History of Spisoopal Methodism "fov George Y\ Peurif oy Trinity College Library Durham, N. C. Rec'd THE TEKEL OF METHODISM. HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. IN WHICH ITS CLAIMS TO mim A CHURCH OF CHRIST AEE INVESTIGATED. By ELDEB GEOKGE W. PEUBIfOY, OF ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. *• I believe, therefore have I spoken ."-—D 'At im \s — — 1 S.i CMAPELHILL: PRINTED AT THE GAZETTE (fakciS 1858, HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. INTRODUCTION. There are various denominations claiming to be the Church of Christ, Their claims are not all valid, for the God of heaven never "set up" ; "but one Church or denomination of Christians. 1. It is contrary to reason, that the Almighty should set up, or fa- vor the organization of antagonistic denominations. He is not the author of one to advocate Episcopacy, and of another to oppose it ; of one to practice immersion, and another to oppose it, and practice sprinkling ; of one to oppose infant baptism, and another to advocate and practice it ; God is not the author of both Baptist, and Pedo-bap- tist Churches. If Pedo-baptist Churches are of God, Baptist Churches are not. If Baptist Churches are of God, Pedo-baptist are not. 2. That God is the author of but one Church or Christian denomi- nation, is evident from his word. No one will assert, or believe that the Saviour and the Apostles, organized more than one Church or de- nomination. At that time "the God of Heaven setup a kingdom.*' Daniel 2, 44. If he set up divisions in his kingdom or Church, if he set up antagonistic Sects, he acted with less wisdom and precaution, than any sensible earthly being would. No human sovereign would be guilty of setting up antagonistic parties, in his Kingdom, neither has God done any such thing. Did notour Saviour say, "A Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand V Who then, will say, he divided his Kingdom, into antagonistic Sects ? He never did any such thing, the divisions that exist, are not of God, but of Man. Instead of dividing his people the Saviour prayed that his people might "be one/' this he did four times, See John, 17, 11, 21, 22, 23. who will assert, that he who prayed that his people might "be one/' that is, remain undivided, is the author of more than one denomina- tion? 4 HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. Divisions in, or of the Church of Christ, arc expressly forbidden, and those that cause them are to he marked and avoided. Paul says," Now I beseech you brethren, mark them which cause divisions, and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid, tliem." We are not to encourage them in any way whatever, see also 1, Cor. 1 ; 10, Eph. 4 ; 14, Pet. 3 ; 8, 2 Cor. 13 ; 11, and Titus 3. 10. That from the days of the Apostles until now, there has been in risible existence, the Church which the God of heaven set up, will not be denied by any. believer in the Bible. By the kingdom set up in the days of these kings, is meant the Gos- pel Church, of which it is said," it shall never be destoyed, it shall stand forever," Dan. 2, 44. The Saviour said, "On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 16 ; 18. This, and the preceeding passage, refer to the setting rtp the visible Church, and prove that it was to have a perpetual exis- tence. The only question, is, where was this true Church, and who composed it, during the dark ages of Popish persecution ? Catholics say it was with them. This cannot be, for they were the persecuting party. By reference to Rev. 12 ; 6, 14, it will be clearly seen where the true Church was during the great Romish Apostacy, the reign of "the Man of Sin." " And the woman [the Church] fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thous- and two hundred and three score days," (that is 12G0 years.) "And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place where she is nourished for a f-ime, and times, and half a time from the face of the serpent." Prom the rise of "the Man of sin," the serpent," that persecuted the woman until the Reformation, the true gospel Church was in the wilderness, fled from the persecuting power of papal Rome. This Church had been in the wilderness for 1260 years, and in existence at rfae time of the Reformation, and has continued ever since. Dr. Samuel Miller, (Presbyterian,) says of Matt. 16, 18: "This promise seems to secure to his people that there shall be, in all ages, in the worst times, a substantially pure Church ; that there shall al- ways be a body of people more or less numerous, who shall hold just HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. 5, the doctrines and order of Christ house, in some good degree, in con- formity with the model of the primitive Church. Accordingly, it is not difficult to show that, ever since the rise of the 'Man of Sin' there has been a Succession of those whom the Scriptures Style 'Witnesses for God,' 'Witnesses for the truth/ who have kept alive 'the faith once delivered to the Saints / and have in some good degree of faith- fulness maintained the ordinances and discipline which the inspired Apostles, in the Master's name committed to the keeping of the Church,'* — Recom. Letter to Dr.^Baird p. 1. President Edwards, (Presbyterian) SaySj "In every age of this dark time (Popery) there appeared particular persons in all parts of Chris- tendom, who bore a testimony against the corruptions and tyranny of the Church of Rome. There is no one age of antichrist, even m the darkest times, but Ecclesiastical Historians mention by name, those who manifested an abhorrence of the Pope and his idolatrous worship, and pleaded for the ancient purity of doctrine and worship. God was pleased to maintain an uninterupted succession of many witnesses &e." — His. of Redemption, p 205. Who composed this "uninterrupted succession," "who bore a tes- timony against the corruptions and tyranny of the Church of Rome, *' who constituted the "pure Church/' the "witnesses for God/' and "maintained the ordinance and discipline of the Church" &c. during "the dark ages" while the Church was hid, or "fled into the wilderness," for 1260 years previous to the Reformation? — What denomination of Christians has descended from the "uninterrup- ted Succession of many witnesses?"-* That there has been an "unin- terrupted succession" of the true Church from the Apostles until the present time, separate and distinct from the Romish Apostocy, no true protestant will deny, God's word is pledged for the perpetuity of his visible Church, See Dan. 2, 44, and Matt. 16, 18. This being ad- mitted, it becomes an exceedingly interesting subject of enquiry, which of the present denominations has the best claim to identity icitli, and decent from the true and witnessing Church. This is a momentous subject, with the ability of protestants to meet it, depends in a great measure, their success in a contest with Roman Catholics. It can be *For an answer to the proceeding questions, the reader is refered to my Dedication Ser- mon, from Daniel 2 ; 41, u large edition of which has just been published. 6 HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. fully and triumphantly met, but not by Pedobaptists, for Catho 4 Hcs can give the day when each of them seceeded from her, or from her offspring. Having shown, that God is the author of but one denomination, or Church, that divisions are forbidden ; and that the Church which he "set up/' was never to be destroyed," was to "Stand forever," and that it "fled into the wilderness," and was persecuted even unto death for hundreds of years before the reformation, and still has existence. I shall enter at once into an investigation of the claims of the so called ' 'Methodist Episcopal Church" to be a true Church of God. Section I. I shall now proceed to the History of Episcopal Methodism, and ex* amine its claims to be a true and Scriptural Church of Jesus Christ* 1. In its origin, there is nothing that entitles it to be considered a gospel Church. Methodists date the ris3 of Methodism in A. D. 1729. Discipline 3 The origin of Methodism was as follows : "In November 1729, at which time I, (says Mr. Wesley.) come to reside in Oxford, my brother and I, and two young gentlemen more, agreed to spend three or four eve* nings in a week together. On Sunday evening we read something in divinity, on other nights the Greek and Latin Classics." "On Momky, May 1st, our little Society began in London. But it may be observed (says Mr. Wesley) "the first rise of Methodism, so called, was in November 1729 when four of us met together at Ox ford." — Wesley's Works. There is nothing in this first rise of Methodism, that has the least 'osemblance of a Gospel Church, four unconverted Students met three >r four times a week, there was no preaching, no ordinances, and not a converted person among them. At that time it was not a Church, and did not claim to be one. 2. "The Second rise of Methodism" (says Mr. Wesley) "was at Savannah, in Georgia, in April 1736, when twenty or thirty persons met in my house. After the evening service, as many of my parish- oners as desire it, meet at my house, (as they do on Wednesday eve- ning) and spend about an hour in prayer, singing and mutual exhor" tation. A smaller number (most of those who desire to communicate the next Sabbath) met here on Saturday evening; and a few of fcMse HISTORY Ofc EPISCOPAL METHODISM, come to me on the other evenings, and pass half an hour in the same employment." In this Second rise of Methodism, as described by Mr. Wesley, there is nothing that entitles it to be called a gospelChurch, it did not claim to be a Church. When Mr. Wesley got into a difficulty, in con- sequence of his arbitrary and overbearing disposition, and left Savan- nah, for England at 8 o' clock in the night, with an indictment hang- ing over him, every vestage of Methodism left with him. Thus ended the second rise of Methodism without the formation even of a Society ! 3. The third rise of Methodism, (says Mr. Wesley) was at London on May 1st 1737, when forty or fifty of us agreed to meet together every Wednesday evening, in order to have a free conversation, begun and ended with singing and prayer." — Wesley's Works p. 7. p. 348. Again says Mr. Wesley, "In 1739 our Society consisted of about six- ty persons. It continued gradually increasing all the year. In April I went down to Bristol, and soon a few persons agreed to meet week- ly, with the same intention as those in London." — Wesley's Works v. 7. p. 349. In this third rise of Methodism, there is no appearance of a Church. They met weekly for a free conversation, and opened and closed by singing and prayer. There was no preaching and no ordinances. It was not, and did not claim to be a Church. No intelligent Methodist will say it was a Church at this time. Mr. Wesley never called his Societies a Church. He did not allow his preachers to administer the ordinance of baptism or the Lord's Supper, until he was in the 82nd year of his life ! His Societies were merely of a social nature designed for classical and Spiritual improve- ment, without any Church organization. jgig^For a period of fifty five years (from 1729 to 1784) Methodism never claimed to be a gospel Church.