It is undoubtedly true, as we might naturally anticipate, that, when the Holy Spirit brought all things that Christ had taught them to the remembrance of the apostles, and taught them all things, and led them into all truth,-we are then instructed in many glorious and consolatory truths respecting the ascension of our Lord, and its consequences. But even now, without dwelling upon Scripture narative of what followed our Lord's ascension, or consulting the Epistles of the New Testament, we may notice several particulars which were revealed by our Lord himself, so far as promise and unfulfilled prophecy can be said to have revealed them. All these show, that our Lord himself laid the foundation of the doctrines resulting from his ascension, and pledged himself that it should take place, because several of the specified particulars could not otherwise have been realised. If our Saviour had never predicted these himself, or if they had never been fulfilled, our faith had never had the assurance that it now derives from seeing that every fact, and every doctrine, afterwards accomplished and developed, was distinctly and undeniably anticipated and described by our Lord himself, before he left the earth "to appear in the presence of God

for us."

If we refer, not only to this event of the ascension of our Lord-which Christ himself predicted-how would other predictions have been fulfilled, if he had not thus "ascended to his Father, and our Father; to his God, and our God?" "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." How would this have been realised, unless he had ascended? for they were soon to see him no more. His "sending" implied his absence from them; and yet, this Comforter was to "abide with them for ever," and to "convince the world of sin, and righteousness, and judgment !"

We are told at one period of our Lord's history, that "the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." Jesus then must enter into his glory, before the promises just quoted could be fulfilled. As long as he remained on earth, he spoke of such promises as yet unfulfilled; and thereby taught us that his ascension was the event which first rendered their fulfilment possible.

And how could he have entered into his glory on earth? Would that have enabled him, whatever the nature, extent, or duration of any earthly glory that could have accrued to him, to fulfil such promises as we have mentioned? But there are others also specified during our Lord's earthly ministry, which on earth he could not fulfil, or even begin to fulfil. He said to his disciples, "In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." When we compare the language here used, with that used on other occasions, both before and afterwards, during his intercourse with them, after, as well as before his resurrection, we shall see that it was necessary, that he who proceeded and came forth from God, intended to say that he would go to heaven, "to the presence of God for us," not only for other important purposes, but to prepare a place for his people as their forerunner.

Now that he is seated "at the right hand of the Majesty on high," all these promises and predictions are in the course of continual accomplishment; in connection with the other functions of our ascended und glorified Redeemer. He has ascended to heaven as our triumphant Saviour, and there carries on all the offices and prerogatives of the Saviour. He entered thither as an all-sufficient priest, as such he there remains for ever as an all-prevailing intercessor, —a covenanted mediator,—a continual advocate. He there reigns as a supreme king, with all power in heaven and earth, as head over all things to his Church. As such, and as our prophet, he pours out gifts on his Church, and sends forth successors to the apostles and evangelists, pastors and teachers, for the work of the ministry. He is there as our forerunner, and thence he shall come to be our judge. Hence, by the fact that our dying and rising Redeemer has for ever sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high-all is accomplished—the

scheme of our redemption is completed-the transactions with regard to it are perfected, and all is in progress towards its consummation. Let us, therefore, charge ourselves, as risen with Christ, to seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God,-to set our affections on things above, not on things on the earth, for we are dead, and our life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life shall appear then shall we also appear with him in glory."-Col. iii. 1-4.

REV. JOHN WESLEY AND THE SO-CALLED METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE UNITED STATES.

WE have always thought the origin of the body just named a matter of curious inquiry, in connexion with the history of Methodism. But never until a few days ago had we sufficient means of information respecting it, when we found a Letter to a Methodist, from a Presbyter of the diocese of Maryland, reprinted in three successive numbers of The Church Newspaper, Canada. The matter is even more curious than we ever supposed, as will be seen from the following portion of the letter in question. We have not room, at least at present, to subjoin Wesley's letter of September 20th, 1788, to Francis Asbury, which contains the following sentence: "How can you, how dare you, call yourself a Bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! &c." Nor can we now reprint the two letters of Dr. Coke to Bishop White and Bishop Seabury, proposing a union of the Methodists with the American Church; and while proposing, on certain conditions, the Episcopal ordination of their preachers, requesting that himself and Mr. Asbury may be consecrated as Bishops. But the whole history shows, how very far beyond Wesley's control his people went on either side of the Atlantic, and how little those who call themselves by his name would have his approbation, although his own proceedings gave occasion to the present separate state of his followers; which he foresaw, and deprecated, but was powerless to pre

vent.

