Jones, Norris M. .
A letter to a Methodist,
Baltimore, 1844.

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

LETTER TO A METHODIST.

BY A PRESBYTER
OF THE DIOCESE OF MARYLAND.

NevW-S M. Tones

BALTIMORE:
PUBLISHED BY D. BRUNNER,
WOODS & CRANE, PRINTfiks.
1844.

The work referred to in the following pages under the title of the
"Book of Discipline," is the "Doctrines and Discipline of the Me
thodist Episcopal Church." — New York, 1843.
Lee's "A Short History of the Methodists in the United States
of America," &c, is a work frequently referred to in the follow
ing pages. Mr. Lee was one of the most respectable and respect
ed of the early Methodist Preachers. He was a Chaplain to Con
gress, and Author of Lee's Life. In 1800 he was ballotted for by
the Conference for the office of "Bishop," though he lost his elec
tion by four votes. — Baltimore edition. 1810.

A LETTER TO A METHODIST.

 , December 1, 1843.
Dear Sir : Your letter, requesting me " briefly to set down on
paper" the substance of the various conversations we have had re
specting the validity of Wesley's ordinaiions, and other points con
nected with the polity of the "Methodist Church," together with
the views you have, from time to time, heard me express, of the
necessity and reality of an Apostolic Succession in the Christian
ministry, was, some time ago, received, but a variety of engage
ments has prevented my complying with your request until the
present time. In undertaking even now to comply with it> I am
occupying time, which is demanded by other and importunate ser
vices ; but, as I consider your letter in the light of an earnest de
sire to ascertain the Truth, I do not feel myself at liberty to refuse
the information therein requested. In doing this, I shall follow the
order above given, and
I. Enquire into the validity of Wesley's ordinations.
On this point rests the validity of the Methodist ministry. If
Wesley had authority to ordain Dr. Coke a Bishop, then it is con
ceded that the Methodists have a lawful ministry and lawful sacra
ments; but, if Wesley had no such authority to ordain him, then
his ordination of Dr. Coke was a nullity, and the Methodists have
neither a lawful ministry, nor lawful sacraments; and as there can
not be a Christian Church without a lawful ministry and lawful sa
craments, it will, in that case, necessarily follow, that what is
called the "Methodist Church," is not, as such, a part of the
Church of Christ.
Now, lest you might suppose that some wrong is done to the
Methodists in the issue here made, I shall quote the first section of
their "Book of Discipline," to prove that the entire validity of the
Methodist ministry is made by themselves to rest upon Wesley's or
dination of Dr. Coke. It is as follows :
"On the Origin of the Methodist Episcopal Church."
"The preachers* and members of our Society in general, being
convinced that there was a great deficiency of vital religion in the
Church of England in America, and being in many places desti
tute of the Christian Sacraments, as several of the clergy had for-
* At this time, the preachers were considered only lay-preachers, and
according to the uniform advice of Mr. Wesley, had declined adminis
tering the sacraments. In 1778, a few of these Iny-preachers, in Virginia,
undertook to ordain each other, thinking thereby~\o get the power of ad
ministering the sacraments! but, by a vote of one of the Conferences,
this ordination was declared invalid! (Life of Wesley by Coke and
Moore, chap. 3, sec. 2.)

saken their churches, requested the late Rev. John Wesley to take
such measures, in his wisdom and prudence, as would afford them
suitable relief in their distress.
"In consequence of this, our venerable friend, who, under God ,
has been the father of the great revival of religion now extending
over the earth by means of the Methodists, determined to ordain
ministers for America; and, for this purpose, in the year 1784, sent
over three regularly* ordained clergy: but preferring Episcopal
mode of Church government to any other, he solemnly set apart,
by the imposition otitis hands and prayer, one of them, viz. Thomas
Coke, Doctor of Civil Law, late of Jesus College, in the University
of Oxford, and a Presbyter of the Church of England, for the Epis
copal office; and having delivered to him letters of Episcopal or
ders, commissioned-! and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury ,
then general assistant of the Methodist Society in America, for the
same Episcopal office ; he the said Francis Asbury, being first^ or
dained deacon and elder.}: In consequence of which, the said
Francis Asbury was solemnly set apart for the said Episcopal office
by prayer, and the imposition of the hands of the said Thomw
Coke, other rpgtilarlv§ ordained ministers assisting in the sacreci
ceremony. At which -time[| the General Conference/held at Bal
timore, did unanimously receive the said Thomas Coke and Francis
Asbury as their Bishops, being fully satisfied of the validity of their
Episcopal ordination."
Thus you will perceive that the validity of the Methodist minis
try is made, by the Methodists themselves, to depend on the validity
of Dr. Coke's ordination by Wesley.
Let us, then, seriously enquire, where did Wesley obtain the
Authority to ordain Dr. Coke?
It certainly was not born with him; for authority to ordain a
minister of Christ is born with" no man.
He could not have obtained it from any temporal power ; for all
the kings and governors of the earth combined cannot ordain a
minister of Christ, nor confer the authority to ordain one.
* Thesfr 'regularly ordained clergy," were clergy of the Church of
England. They were not ordained by Wesley. The Methodists here
themselves draw the distinction betweeD "regularly ordained clergy" and
Wesley "s ordinations.
1 Lest it might be supposed, that Wesley had "commissioned" Dr.
Coke, in these (so-called) "letters of Episcopal orders," to "set apart"
Mr. Asbury for the "same Episcopal office," it is proper to state that no
such "commission" is given to Dr. Coke in said "letters." Where is
this "commission" to be found?
J As some might think from this language, that Wesley had "first or
dained [Mr. Asbury] deacon and elder," it should be known, that As
bury received no ordination from H'etley. He was only a layman, when
Dr. Coke came to America; and Dr. Coke ordained him a deacon, elder
and superintendant, or, (as he afterwards called himself,) a Bishop, in the
course of a few days! (See Lee's "Short history of the Methodists "
p. 94.)
§ One of these "regularly ordained" ministers was a German minister
named Otterbine! (Lee's History, p. 94 )
(| This is not true. The General Conference did not at that "time''
receive Coke and Asbury as Bishops, as wdl be shown hereafter.

Was this authority conferred on Wesley at his ordination ? —
Plainly not : because the authority for ordaining, in the Church of
England, (of which Wesley was a member,) is confined exclusively
to the order of Bishops, and Wesley was not consecrated a Bishop,
but only ordained a Presbyter. As no such authority was then
conferred on Wesley, he did not obtain it when he was ordain
ed. That you may perceive at a glance, what authority was con
ferred on Wesley when he was ordained, I shall transcribe the very
words used by the Bishop who ordained him. You may find them
in the Office for "The ordering of Priests," in the Book of Com
mon Prayer ; they are as follows :
''Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in
the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of
our hands: whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and
whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained : And be Hum a faith
ful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of His lioly Sacraments : In
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Amen." By this, /brm, every Presbyter of the Church of England is or
dained : of course, Wesley was thus ordained ; and you may per
ceive, at once, that no authority to ordain was then committed unto
him. But here your preachers meet us with the argument, that Bishops
and Presbyters are one and the same order of ministers ; and, there
fore, Wesley being a Presbyter, was also a Bishop, and therefore
had authority to ordain — and this, too, in the teeth of the tact, as I
have just proved, that no such authority was given to him at his
ordination ! Whether Bishop and Presbyter be the same order, is
a point I shall consider hereafter; at present, I shall content my
self with showing, that this argument will not avail the Methodists
in the least, because:
If Wesley were a Bishop, because he was a Presbyter, then Dr.
Coke must also have been a Bishop, since he was a Presbyter when
Wesley "laid his hands on him." And if Dr. Coke was already
a Bishop, what did Wesley make him by ordaining him 1 Not a
Bishop, surely ; for he was one already, if Presbyters and Bishops
be the same order ! What then? He must have made him an of
ficer higher than a Bishop — an officer unknown to the Church of
God ! Besides, if Dr. Coke, being a Presbyter, was, therefore, a
Bishop, he had the same right to ordain Wesley, as Wesley had to
ordain him !
This argument, I consider so unanswerable and conclusive, to
prove the invalidity of Coke's ordination, that I might well here let
the subject rest ; but, before 1 close shall again advert to it, for rea
sons which will then appear.
Having thus disposed of one of the chief arguments by which
the Methodists attempt to show that Wesley had authority to or
dain, I shall now proceed to consider their other great argument,
namely, that Wesley had a "Providential call" to ordain.
When Wesley sent out Dr. Coke, he gave him the following in
strument of writing, which "The Book of Discipline," above quot
ed, calls his "letters of Episcopal orders ;"
1*

'•To all to whom these presents shall come, John Wesley, late fel
low of Lincoln College, in Oxford, Presbyter of the Church of
England, sendeth greeting :
"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 England, are
greatly distressed for want of ministers to administer the sacraments
of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, according to the usage of the
same Church : and, whereas, there does not appear to be any otlier
v:mj of supplying them with ministers —
"Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself to be provi
dentially called at this time to set apart some persons for the work
of the ministry in America. And therefore, under the protection
of Almighty God, and with a singl? eye to his glory, I have this
day set apart as a Superintendent, by the imposition of my hands'*
and prayer, (being assisted by other ordained ministers,) Thomas
Coke, Doctor of Civil Law, a Presbyter of the Church of England,
and a man whom I judge to be well qualified for that great work.
And I do hereby recommend him to all whom it may concern, as a
tit person to preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony where
of, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this second day of Sep
tember, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and
eighty-four.j John Wesley."
Whatever may be meant by the phrase, "providentially called."
in the above document, Wesley has saved us the trouble of finding
it out, for he expressly tells us why he thought he had this "provi
dential call," namely, because, there does not appear to be any other
u<ay of supplying tliem with ministers.
That this was Wesley's true reason for thinking himself "provi
dentially called" to undertake this business, is made still plainer by
his letter, dated "Bristol, 10th September, 1784," (only eight days
after he "laid hands" on Dr. Coke,) addressed to "Dr. Coke, Mr.
Asbury, and our Brethren in North America,"!: in which, on ad
verting to the above transaction, he says :
"If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way of
feeding and guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly
embrace it. At present I cannot see any better method than f have
taken." Whether Wesley, then, had a "providential call" to ordain, de-
* This "imposition of hands" was not done in a Church, openly before
the people, but in Wesley's bed-chamber in Bristol : It soon, however,
got noised about, that Wesley had made a Bishop ! (though there is not
a word of the kind in these "letters of Episcopal orders," as they are
called.) The Rev. Charles Wesley, who was not in the secret, on hear
ing of it, wrote the following epigram :
"So easily are Bishops made,
By man's, or woman's, whim ;
Wesley his hands on Coke hath laid, 
But — who laid hands on him ?"
t Reprinted from a tract written by Dr. George Peck, a Methodist
preacher. % Lee's Short History, page 91.

pends upon the fact, whether there was "any otlier way" to obtain
ministers for God's Church, (for the Methodists had not yet left
the Church,) than his taking upon himself the authority to ordain
Dr. Coke; because, if it can be plainly shown that there was an
"other way," then it is evident, on Wesley's own ground, that he
had no such "providential call."
Rightly to solve this question, it will be necessary to advert to
the position of the American Church at that time. Before these
"United States" were separated from Great Britain by the Revolu
tion, the Church of England had been planted in several of them,
and the jurisdiction over these Churches and their ministers was
committed. to the Bishop of London. After the Revolution, con
sequently, when this country was separated from Great Britain,
the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London was, practically, at an
end, and the American Church was thus left without an available
'ecclesiastical head. Some wise men of late, among the Metho
dists, have affected to think, that the Church in this country was
destroyed, because it had lost its Bishop ! It was no more destroy
ed, than the Church in New York, or Maryland, would be des
troyed, should she lose her Bishop, by death, degradation, or re
signation. The remedy was the same in both cases, to elect another,
and have him consecrated by lawful authority. And this was done
by the Presbyters of the American Church : they elected four of
their number to the office of Bishop; and these four proceeded to
England, where three of them were consecrated by the Archbishop
of Canterbury, and one of them in Scotland by the Bishops of the
Church in that country. The successors and spiritual descendants
of these four, deriving their authority from the blessed Redeemer,
through "the imposition of the hands" of His lawful Bishops, have
multiplied to twenty-two. with a prospect of further increase ; and
their authority is acknowledged by more than twelve hundred clergy,
who derive their ordination from them and their predecessors. —
Here, then, was an "other way" of obtaining a supply of minis
ters, than by a Presbyter undertaking to ordain another Presbyter a
Bislwp in his chamber! And, as Wesley makes^his "providential
call" depend on thefact of there not being "any other way," and
this proof that there was another way, makes it plain, to a demon
stration, that Wesley had no "providential call" to ordain what
ever! It was just seventy-three days after this ordination of Dr.
Coke, that Dr. Seabury was consecrated in Scotland, to be the Bi
shop of the Church in Connecticut. Had Wesley, therefore,
waited but seventy-three days, he would have seen that Gon was
providing a lawful ministry for His Church, and that he did not
need the aid of the superintendent of a Methodist society to do the
work for Him. Strange — passing strange — it is, it never should
have crossed Wesley's mind, that God could provide ministers for
His Church, without his instrumentality!* Strange, loo, when
* Wesley saw this when it was too late. Dr. Coke, in his letter to
Bishop White, (Appendix A,) says; "He (Mr. Wesley) being pressed
by our friends on this side of the water, for ministers to administer the
sacraments to them, (there being very tew clergy of the Church of Eng
land then in the States,) went farther, I am sure, than ke would have
gone, if he had/oreseen some events which followed."

8
there were, at least, one hundred "regularly ordained" Presbyters
of the Church remaining here, (after she had been separated, by
the Revolution, from the Mother .Church of England,) that, if
there were to be a "providential call" to ordain ministers, it did not
occur to Wesley the "call" would have been given to one of them
instead of to him. Four of them were "called," as I have shown,
by those possessing authority to call and ordain ministers for the
Church of Christ, namely, by the lawful Bishops of the Churches
of England and Scotland ; thus showing, beyond the power of con
tradiction, that God had not forsaken His Church, and that Wes
ley's thinking (for he tells us he only thought so,) that he had a
•'providential call," was only the imagining of a fallible man,
trusting too much to his own narrow view of the circumstances in
which he was placed. And thus, sir, is scattered to the winds,
the other grand argument for the validity of Wesley's ordinations.
Hitherto, you will have observed, I have argued this question
on the ground taken by the Methodists, that Wesley ordained Dr.
Coke to be a Bishop — by a Bishop meaning the first and highest
officer of the Church of God, and that Wesley himself was such a
Bishop. But this we deny, because,
1. Wesley, in the above (so-called) "letters of orders," simply
styles himself "a Presbyter of the Church of England."
'2. In that document, he does not say a word about having or
dained Dr. Coke to be a Bishop, but merely that he "set him
apart* as a Superintendent." INow what did Wesley mean, by this
phrase of setting him "apart as a Superintendent?"
In the letter, above quoted, addressed (not to Bishop Coke, but)
to "Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in North America,"
is the following paragraph, which explains the whole transaction :
"I have appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to be joint
Superintendents over our -Brethren in North America."
Now, I beg you, to examine this language narrowly. 1. Wes
ley does not say he ordained Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, but simply
that he "appointed" them. But, by using the word "appointed,"
did Wesley mean that he ordained them? Certainly not ; because
the same word (appointed) is used respecting them both, and
Wesley did not ordain Asbury, for Asbury was, at that time, in
America, and had been for several years previously. Neverthe
less, Wesley "appointed" him a Superintendent, as well as Coke;
and as ordination was not necessary to constitute Asbury a Super
intendent, neither was it necessary to constitute Dr. Coke one ; and
it is evident that, as Asbury was not ordained, Coke could not have
been, (as the same word, "appointed," is used respecting them
both,) and that Wesley did not mean to say that he had ordained
them, when he said that he "appointed" them. Indeed, the idea
» "Ordination is not to be confounded with the designating or setting
apart of a person to the woik of the ministry; for, in strictness, anvone
may do this for himsell, or it may be done (or him by his parents guar
dians, Stc, and involves nothing but what any layman may perform"
whereas ordination is the actual communication of authority from a lea-i'
timate source, to execute those functions which appertainto the several
orders of the ministry." (Staunton.)

