ishing: but so it was!-Mr. Wesley came to Bristol, and September 1, every thing being prepared as proposed above, he complied with the doctor's earnest wish, by consecrating him one of the bishops, and Mr. Whatcoat and Vasey presbyters of the new Methodist Episcopal Church in America. No doubt the three gentlemen were highly gratified with their new titles; as we often see, both young and old children gratified with gilded toys, though clumsily made, and of no real worth or valuable use, except to quiet the cries of those for whom they are prepared.

The difficulties on the first entrance into this new path being now overcome, and the opening prospects being highly flattering to the human mind tutored under certain circumstances, some further progress became natural and easy. Accordingly, it was not long before three more preachers were ordained for Scotland; and afterwards at different periods, several others were ordained: but all of them at first, were laid under a restriction not to exercise their ministerial functions in England. Since the death of Mr. Wesley, still further progress has been made, not only in the practice of ordaining, but in the exercise of their new functions, in various societies in this kingdom. But hitherto this new order of things has produced the most lamentable effects, having caused contention, and kindled the flames of party zeal.

CHAPTER V.

OPINIONS AND DEBATES, &c. ON THE NEW PLAN OF ORDINATION. SEVERAL PARTICULARS OF THE LAST YEARS OF MR. WESLEY'S LIFE; WITH AN ACCOUNT OF HIS DEATH IN MARCH, 1791. HIS LAST WILL, &c.

THE following is part of a letter from one preacher to another, when the report that Mr. Wesley had ordained some of the preachers, first began to be circulated in the societies. It may serve to show us what opinion the uninfected itinerants entertained of this strange business. "Ordination-among Methodists! Amazing indeed! I could not force myself to credit the report which spread here, having not then seen the minutes; but now I can doubt it no longer. And so, we have Methodist parsons of our own! And a new mode of ordination, to be sure-on the Presbyterian plan?—In spite of a million of declarations to the contrary! I am fairly confounded. Now the ice is broke, let us conjecture a little the probable issue of this new thing in the earth. You say, we must reason and debate the matter.—Ålas! it is too late. Surely it never began in the midst of a multitude of counsellors; and I greatly fear the Son of man was not secretary of state, or not present when the business was brought on and carried, I suppose, with very few dissentient voices. Who could imagine that this important matter would have stole into being, and be obtruded upon the body, without their being so much as apprized of it, or con

sulted on so weighty a point? Who is the father of this monster so long dreaded by the father of his people, and by most of his sons? Whoever he be, time will prove him a felon to Methodism, and discover his assassinating knife sticking fast in the vitals of its body. This has been my steadfast opinion for years past; and years to come will speak in groans the opprobrious anniversary of our religious madness for gowns and bands. Will it not sting a man that has been honored by his Lord and Master for many years as a lay-preacher, to have a black-robed boy, flirting away in the exercise of his sacred office, set over him?-If not all, but only a few favorites are to be honored, will it not raise a dust, that will go nigh to blind the eyes of the whole body?"-Another old preacher, writing to his friend, delivers his opinion to the following purpose -I wish they had been asleep when they began this business of ordination: it is neither Episcopal nor Presbyterian: but a mere hodge-podge of inconsistencies-though it must be allowed, that Mr. Wesley acted under the influence of others, yet he had some reasons for the step he took, which at the moment appeared to him sufficient to justify it. Perhaps they may not appear in the same light to others, and probably would not to himself, had he not been biassed by persuasion. A part of the reasons of his conduct in this affair, are detailed in the letter testimonial, which Dr. Coke carried over with him to the American Conference. It is addressed "To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our brethren in North America: " and is conceived in the following terms:

"By a very uncommon train of providences, many of the provinces of North America, are totally disjoined from their mothercountry, and erected into independent states. The English government has no authority over them either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the states of Holland. A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by the Congress, partly by the provincial assemblies. But no one either claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation, some thousands of the inhabitants of these states desire my advice; and in compliance with their desire, I have drawn up a little sketch.

