenuity in attempting to ward off the odium which that 
 decision fastens upon j'our ecclesiastical escutcheon. 
 Like the blood of the murdered Duncan, on the fair hand 
 of the Scottish queen, " all the perfumes of Arabia never 
 can sweeten it." Your Episcopacy may well exclaim, as 
 did an English nobleman when he received the news of 
 the battle of Bunker's Hill, "Another such a victory, and 
 we are ruined P^ 
 
 Brother Hamill admits that the General Conference 
 could have "become Sociniau," "Presbyterian or Bap- 
 tist" in " government and doctrine," if it had " chosen 
 to do so," as Mr. Lord alleged; but then he says, "there 
 is another covld and another would, too, behind all this 
 matter— that is, the Annual Conferences could have taken 
 every one of the delegates on their return home, and 
 tried and expelled them, and they would most certainly 
 have done it too." Very well. It seems, then, that the 
 Churches could not and would not have dared to do it. 
 So that here is another aspect of Episcopacy — the pro- 
 cess of "trying and expelling" — in which it " admits 
 no constituents — and has no constituents." Whether a 
 body of men, (the clergy,) acting in the capacity of a 
 General Conference, would act the reverse in a State 
 Conference, involves a draft upon human credulity,
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY 295 
 
 rather too heavy to be honored. In point of sovereign- 
 ty, which takes precedence, the General or the State 
 Conferences? To ask this question is to answer it. 
 Apropos, we will here introduce another extract from 
 the opinion of the court. Judge Nelson says: "These 
 travelling preachers represented the sovereign power 
 of the government, and were responsible to no earthly 
 tribunal for the mode and manner of its exercise. * * * 
 As they might have constructed any number of separate 
 • and distinct organizations in their first fraternal associ- 
 ation and effort in the fulfilment of this mission, accord- 
 ingly as it might seem to them best, so was it equally 
 in their power at any subsequent period of their labofs. 
 The power remained unchanged." — Appendix to Prop. 
 Case, p. 12. •"" • 
 
 But the conclusions to which our brother arrives up- 
 on the first part of his article, merit a moment's atten- 
 tion. He considers. First: That the Book Concern is a 
 " holy charity." This we have not debated, nor is it in- 
 volved in the issue between us. He might just as well 
 have represented us as saying, that the preaching of 
 the gospel by Methodist ministers was anti-Republican 
 because of their arbitrary appointments to their stations 
 by the bishops. But his second conclusion is decidedly 
 original. He says, " The principles in its (the Property 
 Case) adjudication demonstrate that in all grand as well 
 as minor movements in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 the laity exercise an allrcmitrolling influence /'^ And he ar- 
 rives at this conclusion, too, after admitting in so many 
 words, that so far as the "Property Case" was con- 
 cerned, the pleadings of the lawyers and the decision of 
 the court, which we had quoted, were true, to wit: That
 
 296 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 they "admit no constituents, and have no constituents!" 
 Nay, he enters into an elaborate argument to prove, 
 that the laity ought not to have any sort of control over 
 that " holy charity." — And yet its " adjudication demon- 
 strates [yes, demonstrates!] .... that the laity exercise 
 an all-controlling influence!!" We have seen some speci- 
 mens of logic in which a may be in the premises became 
 a must he in the conclusion ; but we never before saw it 
 ■"demonstrated" how a cypher in the premises became an 
 " all-contj-ollmg " numerical quantity in the conclusion.- , 
 It will do to place in "Barnum's Museum" beside Bishop 
 Taylor's grand discovery of "truth without evidence." 
 Speaking of Pedo-baptism, that astute divine says: "I 
 think there is so much to be pretended against it (Pedo- 
 baptism) which I believe to be the tritth, that there is 
 much more trikth than evidence on our side!" So it seems 
 that the Bishop's discovery is likely to serve "our 
 Episcopacy" a very clever turn. Nor less remarkable 
 is his third conclusion, to wit: "That the government 
 of Methodism, in all respects in which the Bible gives 
 scope for human legislation, is modelled as Mr. Choate 
 says, after oitr secular union." That is to say, after a 
 lengthy review of a law suit, in which the whole polity 
 of Episcopal Methodism was in evidence before the 
 court, and in which it was decided that " the laymen of 
 the Church have no part or connection with its govern- 
 mental organization, and never had — that they (the 
 preachers) comprise the embodiment of its power, eccle- 
 siastical and temporal — that when assembled in General 
 Conference according to the usages and discipline of 
 the Church, they represent themselves, and have no con- 
 stituents,"— owx brother comes to the sage conclusion
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 291 
 
 that " the government of Methodism .... is modelled 
 after our secular union!!" But comment upon this con- 
 clusion would be paj'iug- the understanding' of the reader 
 rather an equivocal compliment. We may safely leave 
 this to the capacity of those who are competent to de- 
 cide which was baptized, Philip or the eunuch. How 
 far " the Bible gives scope for human legislation," is a 
 desideratum which Episcopacy ought to define. It 
 would be intei'esting to know how far, and in what par- 
 ticulars, the Divine Law may be amended by the inter- 
 position of "human legislation." 
 The sum of our answer is this: 
 
 I. Our review of the "Church Property Case" has 
 been palpably misconstrued. Brother Hamill makes us 
 aflSrm that of the object for which the Book and Chartered 
 Fund was raised, which we affirmed of the principles on 
 which the Court ordered it to be divided between the 
 X<1rth and the South. 
 
 II. Bro. Hamill derives his testimony from the wrong 
 source. He relies mostly upon Mr. Choate, the counsel 
 for the defendants, (the Northern division of the Church) 
 who lost the suit. We derived ours from Messrs. Lord, 
 Johnson, and the Court — the party who gained the suit. 
 Our testimony is taken from the accredited judicial records 
 of the country. That is to say, he quotes his exposition 
 of Episcopacy from the counsel whose arguments were de- 
 clared sophistical by the Court, and were therefore overruled; 
 we quoted from the counsel ^rhose arguments were substan- 
 tially adopted by the Court as its decision. 
 
 III. Our antagonist maintains tliat the principles 
 which decided that suft, were false in tlieir application 
 to all other matters of Church polity, but true in tlieir
 
 298 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 application to the Book Concern Fund. We have prov- 
 ed, //-om the decision of the Court, that these principles 
 pervade the entire governmental economy of Methodist 
 Episcopacy. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 The " miscellaneous" items in his article scarcely need 
 a response. Mr. Wesley is the father of American Me- 
 thodists; indeed the Methodist ministry did not presume 
 to organize their Church until he granted them the privilege. 
 Hence, we thought it perfectly legitimate to quote from 
 his writings. The " madaien of Munster," as they have 
 been called, sustain no such relation to Baptists, and never 
 did. They were composed, as we have proved, of Ca- 
 tholics, Lutherans, Baptists, and " the larger portion," 
 says Buck, " having no religious principles." 
 
 It is far easier to class us with Campbellites, is it not, 
 Bro. Hamill, than to answer our argument on the sub- 
 ject of " creeds?" We still maintain that " human creeds 
 may, as mere matters of convenience, make pretty good 
 servants, but most intolerable Piasters." 
 
 It seems, then, that " inveighing against the doctrine 
 of our Church" is not a ci'ime of sufficient magnitude to 
 exclude one from the communion table of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, although, if persisted in, it is a suffi- 
 cient ground of exclusion from the Church. The Me- 
 thodist Church is, therefore, more sacred than the table 
 of the Lord! — since the man who would be excluded 
 from the one would be admitted to the other — "immoral 
 conduct" being the only ground of exclusion from the 
 latter.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 299 
 
 As to the error of which our brother supposes he has 
 convicted us, we have only to say, that if we erred, the 
 Book of Discipline is responsible. In answer to the 
 question: " What shall be the business of the quarterly 
 Confergnce?'' the answer is: "To hear complaints, and 
 to receive and try appeals." And since the "fifth re- 
 strictive rule" guaranties to the members the privilege 
 " of trial before the Society, or by a committee, and of 
 an apji^al" we reallj' supposed that the tribunal to which 
 the appeal was made, was competent to redress the 
 wrong. And we really supposed that when Mr. Hard- 
 ing appealed to the General Conference, in 1844, he did 
 it in the hope of being reinstated. Now, suppose the 
 Quarterly Conference restores a private member after 
 his exclusion, what relation does he sustain to the 
 Church? Our statement was substantially true, that 
 the Quarter!}', Annual, and General Conferences could 
 try, suspend, or expel members — if ministers are mem- 
 bers. The jurisdiction of the Quarterly Conference is 
 confined to private members and local preachers — that 
 of the Annual and General Conferences, to the travelling 
 clergy. As these two latter bodies "admit no constitu- 
 ents," of counee they caimot permit such small matters 
 to come up before their august deliberations. 
 
 But our brother says that u'c-, the pastor of a Baptist 
 Church, have more power in the trial of a member, than 
 he, the pastor of a Methodist Church. Now, what is the 
 meaning of the following question and answer, in the 
 Discipline, page 55, last edition: 
 
 Quest. 1, What are the duties of the elder, deacon, or 
 preacher, who has the special charge of a circuit or 
 station?
 
 300 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Ans. 5. To receive, try, and expel members, according 
 to the form of the Discipline.* 
 
 We humbly submit, that if we were to undertake this 
 summary process in the Church in Tuskegee, about the 
 first expulsion would be the pastor. 
 
 "The sad anarchy and confusion, called Baptist Church 
 government,'' to which our brother has so often referred, 
 is, it seems, the argumcntuvi ad hominem, since it proves, 
 that if our government is Republican, his is more sol 
 It is well that our brother added "tastes will differ." 
 "We propose giving an illustration of this, for his spe- 
 cial edification. The following anecdote is as well au- 
 thenticated as any which has descended to us from the 
 illustrious statesman and patriot to whom it refers. It 
 was originally communicated to the " Christian Watch- 
 man," several years ago, by the Rev. Dr. Fishback, of 
 Lexington, Ky. We extract it from Dr. Reynolds' 
 "Church Polity," page 227: 
 
 "Mr. Editor: The following circumstance which occur- 
 red in the State of Virginia, relative to Mr. Jefferson, was 
 detailed to me by Elder Andrew Tribble, about six years 
 ago, who since died, when ninety-two or three years old. 
 The facts may interest some of your readers. Andrew 
 Tribble was the pastor of a small Baptist Church, which 
 held its monthly meetings at a short distance from Mr. 
 Jefferson's house, eight or ten years before the American 
 Revolution. Mr. Jefferson attended the meetings of the 
 Church for several months in succession, and, after one 
 of them asked Elder Tribble to go home and dine with 
 him, with which he complied. 
 
 Mr. Tribble asked Mr. Jefferson how he was pleased 
 with their Church government. Mr. Jefferson replied, 
 
 * See Appendix F.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY 301 
 
 that it had struck him with great force, and had inter- 
 ested him much; that he considered it the only form of pure 
 Democracy that then exkted in the world, and had conclud- 
 ed that it would be the best plan of government for the 
 American Colonies. This was several years before the 
 Declaration of Independence. To what extent this prac- 
 tical exhibition of religious liberty and equality operat- 
 ed on Mr. Jefferson's mind, in forming- his views and 
 principles of religious and civil freedom, which were so 
 ably exhibited, I will not say," 
 
 THE CONTRAST. 
 
 We shall dispose of what Brother Hamill says in re- 
 gard to our article entitled "The Contrast," as briefly 
 as possible. We have already examined the positions 
 assumed by Mr. Choate, which Bro. Hamill so frequent- 
 ly quotes in this part of his article, and have proved 
 from the decision of the Court that they were untenable; 
 and hence, if there bo any credit due that decision, they 
 are to be " ruled out" of this discussion. And whether 
 the very modest pledge he has given, " that that ^Con- 
 trasts SHALL BE numbered with the things that are 'twice 
 dead and plucked up by the roots,' " will be seen in the 
 sequel. 
 
 First: We have permitted Mr. Choate to state what 
 he meajit by the declaration quoted on the first point 
 himself. But it is maintained that the preachers who 
 composed the Conference of 1784, were elected to the 
 ministry by the votes of the people! And this made 
 them the representatives of the people for life, in every 
 position they might choose to fill 1 If a Methodist So- 
 ciety recommends a young man to Conference, as pos- 
 26
 
 302 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 sessing gifts and qualifications for the ministry of the 
 gospel, and the Conference accepts him, and he is by 
 the action of that Conference, (for they, not the Society, 
 are the ultimate tribunal to decide who shall be receiv- 
 ed into their fraternity,) recognized for life, as a mem- 
 ber ex officio, of their body, we are asked to believe that 
 this is equivalent to the frequent periodical elections of 
 our representatives to our National and State legisla- 
 tures ! ! But the kimbo arms, the arch smile, and askance 
 gaze of the reader, which, being interpreted, means — 
 "you don't say so?" — relieves us of the necessity of any 
 further exposure of this draft upon his credulity. 
 
 Secondly: It is alleged in answer to the second point 
 of our "Contrast," that the act of joining the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church is a voluntary adoption of its govern- 
 ment. And so when an American citizen voluntarily 
 expatriates himself, and emigrates to Russia, he volun- 
 tarily adopts that form of government. But does this 
 act of his make him a party to the original formation of 
 the Eussian governthent? And does it transform that 
 Autocracy into a Republic? Yet this is the argument 
 of our brother. Furthermore: Congress is governed by 
 a written Constitution, adopted by a power superior to 
 it — THE TEOPLE — whercas the General Conference of tra- 
 velling preachers is governed by a constitution adopted 
 by themselves, and they recognize no superior pqwer to 
 themselves. Hence the fallacy of his argument in com- 
 paring a Conference with our National Congress. 
 
 Thirdly: The division of the Church in 1844, was an 
 "essential change in its constitution," as much so as if 
 they had destroyed its Episcopal element. And yet this 
 "essential change" was not submitted to the action of
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 303 
 
 a single society of laymen in the Union. The bishops 
 and travelling" preachers decided the fate of that mea- 
 sure, from its alpha to its omega. The unity of a " Ge- 
 neral Conference jurisdiction," was no more nor less 
 "intact" before the separation, than "all other depart- 
 ments of the Church." This we have proved from the 
 judicial records of the country, beyond all cavil. 
 
 Fourthly: Judges of the United States Court are nom- 
 inated by the President, who is elected every four years 
 by the popular suffrage, and confirmed by the Senate, 
 whose members are elected exQvj six years. But why 
 has he appealed to the Supreme Judges and the army 
 and naval officers of the United States? Do they make 
 the laws which govern this confederacy? Why did he 
 not appeal to our Legislative Assemblies — the law-mak- 
 ing powers of our State and National Government? — 
 Echo answers, why? 
 
 Fifthly: We will let the Discipline answer our bro- 
 ther's argument on our fifth point. " Who shall attend 
 the Annual Conference? Ans. All the travelling preach- 
 ers who are in full connection, and those who are to bo 
 received into full connection." — Discipline, pp. 39-40. 
 " Who shall compose the General Conference, &c. Ans. 
 1. The General Conference shall be composed of one 
 member for every fourteen members of each Annual 
 Conference, to be appointed either by seniority or choice, 
 at the discretion of such Annual Conference," &c. That 
 is, " the travelling preachers comprise the embodiment 
 of its power, ecclesiastical and temporal," as the Court 
 affirmed: "Not a modicum of power was left elsewhere," 
 says Johnson. And yet the State and General Confer- 
 ences, composed of the travelling preachers and Ihcir re-
 
 304 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 presentatives, are wonderful [y analogous to our Nation- 
 al Congress, whose members are chosen by the people and 
 their representatives! There is another thing that must 
 be "numbered among those which are 'twice dead, and 
 plucked up by the roots,' " before this can be swallowed 
 - — the common sense of mankind. 
 
 Sixthly: And is there any analogy between the Senate 
 of the United States, chosen for six years, and respon- 
 sible to " a constituency," and one recognized and ap- 
 pointed by their peers for life, and which "admits no 
 constituents," and is " responsible only to themselves?" 
 The Southern Baptist Convention is not a legislative 
 body. It is a merely voluntary assemblage — and each 
 State may send as many and as few delegates to it as 
 it chooses. They do not pretend to interfere with 
 Church polity, and therefore cannot infringe upon the 
 rights of the Churches. 
 
 Our seventh, eleventh, and fifteenth points are identi- 
 cal with our fifth, says Brother Hamill, and he refers us 
 to his answer to that for his answer to these. Let us 
 see: In our fifth item, we alluded to the manner of elect- 
 ing the members of our State and National legislatures. 
 In our seventh, we alleged that the members so chosen, 
 represented and wei-e responsible to " a constituency," 
 in contradistinction to Methodist Conferences, which 
 " had no constituents." In our eleventh, we showed the 
 combination of the Democratic and Republican elements 
 in our civil government, both of which were wanting in 
 " our Episcopacy." And in our fifteenth, we referred to 
 the effort made by sundry memorialists, in 1824 and 
 1828, to make the Methodist Episcopal Church govern- 
 ment REPRESENTATIVE, by which it could. have been some-
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 305 
 
 what assimilated to the form of a free government; but 
 that the dignitaries of that Church rebuked the memo- 
 riah'sts in as oflFensive terms as ever fell from- the lips of 
 a despot: " Pardon us if we know no such riglits, if we 
 comprehend no such privileges." Whether these seve- 
 ral points are identical, and whether they arc " twice 
 dead, and plucked up by the roots," maybe safely refer- 
 red to the judicious reader. 
 
 Eighthly: We supposed Bishop Ilamlinc spoke ex 
 officio, when he said that the will of the bishop, presiding 
 elder, or circuit rider, "was omnipotent in the premises" 
 — that " there was no tribunal to cure his errors or rec- 
 tify his wrongs," and that the aggrieved party " must 
 submit." We will, therefore, station ex-Bishop Ilam- 
 line to guard that tree from the ruthless hand of our 
 brother. We rather surmise that the ex-bishop will 
 give him a little trouble before he succeeds in " pluck- 
 ing it up by the roots." 
 
 Ninthly: We may imitate the example of Bro. Ilamill, 
 and refer the reader to our answer to his strictures on 
 our first point, for an answer to this, begging only to 
 introduce the following^ extract from an article which 
 appeared in the " Philadelphia Church Advocate," an 
 able Methodist organ, and which is from the pen of a 
 distinguished Methodist writer. "Li the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, no one, except the travelling preach- 
 ers, has any rights. All that the local preachers, ex- 
 horters, class-leaders, and private members possess, are 
 mere privileges, for which they are indebted to the sove- 
 reign will and pleasure of their ' Divine Rights,' rulers." 
 
 Tenthly: Did the memorialists, in 1824 and 1828, 
 simply ask tlic privilege of " scattering their preachers
 
 306 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 to the four winds?" Let the seventy-five thousand Pro- 
 testant Methodists of the United States answer. 
 
 Twelfthly: We are not aware that " protests " can 
 change facts. We can well conceive how " leading 
 men in the'^Church, North," should " protest" against 
 the decision of the court, for they lost nearly half a 
 million of dollars by it. But that the party who gained 
 the suit, should "protest" against the principles on 
 which it was decided, and upon which alone it could 
 have been determined in their favor, and yet accept the 
 dividend, would place " our Episcopacy" in a humiliat- 
 ing attitude which would disarm contempt. 
 
 Thirteenthly: All the "standards" of "our Episco- 
 pacy" uniformly refer to John Wesley as the sole founder 
 of Methodism in Europe and America. See section first 
 of the Discipline. We also refer the reader to that part 
 of this article, in which we have shown in what respects 
 the Convention that formed our Federal Constitution, 
 was analogous to the Conference that formed the "Book 
 of Discipline," as alleged by Mr. Choate, to wit: That 
 the bodies of each did their work and then disappeared. 
 
