if not indeed by a law of the human mind, its early heroic character would have passed away by its domestic success and the cessation of the novelty and trials of its early circumstances; but by throwing itself out upon all the world, and especially upon the worst citadels of paganism, it has perpet uated its original militant spirit, and opened for itself a heroic career, which need end only with the universal triumph of Christianity. English Methodism was considered, at the death of its founder, a marvelous fact in British history; but to-day the Wesleyan missions alone comprise more than twice the number of the regular preachers enrolled in the English Minutes in the year of Wesley's death, and nearly twice as many communicants as the Minutes then reported from all parts of the world which had been reached by Methodism. The latest reported number of Missionary communicants in the Methodist Episcopal Church equals nearly one half the whole membership of the Church in 1819, the year in which the missionary Society was founded, and is nearly double the membership with which the denomination closed the last century, after more than thirty years of labors and struggles.

CHAPTER VI.

ITS LOYALTY AND PATRIOTIC SERVICES.

THE first American missionaries of Wesley, being native Englishmen, and uncommitted to politics, left the country (all except Dempster, Asbury, and Whatcoat) at the outbreak of the Revolution. The infant Church therefore suffered for some time under the suspicion of disloyalty. The imputation was, however, unfounded. Methodism included no larger proportion of "Toryism" than any other denomination of the times, in the middle states, to which it was yet limited. Wesley, however, strengthened this suspicion by publishing an abridgment of his friend Dr. Johnson's "Taxation No Tyranny," under the title of "A Calm Address to the American Colonies," recommending loyalty to the crown. It is due to Wesley, nevertheless, to say that, by the time the war really began, he took sides with the Americans. The very next day after the arrival in England of the news of the battles of Lexington and Concord, he wrote to Lord North and the Earl of Dartmouth, severally, an emphatic letter. "I am," he said, "a High-Churchman, the son of a High-Churchman, bred up from my childhood in the highest notions

of passive obedience and non-resistance, and yet, in spite of all my long-rooted prejudices, I cannot avoid thinking these, an oppressed people, asked for nothing more than their legal rights, and that in the most modest and inoffensive manner that the nature of the thing would allow. But waiving this, I ask, Is it common sense to use force toward the Americans? Whatever has been affirmed, these men will not be frightened, and they will not be conquered easily. Some of our valiant officers say that 'two thousand men will clear America of these rebels.' No, nor twenty thousand, be they rebels or not, nor perhaps treble that number. They are strong; they are valiant; they are one and all enthusiasts, enthusiasts for liberty, calm, deliberate enthusiasts. In a short time they will understand discipline as well as their assailants. But you are informed 'they are divided among themselves.' So was poor Rehoboam informed concerning the ten tribes; so was Philip informed concerning the people of the Netherlands. No; they are terribly united; they think they are contending for their wives, children, and liberty. Their supplies are at hand, ours are three thousand miles off. Are we able to conquer the Americans suppose they are left to themselves? We are not sure of this, nor are we sure that all our neighbors will stand stock still."

Though Bishop Asbury had to keep himself con

cealed during a part of the Revolutionary period, he was in favor of the independence of the colonies.

$

At the organization of the denomination in 1784, it was the first religious body of the country to insert in its constitutional law (in its Articles of Religion) a recognition of the new government, enforcing patriotism on its communicants. A very noteworthy modification (peculiarly interesting in our day) was made in this article in the year 1804. In the original article it was affirmed that the "Congress," etc., "are the officers of the United States of America, according to the division of power made to them by the General Act of Confederation," etc., the national constitution having not yet been adopted; but the General Conference of 1804, by a motion of Rev. Ezekiel Cooper, (a man noted for his sagacity,) struck out all allusion to the "Act of Confederation," inserting in its stead "the Constitution of the United States," etc., and declared that "the said states are a sovereign and independent nation."* Methodism thus deliberately,

* The italics are my own. A recent paper, "The Christian Witness," in the interest of the insurgent South, attacks the Methodist Episcopal Church on account of this amended Article. "We regret,"

แ

it says, that we have to mention in this connection what was incorporated into the organization [of the Methodist Episcopal Church] from the beginning, but has been generally overlooked. We refer to the 23d Article of Religion, which is as follows: 'The President, the Congress, the General Assemblies, the Governors, and the Councils of State, as the delegates of the people, are the rulers of the United

and in its constitutional law, recognized that the "Constitution" superseded the "Act of Confederation," and that the republic was no longer a confederacy but a nation, and as such, supreme and sovereign over all its states. It was at a period of no little political agitation on the question of state sovereignty that this change was made: the Kentucky "Resolutions of 1798," and those of Virginia, 1799, had become the basis of a State Rights party. A cotemporary Methodist preacher (Henry Boehm, still living) records that just previous to this time "there was great political excitement. Federalism and Democracy ran high-such was the excitement that it separated families, and friends, and members

States of America, according to the division of power made to them by the Constitution of the United States, and by the Constitutions of their respective States. And the said States are a sovereign and independent nation, and ought not to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction,' 1 19 The "Witness" proceeds to say that "the language of the Article leans very strongly toward an anti-democratic view of the relations between the Federal and the State governments, and has been often so construed by the authorities of the Church since our present political troubles began. It has been referred to again and again by the Annual and General Conferences, by the official papers, and by the bishops and preachers, as decisive of the position which the Church holds upon the subject of State rights." The "Witness" errs in saying this form of the Article existed "from the beginning,' but is correct in its statement of the Church's interpretation of the Article. After the adoption of the National Constitution, Methodism never doubted the sovereign nationality of the Republic, and never had the unstatesmanlike folly to recognize any State right of secession, or any sovereignty which is not subordinate to the National sovereignty.