after another, so that in many places the people were in great confusion, and religion was entirely banished from some neighborhoods in which it had been pretty lively."

This was in 1777. But during the year of the siege of Yorktown, in 1781, which resulted in the capture of Cornwallis, and happily tended soon to bring the war to a close, its effects upon the interests of religion were still worse, of which our author thus speaks:

During this year the societies and circuits in Virginia were more interrupted by the war than they had ever been before. The British army moved in various directions, and many battles were fought in the state, which kept the people constantly alarmed, and prevented them from meeting at their usual times and places; and most of the times when they did assemble for divine worship their conversation principally turned upon the times, and the distresses of themselves and their friends. Before meeting would begin, and as soon as it was closed, the inquiry was, 'What is the news of the day? One would say, 'My son is killed;' another, 'My husband is wounded, or taken prisoner, or likely to die,' &c. These things greatly hindered the progress of the work in Virginia."-History, pp. 62, 78.

Before the war the Methodists esteemed themselves a supplement to the Church of England, and therefore went to her ministers for the sacraments. But after the war broke out, the authority of the English hierarchy was destroyed, as well as the civil power of the English crown. Many of the clergy of the Establishment were obliged to leave the country, and some of them left their work and became secular men; while others were so immoral themselves that our people cared not to receive the sacraments at their hands. If they turned to the Presbyterians or Baptists for relief in this case, they would not extend it, but upon condition that they would join their communions, which of course they would not do.

Accordingly, at the conference of May, 1777, held at Deer Creek, Md., while Mr. Rankin was still with them, the question was asked, "Shall we administer the ordinances?" The question was debated, but a decision was suspended till the next conference. This met, May, 1778, at Leesburg, Va. All the English preachers, except Mr. Asbury, had now left the country, and he was confined to Delaware. Mr. William Watters, the oldest American preacher, was chosen chairman. The question laid over at the last conference was resumed, and so cautious were they of proceeding unadvisedly and hastily in so important a matter, that they again laid it over till the next conference. This was held at the Broken Back Church, Virginia, and this question was again resumed, and answered in the affirmative. They accordingly set apart some of their eldest preachers to administer the ordinances. This year the labors of these brethren were attended with uncommon power and success, which tended, and very properly too, to convince them that they were in the path of duty, and that God was well pleased with their proceedings.

Before the next regular conference for the south, the northern preachers, for their own convenience, held a conference in Baltimore, April 25, 1780. At this conference F. Asbury, W. Watters, and F. Garrettson were appointed delegates to the Virginia conference, to bring them back, if possible, to their former usages. Of this conference Mr. Asbury thus speaks: "Our conference met in VOL. IX.-July, 1838.

35

peace and love. We settled all our northern stations. Then we began to debate about the letter sent from Virginia. We first concluded to renounce them. Then I offered conditions of union:1. That they should ordain no more. 2. That they should come no farther than Hanover circuit. 3. That we would have our delegates in their conference. 4. That they should not presume to administer the ordinances where there is a decent episcopal minister. 5. To have a union conference.

“These would not do, as we found upon long debate, and we came back to our former determination, although it was like death to think of parting. At last, a thought struck my mind, to propose a suspension of the ordinances for one year, and so cancel all our grievances, and be one. It was agreed on both sides; and Philip Gatch and Reuben Ellis, who had been very stiff, came into the measure, and thought it would do."-Journals, vol. i, p. 281.

The Virginia conference was held at Manetsontown, May, 1780, and the three delegates appointed by the Baltimore conference attended. Of this conference Mr. Asbury thus speaks:

"I conducted myself with cheerful freedom, but found there was a separation in heart and practice. I spoke with my countryman, John Dickens, and found him opposed to our continuance in union with the Episcopal Church. Brother Watters and Garrettson tried their men, and found them inflexible. Tuesday, the conference was called. Brother Watters, Garrettson, and myself stood back; and being afterward joined by brother Dromgoole, we were desired to come in, and I was permitted to speak. I read Mr. Wesley's thoughts against a separation; showed my private letters of instruction from Mr. Wesley; set before them the sentiments of the Baltimore and Delaware conferences; read our epistles, and read my letter to brother Gatch, and brother Dickens's letter in answer. After some time spent in this way, it was proposed to me, if I would get the circuits supplied, they would desist; but that I could not do. We went to preaching. I spoke on Ruth ii, 4, and spoke as though nothing had been the matter among the preachers or people. We were greatly pleased and comforted, and there was some moving among the people. In the afternoon we met; the preachers appeared to be farther off. There had been, I thought, some talking out of doors. When we could not come to a conclusion with them we withdrew, and left them to deliberate on the condition I offered, which was, to suspend the measures they had taken for one year. After an hour's conference we were called to receive their answer, which was, they could not submit to the terms of union. I then prepared to leave the house, to go to a neighbor's to lodge, under the heaviest cloud I ever felt in America. O what I felt! nor I alone; but the agents on both sides. They wept like children, but kept their opinions.

