In the Christian ministry have always been found men of diversified talents and acquirements. Some have possessed a gigantic intellect, with a refined and polished education, which having smoothed the natural unevenness of their character, has left nothing but the pure diamond to glitter and enlighten the world. Others, with the same strength of mind, the same vigor of understanding, the same capacity for knowledge, are, for lack of opportunity, left like the diamond in its rough and unpolished state, which although it may not dazzle so much, is nevertheless as purely a diamond as the other. It must he admitted also, that men, and especially ministers, differ very much in their natural, as well as acquired abilities; while some are persons of only moderate strength of mind, others, are perfect intellectual giants; but each one is necessary to the progress of truth, and each is requisite to fill the important station designed for him in the arrangements of divine providence. The apostles of our lord differed in strength of understanding, as well as in acquired abilities; one had the learning and refinement of Paul, another the zeal and ardor of Peter, while a third had the love and superior piety of John; and all these “diversities of gifts” were bestowed for the express purpose of meeting the diversified views and feelings of men, that the whole body of Christ might he edified, not only by a “diversity of operations” but by a “difference of administrations.”

In a preceding chapter, we have seen Bishop George as a diamond dug from the earth, but retaining in part, its unpolished surface, arising from obscurity, and becoming an acknowledged leader and superintendent of the largest protestant denomination of Christians in the United States. As the subject of the present chapter, we are called to the contemplation of a man filling the same important office, and yet entirely dissimilar in many respects, from the subject of the former; a man, who to strength of understanding, added the advantages of education and the polished refinement of the Christian gentleman.

John Emory was a native of the State of Maryland, and was born in the year 1788. He was, at an early age, carefully instructed in the rudiments of education, and as he was designed by his parents for the profession of law, they directed his course of study with direct reference to their design; and young John was by no means backward in applying his mind to the pursuit of knowledge, intending, no doubt, at some future day, to act a conspicuous part at the bar, as well as in the councils of the nation. Up to the age of seventeen, he lived, as the majority of youths do, “without God, and without hope in the world,” but at the latter age, through the instrumentality of the Methodists, he was powerfully convinced of sin, and led to consecrate himself, with all his talents and acquirements, to the service of God. As the result of such unreserved consecration, he soon obtained the forgiveness of sin, as also the “witness of the Spirit,” to bear witness with his spirit, that he was a child of God and an heir of heaven.

Shortly after young Emory’s conversion, he felt himself called to cast in his lot with the Methodists, and after having taken this important step, he felt an impression that it was his duty to forsake the study of law, and devote himself to the work of the ministry. Young Emory was not the only one who received an impression of his duty in that respect; for as the Spirit of God in its operations upon the mind of the candidate, and upon the minds of the members of his Church harmonizes in pointing out the way of duty, so in Mr. Emory’s case, the Church with which he had connected himself, soon discovered that God had a work for him to do; consequently, he soon received license to exhort, and preach; and in the year 1810, when in his twenty-second year, he entered the traveling ministry, by being received on trial in the Philadelphia Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is comparatively unimportant what particular circuits he traveled during his novitiate; suffice it to say, that he made full proof of his call to the ministry, and in due course of time was honorably received into full connection with the Conference, and ordained first a deacon, and subsequently an elder in the Church of God, having, in the meanwhile, filled the various stations assigned him by his senior brethren, with great credit to himself, and honor to the Church.

In the year 1816, although but an elder for two years, and consequently one of the younger members of the Conference, and being but twenty-eight years of age, such was the confidence reposed in him by his brethren, that they elected him as a delegate to the General Conference, which assembled that year in the city of Baltimore. While met [meeting] with his brethren in the highest council of the Church, he displayed talents of no ordinary kind, and it was a knowledge of the possession of these talents combined with an elevated tone of piety, which induced the General Conference itself to bestow upon him some of the highest honors, and invest him with some of the gravest responsibilities which it had power to confer upon the ministers of the Church.

