an obedient son in the gospel, he preferred to "hear the Church" so long as human elements in the administration of that Church did not interfere with his great work of saving and edifying souls.

Wesley knew that there is no divinely prescribed form of church government. At the same time he, like a wise man, saw that when a church constitution has been chosen, it is but loyal and best to adhere to that form until compelled to dissent and diverge. He knew that from Ignatius's time, when a bishop was only the first among his equals and served simply as "a center of unity," to Cyprian, who regarded a bishop as the absolute vicegerent of Christ, there was but a short, swift, human step. Wesley loyally preferred to respect a church which even had no apostolic succession, and to obey the law of that Church lest it be discredited and displaced by a less desirable one. He knew that regard for the work he planned argued the minimum of adverse criticism in very respect for the future of that work. Compelled to do something, after Bishop Lowth and others declared they would do nothing, Wesley ordained Coke, and in the document wherein he records his act and motive he expressly said:

For many years I have been importuned to exercise this right by ordaining part of our traveling preachers; but I have refused, not only for peace' sake, but because I was determined as little as possible to violate the established order of the national Church to which I belong.

The compelling exigency had now come. Wesley ordained Coke as a "superintendent," and others as presbyters. Still later, when he saw that at the close of his life his followers at home would fall apart, he ordained Alexander Mather as a bishop for England. In both cases there was exigency, which sanctions the acts of those who are compelled to go outside of given forms and prescribed regulations. Emergency is superior to law even in religion and ecclesiasticism. There is a grave defect in the history of the ordination of the first archbishop of Canterbury under Elizabeth, and of the line of English bishops since that time. Little wonder, therefore, that wise advisers of the queen taught that mere episcopal appointment from the throne is sufficient, without consecration. There has been much controversy over this point, and we are per

suaded that there is less ground to doubt the validity of Wesley's ordination of Coke on ecclesiastical grounds than of many and vital episcopal ordinations during the Elizabethan days of the Reformation in England.

We are persuaded, also, that it were better to frankly admit, in company with many of the most devoted and learned ministers and theologues in the Church of England, that the succession is one of the errors and assumptions of the papal Church, and should not be included among the doctrines of Protestantism-Continental, English, or American. Papal writers on the one hand, and many and distinguished Church of England writers on the other hand, unite in the declaration that episcopal succession is not a doctrine of the latter Church. A statute in the time of Elizabeth was to the effect that those who had received ordination in form other than that of the Church of England might have Church preferment upon signing the Articles of Religion. Many having only presbyterian ordination actually did obtain preferment in the English Church. Hooker, whose eminence needs no statement, has said that there may sometimes be " very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a bishop." Now we hold that Wesley had that "very just and sufficient reason" to authorize him to ordain Bishop Coke, and thus begin a line of Methodist Episcopal bishops under whom our Church work and success would seem to have the sanction of the great Head of the Church.

This general statement of our relations to the historic episcopacy must suffice, with a few points of summary and inference.

1. We hold that we are an episcopal Church as to our genuine origin, our methods of work, and our ecclesiastical conformity to the primitive Church model of the year 84 A. D. While we are as presbyterian as presbyterism in theory, we prefer a system of scriptural superintendency which, though it began as late as 1784, is derived from as genuine sources as any in church history. Though short, it is pure, to our certain knowledge, as is any on record. Moreover, the chain is complete and continuous beyond challenge.

2. Our episcopacy has competent jurisdiction. Our bishops who receive ordination have universal, and universally admitted, authority. They are never outside their world-wide or legally

prescribed fields. We make no distinction between their "habitual" and their "actual" jurisdiction. Moreover, we obtain detailed, minute, and effective local episcopal oversight through presiding elders; our diocesan bishops who, in a substantial sense, feed the flock, and illustrate the fundamental sincerity of our views as to the parity of bishops and elders by retiring at the close of their term of office-to which they are not ordained.

3. For the sake of the old principle above credited to Ignatius, but often re-affirmed, we practically restrict ordinations to our bishops, but only that they may be "centers of unity," and that we may keep our temporal law. At the same time, any elder has divine right to ordain elders or bishops. Admitting this, we yet deny that he at present has ecclesiastical right to ordain until legally authorized. While the historical bishop in all Churches may have abused his office over and over again, he has also contributed to save the Church more than once.

