it differs from the one published by Mr. Wesley in the title page the addition of a new "Article of Religion"--and the inserting of the "general minutes." In other respects the Prayer Books are so much alike, that the one printed in 1786 is not announced as a second edition of that work; nor is any note prefixed explaining the reasons for adding a new article of religion, or for inserting "the general minutes" Every thing, as far as we can discover, stands just as it did in the Prayer Book of 1784; and every thing, which according to usage we had a right to look for in an altered or improved edition, is carefully omitted.

These minutes, containing seventy-six questions with their answers, occupy thirty-three pages of the Prayer Book, and are headed as follows:

"The General Minutes of the Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, forming the Constitution of the said church."

Let the reader bear in mind that this Prayer Book and these "Minutes" were printed in the year 1786; and that they bear inernal marks which render it doubtful, whether they were printed for Mr. Wesley. But even if they had been printed for him, they can avail nothing towards proving the matter at issue, viz: that Mr. Wesley "recommended the episcopal mode of church government" to the American Methodists, for these "general minutes" were taken at the conference, two years before this Prayer Book was printed, and consequently the inserting of them in it, cannot be converted into a recommendation of this particular form of govern

ment.

Nor will the inserting of these "minutes" in the Prayer Book prove that Mr. Wesley approved of the title "the Methodist Episcopal Church;" for in the progress of this work, documents will be found, which unequivocally declare his disapprobation of the proceedings of the conference in relation to every thing appertaining to episcopacy.

These "minutes," so far from availing any thing in favor of the hierarchy, will, we conceive, do it great dis-service. For 1. if the minutes inserted in the Prayer Book, be the true and correct ones, those published and issued from our book room in a bound volume, cannot be genuine; one or the other must have been altered, we leave to the admirers of episcopacy to say which. 2. If "the Minutes" in the Prayer Book be the genuine ones, then according to the title, they "form a Consitution for the Methodist Episcopal Church." So that those who say the restrictive rules of 1808 are a constitution, must be mistaken: or, if they are not mistaken, then we have two constitutions, the one a new, and the other an old one.

We intimated above, that the Prayer Book printed in 1786. in which "the general minutes of the conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church" are inserted, was not printed by Mr. Wesley. In proof of this point, it may be necessary to state that Mr. Wesley had his own printing office, types and printing presses, where he had his books printed, as may be seen by the following clause in his will.

"Feb. 25, 1789. "I give my types, printing presses and every thing pertaining thereto, to Mr. Thomas Rankin and George Whitefield, in trust, for the use of the conference.

JOHN WESLEY."

Those who would offer the inserting of the "general minutes" in the Prayer Book, as proof of Mr. Wesley's approbation of the form of government,or the title of the Methodist Episcopal Church, should first prove that the Prayer Book was printed by Mr. Wesley, and the Minutes inserted with his knowledge and consent. This cannot be done; for we have evidence from the Prayer Book itself, that it was not printed at Mr. Wesley's press, but at that belonging to "Frys and Couchman." The circumstance, therefore, of its being printed by "Frys and Couchman," and not by Mr. Wesley, renders the whole affair suspicious, and will, when taken in connexion with the statements made by the conference before and after its publication, nullify any argument that may be attempted to be adduced in favor of Mr. Wesley's approbation.

We shall now give the title page of three Prayer Books, that our readers may perceive wherein they agree and wherein they differ.

NO. 1.

NO.2.

NO. 3.

"The Sunday service of the "The Sunday service of the "The Sunday service of the Methodists in North America, Methodists in the United States Methodists with other occasionwith other occasional services. of America, with other occasion- al services. The fourth edition, London, printed in the year al services. London, printed London, printed in the year MDCCLXXXIV." by Frys and Couchman, Wor-1792." ship street, Upper Moorfields, 1786."

