A defence of "Our fathers," and of the original organization of the Methodist Episcopal church , against the Rev. Alexander M'Caine and others

Front matter

DEFENCE OF "OUR FATHERS,"

AND OF THE

ORIGINAL ORGANIZATION

Contents

TO

A DEFENCE OF "OUR FATHERS."

Preface Pflge 3

Appendix

No. I. — Respecting Dr. Coke's Letter to Bishop White 151

II. — A Communication from the Rev. N. Bangs 153

III. — The Minute to cfeey Mr. Wesley 154

Preface

TO

A DEFENCE OF "OUR FATHERS."

The " fair" and " honourable" fame of " our fathers" is a treasure committed to our common trust ; in which all who bear their name ought to feel an interest ; and to defend which is our common duty The best construction of which their conduct and motives are susceptible was due to them even while alive, with opportunities and means to explain, and to defend themselves. Much more is it due in instituting an inquiry into their history, now that they are silenced in the grave, and incapable of self-defence. As we would that men should do to us, when death shall have sealed our lips, and stricken from our hand the ready pen, let us do even so to them. For the measure which we mete to others, in the just retributive visitations of Heaven, will be meted to us again. We should take heed, then, how, with rash and wanton rudeness, we trample upon the ashes of deceased fathers.

In the present discussion, however, we ask not for charity, in the cold sense of that abused term ; nor that pity shall turn the scale of judgment. We demand simple justice, — sheer justice. By that balance we agree that our fathers shall be tried. In that crucible we consent that both their acts and their motives shall be tested. All that we ask for them, in passing the ordeal, is, the allowance of the frailty inseparable from humanity ; and from which, with the purest and best intentions, the wisest and the holiest mortals have never been exempted.

The representation which Mr. M'Caine has given of the account of the Methodist Episcopal Church, published in Buck's Theological Dictionary, as it regards myself, is wholly unfounded. The editor of that work never was indebted to me for that account : nor was I aware that it had been imputed to me, till I saw Mr. M'Caine's statement. It had actually been published in a former edition of Buck's Dictionary, and attributed to another hand, before I was " Book Agent," or " Publisher for the Methodist Episcopal Church" at all. This circumstance alone might have rendered the imputation of it to me at least " suspicious." In some other cases Mr. M'Caine has not deemed it a sufficient warrant for the assumption of facts, that he has merely found them stated in print. Had he been equally suspicious in this instance, it might have led him to farther inquiry ; in which case the means of correct and certain information were easily and perfectly within his reach.

6 PREFACE TO A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS.

A communication from my friend, the Rev. N. Bangs, explanatory of that publication, and of his book on " Methodist Episcopacy," will be found in the Appendix. And in justice to him, as Mr. M'Caine has attacked that book, it ought to be known that Mr. M'Caine himself was one of the committee to whom it was submitted, before its publication; and by whom its publication was recommended. The recommendation stands on record, attested by his own hand. And whatever responsibility may exist for its doctrines, or for its official acceptance and pub lication " for the Methodist Episcopal Church," this " reverend gentle man," I conceive, is as much concerned in that matter as the author himself.

The work here presented to the reader is not a party work. It is an attempt to wipe off the foul stains which have been cast on us, through the aspersion of our founders. If Mr. M'Caine's book be true, it is impossible that any Methodist, who is a real friend of the church, and of our fathers, can otherwise than feel himself disgraced. To such, a satisfactory refutation of it cannot fail to be acceptable. Whatever may be the claims of the respective questions of ecclesiastical polity agitated among us, let them stand on their own bases. To attempt to promote any of them by personal attacks on the dead, is an unworthy resort ; and, with the judicious and reflecting, can only be regarded as indicating a deficiency of better argument.

