year, my brother, my old intimate friend and companion, should have assumed the episcopal character, ordained elders, consecrated a bishop, and sent him to ordain the lay preachers in America. I was then in Bristol, at his elbow; yet he never gave me the least hint of his intention. How was he surprised into so rash an action? He certainly persuaded himself that it was right."

The reasons assigned for the act, by Mr. Wesley, were not at all times the same. In his letter, as published by the conference, he stated that his scruples were at an end, and he considered himself at full liberty, because America was destitute of bishops, and belonged not to the jurisdiction of any English prelate. On another occasion, when, at the request of Jones of Nayland, inquiry was made of him whether it was true that he had invested persons with the episcopal character, and sent them to America; after some hesitation, he admitted the fact, and assigned as a reason for his conduct, that after the revolution each denomination was making efforts to swell its numbers, and the Baptists particularly were greatly increasing, to the injury of the church. He had, therefore, taken the step with the hope of preventing further disorders.

If the object of Mr. Wesley was to secure to America the episcopate, the course pursued was rendered unnecessary by existing circumstances. Dr. Seabury of Connecticut had been nearly two years in England soliciting episcopal consecration, and in consequence of difficulties, arising entirely from the English law, was on the point of going to Scotland to be consecrated there, at the very moment when Mr. Wesley laid his hands on Dr. Coke: and it cannot be supposed that Mr. Wesley was ignorant of these facts. particularly as we find them to have been well known to his brother Charles.

The latter gentleman, in the letter to Dr. Chandler,

* Life of Bishop Horne, by Jones of Nayland, pp. 143, 4, 5.

Y

already referred to, speaking of the American Methodists, uses this language" How have they been betrayed into a separation from the Church of England, which their preachers and they no more intended than the Methodists here? Had they had patience a little longer, they would have seen a real primitive bishop in America, duly consecrated by three Scotch bishops, who had their consecration from the English bishops, and are acknowledged by them as the same with themselves. There is, therefore, not the least difference between the members of Bishop Seabury's church and the members of the Church of England. I had the happiness to converse with that truly apostolic man, who is esteemed by all that know him, as much as by you and me. He told me that he looked upon the Methodists in America as sound members of the church, and was ready to ordain any of their preachers whom he should find duly qualified." In point of fact, Bishop Seabury had received consecration on the fourteenth of November, when the conference assembled at Baltimore, on the twenty-fourth of the succeeding month.

Without intending, by these remarks, to disparage John Wesley, (a man whose zeal, whose talents, and whose efforts exerted perseveringly in the cause of religion, should cover many faults,) we feel ourselves constrained to adopt an opinion which seems to have assumed, at least, the shape of a suspicion in the mind of his brother. With an intellect enfeebled by the weight of four score and two years, he was seduced, by those who would use his vast influence for purposes of their own, into the adoption of a plan which the better judgment of his more vigorous understanding had more than once rejected. It is believed to have been the contrivance of a few individuals, who took advantage of the infirmities of age, to procure from the dying ruler a decree which should transmit the sceptre to themselves. There are others more deserving of censure, in this transaction, than John Wesley; and such seems to have been the

opinion of his brother, and two at least of his biographers.* Ambition was gratified at the price of a separation between those who should never have been severed, and of whom, it is at least pleasant to indulge the hope that the day may yet come, when they shall again be one.

* See Dr. Whitehead's and Mr. Hampson's Lives of Wesley. The former gentleman, speaking of the consecration of Dr. Coke, remarks, "that the person who advised the measure, would be proved to have been a felon to Methodism, and to have stuck an assassin's knife into the vitals of its body."

CHAPTER X.

1784-1789.

Enmity of Presbyterians and Baptists to the Church-Act for establishing religious Freedom-Mr. Jefferson-Mr. Madison's Memorial First Convention of the Church in 1785-Address of the Convention to Churchmen-Means proposed for support of the Clergy-Canons of the ChurchDiscipline-Church in Virginia declines receiving Holy Orders from Denmark-First General Convention; Virginia represented there-Conduct of Virginia Church on the proposed Articles of Union-Instruction to Virginia Delegates to General Convention of 1785-Baptists and Presbyterians ask for the Property of the Church-"The proposed Book"— Articles of Religion-Decision of Virginia on "The proposed Book" and Articles-Dr. Griffith elected first Bishop of the Church in Virginia— Mistake concerning his Election rectified-Instructions of Virginia Convention to Delegates to General Convention of 1786-Repeal of the Act of Incorporation-General Conventions of 1786-Proceedings of Virginia thereon-Remedies adopted to supply the want of Act of Incorporation-Address of the Convention of 1787 to the Church-Dr. Griffith not consecrated-Causes thereof--Early efforts of Virginia in behalf of Clerical Education-Case of Discipline.

SCARCELY had the church begun to reap the benefits resulting from its incorporation by the legislature, before it was again assailed. The presbytery of Hanover, in the same year in which the act of incorporation was passed, presented a memorial to the legislature complaining of the peculiar privileges which the church was said thereby to obtain. It was stated that she could "receive and possess property without trouble or risk in securing it; while other Christian communities were obliged to trust to the precarious fidelity of trustees chosen for the purpose." It was in vain to answer that there was no difficulty in obtaining incorporation for the Presbyterian church; that the legis

lature was ready and willing to confer on it every privilege which it had conferred on any other religious society. And when, at the next succeeding session of the legislature, a bill was introduced for the incorporation of other denominations of Christians, the presbytery of Hanover petitioned that it might not pass, objected to it as contrary to their views of propriety, and actually declined taking any benefit of incorporation under it, should it become a law.* It will scarcely be thought strange that this manifestation of a willingness to forego what they themselves owned to be a benefit, because obliged to share it with Episcopalians, should have been construed, as it was, into a settled determination, if possible, to destroy the Episcopal church entirely.

How far the decided opposition of the Presbyterians and Baptists to any act which might benefit the Episcopal church, may have influenced the legislature, it is impossible to say. There was, however, in that body, an individual of great influence, of whom (if his own writings may be considered sufficient testimony) it is not injustice to say, that he would have thought it no honour to be suspected of a belief in Christianity; and in eradicating what he thought a pestilent error, he probably was not unwilling to avail himself of all the aid which these petitions against the church could possibly afford. There is reason in his case, therefore, to believe that under cover of an attack upon a religious establishment, a blow was aimed at Christianity itself. Be this as it may, it is certain that an act was passed by the legislature of 1785, which was viewed by many as utterly subversive, in its declarations, of the Christian religion, and called forth at the time the severe animadversions of some who still reverenced the faith of the apostles. This was the "Act for establishing Religious

* See the Journals of 1784. + Considerations on an act of the legislature of Virginia, entitled An

act for the establishment of religious freedom. By a citizen of Philadel phia. 1786.