That which we have designated by No. 1, was printed by Mr. Wesley-was brought out to "North America" by Dr. Coke was adopted by the conference of 1784, and was used by the preachers after the church was organized. In this Prayer Book there is nothing about episcopacy, nor any recommendation of the episcopal mode of church government. No. 2, was printed in London, by "Frys and Couchman," where Mr. Wesley had his printing office. It was printed for somebody, (we know not for whom; perhaps for Dr. Coke, who in 1786, was under censure by Mr. Wesley, for the address he presented to general Washington,) and contains an Article of Religion, not contained in Mr Wesley's Prayer Book, and the Minutes of the Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, a title which we believe Mr. Wesley never approved. No. 3, was printed after Mr. Wesley's decease, for the Methodists in Europe, and is introduced here, merely to shew the coincidence in the imprint, no printer's name being affixed to those which were printed at Mr. Wesley's press. We might also mention, that after the publication of the Prayer Book of 1786, a rule was passed in the conference that no book should be sold among his societies, which was not printed at his press But whether this rule was passed with special reference to the Prayer Book of 1786 or not, we cannot say.

We shall notice only one question, in the general minutes, with its answer, and then we shall have done with the Prayer Book.

'Q. 3. As the ecclesiastical as well as civil affairs of these United States have passed through a very considerable change by the revolution, what plan of church government shall we hereafter pursue?

A. We will form ourselves into an episcopal church, under the direction of superintendents, elders, deaçons, and helpers, according to the forms of ordination annexed to our Liturgy, and the form of discipline set forth in these minutes."

The reader is now requested to compare this account of the origin of our episcopacy and church government, with the account published in our Book of Discipline, and with the one in our Book of Minutes. The difference is so glaring, that every one must see it. In this answer there is nothing about Mr. Wesley's" recommending the episcopal mode of church government"-nothing about his "preferring" that mode to any other-nothing about his " counsel" to ordain a third order of ministers-nothing about a "separate and independent church." Nothing of all this; for to use the language of a preacher, who was a member of the conference of 1784.- These names were born in America, and never had Mr. Wesley's approbation."

66

We have one thing more to offer, namely, the third section of the fifth edition of the Book of Discipline, printed in New York in 1795, which is as follows:

"On the Nature and Constitution of our Church.-We are thoroughly convinced, that the Church of England, to which we have been united, is deficient in several of the most important parts of Christian discipline; and that (a few ministers and members excepted) it has lost the life and power of religion. We are not ignorant of the spirit and designs it has ever discovered in Europe, of rising to pre-eminence and worldly dignities by virtue of a national establishment, and by the most servile devotion to the will of temporal governors and we fear, the same spirit will lead the same church in these United States (though altered in its name) to similar designs and attempts, if the number and strength of its members will ever afford a probability of success; and particularly to obtain a national establishment, which we cordially abhor as the great bane of truth and holiness, and consequently a great impediment to the progress of vital Christianity.

"For THESE REASONS, we have thought it our duty to form ourselves into an independent church. And as the most excellent mode of church government, according to our maturest judgment, is that of a moderate episcopacy; and as we are persuaded, that the uninterrupted succession of bishops from the apostles, can be proved neither from the scripture nor antiquity; we therefore have constituted ourselves into an episcopal church, under the direction of bishops, elders, deacons and preachers, according to the forms of ordination annexed to our Prayer Book, and the regulations laid down in this form of discipline."

At what precise time this section was written, we are not able to say; but think it was about the year 1787, that being the year in which Mr. Wesley's name was left off the minutes, the term "bishops" introduced-and the church declared" independent." We are pretty confident it was written after the Prayer Book of 1786 was printed, and the " General Minutes" were published. Had the inserting of the minutes in the Prayer Book been considered any proof of Mr. Wesley's approbation of the form of government or the title of the church, no doubt the conference would have noticed that fact, and appealed to it as proof. Instead of that, there is no reference whatever made to those minutes, nor is Mr. Wesley's name once mentioned in the section. Indeed, reasons are assigned in it for declaring themselves an independent church, and for adopting the episcopal mode of government, very different from all that was given before. At one time such reasons are assigned as grew out of the changes" in ecclesiastical and civil affairs produced by the revolution." At another, we are told it was because" Mr. Wesley recommended the episcopal mode of church government." And here we are told it was because the church of England (altered in name) had lost "the life and power of religion, a few of her ministers and members excepted," because as "she had ever discovered designs of rising to pre-eminence in Europe," fears were entertained that the same spirit would lead to similar designs and attempts in these United States-and to prevent a national establishment, they thought it their duty to become an "independent church," and adopt a" moderate episcopacy."