 Fourteenthly: "Bishop Bascom shall vindicate this 
 point for us. In his " Declaration of Rights," drawn up 
 during the agitation of the "representative" question 
 in the Methodist Episcopal Church, he says: "A gov- 
 ernment uniting the legislative, judicial, and executive 
 powers in the same, men, is an absurdity in theory, and 
 in practice, tyranny. The executive power, in every 
 government, should be subordinate to the legislative, 
 and the judicial independent of both. Whenever, there- 
 fore, it happens that these three departments of govern- 
 ment are in the hands of the same body of men, and 
 
 4
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 307 
 
 these men not the representatives of the people, first 
 making- the laws, then executing them, and, finally, the 
 sole judges of their own acts, there is no liberty, the 
 people are virtually enslaved, and liable to be ruined 
 at any time." Art. 6th. 
 
 Sixteenthly: "We asserted in this item that all the 
 powers, in the governmental economy of Methodism, 
 were in the hands of the clergy. And if we have not 
 succeeded in proving this, we should despair of proving 
 that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right 
 angles. " The bishop appoints the minister," sa^'s a Me- 
 thodist writer, over twenty years ago, and we presume 
 it is the same' now; " the minister appoints the class- 
 leader and stewards; these appoint the sexton, who, in 
 his turn, appoints the grave-digger. So that, from him 
 who soars aloft, and overlooks God's heritage, down to 
 him who delves in the earth, and buries the bodies of 
 the saints, all derive their power from the ministry, and 
 all are responsible to them only, for their proceedings." 
 Quoted in the Iron Wheel, p. 313. 
 
 Our seventeenth item needs no defence. Every deed 
 to Meeting houses, «fec., &c., is taken in the name of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Discipline, p. 209. 
 Every trustee is originally appointed by the preacher 
 in charge, or presiding elder, and must be a member of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church. Discipline, p. 218. 
 Every vacancy by death or otherwise, in the boards, is 
 to be filled by the nominee of the "stationed minister 
 or preacher." Idem. When these facts are denied, we 
 will publish the "form of a deed" laid down in the 
 Discipline. 
 
 lias Brother Hamill succeeded, reader, in killing with
 
 308 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 a doulle death, these "trees of" %7i-"rigliteousness" in 
 the Methodist -vineyard, according' to his modest boast? 
 Now, we frankly confess that, if we had planted them 
 there, it would be a bare question of relative power be- 
 tween him and ourself as to whether they should remain. 
 But as they were planted there by the "fathers" of "our 
 Episcopacy," it materially changes the parties to the 
 contest. AVe hope he will succeed ultimately in "pluck- 
 ing them up by the roots," and " casting them into the 
 fire." The travelliu* clergy of the whole United States 
 have them under special guardianship; and not until 
 our brother shall associate with himself a power which 
 the laity of his Church only can supply, will he be able 
 to root up this noxious growth. 
 
 But to drop the figure, we maintain that every one 
 of our seventeen points is sustained by evidence which 
 is incontestible. Every fact which they respectively 
 involve, we have proved, either from the "standards" 
 of Methodism, or from the judicial records of the coun- 
 try. We are only responsible for grouping them to- 
 gether in the form in which they are there presented. 
 Brother Hamill does not deny a single fact there pre- 
 sented. He only excepts to the principles on which 
 "the Property Case" was decided; and in this, he be- 
 comes the antagonist of the Circuit Court of the United 
 States, AND NOT OURS ; and in this position we leave him, 
 so far as his effort at "killing" and "plucking up" is 
 concerned. 
 
 A word in regard to this allusion to Baptist Church 
 government. He premises his strictures upon our 
 "contrast" by saying, that "The Bible contains all the 
 doctrines and essential principles of discipline which
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 309 
 
 govern gospel Churches." Then how is it, that those 
 who adopt the Bible as their constitution — their only 
 rule of faith and practice, — are represented by him, as 
 adopting a " system of sad anarchy and confusion, call- 
 ed Baptist Church goTcrnment," — as possessing " a dis- 
 jointed scheme, yclept Baptist Church government?" 
 Was the very form of government adopted by the Apos- 
 tolic Churches, a "disjointed system" of "anarchy and 
 confusion?" Verily, it requires no little temerity to as- 
 sert this. But if not; if the Apostolic Churches really 
 had something whtch could be accurately called Church 
 government, and a denomination of Christians in this 
 day adopt it as theirs, by what system of logic can it bo 
 proved now to be a " system of anarchy and confusion?" 
 Or is it impossible for Baptists to understand as plain 
 a book as the New Testament? This will not be pre- 
 tended; and we conclude, therefore, that the form of go- 
 vernment adopted by Christ himself, and his Apostles 
 who wrote as moved upon by the Holy Ghost, is far 
 preferable, to that despotic "scheme yclept" Method- 
 ist Episcopacy, adopted under a special dispensation 
 from John Wesley, by sixty travelling preachers, in 
 1784. 
 
 We arc glad that our brother has signified his wil- 
 lingness, heartily to co-operate with us in publishing in 
 book form, this discussion. We hereby agree to furnish 
 one-half of the expense necessary for the publication of 
 say four thousand copies, more or less, so soon as Bro. 
 Uamill or his brethren shall furnish the other half. We 
 suppose it will be as readily bought by Methodists as
 
 310 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Baptists; and if so, there will be no diiEculty in dispos- 
 ing of four thousand copies in six months after it is 
 printed. At least we are willing to take two thousand 
 copies, and become responsible for their sale, so far as 
 the Baptists are concerned; and we have no reason to 
 doubt that Brother Hamill will do the same in behalf of 
 his brethren. In the event that an equitable arrange- 
 ment can be consummated between us, in regard to its 
 joint publication, we will cheerfully agree to leave out 
 our articles now in course of preparation, on " Church 
 Government;" albeit, wo cannot see what very great 
 harm it would do our Methodist brethren to read them. 
 We heartily reciprocate all the kind terms in which 
 OTir brother holds us. We can say most seriously that 
 we have not " set down aught in malice." We have spo- 
 ken plainly, but kindly, as becomes all who profess god- 
 liness. And whether "our Episcopacy" shall prove in 
 the issue to be a transplant from Jerusalem or Babylon; 
 whether it shall prove to be an offshoot of the tree of 
 liberty, or the green ivy which mistaken hands have 
 planted at its root, and which is ultimately to enfold and 
 crush within its deadly embrace that majestic tree, we 
 can but wish the highest degree of temporal and spirit- 
 ual prosperity to our worthy antagonist in this dis- 
 cussion.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY^ 311 
 
 LETTER FROM MESSRS. CLOPTON, BILBRO, AND 
 
 MAYES. 
 
 Rev. Samuel Henderson: 
 
 Dear Brother, — At the close of the communication con- 
 cluding on your part, the discussion between yourself 
 and our pastor, Rev. E. J. Hamill, you address to the 
 undersigned a respectful communication, to which we 
 feel it is our duty to reply. In consequence of the 
 republication in your columns, of an article from the 
 Western Watchman, reflecting directly upon the econ- 
 om}' of the Methodist Church, not in a religious, but in 
 a political point of view, and thus, indirectly, upon the 
 patriotism of the members of the Methodist Church, we 
 felt that self-respect, as well as attachment to the 
 Church of our choice, called upon us to ask at your 
 hands admission into your colums, of a defense pre- 
 pared by the pastor of our Church, against the malign- 
 ant aspersions cast upon Methodism, by the anonymous 
 author of the article in question. It was not the inten- 
 tion of our pastor to have carried the matter beyond 
 that exjpose of the principles of the Methodist Church 
 government to which our names were appended, had 
 you not seen proper, a right we by no means question, 
 to enter the arena and contend that the Metliodist 
 Church government was anti-Republican. In this as- 
 pect of things, we had a riglit to expect from our pastor, 
 and were convinced of his ability to prepare, a defense
 
 312 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 of our Cliurcli economy. "We have read the discussion 
 with interest, and were much gratified with the ability 
 and christian kindness with which it was conducted. 
 We are pleased to bear testimony to the fact that in 
 our opinion it will tend to draw more closely, and not 
 to sever, the bond of christian union, which should exist 
 between the two Churches. We congratulate both 
 parties to this debate upon this happy result of the 
 discussion; and we greatly desire to see it published 
 in book form, that it may do good more extensively, by 
 a wider circulation in both Churches. We will cheer- 
 fully enter into any arrangements which can be made, 
 to secure its publication and promote its increased cir- 
 culation. 
 
 We are indebted to you for the courtesies extended 
 to our pastor, and for the kind regards you have ex- 
 pressed for him and for ourselves. 
 
 Eespectfully yours, 
 
 DAVID CLOPTON, 
 JOHN B. BILBRO, 
 ROBT. L. MAYES. 
 Tuskegee, Ala., Nov. 2, 1855. 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 The foregoing communication was handed in last 
 week, but owing to the great length of the closing ar- 
 ticles of the discussion, it was crowded out. It is in 
 response to a note we addressed to the gentlemen whose 
 names are signed to it, some two months since, at what
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 313 
 
 •we then supposed, from the long- silence of Bro. Hamill, 
 was the end of the discussion between us. And let U3 
 here say to our Methodist brethren, that we never have, 
 and God forbid that we ever should, seek to deprive any 
 man or set of men, the right to adopt any form of 
 Church government they please. But when such form 
 is adopted by them — there is a co-relative right belong-- 
 ing to others — and that is the right to discuss its prin- 
 ciples. But the abstract right to adopt Episcopacy, or 
 to live under an Episcopal government, is one thing, 
 and the right to call such a government a Democratic 
 Eepublic, is quite a different thing. When, therefore, 
 we chose to exercise a " right which" you " by no means 
 question," to investigate the claims of your ecclesiasti- 
 cal polity to Republicanism, we did so for the sole pur- 
 pose of showing that a government by the clergy was 
 not a government by the people; that whatever civil 
 rights and privileges were guarantied to the laity of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church by our free government 
 — Episcopacy "knew no- such rights and comprehended 
 no such privileges." And we do honcstl.y maintain, that 
 so long as Methodists uphold their present governmental 
 organization, so long do they practically and theoreti- 
 cally repudiate, in their ecclesiastical capacity, the spi- 
 rit and genius of American Democracy. And if their 
 worth}' pastor has succeeded in proving to their satis- 
 faction, tiiat their "Church economy," ever}' department 
 of which is administered by the clergy — which "has no 
 constituents" — which refuses to place grave questions 
 "at the feet of a Democracy" — which is " absolutely an 
 aristocracy" — is, nevertheless, quite Democratic and 
 Republican — all we have to say is, they arc far more 
 21
 
 314 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 easily satisfied with religious than with civil polity. 
 We suppose if we should undertake to prove to them, 
 that a political compact, organized upon the identical 
 principles of Episcopal Methodism, was quite homoge- 
 neous with our free institutions, they might, indeed, con- 
 cede that we were honest at heart, but certainly not a 
 very safe expounder of Democracy and Eepublicanism. 
 For example, suppose our revolutionary war had proved 
 a failure, and the colonies had been reduced to a state 
 of servitude again to the British Crown, would any ra- 
 tional man ever have suspicioned Episcopal Methodism 
 as possessing the first element either of Democracy or 
 Republicanism? With what exultation and pride would 
 they, in such an event, have pointed to the part which 
 their illustrious founder, John Wesley, and his first mis- 
 sionaries to this country, took in that memorable strug- 
 gle, in denouncing our forefathers as rebels, and afiirm- 
 ing that they had no just cause to take up arms against 
 their sovereign ! Indeed, their preachers at least might 
 have secured as high a commendation from George III. 
 as the Baptists did from George Washington. 
 
 For the kind terms in which these brethren speak, 
 both of the ability and spirit of the discussion, we are 
 much obliged. They live in the immediate community 
 in which it has occurred — have read it all — and are 
 therefore prepared to speak understandingly. But how 
 different has it been viewed by some of the accredited 
 organs of their Church! By these we have been alter- 
 nately denounced during its progress, as being guilty 
 of " the lowest piece of religious demagogueism which 
 has yet transpired"— as "a legitimate child of the father 
 of lies"— as. " ignorant of the subject" we were discussing
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 315 
 
 — as " accuser of the brethren" — as uttering " self-evi- 
 dently malicious misrepresentations," &c. &c. Now, 
 these brethren declai-e in their communication: "We 
 have read the discussion with interest, and were much 
 gratified with the ability and Christian kindness with 
 which it was conducted." In this instance, at least, we 
 must invert the sentiment of the poet, and say: 
 
 " 'Tis distance lends" repulsion " to the view !" 
 
 Being desirous, when the discussion first opened, that 
 " it might do good more extensively by a wider circula- 
 tion in both Churches," than our paper could give it, we 
 requested Bro. Hamill to secure its publication in some 
 one of the "Advocates," as an act of reciprocal courtesy, 
 and we are quite sorry that he failed in the effort. This 
 desire has not abated in the slightest degree; and we 
 are ready to negotiate any equitable arrangement, by 
 which its " increased circulation" may be promoted. 
 
 We assure these brethren, that the courtesy we have 
 extended to their pastor has been quite cordial from 
 first to last; a courtesy, by the way, which we never 
 have known extended to a Baptist by any one of the 
 " Advocates." But a few weeks since, a violent assault 
 was made upon Dr. Baker, a Baptist minister of Georgia, 
 in the columns of the "Nashville Christian Advocate," 
 by a Mr. Mills, a Methodist clergj-man, to which Dr. 
 Baker made a respectful reply, asking the editor of that 
 paper to insert it, and this act of justice was denied him! 
 Even while we write, we observe a similar instance of 
 injustice on the part of the "Texas Christian Advocate." 
 The treatment wo have received at tho hands of these
 
 316 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 " Advocates" is too well known to our readers, to be 
 more than alluded to here. We know of no political 
 editor in the Union, whose policy is governed by such 
 a code of morals. The surveillance of a "star chamber," 
 or a French '' Emperor," was never more rigid and pre- 
 scriptive than that which keeps watch and ward over 
 the columns of these journals, and assumes to denounce 
 every attempt to expose the polity of their denomina- 
 tion, not agreeable to them, as impertinent and unchar- 
 itable. With this, however, we have nothing to do — 
 only to pursue a course exactly the reverse of theirs. 
 Indeed, we wish no better evidence that we are right 
 than this. Our convictions of duty and justice are pre- 
 scribed in a " book of discipline" which, so far from hold- 
 ing the penalty of exclusion in terrorem over us for " in- 
 veighing against the doctrines and discipline" of any de- 
 nomination, Avhich we believe unfounded in the Word of 
 God, commands us to " prove all things, and hold fast 
 to that which is good." Hence " the courtesies extend- 
 ed" to their pastor, and " the kind regards" we have ex- 
 pressed for them individually, is the result, not so much 
 of personal esteem (although we are not wanting in 
 this) as of Christian principle — and we claim no thanks 
 for either.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 311 
 
 LETTER YII. 
 
 THE DISCUSSION. 
 
 Three errors of fact; Their correction requested. 
 
 Brother Henderson: 
 
 There are several grave errors of fact, not of opinion, 
 in your last article. As that article closes the discus- 
 sion, I do not offer you a reply; but simply state the 
 errors in question, with the conviction that you 'will do 
 us justice, in the points specified. 
 
 First error of fact: In your examination of my review 
 of the contrast, under the third head, you say of the di- 
 vision of the Church in 1844, " This essential change in 
 the constitution of .the Church, was not submitted to 
 the action of a single society of laymen in the Union." 
 
 Now, it is unaccountable to me, how you could have 
 fallen into this error, upon a fact of such vital import- 
 ance to the question under discussion. I had repeatedly 
 called your attention to the fact, that the laity oT the 
 entire South, demanded the division. I had quoted Mr. 
 Fancher's remark, " That the most excited meetings 
 soon occurred in all parts of the South, and the most 
 indignant resolutions were passed." I had referred to 
 the fact, that the Rev. Mr. Curry, a distinguished minis-
 
 318 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ter of the Georgia Conference, was required to vacate 
 his charge of the Columbus Church, by the members, on 
 account of his opposition to the action of that Church, 
 on the question of the division; and, moreover, the re- 
 port of the Church Property Case abounds with such 
 testimony. For example, in an "Addi'ess to the minis- 
 ters and members of the slave-holding States," drawn 
 up before they left New York, by the very delegates to 
 the General Conference of 1 844, who proposed the plan 
 of separation; they say, " The plan does not decide that 
 division shall take place; but simply, and it is thought 
 securely, provides that it may, if it be found necessary. 
 Of this necessit}^, you (the ministers a^id viembers) are 
 to be the judges." 
 
 Again, in the proceedings of the South Carolina Con- 
 ference, p. 113, it is said: "Resolutions to that effect 
 (namely, the division of the Church) have been adopted 
 by the Quarterly Conferences of all the circuits and 
 stations without any exception, and in many, perhaps 
 in most of them, by other meetings also, which have 
 been called expressly for the purpose; and in some of 
 them, by meetings held at every preaching place where there 
 was a society. In the whole field of our Conference dis- 
 trict, one individual only has been heard to express 
 himself doubtfully as to the expediency of a separate 
 jurisdiction." 
 
 Again, in the address to the Louisville Convention of 
 the Methodist Church, South, which sums up the action 
 of our entire Conferences, and memlcrship, it is declared, 
 " It was found that both as to the members of the An- 
 nual Conferences, and the local ministry and membershij) of 
 our entire territory, the declaration had been sustained,
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 319 
 
 and a separate organization called for, by as great a ma- 
 jority as ninety-five to five — that the number dissenting 
 should have been so small, compared to the number of 
 those icho hate reqiiired us to act, is to our minds conclus- 
 ive proof of the absolute necessity of this action." 
 Church Property Case, p. 121. Of the truth of the fact, 
 that the laity did take action upon the question of the 
 division of the Church, there are living xcitnesses by thous- 
 ands. 
 
 You surely could not have read the entire report of 
 the Church Property Case. Had you read these ex- 
 tracts from it, which I now quote, it would have been 
 impossible for j'ou to have fallen into so great an error, 
 upon so fundamental a point. Of course, this correc- 
 tion of your error should materially change your opin- 
 ion of Methodism. 
 
 Second error of fact: "You say the preachers and 
 elders appoint all the class-leaders, stewards, and trus- 
 tees who hold Church propert}'^ — and preachers remove 
 at their pleasure tlieir appointees." You are right with 
 regard to tlie appointment and removal of class-leaders, 
 though this discretionary power of the preacher is held 
 under strict accountability; but you are wrong about 
 trustees, and stewards. A new board of trustees may 
 be appointed by preachers, where the laws allow it; 
 but old boards of trustees fill their own vacancies by 
 election, and trustees and stewards arc accouiitable to 
 the Quarterly Conferences only, and cannot be removed 
 by either the preacher or the presiding elder. 
 
 Third error of fact: You quote Isaac Taylor as one, 
 whom " no man can suspect of being unfriendly to Me- 
 thodism." Hear the ^felliodist Quarterly Kcview, of
 
 320 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 July, 1853, of his work: " On almost every page under 
 an ill-disguised aflfectation of candor, his secret enmity 
 may be discovered. This is a sufficient exposure of the 
 hypocritical enmity with which he praises the heart of 
 Wesley, as incapable of injuring any man in the small- 
 est matter, while he charges him with upholding a 
 Church theory, on the ground of which heretics in troops 
 might consistently be burned." 
 
 Your own sense of honor, and of justice, will dictate 
 to you the propriety of correcting these errors of fact. 
 I am as ever, your brother in Christ, 
 
 E. J. HAMILL. 
 
 P. S. The Fourth Quarterly Conference of the Oak 
 Bowery circuit. Chambers county, passed resolutions 
 unanimously recommending the publication of the dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 Signed, Jonathan "Ware, Sec'y. 
 