In the little leisure allowed me by other extensive and pressing engagements, I might perhaps be excused for craving some indulgence from the reader, in replying to a work in the preparation of which several years were employed. This, however, I trust, is not necessary. All that is asked is a candid examination of the whole of the following pages, in their consecutive order. This is the more necessary, as the various sections have a mutual connection and dependance ; — subsequent ones assuming what had been established in the preceding ; nor was it found convenient in all cases, to keep the matter of the respective titles entirely distinct.

In preparing this Defence the Divine assistance has been asked : — In sending it abroad, the Divine blessing is now implored.

J. Emory.

New -York, November, 1827.

DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS

Section I.— Episcopacy

Mr. M'Caine's first inquiry is, "What views do eccle siastical writers give us of an episcopal form of church government ?"

In answer to this inquiry, he quotes certain authorities in support of the following positions, viz. :

That " Episcopalians, in the strict sense of the word, are those who maintain that episcopacy is of apostolic institution, or that the church of Christ has ever been governed by three distinct orders, bishops, presbyters or priests, and deacons ; — that no one has a right to execute the ministerial office without having previously received a divine commission ; — and the exclusive right of granting this commission is vested in the bishops as successors of the apostles."

That " it is a principle universally established among Episcopalians, that a succession from the apostles in the order of bishops, as an order superior to and distinct from presbyters, is a requisite without which a valid Christian ministry cannot be preserved ; and that such bishops alone possess the power of ordaining and commissioning ministers to feed the flock of Christ."

That "since the distinction of bishops and presbyters has been of divine appointment, it necessarily follows that the power of ordination, which is the chief mark of this distinction, was reserved to the bishops by the same appointment."

Mr. M'Caine adds, " We have here some of the most

© A DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS.

prominent features of an episcopal church, as laid down by writers of great celebrity. We would now ask our brethren who say Mr. Wesley recommended the episcopal mode of church government, if there is in any of the letters which he wrote a single line that would lead us to suppose that he held any one of the foregoing particulars ? Nay, did he not positively say he did not hold them? What kind of an episcopal government then must it be that has not in it a single feature of episcopacy as described by ecclesiastical writers ?"

But did not Mr. M'Caine know that there are " ecclesiastical writers" who describe " episcopacy" with other features ? If he did not, his want of information is greater than we could have imagined. If he did, his argument is not ingenuous. We can scarcely believe that it can have imposed on himself : and it is certainly too glaringly fallacious to be imposed on others.

" It ought to be understood," says Dr. Samuel Miller, " that among those who espouse the episcopal side, — there are three classes.

" The first consists of those who believe that neither Christ nor his apostles laid down any particular form of ecclesiastical government to which the church is bound to adhere in all ages. That every church is free, consistently with the divine will, to frame her constitution agreeably to her own views, to the state of society, and to the exigencies of particular times. These prefer the episcopal government, and some of them believe that it was the primitive form ; but they consider it as resting on the ground of human expediency alone, and not of divine appointment. This is well known to have been the opinion of Archbishops Cranmer, Grindal, Whitgift, Leighton, and Tillotson ; of Bishops Jewel, Reynolds, Burnet, and Croft ; of Drs. Whitaker and Stillingfleet, and of a long list of the most learned and pious divines of the Church of England, from the reformation down to the present day

" Another class of Episcopalians go farther. They suppose that the government of the church by bishops, as a superior order to presbyters, was sanctioned by apostolic example, and that it is the duty of all churches to imitate this example. But while they consider episcopacy as necessary to the perfection of the church, they grant that it is by no means necessary to her existence; and accordingly, without hesitation, acknowledge as true churches of Christ many in which the episcopal doctrine is rejected, and presbyterian principles made the basis of ecclesiastical government. The advocates of this opinion, also, have been numerous and respectable, both among the clerical and lay members of the Episcopal churches in England and the United States. In this list appear the venerable names of Bishop Hall, Bishop Downham, Bishop Bancroft, Bishop Andrews, Archbishop Usher, Bishop Forbes, the learned Chillingworth, Archbishop Wake, Bishop Hoadly, and many more.