^g^ Mr. Inskip, (a Methodist,) in his History of Methodism, p. 37, 38, says in the beginning Mr. Wesley did not conceive the idea of a So- ciety at all. Afterwards, however, he consummated such an organi- zation as he found to be suitable and necessary. But this organization was not a distinct sect, holding a particular formal creed, or prescrib- ing any exclusive method or ceremonies of worship. It was a Society in the Church, (of England.) Hence those connected with the Socie- ffes. were earnestly and repeatedly warned of the evil of separating HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. from- the Church/-' that is, the Church of England. Bemeniber it was '/he" John Wesley, not the Saviour or the Apostles, that formed these Societies ! Remember also that Inskip says, they were "not a dis- tinct sect," but was "a Society in the Church" of England, and were warned of tlie evil of Separating from the Church. Even as late as 1780, the conference held in Baltimore, Maryland, \n April, by a resolution urged their ministers to "continue in close connexion with the Church (of England) and press all our people, to a close communion with her.' ; In N. C. C. Advocate April 1G, 1857 . "For a period of ffty-five years, Methodist Societies were composed of members mainly, who were in the Episcopal Church, this is over- whelming proof that the Methodist were not then a Church for they were Societies in the Church of England. Methodism, as such, did not administer the ordinance of Baptism or the Lord's Supper from its- rise in 1729 to 1784, a period of fifty-five years ! According to their own definition of the Church of Christ, they were not a Church, from 1729 to 1784, a period pf 55 years. "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly ad- ministered see "Discipline, p. 16. The ordinance of Baptism and tin Lord's Supper were not administered in their Societies, until 1784, fifty -five years from its "first rise," consequently, by their own 'defini- tion, they were not a "visible Church" from 1729 to 1784. In fact i\vQY have never claimed, that they were a Church, until 1784. This;, no intelligent Methodist will deny. If they were not a gospel Church M Section II. _ . . ■■ - That Mr. "\Yesleij s Societies have no claim to be called a Church of Christ, is evident from the fact, that those who belonged to them, might at the same time be a regular member of another Christian de- nomination. I have already shown that they were mainly member.- of the Church of England, from 1729 to 1784, (55 years.) Mr. Inskip, (a Methodist,) in his History of Methodism, p. 35, says. ' : one circumstance more is peculiar to the people called Methodists : that is, the terms upon which any person may be admitted into their .Society. They do not impose, in order to their admission any opin- " i >ns whatever. Let them be Church-men, or dissenter, Presby tevi u i IIISTOHY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. or Independents, it is no obstacle. The Presbyterian may be a Presbyte- rian still; the Independent "or Anabaptist (Baptist) use his own modfe- ■of worship"; so may the Quaker &c." Such a mixed Society as this. is no Church of Christ. God's Church does not keep such a disorder- ly house as this. He opens no such door of admission into his Church . He sets no such dragnet* Section III. Up to Sept. 10, 1784, fifty-five years after the first rise of Methodism. Mr. Wesley did ail that he could, to keep his Societies-both in England and America, in close connexion with the Episcopal Church. In his letter of Sept. 10, 1784, Mr. Wesley says, "for many years, T have been importuned, from time to time, to exercise the right, by ordaining part of my travelling Preachers. But I have still re- fused, not only for peace sake, but because I was determined as little as possible, to violate the established order of the Church to which I belonged." Here it is conceded by Mr. Wesley, that there was no Methodist Church in England or America at the date of this letter, (1784.) His Societies, Ms Preachers, and he, (John Wesley) still belonged to the Church of England ! Mr. Wesley lived and died a member of the Episcopal Church, he never separated from it. Although the father and founder of Schismatics, he never became one himself ! Methodist generally think Mr. Wesley was a Methodist in the same sense that they are. He never ivas a member of the so called, "Methodist Epis- copal Church/' His societies in England have not to this day, as- sumed the style and name of a Church, they are still called So- cieties. The- announcement of the fact, that Mr. Wesley never was a Metho- dist in the same sense that they are, will be strange news to Episco- pal Methodists ! What ! Old Bro, Wesley never an Episcopal Metho- dist ! ? I thought he was the father and founder, and just such a Methodist as I am ! Not he ! Mr. Wesley lived and died a member b f the Church of England. In a sermon "on Schism," Mr. Wesley says r "I am now, and always have been from my youth, a member and minister of the Church of England. And I have no desire, nor design to separate from it, till my soul separates from my body." He kept his purpose, Wesley's Sermons, v. 2, 38G. So far was Mr. Wesley from HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. being a Methodist in the sense that persons are members of the Metho- 1 dist Church, he was actually sorry the separation of his Societies from the Church of England ever took place! Dr. Coke, in his letter to Bishop White {which is now before me) says. "And this I am certain of— that he (Wesley) is now sorry for the separation!!" This letter of Dr. Coke to Bishop White, was written after Wesley was dead, but before Coke heard of it. Section IV. If the Church of England in which Mr. Wesley lived and died, was a true Church of Christ, Methodist had no right to leave it, and found a new sect. It was causing divisions, for which Paul tells us to "mark" and "avoid" them, Eom. xvi, 17. If the Episcopal Church is a gospel Church. Methodist are un" waratable Schismatics, John Wesley being judge. By Schism is meant, separating from the gospel Churchy Mr. Wesley says of Schisms. "For how little a thing soever it may seem, and how innocent soever it may be accounted, Schism, even in this sense, (leaving the Church) is both evil in itself, and productive of evil consequences." Sermon on Schism v. 2, p. 334. Again Mr. Wesley says, "to separate ourselves from a body of living Christians with whom we were before united, is a grievous breach of the law of love." Ibid.— Again says Mr. Wesley "Take care how you rend the body of Christ by separating from yovr brethren. It is an evil in itself. It is a sore evil in its consequences &c." Ibid. — Again says Mr. Wesley, "Suppose the Church does not require me to do anything which the Scripture forbids, or to omit any thing which the Scripture enjoins, it is then my indispensable duty to contine therein. And if I separate from it, without any such necessity, I am justly chargea- ble with all the evils consequent upon that separation." Ibid v. 2, p. 387. If it be an evil to separate from the Church, how much greater the evil when we add to that, the setting up of a new sect, or denomi- nation ! Mr. Wesley believed the Episcopal Church to be a gospel Church, Jior he lived and died a member of it, and Drs. Coke, Asbury, and their coadjutors believed the same, and yet they separated from it, became guilty of Schism, and then added to this evil^ a still greater one, that of originating a new sect, and calling it a Church ! If then the Epis- copal Church is a true gospel Church, Methodist, are to be "marked" HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. 11 hnd "avoided" for causing a division by leaving it, and forming themselves into a Methodist Church. If, however, the Church of England is not a true gospel Church, it follows that its offspring, Methodism, cannot be. "An evil tree can- not bring forth good fruit." The Sprout will partake of the nature of the root. "Who can bring forth a clean thing out of an unclean? — Not one." Job. xiv, 4. No stream can rise higher than its fountain. The Episcopal Church as it is called, is a daughter of Rome, it is un- deniably the offspring of papal^and apostate Rome. "The Methodist Episcopal Church" as it is called, is the daughter of the Episcopal Church. Wh.o set up the Church of England. Henry VIII, or the God of heaven ? Who set up Methodism, John Wesley, or the God of heaven ? That the God of heaven set up neither of them is evident. — - Lie never set up but one and that was to "stand for ever," Dan. ii, 44. Jesus Christ is the head of his Church, see Eph. ii, 23. Col. v, 10. Henry the VIII declared himself the head of the Church of England, when he threw off the Roman Catholic yoke, and organized the Epis- copal Church. If we admit that the Episcopal is a true gospel Church, Methodists are to be "marked" and "avoided" for leaving it ! If it is not a true Church, its offspring, Methodism cannot be ! ! Either horn of this di- lema, is fatal to the claims of Episcopal Methodisn, Consequently they are not a true Church of Christ. Section V. Methodism, though introduced into the United States in 176G, was not called a Church, and did not exercise the functions of one, until A. D. 1784. The first Methodist Society was established in the City of New York, in 1766. The first preacher was Philip Embury, though he was a preacher when he left England, upon reaching this country and find- ing no Methodists he relapsed. Soon after, an Irish woman who was a zealous follower of Mr. Wesley, came to New York ; and hearing of Mr. Embury's declension, fired with indignation she entered the room where Mr. Embury and others were assembled, and snatched, the cards with which they were playing, and threw them into the fire. She then turned to Mr. Embury and said, "you must preach to us, or we shall all go to hell together." Mr. Embury, then passed from, the card table to the pulpit, and formed the first Methodist Society that 12 HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. was ever in the United States ! See Cook's Estimate of Methodism, p. 231. In England, Methodism was introduced by Mr. Wesley rifak yeavs before he claims that he was a cenverted man ! In America the first Society was raised by Mr. Embury, who as has just beeu shown, passed by the admonition of a woman, from the card table to the pul- pit, and soon formed a Society ! ! Up to. this time there was no Methodist Church, either in England or America. They were merely Societies in the Church of England- Even to the present day, Methodism in England, does not claim to he a Church. Br. Bascom, afterwards a Methodist bishop says, "I«will not dwell on the fact that the Methodists have never assumed the style of a Church in Europe." In the Mutual Rights. That God ever employ- ed unconverted men to set up a gospel Church in his name is an idea too absurd to be believed. Yet if Methodism is a Church of God, it was commenced by unconverted men ! <• The first regular conference held in America, convened in Philadel- phia July 4, 1773, but as yet, it did not claim to be a Church. — They were still members of the Church of England and receive 1 the ordinances there ."