him? He was a presbyter before. And what was it that "startled" Dr. Coke, when the thing was suggested to him, and led him to a thorough investigation of the subject before he was satisfied of Mr. Wesley's authority to ordain him? He had submitted to Mr. Wesley's appointment before, as had others, Mr. Asbury in particular, who was then acting under a special commission in this country; but we hear nothing about his being "startled" till his ordination is mentioned.

4. If Mr. Wesley did not ordain Dr. Coke a bishop, and thus authorize him to ordain others, why did he apologize for the act by saying that he "had been importuned, from time to time, to exercise this right by ordaining some of our trav elling preachers," and by saying, that in America, there are no "bishops who have legal jurisdiction?"

5. We ask, too, wherein the ordination of Dr. Coke dif fered from that of Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey, who were ordained elders at the same time, if Dr. Coke were not ordained a bishop?

6. And why did Mr. Wesley prepare a prayer-book, "little differing from that of the Church of England," embracing episcopal forms for the ordination of deacons, elders, and superintendents, and a solemn injunction that all elected to either of these offices should be presented to the superintendent for ordination in this form? And why did he put this into the hands of Dr. Coke to bring to this country, if he did not intend to establish an episcopal form of government?

7. Why did Dr. Coke request that Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey should be ordained presbyters, if he did not under stand that he was to be made a bishop? and why assign this reason for the request, viz., "propriety and universal practice make it expedient that I should have two presbyters with me

,

in this work? · " Those who deny that our episcopacy is Wesleyan, cannot give any satisfactory answers to these questions whatever. And there are other facts equally opposed to their position. For instance: 1. The prejudices of Charles Wesley against the whole proceeding. He un derstood it to be designed as a bona fide ordination. John knew his brother's hostility to his exercising episcopal authority so well, he thought it expedient to conceal hist intentions from him till the work was done. If he did not mean to ordain, properly speaking, and lay the foundation of an episcopal government, why did he not relieve his brother by stating the facts, and explaining his purposes? And why did he not explain the matter afterwards, as the seceders have done since, and especially when Charles accused him of arming Dr. Coke with authority to ordain his preachers, and make them all dissenters? Who can answer? 2. Mr. Wesley was informed of the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1784, soon after Dr. Coke's arrival in the country, was accused of approving of it, and of consecrating Dr. Coke a bishop in view of effecting it; but never denied it. Is not this remarkable, if it were not true? 3. Soon after the organization, the minutes made their appearance, entitled "General Minutes of the Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America," declaring that said Conferences had formed an episcopal church by the "recommendation" of Mr. Wesley. These minutes were transmitted to Mr. Wesley, and printed in England. But did he ever object, or deny that he recom mended such an organization? Never; though he was not a little persecuted on the account. Dr. Coke defended himself against the abuse of the press, by saying "he had done nothing but under the direction of Mr. Wesley." Did Mr. Wesley ever deny this? His brother said Dr. Coke had

acted rashly in the premises; but, instead of conceding it, Mr. Wesley replied that he "had done nothing rashly." The American Minutes of 1789 spoke of Mr. Wesley as exercising "the episcopal office." This fact was immedi ately published in England. Was Mr. Wesley offended? Did he deny it? Never; but, when accused of it, he justi fied himself by saying, "I firmly believe that I am a Scrip tural episkopos, as much as any man in England, or in Europe. For the uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable, which no man ever did or can prove."

We are aware that Mr. Wesley objected to applying the name bishop to our superintendents, and that three years after the organization of the church, when they were distinguished by this title, he wrote Bishop Asbury a very pointed letter, remonstrating against it. But he did not deny that they were bishops, nor did he object to their exercise of episcopal powers; he had ordained them for this very purpose. He objected to the title, from prudential considerations. He knew the jealousy of the Episcopal Church, and did not wish to interfere with its claims any further than was positively necessary. The term bishop, as then used, too, involved various civil and social dignities, not intrinsically implied in it. He might have thought that the title, without its adventitious honors and benefits, would be construed into vanity and ambition, and thus become a source of disgrace to himself as well as the bishops, and, by consequence, a hindrance to the work of God. And, so far as his own country was concerned, there was, probably, some danger. We insist, it was not the thing itself which he opposed, but the title given it. The Methodist Episcopal Church, with its name emblazoned upon its front, and its superintendents in the full exercise of episcopal prerogatives, had been in operation more than three years, before Mr. Wesley made

the least objection. But when the Conference took the liberty to call their superintendents bishops, though they added not one iota to their duties or authority, Mr. Wesley demurred. The title might do harm, it might excite to vanity, and be misused, it might be construed to the injury of the cause.

These are the views entertained on the subject by our Wesleyan brethren, both in Europe and America; and sev eral of their ablest writers have argued the question at considerable length. Indeed, none but offended seceders from our church, and carping sectaries and bigots, by their sug gestion, have presumed to regard the subject in any other light. But the case is so clear, and the arguments hinted at so conclusive, it is not necessary to extend the discussion. We have said enough for all general purposes. If the reader has occasion to canvass the matter more fully, he will find Bishop Emory's "Defence of our Fathers," Stevens' “Church Polity,” and Dr. Bangs' "Original Church of Christ," of great service to him in prosecuting the inves tigation.

We will only suggest, further, that Mr. Wesley, in constructing our excellent system, exchanged the terms priest for elder, church for chapel, &c., and, probably, for the same reasons that moved him to reject the title of bishop. He also complained to Mr. Asbury for applying the term college to a collegiate institution he and Dr. Coke had established.

I found a school," said he, "you, a college. O, beware! Do not seek to be something." But was Mr. Wesley opposed to colleges? No one believes it. The name was what he disliked. So, neither, was he opposed to our epis copacy, but only the title by which our superintendents came to be distinguished.

CHAPTER IV.

METHODIST EPISCOPACY, WITH ITS POWERS AND APPENDAGES, NECESSARY TO ITINERANCY.

THERE is no feature of our economy more highly prized among us than its itinerancy. It is believed by many that much of our extraordinary success in saving souls is attrib utable to this peculiarity of Wesleyanism, more than to any other one thing. We have seldom seen a minister, or private member, who would be willing to exchange it for the local system. Even those who cry out against our bishops, and complain the most clamorously of our government, still insist on maintaining the itinerancy. This is one of our peculiarities, which seceders of every class have been pleased to retain, though they have often crippled its operations by leaving too much choice to individual ministers and societies. If the question were to be submitted to the vote of the whole church, to-day, we doubt if one in two hundred would consent to its abandonment.

Itinerancy is, then, a settled arrangement, and must be maintained. But there are difficulties in the way. It is laborious and trying to the preachers and their families to be moving about the world among strangers, without any cer tain abiding place, and it is unpleasant to the people to lose ministers they esteem, and receive strangers in their place. Under these circumstances, it is necessary, to its efficient maintenance, that it be subjected to rather stringent regula