"A third class go much beyond either of the former. While they grant that God has left men at liberty to modify every other kind of government according to circumstances, they contend that one form of government for the church is unalterably fixed by divine appointment , that this form is episcopal , that it is absolutely essential to the existence of the church ; that, of course, wherever it is wanting, there is no church, no regular ministry, no valid ordinances; and that all who are united with religious societies not conforming to this order are ' aliens from Christ,' ' out of the appointed way to heaven,' and have no hope but in the ' uncovenanted mercies of God.'

" It is confidently believed," continues Dr. Miller, " that the two former classes taken together, embrace at least nineteen parts out of twenty of all the Episcopalians in Great Britain and the United States ; while, so far as can be learned from the most respectable writings, and other authentic sources of information, it is only the small remaining proportion who hold the extravagant opinions assigned to the third and last of these classes."

If we may rely on the researches of Dr. Miller, then, it is so far from being true, that "it is a principle universally established among Episcopalians, that a succession from the apostles in the order of bishops, as an order superior to and distinct from presbyters, is a requisite without which a valid Christian ministry cannot be preserved , and that such bishops alone possess the power of ordaining and commissioning ministers to feed the flock of Christ ;" that at least nineteen- twentieths of all the Episcopalians in Great Britain and in the United States hold no such sentiments.* Neither, as we shall show, were they the sentiments of Dr. Coke, or of Mr. Asbury, any more than of Mr. Wesley . nor do we believe that they are entertained by a single individual among Methodist Episcopalians, either in the ministry or in the laity.

The Irenicum of Dr. Stillingfleet, subsequently Bishop Stillingfleet, will be admitted to rank among the productions of "ecclesiastical writers" of distinguished "celebrity" From this work we shall exhibit a view of episcopacy somewhat different from that of Mr. M'Caine.f

"I assert," says Dr. Stillingfleet, " any particular form of government agreed on by the governors of the church, consonant to the general rules of Scripture, to be by divine right , that is, God, by his own laws, hath given men a power and liberty -to determine the particular

* Gisborne also asserts that they are not the sentiments of the Church of England. — Survey, p. 254.

f The object of Stillingfleet, in this work, was to discuss and examine the divine right of the different forms of church government, according to the principles of the law of nature, the positive laws of God, the practice of the apostles and the primitive church, and the judgment of reformed divines ; in order to lay a foundation for the peace of the church, and for the accommodation of the differences which then existed. His aim was to moderate the extravagant pretensions of high churchmen, on the one side, and the intemperate zeal of those, on the other, who were for destroying episcopacy altogether. With what ability, and excellent temper, and moderation, he performed this task will appear in the sequel.

form of church government among them. And hence it may appear, that though one form of government be agreeable to the word, it doth not follow that another is not, or because one is lawful, another is unlawful ; but one form may be more agreeable to some parts, places, people, and times, than others are. In which case, that form of government is to be settled which is most agreeable to the present state of a place, and is most advantageously conducible to the promoting the ends of church government in that place or nation." Irenicum, pp. 9, 10, 2d edit. Lond. 1662^

" Matters of fact and mere apostolical practice, may, I freely grant, receive much light from the records of succeeding ages ; but they can never give a man's understanding sufficient ground to infer any divine law, arising from those facts attested to by the practice or records of succeeding ages." Ibid., p. 151.

In relation to arguments drawn from the testimony of antiquity, before their authority can be admitted in this controversy, Dr. Stillingfleet affirms, " these things must be manifested : — that such things were unquestionably the practice of those ages and persons ; thai their practice was the same as that of the apostles ; that what theij did was not from any prudential motives, but by virtue of a law which did bind them to that practice. Which things are easily passed over by the most eager disputers of the controversy about church government, but how necessary they are to be proved, before any form of government be asserted so necessary, that without it there can be no true church, any weak understanding may discern." lb.