I. Enquire into the validity of Wesley's ordinations.

On this point rests the validity of the Methodist ministry. If Wesley had authority to ordain Dr. Coke a Bishop, then it is conceded that the Methodists have a lawful ministry and lawful sacraments; but, if Wesley had no such authority to ordain him, then his ordination of Dr. Coke was a nullity, and the Methodists have neither a lawful ministry, nor lawful sacraments; and as there cannot be a Christian Church without a lawful ministry and lawful sacraments; it will, in that case, necessarily follow, that what is called the "Methodist Church" is not, as such, a part of the Church of Christ.

Now, lest you might suppose that some wrong is done to the Methodists in the issue here made, I shall quote the first section of their "Book of Discipline," to prove that the entire validity of the Methodist ministry is made by themselves to rest upon Wesley's ordination of Dr. Coke. It is as follows:

"On the ORIGIN of the Methodist Episcopal Church. "The preachers* and members of our Society in general, being convinced that there was a great deficiency of vital religion in the Church of England

*At this time, the preachers were considered only lay preachers, and, according to the uniform advice of Mr. Wesley, had declined administering the sacraments. In

FF

in America, and being in many places destitute of the Christian Sacraments, as several of the clergy had forsaken their Churches, requested the late Rev. John Wesley to take such measures, in his wisdom and prudence, as would afford them suitable relief in their distress.

"In consequence of this, our venerable friend, who, under God, has been the father of the great revival of religion now extending over the earth by means of the Methodists, determined to ordain ministers for America; and, for this purpose, in the year 1784, sent over three regularly* ordained clergy; but preferring the Episcopal mode of Church government to any other, he solemnly set apart, by the imposition of his hands and prayer, one of them, viz. Thomas Coke, Doctor of Civil Law, late of Jesus College, in the University of Oxford, and a Presbyter of the Church of England, for the Episcopal office; and having delivered to him letters of Episcopal orders, commissioned† and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury, then general assistant of the Methodist Society in America, for the same Episcopal office; he, the said Francis Asbury, being first ordained deacon and elder. In consequence of which, the said Francis Asbury was solemnly set apart for the said Episcopal office by prayer, and the imposition of the hands of the said Thomas Coke, other regularly§ ordained ministers assisting in the sacred ceremony. At which time the General Conference, held at Baltimore, did unanimously receive the said Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury as their Bishops, being fully satisfied of the validity of their Episcopal ordination."

Thus you will perceive that the validity of the Methodist ministry is made, by the Methodists themselves, to depend on the validity of Dr. Coke's ordination by Wesley.

Let us, then, seriously enquire, where did Wesley obtain the authority to ordain Dr. Coke?

It certainly was not born with him; for authority to ordain a minister of Christ is born with no man.

1778, a few of these lay-preachers, in Virginia, undertook to ordain each other, thinking thereby to get the power of administering the sacraments! but, by a vote of one of the Conferences, this ordination was declared INVALID (Life of Wesley by Coke and More, chap. 3, sec. 2.)

* These "regularly ordained clergy," were clergy of the Church of England. They were not ordained by Wesley.-The Methodists here themselves draw the distinction between "regularly ordained clergy" and Wesley's ordinations.

+ Lest it might be supposed, that Wesley had "commissioned" Dr. Coke, in these (so-called) "Letters of Episcopal Orders," to "set apart" Mr. Asbury for the " same Episcopal office," it is proper to state that no such "commission" is given to Dr. Coke in said "letters." Where is this "commission" to be found?

As some might think from this language, that Wesley had "first ordained" [Mr Asbury] deacon and elder," it should be known, that Asbury received no ordination from Wesley. He was only a layman, when Dr. Coke came to America; and Dr. Coke ordained him a deacon, elder, and superintendent, or, (as he afterwards called himself,) a Bishop, in the course of a few days! (See Lee's "Short History of the Methodists," p. 94.)

§ One of these "regularly ordained" ministers was a German minister named Otterbine! (Lee's History, p. 94.)

This is not true. The General Conference did not at that "time" receive Coke and Asbury as Bishops, as will be shown hereafter.

He could not have obtained it from any temporal power; for all the kings and governors of the earth combined cannot ordain a minister of Christ, nor confer the authority to ordain one.

Was this authority conferred on Wesley at his ordination? Plainly not; because the authority for ordaining, in the Church of England, (of which Wesley was a member), is confined exclusively to the order of Bishops, and Wesley was not consecrated a Bishop, but only ordained a Presbyter. As no such authority was then conferred on Wesley, he did not obtain it when he was ordained.