 The Fourth Quarterly Confereijce of the Tuskegee 
 circuit, of which the Rev. Wm. B. Neal is pastor, passed 
 similar resolutions recommending the publication of- the 
 discussion. 
 
 Signed, P. B. Appleby, Sec'y.
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 321 
 
 REPLY TO LETTER YII. 
 
 Misapprehension of argument; The '• first error of fact" may be cor- 
 rected when the " standards" are mended, and the judicial records 
 of the country rcctilied; Second " error of fact;" Third " error of 
 fact;" The '' seventh wonder;" Mutual call for the publication of 
 the discussion by Baptists and Methodists. 
 
 Wc very cheerfully insert the foregoing' commnnica- 
 tion from our worthy antagonist in the late disctission 
 on Episcopal Methodism. Far be it from us to persist 
 in " errors of fact," in reference to Episcopacy; especi- 
 ally such " errors of fact " as " should materially change 
 our opinion of Methodism." The reader will be able to 
 judge how far these "errors" may be legitimately 
 charged to our account, at the close of this article. 
 
 In regard to the " first error of fact," we think that if 
 Brother Hamill had fully comprehended the drift of our 
 argument on the " Property Case," it would have " ma- 
 terially changed his opinion" of the "error" in question. 
 In that argument, we took it for granted, that the prin- 
 ciples on which that case was decided by the learned 
 tribunal to wliich it was referred, were true in their ap- 
 plication to the whole system of Methodism. At least, 
 80 thought the Court. These principles were, as argued 
 by the counsel who gained the suit, and as sustained by 
 the Court in its decision, that the General Conference of
 
 322 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 travelling preachers "admit no constituents" — that 
 they " have the power to create and to destroy" — that 
 " not a modicum of power is left elsewhere " — and, to 
 use the very language of the judges who decided the 
 suit, " when they (these travelling preachers) are as- 
 sembled in General Conference, according to the usages 
 and discipline of the Church, they represent themselves, and 
 have no constituents." 
 
 Our position is. That the laity in the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Churchy have, in a governmental sense, no power whatever. 
 And our review of the "Property Case" was intended 
 to sustain this position. Now, the only legitimate mode 
 of proving that we committed an error in saying that 
 the division of the Church, by the General Conference 
 in 1844, "was not submitted to the action of a single 
 society of laymen in the Union," is to appeal to the ac- 
 tion of that body, in making that " essential change in 
 its constitution." Pursuing this course, we turn to the 
 original resolutions passed by that body in 1844, pro- 
 viding for a division of the Church. If we had the space, 
 we would publish the whole series; but we have room 
 for only the fourth, which covers the whole ground in 
 debate between us. It is as follows: 
 
 " 4tb. That whenever the Annual Conferences, by a 
 vote of three-fourths of all their members voting on the 
 third resolution, (which provided for a "change of the 
 sixth restrictive rule," so as to authorize an equitable 
 division of " the Book Concern and chartered Fund,") 
 shall have concurred in the recommendation to alter 
 the sixth restrictive article, the agents at New York 
 and Cincinnati shall, and they are hereby authorized 
 and directed to deliver over to any authorized agent or
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 323 
 
 appointee of the Church, South, should one be author- 
 ized, all notes and book accounts against the ministers, 
 Church members, or citizens within its boundaries, with 
 authority to collect the same for the sole use of the 
 Southern Church, and that said agents also convey to 
 the aforesaid agent, or appointee, of the South, all the 
 real estate, and assign to him all the property, including 
 papers, stock, and all right and interest connected with 
 the printing establishments at Charleston, Eichmond, 
 and Nashville, which now belong to the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church." 
 
 Now, observe distinctly, Tliat the authority which is to 
 give force and effect to those resolutions — resolutions 
 which contemplate the most "essential change " in Me- 
 thodism which has ever occurred in its history — is, not the 
 societies of laymen and local preachers, for thy are never 
 named in such a connection, but the Annual Conferences of 
 BISHOPS and travelling PREACHERS. And this authority 
 is distinctly submitted to them in the first, third, fourth 
 and fifth resolutions passed by that body. They are the 
 only constituents authorized to act in the inemises. We care 
 not if there were five hundred or five thousand " ex- 
 cited meetings held in the South" on that subject — we 
 care not how many " addresses " were aubmitted " to 
 the ministers and members of the slave-holding States," 
 by the members of the Conference of 1844, on their indi- 
 vidual responsibility, and after that body adjourned. The 
 question is, Whether the General Conference of 1844, in 
 passing the resolutions 2*roviding for a division of the 
 Church, RECOGNIZED IN THE LAITY a?i authority 
 competent to sit in judgment upon its acts and doings? Prove 
 this to us, Brother Uaraill, and we will cheerfully and
 
 324 A DISCUSSION ON 
 
 caiididly acknowledge, that we committed an error in 
 saying that "this essential change was not submitted 
 to the action of a single society of laymen in the Union." 
 The most careless reader, it seems to us, must have un- 
 derstood us to mean, in that sentence, that societies of 
 laymen, in the language of the Court, " have no part or 
 connection with its governmental organization, and 
 never had"^ — that General Conferences do not " submit" 
 their acts to the decision of laymen, in any sense of that 
 term — and that in the case to which we referred, the 
 tribunal which was to give force and effect to the reso- 
 lutions was, NOT THE LAITY, hit the bishops and travell'mg 
 preachers, in their Annual Conference capacity. The privi- 
 lege of holding public meetings to acqxdesce in, and suhnit 
 to the action of their rulers, is one thing, and the EIGHT 
 to vote upon a vital question of Church organization, as 
 recognized constituents, is quite a different thing. We 
 think we could even appeal to Brother Hamill to make 
 this distitfction. 
 
 Our brother thinks, of course, this correction of your 
 (our) error should materially change your (our) opinion 
 of Methodism. About as much, Bro. Hamill, as the re- 
 cent public meetings in France and England, by which 
 the loyalty of the people in these nations was expressed 
 to their respective Sovereigns for the manner in which 
 they are prosecuting the war with Russia, would "change 
 our opinion" of monarchy. Whenever your General 
 Conference shall recognize, in the laity, a constituency, 
 an authorized tribunal to "cure its errors and rectify its 
 wrongs" — whenever that body shall, in the plenitude of 
 its condescension, " place grave questions at the feet of 
 a Democracy"— THAT will "materially change our
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 325 
 
 opinion of Methodism." But until this is done, the 
 "excited meetings," "Mr. Curry," "addresses" from de- 
 legates to " General Confercuccs," and " Conventions," 
 may be multiplied fourfold — we must persist in saying', 
 that the General Conference of 1844 did not submit the 
 resolutions which providjed for a contingent division of 
 the Church, " to the action of a single society of laymen 
 in the Union," to give them effect. That body "knew 
 no such rights, and comprehended no such privileges." 
 We are sorry, therefore, that we cannot accommodate our 
 brother in this matter, small as it is. " Retract!" No; 
 not until the " Book of Discipline" is mended, and the 
 judicial records Of the country are corrected.* 
 
 The " second error of fact" can be disposed of quite 
 easily. In saying that the preachers and elders appoint 
 all the class-leaders, stewards, and trustees, who hold 
 Church property, we stated a " substantial truth, with 
 circumstantial variations," as our law books would say. 
 The class-leaders and trustees are appointed by the 
 preacher iu charge; and in case of a vacancy by death, 
 
 * The above con*ection of the first great error of fact, I do not 
 deem .sufficient — but the facts are before tbe public. I submit to 
 their decision. 
 
 E. J. HAMILL. 
 
 Wc regret this. As ourdefence of the position, involving what 
 is calh'd " the first great • rror of fact," is based upon evidence de- 
 rived from official document,s, emanating from the General Confer- 
 ence and the judicial records of the country, we cannot believe that 
 the reader will Ije as incredulous as our worthy opponent. We, 
 therefore, most cheerfully join in submitting the whole matter to 
 the same enlightened umpire. 
 
 Editor S. W. Baptist. 
 28
 
 326 A, DISCUSSION ON 
 
 removal, or otherwise, in boards of trustees, as stated 
 in the latter part of the same article, the preacher nom- 
 inates, and the board confirms. Stewards are nominat- 
 ed by the " preacher having- charge of the circuit," and 
 " confirmed or rejected by the quarterly Conference." — • 
 (Discipline, p. 218.) Not wrong about trustees, Bro. 
 Hamill. " Old boards of trustees can fill their own vacan- 
 cies," provided they vote for the nominee of the preacher. See 
 Discipline, p. 218. The only " error" we committed was 
 in classing stewards with class-leaders and trustees; and 
 this was not an error if the old legal maxim be true, quid 
 facit per alium, facit per se: what a man does through an- 
 other, he does himself And besides all this, Bro. Hamill 
 does not pretend that the societies of laymen have any 
 hand in these appointments. And this was the point we 
 were establishing in making that statement. 
 
 The " third error of fact" admits of a still easier solu- 
 tion. We did not quote from Isaac Taylor, as one of 
 the " standards" of Methodism, but as an English writer 
 of acci'edited standing and ability. Any man who will 
 read the volume from which we quoted, must be impress- 
 ed with the conviction, that while he totally disagrees 
 "with Mr. Wesley and his followers, on their ecclesiasti- 
 cal polity, he nevertheless held them in high respect. 
 Perhaps Mr. Taylor, like Judges Nelson and Betts, and 
 all other outsiders who have attempted to look into 
 the " mystery of Methodism," did not understand the suh- 
 ject. " Our Episcopacy" must be the "seventh wonder 
 of the world," as neither the judiciary of the country, 
 nor lawyers, nor scholars, nor indeed any of the rest of 
 mankind "who belong to the uninitiated, can understand 
 it. It seems there must be something in the system
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 321 
 
 which stultifies the intellect of every man who undertakes 
 to analyze it. His perceptions may be as clear as the 
 noon-day's sun upon every other question, but here, a 
 "horror of great darkness" instantly encompasses him! 
 His reasonings "may be true in their application" to all. 
 other subjects, "hvi\. false in their application" to this! 
 Now, really, we must be pardoned for throwing out the 
 sufifsrestion, that the fruitless searches which have been 
 made for the "Democratic clement" in Episcopal Me- 
 thodism, is not so mucli from the icant of sight to detect it, 
 as from the want of the material in the system. 
 
 We are gratified that two other " Quarterly Confer- 
 ences" have expressed their approbation of the discus- 
 sion, and their desire for its publication. Between fif- 
 teen and twenty Baptist Associations in this State, re- 
 presenting " a constituency" of about forty thousand, 
 have called on us to publish it.
 
 APPENDIX.
 
 PREFATORY XOTE. 
 
 In my flrst interview with the Rev. Mr. Hamill, in regard to the 
 joint publication of this volume, I claimed the privilege of insert- 
 ing, either in the body of the work, or in the form of an Appendix, 
 those articles which appeared in the N. 0. Christian Advocate and 
 the Texas Christian Advocate, in which I had been so violently as- 
 sailed, together with my replies. To this Mr. Hamill objected. I 
 then informed him that I should use this privilege in my portion of 
 the joint edition. To this he consented, provided I would exonerate 
 him from all agency in the matter. This, of course, I agreed to do. 
 And as the entire responsibility of this Appendix has been thrown 
 upon myself, I have judged it to be a privilege and a duty to add a 
 number of other articles, which will illustrate and confirm several 
 points involved in the foregoing discussion, and which, it is thought, 
 will add no little to the interest of the volume. The reader will, 
 therefore, bear in mind that I only am responsible for this Appendix. 
 
 SAMUEL HENDERSON. 
 January, 1856. *
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 A. 
 
 ME. WESLEY'S "CALM ADDRESS TO OUR AMERICAN 
 
 COLONIES." 
 
 In tlie current histories of American Methodism, it is confidently 
 asserted of those Methodist preachers who became so offensive to 
 the patriots of our glorious Revolution, by " avowing their attach- 
 ment to the British cause," that they acted " contrary io the advice of 
 Mr. Wesley. — See " Gorric's History of Episcopal Ileihodism, as it was, 
 and is," Sec. 3, p. 52. That the reader may determine what 
 amount of credit is due to this statement, we propose presenting a 
 few extracts from Mr. Wesley's " Calm Address to our American Colo- 
 nies,'^ written at the time that our forefathers were hunted dovi-n like 
 wild beasts in the swamps and morasses of the South, and marking 
 the ground with the blood of their unshod feet in the bleak winters 
 of the North. Of that sacred cause, to maintain which, these noble 
 men " pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sa- 
 cred honor," the father of American Methodism holds the following 
 language : 
 
 " 3. But I object to the very foundation of your plea that 
 ' every freeman is governed bylaws to which he has consented;' 
 as confidently as it has been asserted, it is ahsolutdy false. In wide 
 extended dominions, a very small part of the people are concerned 
 in making the laws. This, as all public business, must be done by 
 delegation, the delegates are chosen by a select number. And 
 those tliat are not electors, who arc far the greater part, stand by, 
 idle and and helpless spectators. •»»••*♦*♦*• 
 
 " 4. But you say, you ' arc entitled to life, liberty, and property, 
 by niituro ; and that you have never ceded to any sovereign power 
 the right to di^jtoHc of these without your consent.'
 
 334 APPENDIX. 
 
 " While you speak as the naked sons of nature, this is certainly- 
 true ; but you presently declare — •' Our ancestors, at the time they 
 settled these Colonies, were entitled to all the rights of natural horn 
 subjects within the realm of England.' This, likewise, is true ; but 
 when this is granted, the boast of original rights is at an end; 
 you are no longer in a state of nature, but sink down to Colonists, 
 governed by a Charter. If your ancestors were subjects, they ac- 
 knowledged a sovereign ; if they Lad a right to English privileges, 
 they were accountable to English laws, and had ceded to the king 
 and parliament, the power of disposinrj, withotit their consent, of both their 
 lives, liberties, and properties. And did the parliament cede to them 
 a dispensation from the obedience which they owe as natural sub- 
 jects ? — or any degree of independence not enjoyed by other Eng- 
 lishmen ?***** »****# 
 
 " 6. But you say — ' As the Colonies are [not represented in the 
 British parliament, they are entitled to a free power of legislation; 
 for they inherit all the right which their ancestors had, of enjoying 
 all the privileges of Englishmen.' 
 
 " They do inherit all the privileges which their ancestors had, but 
 they can inherit no more. Their ancestors left a country where the 
 representatives of the people were elected by men particularly qua- 
 lifled, and where those who wanted tliat qualification were bound 
 by the decisions of men whom they had not deputed. You are the 
 descendants of men who either had no votes, or resigned them by 
 emigration. You have, therefore, exactly what your ancestors left 
 you — not a vote in making laM's, nor in choosing legislators, Init the 
 happiness of being protected by laws, and the duty of obeying them. 
 
 " 7. However, the ' Colonies have a right to all the privileges 
 granted them by the royal charters, or secured to them by provin- 
 cial laws.' 
 
 " The first clause is allowed ; they have certainly a right to all 
 the privileges granted them by the royal charters. But as to the 
 second, there is a doubt. Provincial laws may grant privileges to 
 individuals of the province, but surely no province can confer pro- 
 vincial privileges on itself. They have the right to do all which 
 the king has given them, but not to all M'hich they have given 
 themselves. * * * * * *
 
 APPENDIX. 335 
 
 " 8. All that imiiartlally consider what has been observed, must 
 readily allow, Hiat the English parliament has an undoubted rifjht to tax 
 all the English Colonies. 
 
 '•' But whence, then, is all this hurry and tumult ? Why is America 
 all in an uproar?*' Here the reverend politician^ J oh>* Wesley, pro- 
 ceeds to give his "opinion" of the cause of this "upi-oar." He 
 alleges that '• a few men in England, who are determined enemies 
 to monarchy," are " seeking to erect their grand idol, their dear 
 commonwealth, upon its ruins!'' So that our noble revolutionary 
 ancestry — Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Henry, Madison, and all 
 their compatriots, were the mere dupes of " a few men in England !" 
 and our glorious Republic is the result of the intrigues of these few 
 " artful men ! " After belaboring them with this insult to their 
 patriotism and integrity, he proceeds : 
 
 " 10. But, my brethren, would this be any advantage to you ? 
 Can you hope for a more desirable form of government, cither in 
 England or America, than that which you now enjoy ? [This clause 
 in the " Address" seems especially intended for his own brethren, 
 from the emphasis he lays upon " you,''' as it is italicised by himself.] 
 After all the vehement cry for liltcrty, what more liberty can you 
 have! What more religious liberty can you desire, than that which 
 you enjoy already ? May not everyone among you worship God 
 according to his own conscience? What civil liberty canyon de- 
 sire, which you arc not already possessed of? Do not you sit with- 
 out restraint, every man under his oion vine f Do you not, every one, 
 high or low, enjoy the fruit of your labor? This is real, rational 
 liberty, such as is enjoyed by Englislimen alone, and not by any other 
 people in the habitable world. AVould the being independent of 
 England make you more free ? Far, very far from it. It would 
 hardly be possible for you to steer clear between anarchy and 
 tyranny. But suppose, after numberless dangers and mischiefs, you 
 should settle into one or more Republics, would a Republican go- 
 vernment give you more liberty, either civil or religious? By no 
 means. NO GOVERNMENTS UNDER HEAVEN ARE SO DES- 
 POTIC AS T1I1>: REI'UBLICAN: No suaJECxs are govkuned in 
 
 so AUBITHAUY A MANNER AS THOSE OF A COMMONWEAI.Tlf. • * • • 
 
 "11. 'But if we submit to one tax, more will follow.' Perhaps 
 BO, and perhaps not. But if they did ; if you were tu.\cd (which is
 
 336 APPENDIX. 
 
 quite improbable) equal with Ireland and Scotland, still, were you 
 to prevent this by renouncing connection with England, the remedy 
 would be tvorse than the disease. For oh !■ what convulsions must poor 
 America feel, before any other government was settled ? Innumer- 
 able mischiefs must ensue before any general form could be estab- 
 lished. And the grand mischief would ensue when it was establish- 
 ed ; when you had received a yoke which you could not shate off. 
 
 "12. Brethren, open your eyes! Come to yourselves! Be no 
 longer the dupes of designing men. I do not mean any of your coun- 
 trymen in America : I doubt whether any of these are in the secret. 
 The designing men, the Ahithophels are in England ; those who have laid 
 their scheme so deep, and covered it so well, that thousands who are 
 ripening it, suspect nothing at all of the matter. These well mean- 
 ing men, sincerely believing that they are serving theii* country, ex- 
 claim against grievances which either never existed, or are exag- 
 gerated above measure, and thereby inflame the people more and 
 more, to tlie wish of those who are behind the scene. But be not 
 you duped any longer ; do not ruin yourselves for them that owe you 
 no good will ; that now employ you for their own purposes, and in 
 the end will give you no thanks. They love neither England nor 
 America, but play one against the other, in subserviency to their 
 grand design of overturning the English Government. Be warned 
 in time. Stand and consider before it is too late — before you ha\;e 
 entailed confusion and misery on your latest posterity. Have pity 
 upon your mother country! Have pity on your own V Have pity 
 on yourselves, upon your children, and upon all that are near and 
 dear to you ! Let us not bite and devour one another, lest we be 
 consumed one of another. 0, let us follow after peace ! Let us put 
 away our sins, the real ground of all our calamities ! — which never 
 will or can be thoroughly removed till we fear God and honor the 
 king.''— irorfe of the Bev. John Wesley, vol. 10, pp. 131, 132, 133, 134, 
 135. 
 
 Now, what Mr. "Wesley was in politics, he was also in religion ; 
 a violent Tory. (\Xq use the term in its English sense.) As a 
 politician, he declares, " No governments under heaven are so despotic as the 
 Republic.'' As a Methodist, he affirms, " We are not liepubUcans, and 
 never intend to be." And yet it is the greatest pride and boast of 
 American Methodists, that they have derived their chartered privi-
 
 APPENDIX. 331 
 
 leges from Joha "Wesley ! — nay, they aver in the first section of their 
 " Discipline,"' that their first bishop, Dr. Colie, was " set apart" 
 " for the Episcopal office" by his hands — his solemn protestations to 
 the contrary notwithstanding! 
 