©a Section YI. The fourth rise of Methodism took place in 1784, on the 25 th day of December, in the City of Baltimore. At that time, there Societies were transmuted into "Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States." i^^^Before this day, such a thing as the Methodist Episcopal Church was never heard of Mr. Inskip, a Methodist historia*n, says, "at this Conference in 1773 the authority of Mr. Wesley, and the doctrine and discipline of the Methodists, were formerly recognised and adopted. They also, con- tinues Mr. Inskip, "agreed unanimously not to administer the sacra- ments, and all were exhorted to attend the Church (of England) and to receive the ordinances there," History of Methodism. Notice, 1. As yet, they did not claim to be a Church, for Mr. Inskip tells us, they, (Methodists) did not administer? the sacraments. Notice, 2. 'They received the ordinances, (Baptism and the Lord's Sapper) in the Church of England. Notice, 3. Methodists still recognised the authority of Mr. Wesley. HISTORY OS EPISCOPAL METHODISM, $S 4. 27m* doctrine and discipline of the Methodists, were recog- nized and adopted. Notice, 5, Before this we hear nothing, not even one letter, sylla- ble, or word, about a Methodist Church, we are simply told "the Methodists" did thus and so I Notice, 6. "The Methodists" had no ordiances! No, not one, in 1773!! Even as late as December the 24, 1784, there was not, and never had been seen or heard of, any such orginzatiens as "the Methodist Epis- copal Church. 5 ' Up to that day, no human ear ever heard the sound of these words ! But listen ! In the course of the next day, Decem- ber the 25th 1784— -What sound is that ! Hark ! It is the sound of "the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States!" "For on that day, then and there, did about Sixty of Mr. Wesley's traveling preachers (from whom every local preacher and private member was- ■shut out) by a mere vote, transform themselves into "the Methodist Epis- copal Church of the United States !" Did this make them a gospel Church ? Does not every person know that naming a thing does not create it, or change its character? After this magic vote, did they possess any principle, or any scrips ture warrant, that they did not before ? Not one ! They had adapted 3 their doctrine and discipline eleven years before, and yet by voting themselves at this time into what they called a Church, ecmed&s the fact, that in their own estimation, they were not a Church before ! I have already proved that they never claimed to be a Church, until 'this magic vote, in 1784. Does, or can any reflecting person* believe that a true gospel Church, was ever voted into existence 1: Best the unini- tiated, should think I am jesting, when I assert, that si was by a mere vote of Sixty peachers, that "the Methodist, Episcopal Church" 1 as it is called, come into existence, I will prov-e it. 4< 4at this confer- ence (1? '84,) we formed ovrselves into a regular Church, by the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church." — Lee* s, Wis*. of Methodism* In his published Journal, Mr. Astray, says, ''Ilriday 24th (Decem- ber) rode to Baltimore where we met a?/eu> preachers-; it was agrees * to form ourselves into an Episcopal Church." Notice, two Methodist witnesses say, we formed ourselves into a Church <&c., that is the Conference. Every locaSpeacher and; privite memHeva was left out ! If this was not a sham Church organization^ it is Jjard 14 HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM, to conceive of one that would be. It was no more a gospel Church after this vote, than before. It is no more a true Church of Jesus Christ, than it would be if a Bible, Temperance, Missionary, or tract Sjociety was to vote itself into a Church, and call itself the Bible, Tem- perance, Missionary, or Tract Episcopal Church of the United States' The only difference that existed before, and after, this magic vote. was, that before Mr. Wesley sent over Dr. Coke with instructions to ordain preachers and administer the ordainances, by Mr. Wesley's: authority they were not allowed to administer the ordinances! Afterwards, by Mr. Wesley' 's authority ; and his alone, they had this privilege granted' See Mr. "Wesley's letter of recommendation, dated Bristol, Sept. 10, 1784. For fifty five years Mr. Wesley kept his preachers from admin- istering the ordinances. j§|^ It cannot be denied, that the same authority that forbid, and 'prevented the Methodist from administering the ordinances, from 1720. to 1784, gave them authority, in 1784 to administer them There is not one word in the Bible that warrents John Wesley to set up Societies, in the Church of England, and after remaining there for fifty five years ; for about sixty of his travelling preachers with Dr. Coke and Asbury at their head, to form themselves into a gospel Church, with the high sounding title of "the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States." The gospel Church was set up by the God of heaven, one thousand seven hundred years before John Wesley was born ! The gospel Church was set up by Christ and his apostles about A. D. 33, of this Church it is said "it shall never be destroyed, it shall stand forever,''' Dan. ii, 44. The forming of Societies, in the Church of England by Mr. Wesley, and afterwards changing them by a vote into the so called "Methodist Episcopal Church by Mr. Wesley's preachers, seems to imply that in their estimation, the Church set up by the God of heaven, had become extinct, that the gates of hell had prevailed against it, or that they could make an improvement upon it ! The success of the American revolution, which resulted in freeing this country from England, brought about the organization of "the Methodist Episcopal Church," as it is called.— See Wesleifs Letter. It is a little remarkable that this event brought about this organiza- tion, when it is a known fact that during this war the traveling preach- ers were generally Tories, AH, but one, that come from England. HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. 15 went bad: upon the breaking out of the war. Such were their tory propensities," that they had to fly from the country — Mr. Asbury who figured so prominently afterwards among the Methodists, conceal- ed himself 'for a season in the State of Dele-ware." Methodist Prot. Manual, p. 5G. Mr. Wesley spoke and wrote against the American Revolution, he justified the tax on tea, &c, and profered to his Ma- jesty, his services, to raise recruits for his army ! — See Southey's Life of Wesley, p. 306, in Cooke's estimate of Methodism p. 67. As soon as Independence was obtained, and the Church of England ceased to be a national establishment, Mr. Wesley sent over Dr. Coke to ordain Ministers for the Societies and act as Superintendent. Tnif was done in Sept. 1784, See Wesley's letter of Sept. 10. Upon the arrival of Dr. Coke in this country, he and Mr. Asbury. together with about sixty of Mr. Wesley's travelling preachers as ha> already been shown, met in Baltimore, and voted themselves into "the Methodist Episcopal Church." What Special qualification or authority had these sixty of Mr. Wes- ley's preachers to found a Church? Under whose authority did they act ? From whom did they receive their commission ? Answer, from John Wesley*. In 1784. Dr. Coke and Asbury as joint Superinten- dents, were clothed with Mr. Wesley's authority to ordah\ m inisters for the, Societies, &c. Did Mr. Wesley authorize Dr. Coke and Asbury to convert his So- cieties and Ministers, into a Church ? With Mr. Wesley's letter of recommendation before me, I say he did not. They were authorised to act as joint Superintendents to supply the people with preachers, that he did not authorise them to set up a Church, is evident from the fol- lowing part of his letter, "whereas many of the people in the Southern provinces of North America who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of Eng- land »fec." Dr. Coke in his letter to Bishop White says, "I am not sure but i went further in tJie separation of our Church in America than Mr. Wesley from whom I received my commission, did intend." Again says Dr. Coke in that letter," "I am certain that he (Mr. Wesley) i? now sorry for the separation.'" Again says Dr. Coke in that letter "In Europe, (England) where some steps had been taken tending tc * * See Dr. Ccke's Letter to Bishop White, t6 HISTORY OP EPISCOPAL SfE'MoMsM.- ' a, separation (of Mr. Wesley's Societies from the Church of England,)' 'all is at aii end. Mr. Wesley is a determined enemy of it J' By setting up a Church they violated their instructions in two par- ticulars. 1. This took the people from under the care of Mr. Wesley. 2. It deprived them of the discipline of the Church of England. 3 Dr. Coke admits, that he went further than Mr. Wesfey intended. 4. Dr. Coke informs us, that Mr. Wesley was sorry fh-at the Separa- tion had taken place ! He had cause to be sorry, for he had set on foot an awful Schism, Iiis coadjutors had perfected it ! they had assumed a prerogative that belongs to God. He alone has the right to set up a Church. Wesley and his preachers, had no more divine right to found a Church than LaoZy Huntingdon,* Ann Lee, or the Irish woman, that frightened Mr. .Embury from the card table to the pulpit. Section VII. That the Methodist Episcopal Church is not a true Church of Jesus' Christ, is evident from the fact that it is of human origin. By most Methodist writers, Mr. Wesley is acknowledged to be the - 'father and founder of Methodism," four years after Methodism claim- ed to be a Church, Mr. Wesley, in his letter to Asbury, said "I am rander God the father of the whole family." *'At this conference, (1784) we formed ourselves into a regular f 'hurch." — Lee's His. of Methodism. Mr. Asbury, says, "It was agreed to form ourselves into an Episco- pal Church." — See his Journal. It is here conceded, that they formed themselves into a Church, it is consequently of human origm. Rev. A. McCaine, a Methodist, says, "It has been universally ad- mitted, that Messrs. John and Charles Wesley were the founders of that religious denomination of people, called Methodists" Defence of 'the Truth &c, p. 11 As the Wesley's are the founders of the denom- ination called Methodist, it is of human origin. Isaac Taylor a Methodist, in his work on "Wesley and Methodism," j>. 199, says, '** Wesley ism is a Scheme — it is the product of uninspired intelligence, and therefore has its defects." *Lady Huntingdon, aad Ann Lee, did become the leadersand founders of religious sects or denominations. Each of them had as good a right to found a new Church, as John Wesley Coke; Asbury & Co., and so had Joe Smith. Every person that sets up a new religions sect mid calls it a Church, assumes the prerogative of God, who alone has the right to found a Church. HISTORY QF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. 