to no supernatural visions nor revelations. He never professed to be able to cure the sick or raise the dead. We believe he never wrought any miracles as the Apostles did,nor made any pretensions to be able to work them. That he was a great, wise, good, and useful minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, having few to equal him, we feel a pleasure in declaring: but that he possessed any one of those extraordinary powers which were conferred on the apostles,or that he was called of God to do the special work which the Apostles were appointed to perform, we hope it will be considered no detraction from his well earned reputation, to deny.

Next to Mr. Asbury, comes the Rev'd. William McKendree, the senior bishop of the Methodist episcopal church. On the authori ty of "an old member of the Philadelphia conference," we give the following extract from bishop M'Kendree's address laid before the Philadelphia conference in May, 1822. "I believe the resolutions passed at the last general conference, authorising the respective annual conferences to elect the presiding elders, are an infringement on the constitution of the Methodist episcopal church. One of many reasons in support of this opinion is as follows: It is the duty of a bishop to travel through the work at large; to oversee the spiritual and temporal concerns of the church. But to oversee is to OVERRULE." Wesleyan Repository, vol. 2. page 385.

This extract is short, but it is pithy. It is small in size, but it is lofty in significance. Although much might be said on it, we shall make two remarks only. 1 It seems to intimate that a bishop's judgment is more correct and more to be relied on than the judgment of the majority of the general conference. This, with some, may be a thing of course; for it has been said " A saint in crape is twice a saint in lawn." This superior judgment is not a full and explicit avowal of infallibility, but it is an approximation to it. It places the decision of the senior bishop, above the general conference; as some Romish writers make the Pope's decision to be greater than that of a general council. 2. In the extract from Mr. M'Kendree's predecesser, we had "divine authority" for the exercise of episcopal power. Here we have that power, by the same authority we presume, extending its gracious and superintending care, not only to to the spiritual concerns of the church, but over-ruling its TEMPORAL matters, also.

Finally, we shall make a passing remark on the "circular" of the general conference of 1824, which bears the signatures of the three bishops, William M'Kendree, Enoch George, and Robert R. Roberts. This document, which we wish our readers to consider as the principal exciting cause of this investigation, exceeds all that went before, and may in truth be said to cap the climax :* for we do not

"In a letter which we wrote to bishop George, two years ago, we expressed ourselves respecting this" Circular" in the following manner. "A paper drawn up by a committee of twelve preachers, discussed and approved by at least one hundred ministers in general conference, and bearing the sig nature of three bishops. In this document there are no more than two subjects noticed, MONEY and PowEn, or the salaries of the preachers, and the

know how it is possible to go beyond the pretensions therein set forth. Let the" world" know then, that this document purports to be a reply to the numerous petitions which were sent from the local ministers and laymen of the church, praying for a representation in the general conference. In these petitions, the matters prayed for were asserted to be the "unalienable rights" of the petitioners. To which these three bishops reply in behalf of the said general conference, “ PARDON US IF WE KNOW NO SUCH RIGHTS-1F WE COMPREHEND NO SUCH PRIVILEGES." Here, then, is the exclu sive right of travelling preachers to legislate for the church, asserted and local ministers and laymen, who are denied a participation in legislation, are reduced, in this respect, to the condition of slaves. We have often said to our friends, in remarking upon this declaration, that we wonder these three brethren were not ashamed to sign and send forth such a circular, to freemen in these United States. And as we never have allowed ourselves, since the day we knew the Lord, to make any observations respecting a person, behind his back, which we would be unwilling to make to that same person, to his face; we now say of these three brethren, we wonder they were not ashamed; and the only way we can account for their conduct in this instance, is this,that a bishop's spirit came upon them, and we have no where read, in ecclesiastical history, that bishops were ever very backward to assert their pretensions.