"Lord King's account of the primitive church convinced me

* King (Peter,) Lord High Chancellor of England, was descended of a good family of that name in Somersetshire, and son of an eminent grocer and salter in the city of Exeter in Devonshire. He was born at Exeter in 1669, and bred up for some years to his father's business. But his inclination to learning was so great, that he laid out all the money he could spare in books, and devoted every moment of his leisure hours to study; so that he became an excellent scholar before the world suspected any such thing; and gave the public a proof of his skill in church history, in his Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship of the Primitive Church, that flourished within the first three hundred years after Christ. London, 1691, and 1713, in 8vo. This was written with a view to promote the scheme of a comprehension of the Dissenters. His acquaintance with Mr. Locke, to whom he was related, and who left him his library at his death, was of great advantage to him. By his advice, after he had studied some time in Holland, he applied himself to the study of the law; in which profession, his learning and diligence made him soon taken notice of. In the two last parliaments during the reign of King William, and in five parliaments during the reign of Queen Anne, he served as Burgess for Beer Alston in Devonshire. In 1702, he published, without his name, the History of the

many years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years I have been importuned from time to time, to exercise this right, by ordaining part of our travelling preachers. But I have still refused: not only for peace' sake, but because I was determined, as little as possible, to violate the established order of the national church to which I belonged.

"But the case is widely different between England and North America. Here there are bishops who have a legal jurisdiction. In America there are none, neither any parish ministers. So that for some hundred miles together, there is none either to baptize or to administer the Lord's Supper. Here therefore my scruples are at an end: and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order, and invade no man's right, by appointing and sending laborers into the harvest.

"I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke, and Mr. Francis Asbury, to be joint Superintendents over our brethren in North America: as also Richard Whatcoat, and Thomas Vasey, to act as Elders among them, by baptizing and administering the Lord's Supper. And I have prepared a liturgy, little differing from that of the Church of England (I think, the best constituted national church in the world) which I advise all the travelling preachers to use on the Lord's day, in all the congregations, reading the Litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays, and praying extempore on all other days. I also advise the elders to administer the Supper of the Lord on every Lord's day.

"If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way of feeding and guiding those poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embrace it. At present I cannot see any better method, than that I have taken.

"It has indeed been proposed, to desire the English bishops, to ordain part of our preachers for America. But to this I object, 1. I desired the bishops of London to ordain only one; but could not prevail: 2. If they consented, we know the slowness of their proceedings; but the matter admits of no delay. 3. If they would ordain then now, they would likewise expect to govern them. And how grievously would this entangle us! 4. As our American brethren are now 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 made them free.

JOHN WESLEY."

Apostles' Creed, with critical observations on its several articles; which is highly esteemed. In 1703, he was chosen Recorder of the city of London; and in 1710, was one of the members of the House of Commons at the trial of Dr. Sacheverell. In 1714, he was appointed Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; and the April following, was made one of the Privy Council. In 1715 he was created a Peer, by the title of Lord King, Baron of Ockham in Surry and appointed Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain; in which post he continued till 1733, when he resigned; and in 1734, died at Ockham in Surry. See Encyclop. Brit.

Before we proceed any further, let us pause a moment; and inquire, how far the general position laid down in this letter as the ground of Mr. Wesley's proceedings, agrees with his practice of ordination. He tells us, "Lord King's account of the primitive church convinced me many years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain." But if this were even admitted, would it justify Mr. Wesley's practice on this occasion? I apprehend not. Let us suppose, that Mr. Wesley was as good an Exiozonos as any in Europe; and Dr. Coke a regular presbyter; the position states that they had the same right to ordain. According to this principle then, Dr. Coke had the same right to ordain Mr. Wesley, that Mr Wesley had to ordain Dr. Coke! and consequently the doctor's ordination was null and void to all intents and purposes: or, if the doctor received any right to ordain others, which he had not before, and which the very ceremony of ordination implies, then Mr. Wesley's general position as the ground of his practice, is not true. Thus we see, that Mr. Wesley's principle and practice in this affair directly oppose each other. If his principle was true, his practice was bad: if his practice was good, his principle was false: they cannot both stand good together. It is painful to see him fall into such a dilemma, which we have not seen before in the whole course of his life. When he began the practice of ordaining to the ministry, his brother, Mr. Charles exclaimed,

""Twas age that made the breach, not he."