"Wednesday I returned to take leave of the conference, and to go off immediately to the north, but found they had been brought to an agreement while I had been praying, as with a broken heart, in the house we went to lodge at, and brother Watters and Garrettson had been praying up stairs, where the conference sat. We heard what they had to say. Surely the hand of God has been greatly seen in all this. There might have been twenty promising preachers and three thousand people seriously affected by this separation.

But the Lord would not suffer this. We then had preaching by brother Watters on, 'Come thou with us, and we will do thee good.' Afterward we had a love-feast. Preachers and people wept, prayed, and talked, so that the spirit of dissension was powerfully weakened, and I hoped it would never take place again."-Journals, vol. i, pp. 282, 283.

It is to be doubted whether all our preachers and people would now perfectly sympathize with Mr. Asbury in all he felt and did in this so called schism. Like Mr. Wesley, he had been educated in the Establishment at home, and still retained many of his prejudices respecting "apostolic order" and the general usages of the Anglican Church. But if it is the duty of men to observe the sacraments, it is also the duty of some to administer them. And who should administer them but those whom God has evidently called to his work, and whom the church has officially acknowledged in that character? As for formal ordination, we do not look upon it as at all essential to a successful ministry. The word rendered "ordain" in the New Testament simply signifies to appoint; and imposition of hands, therefore, must be considered a mere circumstance in ordination. Whoever insists upon the imposition of hands to constitute a valid ordination must stand ready to defend all the absurdities connected with such a sentiment, and which, we will assure him, are so many that no ordinary and candid man would be willing to undertake the task; or if, through prejudice for preconceived opinions, he should be willing to engage in such a thankless work, he would find the difficulties attending it much greater than he imagined. That imposition of hands was practised in some cases of ordination, under the New Testament, there is no dispute; but that it was so in all cases cannot be shown; and that it is rendered obligatory upon the church in all ages is what never was, nor ever can be proved.

This was the principle adopted by the British conference after the death of Mr. Wesley. After this took place, and they separated (not dissented) from the Establishment, something was said about imposition of hands in ordination, as several preachers had been ordained by Mr. Wesley, especially for Scotland. But the learned Benson fully convinced the conference that imposition of hands was a mere circumstance in the appointment of ministers to their office; and upon this principle they proceeded, except in the case of foreign missionaries, until 1836, when they concluded formally to ordain in every instance in the reception of preachers into full connection; but without, however, renouncing their former principle, so far as we have been informed.

And wherein, then, were the preachers of the Virginia conference schismatics more than those of the British conference? All, therefore, who will insist upon imposition of hands as essential to a valid ordination must also stand ready to admit that most of the worthies of the British conference, who have been the principal support of evangelical piety in Europe ever since the rise of Methodism, have no right to administer the sacraments! Our preachers, before the organization of the church in 1784, were called laymen. But is it not absurd to call those laymen who are exclusively devoted to the work of the ministry? And can it be supposed that John Dickens and his brethren of the Virginia conference possessed any more right, in the sight of God, to administer his sacraments after their

ordination than they did before? We do not believe it. Wherein, then, were they wrong? and if they were, why did not God frown upon them, and blast their work, for presuming to touch his sacraments with unhallowed hands, instead of blessing them with an unusual outpouring of his Spirit, and countenancing them with his divine presence?

In this argument I am very happy to avail myself of the opinion of a very able writer in the January number of the Quarterly, for 1838. In discussing the question whether Wesleyan Methodism is chargeable with schism in separating from the English Establishment, he says, "We strongly suspect that the supposed separation of the Virginia conference, and their schism, so called, were far from being schismatical; and that it was only carrying out the principles of Scripture which were adopted by Mr. Wesley, and reduced to practice by the Wesleyan Methodists in Europe, and the Methodist Episcopal Church in her excellent forms of church polity, as now established.* We have an original document on this topic, never yet published, which we will take the liberty of laying before the public ere long. From this we think it will appear that the schism charged on this conference, previous to the formal organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, is founded in mistake."+

I am happy here to add the testimony of the venerable Garrettson, who was one of the delegates from the Baltimore to the Virginia conference, respecting this affair, and which was uttered after the reflection of nearly half a century upon this subject. He says, "The proposition we made was for them to suspend the administration of the ordinances for one year; in the mean time we would consult Mr. Wesley, and in the following May we would have a union conference in Baltimore, and abide by his judgment. To this proposal we unanimously agreed; and a circumstantial letter, indited by brother J. Dickens, was sent to Mr. Wesley.

