dist preachers should be re-ordained by our Bishop; and the Correspondence of Dr. Coke with Mr. Wilberforce in 1813, proposing that himself be made Bishop in India, prove conclusively, that neither did Dr. Coke, nor the Methodist preachers in America, then pretend to have really any gift of Orders from Mr. Wesley, either in fact, or in the intention of Mr. Wesley himself. The "appointment" of Dr. Coke as Superintendent, in Mr. Wesley's private chamber, in 1784, was done, not as an Ordination, or Consecration, but to accomplish a private object of Dr. Coke himself. It cannot be pretended that it made Dr. Coke a Bishop; first, because Mr. Wesley himself was only a Presbyter; and secondly, even if Lord King's theory, on which Mr. Wesley is claimed to have acted, is taken for granted, to wit, that Bishops and Presbyters are one Order, it could not have made Dr. Coke a Bishop, for he was already an ordained Presbyter of the Church of England. Charles Wesley's explanation, taken in connection with the history of the transaction itself, is the best that can be given. Said he, "but John, as you see, is now a very old man." He was now in his eighty-second year; and Charles Wesley saw at a glance the purposes to which that appointment would be used, and at length perverted. In the Correspondence between John and Charles Wesley relative to that appointment, John Wesley said, "I no more separate from it [the Church of England] now, than I did in the year 1758." We shall examine that pretended "Ordination" presently, with more care.

On "Separation from the Church ;" in his Letter to the Reverend Mr. Walker in 1756, Mr. Wesley says:

"You advise, secondly, to keep in view also the unlawfulness of a separation from the Church of England.' To this likewise I agree. It cannot be lawful to separate from it, unless it be unlawful to continue in it. You advise, thirdly, fully to declare myself on this head, and to suffer no dispute concerning it.' The very same thing I wrote to my brother from Ireland; and we have declared ourselves, without reserve. Fourthly, all our preachers, as well as ourselves, purpose to continue in the Church of England."*

* Works, Vol. VII., p. 276.

In the Minutes of Conference for 1770, we find John Wesley saying:

Carefully avoid whatever has a tendency to separate men from the Church. O! use every means to prevent this. 1. Exhort all our people to keep close to the Church and the Sacrament. 2. Warn them all against nicety in hearing-a prevailing evil. 3. Warn them also against despising the prayers of the Church. 4. Against calling our Society the Church.' 5. Against calling our preachers 'ministers,' our houses, meeting houses;' call them plain preaching-houses, or chapels. But some may say, 'our own service is public worship.' Yes, but not such as supersedes the Church Service. If it were designed to be instead of the Church Service, it would be essentially defective, for it seldom has the four grand parts of Public Prayer, Deprecation, Petition, Intercession, and Thanksgiving. If the people put ours in the room of the Church Service, we hurt them that stay with us, and ruin them that leave us. Let this be well observed: I fear, when the Methodists leave the Church, God will leave them."

In 1787, four years before his death, and in the 84th year of his age, we find the following entry in his Journal:

"I went over to Deptford; but it seemed I was got into a den of lions. Most of the leading men of the Society were mad for separating from the Church. I endeavored to reason with them, but in vain; they had neither sense nor even good manners left. At length, after meeting the whole Society, I told them, if you are resolved, you may have your Service in Church hours; but, remember, from that time you will see my face no more.' This struck deep; and from that hour I have heard no more of separation from the Church."*

In 1789, about two years only before his death, his language is, in "Thoughts on Separation,"

"I never had any design of separating from the Church. I have no such design now. I do not believe the Methodists in general design it, when I am no more seen. I do, and will do all that is in my power to prevent such an event. Nevertheless, in spite of all I can do, many of them will separate from it: although I am apt to think not one half, perhaps not a third of them. These will be so bold and injudicious as to form a separate party, which consequently will dwindle away into a dry, dull separate party. In flat opposition to these, I

* Works, Vol. IV., p. 650.

declare once more, that I live and die a member of the Church of England: AND THAT NONE WHO REGARD MY JUDGMENT OR ADVICE WILL EVER SEPARATE FROM IT.'

At the Conference of that year, 1789, about a hundred preachers were present; he says:

"The case of separation from the Church was largely considered, and we were all unanimous against it."

In 1758, Mr. Wesley prepared and published Twelve Reasons against Separation from the Church of England, which we give almost entire. He elsewhere declared, that those of his disciples who left the Church of England, left Methodism also, and were drawn off into the Anabaptist and other heresies; nor can it be doubted, that the modeling of Methodism after the English Church has been a great secret of its vitality and success. He says:

"WHETHER it be lawful or no (which itself may be disputed, being not so clear a point as some may imagine,) it is by no means expedient for us to separate from the Established Church :

"1. Because it would be a contradiction to the solemn and repeated declarations which we have made in all manner of ways, in preaching, in print, and in private conversation.