But here your preachers meet us with the argument, that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same order of ministers; and therefore, Wesley being a Presbyter, was also a Bishop, and therefore had authority to ordain, -and this, too, in the teeth of the fact, as I have just proved, that no such authority was given to him at his ordination! Whether Bishop and Presbyter be the same order, is a point I shall consider hereafter; at present, I shall content myself with showing, that this argument will not avail the Methodists in the least, because :

If Wesley were a Bishop because he was a Presbyter, then Dr. Coke must also have been a Bishop, since he was a Presbyter when Wesley "laid his hands on him." And if Dr. Coke was already a Bishop, what did Wesley make him by ordaining him? Not a Bishop, surely; for he was one already, if Presbyters and Bishops be the same order! What then? He must have made him an officer higher than a Bishop,-an officer unknown to the Church of God! Besides, if Dr. Coke, being a Presbyter, was, therefore, a Bishop, he had the same right to ordain Wesley, as Wesley had to ordain him!

This argument, I consider so unanswerable and conclusive, to prove the invalidity of Coke's ordination, that I might well here let the subject rest; but, before, I close, shall again advert to it, for reasons which will then

appear.

Having thus disposed of one of the chief arguments by which the Methodists attempt to show that Wesley had authority to ordain, I shall now proceed to consider their other great augument, namely, that Wesley had a "Providential call" to ordain.

When Wesley sent out Dr. Coke, he gave him the following instrument of writing, which "The Book of Discipline," above quoted, calls his "Letters of Episcopal Orders" :

"To all to whom these presents shall come, John Wesley, late Fellow of Lincoln College, in Oxford, Presbyter of the Church of England, sendeth greeting:

"Whereas, many of the people in the Southern Provinces of North America, who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, are greatly distressed for want of ministers to administer the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, according to the usage of the same Church: and whereas, there does not appear to be any other way of supplying them with ministers

"Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself to be providentially called at this time to set apart some persons for the work of the ministry in America. And therefore, under the protection of Almighty God, and with a single eye to his glory, I have this day set apart as a Superintendent,

by the imposition of my hands* and prayer, (being assisted by other ordained ministers), Thomas Coke, Doctor of Civil Law, a Presbyter of the Church of England, and a man whom I judge to be well qualified for that great work. And I do hereby recommend him to all whom it may concern, as a fit person to preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this second day of September, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty four.†

"JOHN WESLEY."

Whatever may be meant by the phrase, povidentially called," in the above document, Wesley has saved us the trouble of finding it out, for he expressly tells us why he thought he had this "providential call," namely, because there does not appear to be any other way of supplying

them with ministers.

That this was Wesley's true reason for thinking himself "providentially called " to undertake this business, is made still plainer by his letter, dated "Bristol, 10th September, 1784," (only eight days after he "laid hands on Dr. Coke), addressed to "Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in North America," in which, on adverting to the above transaction, he says:—

"If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way of feeding and guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embrace it. At present I cannot see any better method than

I have taken.

Whether Wesley, then, had a "providential call" to ordain, depends upon the fact, whether there was "any other way" to obtain ministers for God's Church, (for the Methodists had not yet left the Church), than his taking upon himself the authority to ordain Dr. Coke; because, if it can be plainly shown that there was another way," then it is evident, on Wesley's own ground, that he had no such "providential call.”

Rightly to solve this question, it will be necessary to advert to the position of the American Church at that time. Before these "United States" were separated from Great Britain by the Revolution, the Church of England had been planted in several of them, and the jurisdiction over these Churches and their ministers was committed to the Bishop of London. After the Revolution, consequently, when this country was separated from Great Britain, the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London was, practically, at an end, and the American Church was thus left without an available ecclesiastical head. Some wise men of late, among the Methodists, have

* This 66 imposition of hands" was not done in a Church, openly before the people, but in Wesley's bed-chamber in, Bristol! It soon, however, got noised about, that Wesley had made a Bishop! (though there is not a word of the kind in these "Letters of Episcopal Orders," as they are called). The Reverend Charles Wesley, who was not in the secret, on hearing of it, wrote the following epigram :

"So easily are Bishops made,

By man's or woman's whim;

Wesley his hands on Coke hath laid,

But who laid hands on him?"

+Reprinted from a tract written by Dr. George Peck, a Methodist preacher. Lee's Short History, page 91.