In the year 1820, he was by the Baltimore Conference, of which he had become a member, again elected to a seat in the General Conference, and a further mark of honor was conferred upon him, by the General Conference, in selecting him as its representative to the British Wesleyan Conference in England. At this period, important questions relating to the Methodists in the Provinces of Canada, were being agitated between the British and American Methodists. Methodism was planted in Canada, principally by the labors of ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, and the Societies raised up in different parts of the two provinces, had been supplied with preachers from the latter Church, until the war of 1812-1815, during the existence of which, it was both inconvenient and unsafe for American ministers to cross the boundary line. Hence, the British Conference considered it a duty to send missionaries to different parts of the provinces, who occupied the various fields of labor assigned them, until the cessation of hostilities. When peace ensued, and all barriers to passing and repassing were removed, a large portion of the Societies desired to be supplied again with the word of life, and the ordinances of religion from their former pastors and ministers; while another portion desired a continuance of the labors of the English Missionaries among them. And as the bishops of the American Church did not possess sufficient authority to withdraw their jurisdiction from the Societies in Canada, it became necessary for them to appoint preachers to places hitherto occupied by them, but now occupied by the preachers of the English Connection. This state of things led to considerable confusion and agitation, in the localities alluded to, and a correspondence ensued, in relation to existing difficulties, between the bishops of the American Church, and the missionary committee of the English Conference.

The Rev. Messrs. Black and Bennett were appointed by the Wesleyan Conference, as delegates to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to adjust if possible the existing difficulties between the two bodies, and a long and friendly letter was received from the former body, an extract of which relating to these difficulties, we will give to the reader: “To preserve a good mutual understanding and the unity of the Spirit, and as far as possible, a cooperation in promoting the good work of the Lord, we feel it our duty to state to you, a subject of local difference which to us has been painful, and which we feel a delicacy in stating, but to which we are compelled from the necessity of the case, that the word of the Lord be not hindered. In consequence of application being made to the British Conference, from the Society at Montreal, a missionary was sent to that place, and received as the messenger of the gospel of peace; but we are sorry to learn, that some misunderstanding has taken place between brothers Strong and Williams, our missionaries, and brother Ryan, your presiding elder for lower Canada. From the former, we have received a statement of their proceedings, and from the latter, a letter of complaint.

We have also received a letter from Brother Bennett, the chairman of the Nova Scotia district, who has visited Montreal, etc., and reported to us his proceedings. Upon a review of the whole, and from the most serious and deliberate consideration, we are led to conclude that considering the relative situation of the inhabitants of Montreal, and of Canada to this country, and particularly, as a principal part of the people appear to be in favor of our missionaries, it would be for their peace and comfort, and the furtherance of the Gospel, for our brethren to occupy those stations, especially the former, and to which we conceive we have a claim, as a considerable part of the money for building the Chapel and house, was raised in this country. We trust our American brethren will see the propriety of complying with our wishes in respect to these places; not to mention their political relation to this country, which however is not of little importance, for we are conscious that their general habits and preferences, are in favor of English preachers, being more congenial to their views and feelings, which should certainly be consulted, and will tend to facilitate the success of the Gospel, and their spiritual prosperity. As your, and our, object is mutually to diffuse the knowledge of Him whose kingdom is not of this world, and by every possible means to promote the immortal interests of men, let us not contend, — we have one Master, even Christ — but give place to each other, that the word of the Lord may have free course, run and be glorified. We cannot but hope that from the contiguity of the labors of the brethren belonging to the two Conferences, the spirit of lenity and love will be promoted, and by this measure a more perfect reciprocal intercourse established. As you have kindly invited our esteemed brethren Messrs. Black and Bennett, to take a seat in your Conference, we have directed them to pay you a visit at Baltimore, for this purpose, and to amicably arrange and settle this business, whom we trust you will receive as our representatives and as brethren.”