And if we add to this, the influence others had over him in this affair, it is perhaps, the best apology that can be made for his conduct.

In this business, Dr. Coke has reasoned in a manner much more consistent with his general practice, than Mr. Wesley; which has not indeed often been the case, and is therefore the more worthy of notice. He tells Mr. Wesley, in the letter above transcribed, “The more I consider the subject, the more expedient it appears to me, that the power of ordaining others, should be received by me from you, by the imposition of your hands." Among other reasons for this expediency, are the following: 1. "I may want all the influence in America, you can throw into my scale."-2. “An authority formally received from you, will be fully admitted by the people."—And S. "My exercising the office of ordination without that formal authority may be disputed." Now all this is intelligible and clear; and I am confident these reasons would have satisfied any man in similar circumstances, who had considered ordination as a mere stalking horse to gain influence and dominion.

Soon after the ordination, Dr. Coke, with his two companions, sailed for America; where they arrived in time to meet the American Conference held at Baltimore. Here the Doctor opened his commission, and consecrated Mr. Asbury a bishop, and gave the societies formed by the preachers on that continent, a new name, calling them, "The Methodist Episcopal Church in America." He preached a sermon on this occasion, which was afterwards printed, and in which he labors to defend this new order of things. He begins this defence by the most severe censures on the clergy,

and on the English Hierarchy. It has been supposed that the greatest part of what the doctor here published as his own, was written by Mr. Wesley. But I shall not easily believe, that these censures proceeded from his pen. It would answer no valuable purpose to transcribe them; but it may to observe the very striking difference between the proceedings at the commencement of Methodism, and the practice now adopted-" We are not seceders," says Mr. Wesley, in the minutes of Conference, “nor do we bear any resemblance to them. We set out upon quite opposite principles. The Seceders laid the very foundation of their work, in judging and condemning others: we laid the foundation of our work in judging and condemning ourselves. They begin every where, with showing their hearers, how fallen the church and ministers are: we begin every where, with showing our hearers how fallen they are themselves." Dr. Coke, in laying the foundation of his new church in America, adopted the principles and practice, in this respect, of the Seceders, and quitted those of the old Methodists. He tells Mr. Wesley, some time after, in a letter from Ireland, that he would as soon commit adultery as preach publicly against the church. But I must say this of the doctor, that, with respect to adultery I think him very innocent, but in bringing railing accusations against others, I think him very guilty. And it is very probable, that the Methodist Episcopal Church now forming in England, will have the same foundation as it had in America: the founders of it begin with judging and condemning others who dissent from them, and exalting themselves: some very glaring instances of which have already appeared. I leave others to judge of the consequences.

Dr. Coke, in his ordination sermon, and also in his congratulatory Address to General Washington, gives us to understand how much he is enraptured with the American Constitution; so far that he thinks it is fit to be an exemplar to all other nations.-But I leave the doctor's politics, to consider the defence he gives us of his new scheme of ordination.

"But what right have you to ordain?" To this question the doctor answers, "The same right as most of the reformed churches in Christendom: our ordination in its lowest view, being equal to any of the Presbyterian, as originating with three presbyters of the Church of England."

It is possible the doctor might believe himself, when he wrote this sentence. But is it true, that the presence of three presbyters in a private chamber, is the only requisite essentially necessary to give validity to an ordination among the Presbyterians? I apprehend not. Nor do I know any denomination of Dissenters, among whom such a secret ordination would be deemed valid. "But what right have you to exercise the episcopal office?" To this, the doctor answers, "To me the most manifest and clear. God has been pleased, by Mr. Wesley, to raise up in America and Europe, a numerous society well known by the name of Methodists. The whole body have invariably esteemed this man as their chief pastor under Christ. He has always appointed their religious officers from the highest to the lowest, by himself or his del