" The reason of apostolical practice binds still, though not the individual action; that as they regulated churches for the best conveniency of governing them, so should the pastors of churches now." lb., p. 181.

" Any one particular form of government in the church is neither expressed in any direct terms by Christ, nor can be deduced by just consequence ; therefore no such form of government is instituted by Christ." lb., p. 18,2,

" But though nothing can be inferred from hence as to the necessity of that office to continue in the church, which Timothy and Titus were invested in , yet from the superiority of that power which they enjoyed over those churches, whether as evangelists or as fixed bishops, these two things may be inferred : First, That the superiority of some church officers over others is not contrary to the rule of the gospel : for all parties acknowledge the superiority of their power above the presbyters of the several cities , only the continuance of this power is disputed by many But if they had any such power at all, it is enough for my present design, viz., that such a superiority is not contrary to the gospel rule : or that the nature of the government of the church doth not imply a necessary equality among the governors of it. Secondly, Hence I infer that it is not repugnant to the constitutions of churches in apostolical times lor men to have power over more than one particular congregation. For such a power Timothy and Titus had ; which, had it been contrary to the nature of the regiment of churches, we should never have read of in the firstplanted churches. So that if those popular arguments of a necessary relation between a pastor and a particular people, of personal knowledge, care, and inspection, did destroy the lawfulness of extending that care or charge to many particular congregations, they would likewise overthrow the nature, end, and design of the office which Timothy and Titus acted in , which had a relation to a multitude of particular and congregational churches. "Whether their power was extraordinary or no, I now dispute not ; but whether such a power be repugnant to the gospel or no, which from their practice it is evident that it is not." lb., pp. 186, 187

The foundation of this power was laid in the power which the apostles were invested with, which was extended over many, both churches and pastors. " If it be said, The apostolical power, being extraordinary, must cease with the persons who enjoyed it; I answer, j^r^, What was extraordinary did cease ; but all the dispute is what was extraordinary, and what was not. Secondly, By ceasing may be meant either ceasing as to its necessity, or ceasing as to its lawfulness. I say not but that the necessity of the office, as in their persons, for the first preaching and propagating the gospel, did cease with them ; but that after their death it became unlawful for any particular persons to take the care and charge of diocesan churches, I deny. For to make a thing unlawful, which was before lawful, there must be some express prohibition, forbidding any farther use of such a power, which, I suppose, men will not easily produce in the word of God." lb., pp. 194, 5.

" The extending of any ministerial power is not the appointing of any new office; because every minister of the gospel hath a relation in actu primo" (primarily) "to the whole church of God ; the restraint and enlargement of which power is subject to positive determinations of prudence and conveniency, — and therefore if the church see it fit for some men to have this power enlarged, for better government in some, and restrained in others, that enlargement is the' appointing no new office, but the making use of a power already enjoyed for the benefit of the church of God. This being a foundation tending so fully to clear the lawfulness of that government in the church, which implies a superiority and subordination of the officers of the church to one another; and the church using her prudence in ordering the bounds of her officers, I shall do these two things . First, Show that the power of every minister of the gospel doth primarily and habitually respect the church in common. Secondly, That ' the church may, in a peculiar manner, single out some of its officers for the due administration of ecclesiastical power." lb., p. 195.

" The officers of the church may, in a peculiar manner, attribute a larger and more extensive power to some particular persons, for the more convenient exercise of their common power — grant to some the executive part of that power, which is originally and fundamentally common to them all. For our better understanding of this, we must consider a twofold power belonging to church officers, a power of order, and a power of jurisdiction." lb. p., 197