The document from which the above extract is taken, was signed in behalf of the Wesleyan Mission Committee, in London, by Rev. Messrs. Wood, Benson, and Buckley, and after having been read to the General Conference was referred to a special committee, who presented a report which was adopted. As this report will serve to throw additional light on the subject of Mr. Emory’s visit to England, we beg leave to transfer it to our pages. “The Committee appointed by the General Conference to confer with Messrs. Black and Bennett, delegates appointed by the London Methodist Missionary Society, to represent the British Connection in this Conference, and if possible to make an amicable adjustment of certain differences between our Church, and the British Connection, relative to Upper and Lower Canada, beg leave to submit the following report, viz. — “1. Your Committee have had several friendly interviews with the above-mentioned delegates on those subjects, and they are happy to state, that there appears to be an earnest desire to have all existing difficulties terminated, to the peace and mutual satisfaction of both parties, and to perpetuate the Christian union and good understanding which have hitherto existed. “2. It appears from written communications, as well as from verbal testimony, that unhappy dissensions have taken place in Montreal, between certain missionaries, sent (at the request of a few official members of the Society in that place, in time of the last war) by the London Missionary Society, and some American preachers, which have terminated in the division of that Society. “3. Although the late hostilities between the two countries, separated for some time those provinces from the immediate superintendency of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, yet all the circuits (except Quebec) were as regularly supplied as circumstances would admit of; with American preachers. “4. It furthermore appears, from written and verbal communications, that it is the desire of the great majority of the people in Upper and lower Canada, to be supplied as heretofore, with preachers from the United States. “5. In the two provinces, there are twelve circuits, and one station (Montreal), which have eleven meeting-houses, which have been hitherto supplied by American preachers.

These things being duly considered, together with the contiguity of those provinces to the western and northern parts of the United States, your committee respectfully submit the following resolutions: — Resolved, By the delegates of the Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in General Conference assembled, “1. That we cannot consistently with our duty to the Societies of our charge in the Canadas, give up any part of them, or any of our chapels in those provinces, to the superintendence of the British Connection. “2. That a respectful letter be addressed to the London Methodist Missionary Society, explaining the reasons for the above resolution.”

In accordance with the second resolution, a respectful and friendly letter was sent to the Wesleyan Missionary Committee, giving the reasons which led to the adoption of the first resolution, and requesting that the preachers in each Connection in Canada, might be permitted to occupy and labor in their respective fields, without molestation from each other. Whatever disposition might have existed on the part of the General Conference, or the Wesleyan Missionary Committee, to heal existing difficulties, it was found much easier to recommend peace and mutual forbearance, than it was to heal the breach which had been made in certain localities, particularly in Montreal and Kingston; hence, for a number of years subsequent to the General Conference of 1816, two parties were found in those localities, and in Montreal, both English and American preachers were regularly stationed over the Society (or more properly Societies) in that city, until the local feeling became so excited, as to be intolerable; and the same state of things existed to a greater or less extent in several parts of Upper Canada.

At the General Conference of 1820, the subject again came before that body, by numerous memorials and complaints, from the several Societies in Upper Canada, protesting in the strongest terms against the interference of the British missionaries, and praying for a continued supply of the word of life and the ordinances of the Gospel, from the United States. Whereupon, the General Conference adopted a resolution, instructing the bishops to continue their superintendence over all the Societies in the Canadas, excepting Quebec. They then made provision for the appointment of a delegate to the British Conference, to negotiate in regard to the existing difficulties, and effect if possible an amicable arrangement. Mr. Emory, as before stated, was the person selected to proceed to England on this important mission. He accordingly sailed for Europe in the month of July following, and was cordially received by the British Conference, as the messenger of peace.

After having opened his commission, an arrangement was happily effected in relation to hitherto existing difficulties. A series of resolutions was accordingly adopted by the Conference, to which Mr. Emory, as the representative of the American Connection, cheerfully assented. The substance of these resolutions is as follows: — 1. That as American and British Methodists are but one body, it is inconsistent with such unity, to have different Societies and congregations in the same towns and villages. 2. That this principle govern the two Conferences in their adjustment of disputes. 3. That the most effectual mode of carrying this rule into effect, is for the American brethren exclusively to occupy Upper Canada, and the British missionaries Lower Canada. 4. That should any place on either side of the boundary line, be destitute of religious help, then either body, with the consent of the General Conference, or Canada District Meeting, may appoint preachers to such destitute settlements. 5. That each party be bound to supply all places left vacant by the other, under the agreement made, with preachers, etc. 6. That the English Mission Committee address a letter to all the members in Upper Canada, informing them of the arrangement, and requesting them to transfer their membership to the Methodist Episcopal Church. 7. That the bishops of the American Church direct a similar letter to the members in Lower Canada; making a similar request, to place themselves under the care of the British missionaries.

