The "Notes" also declare that the Bishops "are perfectly subject to the General Conference "_" that their power, their usefulness, themselves, are entirely at the mercy of the General Conference," which is consistent with the idea of the bishopric being an office, but totally inconsistent with the idea of bishops being of a higher order than presbyters.

At the General Conference of 1796, it was proposed, on account of Asbury's ill health and Coke's frequent absence, that an assistant Bishop be elected, but Dr. Coke offered his services. To this offer there was strong objection in the Conference until Asbury interposed, and said, "If we reject him, it will be his ruin," etc. The matter then was left to Asbury's judgment, and Coke gave an agreement in writing, in which he, the first Superintendent or Bishop, is reduced, or reduces himself, to the position of an assistant to Asbury; and agrees, as he says, “not to station the preachers at any time when he is present," and only "to exercise episcopal duties when I hold a Conference in his absence, and by his consent."+

Such control of a Bishop which the Conference claimed, and which both Asbury and Coke conceded, is not at all in harmony with the idea that the bishopric is a higher order, but it agrees perfectly with the idea that it is an executive office.

In the year 1800, Mr. Asbury "proposed to resign his office as Superintendent," and "take his seat in the Conference on a level with the elders," but the Conference took formal action on "his intention of resigning his official station," and requested "a continuation of his services as one of the general Superintendents." This shows that Asbury and the Conference, as well as Lee, the historian, understood the episcopacy to be an office, and that when the Bishop resigned "his official station' he resigned all that he had above that which the ordinary elders possessed.

At this Conference of 1800, Richard Whatcoat was elected Bishop" on an equal footing" with Asbury, and Coke “obtained liberty to return to Europe again, upon the condition that he should return to America as soon as his business would allow ; or, at farthest, by the next General Conference."§ Some

*Kobler's letter to Dr. Lee in "Life and Times of Rev. Jesse Lee."
Bangs's History, vol. ii, p. 56

years after this, the Wesleyan Conference in England requested the return of Dr. Coke, and the General Conference of 1804 passed a resolution permitting Dr. Coke to return to Europe "subject to the call of three of our Annual Conferences to return when he is requested, but at farthest, that he shall return, if he live, to the next General Conference." * All of which was an assertion of power, certainly not as dealing with an order whose prerogatives are indefeasible, but as controlling an officer as to the use or disuse of his functions.

Dr. Coke was not present at the General Conference of 1808, but he wrote to that body, giving reasons for his absence and making certain propositions as a condition for his return to episcopal duty in America. Referring to his visit to America, four years before, he said: "I was not sure whether you would, in your circumstances as they respected Bishop Asbury, receive me as an efficient Superintendent or Bishop among you in any degree or manner." He now wants them to define what powers he would have should he return to America, so conceding, by a necessary implication, the complete power of the Conference over him in respect to his position; and the Conference, taking him at his word, resolved that "he is not to exercise the office of Superintendent among us in the United States until he be recalled by the General Conference, or by all the Annual Conferences respectively."

A distinguished authority has said: "The action of the Conference was, to all intents and purposes, a deposition of the Bishop, though it was so expressed as to give him as little offense as possible." The same authority remarks that the Discipline" as acted upon by the General Conference established the right of the General Conference to depose or suspend a General Superintendent, for any cause which that body may believe renders that deposition or suspension necessary, without the process of trial or impeachment."

...

In .another letter to the General Conference of 1808, Dr. Coke says: "I am of our late venerable father Mr. Wesley's opinion, that the order of bishops and presbyters is one and the same." This restates Wesley's opinion, and, coming from the +Ibid., vol. ii, p. 197.

* Bangs's History, vol. ii, p. 154.

Editorial in Christian Advocate and Journal," T. E. Bond and G. Coles, Editors, August 14, 1844.

man who was said to have received "episcopal ordination" and "letters of episcopal orders," shows that these phrases were used in a qualified sense, and that he did not consider that he or Mr. Asbury had received any higher order than that of presbyter, for "the order of bishops and presbyters is one and the same." That he made such a statement to the Conference, without objection, may also be taken as reflecting the sentiment of that body.

Bishop Asbury died on the last day of March, 1816, and, on the twenty-third of the following month, the Rev. Ezekiel Cooper delivered a funeral discourse on the deceased Bishop. Mr. Cooper was present at the first meeting of Coke and Asbury, and was familiar with the views of the early Church. In this sermon he affirms that "our church government . . . is founded on . . . the Scriptures, and also the usages of the primitive Church;" and in the Appendix he speaks of the Methodist episcopacy as a a "presbyterial episcopacy," and maintains that bishops and presbyters or elders are "the same order." *

Thus we are brought down to the death of Asbury, which may be said to close the first period of the history of the Methodist episcopacy. Through all this time the identity of bishops and presbyters as to order is in numerous cases both positively and tacitly affirmed. It may be admitted that there was, especially at one period, some confusion in the use of terms, and it is possible that some may have misunderstood the nature of the episcopacy; but the prevalent tenor of the transactions of the General Conference, as well as the statements of prominent individuals, demonstrate that the early Methodist Episcopal Church understood that a bishop had no order above that of presbyter or elder, and that the bishopric-" the episcopal office," as they called it was not an order, but an office of an executive character, and that he who filled it, though he was in office a Superintendent or Bishop, was in order only a presbyter or elder.