"9"
of ordaining a Superintendent of a merely human society,* is a thing
utterly unknown to the Scriptures and .the Church of God. It is
precisely the same thing, as if a Presbyter now, was to ordain a
Superintendent for the Sunday School Union, or a Bible Society.
Wesley was too sound a divine to adopt any such absurd notion.
He was himself the Superintendent of the Methodist Society in
England, but had never been ordained to that office; and if Wesley
could be a Superintendent without ordination, the same could be
done by Coke or Asbury without ordination. No, sir, there is not
a particle of evidence to prove that Wesley ever "ordained" Dr.
Ooke. Coke was placed precisely on the same footing with As
bury (who was a layman) — Wesley "appointed" them both Super
intendents of the Methodist Society in North America ; and the
only difference between them is this: that in "appointing" Dr.
Coke, Wesley did it in rather a more formal manner, by placing
his hands on his head, and praying over him !'
But (2d.) did Wresley by "appointing" Coke and Asbury to be
"Superintendents" intent! to make them "Bishops?" Lee, in his
"Short History," gives the following account of these men first
calling themselves Bishops, in the minutes of their Conference :
(pages 127-8 )
"In the course of this year (1787) Mr. Asbury reprinted the
general minutes; but in a different form from what they were be
fore. The title of this pamphlet was as follows :
"A form of discipline for the ministers, preachers, and members
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America; considered -and
approved at a Conference held at Baltimore, in the State of Mary
land, on Monday, the 27th day of December, 1784. * * * *
"In this discipline there were thirty-one sections, and sixty-three
questions, with* answers to them all.
"The third question in the second section, and the answer, read
thus :
"Q.. Is there any other business to be done in Conference ?
"A. The electing and ordaining of Bishops, Elders, and Dea
con*. "This was the first time that our Superintendents ever gave
themselves the title of Bishops in the minutes. They changed the
title themselves without the consent of the Conference!"
Thus it appears that a fraud was practised by one of these Super
intendents to get himself recognized as a Bishop — No less a fraud
than altering the minutes of the Conference! and this, too, by en
deavoring to make it appear to the World, that they had been re,
* At that time, there was no such thing in existence as a "Methodist
Church." Wesley, and the Methodists themselves only spoke of them
selves as the Methodist society, or societies, or sometimes as the Metho
dist Connexion, and that Wesley was their founder and father. Of course,
it was only a human society, and nothing more : indeed, at that time, it
did not claim to be any thing more ; and the idea of ordaining a Super
intendent, or any other minister, for a human society, is absurd. Lee
says, (page 47,) "We were only areligiou3 society, and not a Church."
At page 94, he says : "At this Conference we formed ourselves into a
regular Church." How a religious society could be turned into a Church,
jie doe9 not inform us. This was after Coke came to America.

10
cognized as Bishops by the Conference since the first foundation of
"the Methodist Church," in 1764! whereas the Conference had
only recognized them as Superintendents — the office to which Wes
ley had appointed them — and this alteration of their title, for this
purpose, by themselves, took place in 1787!
Lee, in his "History," goes on to remark :
"At the next Conference they asked the preachers if the word
Bishop might stand in the minutes ; seeing that it was a Scripture
name, and the meaning of the word Bishop was the same with that
of Superintendent."
Observe here, the reason assigned for assuming the title of Bi
shop. It was not that Wesley had ordained them to that office.
Coke knew better than that ! But, because the word "Bishop"
meant "Superintendent!" So it also means an "overseer," but i8
every overseer therefore a Bishop ? So the word "Presbyter"
means "an old man;" but is every old man therefore -a Presbyter?
So the word "Deacon" means "a servant;" but is every servant
therefore a Deacon ? It is evident from this transaction.that Coke
and Asbury did not dare to assign Wesley's "appointment" as the
ground for their assuming the title of the chief officer in the Church
of God ; otherwise they would not have assigned such a school-boy
reason for their unjustifiable act.
Lee, in his "History," then goes on further to remark :
"Some of the preachers opposed the alteration, and wished to
retain the former title, [that of superintendent ;] but a majority of
the preachers agreed to let the word Bishop remain ; _and, in the
annual minutes for the next year, the first question is: 'who are
the Bishops of our Church for the United States V "
Thus was consummated one of the most startling frauds of mo
dern times ; and the whole ''Methodist Church" has, ever since,
been led to believe, that Wesley ordained Dr. Coke a Bishop, and
then "commissioned" him to ordain Asbury a Bishop, and that
these two were actually recognized and called Bislujps by the Me
thodist Conference since the first foundation of their "Church," in
1784 ! And, what is more, this fraud is actually perpetrated to the
present day ; for in the "Book of Discipline," (chap. 1, sec. 1,) it
is said expressly : "Francis Asbury was solemnly set apart for the
said Episcopal office by prayer, and the imposition of bands of the
said Thomas Coke, other regularly ordained ministers assisting in
the sacred ceremony. At which time, the General Conference,
held in Baltimore, did unanimously receive the said Thomas Coke
and Francis Asbury as their Bishops, being fully satisfied of the
validity of their Episcopal ordination !"
Now when did this "imposition of hands" on Mr. Asbury by
Dr. Coke take place? Mr. Lee informs us, in his "History,'-' (p.
94,) that it took place at the Conference, which began in Balti
more on December 27, 1784 ; whereas it was not until 1787, that
the minutes were altered ; and it was not until the "next Confer
ence" afterwards, that the Superintendents were "received" as
Bishops ! and when the Conference did consent to "receive them
as Bishojjs," it was not done "unanimously," but was the act of
only "a majority" of the preachers. And thus are the Methodists
imposed on until this very hour!

11
It is enough to make one shudder, when contemplating the man
ner in which these men attempted to thrust themselves into the
chief office of the Christian ministry. The recollection of it ap
pears to have grievously weighed upon Dr. Coke's conscience,
when he afterwards so earnestly wrote to Bishop Seabury to or
dain him and Asbury Bishops! and to Bishops White and Sea-
bury to ordain their preachers over again ! And well it might
weigh upon his conscience ! The wonder is, it did not drive him
into a mad-house ! Wesley himself tells us the effect it had upon
him, when he heard of Asbury claiming to be a Bishop ! He tells
us it made him shudder — and well it might. He thus writes to
Asbury :
John Wesley to Francis Asbury.
"London, September 20, 1788.
"There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation wherein
you stand to the Americans, and the relation wherein I stand to all
the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Me
thodists ; I am, under God, the father of the whole family. There
fore, I naturally care for you all, in a manner no other person can
do. Therefore, I, in a measure, provide for you all ; for the sup
plies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide, were
it not for me — were it not, that 1 not only permit him to collect,
but support him in so doing.
"But, in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both
the Doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little, you study
to be great ; I creep, you strut along ; I found a school, you a col
lege. Nay, and call it after your own names ! Oh, beware ! Do
not seek to be something ! Let me be nothing, and Christ be all
in alt.
"One instance of this, your greatness, has given me great con
cern. How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called a
Bishop ?
"I shudder,! start at the very thought! Men may call me a
knave, or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content ; but they
shall never, by my consent, call me a Bishop ! For my sake, for
God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this! Let the Pres
byterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their
calling better.
"Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart ;
and let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely
"I am your affectionate friend and brother,
John Wesley."*
This letter is a remarkable document. Four years had nearly
elapsed since his "appointment" of Dr. Coke. In the mean time
Wesley had had time for reflectton. He had time for a further
and more deliberate investigation of the authority of Presbyters to
ordain; and however he might, for a season, have been blinded
by the sophistical book of Sir Peter King, so as to suppose Pres
byters and Bishops were the same order, yet now he gives his more
mature judgment, that they were not — for that is the meaning of
• From Moore's Life of Wesley, vol, ii, page 2S5.

12
the last clause in his letter, where he speaks of the Presbyterians.
It is well known that the doctrine of the Presbyterians is, that Bi
shops and Presbyters are the same order ; and many of them, even
to this day, do not scruple to call themselves Bishops. In refer
ence to this fact it is, that Wesley says in the above letter, "Let
the Presbyterians do as they please, but let the Methodists know their
calling better." That is, let the Presbyterians, if they please, call
themselves Bishops, but let not the Methodists follow their example
— let ,/iemknow their calling better than to call themselves Bishops,
when they are not.
Now, let it be remembered, that the question before us is : Did
Wesley, when he "appointed" Coke and Asbury "Superinten
dents" of the Methodist Society, ordain them Bishops?
It is certain he did not. This letter to Asbury, in the very plain
est manner possibles-words cannot be plainer — declares that As
bury was no Bishop; and yet Coke did for Asbury precisely what
Wesley did for Coke — he laid his hands upon him, and prayed
over him: and if, in Wesley's judgment, this imposition of hands
and prayer by a Presbyter, did not constitute Asbury a Bishop,
neither could they, in Wesley's judgment, have constituted Dr.
Coke a Bishop ; for Coke's authority to ordain was the same as
Wesley's, (which was no authority at all,) both of them being
Presbyters of the Church of England; and, therefore, it is proved
clearly and undeniably, that in appointing Coke and Asbury to be
"Superintendents" of the Methodist Society, Wesley did not or
dain them Bishops.
Notwithstanding their high-handed assumption of the title of
Bishop, still these men were uneasy. The fact was still staring
them in the face, (and the world knew it,) that Wesley had only
"appointed" them to be Superintendents of the Methodist Society
under him ;* and, however they might claim to be Bishops — and,
however they might alter the name in the minutes — still/Bishops
of the Church of God they were not! Something, then, must -be
done to get around this mafter, and convince the people, 1. That
Wesley w-as a Bishop; 2. That Wesley ordained Coke a Bishop;
and, 3. That Coke ordained Asbury a Bishop ! One would sup
pose, when Asbury had Wesley's letter, (dated September 20th,
1788,) in his pocket, declaring that he was no Bishop, and that
* In his letter "appointing" Dr. Coke a Superintendent, Wesley says,
"Whereas many of the people in the Southern Provinces of North Ame
rica, who desire to continue under my care," &.e. In his letter to Asbury,
lie says : "The supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not
collect, were it not for?)ie — were it not that 1 not only permit him to col
lect, but support him in so doing." The following question and answer
were adopted at the Conference in 1784. "Q 2. What can be done in
order to the future union of the Methodists? A. During the life of the
Rev. John Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his sons in the Gospel,
ready, in matters belonging to Church Government, to obey his com
mands," &c. (Lee's History, p. 95.) Mr. Lee afterwards observes.-
"This engagement to obey Mr. Wesley's commands, in matters belong
ing to Church Government, was afterwards the cause of some uneasiness?"
No wonder. Wesley's letter to Asbury when he set up for a Bishop
was well calculated to make him uneasy.

J3
Asbury was no Bishop, that this would not be a very easy matter
to accomplish. But these men did not stick at trifles ; they had
already fabricated a new set of minutes for their "Church" to get
the title of Bishops, and they were determined to go all lengths sooner
than fail in their project to be accounted real Bishops. The Bi
shops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States had
now for some time been consecrated ; Coke and Asbury knew that
their commission was authentic ; that they had been consecrated m
England and Scotland by lawful Bishops; and that the Church had
received them as Bishops, in a regular succession from the Apostles.
Coke and Asbury knew all this; and alongside of these men, as
Methodist "Superintendents" they felt their littleness, although they
had assumed the name of what they so much coveted ! They
knew that they had the name of a Bishop, and that was all ! They
had no succession to point to ! Let us see, then, how they pro
ceeded to get the reality. At one of their Conferences, held in the
year 1789, Mr. Lee, in his "History," informs us (p. 142,) that
"The Bishops (that is, Coke and Asbury) introduced a question
in the annual minutes, which was as follows :
"Q,. Who are the persons that exercise the Episcopal office in the
Methodist Church in Europe and America ?
"A. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by re
gular order and succession! !
"The next question was asked differently from what it ever had
been in any of the former minutes, which stands thus :
"Q,. Who have been elected by the unanimous suffrages of the
General Conference to superintend the Methodist Connexion in
America ?
"A. Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury."
The drift of these questions and answers can be seen at once.
Their object is to make it appear, (1.) That it was the Conference
and not Wesley, which "appointed" them Superintendents ! and
(2.) To make it appear, that Wesley was a Bishop, and ordained
them Bishops, and that thus they have a regular succession from a
lawful Bishop! Now, let it be remembered, that these questions
were introduced by Coke and Asbury themselves ! They saw the
full drift of them, although the Conference might not have seen it!
Calmly and without prejudice review this proceeding; and then,
taking it in connection with the fact, that they fabricated a new set
of minutes to get the name of a Bishop, and with the/ac< that As
bury had -in his possession Wesley's letter declaring that he was no
Bishop, and that Asbury was no Bishop — I say, calmly and with
out prejudice review this proceeding, in connection with these
facts, and then say, whether modern or ancient times afford a more
daring, or unhallowed scheme, than this presents, of- men under
taking to usurp the office and authority of a Christian Bishop ! -
These facts, also, prove that Coke and Asbury knew that Wesley
did not ordain them Bishops, when he "appointed" them Superin
tendents of the Methodist Society under him. But, if there be any
doubts remaining on this point, they will be removed by the pe
rusal of Dr. Coke's letters to Bishops White and Seabury of the
Protestant Episcopal Church, marked A, B, in the Appendix.—
2

14
As you will, of course, give these letters an attentive perusal, it
will only be necessary for me briefly to refer to them.
1 . It will be observed, in both of these letters, that Dr. Coke does
not, for a moment, claim to be a Bishop.
2. His letter to Bishop White shows, that he exceeded the au
thority given him by Mr. Wesley, and that Mr. Wesley disap
proved of his proceedings.
3. In his letter to Bishop Seabury, he asks Bishop Seabury to
ordain him "a Bishop of the Methodist Society!" Thereby ac
knowledging that Wesley, when he "appointed" him a Superin
tendent, did not ordain him a Bishop, of that Society !
4. In his letter to Bishop Seabury, he asks Bishop Seabury to
ordain Mr. Asbury a Bishop of the Methodist Society ; thereby ac
knowledging that his ordination of Asbury to be a Bishop was only
a mock ordination !
5. In his letter to Bishop Seabury, asking for the admission of
the Methodist preachers into the Protestant Episcopal Church, Dr.
Coke says, that he "knows that tliey must submit to a re-ordination."
Of course, the ordination they received from him was good for
nothing, otherwise there would have been no necessity for their
being ordained over again.
6. These letters prove, beyond question, that Coke knew and
believed, that Bishops alone possessed authority to ordain ; that no
such authority was possessed by Presbyters (otherwise his own or
dinations would have been valid, for he was a Presbyter ;) and,
consequently, that he knew and believed that Presbyters and Bi
shops were not the same order.
7. These letters, too, show conclusively, what was Dr. Coke's
opinion of Wesley's ordinations (as they are called) — that is, that
they possessed no validity whatever ; and, therefore, that when
Wesley "appointed" him a Superintendent of the Methodist So
ciety, he did not "ordain" him a Bishop of the Church of God.
I shall now proceed to prove, that the Methodists themselves do
not believe that Presbyters and Bishops are the same orderr
Because, if Presbyters and Bishops were the same order, when
a man is ordained a Presbyter, or Elder,* he would be a Bishop,
without any further ordination ; but the Methodists require those,
whom they are about to elevate to the order of Bishop, to submit to
a third ordination, and thereby acknowledge, that they do not con
sider a Presbyter (or Elder) to be a Bishop without such ordina
tion, and consequently denying them to be the same order.
The Methodist form for the ordination of Presbyters, (or Elders,)
may he found at page 127 of the Methodist "Book of Discipline •"
their form for the ordination of those they call Bishops, may be
found at page 140 oi the same book. And, as these "forms" were
drawn up by Wesley, from the ordination offices in the Book of
Common Prayer of the Church of England, it is an additional
proof (if any were wanting) that he did not believe Presbyters and
Bishops to be .the some order — because, if he did, why did he, why
* The word Presbyter means the same as Elder ; that is, an Elder
elderly person. Presbyter or Elder, is the second order in the Chri.t';,.,
ministry. "nstian