In addition to the plan of agreement entered into between the British Conference and Mr. Emory, as the representative of the American Church, for the settlement of difficulties, several other resolutions were adopted by the former, as expressive of their good feeling toward, and desire for a closer union with their transatlantic brethren. In these resolutions, they commend the American Church for its zeal and efficiency, and expressed a desire for a continued interchange of delegates; they strongly express their high approbation of the selection of Mr. Emory as the representative to their body that there should be a regular exchange of ministers, magazines, missionary reports, and notices, and all new original works published by the European and American Methodists, from their respective book-rooms.

Mr. Emory, having discharged the duties assigned him by his brethren, soon after returned home, and having made his report of the success of his mission, returned to his appropriate work of preaching the Gospel, and was cordially welcomed back to his former field of labor.

In accordance with the resolutions adopted in England, the Wesleyan Missionary Committee in London on the 20th of August, 1820, addressed a letter of instructions to their missionaries in Upper and Lower Canada, replete with sentiments of kindness and affection, and in which honorable mention is made of Mr. Emory, and exhorting them to carry out the provisions of the resolutions in the same temper and spirit, with which they were mutually agreed upon. A letter referring to the same matter, was also addressed on the 20th of October following, by Bishop McKendree to the members, official members, and trustees, in lower Canada, in which they are advised to place themselves and their chapels, under the care of the English missionaries “This communication to you,” says the venerable bishop, “we confess is not made without pain; not from any want of affection for our British brethren, but from the recollection of those tender and endearing ties, which have bound us to you. But a necessity is laid upon us. — It is a peace-offering — No other consideration could have induced us to consent to the measure. Forgive, therefore, our seeming to give you up. We do not give you up in heart, in affection, in kind regards, in prayers.

The result of these pacific measures, was that all matters of an unpleasant nature as existing between the two bodies, were at once removed, and ever since that period, nothing but friendship and good-feeling have existed between the British and American Methodists, a state of things, for which both parties are greatly indebted to the Christian urbanity and dignity of Mr. Emory.

In 1824, Mr. Emory was elected assistant-agent of the Book Concern in New York, an office which he filled to the entire satisfaction of the General Conference, and, indeed, of the whole Church; and one which demands more than ordinary business qualifications, on the part of the person filling it. After having, served the Church in the above capacity for four years, he was elected by the General Conference, as the principal agent of the Concern, although his physical strength during this period, would not allow him to perform all that active service in the department, which he would have been glad to have rendered, yet by his judicious counsels, and wise arrangements, he continued to manage its interests, and promote its prosperity in a manner truly praiseworthy.

It was during the period in which he sustained the office of assistant-agent, that Mr. Emory found it necessary to enter the lists of controversy, and do battle for the cause of truth and righteousness. The occasion which called for the use of his pen as a polemic writer, was one in which the well-being of the Church was at stake, and in which a continued effort was being made to subvert the constitution of the Church; and as a necessary result, to destroy its efficiency and success: we allude to the efforts of the “Reformers,” who commenced their operations as early as the year 1824, by the presentation of memorials and petitions, from lay members and local preachers to the General Conference, praying that body to grant them “the right,” as they termed it, of a voice in the legislative department of the Church; in other words to admit of lay representation in the General Conference. The General Conference knowing, that however proper a system of lay delegation might be for other branches of the Christian Church, yet it must effectually destroy the itinerancy of the Methodist Episcopal Church if permitted, saw fit to declare against the expediency of the measure proposed. This refusal to grant the prayers of the memorialists, at once awakened the deadliest hostility not only to the government of the Church, but to its chief officers, and leading men. A paper was accordingly established in the city of Baltimore, which had now become the headquarters of the malcontents, — the imposing title of “Mutual Rights,” and advocating in the strongest and most belligerent manner possible, the necessity of lay representation. Not content with the publication of this periodical, the disaffected formed themselves into what they called “Union Societies,” for the express purpose of overthrowing the government of the Church.