17 God's Cbureli is not a human Scheme, it is not the product of unin- spired intelligence, it has no defects. As Methodism is composed of nil three of these, it is not a true Church of God. Again says Mr. Taylor, p. 214, "But Wesleyism (Methodism) is the work of man." Dr. Hinkle, a Methodist, in his "Platform of " Methodism" pays, ''Methodism has from theb eginning been in a most striking manner the child of Providence. Nearly all its peculiar characteristics were adopted without any previous design on the part of the instrumentali- ties by whose agency it wa3 brought into existence, as circumstances seemed to require, and without any expectation of their becoming ele- ments in a permanent ecclesiastical constitution." God's Church was not dependent upon "circumstances" in its setting up — Methodism was, therefore it is not of God, but of man. God did not set up his Church by accident, "without any expectation" of it — Methodists did, therefore it is not a Church of God, but of man. The Church of Christ was not set up without any previous design" — Methodism was, therefore it is not of God, it is of human origin, an accident. Mr. Inskip, a Methodist, in his History of Methodism says, "As a creature of Providence, Methodism, in her peculiar external organiza- tion, h as. adapted Jierself to the exigences of the times * * * and hence though constantly changing," &c. The Church of Christ in its organization did not "adapt herself to the exigences of the times;" the Methodists did, therefore, theirs is not a Church of Christ, it is of human origin, The Church of Christ is not "constantly changing," the Metho- dist Chu.rch is, therefore it is of human origin. Their discipline is sub- ject to change every four years. Again, Mr. Inskip says, "To meet the emergency &c. God raised up a company of great men — and in- ventive genius" After mentioning J. W eslcy, Whitefield, C, Wesley, Coke, Asbury, Clarke, and Benson, Mr. Inskip says, " These men devised this power- ful instrumentality &c," that is Methodism, The God of hoaven set up his Church by inspired men. The Metho- dist Episcopal Church, was set up by men of inventive genius, there- fore it is not a true Church of Christ. 18 HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. The Church of God was "devised" by Himself, the Methodist Church ■was "devised .by men of "inventive genius" consequently, it is of hu- man origin, a human Society. Again, on p. 65, Mr. Ins kip says, "A more wise or better arranged system of religious and moral enterprise, could not have been conceived. Of course like all other human insti- tutions, it has its defects and imperfections." Here it is admitted by a leading Methodist Historian, that Metho- dism was "conceived'' by man, that it is a "human institution." — - Methodism is a "human institution," therefore it is not a Church of Gcd. It is only a "moral enterprise." On page 39, Mr.Inskip says, "Methodists ate the followers of Wesley" The members of the Church of God, follow Christ. Methodists "fol- low Wcoiey" therefore they are not a Church of Christ. Dr. Bangs in Original Church,p. 09. Says, Methodist3 acknowledge 'Ifr. Wesley as their spiritual father and founder." Mr. Gjrrie, a Methodist, in his History of Methodism, p. 217, says, Mr. Wesley "was the founder— expounder — and originator of much thai is peculiar to the ecclesiastical polity &c., of the great Methodist "body in the world." Consequently it is of human origin. In the North British Review, it is said "Wesley did not profess to be organizing a Church, on a Scriptural basis. His Institute' (Metho- dism) was the product of h is own wisdom and sagacity, and must be subject to the fluctuations and instability of all merely human things." As Methodism is merely a "human thing," it is not a Church of Christ. As Mr. Wesley was the "head" of Methodism, and was gladly ac- knowledged by "his followers" as their founder and rightful director, it is not a true Church. No gospel Church, will admit as its "head," "founder" or "rightful director," any human being, Christ is the only "head, founder and rightful director" of. his Church. Kev. A. Stevens, in his Church Polity, published by the Methodist Book concern : says, "At the head, of this syltem (of Methodism) Sh od "Wesley, gladly acknowledged by the inert ash g thousands of His fol- lowers, as the founder, and rightful directtt of the whole." Again Mr. Stevens says: "Methodism pretends to no divine right." I have fully established the fact, that Methodism is of human origin,hu and consequently is not a Church of Christ. HISTORY OP EPISCOPAL METHODISM. 19 Section 7 VIII. The organization of the Methodiut J0^i.--copal Church; is too modern, to be a Church of Christ. The Chur:;h of God was, by Ilim, sot up " in the days these kings " Dan. 2 : 4 1, that is, of the Roman kings. The Jews were under tribute to the Caesars, at the setting up of the gospel Church, Mark, xii : 14. About A. D. 33, the God of Heaven set up the Gospel Ohureh. — . About one thousand seven hundred and fifty years afterwards, " th<* Methodist Episcopal Church " was voted into o,;i.-;!.ouce by sixty of 'Mr. We ley's traveling preachers ! It dates as Methodism, from 1720, and as a Church, from 1784, just aeventy-four years ago ! Unless Methodists can show a Scripture warrant, that Drs. Coke, and Asbury, and the sixty of Mr. Wesley's preachers, who voted themselves into a Church, were authorized to set up a Church in 1784, their claim to be a true Church of Christ, is not valid. Instead of showing a divine warrant to organize a Church.. Dr. Stevens says, " It pretends to no divine r'ujld. " consequently it is not a Church of Christ. Section IX. The lineage of " the Methodist Episcopal Church" is unfavorable to its being a true Church. Mr. Wesley, it* " father and founder/' was a member of the Church of England, g.<£f°IIe lived and died a membor of it. Ths Episcopal Church is a daughter of the Church of Rome, and " the Methodist Episcopal Church, " is a daughter of the Episcopal Church. The only way that it can claim descent from the Church set up by the Saviour and his apostles, is, to admit that Methodism, as a Church, dwelt in the Cnurch ofEngiana from A. D. 1000, to A. D. 1784, a pe- riod of 184 years, and that it dwelt previously, in the Romish Aposta- cy, for at least 1300 years". That Methodism did dwell in the Church of England for iifty-five years, has already been shown. Methodism, cannot prove descent from the witnessmg Church that fled into tho wilderness from the persecuting power of Rome. Methodist had no existence before the Reformation, and none afterwards as a Church- for 200 years. All know the day when Henry the VIII, out of love for the beauti- ful Anne, threw off the yoke of the Pope, and took upon himself tha 20 HISTRQY OP EPISCOPAL METHODISM. title of " the supreme head of the Church, " in consequence of a quar- rel between him and the Pope, about his marriage. Again, all know the day when Mr. Wesley's societies came out of the Church of Eng- land, by a vote of sixty preachers, and by that magic vote became known as " the Methodist Episcopal Church ! '* As the Church of England came out of the Church of Rome, and the Methodist Episcopal Church came out of that, the. unfavorableness o€ its lineage, to be a true Church, is fully established. Methodists can claim no other descent, for their " father and founder, 19 John "Wesley, was a member of the Church of England, and so were Meth- odists generally, from 1729 to 1784, a period of fifty-five years. Section" X. In many respects, " the Methodist Episcopal Church" resembles its parentage, in its doctrines, ceremonies, &c. Dr. Bond, a Methodist, in his " Economy of Methodism, " p. 20, eays, " Our doctrines are avowedly those of the Episcopal Church. " Mr. Wesley, in his letter of Sept. 10. 1784, says of the American Methodist, s " They desire to continue under my care, and s^ll adhere to tho doctrines and discipline of the Church of England. " Again, Mr. Wesley, in a subsequent letter, addressed to Drs. Coke, Asbury, &c, says, "I have prepared & liturgy, little differing, from that of the Church of England, whicl} I advise all the preachers to use," &c. That the Episcopal prayer-book is of Popish origin, that their rites and ceremonies are taken from Rome, and that the Methodist doctrines, ceremonies, &c.,are borrowed from the Church of England, is a-n in- contestable fact. Eev. E. T, Wirkler, in his letters on Episcopacy, in the South Wes- tern Baptist of 1853, says: " The prayer-book was compiled from the Romish Missels," &c. Indeed,almost the entire table of collects, now contained in the prayer book, is identical with that of the Roman Sa- cramentary, &c. In the Bible, the xiy Psalm has seyen verses, but the prayer book, following the old Romish service, gives it eleven. " That the Methodist have compiled their articles, ordination service, matrimony, service for baptism, the Lord's supper, changing rites and ceremonies, fasting on Fridays, &c, in a good degree, from Rome, through the Church of England will not be denied by any that will HISTOltt OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. 23 compare them. That noiie may take my ipse dixit, Twill give an e ample : Romish Service for Marriage. The Vow. — " I, Ms; take thee, N., to be my wedded wife, to have' and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part, if hoty Church will permit, and thereto I plight thee my troth. " Methodist Service for Marriage. The Vow ; — " I, M., take thee, N., to be iny wedded wife, to havd and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer^ for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love aud to cherish, till death do us part, according to God's holy ordinance ; and thereto I plight thee my faith. " Reader, did you ever see a more striking likeness between mother] daughter and grandaughter, than exists between the marriage serviev of the Romish, Episcopal and Methodist denominations ? Section XI. The Church government of the Methodist Episcopal Church isun- scriptural, Anti-Republican and Anti- American. 1. It is unscriptural. The New Testament knows nothing of courts of appeal. In the government of the Methodist Chtirch there are courts of appeal. An appeal may be taken from a circuit rider to a Quarterly Conference, from that to the Annual Conference, from that to the General Conference, The New Testament furnishes no exam- ple of any such ecclesiastical Courts of appeal. An appeal from the decision of an individual Church to another body, has no scripture warrant, yet this is one of the great peculiarities of Methodism I The only great ecclesiastical body that assembled in the days of the Apos- tles, was at Jerusalem when the Church at Antioch sent to them for udviee-. They carried up no case of appeal, they had made no decision. When this advisary counsel met, it consisted of the Apostles, Elders and the whole Church, they all sat together and deliberated upon th£ question before them, and they all voted, private members, Apostles and Elders. " Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church to send chosen men, &c, " Acts, xv : 22. How unlike this apos- tolic counsel, is a Methodist Conference ! In the former, minifeteri and private members were seated,deliberated and voted together. In t&# latter, every local preacher, and {private membtr is exelud&d ! ! 