 It can scarcely be supposed that a man who would address our 
 Colonies in the foregoing manner, would, at the same time, liave 
 instructed his preachers to address them difi'erently, or even required 
 them to be silent. Far more reasonable is it to suppose, that in de- 
 nouncing our fathers as rebels, and beseeching them to return to 
 their allegiance to the British crown, they were obeying the instruc- 
 tions of their spiritual father. Whether thoy did not industriously 
 cii-oulate this " Calm Address "' among their flocks, is left to the 
 conjecture of the reader. 
 
 Finally : Appended to Mr. Wesley's " Calm Address," arc his 
 strictures on a sermon preached by Dr. Smith, of Philadelphia, in 
 which Dr. S. maintained, that •• no power on earth has a right to 
 grant our property without our consent." Mr. Wesley says — " Tea 
 times over, in difierent words, you ' profess yourselves to be contend- 
 ing for liberty.' But it is a vain empty profession, unless you meaa 
 by that threadbare word, a liberty from obeying your rightful sove- 
 reign, and from keeping the fundamental laws of your country. 
 And this, undoubtedly, it is. which the confederated Colonies are 
 contending for."' — 61! supra., p. 136. 
 
 B. 
 
 For the double purpose of satisfying a very reasonable curiosity 
 on the part of the reader, and of showing our Methodist brethren 
 bow neirli/ they all came to be Ei'Iscoi'alian.s, wc will here insert Dr. 
 Coke's letter to the "Rt. Rjv. Wiluam Wuitk," Bishop of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, together with the bishop's 
 account of the " private interview'' between himself. Dr. Coke, and 
 Dr. Magaw. As these documents are rapidly lloaling down the 
 stream of time; as they furnish an interesting-chapter in the history 
 of E/nncopal Methodism; and as Methodist authors are likely to per- 
 mit them to roach, not posterity, but the cold sea of oblivion, wc» 
 out of kindness at least to the present generation, have concluded
 
 338 APPENDIX. 
 
 to book them up, and rescue them from a fate to which their friends 
 seem inclined to consign them. AYe quote from the Rev. Alexan- 
 der McCaine's " History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy,'" publish- 
 ed in Baltimore, in 1827. Mr. McCaine was a preacher in connec- 
 tion with the Methodist Episcopal Church, " for upwards of thirty 
 years." 
 
 The following is a copy of this letter, attested by Bishop White : 
 
 " Right Reverend Sir: 
 
 " Permit me to iatriide a little on your time, upon a subject of great 
 importance. 
 
 " You, I believe, are conscious that I was brought up in the Church 
 of England, and have been ordained a presbyter of that Church. 
 For many years I was prejudiced, even I think, to bigotry, in favor 
 of it ; but through a variety of causes and incidents, to mention 
 which, would be tedious, and useless, my mind was exceedingly 
 biased on the other side of the question. In consequence of this, 
 I am not sure but I went further in the separation of our Church in 
 America, than Mr. Wesley, from whom I had received my commis- 
 sion, did intend. He did indeed solemnly invest me, as far as he 
 had a right so to do, with Episcopal authority, but did not intend, I 
 think, that our entire separation should take place. He being press- 
 ed by our friends on this side the water, for ministers to admin- 
 ister the sacraments to them (there being very few clergy of the 
 Church of England then in the States) he ivent farther, lam sure, than 
 he icould have gone, if he had foreseen some events u-hich followed. And this 
 I am certain of^that he is now sorry for the separation. 
 
 " But what can be done for a re-union, which I wish for; and to ac- 
 complish which, Mr. Wesley, I have no doubt, would use his influ- 
 ence to the utmost? The aflFection of a very considerable number 
 of the preachers and most of the people, is very strong towards him, 
 notwithstanding the excessive ill usage he received from a few. My interest 
 also, is not small; and both his and mine would readily and to the 
 utmost, be used to accomplish that (to us) very desirable object; if 
 a readiness were shown by the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church to re-unite. 
 
 " It is even to your Church an object of great importance. We 
 have now above G0,000 adults in our Society in these States; and
 
 APPENDIX. 339 
 
 about 251) travelling ministers and preachers: besides a great num- 
 ber of local preachers, very far exceeding the number of travelling 
 preachers; and some of these local preachers are men of very con- 
 siderable abilities; but if we numl)er the Methodists as most people 
 number the members of their Church, viz. : by the families -which 
 constantly attend the divine ordinances in their places of worship, 
 they will make a larger body than you possibly conceive. The So- 
 ciety, I believe, may be safely multiplied by five on an.average, to 
 give us our stated congregations ; which will then amount to 
 300,000. And if the calculation, which I think some eminent 
 writers have made, be just, that three-fifths of mankind are un-adult 
 (if I may use the expression) at any given period, it will follow that 
 all the families, the adults of which form our congregations iu these 
 States amount to 750,000. About one-fifth of these are blacks. 
 
 "The work now extends in length from Boston to the south of 
 Georgia; and in breadth, from the Atlantic to Lalie Champlain, 
 Vermont, Albany, Redstone, Holstein, Kentucky, Cumberland, &c. 
 
 " But there are many hindrances in the way. Can they be re- 
 moved ? 
 
 " 1. Our ordained ministers will not, ought not, to give up their 
 right of administering the sacraments. I don't think that tlie gen- 
 erality of them, perhaps none of them, would refuse to submit to a 
 reordination, if other hindrances were removed out of the way. I 
 must here observe, that between sixty and seventy only, out of the 
 two hundred and fifty, have been ordained presbyters, and about 
 sixty deacons (only). The presbyters are the choicest of the whole. 
 
 " 2. The other preachers would hardly submit to re-union, if the 
 possibility of their rising up to ordination depended on the present 
 bishops in America. Because, though they are all, I think I may 
 say, zealous, pious, and very useful men, yet they are not acquaint- 
 ed with the learned languages. Besides, they would argue, if the 
 present bishops would waive the article of the learned languages, 
 yet their successors might not. 
 
 "My desire of a re-union is so siacere and earnest, that tliese dif- 
 ficulties make me tremble: and yd something must he done heforc (he 
 death of Mr. Wesley, otiieru-ise 1 «hall despair of success: for though my 
 influence among the Methodists in these States, as well as in Eu- 
 rope, is, I doubt not, increasing, yet Mr. Asbury, whose influence is very
 
 340 APPENDIX. 
 
 capital, will not easily comply, nay, I know he will be exceedingly averse 
 to it. 
 
 " In Europe, ■where some steps had been taken, tending to a sepa- 
 ratlQu, all is at an end. Mr. Wesley is a determined enemy of it, 
 and I have lately borne an open and successful testimony against it. 
 " Shall I be favored with a private interviewwith you in Philadel- 
 phia? I shall be there, God willing, on Tuesday, the 17th of Maf. 
 If this be agreeable, I'll beg of you just to signify it in a note, di- 
 rected to me at Mr. Jacob Baker's, Merchant, Market Street, Phila- 
 delphia: or, if you please, by a few lines sent me by the return of 
 the post, at Philip Rogers', Esq., in Baltimore, from yourself or Dr. 
 Magaw: and I will wait upon you with my friend Dr. Magaw. We 
 can then enlarge on the subjects. 
 
 "lam conseioiis of it that secrcsy is of great importance in the present state of 
 the business, till the minds of you, your brother bishops, and Mr. 
 Wesley be circumstantially known. I must, therefore, beg that 
 these things be confined to yourself and Dr, Magaw, till I have the 
 honor of seeing you. 
 
 " Thus, you see, that I have made a bold venture on your honor 
 and candor, and have opened my whole heart to you on the subject, 
 as far as the extent of a small letter will allow me. If you put 
 equal confidence in me, you will find me candid and faithful. 
 
 " I have, notwithstanding, been guilty of inadvertencies. Very 
 lately I found myself obliged (for the pacifying of my conscience) 
 to write a penitential letter to the Rev. Mr. Jarrat, which gave 
 him great satisfaction: and for the same reason I must write another 
 to the Rev. Mr. Petti grew. 
 
 " When I was last in America, I prepared and corrected a great 
 variety of things for our magazine, indeed, almost everything that 
 was printed, except some loose hints which I had taken of one of 
 - my journeys, and which I left in my hurry with Mr. Asbury, with- 
 out any correction, entreating him that no part of them might be 
 printed which could be improper or offensive. But through great 
 inadvertency (I suppose) he suffered some reflections on the charac- 
 ters of the two above mentioned gentlemen to be inserted in the 
 magazine, for which I am very corry : and probably shall not rest 
 till I have made my acknowledgments more public; though Mr. 
 Jarrat does not desire it.
 
 APPENDIX. 341 
 
 " I am not sure, whether I have not also offended you, sir, by ac- 
 cepting one of the oflfers made me by you and Dr. Magaw, of the 
 use of your Churches, aboui six years ago, on my first visit to Phil- 
 adelphia, -without informing you of our plan of separation from the 
 Church of England. If I did offend, (as I doubt I did, especially from 
 what you said to Mr. R. Dallam, of Abingdon,) I sincerely beg yoiu: 
 and Dr. Magaw's pardon. I"ll endeavor to amend. But alas! I am 
 a frail, weak creature. 
 
 " I Avill intrude no longer at present. One thing only I will claim 
 from your candor — that if you have no thought of improving this 
 proposal, you will burn this letter, and take no more notice of it, 
 (for it would be a pity to have us entirely alienated from each other, 
 if we cannot unite in the manner my ardent wishes desire) but if 
 you will farther negotiate the business, I will explain my mind still 
 more fully to you on the probabilities of success. 
 
 " In the mean time, permit me, with great respect, to subscribe 
 myself, Right Rev. Sir, your very humble servant in Christ, 
 
 (Signed) TUOMAS COKE. 
 
 The Right Reverend Father in God, 
 Bishop Wurrt:. 
 
 Richmond, April 2Uh, 1791. 
 
 •' P, S. — You must excuse interlineations, &c. I am just going in- 
 to the country, and have no time to transcribe." 
 
 " The doctor having, in this letter, proposed ' a private interview' 
 with Bishop White, ' if agreeable,' waited on him upon his arrival 
 at Philadelphia. The following extract of a letter from the bishop 
 to one of his friends, contains the substance of the conversation 
 which passed at the time between himself, Dr. JIagaw, and Dr. 
 Coke." 
 
 "Ffiiladdphia, July mh, 1804. 
 '•' Reverend Sir: 
 
 " In the spring of the year, 1791, 1 received a letter from Dr. Coke, 
 on the subject of uniting the Methodist Society with the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church. An answer was returned. In consequence of 
 which, Dr. Coke, on his coming to town, made me a visit, having not 
 then received my letter, but having heard that I had written. Our 
 conversation turned chiefly on the aforesaid subject. The general 
 30
 
 342 APPENDIX. 
 
 outlines of Dr. Coke's plan were, a re-ordination of the Methodist 
 ministers, and their continuing under the superintendence then ex- 
 isting, and on the practices of their peculiar institutions. There 
 was also suggested by him, a propriety, hut not a condition made, of 
 ADMITTING TO THE EPISCOPACY, HIMSELF AND THE 
 GENTLEMAN ASSOCIATED WITH HIM in the superintendence 
 of the Methodist Societies. This intercourse was communicated at 
 the time from Dr. Coke to Dr. Magaw. I do not know of any other 
 person then informed of it, unless I may except the gentleman above 
 alluded to, by whom, if I have been rightly informed, my letter to 
 Dr. Coke was opened in his absence — such a freedom being under- 
 stood, as I supposed, t;) arise out of tbe connection between the two 
 gentlemen. But for this part of the statement I cannot vouch. It 
 was understood between Dr. Coke and me, that the proposal should 
 be communicated to the bishops of the Episcopal Church, at the next 
 Convention, which was to be in September, 1792, in New York. 
 This was accordingly done. After which, I perceived no use of fur- 
 ther communication on the subject; and I have not since seen Dr. 
 Coke, nor heard from him, nor written to him. 
 
 " It appears to me that the above comprehends either explidlly or 
 by implication, all the points to which your letter leads. It would 
 have been more agreeable to me, if no occasion of this testimony 
 had occurred; and it is now given, merely to prevent the matter 
 being understood otherwise than it really is. 
 
 " The above is what I have written to Mr. McClaskey, and I re- 
 main, &c. &c. 
 
 Y'our affectionate brother, 
 
 WILLIAM WHITE.-' 
 
 Some eight or nine years after the failure of the above overture, 
 Dr. Coke made a similar one to the " Lord Bishop of London." In 
 this letter to the bishop, an " interview" is sought by the doctor, pro- 
 vided his " lordship" would signify his willingness. To " some of his 
 most intimate friends," he says, he " has ventured to disclose this 
 plan" of effecting a union between the3Iethodist and the Episcopal 
 Church, and that " it meets their decided approbation and cordial 
 wishes for success;" and furthermore, says the doctor, " the Attor- 
 ney-General, with whom I had the honor of being acquainted at
 
 APPENDIX. 343 
 
 Oxford, approved of it,'" and '•' encouraged me to lay the whole at 
 the feet of your lordship." " The plan" lies " at the feet of his lord- 
 ship." we suppose, to this day; for he docs not seem to have taken 
 it from his footstool. 
 
 Before dismissing this topic, allow us to observe, that Dr. Coke 
 made still a third effort for the bishopric. In 1813, he addressed a 
 letter to " some of the most eminent and influential British states- 
 men," petitioning for Episcopal orders, and promising '• to renounce 
 all connection u-ith the Mdhodists, if the Prince Regent would only make him 
 a bishop for India!" About the same time, he addressed a letter to 
 Wilberforce, in which he engages: "In case of my appointment to 
 the Episcopacy to India, [I shall] return most fully and faithfully into 
 the losom of the Established Church, and do everything in my power to 
 promote its interests," &c. — Wtlberforce Correspondence, vol. ii, p. 114r, 
 quoted in Paris' History of the Prot. Meth. Church, p. 385. But alas 
 this overture also failed! None could be found to " pity the sorrows 
 of the poor old man!" 
 
 Now, if the -'Book of Discipline" of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Cburcb, speaks the truth in its first section, when it aflBrms that Mr. 
 "Wesley ordained Dr. Coke to the Episcopal office, how comes it to 
 pass that Dr. Coke applied to Bishop "White, not only for his own 
 consecration to that office, but for the ordination of a competent 
 number of preachers in the Methodist connection, to administer the 
 sacraments to the societies? If he were already a bishop, why did 
 he not ordain these preachers? And why did he make two other 
 distinct overtures to secure Episcopal consecration? And yet the 
 first chapter of the Methodist Discipline alleges that he teas a bishop 
 many years l)efore either of these overtures were made ! ! 
 
 But perhaps Dr. Coke took the same view of his ordination by 
 John "Wesley, that the poet, Charles Wesley, did. The Methodist 
 Ilymn Book docs not contain the following effusion of Charles, and 
 it is, therefore, indebted to some other channel for having reached 
 our generation. If it would not be considered impertinent, wc 
 would suggest that it constitute the chorus to the hymn usually sung 
 at the ordination of l/ishops: 
 
 " So easily arc biithopa made. 
 By maii'ii or wonian'^ wliim, 
 VVwIey lii» hnnrtson Coke Imtli Initl, 
 
 UCT wild LAID IIA.VDM ON IIIm:-""
 
 344 APPENDIX. 
 
 c. 
 
 The following commuuication, written for the ' South Western 
 Baptist,' during the foregoing discussion, by a distinguished minis- 
 ter of Mississippi, so ably discusses the " Munster aflair," that we 
 beg leave to insert it here, instead of the article we promised on 
 that subject. Editor. 
 
 THE PEASANTS' WAR IN GERMANY. 
 
 Mr. Editor: As this subject has been alluded to, not only by the 
 Rev. Messrs. Hamill and Ferguson^ but also several times of late by 
 others, in different parts of the country, both in the pulpit and in pub- 
 lic journals, I ask the opportunity of replying, through your columns, 
 to the stereotyped charge founded upon it. Let me premise by say- 
 ing that I have no wish to interfere, in the slightest degree, ia the 
 original subject of debate between Mr. Hamill and yourself; but as 
 this subject forms merely a collateral issue, my remarks may not 
 perhaps be considered either impertinent or irrelevant. 
 
 It was once observed by Currau, the great Irish orator, as an apolo- 
 gy for his excessive indulgence in the reading of romances, that they 
 were about as truthful as most histories, and that they were certain- 
 ly a great deal more entertaining. His own experience in public 
 affairs, he said, had convinced him that only the great and promi- 
 nent facts of history could be relied on, whilst the details, and espe- 
 cially the motives, assigned for the conduct of princes and statesmen, 
 were very frequently entirely unworthy of credit. Mr. Jefferson's 
 very emphatic language about the untruthfulness of newspapers, 
 will be remembered by most of the readers of Mr. Baldwin's late 
 work. After making all due allowance for a little extravagance 
 on the part of the eminent men referred to, it must be admitted, 
 that the statements of partisan books as well as of partisan newspa- 
 pers, must be received with many grains of allowance. Every 
 school-boy has learned to talk of runica fides, Punic faith; but it may 
 well be doubted, whether if we had the Carthagenian account, we 
 should not be disposed to think the countrymen of Hannibal quite 
 as faithful to their engagement as those of Scipio. Hear both sides,
 
 APPENDIX. 345 
 
 is a maxim whose justice will commend itself to everyTinderstand- 
 ing. In judging of the political and religious parties that have ex- 
 isted in England, vce have the means of applying this rule. Every- 
 man of education has the means of judging of the real merits and 
 demerits of the Puritans and Cavaliers, the "Whigs and Tories, the 
 Catholics and Protestants. Hume, Lingard, ]V[acaulay, Clarendon, 
 Lucy Hutchinson, and many other writers are accessible to every 
 historical student who has the necessary leisure and means. The 
 different religious and political parties arc represented by those 
 writers, and wo have the means of comparing their different state- 
 ments, and thus judging for ourselves. Not so, however, with the 
 German peasants and German Anabaptists. They, like the Cartha- 
 genians of old, have no one to speak in their behalf. If they could 
 speak from their bloody graves, they might perhaps say a great deal 
 in mitigation of the harsh judgment of posterity. Their tale has 
 been told not by themselves, but by writers who belonged to the 
 party of their conquerors. Less fortunate than the Scottish Cov- 
 enanters, they have had no Dr. McCric to come forward as their 
 champion. 
 
