no objection to them that they save labor; but it is considerable in favor of non-liturgical services, that they are conformable to apostolic usage, while liturgies are not.

Liturgies were very brief and imperfect in the third century, when for the first time a beginning had been made of any considerable use of them; and from that time their growth was gradual and constant, till they reached the elaborate perfection. and magnitude of the Greek and Roman services. - Murdock's Mosheim, vol. I., pp. 190, 277, 278.

The principal parties in the Episcopal church are the same as those in the church of England: the low-church party, who differ less from other Protestant orders, and recognize both piety, dignity and moral worth, beyond the bounds of their own establishment; and the high-church party, which tends strongly to the bigotry and superstition of the Catholics, and regards all nonepiscopal orders as essentially defective and schismatical. The high church is in the ascendency, and is likely forever to hold the keys of Episcopal church power, and to be at the head of its affairs.

Nor is this party without much that is attractive and imposing. It lays great stress upon sacred vestments, holy places, appropriate and imposing church architecture, liturgical services, symbols of the cross, baptism, confirmation, and communion. It invests many of these objects with a mystic character, and makes them direct instruments for the bestowment of divine grace. It abhors levity in religion, and is disgusted with worldliness. It aims at eminent sanctity, and pursues it by the use of solemn forms, imposing ceremonies, and religious contemplations. It has great reverence for the fathers, for Romanism, and great horror of Protestant radicalism.

These principles operate on the entire denomination, and tend to give it a peculiar character. There is no other evangelical body that admits so great diversity of opinion on religious subjects among its members. Calvinists and Arminians, believers in future punishment and Universalists, pedo-Baptists and adult

Baptists, all belong to its communion and sit at its Lord's table together and in succession, and generally live in peace and love. They usually all agree in the love and veneration of their connection, and are zealous to extend it.

The conservatism of the Episcopal church is exhibited in various ways, and is best seen by contrast with other churches. At the time of the American Revolution, the Congregational and Presbyterian churches discussed the religious aspects of that great movement in their churches, and helped it forward. Their prayers and preaching were both revolutionary. The Episcopalian pulpits of the country at that time were generally silent on the subject, or counselied submission to the powers that

were.

The great temperance reformation began in New England, and was early taken up in the pulpits, and commended by Congregational ministers to the religious sympathies and the support of the people. The Presbyterian pulpit followed in the same direction, and, to some extent, the Methodist. But the Episcopal pulpit has generally avoided the subject, or counselled caution and moderation in its prosecution by the people.

American slavery is felt by many to be the great sin of our nation, and our shame. The Congregational pulpit has in many cases enlisted zealously in the cause of the slave, arguing the wickedness of oppression, the enormous social wrongs to which it leads, and the retributive judgments which it provokes. The Presbyterian pulpit has in many cases done the same. So have the pulpits of other non-Episcopal religious orders; but the Episcopal pulpit sedulously avoids the subject, or counsels that we should dissent with extreme caution from the doctrines of the oppressor with regard to it.

It is no part of the mission of the Episcopal church to enter into the great movements of the age even in behalf of suffering humanity. It leaves those objects to be prosecuted in other methods and by other agencies, and confines itself mainly to conservative Christianity. Whatever falls within this category it

discusses with freedom and ability; but it seldom goes beyond this field.

All

. In respect to exclusiveness, the church of England partakes of the same character as that of Rome. For many centuries the church of Rome has claimed to be the only true church, and the only safe repository of salvation for the human race. her faithful members are sure of salvation. All her incorrigible enemies are sure to be damned. Rival bodies, claiming to be Christian churches, are objects of her particular dislike, and of her most terrible anathemas. The church of England has no favor for dissenting bodies. It does not recognize them as legitimate branches of the true vine, and pays no fraternal respect to their ministers and ordinances. A dissenting minister never preaches in a church-of-England pulpit, or assists him in the performance of public religious worship, nor does he walk by his side in religious processions.

The Episcopal church in the United States adopts the same policy. Some of its ministers and members think very well of the ministers and members of other American churches, and associate freely with them in general society. But they are not allowed by their ecclesiastical authorities to admit any fraternal intercourse between their own church and churches of other orders, as such, or to have a fraternal interchange of services with their ministers. They stand by themselves, and do not allow ministers of other orders to preach in their pulpits, or to aid them in their public ministrations. Why is this? On what principle does it proceed? And what valuable end does it answer? Is it just and right? Is it charitable and generous ? If ministers are questioned about this, they sometimes tell us that, as for themselves, personally, they should be very willing to practise differently in regard to these matters; but they are subject to canonical and episcopal restrictions, holding them to their present policy. Some will admit that the policy is wrong, but still they are not at liberty to depart from it. If they minister by episcopal authority, they must conform to its laws.

There are two conceivable grounds on which to base a justification of this exclusive policy with respect to other denominations. The first is, that the Episcopal is the only true church, and that the others are all false. If this assumption is correct, Episcopal exclusiveness is perfectly right. True churches are not required to fraternize with the false, nor true ministers of Christ to give countenance to those wolves in sheep's clothing that, under pretence of guiding, protecting and feeding, the flock of God, scatter and destroy it. The second ground of justification is, that Christians of other orders have no just claims to fraternal recognition and coöperation on the part of Episcopalians. This is not obvious. It requires to be proved, and it will be hard to prove indeed.

Equality and fraternity is the common law of the individual; it is the common law of the state; and it is equally, and, if possible, still more the common law of the church. The individual has no right to ignore the existence of his neighbor, or withhold from him any countenance and support, any kindness and aid, by which it is possible consistently to serve him.

The state has no right to ignore the existence of its sister state, or to withhold from it any practicable services of love and well-doing. Different systems of government, and great diversities and contrarieties of opinion, feeling and habits, do not justify nations in withholding good-fellowship and international kindness from one another. Monarchies and republics, despotisms and democracies, live on terms of amity together, recognize each other as sister nations, bound together by common interests and common duties, and mutually love and serve each other.

Is the church alone excepted from the operation of this principle? Does the law of love, of fraternity and equality, and of fraternal intercourse in all kind offices, bind individuals and nations, and not bind the church?

Bigotry itself, with the cobwebs of ages hanging on its eyelids and obscuring its sight, cannot be blind enough not to see the falsity of this position. No subtle logic is requisite to disentan

gle the truth, with regard to this subject, from its windings and ambiguities; no critical analysis to separate it from error. It stands out on the surface of things; it looms up to view like mountains towering to heaven, and burying their snow-crested summits in the clouds; it forces itself on our notice, and compels our recognition. We do not stop to argue with the man that has doubts, and fancies that this image of love is a spectre of delusion. We pity the weakness of his understanding; we detest the perversity of his heart.

DIVISION IV.

THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCHES.

CHAPTER I.

THE ORIGIN OF METHODISM.

THE founder of Methodism was John Wesley, the son of Rev. Samuel Wesley, rector of Epworth, in England. He received a liberal education at Christ's Church College, Oxford, where he took his first degree in 1724, at the age of twenty-one. He was then elected fellow of Lincoln College, and graduated Master of Arts in 1726, distinguished for his classical attainments, his skill in dialectics, and his poetical abilities.

Soon after this, he entered into holy orders in the church of England; and, from being a grave and sedate young clergyman, soon became distinguished for his zeal and earnestness both in personal religion, and in his labors for the promotion of piety.

In 1735, he accepted a mission to Georgia, in the then British colonies of America, for the purpose of preaching to the Indians.