15
do the Methodists now, require those they call Elders, (or Presby
ters) to submit to a third ordination, before they will allow them
to be called Bishops ?
Let those answer this question who can.
By a reference to the third page of this letter, you will find that
I there lay down the following position, namely : that, if Wesley
had authority to ordain Dr. Coke a Bishop, then, it is conceded, that
the Methodists have a lawful ministry, and lawful sacraments ; but
if Wesley Iiad no such authmity to ordain him. then his ordination
was a nullity, and the Methodists have neither a lauful ministry, nor
lawfid sacraments..
Now, sir, this point, that Wesley had no such authority to or
dain, I have fully proved, by showing,
1 . That it was not born with him ;
"2. That he did not$)btain it from any temporal power ;
3. That it was not conferred on him at his ordination by the
Bishops of the Church of England ;
4. That he did not ordain Dr. Coke, a Bishop, because if Bishop
and Presbyter be the same order, Dr. Coke was already a Bishop
without Wesley's ordination — Dr. Coke being a Presbyter of the
Church of England ;
5. That Wesley had no "providential call" to ordain.
This, sir, would be sufficient ; but I have proved far more than
this : I have proved,
1. That Wesley did not "ordain" Dr. Coke a Bishop, but only
"appointed" him a "Superintendent" of the Methodist Society ;
2. That in "appointing" him a Superintendent, Wesley did not
ordain him a Bishop ;
3. That the Methodist Conference did not for several years re
ceive Coke and Asbury as Bishops, but only as Superintendents;
4. That Wesley denied (in his letter to Asbury) that he was a
Bishop ;
5. That Wesley denied (in the same letter) that Asbury was a
Bishop ;
6. That Dr. Coke, by his applying to Bishop Seabury to ordain
him a Bishop, admits that Wesley did not ordain him one.
7. That Dr. Coke, by his applying to Bishop Seabury to ordain
Asbury a Bishop, admits that his own ordination of Asbury to be a
Bishop was a mock ordination — without any real validity.
8. That Dr. Coke, by his applying to Bishops White and Sea
bury to admit the Methodist preachers into the Protestant Episco
pal Church (when the condition of their admission was, that they
would be re-ordained') showed that he .knew, that his ordination of
them was invalid ;
9. That Dr. Coke knew that Wesley had no authority to ordain
him a Bishop, and that he did not ordain him one; otherwise he
would not have applied to Bishop Seabury to ordain him a Bishop ;
10. That, consequently, he knew, when Wesley "appointed"
him a Superintendent of the Methodist Society, he did not ordain
him a Bishop of the Church of God.
ll_ That the Methodists do not believe Presbyters (or Elders)
and Bishops to be the same order, because they have two-distinct
"forms" of ordination, one for Elders and another for Bishops; and

. 16
because they will not suffer those th«y call Elders to be called
Bishops until they have been a third time ordained.
I have thus, sir, examined most minutely- every argument by
which it is pretended to establish the validity of Wesley's ordina
tion of Dr. Coke ; and I have shown, conclusively, not only that
Wesley did not ordain him, but that Dr. Coke did not believe that
he had ordained him — and that the whole transaction was desti
tute of even the shadow of validity. The validity of Dr. Coke's
ordination, then, being completely destroyed, (and the validity of
the present Methodist ministry depending upon that — so that they
must stand, or fall, together,) it is plain, to a demonstration, that
the Methodists have no lawful ministry whatever, and that those
they call their Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, are only laymen.-^
And as there can be no lawful sacraments without a lawful minis
try, it is equally plain they have no sacraments. And as there can
not be a Church of Christ, unless there be a lawful ministry and
lawful sacraments, it is equally plain, also, that the (so called)
"Methodist Church" is not a Church of Christ.
II. The next point, concerning which you desire written infor
mation, is respecting the objections you have heard me make to
the principles and polity of the "Methodist Church." Now, inas
much as I have proved the said "Church" to be destitute of a law
ful ministry and the sacraments, and therefore to be no Church at
all, it may seem somewhat incongruous to object to any thing
within it, or pertaining to it. But, as the consideration of some
particulars will go to strengthen my argument, by showing this
"Church" to be utterly unscriptural, (and therefore, no Church in
any point of view,) I shall, as you request it, make a few observa
tions respecting it.
And, LI object to the "Methodist Church," that it is not such
a Church as Christ established.
The "Methodist Church," or Society, is described in the "Book
of Discipline," (page 79,) as a "company of men having the form
and seeking, the power of godliness, united in order to pray together,
to receive the word of exhortation, and to watch over one another in
love, that they may help each other to work out their salvation." In
other words, the Methodist Church is composed of only religious
men, or religiously disposed men.
Now, such a Church as this is directly contrary to that which
Christ established! and, therefore, cannot be Christ's Church,
whatever else it may be.
In the 13th chapter of St. Matthew, Christ, (speaking of it un
der the appellation of "the kingdom of heaven,") has said, that
His Church was like a net, in which were caught fishes both good
and bad; and they "gathered the good into vessels, but cast the
bad away." "So," he adds, "shall it be at the end of the world •
the angels shall come forth, and sever the icicked from the just and
shall cast them into the furnace of fire."
In the same chapter, (under the same appellation of "the king
dom of heaven,") Christ describes His Church as a field, wherefn
tares were sown with the wheat, — that the tares were to remain un
til the harvest, when they were to be burned, but the wheat was to
be saved. And the meaning of this harvest, and the burning of

17
the tares, and the saving of the wheat, Christ thus explains : "The
harvest is the end of the world." "The Son of man shall send forth
His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things
that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them
into a furnace of fire ;" "then shall the righteous shine forth in the
kingdom of their Father."
In accordance, then, with the express declarations of Christ, His
Church is to be composed of -the wicked, as well as the good ; and
the wicked are to remain in the Church with the good until "the
end of the world," when the angels of God will separate them.
And such we find the Church described to be, in the New Tesl
tament. Judas Iscariot was a member of the Church; so were
Ananias and Sapphira, who were struck dead for lying to the Holy
Ghost ; so was Simon Magus — all of them wicked persons, yet
members of the Church.
St. Paul addresses his first Epistle to the Corinthians, "unto the
Church, which is at Corinth; to them that are sanctified in Christ
Jesus, called to be saints." (chap. i. 2.) And yet he reproves
them for being contentious, (chap. i. 11, 12j &c.) He tells them
that they are "carnal" — that is, under <he influence of the flesh,
and not of God's spirit; (chap. iii. 3.) that there was "fornication"
among them, and that they were "puffed up at it," and gloried in
it. (chap. v. 1,2, 6.) He reproves them, because their meeting
together was for the worse, and not for, the better, because there
were divisions among them, and because they profaned the Lord's
Supper by getting drunk at it! (chap. xi. 17, &c.) Various other
parts of the New Testament might be quoted for the same pCtrpose,
and especially the Epistles to the seven Churches of Asia, in Re
velations, chap. ii. and iii. — all going to show, that Christ's descrip
tion of His Church was true to the very letter ; that it was to be
composed of wicked men mixed with the good. The Methodist
notion of a Church, that is composed only of "men, having the
form, and seeking the power of godliness," is a delusion, and is di
rectly contrary to the Scriptures. No such Church, as the "Me
thodist Church" is described to be, is to be found in Holy Scrip
ture. It is not the Church of Jesus Christ.
2. In the second place, I object to the "Methodist Church," as
being contrary to the Scriptures, because they make membership
thereof consist in joining a class ! A thing utterly unknown to the
Scriptures. Baptism is the only rite of initiation into the Church of God.
This appears expressly by what St. Paul has declared in his Epistles :
"There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism," (Eph. iv. 5.)
"by which we are all baptized into one body," (1 Cor. xii. 13.)
"which body is the Church," (Col. i. 18.)
The "Book of Discipline" says, (page 84,) "Let none be receiv
ed into the Church, until they are recommended by a [class] leader,
with wlwm they have met at least six months on trial, and have been
baptized ; and shall on examination by the minister in charge, before
the Church, give satisfactory assurances both of the correctness of tlieir
Faith, and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the
Church." If then, a man have met with a class leader six months ; if he
2*

18
have been baptized; if he have stood a satisfactory examination j
if he be willing to observe and keep the rules of "the Church" —
he may be admitted into the "Methodist Episcopal Church!" —
How? By baptism, as the Scripture directs? Not at all. He
has been baptized already, and is not a member yet! What, then,
is to be done 1 How is he to be a member of this "Methodist"
Church? — By putting his name down in a class book.
And as a man gains admittance into this "Methodist" Church,
by putting his name down in a class book, so, if he refuse to attend
the meeting of the class afterwards, he is to be excluded from the
Church — he is no longer to be a member ! !
The Book of Discipline, (page 85,) says :
"Question 5. What shall we do with those members of our
Church who wilfully and repeatedly neglect to meet their class ?
"Answer 1 . Let the elder, deacon, or one of the preachers, visit
them, whenever it is practicable, and explain to them the conse
quence if they continue to neglect, viz. Exclusion.
2. If they do not amend, let him who has the charge of the cir
cuit, or station, bring their case before the society, or a select num
ber, before whom they shall have been cited to appear; and if they
be found guilty of wilful neglect by a decision of a majority of
the members, before whom their case is brought, let them be laid
aside, and let the preacher show that they are excluded for a
breach of our rules, and not for immoral conduct."
Thus it appears that, though a member of the "Methodist
Church" should attend their public worship regularly and punctu
ally ; though he should be constant at their communion table ;
though he should live a pure and upright life — -yet it all goes for
nothing ; he has committed the mortal sin of not attending a class
meeting ! ! and for tluit, he is to be laid aside — excluded — shut out
from all the privileges of the Church of God ! ! Was such a doc
trine as this ever heard before?- Was it ever before heard, that a
man was to be refused admittance into the Church of God (for
such the "Methodist Church" professes to be) unless he joined a
class; or, that he was to be laid aside — excluded from Her privi-
liges and Her hopes, if he refused to attend a class meeting ? Was
such a thing as this, I say, ever heard of, until the Methodists made
the discovery? Tell it not in Gath! What is this, but to set these
class meetings above the public worship of God ? above his sacra
ments? above every other means of Grace? above a holy life?—
And, assuredly, such is the fact, as I have above shown; since,
unless he join a class, and attends its meetings, every thing else a
man does, or can do, avails him not an iota ! ! And yet, in the
face of this startling fact, the "Book of Discipline" tells us, (page
83,) that God's imitten Word "is the only rule, and the sufficient
rule, both of our faith and practice." Now, as the Bible is thus
declared to be the "only rule" of the Methodist practice, I would
be glad to know— the Methodists would be glad to know— the world
would be glad to know — where, in the whole Bible, it is declared
that we become "members" of the Church ofGoDby joining a class'
or that we are to be "excluded" — shut out — from the Church of
God, for refusing to attend a class meeting? Let the question be an
swered. Let there be no blinking of the question. Let your leaders

19
come out like men, and point out wherein the Bible authorizes any
practice like this ! Or, if they cannot, let them acknowledge that the
Bible — that God's "written Word" is not the Methodist rule of
practice ; and that thousands, and tens of thousands, have been and
are deluded, by thinking they have joined the Church of God,
when they had their names entered in a Methodist class book ! !
As this is a subject of very great importance, and as the salva
tion of multitudes may depend upon the proper understanding of
it, (for there is no salvation promised to any human being out of the
Church of God,) you will excuse me, if I take the liberty of en
quiring into the origin of these "classes."
Mr. Lee, in his "History," (page 15,) makes the following
statement: "In 1742, the societies having greatly increased, they
were divided into classes, each class consisted of about twelve per
sons, who were committed to the care of one person styled the
Leader. — Mr. Wesley observes, on this occasion, as follows :
"Feb. 15, 1742. Many. of us were met together in Bristol, to
consult on a proper method of paying the public debt contracted by
building; and it was agreed, 1. That every member of the society
that was able, should contribute a penny a week. 2. That the
whole society should betlivided into little companies, or classes, of
about twelve in each class. 3. That one person, in each class,
should receive the contribution of the rest. Thus began, says he,
that excellent institution, merely upon a temporal account."
Watson, who is a standard author with the Methodists, in his
"Life of Wesley," (page 96,) confirms this statement of Mr. Wes
ley's. Watson says :
"The origin of these classes was, however, purely accidental.
The Chapel at Bristol was in debt ; and it Was agreed, that each
member of the society should contribute one penny a week to re
duce the burden. The Bristol society was, therefore, divided into
classes ; and, for convenience, one person was appointed to collect
the-weekly subscriptions from each class, and to pay the amount
to the stewards."*
Such was the origin of class meetings ! ! a mere scheme for
raising money ! ! And yet, this money raising scheme of Wes
ley's is now made to usurp the place of one of Christ's sacraments
— for Baptism is no longer the door of admission into the Church
of God, but the joining of one of Wesley's classes ! ! And there
are thousands, and tens of thousands, as I have said, who have
been deluded into believing that, when they joined one of these
"classes" they were actually joining "the Church of the living
God," (1 Tim. iii. 15.) which Christ purchased with His own
blood! ! (Acts xx. 28.) Had this thing been invented 860 years
ago, in what are called the "dark ages," it might have been little
to be wondered at ; but that, in the 19th century — in this "most
enlightened age the world has ever seen" — multitudes of men
could be found, who have been brought to believe that they join
• Even at the present day, it is, among other things, the duty of class
leaders once a week, "to pay the stewards what they have received of
their several classes in the week preceding." (Book of Discipline, pages
79 and 80.)

20
the Church of God, when they put their names down in a class
book, is, to me, a matter of profound astonishment. We look $t
those with wonder and amazement, who have been led to believe
in the Golden Bible of the Mormons ; but I would as soon believe
that, as to believe, that 1 was joining the Church of God, when I
joined one of these classes which Wesley formed to raise money
to pay off the debt of a meeting house ! ! You, my friend, have
long belonged to one of these "classes ;" let me beg and entreat
you, as you value your immortal soul, to open your eyes to the
delusion under which you have been labouring, in thinking that
you joined the Church of God, when you "joined class." Be as- ,
sured, that there is no promise of salvation, out of the Church of
God, to any human being; and be equally assured, that you do
not join the Church of God, by joining one of Wesley's classes.
3. I object, in the third place, to the "Methodist Church," as
being unscriptural, because it excludes infants from being members
of the Church of God.
Of this fact, there can be no doubt. I have shown that Baptism
does not confer membership in the "Methodist Church" — nothing
but the entering one's name in a class book, after six months' trial,
an examination, &c. Of course, infants cannot hecome members,
because they cannot and do not join a class ! ! Methodist Baptism
(as it is called) is a mere idle ceremony — the giving of a name to
the child, and nothing more.
On this point, 1 very much fear, Methodist parents have been
kept in the dark. They have not been trusted with the dreadful
secret, that their infant offspring are not members of tbe Church
of God ! Nor is this to be wondered at, for what parent would re
main for twenty-four hours a member of a society, which cuts off
his children from the blessings and privileges which Christ has
purchased, with His blood, for His Church ? — and all, because the
unconscious babes cannot join one of Wesley's classes! !
4. The last objection, I shall mention, to the "Methodist Church,"
is their unscriptural doctrine, that an inward call gives them a right
to exercise the ministry of the Lord Jesus.
To this, I object, (1.) that there is not an instance in the whole
Scriptures, where any man undertook to act as a minister of God,
because he had an "inward call" to do so. On the contrary, some
of themost eminent servants of God, we know had no "inward call:"
Moses, the most distinguished prophet mentioned in Scripture,
had no "inward call ;" because, when God called him to go to Pha
raoh, he refused to go. (Exodus, chap, iv.)
Samuel had no "inward call;" because, when God called him
to be a prophet in Israel, he was only three years old ; and, of
course, was ignorant of the nature of the prophetic office. (1 Sam.
chap, iii.)
David had no "inward call ;" because he had no intimation of
his high destiny until Samuel called him ; and "from that day the
Spirit of God came upon him." (1 Sam. xvi.)
Jeremiah had no "inward call ;" because, when God called him
he endeavored to plead off, saying he was but "a child." (Jer. i )
Jonah had no "inward call ;" because he ran off when God
called him to prophesy against Nineveh. (Jonah i.)