*Cooper on Asbury, pp. 109 and 115.

EDITORIAL MISCELLANY.

CURRENT TOPICS.

REVIVALS.

To the minds of most evangelical Christians there is something both pleasant and sobering suggested by the thought that is indicated by the rather indefinite term Revivals. It naturally calls up the idea of increased religious quickening, and the uplifting of united hearts and minds in faith and hope and holy endeavor, and also of the increase of Christ's kingdom by the conversion of souls. These ideas are common among religious people; but beyond these generally accepted notions there are not a few others in respect to which there is not equal unanimity. There is no such agreement in respect to the proper answer to the question, whether or not revivals should be considered the normal condition of church life, or special and occasional seasons of grace; nor, whether or not they should be labored for by direct efforts for their manifestations, or waited for in prayer and faith and the performance of moral and religious duties; nor, whether or not they have any relations to times and seasons, or are chiefly subject to human agencies and endeavors. All these questions are worthy of serious consideration, for they are potent in practical church work; and yet there are in many minds uncertainties respecting them, which may become prejudicial to religious interests.

If it shall be conceded that the religious state indicated by the word "revival" is the normal condition of the living Church, then it should also be expected that that state will be continuous and perennial, not occasional, with intervals of subsidence and cessation. But the commonly accepted form of language used in speaking of these things indicates that they are not so perpetual, as when we say a revival,-so giving it a segregated individuality, which would be absurd were the thing indicated continuous; and also because it is one, the idea of plurality becomes possible, and so we speak of revivals. In this case, as is usual, the common speech is no doubt agreeable to the facts, because revivals are special and exceptional phenomena in church life, but not therefore in the popular sense of the word abnormal. The alternations of the seasons and the changes of the wind are all normal, though the events of the one class occur according to an unalterable succession, and the other apparently without law, since "the wind bloweth where it listeth." The ordinary processes of nature are carried on in a well-regulated order, and yet it is well known that these may be either hastened or retarded, and also deflected into other forms; and so in spiritual things very much is clearly dependent on human actions. While, therefore, we recognize the ultimate subjection of the spirit of revivals to "sovereign grace," we

may also hold that its practical manifestation is not entirely removed from human influences; that while the residue of the Spirit is with the Lord, he also assures his people that for these things he will be inquired of.

The New Testament idea of the Christian life, whether in the individual or the Church, is that of an elevated spiritual estate-a walking in the light and abounding in all the graces of the Spirit, with the fruits following. That the life of the believer so walking with God should have its variations and spiritual crises seems to be according to the divine economy of Christian experience; and in like manner it might be presumed, apart from the evidence of facts, that there will be varieties in the operations of the Spirit in and through the Church. And such, it is known, has been the order of things in the Church, especially during its most spiritual periods, and changes from a lower to a higher state, from relative dullness to earnest vitality, and especially the outgoings of the Spirit's quickenings to the hitherto unsaved, constitute the gracious manifestations that we call revivals.

If, then, it should seem not quite correct to say that revivals constitute the normal state of the Church, they are certainly the normal products of the indwelling life of the Spirit, which is about equivalent to saying that if the Church is faithful to God he too will be faithful to his own promise to pour out of the abundance of his Spirit. It seems also to be the divine method that while the gifts of grace are continuous as the sunshine of the day and the dews of the night there shall also be occasional and exceptionally abundant showers of blessings."

The duty of the Church in the matter of revivals is not only very serious, but also especially delicate, often presenting perplexing difficulties. Revivals are so far essential to the Church's welfare, that without them it will in almost any case decline in spirituality and lapse into worldliness, and also fail of its power to promote conversions. The Church that has no revivals will soon cease to be a soul-winning and soul-saving Church. These are the early and latter rains which irrigate the spiritual lands, so as to carry them still flourishing through other and less signally favored seasons, and by their influence the dormant seeds of grace in unrenewed souls are quickened and developed into spiritual life. And because revivals are so desirable, and indeed necessary, they should be sought for by all legitimate means; but great care should be exercised that only such shall be employed. It is a fearful thing to offer strange fire before the Lord. It is not for the minister or the Church to "appoint " a revival, nor for the evangelist to "get one up." Seasons for special and united prayer and other spiritual exercises may be of great value, even if not followed by unusual results; but for a revival there must be a patient, but not inactive, waiting upon God, in devout expectancy, but with all diligence in well-doing. As the mariner does not cease his efforts when the tide and the winds are against him, no more should Christians cease to labor and pray with all diligence in the most unpropitious seasons. It is always right and good to desire and work for a revival, but it is not good to try to force it, and it is impious to attempt to counterfeit it.