The Episcopal controversy reviewed

Front matter

PITTS

THEOLOGY

L I B RARY

Preface To Episcopal Controversy

BY THE EDITOR

The late period at which this work is presented to the public, and the unfinished state in which it appears, will be best explained by a brief statement of the circumstances attending its composition and publication. About ten or twelve years since, when the economy of the Methodist Episcopal Church was assailed by foes from within, the author of the present essay undertook its defence in a tract entitled " A Defence of our Fathers, and of the original Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church," &c. That work passed through several editions, and as the demand seemed likely to continue, the publishers requested the author to prepare a revised edition. This he appears, at one time, to have contemplated, as a copy was found interleaved, apparently for that purpose. Subsequently, however, he seems to have been satisfied, from his own observation and the opinion of others, that, inasmuch as the controversy which had elicited the original work was dying away, while the attacks upon the organization of the church, both openly and secretly, were perhaps increasing in other quarters, it would be better to prepare an entirely new work, in which the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church should be defended, not merely against the cavils of a particular party or sect, but against all opposition , and its entire accordance with Scriptural authority and primitive usage be established by a full investigation of the subject of episcopacy in general, and of Methodist episcopacy in particular. Such was the plan of the present work : the sudden death of the author left it but partially and imperfectly executed. The manuscript contained only a discus-

IV PREFACE.

sion of the subject of episcopacy in general, in a reply to " An Essay on the Invalidity of Presbyterian Ordination, by John Esten Cooke, M. D.," and a part of a reply to a tract entitled " Episcopacy tested by Scripture," by Dr. H. U. Onderdonk, then assistant bishop of Pennsylvania. Whether it was intended to notice any other works on the opposite side, may be doubted, as the first afforded an opportunity to examine the argument from the Fathers, the second the argument from Scripture. Why an answer to these two works, one of which was published in 1829, and the other in 1830, was delayed until 1835, the year of the author's death, none will inquire who have any knowledge of his arduous and incessant engagements, first, in establishing the Methodist Book Concern on the basis on which it has since stood, and subsequently, in discharging the still more responsible and absorbing duties of the episcopate ; especially when it is farther considered that it would take some time to satisfy him, that arguments, which appeared to him so untenable, could ever have possessed the influence which they seem to have exerted on some minds.

This may suffice in regard to the circumstances under which the essay was written. It may be expected that some explanation will also be given of the delay of its publication. To some, however, and certainly to the editor himself, a more interesting inquiry may be, why, since it is acknowledged to be imperfect, it is published at all. Immediately after the author's decease the manuscript was examined, and being found incomplete was laid aside, not to meet the rude gaze of those who can pardon no imperfection however unavoidable, but as a memorial of the last efforts of one, every relic of whom was precious. Some time after, however, several intimate friends of the deceased, of high standing in the church, desired to read the manuscript, and after pe-