It has been objected to the ^lethodist episcopacy that, while the theory of the Church admits but two orders in the ministry, the separate ordination of bish- ops reall\- implies three. But the objection is ground- less. (See above, II, 2.) In fact, the number of " or- ders" has always been an open question, even in the Roman Church; the Council of Trent did not settle it (compare Canons of Trent, scss. xiii, can. 2t. The "balance of authority, eveir from the euirliest ages, cortainiy inclines to consider the episcopate, as an or- der, to bt identical with the priesthood, not the com-
pletion of it" (Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, iii, Ixxxi, So also Palmer : " If we understand the word order in the sense of degree, we may say that there arc three orders of the Christian ministry; but if we distribute it according to its nature, there are 1 ut two, viz. bish- ops (or presbyters) and deacons" {On the Church, pt. vi, § 1).
Some Methodist writers have maintained that three orders, bishops, priests, and deacons, belong to the con- stitution of the Church as laid down in Scripture, and therefore that the episcopal ofHce is not simjily an ec- clesiastical one. See especially Grayson, The Church and the Ministry (Louisville, 1853, 8vo).
(2.) The Methodist episcopacy is not diocesan, like that of the churches of Home and England, but f/eheral and itinerant. Instead of being conlined to a city or district, the bishop is required to ''travel at large;" and if " he cease from travelling without the consent of the General Conference, he cannot thereafter ex- ercise the episcopal oflice." See Conferencks, and Methodist Episcopal Church. AVhile, under the Methodist system, the bishops do not claim to be " suc- cessors of the apostles," or to be endowed, either as in- dividuals or collectively, with superior authority to teach or to govern, apart from power given tlicm by the body of presbyters as represented in the General Conference, it yet appears to be clear that, as to their functions and jurisdiction, they approach nearer to the apostolical idea than bishops under the diocesan sys- tem. Dollinger (perhaps the ablest of living lioman- ist writers), in maintaining that "bishops are the suc- cessors of the apostles, and have received their author- ity," is yet forced to admit that, under the Eoman episcopal system, the authority of bishops is strictly limited to a particular diocese, while the juricdiction of the apostles " extended to every part of the earth, wheresoever their universal vocation to convert the nations and to found churches conducted them" (Church History, i, 22C, Lond. 1840). Under the ISIethodist sys- tem, a bishop may preside in a Conference and ordain presbyters in March in New York, in 'Mux in Illinois, in July in California, in October in China, and in De- cember in Germany.
(3.) The Methodist episcopacy was instituted by Wesley. During the Eevolutionary War in America, most of the clergy of the Church of England left the country. Before the war, the American preachers, like those in England, had been forbidden to adminis- ter the sacraments : the peojde were sent to the clergy of the Church of England for baptism and the Lord's Supper. After the war the societies were without the ordinances, and were likely to be disbanded in conse- quence. After duly considering the exigency, Mr. Wesley (who had previously in vain urged the bishop of London to ordain preachers for America) deter- mined to organize the American IMethodists into an independent Episcopal Church, and ordained the Eev. Thomas Coke, LL.D., as superintendent, and liichard Whatcoat and Thomas Yasey as elders. In 1784 the Rev. Francis Asbury was ordained by Dr. Coke, and the ^Methodist Episcopal Church was duly organized — x\w first American Episcopal Church. See jMethouism. .Mr. ^\■csley did not pretend to ordain bishops in any other sense than according to his view of primitive episcopacy, in which, as he maintained, bishops and presbyters are the same order. The grounds of his procedure in the case are stated in his " Letter to Dr. Coke and iMr. Asbury," prefi.xed to " Sunday Service of the ^Methodists" (1784) ; given also in Watson's Life of ]Ve.<leii (p. 244). An excellent sketcli of tlie rise of the IMetliodist episcopacy is given by Stevens, History of Methodism, vol. ii.
Y. The Jloravian Church (Uuitas Fratrum) holds to episcopacy. Their bishops, however, are not diocesan. The history of the preservation of the episcopate is given in De Schweinitz, 7'he Moravian Hiriocopate (Bethlehem, 18G5). See Moravians.
EPISCOPALIANS
267
EPISCOPIUS
See Canones et Decreta Concil. Trident., sess. xxiii ; Catechism of the Council of Trent, pt. ii. Sacrament of Orders; Bungener, History of the Council of Trent, Lk. V ch. ii ; Elliott, Delineation of Emanism, l)k. ii, chap, x'v ; IMohlei-, Si/inboUsm, § 43 ; Rotlie, Anfdnge d. christ- lichen Kirche, vol. 1 ; l}aur, Urspi-ung des Episcopats (Tuuingen, 1838, 8vo) ; Neander,CViM7-(7t History, i, 190; Mosheim, Ch. History, vol. i; Killen, Ancient Church, sect, iii chaps, vi, vii; C<AQma.r\, Ancient Christianity, chap, viii ; Coleman, Ajjostolical and Primitive Church, ch. vi; Lord King, rri7mtlve Church (12mo); Bangs, Orifnal Church of Christ (N. Y. limo) ; Schaft", History of the Christian ^Church, vol. i, § 107, 108 ; Emory, On Episcopacy ; Emory, Defence of our Fathers (N. York, 8vo) ; Wesley, Works, vii, 31-2 ; Stillingtlcct, Irenicum, 8vo; Stevens, History <f Methodism, vol. ii, chaps, vi, vii ; Watson, Life of Wesley, ch. xiii ; Burnet, History of Enfjlish R formation, i, 400, 586 ; iv, 176 ; Porter, Compendium of Methodism ; Princeton Review, January, 1856; Lightfoot, Cm PhlUppians (1868), Appendix ; The Rise of the Ep'scopute (.Vew Englander, July, 1867) ; Palinor, On thi Church (High-Church view), ii, 340 sq. ; Hinds, Rise and Early Progress of Chris- tianity {Encyclop. MeiropoL London, 1850, 12mo) ; and the article Succession. The High-Episcopal view is well stated for modern readers in ) ox Ecclesice (Phil- adelphia, 1866, 12mo); the moderate, in Litton, The Church of Christ (Lond. 1851, 8vo ; Phila. 1853, 8vo).