it, and made use of the balances of the sanctuary of God's church, in place of those of his own feelings and inclinations, and Dr. Coke's solicitations; it had then never been put in execution at all, or if it had, every one would have known its rightful father.

"At the conference held in Leeds 1784, he (Mr. Wesley) declar. "ed his intention of sending Dr. Coke and some other preachers to "America. Mr. Richard Whatcoat and Mr. Thomas Vasey offer. ❝ed themselves as missionaries for that purpose, and were accepted. "Before they sailed, Mr. Wesley abridged the common prayer "book, and wrote to Dr. Coke then in London, desiring him to "meet him in Bristol to receive FULLER POWERS; and to bring the "Rev. Mr. Creighton with him. The Doctor and Mr. Creighton "accordingly met him in Bristol, when with their assistance he or"dained Mr. Richard Whatcoat, and Mr. Thomas Vasey presbyters "for America: and did afterwards ordain Dr. Coke a superintendant, "giving him letters of ordination under his hand and seal, and at "the same time a letter to be printed and circulated in America."

It hence appears, that at the time of holding the Leeds conference, Mr. Wesley had made up his mind respecting the new plan of church government and ordination he had devised for America. This conference was held July 27th, 1784. Dr. Samuel Seabury had then been some time in England, for the avowed purpose of obtaining Episcopal consecration from the English bishops let this be kept in mind and in the month of October following we find Dr. Coke and his companions on their passage to America. See Coke's Journal.

From the account which Dr. Coke hath given us, it doth not appear that this new plan was communicated by Mr. Wesley to the conference, nay, Myles in his Chronological History of the Methodists, p. 162, informs us, that the account of its having been carried into execution was not given to that body till 1786: consequently Mr. Wesley neither submitted his plan to the body of his preachers, nor ever obtained their sanction to it. Was it not then an act of schism, not only as it regarded the church of England, but as it regarded the Methodist society in Europe? The other biographers of Mr. Wesley, viz. Dr. Whitehead and Mr. Hampson, lead us to this conclusion, and to believe that the whole of this new plan was the contrivance of a few individuls, who took advantage of Mr. Wesley's age and infirmities, and who were to be invested with powers, which would enable them to appear to much advantage as fabricators of a new church in the new world. However, the whole passing as Mr. Wesley's doings, we shall consider him as the father contriver, and founder of this new fangled episcopal church, so called.

As Mr. Wesley was primum mobile to all appearance, in this business, and was to be as Myles speaks, the fountain of honor and authority in this new religion; and, since by altering and abridging the liturgy of the church of England, curtailing some of her articles, and entirely rejecting others, he assumed and exercised powers which hitherto had been presumed to have been invested in no less a body than the council of a national church constituted upon an apostolic foundation; a question arises, viz. by what authority he did these things?

That he did not possess such an authority in virtue of his ordination as a presbyter of the church of England, is manifest; for by that ordination he became bound to exercise his ministry as a presbyter of the church, as that church and realm had appointed and it is well known that the church of England never conferred power on the presbyters to alter her liturgy, curtail her articles, or to ordain to any order of the ministry: nay, if words have any meaning; if solemn vows ratified and confirmed by the reception of the holy sacrament have any force; they are expressly prohibited from assuming any such powers. Hence it is evident Mr. Wesley did not derive the powers he assumed and exercised, from his ordination as a presbyter of the church of England. He, however, did assume such powers in violation of the most solemn vows he entered into when he was ordained deacon and presbyter by Dr. Potter, bishop of Oxford, afterwards translated from that see, to the Archiepiscopal see of Canterbury.

Ordination vows, and sacramental obligations on that occasion, were blotted from the remembrance of Mr. Wesley, Dr. Coke and Mr. Creighton, or, at least they determined no longer to allow themselves to be shackled by them. Their superior holiness disdained all such restraints. For, in a private chamber, as Dr. Whitehead asserts, and Myles indirectly acknowledges, in the city of Bristol, these three presbyters of the church of England renounced the Episcopacy of that church, and becoming, for the time and occasion, Presbyterians, they formed themselves into a Presbytery, and ordained Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey presbyters for America. But the new plan being designed to bear the name of Episcopal, they quickly forsook their Presbyterianism, and became a species of Episcopalians of their own invention, and having recognized the Rev. John Wesley as their bishop, though never consecrated to that work and office, they present unto him the Rev. Dr. Coke to be made by him a bishop on a new plan. He receives him, and, as presiding and consecrating bishop, assisted by Mr. Presbyter Creighton, and, no doubt, by Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey also, soon made him a newly contrived sort of bishop. Thus the two gentlemen, viz. Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey, had very soon an opportunity of returning the favor they had received from Dr. Coke, in contributing to make him bishop, upon a new plan, as he just before had contributed to make them presbyters, upon a new plan.