22 HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. The sight of a local preacher, or private member that ever held a seat in a Methodist Annual or General Conference, -would be as effectual in curing King's Evil, (Scrofula,) as the touch of Kings ! The sight of a private member or local preacher, that ever voted for a delegate to the Conference, would be as effectual in curing the consumption, as the " Cherry Pectoral, " or " Wister's Balsam of Wild Cherry ! " In the apostolic age, all the churches were independent bodies, and ca:h one exercised discipline, independent of any other Church, or ec- clesiastical body, its own decisions were final, there were no courts of appeal, for proof of this, see Matt., viii : 17 ;1 Cor., v : 18. The Apostolic Churches were independent bodies, each congregation, cr individual Church exercised discipline for itsef, and was an inde- pendent Church, hence we read of "Churches of Asia, " " Churches *>f ( talatia, " each congregation of Baptized believers, was a Church, there was no such consolidated Church as the Church of Asia, the Church of Galatia, but " the Churches, " ft-om which it is evident that each congregation was a Church of itself. How unlike this is the Me- thodist Episcopal Church of the United States. " " The Methodist Episcopal Church, North" " The Methodist Episcopal Church, South." At first, there was but one Methodist Episcopal Church, for the whole United States ! Now since the division, there are two t I There is not a Methodist Episcopal Church in North Carolina ! There is in the whole State, hut a pkee of one ! ! For it takes all of the Annual Con- ferences of preachers, the local preachers, and members of the societies, to constitute " the Methodist Episcopal Church,South ! I" The Scrip- tures know nothing of such a Church as this. They know no gospel Church, where each baptized believing congregation, is not a Church Of itself. There never was a " Methodist Episcopal Church, "as it is called, organized or constituted in this State ! A great to do, is made of the Dedication of a New House for Worship, among the Methodists,many announcements of this kind are made in their " Advocates. " But no die ever saw it announced that a " Methodist Episcopal Church " was to be constituted, at any time or place in North Carolina ! Neithor has any such constitution ever happened. After it was over I have seen it announced, that at such a time and place, " a class, " or " society, H was formed ! A class or society, is not a "Methodist Episcopal Church,' and does not claim to be. Methodists do not consider, or style, a class, err society, a " Methodist Episcopal Church." HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. 23 2 Tile government of the Methodist Episcopal Church,is antl-repuLli* can. The private members have no vote, or voice, as to who shall preach for them, Or how much they must pay them, their part in the system of Methodism, H to pay and obey. Obey all that Conference puts ia the discipline every four years, and pay the preachers, arid other ex- pense 3 , without even one vol?, as to whom they shall pay, or hovr much I The private members are taxed without the right of representation. — this is tyranny. It is anti-republicanism. ' Dr. Baffcbm, afterwards a bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church, says, " It is a little remarkable, that there is no Church on earth, total- ly rejecting the representative principle in matters of government, ex- cept the j&omish and Methodist Episcopal Church. It may indeed ap- pear invidious to institute a comparison between the Pope of Home and his cardinals, and the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the traveling Ministry, but the resemblance, so far as legislative prerogative is concerned, is exact. If this be denied, we invite the friends of the reigning state of things to point out the dissimilarity-" Mutual Rights. Dr. Bascom asserts that the likeness*' between the leglslatine prerogative of the Romish, and Methodist Churches, "is exact. " This will noh appear strange, when it is recollected, that the parties are somewhat related. This anti-republican feature, is of its " father and founder, " John Wesley, and those staunch Britons, Coke and Asbury, who were the leading spirits in its formation. John Wesley denounced John Han- cock, President of the American Congress, as a " smuggler, " and a " felon. " lie says : " I do in this respect — I compare every smuggler to a felon — a private smuggler to a sneaking felon, a pickpocket — a noonday smuggler to a bold felon, a robber on the highway. And if a person of this undeniable character, is made President of a Congress, I leave every man of sense to determine what is to be expected of them."— Wesley's Works, Again, Mr. Wesley says : " The supposition that the people are the origin ofpfiwer, is in every way indefeasible. You (Americans,) pro- fess to be contending for liberty, it is a vain empty profession. No go- vernments under Heaven, are so despotic as the Republican ; no subjects 24 HISTORY OE EPISCOPAL METHODISM; are governed in so arbitrary a manner as those of a coininenwealth.'* Wesley's Works. From the following words, Mr. Wesley seems not to have been mor^ friendly to religious liberty, than to civil. Let it be remembered that Mr. Wesley was a member of the Church of England, and that all American citizens were taxed to sustain it. Speaking of the American Independence, Mr. Wesley says, " Probably that subtle spirit hoped, by adding to all those other vices, the spirit of Independency, to have overturned the dhole work of God, as well as the British Government im North America." Mr* Wesley evidently attributes the spirit of Inde- pendence that freed us from the tyranny of England, to the devil ! Set his Sermons, vol. 3> p> 406. It seems to me, that he considered the whole work of God, " to be confined to the established Church,and his infant child, Methodism, that Was then nourishing itself in the bosom of that establishment, under the name of Mr, Wesley's Societies, brt still members of the Church of England I No Wonder, as has been seen, Mr. Wesley offered hifl services to His Majesty* to recruit the English army, to murder our forefathers ! Many of Mr. Wesley's preachers, during the Revolutionary war,— were Tories and fled to England, or took refuge among i^ic lories,* See Wesley's Life of Asbury. No wonder that Methodist traveling/ preachers, have such an abhor- rence of Republicanism, as still to tax their people without representa- tion. In 1790, six years after Methodism came to its maturity by the mag-* ic vote, of sixty uninspired preachers and was known as a Church bur. about one year before his death', Mr, Wesley writes to Mr* Mason as follows " As long as I live the people shall have no share in choosing stewards or leaders among the Methodist. We have not, nor never had any such customs. JGg&T' We are no republicans, never intend to bc."'*y8& — ■ Wesley, s works, v, 7, p, 98. In the government of the Methodist Epicopal Church, as it is called, there is no representation, the traveling preachers are a self appointed aristocracy, have no const ituants. The traveling ministers meet in con- ferencc and make, alter,amend or annul, such laws,rites and ceremonies •Among tha local p^paicbsrs, there were some Whigs. HISTORY OP EPISCOPAL METHODISM. &s suit themselves, and then publish them in the Discipline, making It a criminal act for any local preacher or private member, to " inveigle " against them, under the penalty, of being reprimanded, or excluded; while at the same time, the local preachers and private members ar£ not represented, and have no v&te or voice in said conference! Perhaps it will be said, if the 1 local Preachers and private member?} we satisfied to remain members of this self-appointed aristocracy and be taxed without representation>what is that to me,or any other person? There are various reasons, but at present I will confine myself to one, This self appointed aristocracy and self-created Church, claims that it i« a Church of the living God, that it is entitled to be recognized as such, by all mankind. It demands that its claims be admitted, at the peril of our being charged with being uncharitable, selfish, and incorrigible bigots. This being the case, I have a right to investigate its claims, and state my objection to it. That the ministers in General Conference assembled are legislator* without constituents, was clearly proved by the Methodist Church South, in the trial for their part of the Book fund. In the United States' Court, Judge Nelson presiding, Mr. Lord and Hon. Reverly Johnson, were counsel for the Church South. Mr. Johnson, in the de- fence of their suit, said, "They (the preachers), admit no constituents. They resolve for themselves alone, as the possessors of ail ecclesiastical power known to the Methodist Church, to carry out the particular or- ganization authorized by John Wesley*, without any other authority than his, and their otvn conviction that the good of the Church deman- ded such a special and particular organization." — Church Property case, p. 328. Reader, if you are a Methodist, seriously consider the proceeding and following extracts : Again Mr. Johnson says, "The Methodist Episcopal Church, as regards its government,, has been absolutely, since the days of Wesley, an Aristocracy. JMymen have had and now have 720 voice in it. If there is a layman within the sound of my voice, he knows he has no now" Again, Mr. Johnson, says, "It is a body unlimited in the authority to create, equally unlimited in the authority to destroy, responsible *Authori*ed by John Wesley, not by tho God <.>f heaven. 23 , HISTORY OP EPISCOPAL METHODISM. only to tliclr consciences for the manner in which either authority is exercised." — Church Property, case p. 331. . Here it is conceded by able counsel that "the Methodist Episcopal Church," is an aristocracy, hi which no private member, or local preacher, ever. had a voice, "they the preachers admit no constituency." It is also asserted by Mr. Johnson that the General Conference it unlimited in its power to "create" or "destroy" It hat, by a vots created itself, by a vote, it has divided itself, by a vote, each of thesa divisions may divide again, or if they choose they may by a vote anni- hilate their Church organization ! For Mr. Johnson says, their power is -'unlimited," both "to create" and "to destroy." By a mere vote, they may exist to day, to morrow, they may not be ! 'No such institution as this was ever set up by the God of heaven, it is the "product," the "scheme" of men of "inventive genius." Can any reflecting and unprejudiced mind believe, that a religious Socie- ty, that is unllmitted in it's power to creak, or destoy, is a true and Scriptural Church of Christ ? The Word of God asserts that his Church "shall never be destoyed,^ "shall stand forever" that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it." If the gospel Church is unlimited in its power to create or destroy, H could blot cut its existence by a mere vote ! ! ! • Mr. Lord, who was instructed by the same committee that Mr. Johnson was, said. "If that bod}^ (the Conference in December 1784) had chosen to became Socinion, if it had chosen to adopt the Presby- terian or Baptist forms either of government or doctrine, it was in their power to do it. There was no limit. They represented the Church; tuey were riiE Ciioacir. * * * The laity were not known &c." — Church .Property case p. 153. Mr. Lord tells us, the preachers, the conference, "are the Church/' *'T'he laity were not known." Thai freeborn American citizens can consent to belong to such an Aristocratic, anti-republican system of Church government is a mysfc. ry. Many of them are getting ashamed of their degraded position in the system of Methodism, they are beginning to awake up/ and soon will teach their ministers a lessen that they will never forget. The days ol ministerial despotism are numbered. The laity have too much intei- HISTORY OP EPISCOPAL METHODISM. 