In this work, the “Reformers” were led on by Rev. Nicholas Snethen, who had formerly been an influential traveling preacher, but who having located, had taken up his residence near Baltimore, and who by personal addresses, and by articles in the “Mutual Rights,” and “Wesleyan Repository,” — another reform paper, — had in the grossest terms, condemned the existing policy of the Church. In the meanwhile, the Rev. Alexander McCaine, a popular traveling minister, volunteered his services in aid of the cause of reform, and published a pamphlet entitled the “History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy,” in which he attempted to prove that unfair and dishonorable measures had been pursued in the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church that Mr. Wesley never designed the establishment of a Methodist Episcopacy in America and as a matter of consequence, the episcopacy of Methodism is spurious; and Coke, Asbury, and other fathers of the Church, who assisted in its organization, were designing and corrupt men.

As the most of these worthy men were in their graves, such an outrageous attack upon their memory, aroused the spirits of their sons in the gospel, many of whom had stood aloof from the controversy, but who could not remain at rest, and see the well-earned fame of the fathers of Methodism, sacrificed on the altar of reform. As already intimated, Mr. Emory stepped forth in honor of the memory of the dead, and in the year 1827, published “A Defence of ‘Our Fathers;’ and of the original organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, against the Rev. Alexander McCaine and others; with historical and critical notices of early American Methodism.”

As a brief analysis of a portion of the contents of this work, may be both interesting and profitable to the reader, we will invite attention to a few sections.

In the preface, Mr. Emory says: “The work here presented to the reader, is not party work. It is an attempt to wipe off the foul stains, which have been cast on us by the aspersion of our founders. If Mr. McCaine’s book be true, it is impossible that any Methodist who is a real friend of the Church, and of our fathers, can otherwise than feel himself disgraced. To such, a satisfactory refutation of it, cannot fail to be acceptable. Whatever may be the claims of the respective questions of ecclesiastical polity agitated among us, let them stand on their own basis. To attempt to promote any of them by personal attacks on the dead, is an unworthy resort and with the judicious and reflecting, can only be regarded as indicating a deficiency of better arguments.”

The body of the work contains nineteen sections. In the first section, Mr. Emory treats of the true nature of episcopacy, and shows, that many of the most celebrated archbishops and bishops of the Church of England taught the doctrine, that episcopacy is by no means necessary to the existence and perpetuity of the Church of Christ, and that nineteen twentieths of all the episcopalians in Great Britain and the United States, agree with the above in sentiment. He quotes largely from Stillingfleet’s “Irenicum” to prove that Christ established no particular form of Church government, but that each individual branch of the Church of Christ, may select such form as is best designed to promote its interests. In the second section, Mr. Emory proves that Bishop White, the father of American Episcopalianism, and bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania, held the same opinions precisely as did Bishop Stillingfleet. Section third, embraces Mr. Wesley’s opinion, which coincides with the foregoing.

Section fourth is occupied with a consideration of the origin and nature of ministerial ordination, and he herein shows, that Mr. Wesley discarded the idea of episcopal ordination as understood by high Churchmen. In section fifth, Mr. Emory takes up the ordination of Dr. Coke by Mr. Wesley, and quotes some objections from Mr. McCaine’s book, thus: “If,” says Mr. McCaine, “Mr. Wesley ordained Dr. Coke a bishop in the common acceptation of the term, then did he create a Church officer greater than himself, and of consequence he brought himself into subjection to Dr.