These three gentlemen, viz. Dr. Coke, and Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey, are in the fourth section of the Methodist book of discipline, called, "Regularly ordained clergy"!!!

Now can either Episcopalians or Presbyterians, consistently with their established principles, acknowledge such ordinations to be either valid or regular? I should presume not.

It may here be proper to observe that Mr. Wesley modestly substituted the word superintendant for bishop, but Messrs. Coke and Asbury thought proper to assume the latter, and now pass themselves off, in the United States, as truly and regularly consecrated bishops!

Had the gentlemen concerned in this first ordination paid any regard to the laws of their country, or the canons of their church,

Methodist Episcopacy.

they would have known, that had they even possessed the powers of ordination, they were encroaching on the right of the bishop of Bristol, and performing an act which no bishop could regularly and canonically perform without his permission within the limits of his diocese.

We shall now make a few remarks on the letters of ordination said to have been given by Mr. Wesley to Dr. Coke.

before this time Dr. Coke had received letters of Several years ordination, both as deacon and presbyter or priest from the bishop who ordained him to those orders respectively. Hence we may conclude that the letters signed and sealed by Mr. Wesley, were neither for the order of deacon nor presbyter, but for an order superior to these, since by the ordination performed by Mr. Wesley, he is supposed to have had fuller powers conferred upon him, than what he before possessed. This superior order was called superintendant: consequently, in this new plan, superintendant or bishop was not considered the same as presbyter, but as an order distinct from and superior to the order of presbyter, and, we are further justified in deducing this consequence, because the Methodists in America call themselves, not presbyterial, but episcopal Methodists; they have declared the episcopal form of government to be the most excellent,* and have adopted three distinct offices of ordination for three distinct orders of ministers, viv. bishops or superintendants, In each of these offices, the elders or presbyters, and deacons. following words, or those of the same import are to be found.Thus in the office of deacons, "O God, who hast appointed divers orders, in thy church," &c. and then the order of deacon is specified as one of those divers orders, by praying "that God would give his to this his servant now called to the office of deacon." In 66 grace the office for presbyters or elders, the same passages are found, only the word "presbyter" or "elder" stands in the place of the word "deacon," to denote that elder or presbyter is another of those divers orders. And in the office for bishops or superintendants, we find the same sentiments still advanced, the word "bishop" or " superintendant" being put in the place of the word "elder" or "deacon," to declare that bishops or superintendants are likewise a third order which God hath established in his church. With such documents staring them in the face, it is astonishing that any Methodist should now be contending for the validity of presbyterian ordination, in order to serve as a prop to support their new planned episcopacy or that they should be endeavoring to prove episcopacy only a human institution, and, that the presbyterian was the apostolic mode of conferring the ministerial authority!

Shortly after this Weslian ordination in the private chamber, Dr. Coke, the bishop upon a new plan, and Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey, presbyters and assistant bishop-makers upon a new plan, set sail for America with their stock in trade, viz. the abridged liturgy,

If the episcopal form of government be the most excellent, we may safely conclude it to be apostolic and divine: since we cannot suppose the apostles did not establish a church government, neither can we suppose they omitted to establish that which was most excellent. If presbytery was the apostolic mode, as some Methodists now assert, how dare they presume to say with their church, that the episcopalian mode is the most excellent.

Mr. Wesley's circular letter to the American Methodists, Dr. Coke's credentials with Wesley's signature and seal, and Messrs. Whatcoat and Vasey's letters of ordination. In America we shall meet with them before long, carrying the new plan into more extensive operation than they had room to do in the city of Bristol.

[To be continued.]

FROM THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE.

Remarks on the Doctrine of Original Sin.