 But let us look at the facts of the case, as they are presented by 
 those who had no sympatliics except those of our common humanity, 
 either with the peasants or the Anabaptists. The feudal system had 
 long borne most heavily upon the lower classes throughout Europe. 
 With the increasing luxury and magnificence of the princes, nobles, 
 and gentry, its evils had become more and more aggravated. As 
 the habits of the upper classes become more expensive, in the same 
 proportion did their exactions become more intolerable. At the 
 same time, Europe was beginning to awaken from her sleep of many 
 long and dai-k centuries. The sun of modern civilization, after a 
 long and gloomy night, had arisen above the horizon and begun to 
 enlighten the nations. Some few scattered rays, at least, had pene- 
 trated the dark and checrlcs.q abodes of poverty and ignorance. 
 Tlie humble classes began to ask themselves if their wretchedness 
 and degradation formed a neccs.«ary part of the scheme of Provi- 
 dence, and if the existing state of things were essential to the exist- 
 ence ofHOcictr- Their longing eyes anxiously sought some star of 
 hope. They asked themselves with mingled feelings of hope and 
 despair: Is there no prospect of amelioration; must our miseries en-
 
 346 APPENDIX. 
 
 dure forever? More than a century Taefore the beginning of the Re- 
 formation, and in the reign of Richard II., an insurrection of the 
 lower classes, headed by Wat Tyler, had broken out in England. 
 John Ball, a secular priest, and a supposed disciple of "Wickliffe, was 
 said to have done much to excite the spirit of insubordination then 
 prevalent In that kingdom. His well-known distitch — 
 
 " When Adam delved and Eve span. 
 Where was then the gentleman?" 
 
 is familiar to most persons who have a tolerable acquaintance with 
 English history, and its appeal to the original equality of our race 
 is apt to affect the hearts of men of generous sensibilities, and espe- " 
 cially of those who belong to a down-trodden class. It is a matter 
 of perfect notoriety, that ages before Luther, and even before the 
 time of Wicklifif'e, insun-ections of the common people had broken 
 out in various countries of Europe. Hume mentions insurrections 
 in Flanders and France that had preceded those in England during 
 the reign of Richard II. D'Aubigne himself, a very few pages be- 
 fore that from which Mr. HamilPs extract is taken, uses the follow- 
 ing language: " A political ferment, very different from that which 
 the gospel brings with it, had long been secretly working in the 
 empire. Sinking under secular and ecclesiastical oppression, and 
 in some of the States, forming part of the seigneurial property, and 
 liable to sale with it, the people began to threaten to rise in insur- 
 rection and burst their fetters." He then goes'on to mention vari- 
 ous insurrections that had taken place in different parts of Germany, 
 and also in Hungary, before either Luther or Muuzer had become a 
 prominent actor on the theatre of the world. From all this, it is 
 perfectly evident that neither Luther nor Munzer, nor the Anabap- 
 tists, originated the commotions in Germany. They originated from 
 the oppressions of the princes and nobles under the feudal system. 
 It is altogether probable, however, that the example of Luther, in 
 rebelling against his ecclesiastical superiors, might have encouraged 
 the peasants in rebelling against their civil tyrants. The revolt of 
 Luther was the application of a lighted torch to a powder magazine. 
 This is according to the natural course of things. There is no doubt 
 that Luther would have restrained the peasants from insurrection, 
 had it been in his power: but he had raised a hurricane which he
 
 APPENDIX. 341 
 
 could not possibly gorern. Igaorant and debased as were the Ger- 
 man peasants, they could not avoid making an application of the 
 doctrine of the Reformation to the civil relations of life; and as 
 Bancroft says, " the plebcan sect of Anabaptist, with greater consist- 
 ency than Luther, threatened an end to kingcraft, spiritual dominion, 
 tythes, and vassalage.-' "Who blames them? They only attempted 
 to do wliat our fathers achieved. Again: It is altogether probable, 
 as D'Aubigne says, that long before the Reformation, a feeling of 
 religion had mingled itself with the political elements of resistance. 
 There is no doubt that the lower order of Romish priests, sprang as 
 they were from the common people, and sympathizing with tlicm, 
 had darkly Ijrooded over their wrongs, and fostered a spirit of re- 
 sistance. There i^ equally little doubt that, after the breaking 
 out of the disturbances .subsequent to Lutlicr's quarrel with tbe pa- 
 pacy, Munzer, one of the leaders of the peasants, did appeal to the 
 religious element that is everywhere found in human nature, and 
 attempt to make use of it as the means of reconstructing tlie politi- 
 cal institutions of society. How far he was an imposter, and how 
 far an enthusiast, it is impossible for us to know. Pro1)ably, like 
 thousands of others, he was a compound of both. Had he succeed- 
 ed, he would have been hailed as a patriot and a hero. Germany 
 might have revered her peasant hero, as France reveres her Joan of 
 Arc. But it was not so to be; tbe peasants under their various lead- 
 ers, were everywhere crushed. The party was trodden under foot. 
 An unsuccessful cause soon becomes an unpopular one. Tlic Ro- 
 man Catholics accused I-uthor and his friends of being the authors 
 of the late confusions, and they in turn laid the blame upon the 
 Anabaptists. They being the weak party, were made the scape 
 goats, and had to bear the odium of atrocities committed by tbem 
 in common with others. I pretend not to deny the atrocities com- 
 mitted by the peasants; nor do I pretend to deny that Munzer, and 
 other AnabaptistSi'wcre concerned in the disturbances. But I do 
 not sec the justice of holding up to puldic odium the sins of Munzer 
 and the peasants, while those of the nobles are passed over without 
 a breath of censure; nor of making a particular religious community 
 responsible for political commotions in whicli they only took a part 
 along with otliers. No one, I suppose, will pretend that the rebels 
 coamsted entirely of Anabaptists. The truth is, there is every rea-
 
 348 APPENDIX. 
 
 son to believe, tliat if tlie reasonable demands of the peasants had 
 been complied with, all the subsequent horrors would have been 
 avoided. Let any one read their demands, as contained in the 
 twelve articles, and no one, with an American heart in his bosom, 
 will deny their justice. Let any jone read over so common a book 
 as D- Aubignc's History, and he will be convinced that the peasants 
 could not have exceeded the nobles in their atrocious cruelty. Simi- 
 lar scenes to those which took place in Germany, always accompany 
 civil war in a bai-barous ago and country. Bat to show conclusively 
 that it was the Democratic, and not any religious principle whatever that 
 caused the disturbances in Germany, it will be sufiQcieut to quote a 
 single sentence from D"Aubigne. He is speakhig of those places in 
 which the peasants had prevailed: " Equality of ranks, that dream 
 of Democrats, was established in aristocratic Germany." This sen- 
 tence is fraught with moaning, and is a key to the whole subject. 
 
 But, say some one of the opponents of the Baptists — these Ger- 
 man fanatics, these odious Anabaptists, taught not only that magis- 
 tracy and private property ought to be abolished, but that polygamy 
 ought to be allowed. Suppose they did; what then? It only shows 
 that they were a very different class of men from the Baptists, either 
 of England or America, and, consequently, that it is doing the lat- 
 ter the grossest injustice to confound them with men so totally dis- 
 similar. The only points of resemblance, if the common accounts 
 of the German Anabaptists can be relied on, between them and the 
 modern Baptists, will be found to consist in the coincidence of their 
 views on the mode and subjects of baptism! Tlie attempt to identify 
 classes so dissimilar, reminds one of Capt. Fluellin's attempt to make 
 out points of comparison between Alexander the Great and King 
 Harry V. Alexander was born in Macedon, and Harry was born in 
 Monmouth, and there was a river in Macedon and also a river in 
 Monmouth. We Baptists have just this to say, that if the German 
 Anabaptists held views subversive of the interests of society, the 
 origin of those views must be sought elsewhere than in their opinions 
 concerning baptism. Every candid man will admit that the belief 
 that baptism is rightly pei'formed by immersion, and that only per- 
 sons making a profession of faith in Christ should be baptized, is 
 altogether consistent with all the duties of citizenship. No one in 
 our country will stultify himself by asserting the contrary. I wil-
 
 APPENDIX. 349 
 
 lingly admit that a belief of tliis sort does conflict with any scheme 
 for the union of Church and State. In any other point of view, the 
 Baptist creed is at least harmless to society. It would certainly be 
 both foolish and unjust for us to upbraid our Pedo baptist brethren 
 with the massacre of St. Bartholomew and the crusade of Simon De 
 Montfort against the Albigenses, because, forsooth, the popish per- 
 secutors and inquisitoLS happen to be Pedo-baptists. Equally unjust 
 is it for us to be held responsible for anything else than our avowed 
 sentiments. If men holding our sentiments on the subject of bap- 
 tism, blended with them other sentiments with which they have no 
 necessary connection, dangerous to soicety, we are in no respect re- 
 sponsible. It would be quite as just to make the Republicans of 
 the United States responsible for the excesses of the French Ja- 
 cobins. J. A. P. 
 
 ^'oxvbee Coun'.y, Mississippi. 
 
 D. 
 
 THE "ADVOCATES" OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. 
 
 " To know things in'their causes,'' is said to be the highest intel- 
 lectual attainment. But there are things which we must content 
 ourselves to know by their effects. Now, there is nothing more 
 philosophically established than that princijile lies at the basis of 
 all human character and conduct. Indeed, tliis sentiment is ex- 
 pres.«ly taught by the Son of God himself: "i?y their fruits ye shall 
 know them." For instance, if a man adopts the Koran as his religi- 
 ous creed, be will most likely abandon himself to sensual indul- 
 gence; because the " false prophet,"' Mahomet, taught his followers 
 that thf happiness of heaven would greatly consist in the gratifica- 
 tion of our passions and appetites. A man's political or religious 
 creed becomes a mould, in which are cast all his principles, feel- 
 ings, and habits. "Whatever (liat creed is, he is sure to become. If it 
 is tyrannical and prescriptive, he will, in the end at least, reflect 
 its spirit in his intercourse with society. We propose exhibiiing, in 
 a few pages, tlie ^' nature and tendencicf of Methodist Bpiscopaci/.'' by this 
 rule, sanctioned alike by reason and revelation.
 
 350 APPENDIX. 
 
 Scarcely had we commenced the discussion in the foregoing part 
 of this volume, before we were assailed by some of the Methodist 
 '^Advocates'' with a virulence which at first startled us. We could 
 scarcely believe our senses. That the editors and correspondents of 
 " Chrislian Advocates" should bandy such epithets as were heaped 
 upon us, came not within the range of credibility. Had we been 
 the vilest outcast that disgraced humanity, such opprobrious terms 
 would have been no cr(;dit to Christian men. By one of these "Ad- 
 vocates,'' we were denounced as having been guilty of the " lowest 
 piece of demagoguism that has yet transpired !" By a correspond- 
 ent of the same paper, who imputed to us sentiments we neither be- 
 lieved or wrote, we were characterized as " a legitimate child of 
 the father of lies !" Even the propiietor of the ' South Western Bap- 
 tist ' was assailed for allowing such a discussion to be carried on in 
 its columns, the subject matter of which was declared to be a '■libel" 
 upon Methodism ! Auothcr one of these "Advocates'' denounced us 
 as having offended against '•' Christian charity''— as " accuser of the 
 brethren " — and as uttering " self- evidently malicious misrepresentations;" 
 &c., &c. And for what? Will it be believed that our only crime 
 was this: — That an article was copied into the paper of which we 
 were one of the editors, which discussed, not the doctrines, nor the 
 piety of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; but the simple isolated 
 topic of their Church polity, and that we opened the columns of the 
 'Baptist' to a respectable, worthy and talented minister of that 
 Church, to defend that polity, reserving to ourself the right to 
 respond to his communications ! ! This was " the head and front of 
 our offending: it hath nothing more." 
 
 There is one peculiarity in the treatment we have received from 
 the hands of these "Advocates," which cannot fail to impress the 
 reader. Their editors, in all their allusions to it, up to its^close, or 
 nearly so, seem to have studiously ignored the fact that we had any 
 antagonist at all in the discussion. Did they regard Mr. Hamill as in- 
 competent to defend their Church economy? Then why did they- 
 not undertalie it? One of them admits that he had been urged by 
 his brethren to undertake their defence. We assured him if he 
 would do so, that we would give him column for column, until the 
 discussion closed. But this he declined, declaring in so many words, 
 " We cannot reciprocate." Or did these ediiprs seek to stifle all discus-
 
 APPENDIX. 351 
 
 sion on this subject? Was there a secret conviction upon tlieir 
 minds, that an ecclesiastical polity, the "v>U.l " of whose rulers " is 
 omnipotent in the premises '' — whose bishops and clergy " estab- 
 lished the doctrines and discipline, appointed the several authori- 
 ties ... to administer its polity'^ — in whose " goycrnmental organ- 
 ization '■■ " lay members have no part or connection, and never had" 
 — the General Conferences of which, composed exclusively of the 
 bishops and travelling preachers, " represent themselves, and have 
 no constituents" — we say. was there a secret conviction resting 
 upon their minds, that such a theory of government as this, could 
 not be defended in this enlightened age and country, either by the 
 Rev. Mr. Hamlll, or any otlier'living man ? If the former — that is, if 
 Mr. IIamill were incapable of executing the task he had under- 
 taken — if he were incompetent to repel the •' self evidently malici- 
 ous misrepresentations'' which we were writing and publishing 
 against " our Episcopacy" — then, as they had been " set for the de- 
 fence of'"' this Episcopacy, by their General Conference, they were 
 recreant to their trust in not flying to his rescue. But if tlie latter 
 — if such a system of polity cannot be defended in this age and 
 country — if to discuss it simply, becomes an '•' offence against Chris- 
 tian charity," and makes him who has the temerity to do so a dema- 
 gogue, and a legilimalt child of the father of Ues—\hc public can judge 
 whether there is not "• something rotten in the state of Denmark." 
 
 We have two or three reasons for publishing in an appendix, the 
 articles which follow: 
 
 First: The editors of these "Advocates" refused to publish our 
 defence against their charges. Though we were at the same time 
 extending the courtesy we asked, to one of their own ministers, yei 
 they denied it to m. And as our own paper can never reach their 
 readers, we embrace this, as the only means wc can ever have, of 
 personal exculpation. 
 
 Secondly: As we have been discussing in the foregoing volume, 
 the theory and practice of Episcopal llelhodism. wc cannot do the 
 reader a greater service, than to allow the system to speak for it- 
 self. We therefore present these articles as a few specimens of the 
 spirit, refinement, and piety of (he Methodist press. It may be supposed 
 that, had these men's characters been formed under a- more liberal, 
 enlightened, and charitable <■ - 1 ' tical economy, Ihcy would have
 
 352 APPENDIX. 
 
 been as courteous and respectful as the balance of the editorial 
 corps. It is that '■' system," as Bishop Hamline calls it, " of surpass- 
 ing energy," which has made them what they are in this respect. 
 They are just what Episcopacy has made its votaries in all ages, 
 since it tore the sceptre of government from the hands of God's ap- 
 pointed " kings and priests," and what it will always make them, 
 until it is " twice dead, and plucked up by the roots." It is, there- 
 fore, upon this system, not upon its victims, that we make war. 
 
 Thirdly: We have been called upon to publish the " entire discus- 
 sion,-^ as it appeared in the columns of the ' South Western Baptist,' 
 acd as these articles constitute a part of it, we have not felt at li- 
 berty to withhold them. 
 
 TuE New Orleans Christian Advocate. 
 
 The first article is taken from the New-Orleans Christian Advo- 
 cate, of the 19th May, 1855, and written by an ex-presiding elder of 
 the Alabama Conference. We could not wish to inflict a worse 
 chastisement upon this swaggering divine, than the bare publication 
 of his piece. Hence our summary reply to it. If Job's enemies 
 wrote in the spirit and style of this reverend gentleman, it is no 
 wonder that he exclaimed: " 0, that mine enemy would write a 
 book !" 
 
 From the N. 0. Christian Advocate, May 19ih, 1855. 
 
 " The Baptists anti- American. 
 Mr. Editor: 
 
 For the sake of our common Protestant Chi-istlanity, I would for- 
 bear the following expose of the Baptists in this country, if I were 
 not persuaded that the forbearance would be a greater sin than the 
 publication of this article. 
 
 The grievance is this: The South Western Baptist, a so-called re- 
 ligious journal of that sect, published in Tuskegee, Ala., and edited 
 by elder Samuel Henderson, puts forth in a late number four col- 
 umns on the anti-Republican and. anti-American tendencies of Epis- 
 copal Methodism ! This appeared as an extract from the Western 
 Watchman, but appearing without note or comment of modification 
 or apology, the Methodists in and about Tuskegee felt grieved and
 
 APPENDIX. 353 
 
 insulted, but disposed to seek a disclaimer on the part of the Bap- 
 tists of Alabama, at least, through this acknowledged organ. The 
 Rev. E. J. Hamill addressed to Mr. Henderson a calm and dignified 
 statement of the outline polity, tndorsed by three of the worthy 
 brethren of his charge. Cut Mr. Henderson has nothing to take 
 back, but reaffirms, '■ boldly,"' all that is false and otleusive in the 
 article. So that the issue is fairly made — ri/: That the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, in its government, is alien to and inimical to the 
 Republic of the United States; while the Baptist Church is not only 
 the great moral substratum on which rests our civil institutions, but 
 its democracy glows like the fires of pure " firmamentum," and 
 warms the Rcpuldic into a white heat — leaves no residuum, nor 
 emits a particle of smoke! Now, if the editor had said that the Me- 
 thodists were heretics in doctrine, disobedient to gospel law. we 
 would have replied. But then that is the battle ground on which 
 we have encountered all your champions and laid them low. But 
 this is a new field and a new fight; for it is not the theology of Me- 
 thodism which is attacked, but its patriotism. A man may call mc 
 a fanatic, a hypocrite in religion, and I, for Christ's sake, may turn 
 the other cheek; but when he attempts to attaint of treason to my 
 country's government, before heaven and earth, for myself and my 
 Church, T proclaim him a legitimate child of him who is the " father 
 of lies!"' But not to waste time nor space, I now propose to end or 
 heighten the interest of this discussion,, by proclaiming, that both 
 history and facts, existing facts, warn the people of these United 
 States to have an eye on the doings, sayings, and tendencies of the 
 sects claiming Baptist affinities. For, having no form of Church 
 government of their own, is it not the most natural thing in the 
 world that they " despise government'."' And this is the more to be 
 apprehended, because of their being regular descendants (ecclesi- 
 astically) of Munzer, Stubner, Storick, &c. " These men taught that 
 among Christians, wlio had the precepts of the gospel to direct and 
 the Spirit to guide them, the office of magistracy was not only un- 
 necessary, but an unlawful encroachment on their spiritual liberty; 
 that the distinctions occasioned by birth, rank, wealth, should be 
 abolished; that all Cliristians throwing their possessions into one 
 stock, should live together in that state of cipialily which l)econies 
 memberB of the same family; that, as neither the laws of nature nor
 
 354 APPENDIX. 
 
 the precepts of the New Testament had prohibited poZy^amy, they 
 should use the same liberty as the patriarchs in this respect." — (See 
 Buck). Now, I guess, Elder Henderson will surely admit that, if 
 the oft repeated quotation — 
 
 " We are no Republicans, and never intend to be."— John Wesley. 
 
 is an antecedent showing the tendencies of Methodism, the above ia 
 equally conclusive as to what the American people are to appre- 
 hend from the pure democracy of the Baptist sects! 
 
 The elder, iu his reply to Brother Hamill, raises two inquiries, 
 and these are the texts from which he eliminates his yard of balder- 
 dash — he will permit mc to repeat them with a slight change: 
 
 1st. Is the anarchical, mobocratic feature of the Baptist Churches 
 a legitimate subject of newspaper discussion? 
 
 2d. Is Church polity, as an element in the formation of political 
 character, of sufficient importance to merit the attention of politi- 
 cians and statesmen ? 
 
 Like the .elder, I will say nothing of the piety and the doctrines 
 of the Baptist people, only to wish one purer and the other truer. 
 But it is with the error into which they have fallen in pretending 
 they have any Church government at all that I have to do; or if 
 they have any, it is the great embodiment of anarchy, and, there- 
 fore, dangerous to civil liberty and the maintenance and perpetua- 
 tion of constitutional democracy. This feature of the Baptist 
 Churches "is of foreign birth, a transplant" from Holland; has 
 yet plenty of offshoots, who glory still in the monstrous errors of 
 their original; such as the Mcnonites, who, according to Benedict, 
 (a Baptist historian,) had in the United States, in 1824, some two 
 hundred Churches, and " one article of their faith is, never to bear 
 arms." Fine supporters of Republicanism, these ! But the best 
 specimen is the Mormons, who claim to be the only true Church, 
 the saints par excellence; claim the world and all its riches; glory 
 in polygamy; have had several brushes at arms against " the powers 
 that be," one of these of very recent date, with Uncle Sam's own 
 troops ! 
 