Coke, by making the doctor his superior.” Again, “If the doctor was constituted a bishop, he was raised to a rank above a presbyter, and invested with superior powers. In that case, he that was sent, was greater than he that sent him,” — “then Mr. Wesley, who was only a presbyter, and consequently inferior to a bishop, assumed the prerogative to send his superior to do a work in his name, which he himself could not do;” and again, — “If the doctor, by the imposition of Mr. Wesley’s hands, is created a bishop, then the objection of the Bishop of Norwich lies in full force in ‘the greater is blessed of the less.’” In reply to these objections, Mr. Emory says: “We have already seen what Mr. McCaine represents to be the common acceptation, of the term bishop (which by the way we have shown, is not the common acceptation), viz.: an order of ministers distinct from presbyters by divine appointment, to whom the power of ordination is reserved by the same appointment, and is the chief mark of their distinction; — and in whom, as successors of the apostles, is vested the exclusive right of granting the divine commission to execute the ministerial office. — Now if Mr. Wesley ordained Dr. Coke in no such sense; — if he pretended to no such thing; — if neither our bishops, nor the Methodist Episcopal Church have ever pretended to any such thing; — what then? Why then it follows, that all the smart sayings on this transaction, which have been repeated, and copied from my lord Bishop of Norwich, down to Mr. McCaine, are wholly wide of the mark, and are shaken both from Mr. Wesley and us, as the lion shakes to air, the mists shed on his mane — If Mr. Wesley’s position be true, that bishops and presbyters are the same order, the Bishop of Norwich should have first overthrown this position, if he could, to have establish his own. “But,” says Mr. McCaine, “as Mr. Wesley and Dr. Coke were of the same order, — doctor had the same clerical right to ordain Mr. Wesley as bishop, as Mr. Wesley had to ordain the doctor.” — As good a clerical right — Mr. McCaine seems to have felt here, that his argument was lame.

He knows well that the true question is not as to the mere clerical power of ordination abstractly but whether in the circumstances then existing, as to acknowledged jurisdiction, and the exigency of the times, Dr. Coke had as good a right to ordain, and send Mr. Wesley to superintend the American Methodists, as Mr. Wesley had to summon a council and to ordain and send him.”

Mr. Emory then proceeds to give a brief but comprehensive account of the history of the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and proves, most conclusively, that the fathers of Episcopal Methodism went no farther than they were fully authorized to do by the exigencies of the case, and the express authority of Mr. Wesley; and triumphantly vindicates their memory from the slanderous charges preferred against them by their sons in the ministry.

The sixth section is occupied with a consideration of Dr. Coke’s letter to Bishop White, in which the former proposed a plan of union for the Methodists and Episcopalians in America, and to secure which he expresses his belief, that the generality of the preachers would not refuse to receive reordination at the hands of an Episcopalian bishop. From this expression of belief, on the part of the doctor, Mr. McCaine inferred, that the doctor had doubts about the validity of his own consecration, and of the ordination of those preachers admitted by him to holy orders. But Mr. Emory shows that such an inference is perfectly irrational, and completely disarms his antagonist at that point.

In section seventh, Mr. Emory proves from the “Prayer Book” prepared by Mr. Wesley, for the American Methodists, in 1784, and in which a form of ordination for three distinct officers is found, that such form of ordination would not have been recommended by Mr. Wesley, unless he had designed the organization of an Episcopal Church. Section eighth is in reference to the “Prayer Book of 1786;” and in this section, Mr. Emory asks the following important questions, — the reader bearing in mind the fact, that Mr. McCaine claimed that Dr. Coke had violated, or at least superseded his instructions in organizing the Methodist Societies into an Episcopal Church. “1. If Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury were conscious that they had been guilty of duplicity, imposition, and fraud, or of violating Mr. Wesley’s instructions in the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, is it probable that they would immediately after, have printed and published the Minutes with this title, and with an explicit statement of what had been done, and thus have exposed their acts in the face of Mr. Wesley, and of the world? Is it probable that Dr. Coke, particularly, who had the Minutes printed, would have done this, knowing that he was so soon to return to England? “2. Is it not rationally presumable, that a copy of these Minutes had reached Mr. Wesley in the interval between their publication in the middle of January, and the last of July of that year, before the close of the British Conference? “3. Is it not at least certain, that Mr. Wesley must have felt sufficient interest in this matter, to have required from Dr. Coke a particular account of what had been done in America? “4. Is it not presumable, that Dr. Coke carried with him copy of the printed Minutes? “5. Is it not presumable, that Mr. Wesley would have inquired of him whether minutes were not taken, knowing our custom to take minutes at all our Conferences, and also have requested to see them? “6. Could Dr. Coke have declined to show them, or have concealed from Mr. Wesley what had been done, without the grossest duplicity and positive falsehood? “7. Is it probable that Dr. Coke was not only so knavish, but so stupid as to hazard his reputation, character, standing, and even his salvation, thus cheaply and foolishly, when he must have anticipated with certainty that Mr. Wesley would, at some future time, obtain a knowledge of what had been done, if he did not then? “8. If Dr. Coke could have been guilty of such baseness, is it not probable that Mr. Wesley would have received information of it from some quarter; at least before his death which did not take place till nearly six years afterwards? “9. If Mr. Wesley had ever discovered that Dr. Coke had so grossly betrayed his trust, and imposed both on him and on us, could he have continued afterwards so highly to esteem and honor him as he notoriously did, even to the day of his death?”