27 egenee to submit to a hierarchy, that has "no constituents" and where "the laity arc not known." Section XII. With the proceeding and other testimony before me, I am warran- ted in saying the private members are not in a Church at all. In order to obtain their part of the Book concern, which amounted to nearly half a million of dollars, it was necessary for the Church South, to prove that the embodiment of Methodism was in the General Conference, that it was the Church, and had power to divide independent of the laity. By proving that they had no costituents, that the "laity were not known" they' gained their suit. As the ministers in Gcnerai Conference assembled, "are the Church," "have no constituent?," and where "the laity were not known," how can it be said that the private members and local preachers, who have no seat, vote or voice there, are in a Church ? Perhaps it may be explained in this way, A. B. is asked,- "is your family well?" He includes in his answer, all that live with him, whether they occupy apartments in the Big Uuuse, or in the Kitchen.* The trayelling.preachers, including the Bishops, are the "aristocracy," and compose <"the Church," the local preachers and private members compose the Classes and Societies. J§@f*A class or Society, is not a Church, and private member have no membership any where clse.^-^a T he private members have never been organized into a Church. When the "Methodist Episcopal Church," was organized there was not one private member present ; for Mr. Asbury soys, "Wo met a few Preachers ; it was agreed to form ourselves into an Episcopal Church." — Anbury's Journal. It was a few preachers, and not the members of the classes and so- cieties that formed themselves into a Church. ' ■ Again Mr. Lee, in his "History of Methodism," says, "we formed oui'sdves into a regular Church" i. e. "we" the preachers formed, our- selves." The fact, tfyat private members and local preachers are in the bounds of an Annual Conference, and belong to a class or society, does not prove that they are members of the Church, for it has been shown that "they (the General Conference) are the Church, " and "have no constituents." "The laity were not known." ♦Plcaae pardon this homely and common place illustration. 2S HISTOUY OF EPISCOPAL M^tHODISM. It is however said, the bishops, conferences, traveling and local preachers, and laity, all taken together, constitute the Methodist Epis- copal Church, and consequently the private members are in the Mctho" dist Church. I have already shown, that by proving the. reverse of this, the Church South gained nearly half a million of dollars ! When Methodist are striving for dollars and cents, the conference, the min- isters ''are the Church," and "have no constituents" the "laity are not known," but when they want members, &c, they have constituents % the Societies are known, and recognised as members ! ! Even if it were admitted that the laity are members of the so called, Methodist Epis- copal Church, it would avail them nothing, for I have abundantly fehown that it, is not a Scriptural Church, that it is of human origin, and was devised by men of "inventive genius" &c. That private members and local preachers are not in a Church, ia evident from the following case. In the 18 chap, and 15, 16 and 17, verses our Saviour gives direction for the settlement of private ofe'ices; when other means have failed, the offended brother is directed to "tell it unto the Church." < an a private member of the so called Metho- dist Church obey this command ? Can he find the Methodist Church? Hie class is not the Church, his society is not, his preacher i8 not, the quarterly conference ie not, as for the conference it has "no constitu- ents," there the "laity are not known," they have no seat, vote or voice there ! Methodist cannot obey the Saviour's command, "tell it to the 'Church," consequently they are not in a Church ! All that are in a VhvrcJi can easily find it. If the members of the classes and societies, are members of "the Meth dist Episcopal Church," as it is called, it is somehow in this way, they are tied to it by a long rope* that reaches from the General Conference, "the Church" whero "the laity are not known," to the classes'. At the $>aying and obeying end of the rope (System) the private members and local preaehdrs are fastened in the first 1 Jcnot. The second knot contains* the class leaders, immediately over the, people. The third Jcnot contains the Circuit Eiders, over the class leaders. The fourth Jcnot contains the Presiding Elders, over tJie circuit Eiders. The fifth Jcnot contains the bishops over the Elders, circuit Riders &c. The sixth Jcnot, con- tains the Annual Conferences headed by one bishop, which regulates *i'leatio pardon th • s unclaseic, figurative illustration. HISTORY OP EPISCOPAL METHOE^SM. 29 all the knots below. The seventh kfyot, ties the bishops, Annual' Con- ferences, travelling preachers, class leaders, local preachers, and laitj to the General Conference. Section XIII. The unsciptural membership of "the Methodist Episcopal Church'*" is not favorable to its being a true Church of Christ. The Scriptures represent the Church as composed of persons who are "born again," new creatures, "lively stones," "delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of his dear Son." "Made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saint* in light^' "believers," &c. On the day of Pentecost we have a full development of the Churcix of Christ. See Acts, ii, 37, 38, 41, 44. 1. The word was preached. 2, The people were powerfully awa- kened. 3. Peter said to them repent and be baptized &c. 4. They that gladly received his word were baptized and added to the Church. 5. "And all that bglieved were together." This Jerusalem Church, evidently consisted of believers only, fop we are told, that "all that believed were together" As only believers "were together," it is evident the Church consisted of believers. In addition to believers, Methodist add to their Societies, seekers and unconscious infants, for neither of which, is there a command or example, in the New Testament. In every case T the passages that are referred to in the New Testament to prove the right of infants to bap- tism, fail to Speak of both baptism and infants ; if the passage speaks of infants, it says not one word about baptism ! If it speaks of bap- tism, it fails to say one word about infants ! ! This is a significant fact. The passages that are refered to, as proving the right of seekers to join the Church, or come to the Lord's Supper, are in the same di- lemma. The New Testament gives no command or example for the ad- mission of seekers or penitents, to the Church or to the communion. Their main argument is, joining the Church, and partaking of the Lord's Supper, are means of grace, and that some have been converted soon after joining the Church, or at the communion table, As this m not a Scripture, argument, and it is not known whether the cases re- fered to were genuine cases of conversion, I shall not stop to con- sider it. 30 IIISTOEY OP EPISCOPAL METHODISM. The definition which Mr. Weslev and the Discipline give of the Church of God, excludes unconverted seekere. The Discipline p. 1<£ defines tl|3 Church £s follows: "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men &c." 'Byfaihful men, believers are meant, for Mr. Weslev says, "By faithful men the compilers meant, men endued with living faith. This brings the Ar'ticlejto a still nearer agreement to the account given by the Apostle." Sermon on the Church. Mr. W esley was speaking of the 19th Article of the Church of Eng- land, from which the definition of the Church in the Discipline, was taken. This definition of the visible Church, "a congregation of faith- ful men" (shaft is of "men endued with living faith'' is a bar to the right of mere seekers or penitents to the Church. The description which Mr. Wesley gives of those "that are proper- ly the Church of God 7 '' excludes seekers &c, from the Church. lie represents the Church as consisting of "those whom God has called out of the world," "The saints, the holy persons." Again he describes those who compose the Church as follows ; "In whom there is one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism." — Sermon on the Church. In those who properly belong to the Church, there "is one Spirit." "Does a believer and a seekers possess one spirit? Do they possess one hope? and one faith? If they do not, seekers have no right to membership with believers, John Wesley being judge. - The Acts of the Apostles report quite a number of revivals, and con- versions, but not one instance is recorded of an Apostle advising a peni- tent, or seeker, to join the Church, or go to the Lord's Supper as a means of grace. They invariably gave very different instruction. It was reserved for men of "inventive genius," to learn that joining the Church and partaking of the Lord's Supper were "means of grace" to the unconv erted ! On cue occasion at least, scelcer membership has been advocated for a very, different reason, than its being a means of grace. An old gen- tleman of Wake County, N. C, now deceased, who was a reliable man, stated to a Baptist Minister who now resides in said County, that "soon after the close of the Revolutionary War, he was in a class meeting, the Minister present invited seekers to join the Church. Some ob- HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. || jection being made, the Minister remarked, the United Stdt.es hare now obtained their Independence and some denomination will be es- tablished by law. We are trying to increase our /numbers as fast as possible, in order that ours may become the Established Church." — Tt was very natural that they should incline that way, as they had been nourished in an Established Church for fifty-five years ! The following ease related by llev. Win. Annan, gives some idea cf the false impressions that ffeeker-membership and seeker-communion engender in the minds of those who are brought under its influence, "on a Methodist communion season, where seekers were invited to partake as a means of grace ; at the close of the communion, a young man from the back part of the house came forward and stepping up to the minister, said : "I came here to get religion, but I liked to forgot it." — - The sacrament was administered to him." • There is nothing in the Discipline that requires that members shall be true believes, or converted persons, a whole class or society may exist without necessarily including a converted person. That they receive true believers, is admitted, but still their Societies may exist without them. In the Discipline p. 23, the term of admission is as follows : "There is only one condition previously required of those who desire admission into these Societies, "a desire to nee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins ?" The New Testament opens no such door of admission into the Church rrf God. It requires faith, if "thou believest with all thine heart' thou may est." "And when they believed, they were baptized both men and women." There is no identity between the door of admission into the Church of God, and that of the Methodist Societies, consequently their terms of membership are unfavorable to their being a (?os- pel Church. JOfegT 1 The New Testament knows nothing of a six montJi probation, before full membership. Section XIV. The 1st ection, in the first chapter of the Book of Discipline, is noi in accordance with facts. 