 Now to the second question. And right here let us agree, if we- 
 can, as to what American Republicanism is — or rather. Democracy. 
 
 Elder Henderson appeals to Noah "Webster for the definition of
 
 APPENDIX. 355 
 
 words. Why not seek to learn from Daniel "Webster the definition of 
 the thing itself? To these words and their meanings I have no ohjec- 
 tion, but they do not fully cover the ground; for ours is a demo- 
 cracy or government by the people, under a written constitution, 
 which, constitution is as clearly supreme as the autocrat of Russia. 
 The elder will please let mo try my hand at definition. The writ- 
 ten constitution, made by delegates chosen by the qualified electors 
 of the States, and ratified by the same, is the supreme law of the 
 land. This supreme law or instrument of power hath its exponents 
 of its prerogatives in the executive, the legislative and the judicial 
 departments. In the first of these we have presidents and govern- 
 ors, chosen by the people; in the second, legislators; and in the 
 third, judges. The legislators make the laws; the judges decide 
 questions of law; and the executives execute the laws in obedience 
 to the will of the other two; but all these act in subordination to 
 the constitution. Now, attention, the whole! Has the Baptist 
 Church, so called, anything like this above ground? Is there any 
 such thing as the Baptist Ciuircb ? I know there are thousands of 
 independent congregations, but what bond of union, connectional 
 tie, have they? AVhere is its written constitution, defining rights, 
 powers and prerogatives, and duties of its ministers and members? 
 I know of none, unless it can be found in their speech and practice 
 — to wit : Article I. Baptism by immersion. Art. II. Close com- 
 munion. By-Laws. — 1. Bo very bigoted. 2. Be very exclusive. 
 But how unlike all this is to the Government of the United States! 
 Where is its executive, its legislature, its judiciary? I doubt not, 
 some of my Baptist friends are getting hot as they read along here, 
 for, say they, have not Brother Graves and Brother Sturgis, and 
 others, of late, been preaching that the United States Government 
 was modeled after the government of the Baptist Church? And 
 surely they know. Very well, we shall see. Brother Graves plays 
 at brag, and offers to bet largely, sometimes, in the way of prollcrid 
 rewards. I hope, therefore, that I shall not be severely censured 
 if I offer a reward of one Ihowtand dollars for tiie original docuiiieni, 
 or a well authenticated copy of the same. That is to say, if the 
 Convention that framed the constitution worked by a pattern, which 
 pattern was the written constitution of the Bap'tist Church, it was 
 before that Convention, eitlier in a printed 1)ook or manuscript.
 
 356 APPENDIX. 
 
 Where is the precious relic? I'm sure, if I get it, Barnum will give 
 me ten thousand dollars for it ! 
 
 Now, gentle reader, that you may assure yourself on these points, 
 ask the first intelligent Baptist preacher you meet, what powers 
 have your Associations and Conventions over the Churches? And 
 he will answer you, none; that they are only advisory councils of 
 the Churches in certain hounds. Then, am I not fully vindicated in 
 saying that the Baptist Churches present to the eye of the states- 
 man, a wide-spread anarchy ! "Anarchy— Want of government; a 
 state of society where there is no law or supreme power, or where 
 the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with 
 impunity; political confusion." Was there ever anything more de- 
 scriptive of the case in hand? 
 
 In conclusion: what has Americanism to hope for from a Church 
 with such antacedents as Munzer and his crowd of marauders? With 
 such living offshoots as the Menonites and the Mormons? With such 
 abhorrence of written constitutions that, as a great Church, it has 
 none? After an existence of more than two hundred years, they 
 still have none. And now that the din of Fourierism, Communism, 
 &c., is heard in all our borders, is it not right that we shall enquire 
 who is on the side of good, well defined, well understood civil gov- 
 ernment? Is it not a pity that Elder Hendei'son did not know that 
 he lived in a glass house, and therefore it was naughty to throw stones? 
 I hope he will patch his own panes awhile, and let his neighbors 
 alone. Let me assure him, and all his sympathizers, if they think 
 they can demolish Methodism, I hope they will declare war in due 
 form, not cry peace, brother, and all that, when the malice of the 
 old serpent is in the heart. For the present, I forbear, hoping that, 
 for the sake of the Christian name, we will not be compelled to give 
 them one long, loud, general thrashing, 
 
 Veiy respectfully, 
 
 Summerfield, Alabama. F. G. FERGUSON. 
 
 The Baptists, " anti- American." 
 
 We notice in the New Orleans Christian Advocate of the 19th ult., 
 is a communication signed "F.G.Ferguson," bearing the above 
 caption, intended as a counterpart of the discussion in this paper,
 
 APPENDIX. 357 
 
 between Brother Hamill and the editor, as to M-hether the Episcopal 
 feature of the Methodist Church is in strict accordance with the 
 principles of Republican government. 
 
 The Rev. gentleman seems to be out of temper, and raves lilje a 
 madman: and the editor, while he fears that in some general i-emarlig 
 his brother has " done injustice to the larger minded and highly 
 honorable portion of the Baptist Church, by visiting on them indis- 
 criminately the offence of an obscure and local organ,'' yet he gives 
 to his production a sort of qualified endorsement. " lie has shown, 
 at a single brush, and effectually, hoio a counter charge can he filed." 
 All very well, Bro. McTiere. The Devil himself can bring " a rail- 
 ing accusation"' against us; but can he prove it? We say he can- 
 not. AVe challenge both men and devils to prove that Baptist 
 Churches, founded as they arc upon the written constitution, indit- 
 ed by the Holy Spirit, and governing themselves accoidingly, can, 
 in the nature of their constitution and Church government, when 
 properly administered, contain anything inconsistent with the purest 
 and holiest principles of Republican liberty. 
 
 For the present, we shall make no reply to the Rev. Mr. Ferguson. 
 We insert his piece in our paper to let our readers see what kind of 
 spirit can be exhibited by those who are so much concerned about 
 the Baptists having "purer piety and truer doctrines." If his article 
 is a specimen of the truth, purUy, and ^e'e/y which are hatched by 
 Episcopacy, may the good Lord deliver the world from it as soon 
 as possible. Mr. Ferguson was for many years, we believe, a pre- 
 siding elder in the Alabama Conference, a position ne.xt in order to 
 the bi.shop's chair. We suppose, therefore, ho may fairly represent 
 Ihe ratio ofpief// and rejinemeut, to the degree of promotion in the sys- 
 tem of Episcopal Methodism. He is "going on to perfection," (!) 
 and by the time he roaches the august degree of Ijishop, what scin- 
 tillations of meeknes-s, an<l patience, and brotherly kindness, and 
 charity, will fla'-h from his pen! Perhaps, however, if Mr. Ferguson 
 has not already attained to " sinless perfection," he ought to ))e per- 
 mitted to claim the benefit of the Apostolic apology, slightly varied: 
 " It is no more I that do it, but" Fjmcopacii " that dwells in me." 
 
 We would say to our Methodist clergymen who are disposed to 
 make war on us for daring to suggest that it would lie more in eon- 
 Bonance with Republicanism to let the govci'ncd have a voice in
 
 358 APPENDIX. 
 
 their ecclesiastical councils, iu making their laws, &c., that we 
 should bs gi'eatly obliged in return for any respectful articles, sug- 
 gesting improvements in the Baptist Churches. The Baptists pro- 
 fess to be an improving, progressive people. They want all the 
 light they can obtain, and they can have their principles discussed 
 with composure. It is only the bigot who flies into a passion, when 
 a calm argumeiit, couched in respectful language, is dealt against 
 his views. Now, brethren, keep cool. Don't abuse us, and belch 
 forth ale-house Billingsgate in response to solid argument. " Come, 
 let us j-eason together."' If you cannot sustain your cause, do try 
 and maintain the spirit of Christians; and if you fail in this, we do 
 hope you will try and extend to us the common courtesies of gentle- 
 men. True, we may have touched you in a tender point. If Epis- 
 copacy is shorn of her mitre, why, then, " Othello's occupation's 
 gone." But while we shall handle you with gloves oflf, we shall try 
 to imitate the example of our Master, in combating error. "We shall 
 be actuated solely by the desire to let men see the truth and em- 
 brace it, and be brought to the enjoyment of that " liberty where- 
 with Christ hath made them free." You may rely upon it, your 
 Chui-ch polity possesses features utterly irreconcilable with Repub- 
 lican liberty, and many of your most enlightened members have 
 seen it, and do now see it. We have ventured calmly and dispas- 
 sionately, and in a Christian spirit, to point out some of these fea- 
 tures, and you come back at us with hard names — with abuse — de- 
 nouncing our course as " the lowest piece of demagogueism and nar- 
 row-minded bigotry that has yet transpired," &c. &c. To all this we 
 make no reply — we " revile not again." If you have any arguments, 
 we will reply to them, and we doubt not they will be much more 
 highly appreciated by the great mass of your own membership, who 
 will have the light on this subject, whether you give it to them or 
 not. You can neither frighten us by abuse, nor terrify us by your 
 wholesale denunciations, from going to the bottom of this matter. 
 And although you may flatter yourselves that the talismanic name 
 of '• Methodist" is sufficiently powerful to induce your membership 
 to withhold a strict scrutiny into your Church polity, you are great- 
 ly mistaken. The eagle-eyed genius of Republicanism is peering 
 into every institution, ecclesiastical as well as secular, and where- 
 evcr she detects what is conceived to be the vestige even of ty-
 
 APPENDIX. 359 
 
 ranny, or a want of confcrm'ty lo her own nature, she will raise the 
 alarm, and her votaries will speak out — will demand a discussion of 
 the objectionable feature. Her spirit is now pervading the land, 
 and an influence, silent as the dew, yet terrible as the storm, is de- 
 manding investigation as to the spirit and tendencies of unbridled 
 ecclesiastical power. If Episcopacy is right, let it bo sustained; 
 but, in God's name, if it is wrong, let it be exposed and abandoned. 
 Believing, as we do, that it is opposed to the spirit and genius of 
 Democracy, we shall manfully maintain our ground. Having truth 
 on our side, we feel that we are a full match for as many as may 
 come against us, and our motto shall be — 
 
 " No tyrant's frown shall drive ns frora onrpost, 
 We'll fight for liberty, although against a host." 
 
 In conclusion, we would say to Brother Fekgcsox, that when he 
 and his brethren conclude to give us the threatened " long, loud, 
 general thrashing," u-e shall be there; but in the mean time, since we 
 have our net set for larger fish, we shall allow him to escape with 
 the minnou'S. 
 
 May 31st, 1855. 
 
 The editor of the above paper, in giving a qualified endorsement 
 to Mr. Ferguson's communication, after denouncing the editor of 
 the S. "W. Baptist as guilty of " the lowest piece of deniagogucism 
 that has yet transpired,'' thus assails the proprietor of the Baptist: 
 
 " This libel comes without the palliation of ignorance, from 
 Judge Chilton's paper. The Supreme Court he now honors with 
 his ability and integrity, was honored before him by Collier, Or- 
 mond, and Goldlhwaite, than which Alabama never has known an 
 abler and purer bench. Might Judge Chilton's predecessors not bo 
 allowed to know what right and law and reason were? Might they 
 not be allowed to be patriots and sound licpublicans loo? Yet they 
 were Methodists." — New Orleans Christian Advocate. 
 
 To this, we replied as follows : 
 
 Good, Brother McTierc ! Just what wn expected. You arc act- 
 ing within the legitimate Ecope of your ecclesiastical jurisdictioa
 
 360 APPENDIX. 
 
 when you connect Judge Chilton with everything you esteem odious 
 in the publication to which you take exception. True, the Judge had 
 no more to do with its insertion in this paper than you had; and in 
 the same number in which it api^eared, over his own signature, he 
 stated that the paper was taken upon his shoulders, in invitum. It is 
 also true, that shortly thereafter, and before your piece above re- 
 ferred to was published, the Judge had disposed of the press to the 
 Alabama Baptist State Convention, and has no more to do with its 
 editorials and selections than yourself. Yet, my good Brother 
 McTiere, he is a brother-in-law to your Church, and has for years 
 to our knowledge, contributed liberally to its support— perhaps as 
 liberally as any member of it possessed of no greater means, and he 
 is, therefore, cleaiiy within the reach of your ecclesiastical lash. 
 We, therefore, say, " Lay on Mc Tiere." We do not think, how- 
 ever, you should require the Judge, or any of your readers to adopt 
 your conclusion, that because Judges Collier, Ormond and Gold- 
 thwaite were all excellent jurists and pure patriots as well as pious, 
 consistent members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, ergo, a gov- 
 ernment by the clergy of that Church is as Republican in its struc- 
 ture and tendencies, as a government by the membership. This is 
 such an obvious no7i seqtiiter, that should the Judge adopt it as a 
 specimen of sound reasoning, we think he should quit the bench 
 and seek an assistant editorship of the Advocate with you; for in 
 so doing, he would find a kindred logician. The exhaustion conse- 
 quent upon the mental process of evolving such stern logic would 
 evidently require sympathy. But in all seriousness, we are bold to 
 say, that if either of the gentlemen above alluded to, is so obtuse of 
 intellect or dull of apprehension, as not to be able to see that a 
 government by the clergj', whose action cannot be controlled by 
 the governed, is as purely Republican in its structure and tenden- 
 cies as a government by the governed themselves — he may make a 
 good Episcopal Methodist we grant — but he could lay no claim 
 either to Republicanism or Democracy. 
 
 Texas Christian Advocate. 
 
 The following article appeared in the above paper, of the 30th 
 June, 1855. It is needless to add that our reply to it was never
 
 \ APPENDIX. 361 
 
 published in that paper. In responding to our proposition to give 
 him " column for column," the editor replied : " lie [the editor of 
 the S. AV. Baptist] has gained the victory in generosity, /or we really 
 cannot reciprocate.'^ 
 
 From the Texas Christian Advocate. 
 The South Western Baptist again. 
 
 The remarks we made some time since, in declining to defend 
 our Apostolic Itinerant General Superintendency against the self- 
 evidenlly malicious misrepresentations of the South Western Bap- 
 tist, seem to have hurt somebody besides the editor of that paper. 
 We regret this, as we had not intended such a thing. We had no 
 intention that our remarks should be construed as applying to the 
 Baptist Church and the people; for we are far from believing that, 
 as a body, they sympathize with any snch course. Several things 
 confii-m us in thi-^ opinion. The correspondent of the South AVestern 
 Baptist, whose ire has been kindled by our remarks, himself admits 
 that the editor has had to figlit tlie battle in whicu he lias officiously 
 involved himself, " single-handed;" no other Baptist " editor or 
 contributor" has come to his rescue. We are glad, for the fellow- 
 ship we feel (or the Baptist Church, and for the honor of our com- 
 mon Christianity, that they also have thus " frowned upon the dis- 
 courtesy." Again: the editor of the South Western Baptist, in de- 
 fending Judge Chilton, the former proprietor of the paper, against 
 the honest indignation naturally aroused by this uncalled for attack 
 upon a sister Church, admits that he had sold it to the Baptist Con- 
 vention. Wliy was this done, if not to free himself from responsi- 
 bilities incurred ity an editor whose partizan zeal went beyond his 
 knowledge and charity? We learned, when in Tuskegee, that .Iiidgc 
 Chilton did not approve the course of tlie editor, and regretted tho 
 unhappy controversy that had been generated by his bitter sectari- 
 anism; his selling the paper, and having it pul)lishcd, confirms the 
 report. We repeat, we had not intended our remarks for any but 
 the editor, because we did not regard the Baptist jx-ople as sympa- 
 thizing with him. We tlicrefore regret ti> liiid, in iiiscorresi)oiident, 
 another who takes our remarks to heart. And we cannot avoid en- 
 couraging the comforting Impi- tliat t!ic correspondent is not another, 
 but that tlic " twain arc of one llesh."
 
 362 APPENDIX. 
 
 But, " for the sake of illustration," we will consider him for the 
 present, as he represents himself. He says, " We wisely decline dis- 
 cussing the question." We agree with him; we think it one of the 
 wisest things we could have done, because the Scriptures admonish 
 us to avoid " vain jangling," and " strifes of words;" and the editor 
 of the Baptist deals in but little else than "words," and "vain and 
 jangling" ones at that. But, he asks, " Vv^hy allude to it at all?" We 
 reply, because, as we stated in our former article, our friends in 
 Tuskegee had requested us to defend them, and it was proper for 
 us to give our reasons for declining. But he says: •' Our subscrib- 
 ers are vitally interested in the subject." Yes; just about as much 
 as the South is in the hypocritical doctrines of the abolitionists, 
 while every one knows that they are actuated by a dishonest envy. 
 He says we have made " statements injurious to the character of the 
 editor of the Baptist." We have no doubt of it, and are sorry for 
 it; but we could uot help it, because we were compelled to tell the 
 truth on him. 
 
 But the burden of the correspondent's complaints is, that we 
 charged the editor of the Baptist with being inclined to controversy. 
 A beautiful complaint, indeed, in favor of a man who has in sub- 
 stance made the assertion that Methodists are degraded, like slaves, 
 by their bishops, and who has, for their deliverance, invoked the aid 
 of poUUcal power! But our remarks on that point explained them- 
 selves; they concluded as follows: " Thus, precious revivals of re- 
 ligion, in which the different denominations have been engaged, 
 have been made to degenerate into a struggle for members, ' to make 
 a fair show in the flesh;' and the administration of the solemn sacra- 
 ments of the gospel, have been made occasions for demagogical sec- 
 tarian harrangues." This is Mhat we said, and we reiterate it: who 
 will deny it? 
 
 The correspondent says, we " would not have dared to assert in 
 East Alabama, what we have in our Texas sheet." Perhaps not; 
 we might have been afraid of this correspondent, who is so daring 
 as to get behind a fictitious name. 
 
 The correspondent calls upon us for either "proof" or "recanta- 
 tion." For proof of Mr. Henderson's partizau proclivities, we refer 
 to almost every immersion he has ever performed, and almost every 
 sacrament of the Lord's Supper he has ever administered, and ask
 
 APPENDIX. 363 
 
 any disiaterested hearer if he hus not, in nearly every instance, 
 made them " occasions for demagogical sectarian harrangues?" 
 
 The editor himself merits a few words. He says that the reason 
 the " secular press frown upon his discourtesy" is, that they are 
 " subsidized to the interest of Episcopacy!'" Let us try him by his 
 favorite authority, Webster, and we will find that " subsidy" means 
 "aid in money,''' and to •' subsidize" means " to pay a subsidy to." 
 His meaning, then, clearly is, that the secular press are bribed to 
 maintain the interests of Episcopacy. What can be thought of the 
 honedy, to say nothing of the piety of the man who can make such 
 a statement? 
 
 He vehemently denies trying to take advantage of the present 
 excitement in reference to the power of the Romish Church, to ex- 
 cite political prejudice against the Methodist Church. Men are 
 sometimes hung upon circumstautial testimony, and the liuvs and 
 public sentiment maintain itsn^essity, though sometimes an innocent 
 man maj^ suffer. If Mr. Henderson's life depended upon his proving 
 his innocence in this case, avc should ask an enormous sum to in- 
 sure it. 
 
