America, (not in Europe,) or because they judge it most conducive to the political interests of these states to have an executive officer for life? Or do they believe that these differences, or want of resemblance between the governments of the two societies, preserves and promotes their union? This is insulting. You know very well that our bishops were ordained, and of course are the successors of Mr. Wesley, but that the members of the British conference were not ordained. True-we are not wholly ignorant about these matters; but were not the members of the British conference appointed Mr. Wesley's successors by his deed of settlement? A title which we are sure they would not give up or suffer to be brought into competition with our ordination. The truth is, that the intention of Mr. Wesley was countervailed by the election of the Methodist bishops; and, the least that is said about our succession, may be most easily explained.

It would have been gratifying could it have been known how the founder of Methodism would have answered such a letter as the following, had it been, as it ought to have been, written and sent to him before our bishops were elected.

"Venerable father in Christ, we your most dutiful sons in the gospel, in conference assembled, having read your letters, &c. after mature deliberation, beg leave to inform you, that we cannot consent to the ordination of any bishop over us, who is not elected by a conference of American travelling preachers, and thus placing him beyond the reach of your control or recall, and disqualifying you from appointing any other to rule in conjunction with him," &c.

If it was true, as somebody supposed, that the leaving of Mr. Wesley's name out of the American minutes, shortened his days, such a communication would not, in all probability, have added many to the years of his pilgrimage. We only mean to say, that the duration of the executive offices in the British connexion is more like republicanism than monarchy; and that Mr. Wesley knew they would be so. We say, moreover, that it is not just to father our election upon Mr. Wesley, as it is evident enough that he meant to have the making of our bishops while he lived, and of giving them the benefit of a sea voyage now and then, as occasion might serve; but from a dread of water or some other cause, the plan did not take on our side. Now, if it ever comes to pass that the members of our

church have a voice in the choice of our bishops, their election will be more like a republican election than an aristocratical one.

We cannot, indeed, so easily trace our feelings to their origin, as we can analyze them; without pretending, therefore, to account for the fact, we find that we are much less scandalized when we perceive any points of resemblance between an ancient and modern system of church government and republicanism, than when we hear our brethren laboring to prove that the only true features of church government are fac similies of all the odious lineaments of priest-craft and king-craft, which have afflicted the bodies and souls of mankind from the beginning of the world to this day. But there is one particular which we well recollect, though we have no doubt forgotten many others. When Mr. Asbury used to contrive to get the votes of the General Conferences to request him to continue to serve the connexion other four years, that circumstance first set us to thinking whether it would be lawful, or expedient, to have an actual re-election of bishops, or choose them only for a term of years: and the strongest objection to such a plan seemed to us, like to the divine right of kings, viz: they are the Lord's anointed, and so we left it. As for the zeal of certain brethren, which knows no bounds in promoting and flattering the prerogatives of bishops, our confidence in it was greatly weakened at an early period by the following circumstance. A preacher of some standing, having received his appointment, complimented the bishop with something so like unerring wisdom, that the grating sound roused our attention; but finding the eulogy was not repelled by any apparent expression of disapprobation, we pondered the case in our hearts, and lo! before the end of the year this obsequious brother had taken his ministerial standing among the Baptists. To conclude this desultory essay; the British connexion have set us an example by choosing their executive officers periodically. Does it not behoove us, in order to preserve and promote a union, to return the republican compliment, and set them the example of giving the members of the church a voice in these important elections, that these servants of the church may be made to feel, in some degree, their dependence on those from whom they derive their title and consequence? It has been well said by somebody, that the ministers were made for the church, and not the church for the ministry. COMPARER.

No. 16.

Wesleyan Repository, vol. ii. November, 1822, No. vii. page 241. Amicus to the Editor.-Dokemasius to Amicus, Nos. I and II. A view of the Primitive Church and its Government. MR. STOCKTON,

I have just received from my much respected friend Dokemasius, two letters and an excellent paper on the primitive church and its government, which he has kindly placed at my service, as auxiliaries in the further prosecution of the review of Mr. B's book. But as they came to hand too late for use in the second part of the review, and as the letters and views on the primitive church, constitute an able, ingenious, and luminous discussion of subjects highly interesting to the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, I have thought it most advisable to forward the whole to you, for publication in the Repository. The second letter, in particular, will serve as an answer to the whispers of those who have intimated that we are Congregationalists. Your's,

To Amicus.-No. I.

