III.

PART people. So far as relates to the people under the charge of such a Bishop, it only imports a special obligation, to submit themselves specially to him, who has become their superior by being placed specially over them, to exercise that authority, which he possesses generally over all who have no special Bishop assigned to them. As relates to other Bishops, it imports an obligation not to interfere with the relations, established between any Bishop and his flock. When, therefore, any number of Christians, who are not under the spiritual jurisdiction of any Bishop, or connected with any diocese, or organized Church, agree to erect the territory, within which they live, into a diocese, and to receive, as their Bishop, any duly consecrated Bishop, who is not under Church censure, and so has general mission, and who is not connected with any diocese, and so at liberty to take charge of them, without abandoning or neglecting other duties, and who is willing so to do, the relation of pastor and flock seems to be sufficiently constituted. This theory was realized, to the letter, in the case of the organization of the diocese of Illinois. In 1835, that diocese was admitted, with its Bishop at its head, into union with the General Convention. It had been organized by the Clergy and Laity of the state of Illinois, then a very small band indeed, and not entitled, under the canons of the American Church, to elect a Bishop. They proceeded, however, before seeking union with the General Convention, and submitting to its laws, to elect Bishop Chase, their present Bishop, the first Bishop of Illinois. Bishop Chase was then a vacant Bishop, having resigned the diocese of Ohio, over which he had presided for many years; he accepted the election; and the diocese of Illinois, thus completely organized, was received as part of the American Church.

When several such dioceses are formed at the same time, and in the same neighbourhood, and mutually agree to respect each other's limits, and to unite, to a certain extent, in mutual good offices and legislation for the good of the whole, the case is still stronger. This was substantially the case at the formation of the elder dioceses of the American Church.

Q. xxvi. Was the territory of the United States free from obligations to other Bishops?

A. Yes: the authority of the Bishop of Lonaon was, in fact, relinquished: the actual Bishop of London signed the first letter of the English Bishops, in answer to the application for the Episcopate, and made no objection to the new arrange

ment.

Q. xxvii. But were there not Romanist Bishops in the country?

A. Even if there had been, the schismatic character of the Romish Church is such, that it may be doubted; whether Bishops in Communion with her have mission at all; but, in fact, there were none. It was not until 1790, after the complete organization of the American Church, that the Pope undertook, by virtue of his usurped authority, to erect the whole of the United States into one diocese, the see of which he fixed in Baltimore. In August of that year, Dr. John Carrol was consecrated the first Bishop of Baltimore, and, in December, he arrived in his pretended diocese.1

1 BRENT. Biographical Sketch of the Most Reverend John Carrol. Baltimore, 1843, p. 113.

Q. xxviii. But were there not Methodist Bishops in the country, who had, or claimed jurisdiction? A. There were two persons connected with the Methodist society who called themselves Bishops;

CHAP.

III.

III.

PART but they had, as such, neither orders nor mission; and one of them, in fact, no orders at all. Dr. Coke, one of these persons, was a presbyter of the Church of England, who had permitted himself to be ordained "a superintendent," by the Rev. John Wesley, another presbyter of that Church. Mr. Asbury, the other of these pretended Bishops, had no orders, but what he had received from his colleague, by whom he had been ordained deacon and elder, and consecrated Bishop.

1 WESLEY. Letters of Orders to Coke. 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.

Q. xxix. Is there any other objection, which is taken to the mission of the American Bishops?

A. The Romanists pretend that they can have no mission; because they are heretics and schis

matics, and also, because they have received no mission or jurisdiction from the Pope; whom they assert to be the sole source of both.

Q. xxx. What answer do you give to these objections?

A. To the first, we say, that the American Church is not heretical, since she receives the Nicene Creed; which was declared by the General Councils to be the faith. To the second, we say, that she is not schismatical, since she has never separated from, or refused communion with, any pure Church. Nay, she has never even separated from the Church of Rome, which is herself schismatical, by the very act of refusing communion with the English and American Churches upon frivolous and, in fact, sinful grounds. As to the third, we say, that the Pope is not the source of mission or jurisdiction; that, in fact, he becomes a schismatic, by setting up that unfounded claim, and refusing communion with those who do not acknowledge it.

Q. xxxi. What pretence is there for this claim of the Pope?

A. It is part of what is called the Papal supremacy, and rests on the notion that the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is the successor of St. Peter, who, the Romanists say, had supreme authority given him in the Church, so that the other Apostles derived their mission and authority through him.

Q. xxxii. What is it necessary that they should establish to make out this claim?

A. Four things. First, that St. Peter had such a supremacy among the Apostles, that they and all other Bishops derive their mission and authority through him. Second, that it was intended that St. Peter should have successors in this office or supremacy. Third, that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome. Fourth, that the supremacy was so united

CHAP. III.

PART
III.

Matt. xvi. 18, 19.

Matt. xviii. 18.

to the bishopric of Rome that his successor in one office is his successor in the other.

Q. xxxiii. Had St. Peter any such supremacy? A. No; the Romanists pretend to ground the notion on sundry passages of Holy Scripture; such as those in which our Saviour directs St. Peter to strengthen his brethren, and to feed His sheep, or which mention our Lord's teaching the people out of Peter's boat, and some others of a similar character. But the obvious meaning of all these texts is not to their purpose, because it has no relation to the right which they assert. They are, in fact, only able to wrest them to their purpose by reading them in the light of their interpretation of a single text, which is the only foundation of the claim. That text is, "I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And, I will give unto thee, the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.' This text would certainly bear the interpretation the Romanists put upon it, were there any evidence that it had been so interpreted at the time. But, unfortunately for them, the evidence is all the other way.

Q. xxxiv. Can you show from Scripture, that the text, which you have just cited, did not give St. Peter such a supremacy, that all Bishops must derive the mission and authority from him?

A. Yes. These words are only a promise of a future gift; and in a subsequent passage, in the same Gospel, the same promise was renewed to all the Apostles equally. On that occasion, our Blessed Lord, after directing that he who will not hear the Church shall be regarded as a heathen and a publican, added these words, "Verily, verily,