21
The Twelve Apostles had no "inward call ;" "because they were
entirely ignorant of the nature and end of the office to which Christ
called them. They were also ignorant of the nature of the Gos
pel, and supposed Christ was about to establish a temporal king
dom ; and this delusion, it would seem, they lay under, fo the very
last hour of Christ's abode upon earth ! (Acts i. 6.)
St. Paul had no "inward call;" because he was persecuting the
Church at the very time when Christ called him to be an Apostle.
(Acts ix.)
All these highly favored servants of the Most High were "called"
to the sacred office, either by God's own mouth, or else by one of
His authorized servants. When he condescended to call them by
"word of mouth," God invariably gave them the power of work
ing miracles, or of foretelling future events, so that mankind might
certainly know that he had called them. The notion of an "inward
call" is unknown to the Scriptures, and is the invention of those,
who, not having been appointed to the sacred office by any lawful
authority, have resorted to this expedient to claim to have one im
mediately from God Himself.
We object (2.) to this doctrine as being unscriptural, because it
is in opposition to the teaching of St. Paul. In the fifth chapter
of the Hebrews, speaking of the ministerial office, he says: "No
man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was
Aaron." How was Aaron called ? By an "inward" call ? No.
He was called by the mouth of Moses, an authorized minister of
God : so that, to be called by an authorized minister, is to be
"called of God."
To this, perhaps, some Methodist preacher might answer, that,
when St. Paul says, "Aaron was called of God," he meant that
Aaron had an "inward call." To this, I reply, (1.) That we have
precisely the same record of Aaron's "call" before us, which St.
Paul had before him, which record is as follows :
God said to Moses : "Andtake thou unto thee Aaron thy brother,
and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may
minister unto me in the Priests' office." (Exodus xxviii. 1.)
God then commands Moses to make certain holy garments, and
said, "Thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with
him; and sha't anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them,
that they may minister unto me in the Priests' office." (Ex. xxvii. 41.
xl. 13.) And in reference to this consecrating, &c, of Aaron,
" Thus did Moses : according to all that the Lord commanded him., so
did he." (Ex. xl. 16.) Thus was Aaron "called"— "anointed"—
"consecrated" — "sanctified"— for the priest's office by Moses. —
There is not a word mentioned about an "inward" call.
I reply, (2.) That Aaron could not have had an "inward" call,
because the institution of the Aaronic priesthood was as yet in the
Divine mind ; it had not been as yet revealed to mankind ; Aaron,
consequently, knew nothing of it; and when God gave the com
mand to Moses to "call" and "consecrate" Aaron, Moses was alone
with God upon Mount Sinai. Aaron, therefore, could not have
had an "inward" call to perform duties of which he was entirely
ignorant, and which had not as yet been revealed. The construc
tion, therefore, I have given to the words of St. Paul, is correct,

22
that when Aaron was called by Moses, God's authorized minister,
he was "called of God," and every pretence for an "inward call"
is shut out. But,
I reply, (3.^) That even if Aaron had had an "inward" call,
(which I have proved to be impossible,) still it availed him no
thing, until he was outwardly called to the priesthood by God's au
thorized minister, Moses; so that this favorite doctrine — even if it
were true — of their having an "inward call," avails the Methodists
nothing, until this "inward call" they lay claim to, is ratified by
the outward call of an authorized minister of God — and this is pre
cisely what the Methodists have not got. When they get that,
they will then be "called of God, as was Aaron," but not until
then. This doctrine, that the act of God's authorized minister is the
act of God himself, is, I know, a very unpalatable doctrine to the
Methodists. It strikes at the very root of their ministry, and they
are fully aware of it. Nevertheless, it is eminently a Scripture
doctrine : no doctrine stands out more, prominently than this in the
Word of God. I shall give a few instances of it, just to satisfy
your mind upon the subject; and, first, with respect to this very
case of Aaron,
God says, "I will sanctify both Aaron and his sons, to minister
to me in the Priests' office." (Ex. xxix. 44.J
God says to Moses, "And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy
garments, &c, and sanctify him, that he may minister unto me, in
the Priests' office." (Ex.xl.13.) "And Moses took of the anoint
ing oil, &c, and sanctified Aaron, and his sons with him." (Lev.
viii. 30 .J
Thus the act of Moses was the act of God himself. God "sanc
tified" Aaron for the priesthood by the hands of Moses, His autho
rized minister.
Another instance, irt 1 Sam. chap. xvi. Samuel, the prophet,
called David from the sheep-cote, and made him king of Israel ;
but in 2 Sam. chap, vii, God says to David, "/took thee from the
sheep-cote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people,
over Israel." Thus, the act of Samuel was the act of God, be
cause Samuel was His authorized minister.
Again, Christ, speaking of marriage, says, "Those whom God
hath joined together, let no man put asunder." God does not marry
people ; but when marriages are celebrated by His "authorized"
ministers, then it is God's act ;' it is He who joins them together,
and marriage becomes a "great mystery," a type of the union be
tween Christ and His Church. (Eph.v.) When an unauthorized
minister celebrates a marriage, it may be a legal marriage since it
is permitted by the laws of the land ; but such a marriage is not
God's act; He does not join the parties together; it is not a type
of Christ's union with His Church, neither is it "a great mystery "
Again, "The Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized
more disciples than John ; though Jesus himself baptized not, but
his disciples," (John iv. 1, 2.; Here, the act of the disciples in
baptizing is the act of Christ, because it was performed by His au
thorized ministers. And this is just the difference between a law
ful and an unlawful baptism. When Christ's "authorized"minis-

"23
ters baptize, it is Christ who baptizes, and the infant is then 'born '
of water and the Spirit," and is admitted into the kingdom of God ;
when an "unauthorized" minister presumes to baptize, it is only
his own baptism — it is a mere ceremony — the form of giving a name
to the child, and nothing more : no spiritual benefit results from it
to the child. And surely, it is a great comfort to know, that amid
the imperfections of even His "lawful" ministers, our baptism,
though "by man," is not "of man ;" that to whomsoever Christ
may have committed the ministry of His sacrament, Himself it is,
that retaineth and sendeth forth its power.
If it were necessary, I could add a hundred such instances from
the Bible, all going to show, that it is there a prominent and oft re
peated doctrine, that the act of God's authorized minister, is the
act of God himself. And of one thing we may rest satisfied, that
if ever God should so deviate from the ordinary course of His Pro
vidence, as to give a man an "inward call," (as it is termed,) to
the ministerial office, He will provide the means by which he is to
enter it — He will send him to one of His authorized ministers for
ordination. But here, perhaps, some one may ask, "Does not every minister
in the Protestant Episcopal Church, profess to have $n 'inward
call,' when he says, at his ordination, that he trusts he is inwardly
moved by the Holy Ghost to undertake the sacred office 1" I shall
answer this question in the words _of a living writer: "Solemn and
important as this inquiry is, it will not justify the conclusion, that
the Church here expects in the candidate a direct, special, and evi
dent 'call' to the work of the ministry ; for, if this were so — if there
were this special revelation to the mind of the candidate, the Church
and its Bishop would be bound to submit to it, and every such per
son could demand ordination, however apparent his disqualifica
tions. Besides, as no sensible proof of the call could be given, the
Bishop would be compelled to rely on the mere word of the candi
date, and thus he exposed to every kind of deception from those,
who ignorantly mistake the working of their own imaginations for
the impulses of the Spirit of God.— In the question proposed, the
Church recognizes the truth, that all holy dispositions — every good
thought and religious purpose — comes from the influence of God's
Spirit upon the mind. 'The fruits of the Spirit are in all goodness,
and righteousness, and truth.' This is the burden of Scripture,
and it is interwoven with every part of the services of the Church,
'If then,' (says Bishop White, on the ordination offices,) — 'if then,
agreeably to the expressions which follow in the question of serv
ing God for the promoting of His glory and the edifying of his
people, a man be desirous of taking on him the ministerial office,
under a sufficient knowledge of the purposes for which it was in
stituted, accompanied by a due regard for them ; and if he be -de
sirous of devoting his time, his talents, and his labors, to so holy
and benevolent a use ; surely, it is not less to be ascribed to the
Holy Spirit, than any good work which he may perform.' "
This expresses the view of the Church as to the meaning of the
expression, "being inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost." The Me
thodist doctrine of an "inward call," she utterly repudiates as con
trary to the Scriptures, and subversive of the Christian ministry.

24
I have thus shown you, my friend, the utterly unscriptural char
acter of the "Methodist Church." It was rather incongruous to
undertake to show this, after I had proved it to be no Church at
all, having neither a lawful ministry, nor lawful sacraments. You
desired the information, however, and I have endeavored to give it
to you; and, having done so, I shall now proceed,
III. To "set down on paper," as you request, some of the argu
ments you have heard me use touching the Apostolic Succession of
the Christian ministry. By this expression, "the Apostolic Suc
cession," I mean the doctrine of a regular, continued and unbroken
transmission of ministerial authority in the succession oi Bishops
from the Apostles to the present day. In other Words, (as I wish
to be distinctly understood,) I mean to say, that no ministry is valid,
unless it can be traced, through the line of Bishops, to the Apostles,
and through the Apostles to Christ. And further than this, I mean
to say, that every ministry which cannot do this is a spurious min
istry; that their ministerial acts are good for nothing; in other
words, that they are laymen — and that every member of their con
gregations has as much authority to preach, baptize, &c, as have
such ministers. That this is precisely the condition of the "Me
thodist" ministry has not only been fully proved, but is obvious
from their own showing, since they only trace back their succession
to Wesley, who was only a Presbyter of the Church.
To this doctrine of an Apostolic Succession in the Christian min
istry, various objections have been started, which I shall first con-
.sider and refute:
1. It is objected, that the chain which binds the present Bishops
of the Church to the Apostles may have been broken.
Reply. Those who urge this objection have been repeatedly
called upon to prove when and where the chain was broken, hut
they never have been able to point out when the break took place,
nor where. We deny the fact of their being any such break, and
shall hereafter show that it could not have occurred.
2. It is objected, that some of the members of the Church do not
believe the doctrine.
Reply. The Church is not responsible for the individual opin
ions of her members on this, or that, point. The Church has her
own standards of doctrine, viz. her Prayer Book and Homilies.
It is to them, we are to look for the doctrines she holds. It would,
indeed, be little short of a miracle, if in a Church numbering eigh
teen thousand clergymen, and eight or ten millions of laymen, there
should be none who saw one or more doctrines in a different light
from what the Church views them.
3. It is objected, that some of the Bishops in this Apostolic line,
were men of abandoned character, and, therefore, their ministerial
acts were invalid.
Reply. Put the case at the worst— that the Bishops in question
were devils. Yet was not Judas declared by Christ, lono- before
he betrayed him, to be "a. devil?" Yet Christ, who knew this
from "the beginning," (John vi. 64.) not only "called" him to be
» an Apostle, but sent him forth to preach ; neither was his "bishoD-
rick" taken from him," but he continued in it until his death. ( Acts
i.) Yet, for all this, Judas was just as much an Apostle, as St

25
John, or St. Peter. If, then, Judas were an Apostle, men .of like
character with him may be successors of the Apostles. Surely, it
would be a dreadful doctrine, that our salvation depended on the
religious character of our ministers !
4. It is objected, that one of the Popes of Rome was a woman,
and therefore her ordinations were invalid.
Reply. This story about a she-Pope is a fabrication, as has been
fully proved by Gieseler, the Lutheran historian, (see his Text
Book of Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 20;) and if it were not, it
is sheer ignorance to suppose the succession of orders could be
affected by the invalidity of any one link in the succession of any
particular bishoprick. Those who use such an argument must
suppose that every Pope ordained his own successor ! If not, how
could the possession of the Papal chair by a woman affect the or
dination of the Pope next in succession ? Nor is it true, moreover,
that the "apostolic succession" depends at all upon the succession
of the Popes. If they had all been women, since the year 700,
England would still have had its own succession, unaffected.
5. It is objected, that this doctrine unchurches ail other Churches.
Reply I . If this doctrine be true, we are not answerable for the
consequences : the consequences rest with God.
Reply 2. The members of these "Churches," or their ancestors,
were once, through the mercy of God, made members of the
Church, and they left Her; the doors of the Church are still
open to receive them ; if they will not enter in they unchurch
themselves. 6. It is objected, that it cannot be proved, that the Bishops of the
Church have always had a three-fold ordination ; that is, that they
were always ordained Deacons and Presbyters before they were
ordained Bishops.
Reply. This was not, and is not, necessary. The Apostles
were ordained to the highest office, that of Apostles. Yet they call
themselves Presbyters, or Elders, (1 Pet. y. 1.; 2 John i. ; 3 John
1.) and "ministers" or Deacons, (1 Cor. iii. 5.; 2 Cor. iii. 6.) The
higher office includes the lower. A layman ordained a Bishop
now, would possess the power of both a Presbyter and a Deacon,
as the Apostles did.
7. It is objected, that the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession
was never heard of before the Reformation, about three hundred
years ago.
Reply. That the Apostles appointed successors to themselves,
who ao'ain were to appoint others to succeed them, is proved by
the unanimous voice of all antiquity. Thus, Clement, Bishop of
Rome, the disciple and associate of St. Paul, (a man, whose name,
St. Paul says, is in the Book of Life, Phil. iv. 3.) wrote an Epistle
to the Church at Corinth, about the year 87, in which he says,
that the Apostles "appointed persons [to the ministerial office]
and then gave direction in what manner, when these should die,
other approved men should succeed in the ministry." (Ep. Cor.
c 44)
Ao-ain, Irenaeus, who was born about the time St. John died,
and wrote about 85 years after Clement, says :
"We are able to enumerate those who were appointed by the
3

26
Apostles to be Bishops in the Churches, and their successors in a
continued course to us." (Adv. Hser. iii. 3.)
Again, Irenseus says, "We can reckon up those, whom the
Apostles ordained to be Bishops in the several Churches, and who
they were that succeeded tliem, down to our times. For the Apos
tles desired to have those in all things perfect and unreprovable,
whom they left to be their successors, and to whom they committed
their own Apostolic authority. We have the successions of Bislwps,
to whom the Apostolic Church, in every place, was committed.
All these, [namely, the heretics,] are much later than the Bishops,
to whom the Apostles did deliver the Churches." (Adv. Hasr.
iii. 4).
About twenty-five years after this, (A. D. 200,) wrote Tertul-
lian. He thus addresses the heretics: "If any dare mingle them
selves with the Apostolic age, that thus they may appear to be
handed from the Apostles, because they were under the Apostles,
we may say: Let them show the beginnings of their Churches :
let them declare the series of their Bishops, so running down from
the beginning by successions, that the first Bishop may have been
one of the Apostles, or Apostolic men who yet continued with the
Apostles, for their author and predecessor. For, in this manner,
the Apostolical Churches trace their origin." (Prses. Adv. Hjct.
c. 32.)
About 110 years after this, (A. D. 310,) wrote Eusebius the
Ecclesiastical Historian, who gives the following list of Bishops
in the Apostolical Succession from the Apostles to his own time, in
the four chief Churches then in existence : those of Rome, Alex
andria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Rome.
Linus,Cletus, Clement,
Evaristus,
Alexander, Sixtus,
Telesphorus, Hyginus,Pius,Anicetus,
Soter, Eleutherus,Victor,
Zephrynus, Calixtus, Urban,
Pontianus,
Anteros, Fabian,Cornelius, Lucius,
Stephen,Sixtus,

Alexandria. Jerusalem.

Anianus, Avilius, Cerdon,
Primus,
Justus,Eumenes,Marcus,Celadin, Agrippinus,
Julius,Demetrius,Heraclas. Dionysius,
Maximus,Theonus, Peter. A. D. 302.