MOST ESTEEMED FRIEND AND BROTHER,

AMICUS.

From what you say of the seller and buyers of the monstrous doctrines contained in the book you are reviewing, I shall not be surprised to find that the separation in New York had its origin, in part, in a knowledge of those things. Mr. Stilwell, as Secretary of the annual conference, may have had an extensive knowledge of men and measures. But, be that as it may, the book was certainly in circulation, and its contents generally known, for a considerable time before the commencement of the publication of the Repository. Offensive war, therefore, was declared against ecclesiastical liberty, by the purchasers of the copy right of the Vindication. In vain may it be argued that it was written against Mr. S. and his congregation, while the proof exists that it was offered for publication long before that segregation. The book contains an avowal of principles, which outrages all the rights and privileges for which martyrs burned or bled. An attempt is now made by our rulers, to their infinite shame be it spoken, to prove that the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church does

not differ in principle from the Popish hierarchy. The first volume of the Repository spared the book and its author, though it was well known that he was making the most strenuous and unremitting efforts to prevent the circulation of the Repository; but longer silence would be criminal. It is time to speak out. Let no false delicacy toward the author, or those who gave him the premium, prevent you from probing to the bottom that conspiratous publication against the liberties of the children of God. Its contents ought to be exposed to open censure, for they are calculated to produce new segregations. If such works are patronized, the brethren will not be suffered much longer to think and let think-"to agree to disagree."

The enclosed papers are at your service; they were first drawn up in the form of a synopsis, about the year 1799. The present copy is considerably abridged, most of the quotations from the gospels, and the texts in the originals are omitted, and the remarks and reflections shortened. One reason which first led me to make this attempt, was the propensity that I discovered in those party writers whom I read, to use scripture in support of their preconceived hopotheses. It occurred to me, that as the subject of church government is not of the same super-human nature as positive theology; that, therefore, there is not the same necessity for explicit revelation in the form of descriptions, propositions, and commands, and that if a sufficient number of precedents and examples exist in the New Testament to enable us to find a principle, it may be equally true and equally useful, as though it was expressly revealed. Ignorant of the result, and fearless of consequences, I began by collecting the original names of all the church offices and officers; and was surprised to find how often the word deacon, and its derivatives, occurred, and how seldom the word bishop and its derivatives. The two following texts were brought into the most unlooked for conjunction: "And his (episcopeen) bishoprick let another man take"-"Hath counted me faithful, putting me into the (diakonian) ministry." So the apostleship is called a deaconship, as well as a bishoprick. Another result was a full conviction on my mind, that Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregational, and such like party names, could have had no place in apostolic times. When the same men called themselves, or were called by others, by various official titles promiscuously, we may be sure that no great

stress was laid upon the dignities of office. Almost all the conclusions, which were thus forced upon me, by this New Testament research, were then, like so many original discoveries, especially the following, viz. that the primitive churches were confederated, and not indivisible, like the modern episcopalian hierarchies. This conclusion, you will perceive, could not have been admitted by me, had not my mind been so far unfettered as to call no man master. In all these points I may be mistaken; but if I am not, the consequence is unavoidable, and ought to alarm our church hierarchy men exceedingly.

With regard to the contemporary existence of all the church officers mentioned in the New Testament, and the bearing of this fact upon the succession, the conclusion upon my mind is irresistible. The apostles and evangelists were extraordinary officers; their extraordinary work was, in part, the planting and establishing churches. Were they succeeded by the ordinary rulers or overseers of the churches, the bishops? If so, then the successors were both ordinary and extraordinary. Titus was an evangelist, and yet the tradition is that he was ordained the first bishop of Crete, and was at the same time successor to an apostleone apostle-not, surely, to them all. How things change! In Paul's time, God gave some apostles, some evangelists, and some pastors; but if certain men may be credited, all these distinctions came to be united in one person. Could this change have taken place without an innovation! How is it that our succession men are so inattentive to numbers? We have not a word about the twelve successors. If the twelve foundations were so necessary in the beginning, would it not have been unsafe to have diminished the number as the superstructure grew? We hear nothing about the twelve evangelists, who succeeded the twelve apostles. May we not expect that some one among our profound divines, will soon obtain a handsome premium for writing a book, which nobody will think it worth while to republish, in order to shew, the differenee between the successors of St. Peter and our three successors of all the evangelists?

Yours,

DOKEMASIUS.