Mr. Emory then proceeds to show that from 1785 to 1791, Dr. Coke was regularly employed by Mr. Wesley, in places of the greatest trust and responsibility, such as being appointed to the London circuit, to the presidency of the Irish Conference, etc., and at his death, appointed him the chairman, or first member of four important trusteeships. After making these statements, and asking a few more important questions, Mr. Emory again inquires, “Where is the evidence, that he ever objected to the title of the Church, or to the terms ‘episcopal,’ or ‘episcopacy?’” “Where is the evidence, that he ever protested or remonstrated against either of these, or against our adoption of the ‘episcopal’ form of Church government, under the direction of superintendents, elders, and deacons?”

In the above manner, Mr. Emory triumphantly refutes the flimsy objection that Mr. Wesley did not design an episcopal form of government for the Methodists in America, and in the next (ninth) section of his book, he notices the oft quoted letter of Mr. Wesley to Bishop Asbury, and as completely overcomes his opponent at this point, as at any previous one.

Did our limits allow, we would be glad to give the substance of the greater part of the admirable work which we have noticed this far. Suffice it to say, that the arguments advanced were deemed conclusive by the great body of the Methodists, and that the work rapidly passed through various editions, and procured lasting honor for the author, as a man of deep critical acumen, and laborious research.

At the close of Mr. Emory’s constitutional term of office in the Book Concern, he was elected bishop of the Church by the General Conference of 1832, and was consecrated by the laying on of the hands of Bishops McKendree, Roberts, Soule, and Hedding. After his elevation to the episcopacy, Bishop Emory entered at once upon the discharge of his important duties with such a degree of zeal, and yet with all that deliberation which might have been expected from a man of his eminent abilities; and thus during his earthly stay, he continued to give proof of his fitness for the highest, and most awfully responsible office that exists in the Church of God. Although but a young man, comparatively, and many years of usefulness and efficiency were expected from him, yet his career was suddenly cut short; by a sudden and unexpected accident.

On the morning of the 16th of December, 1835, he arose from his bed in the enjoyment of usual health. After attending to his religious duties, he left his home, which was near the city of Baltimore, for the purpose of attending to some episcopal duties in the latter place. While pursuing his journey leisurely, his horse, which was attached to a light carriage, became frightened and unmanageable. The bishop was thrown with violent force from his carriage, and received a severe wound on his head. He was immediately deprived of his senses, and although all the aid which could be derived from medical attendance was speedily secured, yet death had marked him for its prey, and at seven o’clock on the evening of the same day, he breathed his last, “And ceased at once, to work and live.” The only word uttered by him between the moment of his fall and that of his death, was, “Amen!” in answer to one of the many prayers offered up in his behalf.

Thus died Bishop John Emory, D.D., in the thirty-eighth year of his age, the twenty-sixth of his ministry, and fourth of his episcopate, leaving not only a large circle of friends to mourn their loss, but a Church to bewail the sudden departure of one of her beloved bishops. Never in the history of that Church, of which the deceased was so bright an ornament, had one of her chief pastors been called so suddenly and unexpectedly away: and never before, was such unfeigned sorrow felt at the removal of one of the leading spirits of the age, than on the occasion of this good man’s death.

We have, perhaps, sufficiently sketched the leading traits in Bishop Emory’s character, to show what manner of man he was; but little, therefore, need be said in reference to the same. A few general remarks will close this chapter. 1. Bishop Emory was emphatically a good man. From the hour of his conversion to God, until the time of his death, he invariably gave evidence that his heart was renewed by divine grace, and the evidence thus furnished arose from his consistent holy life, — a blameless conversation, and a deportment which seemed to say, “follow me as I follow Christ.” 2. His qualifications for a minister and a bishop, were of a high order.