 We have spoken plainly, some may think severely, but we have 
 honestly deemed it demanded by the circumstances of the case. The 
 ofteuce is not against the Methodist Church, but against Christian 
 charity, and against the interests of the cause of Christ. Mr. Hen- 
 derson tries hard to assuini^ the martyr; but such affectation and 
 egotism are ridiculous. He, the champion of the rights of more 
 than a million of the most intelligent people in the United States, 
 and who have more power over the character of their Church gov- 
 ernment than the peojjlc of his own denomination have over theirs! 
 He, who holds the doctrine that all other Christians and mluisters 
 than those of his own denominatiou, are uot members of the Chris- 
 tian Church at all ! He, who lends the influciice of his paper to the 
 eslablisliment of a sectarian IJible ! He, who tries to make a " Peter 
 the Hermit" of himself, and preach a crusade against what his ma- 
 lignity styles the anti-liepublican power of his Episcoi)aey: he, with 
 the usual consistency of fanatical bigotry, invites the attention of 
 " the polilician and stalesvian' to the correction of the evils of the Me- 
 thodist Church, and glories in his fanciful dreams cf the lime when
 
 364 APPENDIX. 
 
 the "eagle-eyed genius of Republicanism" shall drive them away 
 as the " morning cloud and the early dew." 
 
 If we mistake not, this is the same man who once, in a public ad- 
 dress, very plainly intimated his sympathy with the idea of coercing 
 South Carolina, should she attempt to secede from the Union, by 
 the Federal arms. 
 
 To the foregoing, we made the following reply : 
 
 Texas Christian Advocate. 
 
 The Rev. C. C. Gillespie, who is known to some of our readers, 
 and who is employed by the General Conference of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, to edit the above paper, has published more than 
 a column of matter in his issue of the 30th ult., in which he raves 
 and fumes, and says a great many hard, unchristian things of the 
 editor of this paper. If we did but know less of him than we do, 
 we should be apprehensive from the " loud thrashing " he has at- 
 tempted to administer to us, that we had provoked the ire of some- 
 thing not unlike Job's leviathan: " Behold the hope of him is in 
 vain. Shall not one be cast down at the sight of Mm ? None is so fiei'ce 
 that (fare stir him vl^: who then is able to stand before him? Job, xli, 
 9-10. But "vox et," you know the rest, reader. How impressively 
 does he exhibit the " beauties of our Episcopacy," by treating his 
 adversai'ies with scurrilous nicknames and abuse ! — " A species of 
 reasoning," saya an old author, " which seldom succeeds in recom- 
 mending a bad cause, and never confers credit on one that is good." 
 Now, we protest that we are sorry to see our brother lose his 
 temper, and sufler himself to deal in invective and personal abuse 
 of a brother minister. We shall not imitate his example ; but 
 our charity would rather plead for him an apology which will rea- 
 dily occur to the mind of any one, at all versed in a knowledge of 
 human nature. It is this: He belongs to the Conference — he is one 
 of those, whose high prerogative as a member of an ecclesiastical 
 body, it is to make laws, to administer and execute those laws — a 
 body, independent of the people, and which " admits no constitu- 
 ency." Such a position very naturally tends to beget in weak 
 minds, a haughty and imperious disposition. Hence, they cannot
 
 APPENDIX. 3G5 
 
 brook opposition. Every man is an ignoramus, if he does not see as 
 they see — a danagogue, if he attempts by facts and arguments to 
 maintain a truth which to them is unpalatable — and a bigot, if he dare 
 boldly assert his belief, and the grounds of it. In short, our brother 
 is like a spoiled child. His ecclesiastical position has accustomed 
 him to the luxury of having his own way so long, that he has no 
 patience with, nor toleration for au opponent. He will abuse, but 
 he would not rmson if he could. We are sorry for him, and lament 
 the exhaustion he has brought on himself by siiuirmiiig to 'keep 
 from discussing a plain, simple issue which truth forces upon him, 
 but which he is powerless to meet. We are afraid, too, that our 
 brother will suffer his uneasy position to bring on a mental idiosyn- 
 cracy, which is much to be deplored, and of which his pieces with 
 reference to ourself furnish evident symptoms, viz : That condition 
 of mind which makes one " draw upon "hi^ fancy for his facts, and his 
 memory for his arguments." 
 
 As we wish to do every man full justice, and to have none of our 
 readers condemn Brother Gillespie unheard, we insert his piece in 
 to-day's paper. He dare not do us this justice, if he has the chris- 
 tian magnanimity to do it. He has condemned us and our articles, 
 which we aflirm have been written in a christian sjiirit, in an unof- 
 fending style, and with tlie highest regard to truth and Christian pro- 
 priety. He has abused us personally in his columns, and yet has 
 never done us the justice to insert one of our articles. This is truly a precious 
 specimen of that liberal, magnanimous Christian spirit, which character- 
 izes "oHr Episcopacg." Now, brother Gillespie, don't wear yourself 
 out scampering through tbc bru.sh and sloughs to get a position 
 where you " can fire ^upon us in the rear." Come out like a man, 
 a bold Christian man, and meet us face to face, if you wisii a con- 
 troversy with us. Let us give each column for column in our re- 
 spective papers, and \vc then defy your assaults. If you are unwill- 
 ing to do this, then slop your abuse of us — not that you can inn t 
 us with those who know us; but you may create false impressions 
 in the minds of your own pcoi)le wlio rc.-ad your pajicr, from the 
 columns of wliich you carefully exclude our views. If you will ac- 
 cede to neither of the.se propositions, we shall shape our future 
 course to meet fully the emergency. Don't let any aiiitreluiisiun 
 that the public will think that you and Jirothcr Ilamill, both on 
 32
 
 366 APPENDIX. 
 
 your side, will be crowdirig us: not at all. We bad rather meet 
 a dozen open, manly, kind spirited Christian antagonists, like Brother 
 Hamill, who contends for what he believes in a proper spirit, than 
 one who fires upon us from swamps and morasses — who will not 
 face his opponent, nor give him the opportunity of self-defence. 
 Why not make up your mind to come out and give us fair play in 
 your columns, as we do you in ours ? Is there nothing significant 
 in this? We understand you, Brother Gillespie. You very well 
 know if Brother Hamill, whose intellect towers far above yours, la 
 unable to prove that Methodist Episcopacy embodies the democratic 
 principle of our government, it would be worse than useless for you to 
 undeitalce it. Hence, you stand oil' and black-ball ! For very shame, 
 brother, wash your hands and quit it.* 
 
 We should be glad if our duty ended with these fair propositions, 
 and this wholesome admonition ; but le>it our brother should con- 
 strue our silence into a tacit admission of his charges, we venture 
 to set him right on some of hi«/arfs and insinuations. Never before 
 have we been called upon to review an article, which, to its length, 
 abounds in so many statements, which in the mild language of di- 
 plomacy, '■ are mlirely inexact." We do not say that they are a sug- 
 geslio falsi, or even a suppressio vcri — but we do say, that they are — 
 " entirely inexact.'' 
 
 First, then, Brother Gillespie's opening paragraph alleges that he 
 declines " to defend our Apostolic Itinerant General Superintend- 
 eucy against the self-cvidently malicious misrepresentations of the 
 South Western Baptist," «fcc. Now, we appeal to every article we 
 have written, and to every person who has read them, whether we 
 have ever attacked the ^'itinerancy'' of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. We have been discussing the isolated topic of Ejjiscopacy, 
 as we have time and again alleged. Our worthy antagonist in thia 
 discussion, Brother Hamill, admits " that the Wesleyan Methodist 
 Church in England has no bishops, and yet appoint their ministers 
 upon the ' itinerant plan ' just as we (the Methodists) do. And, 
 moreover, our Protestant Methodist brethren in our own land, have 
 no bishops, and have lay delegations to the fullest possible extent, 
 and they also appoint ministers to their charges upon the itinerant 
 
 * See Appendix No. 1.
 
 X APPENDIX. 361 
 
 plan." Sec his second letter. To which we responded, that "Pres- 
 byterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and many others, have 
 adopted the [itinerant] plan wherever and whenever the exigency 
 demanded."' We furthermore " protested that Episcopacy is not 
 entitled to the credit of that which is common to all forms of Church 
 government; and that any argument based upon such an assump- 
 tion, can prove no more ibr Episcopacy, than for Presbyterial or 
 Congregational government."' " Entirely inexact," Brother Gilles- 
 pie. Whether your " misrepresentations " are " self-evidently mali- 
 cious," is left to the judgment of the reader. 
 
 Secondly. It is affirmed that wc have no sympathy from our own 
 denomination I Great mistake, brother. Every Baptist Church on 
 this continent, or on this green earth, is a living protest against Episco- 
 pacy. The Baptists are a people who love the truth, and, as a mat- 
 ter of course, hail with satisfaction all discussions properly conduct- 
 ed which elicit it. Hence, it never "confuses them," as evidently 
 you think it would your readers, " to hear both sides." For this 
 reason we publish both sides — which you are afraid to do, as we 
 slircwdly suspect. 
 
 Thirdly. Judge Chilton, the proprietor, condemned our course, and 
 this you learned when you were here ! But it so happens, that when 
 you were here, we luzd not published our first article on the subject, and 
 conserpiently " our course" could not have been condemned by him. 
 We understood that he expressed his regret that the article from the 
 Watchman had been copied into the paper, as it contained an inti- 
 mation that the Episcopal element in the Methodist Church should 
 be made a questiou at the ballot box — an idea which we expressly 
 repudiated in our paper as soon as our attention was called to it. 
 
 Fourlhlj/. But th? Judge sold out to avoid " the honest indijnalion {!!) 
 naturally aroused by this uncalled for attack upon a sister Cliurch!" 
 " Entirely inexact"' again. Brother Gillesi)ie, as every member of the 
 Convention can testify. His reasons were freely given to that body 
 in an address, in which he stated that his time was wholly occupied 
 with ollicial duti s, and that he could not bestow the attention upon 
 the paper, as proprietor, essential to its success; that the denoiiiiiia- 
 tion ought to own it, as it would enlist their patronage, and tie a 
 Bourcc of profit to their benevolent entf-rprizcs; and that lie was 
 ready to make some sacrifice to iuducc the Convention to take it, &c.
 
 368 APPENDIX. • 
 
 The GonventioQ accepted the j^roposal, and appointed a committee 
 to raise the funds. Thus the matter stands. The " indignation" 
 part is all on the side of " our Episcopacy" — just such indignation 
 as the " Declaration of Independence" awakened iu the British Ca- 
 binet and Parliament in '76. Not the first time, by several, Bro. 
 Gillespie, that truth has made certain persons indignant. 
 
 Fifthly. Then we were so bad olf for sympathy, that we wrote a 
 letter* to ourself, in answer to our brother's assault upon us — at 
 least he " cannot avoid encouraging the comforting hope, that the 
 correspondent is not another, but that the ' twain are one flesh.' " 
 This insinuation is utterly untrue — " entirely inexact," we mean — 
 and our brother had no foundation for making it, except in so far 
 as the " wish was father to the thought." We assure him that we 
 have as much sympathy as we desire in our course. But if we wore 
 as destitute as he supposes we are, we should need no sympathy to 
 sustain us. We are telling the truth, and maintaining it for the love of 
 it. Our conscience, therefore, fully sustains us, and 
 
 *' One self-approving hour wliole years cntweiglis 
 Of slupid i\arers, or of loud huzzahs." 
 
 Thrown upon this resource for comfort, our brother, Gillespie, would 
 doubtless need " setting up with." 
 
 Sixthly. But ours is " vain jangling" — " strifes of words, and vain 
 ones at that." Hence, Brother Gillespie cannot condescend to reply ! ! 
 Yet we say, we have made honest efforts to argue a very important 
 question; and your betters, brother, have treated us as really argu- 
 ing, and have replied time and again to our arguments. So that we 
 cannot tell which ought to feel most mortified at your strictures on 
 this part of the subject — we, or our worthy Brother Hamill. How- 
 ever, it is likely both of us will survive them. 
 
 Seventhly. You say, we " have in substance made the assertion 
 that Metliodists are degraded like slaves, by their bishops," and that 
 '• for their deliverance, we have invoked the aid of politicnl power." We 
 have said nothing to this effect. On the contrary, we have express- 
 ly repudiated the aid of political power in this contest, averring in 
 
 * Tlie article of "Amicus Justitia;," to which the editor refers, is inserted at tlie close 
 of this Appendi.'s, No. 2.
 
 APPENDIX. 309 
 
 so many words, "that we fight Episcopacy with no such, weapons." Bap- 
 tists hare always maintaiued. that where the dominion of the con- 
 science begins, in religious matters, the dominion of the secular 
 power ends. Xo, Brother Gillespie; we wish to reason with you and 
 your people, whom we love. This and the ^^jjrd of God are our 
 only weapons. "We desire to handle them in the Spirit of our Mas- 
 ter. Believing that the time will come, which is plainly predicted, 
 we think, when a mighty struggle is to be made by prelacy to grasp 
 in its mighty arms the secular power, we should rejoice to see our 
 brethren of all denominations, not only cultivating a spirit of unity, 
 but, by times, encouraging the infusion into their membership of 
 the great fundamental truth which underlies the entire superstjuc- 
 turo of our Republican institutions, to wit: that the membcrsliip, 
 and not the clergy, constitute the legitimate source of all ecclesiastical 
 power, which Christ has ever delegated to mortal agencies, as in our 
 civil government " all power is inlierent in the people." Youus, sik, 
 
 IS THE ONLY pROTE^TA^■T ChURCU 0.\ THIS CoXTIXEXT, SO FAR AS WE 
 KXOW, WHOSE ECCLESIASTICAL COCXCILS " ADMIT XO COXSTITCEXTS" BUT 
 
 BISHOPS AND TUAVELLTXG CLEKGT — -from whosc governmental ecoiwmy lay- 
 men arc. BY coxsTiTLTioxAL LAW, cxprcsshj excluded! Even the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church, in adapting its government to our free in- 
 stitutions, incorporated lay representation in its councils as one of its 
 organic laws. 
 
 We are truly sorry that Brother Gillespie has made the charge 
 against us, that we have " invoked the aid of political power against 
 the Methodists.'- We should be glad could we furnish him room to 
 escape, even in part, by the palliation of mistake. Our articles are 
 before the public, and so is his, and we fearlessly invite the strictest 
 scrutiny, and are willing to abide the result. 
 
 Eighthly. Our esteemed correspondent, "Amicus Justitin?," as- 
 sured Brother Gilles])ie, tliat lie was altogether mistaken when he 
 represented in bis first article, that the editor of this paper's " want 
 of af//"ccs» in/x/fi' coXTitovEKHiES, in whicli he had involved himself, 
 may be pleaded a.s anotlicr excuse for his Mligercnl demonstrations. 
 Some of these /ui/ure« were quite mortifying," Ac. Onr correspon- 
 dent informed Brother Gillespie, that the editor of the Baptist never 
 had been engagfd in any controverwy with any denomination enter- 
 taining dilfereut views from the Baptists. To this, our contempo-
 
 310 APPENDIX. 
 
 rary replies, that " we have made the administration of the sacra 
 ments occasions for demagogical harangues^' Was ever subterfuge 
 more transparent ? We have been an humble minister of the gos- 
 pel about fifteen years. Within that period, we have preached five 
 times on the subject of Christian Baptism — an average of once in 
 three years. We have been pastor of the Baptist Church in Tuske- 
 gee nearly nine years, and have preached one sermon in that Church, 
 on Baptism. And yet, " want of success in past controversies," and 
 frequent "failures" have rendered us quite "belligerent!" 
 
 But we have seized upon occasions of " administering the solemn 
 sacraments for demagogical harangues." We have, on some such 
 occasiops^ as is the custom with all ministers of all denominations, 
 read some of those passages of Scripture which refer to these ordi- 
 nances, and explained them to the people in a plain, unostentatious 
 way. But we never dreamed, when we were reading and comment- 
 ing upon the Word of God, at the " water side," or at the " table of 
 the Lord," — passages in which it is said : " We are buried with him 
 by baptism into death" — that " we are planted together in the like- 
 ness of his death" — that Christ "was baptized of John in Jordan" 
 — that " they went down into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, 
 and he baptized him" — that " they continued steadfastly in the 
 Apostles' doctrine, and in breaking of bread," &c.; we say, we never 
 dreamed that we were making a " demagogical harangue," any 
 more than when engaged in the discussion of any other New Testa- 
 ment doctrine or precept. If this be dcmagogism, then has our bro- 
 ther convicted the Apostles of our Saviour of making " demagogical 
 harangues;" for, ordinarily, we but repeat what they said. If this 
 constitutes demagogism, where is the minister of the gospel who is 
 not a demagogue ? For shame. Brother Gillcsi)ie; forbear such ex- 
 pressions. Did you, sir, ever make any of these " demagogical sec- 
 tarian harangues?" 
 
 NiiUhly. But we have said that some of the secular presses have 
 been subsidized to the interest of "our Episcopacy." Brother Gil- 
 lespie says we meant they were bribed; and putting this language into 
 our mouth, a word we neither said nor meant, he exclaims with evi- 
 dent satisfaction; " What can be said of the honesty, to say nothing 
 of the piety of the man who can make such a statement?" We sup- 
 pose everybody but our brother understood us to mean, that these
 
 APPENDIX. 371 
 
 secular presses'which •were committed to Ibis Church polity, were 
 subordinated, or subsidiary to it. As to our honesty, we have endea- 
 vored po to live as to obtain " a good report."' Bro. Gille.=pie and 
 ourself have lived years in the same place, and we humbly submit 
 to the judgment of that community to determine that delicate ques- 
 tion. He could not well have said a harder thing concerning us, 
 even, if being a minister of the gospel, we had been found loafering 
 about the taverns and post-office of our village, engaged in idle 
 games of drafts, backgammon, &c. No, brother, we can say with 
 the Scottish bard : 
 
 " God knows I'm not llie thins I would be, 
 Nor am I even tlje thing I could be. 
 But twenty times I rather had be 
 
 An Atheift clean, 
 Tlian under gospel colors hid be. 
 
 Just for a screen." 
 
 Tenthly. We " wish to take advantage of the present excitement 
 in politics" to link Methodist Episcopacy with Roman Catholic pre- 
 lacy. This we have positively denied. We are discussing a ques- 
 tion which has nothing to do with that subject, any further tlian Me- 
 thodist editors themselves shall link it with Catliolici^^ni. AVe sub- 
 mit, too, that our brother is a little inconsistent with himself, when 
 in one sentence he says " we have invoked the aid of political 
 power," and in another, that " we vehemently deny trying to do 
 this." If our life should ever be put in jeopardy, we think wo liavc 
 a little too much common sense to apply to '• our Episcoi)acy" for 
 an '• insurance." 
 
 Kleventkhj. We lend " the influence of our paper to the establishment 
 of a sectarian Bible." How our brother could make this assertion 
 in the face of all our articles taking ground against the enterprizc 
 alluded to, and when, from llrst to last, be, and everybody who is 
 acquainted with our course, knows that we have opposed it, is the 
 most remarkable of all the extraordinary charges be brings against 
 us. We have admitted commnnications jnlo oiireoliimns upon both 
 sides of the revision movement, a thing which \v<,' brljcxe (lie sheets 
 of " our Episcopacy" never do. And yet, if this is the grojind of 
 the cbargf. we submit that our Jfrothr-r can convict us of " lending 
 the iuHuencc of our paper to the establishment of " Episcopal Me-
 
 5^2 APPENDIX. 
 
 tliodism, because we publish Brother Hamill's, his^ and Brother Fer- 
 guson's articles on that side of the question. 
 
 Ticelflhly. But we assume to be a martyr, &c. Not so; not an arrow 
 levelled at us has reached the mark. Slain in such a cause as this, 
 and by such an antagonists as you, Brother Gillesi^ie ! ! ^Tay, the 
 talc of such a martyrdom would be as ridiculous as the nursery story 
 of Tom Thumb's exi^loit of stabbing the humble bee with his mam- 
 ma's darning needle ! 
 
 Thirlcenlhly. It is further alleged, that in " a public address, we 
 intimated our sympathy, with the idea of coercing South Carolina, 
 should she attempt to secede from the Union !" How very guarded ! ! 
 To intimate merely, and to intimate a sympathy, too, and that with 
 an idea ! ! It reminds us of a certain motion a plain, unlettered 
 man once made in a public meeting, that " They end-ee-vor to make 
 an effort to fo-y/" Give us chapter and verse — the time when, and 
 the place where, and we will place this charge in the same category 
 with all the foregoing. 
 