To the Editors of the Orthodox Churchman's Magazine: GENTLEMEN,

THERE is no one cause, I apprehend, that has produced stronger prejudices against revelation at large, than mistaken opinions originating in partial views of its particular doctrines. The chief prejudices against the truly important and fundamental doctrine, of which I propose to treat, arise from such imperfect views of the subject, and from putting asunder correlative circumstances, which God has inseparably joined together. For the same sentence which decreed the punishment of Adam and of all his posterity, decreed at the same time the correlative means of restoration to happiness. (Gen. iii. 15.) The means of obtaining eternal life and bliss were indeed changed, but they were not annihilated. Man indeed ceased to be able to save himself by his own unassisted pow. ers, and he acquired evil propensities, which he could not by his own unaided will overcome. But although in one scale the effects of the fall were cast, yet in the opposite scale were cast the effects of the obedience and atonement of the Lamb of God, "slain from the foundation of the world;" and the balance thereby perhaps more than restored. (Gen. xlviii. 15, 16.) If, to illustrate my position, every son of Adam is born blind into the world, nevertheless "Christ enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1,9.) This our blessed Savior has done, it is true, in different degrees, as he saw fit; but he has done it so far, at all times, as to restore every man to such a degree of free agency, as to enable him, by walking according to the light given to him, to save his soul alive.

Now, if we may be allowed to reason à priori upon this high question, perhaps the superhuman wisdom of this dispensation may in some measure appear. For if it be admitted that man was created a free agent, it follows that he must have been liable to stand or fall. I believe, too, that it will not be denied that pride is the first and great cause of the fall of every free agent. "Aspiring to be gods, angels fell." Desirous likewise to know by their own experience good and evil, and thence to form their choice of their own proper good, rather than with humility and faith to give credit to their all-wise Creator, our first parents began that series of experiments which occasioned their fall, and which has been and will be continued by their descendants, till they shall have learned that God is wiser than men, and that he alone can point out to them their own proper good, the tree of life. (See Pa. cix. 9, Acts 5. 30.)

Our Savior's perfect knowledge of the nature of free agents probably induced him to commence his instructions with, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Further, the first free agent that fell, must have fallen self-tempted, and has probably fallen irrecoverably into the lowest abyss. The circumstance, that man fell by the temptation of another, may have broken or suspended his fall, and given occasion for the assisting impulse of grace to counterbalance his temptations and evii propensi- ties. For had grace been given to him before an opposite evil propensity or temptation had taken place, it might perhaps have interfered with, and overset his free agency; whereas now it seems to restore it with increased advantages. For the consciousness of being in a degenerate and helpless state is calculated to excite humility, which is the security and wisdom of the creature; and humility is further increased in man when the Gospel reveals unto him, that if he will be saved, he must condescend to be saved by another.

Thus is the pride of the creature mortified, and thus man, when he is weak, is strong, and when he is foolish, is wise. Thus, too, it may be presumed, that by a dispensation so preventive and subversive of pride and its consequences, more persons will be preserved from an irrecoverable fall and ruin, than perhaps could have been saved by any other possible means. The argument will be confirmed by a consideration of the seemingly parallel case of St. Paul, described in 2 Cor. xii. 7-11; and we may now answer the unbehever in the words spoken by the Lord to Esdras, who had been reflecting upon original sin-"Thou comest far short, that thou shouldest be able to love my creature more than I." (Esd. viii. 47.)

I shall conclude with observing, that the efficacy of Christ's atonement has been operating from the beginning, and that the evil propensities of our natures have perhaps thereby been in some measure already mitigated. The earth from which man is taken was cursed, together with its offspring, as an image of, and speculum to, Eve and all her spiritually barren offspring. The effects of the corruption of human nature and of the earth corresponded, and appeared in their greatest malignity in the old world. (See Sherlock's Sermons on the Prophecies.) But by the destruction of the old world, the human race was reduced to the family of one pious, common parent, the glorious type of the second Adam; and thereby the human race was probably meliorated, and the curse upon the earth, in correspondency, mitigated. (Gen. v. 29, and viii. 21.)

And the time will come, probably in this life, when the good and evil seed, the wheat and the tares, shall be still farther separated, (Luke xvii. 27) and when, as Isaiah foretells, "Thy people also shall be all righteous," (Is. lx. 21) "and the wilderness (in unison) shall blossom as the rose." (Is. xxxv. 1.)

There shall indeed come a time, and God grant that it may soon arrive, when Paradise shall descend upon earth, in the midst of which "there shall be the tree of life, and the leaves of the tree (shall be) for the healing of the nations, and there shall be no more curse.” (Rev. xxii. 2, 3.) I am, Gentlemen,

Your obedient humble servant,

JUVENIS.