If we are mistaken in fixing the precise period when the above section was written, we cannot be mistaken respecting the judg ment which will be pronounced on the person who wrote it, when it shall have been known, that he made a proposition to be united to this very same church, himself and his colleague in the episcopacy, to receive consecration from one of its bishops, and the preachers who had been ordained by himself to be re-ordained by this same gentleman.

2. We think Mr. Wesley never intended to create Dr. Coke a bishop, because he says, "Lord King's account of the primitive church convinced me many years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order." As he believed, with Lord King, that there were but two orders of ministers in the church, namely bishops or presbyters, and deacons-as he believed that bishops and presbyters were the same order, and that there was no higher order than a presbyter, he could not have intended to create a third. The distinction between bishops and presbyters being the foundation of the episcopal form of government, and this distinction having no existence in fact, nor in Mr. Wesley's creed, our episcopal superstruc ture falls to the ground.

3. As he believed bishops and presbyters are the same order, he believed also, they possess the same powers; for he says, " they have the same right to ordain." If so, then Dr. Coke, being a presbyter of the church of England, had as good an ecclesiastical right to or

dain ministers for the Methodist societies in America as Mr. Wesley himself had, if the preachers would have submitted to receive ordination from the Doctor's hands. But knowing that Mr. Asbury had declared" he would receive no coadjutor in the superintendency of the work ;" he thought it best to guard against every ob jection that might be made, or difficulty that might arise in carrying into effect Mr. Wesley's wishes. This will appear from the following extract of a letter which he wrote to Mr. W dated August 9th, 1784. See Moore's life of Wesley. vol. 2, page 276.

"HONOURED AND DEAR SIR :

"The more attentively I consider the subject, the more expedient it appears to me, that the power of ordaining others should be received by me from you, by the imposition of your hands: and that you should lay hands on brother Whatcoat and brother Vasey, for the following reasons: 1. It seems to me the most scriptural way, and most agreeable to the practice of the primitive churches. 2.I may want all the influence in America which you can throw into my scale. Mr. Brackenbury informed me at Leeds, that he saw a letter in London from Mr. Asbury, in which he observed" that he would not receive any person deputed by you to take any part of the superintendency of the work invested in him, or words evidently implying so much."

4. "The uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable, which no man ever did, or can prove." Rev'd. J. Wesley. In this short sentence Mr. Wesley not only denies the uninterrupted succession, but the exclusive right of bishops to ordain, and in denying these, he denies the Jure Divino of bishops which has always been made to rest upon apostolic and uninterrupted succession. See Archbishop Potter.

5. Mr. Wesley, by appointing Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury joint superintendents, did not intend to create them bishops; for then there would have been a plurality of bishops at the same time, having the pastoral charge of the same church, a thing contrary to primitive usage, as has been already stated by Lord King.

6. Because Mr. Wesley in the letter he wrote to Mr. Asbury, Sept 20th, 1788, in which he intended to make known his utter dis

*Bancroft, in a sermon preached at Paul's cross, Jan. 12th, 1588, maintained, that the bishops of England were a distinct order from priests, and had superiority over them jure divino and directly from God This doctrine had never before been publicly broached in England: it was new and strange to both Puritans and Churchmen. Till this time it had been always supposed, that the order of bishops, as distinct from, and superior to presbyters, was a mere human institution. Statesmen took the alarm at the power of bishops being derived from God, and not from the magistrate, as this struck at the Queen's supremacy But the new doctrinesoon became fashionable among the clergy; and the nonsense which we have since heard about the episcopal succession, sprung out of it." Isaac's Church Claims In vestigated. page 71.

Neal's history of the Puritans. vol. 1. chap. 7.