"In May, 1781, we met, according to appointment, and received Mr. Wesley's answer, which was, to continue on the old plan until farther direction. We unanimously agreed to follow his counsel, and went on harmoniously. I do not think that Mr. Drew, in several particulars, did justice to our American brethren; for he represents them as very refractory, and supposes that Mr. Asbury had a great deal of trouble with them; when the fact is, they were going forth in the power of the Spirit, disseminating gospel truth, and suffering much persecution and many privations, while Mr. Asbury had a quiet retreat at Judge White's, in the state of Delaware, and that during the hottest time of our conflict. It is true, our southern brethren, to satisfy the people, and their own consciences, did adminis

*That this writer is correct in this statement, however strange it may appear to some, may be proved from Mr. Drew, who, in his unanswerable argument on the same subject, in his Life of Dr. Coke, says, "If the ordinances are necessary, the administration of them is necessary also, and this will involve the necessity of administrators. Now where there can be only one description of men to assume this character, there can be no room for alternative or choice; and where the possibility of alternative and choice is excluded, there can be no justifiable ground for censure or reproach."-P. 70.

+ We earnestly hope that the series of numbers from which this extract is taken will be printed in the form of a book, as we have no hesitation in saying that they will prove, like the kindred work of Dr. Bangs, a most valuable acquisition to Methodist literature, especially at this time,

ter the ordinances, and that, as they thought, in an extreme case. The leading members of the Virginia conference were our good brethren Dickens, Gatch, Yeargan, Poythress, Ellis, Tatum, and others, all faithful, pious, zealous men of God, who would do credit to any connection. I admired their goodness in cordially agreeing to consult Mr. Wesley, and to follow his judgment, and till that time to suspend the administration of the ordinances. If I am prolix on this part of the subject, it is to show that our Virginia brethren were undeservedly accused of schism."* And to which I will add, that if I am prolix on the same subject, it is for the same reason.

Such was the prosperity of the work during the war, that at its close there were 46 circuits, 83 preachers, and 14,988 members in society. Mr. Wesley was now strongly solicited by the flock in America to provide for their wants. "Accordingly," says Mr. Drew, "in the month of February, 1784, he called Dr. Coke in his private chamber, and after some preparatory observations, introduced the important subject to him in nearly the following manner :

66 That, as the revolution in America had separated the United States from the mother country for ever, and the Episcopal Establishment was utterly abolished, the societies had been represented to him as in a most deplorable condition. That an appeal had been made to him, through Mr. Asbury, in which he was requested to provide for them some mode of church government suited to their exigencies; and that having long and seriously revolved the subject in his thoughts, he intended to adopt the plan which he was now about to unfold. That as he had invariably endeavored, in every step he had taken, to keep as closely to the Bible as possible, so, on the present occasion, he hoped he was not about to deviate from it. That, keeping his eye upon the conduct of the primitive churches in the ages of unadulterated Christianity, he had much admired the mode of ordaining bishops which the church of Alexandria had practised: that, to preserve its purity, that church would never suffer the interference of a foreign bishop in any of their ordinations; but that the presbyters of that venerable apostolic church, on the death of a bishop, exercised the right of ordaining another from their own body by the laying on of their own hands, and that this practice continued among them for two hundred years, till the days of Dionysius. And that, finally, being himself a presbyter, he wished Dr. Coke to accept ordination from his hands, and to proceed in that character to the continent of America, to superintend the societies in the United States. "Dr. Coke was at first startled at a measure so unprecedented in modern days, and he expressed some doubts as to the validity of Mr. Wesley's authority to constitute so important an appointment. But the arguments of Lord King, which had satisfied Mr. Wesley, were recommended to his attention, and time was allowed him to deliberate on the result. Two months, however, had scarcely elapsed before he wrote to Mr. Wesley, informing him that his objections were silenced, and that he was ready to co-operate with him in any way that was calculated to promote the glory of God and the good of souls."+

Accordingly, on the 2d of September following, assisted by Mr. Creighton, also a presbyter of the English Church, and Dr. Coke,

*Semi-centennial Sermon. + Drew's Life of Coke, pp. 63, 64,