Under this distinction he shows, that though every presbyter, primarily and inherently, as to order possesses a capacity for the highest ministerial acts, yet " some farther authority is necessary in a church constituted" (or organized) " besides the power of order ; and when this power, either by consent of the pastors of the church, or by the appointment of a Christian magistrate, or both, is devolved to some particular persons, though quoad aptitudinem" (as to the capacity or fitness) " the power remain in every presbyter, yet quoad executionem, (as to the actual discharge or execution of it,) " it belongs to those who are so appointed. And therefore Camero determines that ordination doth not belong to the power of order, but to the power of jurisdiction, and therefore is subject to positive restraints, by prudential determinations. By this we may understand how lawful the exercise of an episcopal power may be in the church of God, supposing an equality in all church officers as to the power of order. And how incongruously they speak, who, supposing an equality in the presbyters of churches at first, do cry out that the church takes upon her the office of Christ, if she delegates any to a more peculiar exercise of the power of jurisdiction ." lb., pp. 197, 8.

" Before the jurisdiction of presbyters was restrained by mutual consent, in this instant, doubtless, the presbyters enjoyed the same liberty that the presbyters among the Jews did, of ordaining other presbyters, by that power they were invested in at their own ordina tion. In the first primitive church, the presbyters all

acted in common for the welfare of the church, and either did or might ordain others to the same authority with themselves , because the intrinsical power of order is equally in them, and in those who were after appointed governors over presbyteries. And the collation of orders doth come from the power of order, and not merely from the power of jurisdiction. It being likewise fully acknowledged by the schoolmen, that bishops are not superior above presbyters, as to the power of order " lb., p. 273.

" It is evident Jerome attributes the first original of that exsors potestas," [delegated power, or power given by choice,] " as he calls it elsewhere, in the bishop above presbyters, not to any apostolical institution, but to the free choice of the presbyters themselves : which doth fully explain what he means by consuetudo ecclesice before spoken of, viz., that which came up by a voluntary act of the governors of churches themselves.

To which we may add what Eutychius the patriarch of Alexandria saith, in his Origines Ecclesice Alexandrince, published in Arabic by our most learned Selden, who expressly affirms, that the twelve presbyters constituted by Mark upon the vacancy of the see, did choose out of their number one to be head over the rest, and the other eleven did lay their hands upon him, and blessed him, and made him patriarch.11 lb., p. 274.

" Antonius de Rosellis fully expresseth my meaning in this;" — (in the first period of the church.) " Every presbyter and presbyters did ordain indifferently, and thence arose schisms : thence the liberty was restrained and reserved peculiarly to some persons who did act in the several presbyteries, as the wrwri or Prince of the Sanhe-

drin, both parties granting that in the church such a

restraint was laid upon the liberty of* ordaining presbyters : and the exercise of that power may be restrained still, granting it to be radically and intrinsically in them.

So that this controversy is not such as should divide the church. For those that are for ordinations only by a superior order in the church, acknowledging a radical power for ordination in presbyters, which may be exercised in case of necessity, do thereby make it evident, that none who grant that, do think that any positive law of God hath forbidden presbyters the power of ordination , for then it must be wholly unlawful, and so in case of necessity it cannot be valid. "Which doctrine I dare with some confidence assert to be a stranger to our Church of England, — on the other side, those who hold ordinations by presbyters lawful, do not therefore hold them necessary, but it being a matter of liberty, and not of necessity — this power then may be restrained by those who have the care of the church's peace, and matters of liberty being restrained, ought to be submitted to, in order to the church's peace." lb., p. 276.

"In the matter itself, I believe upon the strictest inquiry Medina's judgment will prove true, that Jerome, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Aerius's judgment as to the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive church ; but here lay the difference. Aerius from hence proceeded to separation from bishops and their churches, because they were bishops. And Blondell well observes, that the main ground why Aerius was condemned was for unnecessary separation from the church of Sebastia ; and those

bishops, too, who agreed with him in other things, -

whereas Jerome was so far from thinking it necessary to cause a schism in the church, by separating from bishops, that his opinion is clear, that the first institution of them was for preventing schisms ; and therefore, for peace and unity, he thought their institution very useful in the church of God." lb., pp. 276-7