1 It states that Mr "Wesley "prefered the Episcopal mode of Church government to an v other." Is this true? If so, how are we to reconcile it with the following facts ? 82 HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. In early life, Mr. Wesley zealously espoused Episcopacy. In 1764. a gentleman was travelling in England who cl imed to be a Greek Bishop, and styled himself Erasmus Bishop of Arcadia. Mr Wesley * 'strongly pressed this supposed Greek Bishop to consecrate him a Bishop at large."* It is also said this supposed Bishop did ordain a few of Mr. Wesley s preachers, who officiated in, and dressed as clergy- men of the Church of England \ The reason that Mr. Wesley failed of being ordained a universal Bishop, was, as stated by Erasmus, that it required the presence of two Bishops, to ordain a Bishop. Soon after this, as will soon be seen, Mr. Wesley changed his opin- ion upon this subject. That Mr. Wesley did change his opinion, and give up his preference for Episcopacy is evident. At the time of the organization of tha Methodist Episcopal Church, as it is called, Mr. Wesley did not pr«- fei' the Episcopal mode of Church government. 1. Mr. Wesley says, "Lord King's account of the Primitive Church convinced me many years ago, that Bishops and Presbyters, are the same 07'der" Wesley's Works v. "(page 311. With this opinion, how eould Mr. Wesley "prefer, the Episcopal mode of Church government ? 2. In his Notes on Phil. i. 1., Mr. Wesley says, the names Bishop, and Presbyter, or elder being promiscuously used in the first ages &c." How could Mr. Wesley, prefer Episcopacy a,nd make it a higher or- der, when he says, it is the same as presbyter or elder? 3. Mr. Wesley says, "that it (Episcopacy), '^prescribed in Scripture, I do not believe." This opinion, which Ioxc-: zealously esposed, I havb hejen ash ameo of, .ever since I read bishop Sfcillingfleet's Irenicon." — Wesley's "Works v. 7. With these words of Mr. Wesley before him, who can— who will be- lieve that in 1784, he prefered the Episcopal mode of Church govern- ment ? 4. When Mr. Wesley heard that Messrs. Coke and -A sbury, had as- sumed the title of bishops, he wrote to Mr. Asbury as follows; "How can you dare suffer yourself to be called a bishop ? I shudder at the very thought. Men may call me a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a Scoun- ♦Tor proof of this, seo Top^ady, and other writers. HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. 33 drel and I am content, but they shall never by my consent call me a bishop. For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ sake, put a full end to this." , % Can any person read this and believe the truth of the declaration in the first chapter of the Discipline, that Mr. Wesley 'preferred the Epis- copal mode of Church govenment ?" 5. Mr. Wesley styled bishops, of higher order than Presbyter or El- der, heathenish priest and mitered infidels. He says, "For these forty years I have been in great doubt concerning that question, "what obe- dience is due to heathenish priest and mitered infidels," * .*. * Some obedience I always paid to bishops, in obedience to the laws of the land, * * * I still submit to mitered infidels" — Wesley's Works. With these words of Mr. Wesley before him, who will, who can be- lieve that he "preferred the Episcopal mode of Church government ?" 2. Again, the bishops in the first chapter of the book of Discipline say, Mr. Wesley "set apart Dr. Coke, for the Episcopal office, and de- livered to him letters of Episcopal orders," and commissioned and di- rected him "to set apart Francis Asbury for the same Episcopal office," and that "Mr. Asbury wa.s set apart for the same Episcopal office." Are these things true ? Did Wesley ordain Coke a bishop of a higher order than a presbyter ? Did he intend to set him apart as a bishop of the third order, and superior to a presbyter ? If so, he con- fere-d upon him the title of "heathenish priest and mitered infidel." For this is what he styled, prelatitical bishops ! The evidence that I have just submitted, to prove that Mr. Wesley did not prefer the Episcopal mode of Church government, also proves that he did not set apart Dr. Coke, as a bishop, and deliver to him, letters of Episcopal orders &c. In Mr. Wesley's letter of appointment, there is not one word about a bishop, Episcopal office, or instructions to set apart Asbury to the said Episcopal office. * In this letter setting forth the appointment of Dr. Coke, Mr. Wes- ley says, "I have this day set apart as a Superintendent &c, Dr. Thomas Coke." He does not call him a bishop, or use any word that implies that he set him apart as a bishop and superior to a Presbyter For the preceeding fifty five years, Mr. Wesley had withheld from his preachers, the right to administer the ordinances. He sent over Dr. Cake to ordain ministers, supply the Societies with the ordinan- ces, and at the same time act as Superintendent to keep the people un- H HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. der the care of Mr. Wesley. In this letter of appointment Mr. Wes- ley says, "Whereas many of the people &c, who desire to continue un- der my care, &c." Dr. Coke was a Superintendent under Mr. Wesley, and derived his authority from him. How could he be a bishop, and still be under Mr. Wesley, who was only a. presbyter ? The idea of a Presbyter,, Ordaining a man bishop, to keep the neople under his care, is absur} 7. Elder S. Adlam, who has thoroughly investigated this subject, S£i^s, "I find no trace, of a Baptist Church in Providence, after the failure o/' lioi/er William s, till after 1650. Thojirst inlimation of a a OhurCh there, I find in the fall of 1651" tf. In L&SjJithere were//po Baptist Churches in Providence neither of which had a house of worship. "The first House of Worship was built by Klder Pardon Tillinghasf, in A. 1). 1700 at his own exjtense. Before that, they w r orsliiped in a, grove, and in private houses when the weather was inclement." — Benedict's, Uis. Bap. (hie of these Churches (in LC52) was a fire, principle Church under (lie care of PI. Thos. Clney, the other a six principle formed in I Of) 2 by Prawn, Dexter and Wickcnden. These Churches wore not in fellowship with each other. In L682 Thos.Olney died, after which, that Church died, out — beanie extinct. The Church organized by lb-own Pexter and Wickcnden in 1632 still continues, and is known as the first Church in 1 Vovidence. The* Roger Williams and the Olney Churches, became extinct, the one or- ganized in l, r »;VJ, is the one that become "a fruitful mother.'' The Williams Church became extinct, leaving no successor. .All who wish to see this matter fully, fairly, and satisfactorily discussed, arc ••cfered to Klder §. Adlam I trend e upon this suhjeet, to be found in HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METIIOLISM, 4* "the trials and sufferings for Religious Liberty" and published at -Nashville l*enn, by the ''South Western Publishing Iltftoe.? The great body of Baptist ill the United States have descended from the English and l>utch Baptist, and not from Roger Williams as has been erroneously supposed, confounding the Church organized iri 1052 by Brown, Dexter and Wickenden, with the linger "Williams and Thomas Olney Churches, has done the Baptist great injustice. Th,-.: the Newport Baptist Church, is the Oldest in America, that theKoger Williams Church, became extinct, and that the present first Church in Providence, K. I. was organized in 1052, Elder S. Adlam has proved by incontestible evidence* Section, XVIL Instead of proving the divine right of Wesley and his co-adjutors to found a Church, the validity of their Episcopacy &c. Methodist ap* peal to their success — their great increase &c., and say, tffal is evi- dence enough for us, that we arc a true Church, where in the word of Clod has be made this a tent of a true gospel Church ? This test, like their Church and their Episcopacy is of human origin. This is the well known boast of catholics and of errorists generally. To say noth in g Of Mah om i t i sm , Catholics &c, look at the rapid -increase of'MotWKMism. Let the rapid speadoi this monster of iniquity, this pest of civiliza- tion, put to shame all religionist, who refer to their great increase, as a warrant, of the divine origin of their sect. Other denominations have reoivais and great increase, Baptist are hlest with revivals and rapid increase. That ministerial and denominational success does not prove that the minister is a member of the true gospel Church, is evident from the fact that when Xarni, a Catholic minister, preached in Home, we are told that, "half the city went from his sermons crying along tbc strc-ets, Lord have mercy, upon us, Christ have mercy upon us." However plausible this test may seem to be, it can avail Methodist nothing at all. In their Tract No. 00, they have admitted that Cod blesses the mini-try of those who subvert the order of his Church. — "How then are we to account for the. foot, that the blessing of Cod attends the ministry of those whose practice tends to subvert the order of his Church ? God doeg 'evidewtllj bleS8 ihose x<\i<> strive against the established order of his visible Mngdom, and set at naught the testimo- ny of his witnesses. It is not the furors i rr kv preach a.vij practice, that Cod blesses, but the truth, men may preach ignorantly and absurd- ly, and [ ohm rash MOTIVES ; and yet if they prcarh Christ crucified, God will convert sinners." — Methodist Tract, No. 00, Printed at the Conference office. W bo can read this extract, from the Methodist Tract No. 00, and not confess that they have debared themselves from the right to claim that they are a true gospel Church because their ministry is blessed with revivals, and their Societies with inere'asel They ad/nit that men may preach "absurdly" and form ba sc. motives," that "they may .strive against the established order of Cod's risible kingdom:' and yet "if they 'preach Christ cru/-ifed, Cod will convert sinners," 44 HISTORY OP EPISCOPAL METHODISM. It is nothing that is peculiar to Methodism, that God blesses, it is the preaching of Christ crucified. The preaching of Christ is no peculiarity of Methodism, Christ had been preached fur 1700 years before men of "inventive genius," "de- vised" Methodism. If the Bible., Temperance, Odd Fellow, or Ma- Sonic society was to send out ministers, and they were to preach Christ crucified, God would convert sinners under their ministry, Methodist have virtually conceded this in the extract just given from the Tract No. 99. It is God's ivord, the doctrines of the cross of Christ that he blesses, not the person that speaks them. God does not send men, who "preach absurdly, or from base motives," to preach the gospel, yet he does evi- dently convert sinners under the ministry of some who are unconver- ted, and preach "from base motives," A^ain in justification of the existence of this spurious and supper- stitious Episcopacy, and Church of human origin, it is said, it has been instrumental in doing much good, that thousands have been converted under the ministry of the Methodist denomination. The good that has been done, and the souls converted under the Methodist ministry have been by "the, preaching of Christ crucified," and not by any thing that is peculiar to Methodism. It was not their errors, their "striving