James, Simon, Justus,Zacheus,Tobias,
Benjamin,
John, Matthew,Philip.
Seneca,
Justus,Levi, Ephrem,
Joseph,Judas,
Marcus, Cassianus, Publius,Maximus,Julian,Caius,Symmachus,Caius,

Antioch.
Evodius, Ignatius,Heros,
Cornelius, Eros,
Theophilus,
Maximus, Serapion,
Asclepiades,Philetus, Zebinus,
Babylus, Fabius,
Demetrianus,Paul,
Domnus, Timceus,
Cyrillus,
Tyrannus. A. D. 302.

27
Rome. Alexandria. Jerusalem. Antioch.
Dionysius, Julian,
Felix, Maximus,
Eutychianus, Antonius,
Caius, Capito,
Marcellinus. Valens,
A. D. 296. Dolchianus,Narcissus, Dius,
Germanio,Gordius, [Narcissus,]
Alexander,Mazabanas, Hymenaeus,
Zambdas, Hermon. A.D.300.
These lists of the Bishops, in Apostolic Succession, were com
piled from public records, then in existence, by Eusebius, and this
fact is a proof with what care the Succession was guarded, and the
record of it preserved. Several other early writers, in different
parts of the world, give these same lists in their works, so as to
place the facts beyond a shadow of doubt. Hereafter it will be
shown, that in every age, from the Apostles to the Reformation,
this, and this alone, was the doctrine of the Church. And yet
there are writers of the present day so grossly ignorant as to tell
us, that the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession was never heard
of until the Reformation !
Having considered and refuted the only objections to this doc
trine, which were worth considering, I shall now proceed to estab
lish it. In doing this, I shall incidentally consider various other
points connected with the Christian ministry.
The first point to which I shall direct your attention is the fact,
that the Christian ministry was appointed by God himself, (1 Cor.
xii. 28.) acting, either by His Son, Jesus Christ, or else by His
inspired Apostles. This ministry-'was threefold :
1st. Apostles. (St. Luke vi. 13.)
2d. Elders, Presbyters, or Bishops. (Acts xiv. 23. ; Phil. i. 1 .)
3d. Deacons. (Actsvi.; Phil. l. 1.)
To this threefold ministry were appointed particular duties.
The duty of the Deacons was (1.) to receive and distribute the
alms of the Church. (Acts vi. 1, 2, 3.) (2.) They were allowed
to preach. (Acts viii. 5, 12, 40.) (3.) They were to baptize.
(Acts viii. 12, 36, 38.) (4.) They were to assist in the adminis
tration of the Lord's Supper. This is no where expressly asserted
in the New Testament, but it has ever been the uniform custom of
the Church from the beginning. It is mentioned by Justin Mar
tyr A D 150, as pertaining to their office. fApol. c. 85.^ (5.
They were to assist in ruling the Church. (1 Tim. iii. 5.) (6.
There were some other duties, which the Church has always im
posed upon the Deacons, such as catechizing children— looking

28
after the poor, &c, which my limits will- only permit me to re
fer to.
The duties of Presbyters (Elders, or Bishops — the three names,
in the New Testment, being used indiscriminately, to designate
the second office in the Christian ministry) — were (1 .) To teach
and instruct others — in other words, to preach. (1 Tim. iii. 2.)
(2.) "To feed the Church of God." (Acts xx. 17, 28.) The spi
ritual food with which the Church was to be fed, was the Word of
God ; preaching the Gospel ; the Body and Blood of Christ in the
Lord's Supper ; and the communication of the Holy Spirit in Bap
tism. (John vii. 37, 38, 39.; Acts ii. 38.) (3.) They were to rule
in the Church. (1 Tim. v. 17., iii. 4, 5.; 1 Pet. v. 3.) (4.) They
were to be particularly careful to be on their guard against any of
their own members, who (like Wesley, Coke, &c.,) would arise to
"draw away disciples after tbem." (Acts xx. 30, 31 .)* (5.) They
were to unite with the first order of the ministry — the Apostles —
at the framing of new rules (or canons) for the government of the
Church. (Acts xv. 2., xvi. 4.)
Such were the duties pertaining to the office of those, called in
the New Testament by the names of Presbyter, Elder, or Bishop ;
the three names there denoting the same officer, as I have before
observed, namely, the second in the Christian ministry. Hereaf
ter, I shall designate this officer, for brevity sake, by the name of
Presbyter, the name usually applied to him by the Church.
Some of these duties Presbyters exercised in common with Dea
cons; others, you will perceive, belonged peculiarly to their own
office, as being a higher order than that of Deacons in the Chris
tian ministry. You will also perceive that the power of Ordina
tion is not one of the duties of Presbyters; in other words, the
power of Ordination did not belong to the second order in the
ministry ; and as Wesley belonged to this second order, the power
of ordaining did not belong to him. No one pretends that Deacons,
the lowest order, ever had authority to ordain.
We are now to consider the duties pertaining to the highest of
ficer of the Christian ministry — that of an Apostle. What were
the powers and authority of the Apostles is best shown from the
Commission which Christ gave to them. It is as follows :
"Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel unto every
creature, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you." And "unto you, I <nve the
• St Paul tells these Elders of the Church at Ephesus, that, for three
year9, he had warned them, night and day, with tears, against those who
would arise from among themselves, to draw away disciples after them.
Surely, then, it cannot be a small sin, which thus made the Apostle shed
fears at the mere thought that it would be committed ! Yet this is pre
cisely what Wesley and Coke did! The only difference is, that the
former were elders of the Church of Ephesus, the latter elders of the
Church of England; but St. Paul's language is equally applicable to
both. And surely, it cannot be a small sin to the followers of those el
ders, who have thus sinfully risen up to draw away disciples after them '
And yet, this is precisely what the Methodists did and are doing in be
coming the followers of Wesley, Coke, _cc. (Acts xx. SO, 81.)

29
keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever ye shall bind on
earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on
earth, shall be loosed in heaven ; and whosesoever sins ye remit,
they are remitted unto him, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they
are retained; as the Father hath sent me, even so send I
you ; and lo, I am with you always,* even unto the end of the
world." (Matt. xvi. 19., xviii. 18., xxviii. 19, 20.; John xx. 21, 23.)
Such is the broad Commission, which Christ gave to His Apos
tles. What is the meaning of this Commission ? Could the Apos
tles, to whom it was given, misunderstand it? This was impossi
ble, for three reasons : (1.) Because, Christ, for forty days (in the
interval between His resurrection and ascension into heaven) had
instructed them in "the things pertaining to the kingdom of God"
— that is His Church. (Acts i. 3.) (2.) Because Christ sent unto
them His Holy Spirit, "to lead them into all truth, and to bring to
their remembrance every thing which He had said unto them ; and
to teach them all things." (John xvi. 13., xiv. 26.) (3.) Because
they were inspired men, acting under the immediate influence of
the Holy Ghost, and, therefore, could not fall into error. How,
then, did the Apostles understand their Commission ? Their vari
ous official acts, under that Commission, will best explain how they
understood it; and will teach us, also, how we are to understand it.
1. The Apostles preached.
2. They baptized. (Acts ii.)
3. They possessed the power of the keys; they admitted, (Acts
ii.) or rejected, (I Tim. i. 20.) persons from the Church.
4. They administered the Lord's Slipper. ( I Cor. xi.)
5. They ordained persons to be ministers of the Church. (Acts
i. vi. xiv. 23.)
6. They administered confirmation, (Acts viii. 15, 17., xix. 6.,
xiv. 22, 23.)
7. They had the rule over the two inferior orders of ministers —
the Presbyters and Deacons. No proof is needful on this point,
since none deny that the Apostles had the entire control of the
Church in their own hands during their life ; and although the
power of ruling in the Church was committed, to a certain degree,
necessarily to both Presbyters and Deacons, still it was in subordi
nation to the Apostles. The various Epistles of St. Paul are full
on this point — that the Apostles retained in their own hands, the
entire control over the Church, both clergy and laity.
8. They exercised the right of presiding in all councils of the
Church. In the first council, James, an Apostle, as the presiding
officer, "gave sentence." (Acts xv. 19.)
9. They exercised the right of governing one Church in particu
lar, having- within it, and under them, a number of Presbyters and
Deacons. All ecclesiastical antiquity bears witness to the fact,
that the Church, at Jerusalem, was under the government of St.
James, the Apostle. Hegesippus, who wrote about the year 150,
says that "James received the government of the Church at Jeru
salem, from the Apostles." (Com. 1. v. in Eus. Ecc. His. ii. 23.)
* The Greek words, here translated "always," signify all days, ot
every day. 3*

30
That there were both Presbyters and Deacons in the Church at Je
rusalem, see Acts vi. and xv.
10. They called themselves Apostles, as acting under a high
and peculiar commission.
Such then were the official Acts of the Apostles under their high
Commission from the lips of Christ himself; and as it was impos
sible that they could err respecting the meaning of it, such must
have been the authority committed to them by the great Head of
the Church. You will perceive, at a glance, that the Apostles
were altogether different officers from either Presbyters or Deacons ;
and that these two inferior orders of the Christian ministry, were
at a great remove from the first order. The peculiar powers of
the Apostles, which distinguished them from the two inferior or
ders in the Church, were these, 1 . The power of the keys ; 2. The
power of Ordination; 3. The power of Confirmation; 4. The
rule over the inferior ministers of the Church; 5. The right of pre
siding in councils of the Church; 6. The individual right of gov
erning one Church in particular, having within it and under them,
Presbyters and Deacons; 7. The name of Apostle, as indicating
their peculiar office.
The next question, then, which arises is this : did the Apostles
transfer their peculiar power and authority to another body of men,
who were to succeed them ? I unhesitatingly answer, They did ;
and shall now proceed to prove that they did, in the order in which
I have just stated these "peculiar" powers.
1. The Apostles communicated to another body of men, the
power of the keys ; that is, of admitting or excluding members from
the Church of God* As members of the Church were admitted
by baptism, nothing need be said on that point. That the power,
of excluding them afterwards from the Church, was given, is ob
vious from St. Paul's language to Titus : "A man that is an here
tic, after the first and second admonition, reject." (Titus iii. 10.)
He gives Timothy authority to sit in judgment upon Elders; and,
if to sit in judgment and to receive "accusations," then to pass
sentence. (1 Tim. v. 19.) One of the complaints against the An
gel (ot Apostle) of the Church at Pergamos was, that he had ne
glected to exercise discipline upon certain persons therein. Of
course, authority to exercise discipline had been committed unto
him. (Rev. ii. 14.)
2. The Apostles communicated to another body of men, the
power of Ordination. It is expressly said, (Acts xiv. 23.) that
Barttabas, as well as Paul, ordained Eldn-s in every city. St. Paul
charges Timothy, "to lay hands suddenly on no man." (1 Tim. v.
22 ) He writes to Titus : "For this cause left I thee in Crete that
thou shouldsl set in order the things that are wantin», and ordain
elders in every city." The third chapter of the first Epistle to Tim
othy is filled with a description of the qualifications which he
sruMild require in those who were to be admitted to the ministerial
office-. 3. The Apostles communicated to another body of men the
• A portion of this power was likewise committed to the Preshvter.
aad Deacons, but not {he full power. >'era

31
power of Confirmation, Paul and Barnabas are expressly men
tioned in the Acts as travelling about, and confirming the Churched
(Acts xiv. 22, 28.) Barnabas exercised this power equally with
St. Paul. '
4. The Apostles communicated to another body of men, the
rule over the inferior clergy. St. Paul writes to Timothy : "That
thou mightest charge some,, that they teach no other [that is, no
false] doctrine" — "against an elder receive not an accusation, but
before two or three witnesses" — "them [that is, the elders thus on
trial] that sin, rebuke before all, that others may fear"  I charge
thee, that thou observe these things, [these rules, for the discipline
of the clergy,] without preferring one before another, doing no
thing by partiality." (I Tim. i. iii. v. 19, 20, 21.) The same over
sight is extended over the Deacons. Timothy is told, "that they
must first be^ro-cd; then let them use the office of a Deacon, be
ing found blameless." (1 Tim. iii. 22.) So, when Titus was to
"ordain elders in every city,"/ie was made the judge of their qual
ifications. (Titus i. 5.) Thus, also, the Angel (or Apostle*) of the
Church at Ephesus, in the year 96, is commended by our Lord,
for disciplining those who claimed to be "Apostles" — that is, who
usurped the powers of the first order of the Christian ministry, as
Coke and Asbury did — when they were not. (Rev. ii. 2 )
5. The Apostles communicated to another body of men, the
power to preside in the councils of the Church. As there is but
one instance recorded in Scripture of a council being held, (Acts
xv.) we have, of course, no evidence from Scripture on this point,
as, at that council St. James presided. But all history testifies to
the fact, that, from the foundation of the Church to the present
day, there never was an instance of one of the second order in the
Church, who presided in the councils of the Church. The chair
was always filled by one of the first order of the ministry. Nor
was this a local custom merely. In Europe, Asia, and Africa, it
was one, universal, rule.
6. The Apostles communicated to another body of men, the
power of individually governing one particular Church, having
under them Presbyters and Deacons : in other words, the Apostles
committed the government of each Church to one man, having un
der him Presbyters and Deacons.
The Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy is full and complete on this
point. Complete authority was given to him, and to no one else,
over the Church in Ephesus; and though he might have made
journeys occasionally to other places, there is not a particle of evi
dence to show that he ever resided permanently any where except
in Ephesus. He had full authority given to him, to watch over,
brina- to trial, and judge, the inferior orders of the ministry ; and
his jurisdiction extended to all classes of the laity, so as to com
mand and rebuke them. (1 Tim.i.3.,ii. 11., iv. 17., v. 20.; 2 Tim.
iv. 2.)
The Epistle of St. Paul to Titus affords another instance of this
establishment of one man, with Apostolic authority over a Church
* The word Angel, and Apostle, have the same signification — one that
is sent.

32
in one place, and that very often a very large district of country.
The island of Crete had within it one hundred cities ; yet St. Paul
writes to Titus, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou
shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders
in every city, as I had appointed thee," (Titus i. 5.) He had au
thority not only to ordain, but to "stop the mouths" — that is, pre
vent the preachyng—-o{ those, who taught false doctrine. (Titus i.
11.) He had authority to "reject heretics" — that is, to cast them
out of the Church. (Titus iii. 10 ) And the supervision of all
classes of the laity is committed to him, as the whole Epistle tes
tifies. By reference," likewise, to the second and third chapters of Rev
elations, you will find, that, in the year 96, (when that book was
written,) there was in the Church at Ephesus, Pergamos, Sardis,
Philadelphia, Laodicea, Smyrna, and Thyatira, one man, in each
Church, invested with Apostolic authority, called an Angel; to
whom St. John was commanded to write the short Epistles con
tained in those chapters, and who were held accountable to God
for the state of the Churches they governed.
7. And with their peculiar powers, the Apostles communicated
to the body of men who were to exercise them, their own peculiar
name of "Apostle." See the case of Matthias, (Acts i. 22, 26., iv.
33.) Barnabas is called an Apostle. (Acts xiv. 14.) Paul, Syl
vanus, and Timothy, addressed an Epistle to the Church of the
Thessalonians, in which they expressly call themselves Apostles.
(I Thess. i. 1., ii. 6.) Andronicus and Junia are called Apostles.
(Rom. xvi. 7.) And other like cases could be mentioned. Thus
Jerome says : "In process of time, others were ordained Apostles,
by those whom our Lord hath chosen, as that passage in Philip-
pians shows, 'I supposed it necessary to send unto you Epaphro-
ditus, your Apostle.' "* (Com. Gal. i. 19.)
I have thus, sir, with as much particularity as the nature of a
letter will admit, examined into the powers of the three orders of
the Christian ministry ; and you are now enabled to perceive, not
only that the three orders are entirely distinct, but that the highest
order, called Apostles, possessed an authority in the Church of
God greatly superior to either of the lower orders ; an authority,
indeed, so distinct and so superior, that for any of the lower orders
to lay claim to it, would be the grossest usurpation. All the au
thority and power in the Church was given by Christ to His Apos
tles; a portion of this power and authority was committed by the
Apostles to the Presbyters and Deacons ; but the authority com
mitted to them terminated with themselves — they had no power to
continue it by communicating it to others. But although this was
the case with Presbyters and Deacons, it was not so with all those
whom the A postles ordained. The full power and authority which
the Apostles derived from Christ, under His high Commission I
have shown, was transmitted, in every particular necessary for the
perpetuation of the Christian ministry, and for the government of
the Church, to another body of men, who occupied "an equal rank
* The English translation says "your Messenger," but the Greek is
"your Jpostolon."