" When the apostles were taken out of the way, who kept the main power in their own hands of ruling their several presbyteries, or delegated some to do it, (who had a main hand in planting churches with the apostles, and thence are called in Scripture, sometimes fellowlabourers in the Lord, and sometimes evangelists, and by Theodoret apostles, but of a second order,) after, I say, these were deceased, and the main power left in the presbyteries, the several presbyters enjoying an equal power among themselves, — the wiser and graver sort considered the abuses following the promiscuous use of this power of ordination, and withal having in their minds the excellent frame of the government of the church, under the apostles and their deputies, and for preventing of future schisms and divisions among themselves, they unanimouslij agreed to choose one out of their number who was best qualified for the management of so great a trust, and to devolve the exercise of the power of ordination and jurisdiction to him, yet so as that he act nothing of importance without the consent and concurrence of the presbyters, who were still to be as the common council to the bishop. This I take to be the true and just account of the original of episcopacy in the primitive church according to Jerome : which model of government, thus contrived and framed, sets forth to us a most lively character of that great wisdom and moderation which then ruled the heads and hearts of the primitive Christians, and which, when men have studied and searched all other ways, (the abuses incident to this government through the corruptions of men and times being retrenched,) will be found the most agreeable to the primitive form, both as asserting the due interest of the presbyteries, and allowing the due honour of episcopacy, and by the great harmony of both, carrying on the affairs of the church with the greatest unity, concord, and peace. Which form of government, I cannot see how any possible reason can be produced by either party why they may not with cheerfulness embrace it" IK, 281-2.

" Thus we have once more cleared Jerome and the truth together ; I only wish that all that are of his judgment for the practice of the primitive church, were of his temper for the practice of their own ; and while they own not episcopacy as necessary by a divine right, yet (being duly moderated, and joined with presbyteries) they may embrace it, as not only a lawful, but very useful constitution in the church of God. By which we may see what an excellent temper may be found out, most fully consonant to the primitive church for the management of ordinations and church power, viz., by the presidency OF THE BISHOP AND THE CONCURRENCE OF THE

presbytery." lb., p. 283.

" All that I have to say then, concerning the course taken by the apostles, in settling the government of the churches, — lies in these three propositions, — viz., That neither can we have that certainty of apostolical practise, which is necessary to constitute a divine right, nor, secondly, is it probable that the apostles did tie themselves up to any one fixed course in modelling churches; nor, thirdly, if they did, doth it necessarily follow that we must observe the same" lb., p. 287

"In this place, lib. 4, cap. 43,. he" (Irenseus) "not only asserts the succession of presbyters to the apostles, but likewise attributes the successio episcopatus" (the succession of the episcopate) " to these very presbyters." Whence comes then the community of names still, that those who are said to succeed the apostles, are called bishops in one place, but presbyters in another; and

THE VERY SUCCESSION OF EPISCOPACY ATTRIBUTED TO PRESBYTERS?" lb., p. 307

'"And great probability there is, that where churches

were planted by presbyters, as the Church of France by

Andochius and Inignus, that afterward, upon the

increase of churches and presbyters to rule them, they

did from among themselves choose one to be as the

bishop over them, as Pothinus was at Lyons. For we

2* nowhere read in those early 'plantations of churches, that where there were presbyters already, they sent to other churches to desire episcopal ordination from them" lb., p. 375.

"It is a known instance, that in the ordination of Pelagius, first bishop of Rome, there were only two bishops concerned and one presbyter ; whereas, according to the fourth canon of the Nicene council, three bishops are absolutely required for the ordination of a bishop : either, then, Pelagius was no canonical bishop, and so the point of succession thereby fails in the church of Rome : or else a presbyter hath the same intrinsical power of ordination which a bishop hath," [even in ordaining a bishop,] " but it is only restrained by ecclesiastical laws." lb., p. 380.