"2. Because (on this as well as on many other accounts) it would give huge occasion of offence to those who seek and desire occasionto all the enemies of God and His truth.

"3. Because it would exceedingly prejudice against us many who fear, yea, who love God, and thereby hinder their receiving so much, perhaps any farther benefit from our preaching.

"4. Because it would hinder multitudes of those, who neither love nor fear God, from hearing us at all.

“5. Because it would occasion many hundreds, if not some thousands of those who are now united with us, to separate from us; yea, and some of those who have a deep work of grace in their souls.

"6. Because it would be throwing balls of wild-fire among them that are now quiet in the land. We are now sweetly united together in love. We mostly think and speak the same thing. But this would

* Works, Vol. VII., p. 326. Works, Vol. IV., p. 727.

occasion inconceivable strife and contention, between those who left, and those who remained in the Church, as well as between those who left us, and those who remained with us; nay, and between those very persons who remained, as they were variously inclined one way or other.

"7. Because, whereas controversy is now asleep, and we in great measure, live peaceably with all men, so that we are strangely at leisure to spend our whole time and strength in enforcing plain, practical, vital religion. (O what would many of our forefathers have given to have enjoyed so blessed a calm!) This would utterly banish peace from among us, and that without hope of its return. It would engage me for one, in a thousand controversies, both in public and private; (for I should be in conscience obliged to give the reasons of my conduct, and to defend those reasons against all opposers,) and so take me off from those more useful labors, which might otherwise employ the short remainder of my life.

"8. Because to form the plan of a new Church would require infinite time and care, (which might be far more profitably bestowed,) with much more wisdom, and greater depth and extensiveness of thought, than any of us are masters of.

"9. Because, from some having barely entertained a distant thought of this, evil fruits have already followed, such as prejudice against the Clergy in general; and aptness to believe ill of them; contempt, not without a degree of bitterness, of Clergymen, as such, and a sharpness of language towards the whole order, utterly unbecoming either gentlemen or Christians.

"10. Because the experiment has been so frequently tried already, and the success never answered the expectation. God has, since the Reformation, raised up from time to time many witnesses of pure religion. If these lived and died (like John Arndt, Robert Bolton, and many others) in the Churches to which they belonged, notwithstanding the wickedness which overflowed both the teachers and the people therein, they spread the leaven of true religion far and wide, and were more and more useful, till they went to paradise. But if, upon any provocation or consideration whatever they separated, and founded distant parties, their influence was more and more confined; they grew less and less useful to others, and generally lost the spirit of religion themselves in the spirit of controversy.

"11. Because we have melancholy instances of this even now before our eyes. Many have, in our memory, left the Church, and form

ed themselves into distinct bodies. And certainly, some of them, from a real persuasion, that they should do God more service. But have any separated themselves and prospered? Have they been either more holy, or more useful than they were before?

"12. Because, by such a separation, we should not only throw away the peculiar glorying which God has given us, that we do and will suffer all things for our brethren's sake, though the more we love them, the less we be loved; but should act in direct contradiction to that very end, for which we believe God hath raised us up. The chief design of His providence in sending us out, is undoubtedly to quicken our brethren. And the first message of all our preachers is to the lost sheep of the Church of England. Now would it not be a flat contradiction to this design, to separate from the Church? These things being considered, we cannot apprehend (whether it be lawful in itself or no) that it is lawful for us: were it only on this ground, that it is by no means expedient.

*

"If it be said, 'But at the Church we are fed with chaff, whereas at the Meeting we have wholesome food;' we answer, (i.) The prayers of the Church are not chaff; they are substantial food for any who are alive to God. (ii.) The Lord's Supper is not chaff; but pure and wholesome for all who receive it with upright hearts. Yea, (iii.) In almost all the sermons we hear there, we hear many great and important truths; and whoever has a spiritual discernment may easily separate the chaff from the wheat therein. (iv.) How little is the case mended at the Meeting? Either the teachers are new light" men, or they are predestinarians. Now, whatever this may be to them who were educated therein, yet to those of our brethren who have lately embraced it, repeated experience shews it is not wholesome food; rather, to them it has the effect of deadly poison. In a short time it destroys all their zeal for God. Lastly, where

as we are surrounded on every side by those who are equally enemies to us and to the Church of England; and whereas these are long practised in this war, and skilled in all the objections against it; while our brethren on the other hand are quite strangers to them all, and so, on a sudden, know not how to answer them; it is highly expedient for every preacher to be provided with sound answers to those objections, and then to instruct the societies where he labors, how to defend themselves against those assaults; that they may no more be tost to and fro by every wind of doctrine; but being settled in one mind and one judgment, by solid Scriptural and rational arguments,