33
with themselves as Apostles in the Church. And thus we have a
full explanation of the meaning of the Commission (in regard to
the succession in the Christian ministry,) which Christ gave to His
Apostles, and as they understood it. He, therein, says, "As my
Father has sent me, Even so send I you." God sent Christ with
authority to send otliers to be His successors in the establishment
and government of His Church ; and the Apostles, clothed with
the same authority, sent others to be their successors in the exercise
of the Apostolic office. And as Christ, when he gave them this
Commission, told them he would he with them in the exercise of
it "always [every day] even until the end of the world," it is plain,
to a demonstration, that the Commission to appoint their succes
sors must last until "the end of the world ;" and that, of course,
there must have always been, and are now, a body of men clothed
with Apostolic authority who hold, and act under, this Commis
sion derived from Christ, through the Apostles, of sending others,
and of governing the Church, because the "end of the world" has
not yet come.
Now, for this to be the case, those, who succeeded the Apostles,
roust have appointed a body of men clothed with the same Com
mission of sending others, &c, as they had themselves derived from
tire Apostles; these, in their turn, must have appointed others with
a like Commission ; and so on, one generation after another, until
the present time. Was such the fact? Did the successors of the
Apostles appoint others with a like Commission with themselves ?
If so, who were the persons thus appointed?
Hitherto, I have relied nearly altogether on the Scriptures for
proof of the Apostolic Commission and Succession ; but we have
now arrived at a period to which the Scripture history does not
extend. We have no more precedents of that kind upon the file.
We shall, therefore, have to rely on other testimony : testimony,
however, of the very highest character : the testimony, namely, by
which we receive the Bible as the Word of God;* the testimony
by which we know that the Faith we now possess is that which
has ever been held by the saints and martyrs of all ages since the
Apostles; the testimony, by which we administer infant baptism,
keep the first day of the week holy instead of the Jewish Sabbath,
and admit women to partake of the Lord's Supper — the testimony
of the Holy Catholic Church of God ; and, in a sense, subordinate
thereto, the testimony of History — the same testimony by which
• The Church receives the Old Testament as the Word of God, not
because it was possessed by the Jews, but on the authority of Christ, who
ratified the Canon of the Old Testament, which, under the division of the
' Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, comprehended the whole Hebrew
Scriptures. (Luke xxiv. 44.) And we receive the same Scriptures on
the authority of the Church, and likewise the books of the New Testa
ment. The fifth of the Methodist articles of religion is, in part, as fol
lows : (Book of Discipline, page 10.)
"In the name of tbe Holy Scripture, we do understand those canonical
books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any
doubt in the Church."
The above is taken from the sixth Article of the Church of England.

34
we prove that there has been a succession of Kings in France, or
England, or of Presidents in the United States of America.
To the question, then : did the successors of the Apostles appoint
others, with a like Commission with that which they had received
from the Apostles ? I answer, unhesitatingly, Yes ; and, that this
Commission has been continued to the present day, in the order of
men called Bishops, in regular succession.
Here, perhaps, you may ask, (as you have asked,) How is this?
Have the successors of the Apostles given up their Commissions
to the second order of the ministry — the Bishops, or Presbyters? I
answer, No : the second order of ministers, though, during the life
lime of some of the Apostles, they bore the name of Bishop, never
exercised those peculiar powers, which belonged to the first and
highest order of the Christian ministry. I shall let two ancient
Fathers of the Church, who wrote more than 1400 years ago, ex
plain this matter:
Hilary the Deacon, the author of a commentary, generally quot
ed under the name of St. Ambrose, thus writes: "They who are
now called Bishops, were originally called Apostles. But the holy
Apostles being dead, they who were ordained to govern the
Churches, could not arrive at the excellency of these first, nor had
they the testimony of miracles, but were, in many other respects,
inferior to them.* Therefore they thought it not decent to assume
to themselves the name of Apostles; but dividing the names, they
left to Presbyters the name of the Presbytery, and they themselves
were called Bishops." (Cited in Bingham's Orig. Eccles. lib. ii.
c. 2, sec. 1.)
Theodoret, one of the earliest ecclesiastical historians, says : —
"The same persons were anciently called promiscuously both Bi
shops and Presbyters, whilst those who are now called Bishops,
were [anciently] called Apostles. But shortly after, the name
Apostles was appropriated to such only as were Apostles indeed ;
and then the name Bishop was given to those who before were
called Apostles," (Theod. Com. in 1 Tim.) such as Timothy, Bar
nabas, Junia, Andronicus, Sec.
This explains the whole matter. And besides, there was a pe
culiar propriety in calling the successors of the Apostles Bishops, in
order to distinguish them from the Apostles themselves. By re
ferring to the first chapter of the Acts, you will find that Judas, an
Apostle, had a "Bishoprick" — that is, he was an Apostolic Bisliop.
This being vacant, in consequence of his death, Matthias was' elect
ed into his room, and "took his bishoprick" — here, then, was ano
ther Apostolic Bishop. It does not appear, however', that the
Apostles ever used their title of Bishop, but simply that of Apostle.
The successors of the Apostles, then, when they relinquished the
name Apostle lo those who were the original Apostles, and took
for themselves the name of Bishop, only took that which belonged
to their office, but which the Apostles had not seen proper to use
Now, who would suppose, didVe not see it with our eyes that
any body of men could be found, who would claim for members of
* As in discerning of spirits, the gift of tongues, foretelling- future
events, freedom from error in doctrine, &_c. &.c.

35
the second order of the ministry the right to be such Apostolic Bi
shops, merely because the name of Bishop happened for a few
years, (about twenty years,) to be occasionally given to the second
order of the ministry !,! Yet it is on this ground, that the Metho
dist claim for Wesley, Coke, &c, the right to ordain ! Because
Presbyters are, for a short time (till the year 65,) in the New Tes
tament, occasionally called Bishops, they claim to be the some or
der with those Apostolic Bishops, who succeeded the Apostles in
their office and authority ! ! and thus to exalt the inferior order of
Presbyters, to the rank and power of the first order of ministers in
the Church of God !
I shall now proceed to show, that these men ordained by the
Apostles with Apostolic authority, (but who, out of respect to the
Apostles, dropt the name of Apostle, and took the title of Bishop,)
appointed others, with a like Commission with that which had been
given to them, and who thereby, in their turn, became the succes
sors of the Apostles.
Clement of Rome, the companion of St. Paul, and a Martyr,
thus writes in the year 87 : "Our Apostles knew by our Lord Je
sus Christ, that contentions would arise concerning the office of
Bishop. And, therefore, having a perfect knowledge of this, they
appointed persons, as we have before said, and then gave direction,
in what manner, when they should die, other approved men should
succeed in their ministry." — This is an extract from Clement's
Epistle to the Corinthians; which, Eusebius tells us, was "uni
versally received by all," and had in reverence next to holy Scrip
ture", being "publicly read, in most of the Churches, for common ben
efit, both in times past, and, also, in his memory." The fact, that
this letter was thus received, revered, and read, proves that the
doctrine of the Bishops being the successors of the Apostles, was
the doctrine of the Church until the fourth century, when Eusebius
wrote. And this fact is fully sustained by the evidence of other
writers, who lived during that period. Thus, Irenasus, ordained
by Polycarp, (who was the disciple of St. John,) Bishop of Lyons,
A. D. 178, writes : "The doctrine of the Apostles is true know
ledge ; and the ancient state of the Church, and the character of
the body of Christ, is according to the succession of Bishops, to
whom, in every place, they delivered the Church." (Work "against
Heresies, book iv.)
Tertullian, A. D. 200, thus writes : "Let the heretics set forth
the order of their Bishops, so descending by succession from tbe be
ginning, that he, who was the first Bishop, had one of the Apos
tles, or of the Apostolical men who was in full communion with
the Apostles, for his author and predecessor. For, in this manner,
the Apostolical Churches bring down their registers; as the Church
of Smyrna had Pohjcarp placed over them by John; as the Church
of Rome had Clement ordained by Peter ; as the other Churches
also set forth those who were made Bishops over them by the
Apostles." (Of Her. Pres. c. 32.)
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, A. D. 250: "This, brother, is
and ou°ht to be, our principal labor and study, to the utmost of our
power,"*) take care that the unity may still obtain which was de
livered by our Lord and by His Apostles to us, their Jwcce.sor_."
(Epl. ad Corn.)

36
Again, Cyprian thus writes: "From thence, through the course
of times and successions, the ordination of Bishops, and the frame
of the Church, is transmitted, so that the Church is built upon the
Bishops, and all her affairs are ordered by the chief rulers ; and,
therefore, seeing this is God's appointment, I must needs wonder
at the audacious daring of some, who have chosen to write to me,
as if in the name of a Church, whereas a Church is only consti
tuted in the Bishop, clergy, and faithful Christians." (Ibid.)
Firmilian, A. D. 250, thus writes : "The power of remitting sins
was given to the Apostles, and to the Churches which they found
ed, and to the Bishops, who succeeded to the Apostles, by a vicarious
ordination." (Epl. ad Cyp.)
Clarus a Muscula, Bishop in the province of Carthage, A. D;
250 : "The sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ is manifest, sending
his Apostles, and to them alone committing the power given him
by His Father; to whom we [Bishops] have succeeded, governing
the Church of our Lord with the same power." (Orat. in Con.
Carlh.) Thus we have the most positive testimony, from men living in
various parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa, that until the fourth cen
tury, the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession was the universal
doctrine of the Church; and that the Bishops of the Church were,
by the whole Church throughout the world, received as, and ac
counted to be, the successors of the Apostles.
I have already quoted Eusebius, the historian, who every where
asserts the same doctrine, and in the beginning of the fourth cen
tury, gives us a list, (which I have, also, quoted,) of the Bishops,
in Apostolical succession, in the four principal Churches of Jeru
salem, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. This brings us down to
the great council of Nice, in the year 325. This council was con
vened by the Emperor Constantine, for the purpose of considering
the heresy of .Erius. Who composed this council? Were Pres
byters and Deacons summoned by the Emperor, to settle the Faith
of the Church of God? No. It was to the Bishops, the succes
sors of the Apostles, in their power and authority, to whom the
Imperial Commission was issued, to declare what was the Faith
of the Church, in the same manner as their holy predecessors in
office had declared what was the Faith of the Church, and "deli
vered it to the saints" of their day. (Jude 3.) At this council, com-'
posed of several hundred Bishops from all parts of the world, who
presided? A Presbyter? No. A Bishop; the venerable Hosius;
in the same manner as St. James presided at the first council held
at Jerusalem. This council declared what was then the Faith of
the Church, in a Creed, or form of Belief, which, known by the
name of the Nicene Creed, has ever since, in all quarters of the
globe, been the Faith of the Church of God. Among the articles
of the Faith therein enumerated is this: "I believe in one Catholic
and Apostolic Church."* One : because the Church is the body
• The Nicene Creed only speaks of the Catholic and Apostolic Church
It was at the Council of Constantinople, held about fifty years afterwards'
that this article in the Creed received its present form, of "the one Ca'
tholic, and Apostolic Church." But the Creed is always called the Ni
cene Creed.

37
of Christ, and Christ has but one body. (Eph. i. 22, 23., iv. 4.)
Catholic — because it is universal, embracing (or to embrace) "all
nations" of the earth, and teaching the whole body of Christian
truth ; Apostolic — because it was founded by Christ acting by His
Apostles, held the Faith as delivered by the Apostles, and possess
ed a ministry which had descended in regular succession from the
Apostles. And; such, indeed, was the Faith of the Church at that
time, even had not this council assembled to declare it. The tes
timony of these Bishops show, what was the Faith held in the
Churches where they presided ; that it was the same delivered by
the Apostles to the Church ; and the testimony of Clement, Ire-
naaus, Tertullian, Eusebius, &c, proves, conclusively, that the doc
trine universally held concerning the founding of the Church, and
its ministry, was, mat it was founded by the Apostles, and that its
ministry had come down in regular succession from the Apostles to
that time ; and that no others were accounted to be Churches ex
cept such as were thus founded ; and no other ministry to "be a
valid minis.try, except, what could prove that it had thus descended.
Such, then, is the joint testimony of history and the Church to
the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession until the year 325 ; and
this particular doctrine of the Apostolic constitution of the Church,
received likewise the seal and sanction of the council of Constan
tinople in the year 381, at which one hundred and fifty Bishops
were present. Thus was set forth the Nioene Creed, embodying
the Faith of the Christian Church. And this Creed has been the
Faith of the Church, from that day to this. The whole history of
the Church bears evidence to this fact . Day after day, week after
week, month after month, year after year, century after century,
for 1500 years, has the Church, by her adoption and profession of
this Creed, borne Her testimony to the fact, that there is "one, Ca
tholic, and Apostolic, Church ;" and, in so doing, bears her testi
mony to her Belief, that her ministry is Apostolical — that is, that it
has descended in regular succession from the Apostles. Travel
where you will, in Europe, Asia, Afriea, or America, and you will
find this one doctrine professed by the Church of God, embracing
within its pale, more than two hundred millions of" Christians ; and
you will find it denied by none (calling themselves "a Church")
excepting those, who profess to derive their so called ministry,
from" the second order of the Christian priesthood, such as Wesley,
Coke, &c. That a "ministry" with such an origin — from mere
Presbyters — should deny the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession,
is just what might be expected ; because, if they were to confess
that doctrine to be true, it would condemn them out of their own
mouth. Here, perhaps, you may say, that, although there is no doubt of
the existence of Bishops in a regular succession, until the fourth
century, vet it may be asked, What evidence is there that Bishops
have existed ever since ? And if they have existed ever since,
what evidence is there, that the. chain which binds them to the
Apostles, has not been broken ?
With respect to the first question, What evidence is there that
Bishops have existed ever since the fourth century ? I reply, the
double evidence of History and the Church. Divide the last 1500
4

38
years into centuries; divide these centuries into years ; these years
into months ; the months into days ; the days into hours ; and in
every one of these centuries, years, months, days, and hours, His
tory bears its evidence to the /it.., that Bishops, (having under
them Presbyters and Deacons) have existed in the Church ofGoD.
The Church also bears her testimony to this fact; (1.) because
she has always expressed her Belief in the existence of the Apos
tolic Church ; and this Apostolic Church could not exist, without
an Apostolic ministry; and this Apostolic ministry must have be
come extinct, unless there had alwaysheen Bishops to ordain others
in the room of those who died — for the power of ordaining was not
committed to Presbyters and Deacons : their poyvers terminate in
themselves ; they have no authority given them to transmit them
to others. (2.) The Church bears her testimony to this fact, be
cause she has always kept a record of the ordination of her Bishops.
A record is one of the very highest kinds of evidence known to the
Law. It is admitted, in all trials before a Court of Law in proof
of facts, touching our lives, property, rights, or character. This
record, kept by the Church of her official acts, is evidence before
a Jury, and is universally admitted as evidence in all Courts of
Law and Equity. It is, then, evidence of the very highest char
acter, to prove any fact whatever;* and is, therefore, the very best
evidence to prove the fact of the existence of Bishops in the Chris
tian Church, from the Apostles' days until now ; and that these
Bishops were received by the Church, each in his day, as having
been lawfully elected, and lawfully ordained . The various Churches
of Europe — of Russia, Poland, Portugal, Rome? France, Spain,
England, &c. ; of the East — of Constantinople, Alexandria, Syria,
and Mesopotamia, all can show the regular successions of their Bi
shops, either immediately from the Apostles, or else through the
Bishops of an Apostolic Church — as the Bishops of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States, can show their succession
through the Bishops of the Apostolic Church of England. In or
der to satisfy you of the truth and reality of these records, I have
already given you four from Eusebius to the fourth century; and
shall now give you the succession of the Bishops in the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States, through the Bishops of the
Church of England, from St. John the Apostle. St. John ordain
ed Polycarp Apostle or Bishop of the Church of Smyrna. He, in
turn, ordained Irenteus Bishop of the Church of Lyons in France,
(then called Gaul.) The succession,-then, is as follows :

ST. JOHN.
1. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna,
Bishops of Lyons.
1. Pothinus.
2. Ireuajus.