against the established order, of God's visible kingdom," in setting up Methodism as a Church, that God blesses, but the "preaching of Christ crucified." It is not in evidence that the same or a greater amount of good might not have been .accomplished, had Methodist ministers labored as zealously in connexion with the Church that previously existed, and was set up by the Saviour, as they have in the sect that was set up by John Wesley, Coke, Asbury & Co. This will'inore fully appear, when it is recollected, that the picture of Methodism, has two sides to it, the good and the evil it has done. — When, the evil is deducted from the. good, the preponderance will be in favor of their having labored in connexion with the Church that was previously set up. Perhaps it will be asked, what ew'Mias Methodism done ? To say nothing of their peculiar doctrines, * and discipline, of ihelr Spurious and surresptitious Episcopacy and the human origin of the Church, etc., there are many other evils. , *The leading doctrine of Methodism, Armenianism, Mr. Wesley determined not by the Scriptures, bra by casting a lot, he was for a considerable time undetermined as to whether ho would teach Calvinism or Armenianism, at length he cast a lot. and came out ."preath and print" Armenianism. Rev. C o. Whitfield remonstrated with Wesley fo>' determining the mind -of Gud by lot casting, instead of his inspired word. Mr. Augustus Toplady says, Mr. Wesley determined whether he would be a Calvinist or an Armenian by the tossing a Shil- ling. Tails fell uppermost, "and Mr. Wesley became an Armenian ! Mr. Toplady adds," Forgive us, if we as implicitly determine our faith by the Scriptures, as you (Mr. Wesley) determined yours by the fall of the Splxndid Shilling';' Toplady's Letter to Wesley, p. 8, { . When Methodists are in the act of glorification over their Armenauism, they should not 1 >rget to tell the people. "We are right, our doctrine is true, for Mr. Wesley our hither and founder, found it out by tossing a Shilling*— the Scriptures are mysterious — but when a shilling is Hipped, and 'tails fall uppermost' it is pure gospel truth, vr:ach and print V HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM, 45 1. To set up a new sect without any authority from God, and in violation of his revealed word, is an evil of itself. It is ciusing divi- sion?, which are e> pressly forbidden, and those that cause them are to he marked and avoided. Koine 10, 17. Mr. Wesley in his sermon on Schism speaks of the evil of separating - from the Church as follows. "For how little a thing soever it (cause- less separation from the Church) may seem, and how innocent soever it may be accounted, Schism, even in this Sense, is both evil in itself, and productive of evil consequences." Again, he says, "As such a separation is evil itself &c." Again, he says, "Such is the complicated mischief which persons , separating from a Chistian Church or Society, &c." Again says Mr. Wesley, "If I separate from it (the Church) with- out any such necessity (that is, requiring him to do, or omit, some- thing the Scripture forbids or commands) I am justly chargeable, whether \ foresaw them or not, with all the evils consequent upon that Separation' 7 Again says, he, "Take care how you rend (divide) the body of Christ by separating from your brethren. It is a thing evil in itself. It is a sore evil in its consequences." Again says Mr. Wesley, "0 beware, I will not say of forming, but of countenancing, or abetting, any parties in a Christian Society, never encourage, much less cause, either by word or action any division there- in."— Wesley's Sermons, v 2. 384, 5, 6, 7. If it be such an evil to separate from the Church, as Mr. Wesley in the preceeding extracts affirms, how much greater the evil of founding a new sect, or denomination, and calling it a Church of Christ ! If the Episcopal is a true Church, (and Methodists admit it is) the Methodist are guilty of a double crime, 1 Schism, and 2, Setting up a new sect or party ! 2. The contentions and perpetual warfare between them and other denominations, has been and still is a source of incalculable evil. If they can prove that they are the Church set up by the God of heaven in the days of Christ and the Apostles, or that Wesley, Coke and As- bury and sixty preachers, in 1784 had a divine warrant to set up a new sect or party, and call it a Church of Christ, they are not respon- sible for the evil that has grown out of their organization. If how- ever they cannot prove this, and were set up by Wesley and his co- adjutors, th«ey are responsible for this evil. That they were set up by W esley as Societies in the Church of England and remained there for fifty-five years, and in 1784 were voted by sixty of Wesley's traveling preachers into what is called "the Methodist Episcopal Church," has oeen fully proved. 3. Another evil of Methodism is seen in the rivalry in Churches, Schools, &c, which causes an enormous outlay of money, in towns, villages, and in the country where Churches, Schools, &c, already sufficiently exist. That they have been pioneers, and have built up Societies and Schools where preaching was needed is admitted, but it does not follow from this, that they might not in connexion with the Church of God that previously existed, have done the same thing. „ A minister in order to 43 HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHOMSM. preach ihz gospel does, not necessarily have to lea Methodist.- If he doos r the gospel was never preached before the days of John Wesley, and them for the first nine years by an unconverted man ! 4. That Methodism is an evil, is seen in the divided and antagonis- tic front which the christian world presents. A large proportion of which Methodism has produced. Methodism is a prolific mother. It is the mother of "Wesleyan Methodists/ 7 "Primitive Methodists' 7 and "the Calcinistic Methodists," of England ; and of "the Methodist Epis copal Church.'' "The Okelleyites first called "Republican Methodist"- and afterwards "the Christian Church," of "the Protestant Metho- dist s> ; &c, in America. If Mr. Wesley had a divine warrant, to found a Church, he and his co-adjutors are not responsible f3r these divisions, in Methodism; if they had no such divine right, he and his followers, are responsible, for their existence, The same is true of all other denominations If the God of heaven set them up, and others have seceded from them, they are not responsible for it. If they set themselves up, by seceding from any other denomination, they are responsible for their own exis". fence and all that have seceded- from, them. No denomination is a true Church, that has seceded from any other denomination. Methodism as a Church seceded from the Church of England, the Okelleyite or. Christian, and the Protestant Methodist, have seceded from the Epis-. opal Methodist neither of which can be true Churches, for two rea^- sons. 1. If, as has been shown, the Methodis| EpiscopaMs not, a true Church,, its offsprings cannot be. 2. If the Methodist Episcopal w a true. Church. Okelleyites and Protestant Methodist, are seceders, and have- caused divisions, for which they are to be "marked" and "avoided" Horn. 16, 17. 5. The evils of Methodism that liave been specified, are; not confin- ed to England and America, but are spreading in heathen lands. Their ministers are teaching the benighted heathen that Methodism is a true Church of Christ set up by. divine authority. It is there a rival' of all other denominations, all the contentions, warfare &c, peculiar to Methodism here, is, and will be transplanted there ! Will not this retard the success of the gospel among the heathen ? In view, of this ; fact, and the awful consequences attending it, the ministers and mem- bers of every denomination should seriously and anxiously enquire^ by what right does my denominations exist ? Is it of divine or hu- man origin ? was it set up by God in the days of Christ and his apos-. ties or is its origin from fifteen to eighteen hundred years afterwards? What is its lineage, is it from the true and witnessing Church that fled' into the wilderness and remained there until the Reformation, or is its decent from the great Romish Apostacy, the Catholic Church ? No true Church has decended from Rome, or from any of her offsprings. The time has come, when every denomination claiming to be a Church- of Christ, should be put to a rigid test of its divine or scriptural right, to be acknowledged as a true Church of Christ. God is not the author of antagonistic sects. There are'counterfeit Churches, as well as mem-, fyers, if any of us are. in a, counterfeit, false, or Spurious Church we;, HISTORY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. 47- eught to know and abandon it, very few have, ever given this subject a full and candid investigation, they have' taken for granted, what .should first have been proved i Reader, are you a. Qhmch member ?- If so, have you ever seriously and honestly inquired into the origin of the Church of which you are a ' member ? If you have not, for any thing that you know, you are a member of a counterfeit Church, got- ten up and organized without any divine warrent. If the denomina- tion of which you are a member, is of Romaifs C&tholiQ descent, or if it has seceded^ from any denomination that is of Romish origin, if it caused a division* and thereby made a, new sect or denomination when it came into existi'nce you may know that you are , not belonging to the Church which the God of heaven set up, for it did not descend from, any other denomination, it caused no division. It was set up by him in the days of Christ and his apostles, and has hapl a perpetual exis- tence. He who set it up, said, "It shall never be destroyed, it shall stand forever/'' • " Section. XVIII Methodists asserts that *!God thrust them out. to raise a ; holy people." - — Discipline p. 3. These we are told, are .the words of Charles and Jphn Wesley. Notice, l r By saying "God thrust them out" they plead a divine warrant for their existence. How did the Wesley's ascertain that "God thrust' them out ?'-' The Bible is as silent upon this subject as the grave. If they found it out at all, I suppose it was by casting a lot, the "splendid Shilling" .was perhaps nipped, or "tossed" and all was revealed ! ' Notice, "2. God did not ".thrust them out," for they (the,, Wesleys) . lived and died members of the Church ' of England, I have already prov- ed that John Wesley died- a member of the Church of England, and that he wa# "sorry the separation" took place .between his Societies in America and the Episcopal Church.— See Dr. Coke's Letter,, to Bishop White. '•' " Notice, 3. They thrust themselves , out. From 1729 to 1784, they , were members of, and received the Ordinances in the Church of Eng- land, as has been shown. Mr. Asbury in his Journal, and Mr. Lee in his His. of Meth. say, "we formed ourselves into' an Episcopal Church," It was the magic vote of sixty of Mr. Wesley's travelling preachers . that "thrust them out." God, who has expressly forbidden "divisions" • in or of his Church, and commanded us to "mark and avoid," those , tjiat cause them, had no agency in settling up Methodism as a Church, It was done by men of "inventive genius/' and consequently it, is not ', a, true Church of Christ. ' - L. B.Cat. No. 1137 287. 6 P514 P12S65 ^HOOLOFKFir^