 We are a Southern man by birth, sympathy, interest, and prin- 
 ciple. The Constitution of the United States, as expounded by such 
 men as Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson, is our political text-book. 
 If they were not Republicans, we would be glad our brother would 
 correct public history and set us right. 
 
 Fourteenthly. In his first article, he characterized our course in this 
 discussion, as being a " demagogical appeal to political prejudices," 
 and in his present article, he avers, as above stated, that we make 
 " demagogical sectarian harangues," &c. We suppose demagogical, 
 (a word of Brother Gillespie's coining) is derived from demagogue, 
 which signifies a "leader of the people; an orator who pleases the 
 populace," &c. And yet he is " far from believing that, as a body, 
 they (th^ Baptists) sympathize with any such course" as we are pur- 
 suing ! A demagogue, and yet we have not the sympathy of our 
 own denomination ! " Pleasing the populace," by exciting their 
 " honest indignation ! ! " " Leading the people," and yet they 
 " frown upon the discourtesy ! !" 
 
 But we cannot take up more space in alluding to other misrepre- 
 sentations, as " entirely inexact" as any of the foregoing, with which 
 his piece abounds. We commend him to more charity, and a more 
 sacred regard for doing justice to his neighbor.
 
 APPENDIX. 313 
 
 TTe conclude by congratulating our ■worthy corroppondont " Ami- 
 cus JustltiiP,'* on the success which has attended the treatment of 
 his first patient. If the amount of bile his first portion has evoked, 
 is any just criterion by which to judge, then " our Episcopacy" must 
 be deplorably sick. We beg him, as early as possible, if the symp- 
 toms will allow it, to administer an anodyne, lest the nausea should 
 become chronic, and the disease should prove /atoZ .' 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 For the South Western Baptist. 
 
 "If METnoDiSTS are satisfied with their government, why 
 
 SBOCLD OTUERS CARE?" 
 
 Bro. IIendersox : 
 
 Occasionally the above interrogatory has been suggested, if not 
 propounded. 
 
 With your consent, I propose to ivmark a little. And first, I 
 think Baptists should " care," and in this Republican country, 'tis 
 not to be wondered at that everybody .should care. The wonder to 
 me is, that so many care so little about it., Vigilance and care 
 should characterize every citizen. Baptists have always been in 
 the foremost against oppression, both in civil an ecclesiastical gov- 
 ernments; for they have been the sufferers, and no wonder they care 
 now at the approach of danger from any quarter. 
 
 As to the feature of Methodism most to he cared about, you have 
 recently exhibited to us in your discussion with Mr. Ilamill. But, 
 Brother Henderson, Methodist Episcopacy is most to be dreaded and 
 deprecated on future generations — our children and their children. 
 Children think mostly as their parents think, and especially in re- 
 ligious affairs Some think, to discard their father's baptism would 
 bo sacrilege, though submitted to in infancy, and that, too, by sprink- 
 ling; so I do not wonder that Pedoism dies so tardily. And they 
 think, too, that Churches are very sacred things, and nrc holy, and 
 of course, after " God's own heart;'' but how sadly it is to the con- 
 trary. Even Apostolic Churches, I mean liieir members, were not 
 It'jrfoct, not entirely holy. Let parents tamely submit to be taxed 
 v/itifout representation, and so I understand Methodist Episcopacy,
 
 3U APPENDIX. 
 
 for a generation or two more, I predict our Eepublican country will 
 have verged much towards an aristocracy, if not a monarchy. I 
 fear Methodist Episcopacy more in this country than Romanism. I 
 know even good Methodist brethren have no such fears; but have 
 they considered well their Episcopacy ? (this feature in their system 
 which makes some of their rulers so arrogant,) I think not. And I 
 think they, or many of them, are very careful and anxious to keep 
 their people from any investigation of the subject. Witness their 
 general refusal to publish in their impers — their Advocates — anything 
 against their Episcopacy. I can hardly believe your good brother, 
 Hamill, was apprised how vulnerable his Episcopacy was, or his en- 
 dorsers, even, or they would not have risked the discussion. I be- 
 lieve they are good Christians, and I hope, for our country, they 
 will in some way get clear of Episcopacy. I know many Methodists 
 are as true Republicans as any in the world. 
 
 But, Brother Henderson, what of those missiles of mud and slan- 
 der, some time since aimed at your character, from a few points of 
 this Episcopal hierarchy ? — I mean those courteous gentlemen, 
 Messrs. Gillespie and Ferguson, especially? I think, however, 
 you have given him (Gillespie) a life-time dose. I wish it may 
 work out his sanctiflcation. The other madman, Ferguson — Rev. 
 Ferguson, I am told — ^how he raved; " I reckon he thought his craft" 
 was in danger; nice preacher, he. Ain't you, Brother Henderson, 
 afraid of his threatened " long, loud, general thrashing?" But I 
 recollect you did give him a small jmssing notice, and this vaunting 
 divine is no more. Baptists have stood the roar of cannon, and will 
 they now fly the braying of asses ? 
 
 I would say to Messrs. Gillespie and Ferguson, keep dark before 
 your people; don't tell them anything about Episcopacy, its mean- 
 ing and design; and never what Mr. Wesley said to Messrs. Coke 
 and Asbury, about a bishop; no never, for Methodist independence 
 is not yet entirely extinct. 
 
 Brother Henderson, can there be more than one out of ten Me- 
 thodists, who understand their own government, or the position they 
 occupy ? No part in the government, but their lot '• is to pay their 
 money, and keep the wheel in motion." But, Brother Henderson, 
 I hear that some have thought tliat Mr. McTiere, of New Orleans, 
 should have been your man on Episcopacy. I had understood that 
 Mr. Hamill was their star; and if I were to guess, I should say he
 
 APPENDIX. 315 
 
 was as bright a star as they could have started in this country. We 
 believe him a good man, and talented; but would truth have been 
 less potent, directed to Mr. McTiere ? I think not. Some persons 
 have a wonderful tact of shifting responsibility, and changing one 
 character for another. If the brilliancy of their choice seem to 
 wane in the least, they have a greater star somewhere else. "Well, 
 let them try their McTiere. Mr. Hamill and yourself, I learn, are 
 yet on friendly terms; that you visit each other, and fraternize free- 
 ly. Well, this is right and proper between Christian brethren. I 
 believe you both have too much religion and good sense to quarrel 
 and hate each other, because you differ on some points of Church 
 polity or Christian faith. Not so with Messrs. Gillespie and Fergu- 
 son, and perhaps some others. 
 
 But, Brother Henderson, I must insist on your teaching Ferguson, 
 especially, that Baptist Churches have a government, and no Epiii- 
 copacy about it; that ours is a scriptural Republican government. 
 But I doubt whether he wishes to come to the light on that subject, 
 or is susceptible even of comprehending it — so engrossed and con- 
 cerned about his dear Episcopacy. B. 
 
 August 30th, 1855. 
 
 No. 2. 
 For the South Western Baptist. 
 
 TUE MeTIIODLST press RKI.IGI0C3 AND SECULAJl. 
 
 Since the commencement of the war on the question of Episcopa- 
 cy, the editor of the Baptist has contended single-handed against 
 the combined forces of Mcthodisnu lie has not only discharged his 
 volleys— and deadly ones they have been — against the regular 
 army drawn out upon the field, but has had to combat the guerilla 
 Btjuads of editorH and correspondents of Methodist "Advocates" and 
 Melhodizetl secular presses, who ruslttd to the rescue of their cher- 
 ished EpiH( •oi)acy. As long as the contest was confined to the regu- 
 lar combatant-, it behooved all outsiders to remain hors de comUil ; 
 and so far, we believe, not a single Baptist editor or contributor 
 has discharged a siflgle shot. Fully assured of the .-^trcnglli and 
 I)rowcB.<i of the champion already engaged, and of the imprcgnabil-
 
 3T6 APPENDIX. 
 
 ity of his position, they soem to have scrupulously avoided all par- 
 ticipation in the debate. But certain modes of attack adopted by 
 these straggling assailants, can be fairly met only by a force from 
 without. It is, therefore, as an act of simple justice to the editor of 
 the Baptist, that we have taken up our pen in his defence. 
 
 The editor of the "Texas Advocate," in quite a long article 
 touching the discussion, wisely declines arguing the question, and 
 offers the excuse that he is at so great a distance from the scene of 
 controversy. Then why does he allude to it at all ? The editorial 
 referred to, contains, among other things, statements injurious to 
 the character of the editor of the " Baptist." The subject of the 
 controversy is one in which»dhe Methodist subscribers of the " Texas 
 Advocate " are vitally interested. Now, Mr. Gillespie refrains froni 
 the discussion of this question in which his readers are so directly 
 and personally concerned, because, forsooth, his paper does not cir- 
 culate very extensively in the locality of the Baptist paper; while 
 he does not scruple to diffuse among his subscribers representations 
 concerning a distant minister of the gospel, adapted to injure him 
 where he is unknown. Now, would it not have been more manly, 
 not to say christian, either to have passed it by unnoticed, or to 
 have attempted a refutation of the arguments presented, rather 
 than to have made a personal assault upon the Baptist editor, when 
 he knew him, by his distance, uuable to vindicate his character? 
 
 We are sure Mr. Gillespie would not have ventured to assert in 
 East Alabama, what he has done in his Texas sheet, concerning the 
 belligerant propensity of Brother Ilendcrson, and his failures in con- 
 troversy. The writer of this communication has known Brother 
 Henderson intimately for a number of years, and he has never knmcn 
 or heard of his having been engaged in a cojitroversy with another denomina- 
 tion, previous to the one now pending. We have, moreover, inquired of 
 others, who knew him before our acquaintance with him, and the 
 invariable testimony is, that he has never been known to be en- 
 gaged in a controversy on a subject upon which Baptists and other 
 denominations were at issue, until the present time. Now, Mr. Gil- 
 lespie affirms it, as a veritable matter of history, that Bro. Hender- 
 son has a decided penchant for controversy, and has been signally 
 unsuccessful in past rencontres. AVe are not one of those excessive- 
 ly nervous individuals, who are shocked at the very mention of 
 controversy, but believing that the charge was made with the de
 
 APPENDIX. 377 
 
 * 
 
 sign of forestalliug and prejudicing the minds of Texan Methodists 
 against the force of certain unwelcome truths, we have taken some 
 pains to ascertain the fads, and thus publicly to proclaim them. 
 We now take leave of Mr. Gillespie, and call upon him cither for 
 the proof of his statement or its recantation. 
 
 But we will not close this communication without alluding to the 
 course of a few of the political papers, in reference to this discus- 
 sion. "We allude particularly to the •' Montgomery Advertiser,' and 
 the 'Columbus Times and Sentinel.' These journals, whose con- 
 ductors are of Methodist proclivities, have attempted to silence 
 controversy by " frowning upon the discourtesy" very cautiously. 
 The fear of losing a respectable portion of their subscribers, no 
 doubt, has taught them this caution; but that they are not neutral 
 is very evident, from the tone of their paragraphs. Such expres- 
 sions as " Intolerance," " war among the Churches," " the Baptist 
 editor refused to make the amende honor alle,''^ &c., show the leaning 
 of their sentiments, and are offensive to Baptists. Until recently, 
 wc had never dreamed that Methodism was so immaculate, that no 
 one might discuss or oppose the system without being guilty of pro- 
 fanity. The cry of " intolerance" or '•' persecution," when investi- 
 gation is proposed into the political tendencies of a Church govern- 
 ment, is a most pitiable confession of weakness. If it cannot bear 
 the ordeal of free discussion, and needs the outcry of '• persecution" 
 to shield it, the system must be deplorably rotten. The spirit of 
 the age is inquiry; and every measure or economy demanding the 
 adherenoo of men, must be submitted to the blazing torch of en- 
 lightened investigation. If it be genuine, it will bear the most 
 fiery test, and, like gold, will come out the purer. If spurious, then 
 the sooner it is exposed and crumbles to dust the better. And It is 
 obligatory upon every one to employ all fair means in his power to 
 eradicate error, and nothing but the sheerest Jesuitism will attempt 
 
 to oppose him. 
 
 AMI(?L'S JDSTITLE. 
 
 E. 
 
 In.-:i\iii^; iliat "Episcopacy may well afford to place her niilre 
 upon the heads of such men as MrKi: ndbke and B.vscom, if for ho- 
 33
 
 3*78 APPENDIX. 
 
 thing else, to purchase an indemnity from their merciless castiga- 
 tions," it is affirmed that we surely cannot believe our own insinu- 
 ation ! — that it is quite unworthy of us ! To what extent we have 
 done Dr. Bascom injustice in the iiremises, may be still farther as- 
 certained by the following letter, addressed to the' Rev. D. B. 
 Dorset, who was suspended from the ministry by the Balti- 
 more Conference, in 1827, for the part he took in promoting the 
 circulation of the " Mutual Rights of ministers and members in the 
 Methodist Episoopal Church," — a paper devoted to the advocacy of 
 such a reformation in the Methodist polity, as would give the laity 
 a EEFRESEXTATiox in Its couucils. Who would ever suppose that a 
 man who could write thus, would ever afterward accept the '• chief 
 seat " in the " star chamber?" That a man who could characterize 
 the decision of an ecclesiastical judicatory, as au " overbearing act 
 of abandoned tyranny !" — as perpetrating a " lahored deed of hard- 
 earned infamy!" — as holding a " lordly inquisition over the rights 
 and consciences of those who have too much intelligence and too 
 much candor to think and act by their prescription !" — nay, that he 
 should more than insinuate, that this same assemblage of Church 
 dignitaries should '•' seek to increase the mental tjiquietude, to strengthen 
 desolation without,"' of their doomed victim, " and so send him to a 
 PEEMATURE GRAVE ! !" — that such a man should afterwards accept 
 the highest ofQce which such a body as this could confer, we believe 
 can only be accounted for as we have stated, to wit : That the 
 " blushing honors" of " our Episcopacy" struck the " eloquent Bas- 
 com " with a kind of mental and moral paralysis. But here is the 
 letter — it is written over' the signature of " Vdcdex :" 
 
 ''April 27, 1827. 
 
 " My DEAR SIR : — Not knowing yon personally, nor the place of your 
 residence, I ask the privilege of addressing you through the medi- 
 um of the Mutual Rights, for apiiroving and recommendiny of which, 
 you now stand suspended as a Methodist travelling preacher ! The 
 Baltimore Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church — 
 with three or more bishops present to direct and shape its measures 
 — ^have, by a solemn resolution, after several days deliberation, offi- 
 cially decided that a presbyter in the Church of God deserves pun- 
 ishment and disgrace, because he adopts opinions and sentiments, on
 
 APPENDIX. 379 
 
 the subject of Cliiirch gOTermnent, which are received and acted 
 upon by a large majority of Prote^;tant Christians, throughout the 
 various divisions of the religious world ! ■ I cannot pause, my bro- 
 ther, to write the many denunciations that common sense, through- 
 • out an outraged community, will pronounce upon this overbearing 
 act of abandoned tyranny ! But X hasten to enquire why were yau 
 selected as the vidim, the sole victim, when it was in proof before 
 them that others were in the same condemnation ! Why did not 
 ' my lord of Caterbury' who ' rides in the whirlwind and directs 
 the storm" among you, and- by whom even bishops are tithed at 
 wiU, together with the active and zealous doctor, the principal offi- 
 cer in the ' star chamber,' select a goodly number of victims, and 
 offer an appalling hecatomb at once ! Was it because heaven had 
 deprived you of health ? Was it because you were remote from 
 home and friends? Was it because, like your Master, you were 
 l)Oor, and with the humble sharer of fortunes ' had scarcely where 
 to lay your head ?" Did they wish, by increasing your mental in- 
 quietude, to strengthen the desolation without, and so send you to 
 a premature grave? Or was it intended by the horror of the exam- 
 ple made of you, to say to other reformers, ' If you have the word, 
 we have i\xQ mord T I cannot refrain from asking where three ox^ 
 four members of the Baltimore Conference were duiing this labored 
 (fe«J o/ nARD-EARNED INFAMY? Did they sit by in inglorious 
 silence? But, mj brother, be not discouraged; recollect that the 
 gi-eat father of us all as Methodists, was by a similar body and in 
 the same city forty years ago, declared unworthy of a name or place in 
 that communion,* in the bosom of which you now find yourself hon- 
 orably degraded. AVhcn Mr. Wesley was informed of this, he declared 
 in a letter now in my possession, that the American bishop had ' no 
 more connection with him,' But I trust you will not so decide in 
 relation to your blinded and prejudiced brethren, ' Yet a little 
 while,' and this stupid, Laudean zeal will b'c cooled in the humilia- 
 tion and disgrace of your persecutors; public indign.ation will chas- 
 tise tlieir pitifnl ])reten:-!ions to loiflly inquisition over the rights and 
 Con.scienco« of those wlio have loo much intelligence and too much 
 candor to think and act by their prescription ! To conclude, my 
 
 • Alludine to the aelion of the General CoiifcTCiice, in 1787, in volinp the name of 
 John Wi-^-lcy from the minute. Wesnpiio^e thin was in revenge for Mr. Wesluy'i sa) • 
 Ine in hi.i lellerto Mr. Anhnry, " Men may call me a knave, or a rouL, a rascal, a 
 BcoVKDREL, hi'' 'hev (hull mverhi my conreni call me a oieiior."
 
 380 APPENDIX.. 
 
 dear sir, I beg you to accept the best -wishes of a stranger; ' faint 
 not in the day of evil;' the honorary overthrow you have sustained' 
 for the rights of conscience, will make strangers your friends : on 
 hearing of the treatment you and others received at the Baltimore 
 Conference, ten or twelve persons within my charge have declared 
 for reform, and are ready to aid you with their influence and purses. 
 Wishing the speedy restoration of your health, and that you may 
 live to see the cause of religious oppression banished from the 
 Church and the world, 
 
 I remain yours in the kingdom and patience of Jesus, 
 
 YINDEX. 
 "Rev.D. B. DoKSEY.'' 
 
 F. 
 
 That we have rightly construed the above clause in the Discipline, 
 there can be no reasonable doubt. To prove this, we introduce the 
 following remarks of the editor of the Christian Advocate and Jour- 
 nal, published in the City of New York; the parent of all the family 
 of Advocates now in the United States. He says: " Now, whatever 
 others may think, the Methodists have always professed to believe 
 that the Head of the Church still gives us pastors and teachers. 
 ***** To these [pastors and teachers] we accord the scrip- 
 tural authority of admitting to the ordinances of the Loi'd's house, 
 such as believe through their word. 
 
 " We know nothing of the right of the Society to admit members 
 into Church fellowship; and the Methodist preacher who concedes 
 this right, beti-ays his trust,'^nd should be held amenable for his de- 
 linquency to his brethren. * * ******* 
 
 '• But whatever controversy may exist on this question, elsewhere, 
 or however it may have been settled among other denominations, 
 it is certain that the right of the ^ociety ito admit and expel Church 
 members, is not Wesleyan nor Episcopalian Church Methodism. 
 •We have no such practice, neither any of the Churches' acting 
 under our Discipline. 
 
 " The admission and expulsion.of Church members, by a vote of the 
 Society, is as absurd in theory as it would be ruinous in practice." 
 —Quoted by Kev. J. R. Graves, in the Iron Wheel, pp. 243-244.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 Form L9 — 15m-10,'48 (B1039 ) 444 
 
 UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 LIBRARY
 
 8340 A discussion on 
 
 AA 000 701499 6 
 
 BX 
 
 8340 
 
 E18d 
 
 k_
 
 ■ < ! 
 
 I ^ 
 
 ! I 
 
 ! i 
 
 li