4. At times it has been illegal for presbyters` to ordain, adininister the sacraments, or pronounce absolution, unless by permission of the presiding bishop. However, they have always had inherent and divine right to do all these things. In process of time all these rights have been regained and restored save that of ordaining. Wesley, therefore, completed the Reformation in England by re-asserting and illustrating presbyterial right and authority to also ordain elders and bishops.

5. It is sometimes suggested that our Church should thoroughly vindicate and harmonize its presbyterian theoretical polity by electing bishops to serve for only four or eight years, and that they should not be ordained or consecrated. We affirm, however, that such a step would be a departure from primitive Christian practice, and that it would mar the consistency of our symmetrical scriptural scheme.

6. He who correctly reads our Methodist history, and knows the record of the primitive Church, will not be over ready to re-affirm once in four years by General Conference resolution that Methodism is not a high church, and in danger from "Romanizing germs." A deliverance on vital themes, when uttered too often, begets a persuasion that somebody is in doubt. What would be the effect of too frequent affirmation

of the divinity of Christ? Future readers of history would be sure to conclude that that divinity has been often and fiercely doubted within our Church. As a safe-guard, if there is danger from super-episcopalianism in our Church, we should prefer that the personal offenders be allowed to ripen for the day of mundane wrath, and thus receive the inevitable lesson which would avail far more than a folio of resolutions.

7. It is not the part of Methodism to be forever disavowing "prelacy," but rather to rest in the scriptural origin and quality of her genuine episcopacy. Thereby shall we best protect the Church from the one extreme of super-episcopalianism, and the other extreme of hap-hazard and non-historical episcopacy. Some among us deem it their duty, and a proof of their horror of "prelacy," to "define" our episcopacy and deprecate the growth of its power and perhaps final rebellion against, and disregard for, the Church. The results are loss of corps spirit and measurable disaffection, which bode no good. The implied danger, suggested by the timid, is certainly not in our theory of the episcopacy. Our only possible danger respects the personnel of our future superintending presbyters. Therefore, let precautions be personal, and let not a mistaken defense hasten to tinker our explicit and safe law. While we remain low church, as we must, let us be sure to be sufficiently high church in the fearless use of our low church munitions.

No declaration, or disavowal, or deprecation, or protest, or explanation, or manifesto of any kind whatsoever can more clearly define our univocal theory of church polity and of our episcopacy. In the light of that paragraph let us make the very most of our bishops while we have them, and should they, perchance, all disappear at once, let us reverently proceed according to this law to get some more.

Arthur Edward

ART. IV.-JAMES PORTER.

IN the old New England Conference, an important center of thought, activity, courage, and radicalisin, James Porter long remained a conspicuous historic figure. He was in every movement of the period. He always marched in the van. In the pulpit he occupied an enviable position; and on the platform, the scene of some of the most stirring and famous debates of the century, he was invariably prominent. Without him no Methodistic circle was complete; and in the circle he could not be hidden. His tact, good sense, rare knowledge of men and things, were seen on all sides; and, however we may account for it, he held a high place of honor among the most distinguished men of his generation, a fact which makes his life worthy of consideration and study. In an important sense he was a self-made man, the architect of his own fortune. He was not lifted into fame by friends or accident; he rose by the persistent and wise use of the powers originally conferred by the Creator. The diligent use of the five talents made them ten.

Though not born to fortune or title, James Porter came of good Puritan stock, tracing his lineage back to Richard Porter, who settled in Weymouth, Mass., in 1635, and thus securing connection with a Pilgrim family whose abilities, virtues, and services have left visible and notable traces on the history, literature, religion, legislation, and institutions of the Eastern States. Tact and push were in the blood; and back of these was a susceptibility to moral and religious motives, and a deep sense of duty to God and mankind. Though, like most of their neighbors, in moderate worldly circumstances, his parents, William Porter (born in Middleborough, Mass., February 1, 1763) and Rebecca (Wood) Porter (born in Middleborough, March 31, 1772) were highly respectable people, retaining and training their children in the faith, virtues, and aspirations of their ancestors.

In this Puritanic home, characterized by simple tastes, habits of economy, industry, and a spirit of enterprise and adventure, the future itinerant was born, March 21, 1808, and passed the years of preparation for the duties of later life.

54-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. v.