To recapitulate the leading points: every one will perceive with what rapidity we have advanced in our career of ambition and giory; and with what boldness the pretensions of our bishops have. been set forth by themselves or their advocates. In forty years we have outstript Rome herself, in her march to grandeur; and it would seem, that what some writers have affirmed respecting the Western hemisphere, namely, that every thing in America is upon a larger and grander scale, and that the natural productions sooner arrive at maturity here, than on the Eastern continent, is to be verified in our church matters also. We began our church establishment a few years ago, and rested the foot of our ecclesiastical ladder upon Mr. Wesley's authority; but his authority was soon rejected. The first step of our ladder is the identity of bishops and presbyters, or two orders. The second, "episcopal authority" with limitations and restrictions. The third, three distinct orders. The fourth, a right of the itinerant ministry to legislate for the church. And so intent was the general conference upon establishing this right, and so perfectly absorbed were their minds with this subject, that the name of God, of Jesus Christ* or the Holy Ghost, is not named in the circular. In it, there is no allusion to the doctrines of the fall, nor to the recovery of man by the death of Christ. The terms repentance, faith or holiness are not mentioned in it from beginning to end. There is not a single promise referred to as a motive to duty, or as an encouragement to perseverance; nor the slightest reference to heaven as the reward of the righteous. In it will be found no expression of thanksgiving to the great Head of the Church for past mercies; nor a word of prayer for future favors"!!

*The invidious comparison made between the "love of Christ" and the love of authority" cannot invalidate the above assertion.

"presbyterian ordination, and an episcopal ordination as good as any in the world." The fifth, Methodist bishops," very much resemble" primitive evangelists. The sixth, "divine authority" for episcopal power. The seventh, a right" to overrule the spiritual and temporal concerns of the church." The eighth, "divine right" to legislate for the church to the exclusion of local preachers and laymen. By such steps have we advanced to the ground we now occupy; and time alone can develope what other steps may be added in the progress of the work. We have no idea, however, that the present bishops have found a stopping place; nor that they or their successors will voluntarily relinquish one particicle of their authority. Indeed, we are rather inclined to think, they will still continue their exertions to ascend. And, that what was said of the bishops of another church, may be said by the future historian respecting them. "It is very remarkable that of the one hundred and fourteen Popes between Boniface III. who laid the foundation of the papal grandeur, and Gregory VII. who raised it to the highest pitch, not one ever lost an inch of ground his predecessor had gain ed." Bower's history of the Popes. Preface.

Before we dismiss this part of our subject, we shall anticipate an objection that may possibly be made against us, and answer it.Some one may say, that by arguing against Methodist bishops being a third order, different from presbyters and superior to them, we are arguing against the validity of our own ordination; and the ordination among the Methodists. Not so, for according to our views of the nature and effect of an ordination, if the authority of the bishops, so called,in the Methodist episcopal church, was totally renounced, the validity of the ordination of all our ordained ministers would remain unimpaired; or, otherwise it must follow as an undeniable consequence, that there was no valid ordination in the prim itive church, when there were but two orders of ministers. If the objection has any weight in the one case, it must have equal weight in the other; seeing there were but two orders in the church for upwards of three hundred years after Christ. That there were but two, viz. bishops and deacons, or presbyters and deacons, is a fact which we think is clearly established by ecclesiastical writers. And, although we do not know that this thing requires any further proof, we shall add a few more authorities to those which we have already given.

1. "The rulers of the church were called either presbyters or bishops, which two titles are, in the New Testament, undoubtedly applied to the same order of men." Mosheim, vol. 1. p. 99.

2. "It is certain the words, bishops and presbyters, are used promiscuously in the New Testament. Bishop Hoadly and! Dr. Hammond both of them allow this: and it is Dr. Hammond's opinion, that there were only presbyters and deacons in each church at first." Doddridge's Lectures, vol. 2. pa. 339.

3. "As for Iranæus, I meet with no passage in him to prove that bishops and presbyters were distinct." Ibid. vol. 2. pa. 346.

4. "Polycarp exhorts the Christians at Phillippi to be subject to the presbyters and deacons; but, says not one word of any bishop

being then at Phillippi; nor gives any direction about choosing one." Ibid. pa. 347.

5 "I believe, upon the strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment will prove true,that Jerome, Austin, Ambrose, Sidulius, Primastus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Arius's judgment as to the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive church." Stillingfleet's Iren. page. 276.

6"The Greek and Latin fathers, do, with one consent, declare the Apostle here calls their presby ters their bishops. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, cuminius, Theophylact, St. Jerome, Pseud-Ambrosius and Primastus." Whitby on Phill. 1 ch. 1 verse.