3. Zacharias.
4. Elias.
5. Faustinus.
6. Verus.
7. Julius.

* We have no higher evidence than this, to prove that the New Tes
tament was written by inspired Apostles : our Faith as Christians rests
on no higher evidence than that, by which we prove that the BisboDS of
each succeeding generation since the Apostles were lawfully ordained
by other Bishops, who had themselves been lawfully ordained.

39

8. Ptolemy.
9. Vocius.
10. Maximus.
1 1 . Tetradus.
12. Verissimus.
13. Justus.
14. Albiuus.
15. Martin.
16. Antiochus.
17. Elpidius.
18. Sicarius.
19. Eucherius, 1.
20. Patiens.
21. Lupicinus.
22. Rusticus.
23. Stephanus.
24. Viventiolus.
25. Eucherius, 2.
26. Lupus.
27. Licontius.
28. Sacerdos.
29. Nicetus.
30. Priscus.
31.-Etherius. A.D.589.
CANTERBURY.
32. A. D. 596. Augustine, mis
sionary to the Anglo Sax-
33d "I ons, was consecrated by
from I Virgilius, 24th Bishop
St. vof Aries, assisted by
John.j _3_therius, 31st Bishop
of Lyons. A.D
34. Lawrence, 605
35..Mellitus, 619
36. Justus, 624
37. Honorius, 634
38. Adeodatus, 654
39. Theodore, 668
40. Brithwald, 693
41.Tatwine, 731
42. Nothelm, 735
43. Cuthbert, 742
44. Bregwin, 759
45. Lambert, 763
46. Ethelred,l, 793
47. Wulfred, 803
48. Theogild or Feogild, 830
consecrated June 5th, and
died September 3d.
49. Ceolnoth, Sept. 830
50. jEthelred, 2d, 871
51. Phlegmund, 891

A. D.
52. Athelm, or Adelm, 923
53. Wulfelm, 928
54. Odo Severus, 941
55. Dunstan, 959
56. .Ethelgar, 988
57. Siricus, 989
58. Aluricus, or Alfricus, 996
59. Elphege, 1005
60. Living, or Leoning, or
Elkskan, 1013
61. Agelmoth, or .Ethelnot, 1020
62. Edsin, or Elsin, 1038
63. Robert Gemeticensis, 1050
64. Stigand, 1052
65. Lanfranc, 1070
66. Anselm, 1093
67. Rodulph, 1114
68. William Corbell, 1122
69. Theobold, 1138
70. Thomas a Becket, 1 162
71, Richard, 1174
72. Baldwin Fordensis, 1184
73. Reginald Fitz-Joceline, 1 191
74. Hubert Walten, 1193
75. Stephen Langton, 1207
76. Richard Wethersfield, 1229
77. Edmund, 1234
78. Boniface, 1245
79. Robert Kilwarby, 1272
80. John Peckham, 1278
81". Robert Winchelsea, 1294
82. Walter Reynold, 1313
83. Simon Mepham, 1328
84. John Stratford, 1333
85. Thomas Bradwardine, 1348
86. Simon Islip, 1349
87. Simon Langham, 1366
88. Wm. Wittlesey, 1368
89. Simon Sudbury, 1375
90. William Courtnay, 1381
9 1 . Thomas Arundel, 1 396
92. Henry Chic.hely, 1414
93. John Stafford, 1443
94. John Kemp, 1452
95. Thomas Bourcher, 1454
96. John Morton, 1486
97. Henry Dean, 1501
"".William Wareham, 1503
99. Thomas Cranmer, 1533
100. Reginald Pole, 1555
101. Matthew Parker, , 1559
102. Edmund Grindall,Dec. 1573

40

A. D.
103. John Whitgift, 1583
104. Richard Bancroft, 1604
105. George Abbott, 1611
106. William Laud, 1633
107. William Juxon, 1660
108. Gilbert Sheldon, 1663
109. William Sancroft, 1677
110. John Tillotson, 1691
111. Thomas Tennison, 1694
112. William Wake, 1715
113. John Potter, 1737
114. Thomas Seeker, 1738
115. Thomas Herring, 1747
116. Matthew Hutton, 1757
117. Frederick Cornwallis, 1768

A.D.
118. John Moore, 1783
American Bishofs.
119. From St. John, is Wil
liam White, of Penn
sylvania, consecrated
Feb. 4, 1787, by John
Moore, Archbishop of
Canterbury, assisted by
the Archbishop of York,
the Bishop of Bath and
Wells, and the Bishop
of Peterborough.
120. Alex. V. Griswold, 181 1
121. Wm.R.Whittingham, 1840

Alongside of this noble list of Christian Bishops, headed by an
Apostle, holding in his hand a Commission from Christ Himself,
and composed of a friend and companion of the beloved Apostle,
of martyrs and confessors — "men who have hazarded their lives for
the Name of the Lord Jesus" — alongside of this noble list, I say,
embracing the great and good of all ages of the Church, place the
Methodist Succession ! !
"Q,. Who are the persons that exercise the Episcopal office in
the Methodist Church in Europe and America ?
"A. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by re
gular order and succession."
A fine succession of Bishops this from Wesley, a Preslryter of
the Church! one of the second order of the Christian ministry ! A
succession, too, in which Wesley denies that he was a Bishop ! In
which he denies that Asbury was a Bishop ! In which Coke,
after pretending to be a Bishop, applies to Bishop Seabury to ordain
him and Asbury over again! !
O shame ! shame ! ! shame ! ! !
But, here, your other question comes in : admitting the fact to
be true, that Bishops have always existed in the Christian Church,
and that they have always claimed to be, and the Church has al
ways received them as, the successors of the Apostles— what evi
dence is there, that the chain which binds them to the Apostles by
successive successions has not been broken ?
I reply, that this chain has not been broken, because it is impos
sible that it could be broken.
1 . Because, if it have been broken, then there is no Christian
ministry on earth.
The Christian ministry was established by Christ Himself as I
have fully shown ; and no man has any authority to act as His
minister, unless he be authorized so to do by Christ Himself (as
were the Apostles and St. Paul)— or, unless he receive his authority
from those, whom Christ authorized to give it to him (which was
the case of those, whom the Apostles ordained.) The Apostles or
St. Paul, would have had no authority to act as ministers of Christ
unless Christ had given them authority so to do. On the supposi-

41
tion, that there has been a regular succession of Bishops from the
Apostles, holding the Apostolic Commission of ordaining and send
ing others to act as ministers of the Gospel; — it is plain, that the
ministry of the Church, at the present day, are as much "Embas
sadors for Christ," as were the Apostles themselves, or those whom
the Apostles ordained. But, if this chain of the Apostolic Succes
sion of Bishops have been broken, then (whenever it happened)
the ministry of the Church ceased — there was no power on earth
clothed with authority to ordain others to act in Christ's name, un
til he issued a new Commission to another set of Apostles to send
out ministers to act in Jrlis name, and by His authority. But
Christ never has issued any such neiv Commission, and, therefore,
the first Commission, given to the Apostles, must still be in exist
ence, and preserved in an unbroken chain to this day.
2. This Apostolic chain could not be broken ; because, if it could
be, Christ's words would he falsified, which is impossible.
Christ declared, 1 hat "the gates of Hell should never prevail
against His Church" — that is, it never shduld be destroyed. Now,
the Christian ministry is an essential part of the Church. If there
were no ministry in the Church, the Church would cease to exist,
(because there would be none, after a few years, with authority to
baptize; and thus, the old members dying off, and no new ones
being added by baptism, the Church would become extinct) — that
is, "the gates of Hell" would prevail against Her, and Christ's words
would be falsified ! But this is impossible, because Christ's words
are true : His declaration concerning the stability of His Church is
true : the Church, therefore, is still in existence, and the chain of
the Apostolic Succession has not been broken, nor can be, because
the Church is to last forever — which it cannot do, if its ministry
become extinct ; and the ministry would become extinct, if, at any
future time, this chain could be broken.
1 have thus, sir, endeavored to set down, as briefly as possible,
the various arguments you have heard me use concerning the ne
cessity and reality of trie Apostolical Succession, and other points
connected with the Christian ministry. By giving them a careful
perusal, I think you will be satisfied,
1 . That there are three distinct orders in the Christian ministry,
and that, therefore, Presbyters and Bishops are not the same order.
2. That the authority to ordain was committed to the first order
in the Christian ministry; and, consequently, as neither Coke nor
Wesley belonged to that order, they possessed no authority to or
dain, and their ordinations would be invalid.
3. That there is an absolute necessity for a succession from the
Apostles; and that such succession has always existed, and does
now exist, in the Christian Church. ,,..,_
4 That no society has any foundation whatever for casing itself
a Church of Christ, which does not possess a ministry thus Apos-
tolically descended ; and consequently, as the "Methodist Church"
does not even pretend to have such a ministry, it is not a Church
of Christ. ¦
But when one might suppose that the- very last stone in the
foundation of the "Methodist Church" had been removed, and that
there was nothing left to support the crumbling fabric, all at once
4*

42
the Methodists shift their ground, and tell us that Coke and. his
successors (the present Methodist "Bishops") were only Bishops
in the sense of office ! Thus Watson, in his life of Wesley, (page
248,) in trying to show how it happened that Coke ceased to be a
Bishop when he returned to England, says:
"Dr. Coke was only an occasional visitant in America, and
though in the sense of office he was a Bishop there, when he re
turned home, as here he had no such office, so he used no such
title, and made no such pretension!"
To call this a silly excuse, would be using too weak a word. —
When an English, a French, or a Spanish Bishop, visits this coun
try, though he has no such office here, nevertheless he is a Bishop
still, and uses his title of Bishop, and is addressed by the title of
Bishop. And if a Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church visits
England, though he has no such office there, nevertheless is a Bi
shop still, and uses his title of Bishop, and is addressed by the title
of Bishop. When Mar Yohanan, the Nestorian Bishop, lately
"visited" this country, he had no such office here; still he did not
cease to be a Bishop, but claimed to be one, and was addressed as
a Bishop. It would, indeed, be a most singular thing, that a Bishop
should cease to be a Bishop because he happened- to travel into
another nation. At this rate, he would be under the necessity of
being ordained over again at the end of every journey he makes,
before he could again be a Bishop !*
I must confess, that this argument about "Bishops in the sense of
office" is a most extraordinary one, and am greatly astonished that
the Methodists would venture to use it. Nothing that I have seen
so completely exposes the nakedness of the whole Methodist sys
tem, as this pretence of Bishops in the sense of office ! As I do not
remember, in the various conversations we have had, ever allud
ing to this point, I shall briefly consider it.
I . By declaring Coke and his successors, to be only Bishops in
the sense of office, it is acknowledging that they are not real Bishops !
2. There is no such officer as "a Bishop in the sense of office"
known to the Christian Church; and is directly contradictory to
the Scriptures, which only speak of the officers of the Church of
God, as being really and truly such.
3. Neither Wesley nor Coke, when they were ordained Presby
ters of the Church, had any such "office" conferred upon them :
neither could Wesley confer it on Coke, because all the powers,
which Wesley, as a Presbyter possessed, Coke possessed, likewise,
in an equal degree, as I have before shown. If either Wesley, or
Coke, undertook to perform the duties pertaining lo the "office" of
a Bishop, it was an act of usurpation — authority to perform Epis
copal duties was never committed to either of them by those, who
alone could give it, namely, the Bishops of the Church.
It is evident, then, that this talk about "Bishops in the sense of
office," is a mere pretence. Neither Coke nor Wesley were such
* Coke, when he returned to England, applied, in 1813, to Mr. Wil-
berforce to get him ordained a Bishop in the Church of England • thereby
acknowledging that he was ho Bishop in anv sense of the word' fLet-
*ers by the Rev. John Wesley, and the Kev.T. Coke, LL. D page 20 )

43
officers ; and, if they had been, there is not, as I have said, any
such officer in the Church of Gon.
But, independently of this, the argument destroys itself by prov
ing too much : because, if there can be "Bishops in the sense of of
fice," without being real Bishops, then there can be Presbyters "in
the sense of office" without being real Presbyters ! and Deacons "in
the sense of office" without being real Deacons ! Whether this is
not the situation of the "Methodist ministry" I leave you to judge.
For there we find a body of men performing the various duties be
longing to the office of Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, without be
ing real Bishops, real! Elders, or real Deacons ; for no one, who is
not really and truly a Bishop, can ordain real Elders and real Dea
cons ; and thus we have a Society calling itself "a Church," with
a visionary ministry — which is absurd.
But, in order to show more fully the absurdity of this argument,
let us carry it a step further. If the officers of the Church may be
such merely in the "sense of office," without being real officers,
then the officers of the civil government may exercise the powers
of their offices in' the same manner, and we may have a President
of the United States in the "sense of office" without being a real
President; we may have Governors "in the sense of office" with
out being real Governors ; and so we may have Judges, Sheriffs,
Magistrates, &c, "in the sense of office" without being really
Judges, Sheriffs, or Magistrates ! and all these offices may be usurp
ed by any one who is desirous of only being a President, Governor,
&c, "in the sense of office !"
Was there ever an argument like this before heard, or dreamed
of, to prove a Society to be the Church of God, until the Metho
dists invented it? an argument, which, carried out to its legitimate
results, would make the Christian ministry a matter of moonshine,
and reduce civil government to a state of anarchy !
And yet it is this argument, of there being "Bishops in the sense
of office," without being real Bishops, by which it is attempted to
uphold the "Methodist ministry !" And what is this but acknow
ledging, that, that "ministry" cannot he defended on the ground of
Scripture, and consequently that it is unscriptural, and therefore
invalid ! What better proof can you need, my friend, than this,
that the "Methodist Church," instead of being built upon "a rock,"
(St. Matt. xvi. 18.) is built upon the sand ! Oh ! that Wesley's
warning voice had been heeded, when he so pathetically intreated
Asbury for God's sake ! for Christ's sake ! for his sake! not to call
himself a Bishop ! Wesley clearly foresaw what would be the re
sult of his doing so : he foresaw that a spurious Bishop (that is not
"in the sense of office" only,) would introduce a spurious ministry,
and spurious sacraments; and that, in consequence, an awful
schism would be made in the Church of Go d ! Oh ! that his warn
ing voice had been heeded !
l_ut here, some might say, (as many have said,) "What care
we for the Church, or its ministry, or sacraments ? We have 'got
religion •' our happy feelings tell us our sins are forgiven ; we are
nerfectly satisfied." But, my friend, be not you like one of these !
Remember our Lord's awful words:
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born ot water
and of the ' Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!"