7. "Now, as these elders are called bishops in verse 28, we may take it for granted, that they were the same order: or, rather, that these superintendents of the church were indifferently called either presbyters or bishops." Dr. A. Clarke, on Acts 20. ch. 17. verse.. See also verse 28.

8. "Lord King's account of the primitive church convinced me many years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order." Rev'd. John Wesley.

9. "John Wickliffe, the morning star of the reformation, who flourished about one hundred and thirty years before the reformation of Luther, is very positive with regard to the identity of the order of bishops and priests in the apostolic age. "One thing I boldly assert, that in the primitive church, or in the time of the apostle Paul, two orders of clergy were thought sufficient, viz. priest and deacon ; and I do also say, that in the time of Paul, a priest and a bishop were one and the same; for in those times the distinct orders of Pope, cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, officials, and deans, were not invented.' Neal's His. of the Puritans, vol. 1. pa. 51.

"The first reformers believed there were but two orders in holy scripture, viz. bishops and deacons; and consequently that bishops and priests were but different ranks or degrees of the same order." Ibid, pa. 123.

"Archbishop Usher says, "I have ever declared my opinion to be, that episcopus et presbyter gradu tantum differunt, non ordine, (a bishop and presbyter differ only in degree, not in order) and consequently, that in places where bishops cannot be had, the ordination by presbyters stands valid." "This was the constant sense of our first reformers, Cranmer, Pilkington, Jewel, Grindal, Whitgift, &c. and even of Bancroft himself; for when Dr. Andrews, bishop of Ely, moved that the Scots bishops elect might first be ordained presbyters, in the year 1610, Bancroft replied there was no need of it, since ordination by presbyters was valid." Ibid vol. 2. pa. 412. Other names might be added to these authorities, but it is supposed these will suffice to establish the identity of bishops and presbyters; and the right of presbyters to ordain.

And, if it could be proved that bishops are a different order from presbyters and superior to them, what advantage would be gained thereby? We have already shewn the opinions of episcopalians

upon this subject. Are the Methodists prepared to subscribe to them? Do they think, "there is no valid christian ministry," without ordination by a person of the third order? Will they affirm, "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."? Will they publish to the world "no bishop, no church."? Can they plead for this third order, without connecting with it, the doctines set forth in the above quotations, and many more? We think not. For, as the person who draws the first link of a chain necessarily drags all the other links after it; so does the advocate of a distinct order of bishops, superior to presbyters, necessarily involve in his plea, all the above consequences. Who, then, renders Methodism the greater service, we who plead for the parity of presbyters and bishops, and the consequent right of presbyters to ordain, or those who insist on the superiority of bishops to the order of presbyters, and pompously talk about "divine authority," and "apostolic succession"? Away with such childish things. The cause of holiness is not promoted by them. The success of the gospel does not depend upon them. Nor is any, nor all of these high sounding words of vanity the passport to those everlasting joys which are at God's right hand.

Still it may be a question with some, can there be an ordination without the imposition of the hands of a bishop? We think there can. For, whether we consider" the essence of ordination to consist in the setting apart a person by the imposition of hands;" or "the voluntary choice and call of the people," or both; it will not follow that a third order of ministers is necessary to ordain. See Buck's Theological Dictionary. Art. Ordination. See also Dr. A. Clarke on Acts 13. ch. 23 ver.

1. "When our Lord chose the twelve, that he might send them forth to preach, he is said to have ordained them: but the word o so imports no more than to constitute, appoint, elect, and there is not the slightest intimation that he used any ceremonious consecration." Isaac's ecclesiastical claims p. 84.

2. "There is not the slightest evidence in the whole of the New Testament that the apostles ordained either co-adjutors or successors to themselves in the apostolic office." Ibid. pa. 86.

3. "It was the common practice of the apostles to put their hands on persons recently converted. Peter and John laid their hands on the disciples at Samaria, and they received the Holy Ghost. Paul laid his hands on all the disciples at Ephesus, and they received the Holy Ghost." pa. 95. But, though we read of the apostles laying hands on persons recently baptized, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; and on the overseers of the poor, when elected to serve tables, we no where read of the laying on of their hands at the ordination of presbyters." Ibid. pa. 140.

4 "The only persons who conferred holy orders, that we read of,were Paul and Barnabas, Timothy and Titus: the two former were apostles, and the two latter were evangelists. And as the