44
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the
Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you !"
And when are we "born of water and of the Spirit" unless it be
in the sacrament of Baptism? When do we, with the confession
of the mouth, as well as in the belief of the heart, (see Rom. x. 10.)
"eat His flesh and drink His blood," unless in the sacrament of
the Lord's Supper ? Now recollect, that Christ gave His sacra
ments to His Church ; that out of His Church there are no sacra
ments ! that the Apostles alone received the commission to baptize,
and lo break the bread and give the cup. Oh! that those, who
talk about "their knowing that their sins are forgiven by their feel
ings," would remember their Saviour's awful words which I have
just quoted, and recollect that there is no promise of salvation made
to any human being out of the Church of God; and that, so long
as they are without baptism by a lawful minister, they are not
members of that Church ! However they may think they have
"got" religion," and/eeZ satisfied with themselves, let them know,
that so long as they are not members of the Church of God, they
have no assurance that they are bought with the' blood of Christ !
for it was "the Church, which God bought with His own blood."
(Acts xx. 28.) And who can hope to be saved, unless he is bought
with the blood of Christ ? Awful! atvful ! indeed, is the situation
of those, who have forsaken the Church of their forefathers, to
wander after teachers, who have no claim — no shadow of a claim
— to call themselves ministers of the Church of God ! I do Dot
say, that no one out of the Church will be saved, for this I do not
believe ; but what I say is this — that God has no where promised
to save us, unless we belong to that Church, which was bought
with the blood of our Redeemer.* Are you, my friend, a member
of that Church ? Calmly and seriously, and with earnest prayer
to God for His guidance and direction, examine this question ; and
if you find you are not, then ask yourself, upon what do your hopes
of salvation rest?
1 have suffered my letter to grow to so great a length, that I
shall only add, that 1 am, very truly,
Your friend and servant,
* Why does every sect which springs up, if it be but a week old, call
itself a Church ? Because, if any one should say, it was not a Church,
it would be acknowledging that it had no part in the promises of Gon.

APPENDIX.

Dr. Coke to Bishop White.
This letter is reprinted from Bishop White's Memoirs of the Protestant Episco
pal Church, first edition, pages 424 to 429.
Eight Rev. Sir,
Permit me to intrude a little on your time upon a subject of great im-
You, I believe, are conscious that I was brought up in the Church of
England, and have been ordained a presbyter of that Church. For many
years I was prejudiced, even I think to bigotry, in favor of it: but through
a variety of causes or incidents, to mention which would be tedious and
useless, my mind was exceedingly biased on the other side of the ques
tion. In consequence of this; f am not sure but I went farther in the
separation of our church in America, than Mr. Wesley, from whom I
had received my commission, did intend. He did indeed solemnly invest
me, as far as he had a right so to do, with Episcopal authority, but did
not intend, I think, that an entire separation should take place. He,
being pressed by our friends on this side of the water for ministers to
administer the sacraments to them, (there being very few clergy of the
Church of England then in the States,) went farther, I am sure, than he
would have gone, if he had foreseen some events which followed. And
this I am certain of— that he is now sorry for the separation.
But what can be done for a re-union, which I much wish for ; and to
accomplish which Mr. Wesley, I have no doubt, would use his influence
to the utmost ? The affection of a very considerable number of the
preachers, and most of the people, is very strong towards him, notwith
standing the excessive ill usage he received from a few. My interest
also is not small ; and both his and mine would readily and to the utmost
be used to accomplish that (to us) very desirable object; if a readiness
were shown by the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church to re
unite. It is even to your church an object of great importance. We have now
about 60,000 adults in our society in these States, and about 250 travel-
ling ministers and preachers ; besides a great number of local preachers,
very far exceeding the number of travelling preachers ; and some of those
local preachers are men of very considerable abilities. But if we num
ber the Methodists as most people number the members of their church,
viz. by the families which constantly attend the divine ordinances in
their places of worship, they will make a larger body than you probably
conceive. The society, I believe, may be safely multiplied by five on
an average to give us our stated congregations, which will then amount
to 300,000. And if the calculation which, I think, some eminent writers
have made, be just, that three-fifths of mankind are un-adult (if I may
use the expression) at any given period, it will follow that all the fami
lies, the adults of which form our congregations in these States, amount
to 750,000. About one-fifth of these are blacks. The work now extends
in length from Boston to the south of Georgia ; and in breadth from the
Atlantic to lake Champlain, Vermont, Albany, Redstone, Holstein, Ken
tucky, Cumberland, &c.
But there are many hiriderances in the way. Can they be removed ?
1. Our ordained ministers will not, ought not, to give up their right

46
of administering the sacraments. I don't think that the generality of
them, perhaps none of them, would refuse to submit to a re-ordination,
if other hinderances were removed out. of the way. I must here observe,
that between sixty and seventy only, out of the two hundred and fifty,
have been ordained presbyters, and about sixty deacons, (only.) The
presbyters are the choicest of the whole.
2. The other preachers would hardly submit to a re-union, if the pos
sibility of their rising- up to ordination depended on the present bishops
in America. Because though they are ull, I think I may say, zealous,
pious, and very useful men, yet they are not acquainted with the learned
languages. Besides, they would argue, — If the present bishops would
waive the article of the learned languages, yet their succeesors might not.
My desire of a re-union is so sincere and earnest that these, difficulties
almost make me tremble : and yet something must be done before the
death of Mr. Wesley, otherwise I shall despair of success : for though
my influence among the Methodists in these States, as well as in .Europe,
is, I doubt not, increasing, yet Mr. Asbury, whose influence is very
capital, will not easily comply : nay, I know he will be exceedingly
averse to it.
In Europe, where some steps had been taken, tending to a separation,
all is at an end. Mr. Wesley is a determined enemy of it, and I have
lately borne an open and successful testimony against it.
Shall I be favored with a private interview with you in Philadelphia?
I shall be there, God willing, on Tuesday, the 17th of May. If this be
agreeable, I'll beg of you just to signify it in a note directed to me, at
Mr. Jacob Baker's, merchant, Market street, Philadelphia: or, if you
please, by a few lines sent to me by the return of the post, at Philip Ro
gers', Esq., in Baltimore, from yourself or Dr. Magaw, and I will wait
upon you with my friend Dr. Magaw. We can then enlarge on these
subjects. I am conscious of it, that secresy is of great importance in the present
state of the business, till the minds of you, your brother bishops, and
Mr. Wesley, he circumstantially known. I must therefore beg that
these things be confined to yourself and Dr. Magaw, till I have the honor
of seeing you.
Thus, you see, I have made a bold venture on your honor and candor,
and have opened my whole heart to you on the subject, as far as the ex
tent of a small letter will allow me. If you put equal confidence in me,
you will find me candid and faithful.
I have, notwithstanding, been guilty ol inadvertencies. Very lately
I found myself obliged (for the pacifying of my conscience) to write a
penitential letter to the Rev. Mr. Jarratt, which gave him great satisfac
tion : and for the same reason I must write another to the Rev. Mr.Pet-
tigrew. When I was last in America, I prepared and corrected a great
variety of things for our magazines, indeed almost every thing that was
printed, except some loose hints which I had taken of one of my journeys,
and which I left in my huiry with Mr. Asbury, without any correction,
entreating that no part of them might be printed which would be impro
per or offensive. But through great inadvertency (I suppose) he suffered
some reflections on the characters of the two above-mentioned gentlemen
to be inserted in the magazine, for which I am very sorry : and probably
shall not rest till I have made my acknowledgment more public though
Mr. Jarratt does not desire it. 5
I am not sure whether I have not also offended you, sir, by accepting
of one of the offers made me by you and Dr. Magaw, of the use of your
churches about six years ago, on my first visit to Philadetphia, without
informing you of our plan of separation from the Church of England
If I did offend, (as I doubt I did, especially from what you said on the
subject to Mr. Richard Dallam, of Abington,) I sincerely beg your _n(_

47
Dr. Magaw's pardon. I'll endeavor to amend. But, alas ! I am a frail,
weak creature.
I will intrude no longer at present. One thing only I will claim from
your candor — that if you have no thoughts of improving this proposal,
you will burn this letter, and take no more notice of it, (for it would be
a pity to have us entirely alienated from each other, if we cannot unite
in the manner my ardent wishes desire:) But if you will further nego
tiate the business, I will explain my mind still more fully to you on the
probabilities of success.
In the meantime, permit me, with great respect, to subscribe myself,
Right Rev. Sir,
Your very humble servant in Christ,
Thomas Coke.
Richmond, April 24, 1791.
The Right Rev. Father in God; Bishop White.
You must excuse interlineations, Sec , as I am just going into the
country, and have no time to transcribe.

B.
Dr. Coke to Bishop Seabury.
The original of this letter is in the possession of Dr. Seabury, Editor of the
Chi-rghman, New York.
The Right Rev. Father in God, Bishop Seabury,
Right Rev. Sir, — Froin-your well known character, I am going to
open my mind to you on a subject of very great moment.
Being educated a member of the Church of England from my earliest
infancy, being ordained of that church, and having taken two degrees in
arts, and two degrees in civil law, in the University of Oxford, which is
entirely under the patronage of the Church of England, 1 was almost a
bigot in its favor when I first joined that great and good man, Mr. John
Wesley, which is fourteen years ago. For five or six years after my
union with Mr. Wesley, I remained fixed in my attachment to the Church
of England: but afterward?, for many reasons, which it would be tedious
and useless to mention, I changed ray sentiments, and promoted a sepa
ration from it, as far as my influence reached. Within' these two years I
am come back again.: my love tor the Church of England has returned.
I think I am attached to it on a ground much more rational, and conse
quently much less likely to he shaken than formeily. I have many a
time run into error; but to b= ashamed of confessing my error, when
-convinced of it, has never been one of my defects. Therefore, when I
was fully convinced of my error, in the steps I took to bring about a se
paration from the Church of England in Europe, I delivered, before a
congregation of about 3000 people, in our largest chapel in Dublin, on a
Sunday evening, after preaching, an exhortation, which, in fact, amount
ed to a recantation of my error. Some time afterward, I repeated tbe
same in our largest chapels in London, and in several other parts of Eng
land and Ireland: and I have reason to believe that my proceedings
in this respect have given a death-blow to all the hopes of a separation
which may exist in the minds of any in those kingdoms.
On the same principles I most cordially wish for a re-union of the
Protestant Episcopal and the Methodist Churches in these States. The
obiect is of vast magnitude. Our work now reaches to Boston, north
ward- to Wilkes county, in Georgia, southward; and to Alban}'*, Ver
mont Lake Champlain, Redstone, and Kentucky, westward ; a length
of about 1300 or 1400 miles, and a breadth of between 500 and 1000.
Our society in the States amounts to upwards of 60,000. These, I am

48
persuaded, may, with safety, be multiplied by five, to give us our regular
Sunday's congregations, which will make 300,000. If the calculations
of some great writers be just, three-fifths of any given country consist of
un-advlls ; so that the families, the adults of which regularly attend di
vine service among us, amount, according to this mode of calculation, to
750,000 ; about a fifth part of these are blacks. How great, then, would
be the strength of our church, (will you give me leave to call it so? I
mean the Protestant Episcopal,) if the two sticks were made one ?
But how can this be done? The magnitude of tbe object would jus
tify considerable sacrifices. A solemn engagement to use your prayer
book in all our places of worship on the Lord's day would, of course, be
a sine qua non, a concession we should be obliged to make on our part,
( if it may be called a concession ; ) and there would be, I doubt not, other
concessions to be made by us. But what concessions would it be neces
sary for you to make? For the opening of this subject with all possible
candor, it will be necessary to take a view of the present state of the min
istry in the Methodist Church, in these States.
We have about 250 travelling preachers, and a vastly greater number
of local preachers, I mean preachers who live on their plantations, or are
occupied in the exercise of trades or professions, and confined to a small
sphere of action, in respect to their ministerial labors. About seventy
of our travelling preachers aTe elders (as we call them) or presbyters.
These are the most eminent and most approved of the whole body ; and
a very excellent set of clergy I really believe they are. We have about
the same number of deacons among the travelling preachers, who exer
cise the office of deacon, according to the plan of the Church of England.
These ministers, both presbyters and deacons, must be elected by a ma
jority of the conference before they can be ordained. A superintendent
only ordains the deacons, and a superintendent must make one of the
presbytery for the ordination of a priest or elder ; and the superintendents
are invested with a negative voice in respect to the ordination of any
person that has been elected for the office either of elder or deacon. —
Among the local preachers there is no higher office than that of a deacon.
The local preacher does not pass Ihrough an election for this office ; but
if he bring a testimonial, signed by three elders, one of whom must be
what we call a presiding elder, one who has the government of a district,
i. e. several circuits joined together, three deacons, three unordained
preachers, and the majority of the class of which he is a member, or the
stewards and leaders of the whole society of which he is a member, asu-
perintendent may then, if he please, ordain him : and a great many of
the oldest and wisest of the local preachers have been ordained deacons
on this plan.
Now, on a re-union taking place, our ministers, both elders and dea
cons, would expect to have, and ought to have, the same authority they
have at present, of administering the ordinances according to the respec
tive powers already invested in them for this purpose I well know that
they must submit to a te-ordination, which, I believe, might be easily
brought about, if every other hinderance was removed out of the way
But the grand objection would arise from the want of confidence which the
deacons and unordained preachers would experience. The present bi
shops might give them such assurance as would perhaps remove all their
fears concerning them; but they could give no security for their succes
sors, or for any new b.shops who may be consecrated for the Episcopal
Church in those S a es which have no at present an Episcopal minister.
The reoms.tion of learmng for the ministry (I mean the knowledge of
the New Testament in the ordinal, and of the Latin tongue) would ho
an insuperable objection on this ground, as the present bishops and th»
present members of the general convention can give no sufficient ser.irit.
for their successors. And the preachers could never, I believe b

49
duced to give up the full confidence they have in their present superin
tendents, that they shall in due time rise to the higher offices of the
church, according to their respective merits, for any change of situation in
which the confidence they should then possess would not be equivalent.
But what can be done to gain this confidence on the plan of a re-union
of the two churches > I will answer this important question with all
simplicity, plainness, and boldness ; and the more so, because, 1st. I am
addressing myself, I have no doubt, to a person of perfect candor ; 2dly.
I have a re-union so much at heart, that I would omit nothing that may,
according to the best of my judgment, throw light on the subject ; 3dly.
Because I think I am not in danger from your charitable spirit, to be sus
pected, in the present instance, of pressing after worldly honor; as it is
likely I shall be elected President of the European Methodists, and shall
not, [ believe, receive greater marks of respect from the Methodists in
these States, supposing I ever be a bishop of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, than they are at present so kind as to show me.
Mr. Asbury, our resident superintendent, is a great and good man. —
He possesses, and justly, the esteem of most of the preachers, and most
of the people. Now if the general convention of the clergy consented
that he should be consecrated a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, on the supposition'of a re-union, a very capital hinderance would
be removed out of the way.
Again, I love the Methodists in America, and could not think of leav
ing them entirely, whatever might happen to me in Europe. The
preachers and people also love me. Many have a peculiar regard for
me. But I could not with propriety, visit the American Methodists, pos
sessing in our church on this side of the water an office inferior to that
of Mr. Asbury.
But if the two houses of the convention of the clergy would consent to
your consecration of Mr. Asbury and me as bishops of the Methodist So
ciety in the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States, (or by
any other title, if that be not proper,) on the supposition of the re-union
of the two churches, under proper mutual stipulations ; and engage that
the Methodist Society shall have a regular supply, on the death of their
bishops, and so, ad perpetuum, the grand difficulty in respect to the
preachers would be removed — they would have the same men to confide
in whom they have at present, and all other mutual stipulations would
soon be settled.
I said, in respect to preachers, for I do not fully know Mr. Asbury's
mind on the subject. I have my fears in respcet to his sentiments; and
if he do not accede to the union, it will not take place so completely as I
could wish. I wish you could see my sinful heart, but that is impossible.
I think I need not observe that, if things were brought to a happy is
sue, we should still expect to enjoy all our rights as a society in the most
exclusive sense, as we do now in Europe : I mean the receiving or re
jecting members in or from our classes, bands, love-feasts, Ike.
I have had the honor of three interviews with Bishop White on this
subject, and some correspondence. In the present state of things, I must
entreat you to lay this business only before your confidential friends ;
and if you honor me with a letter by the June packet, directed to the
Rev. Dr. Coke, at the new chapel, City road, London, I will write to you
again immediately after the English conference, which will commence
in Manchester the last Tuesday in next July. The importance of the
subject on which I have now written to you, will I think prevent the
necessity of an apology for the liberty I have taken in writing to you.
Permit me to subscribe myself, with great respect,
Right Rev. Sir,
Your very humble and obedient servant,
Thomas Coke.
pjiilaxlcl.nhia. Man 14. 1731.

1477

f

ill

111 I

1ill ill
iffi
liilltll