History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

If any one will point out a more rational and Scriptural way of feeding and guiding those poor
sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embrace it. At present, I cannot see any better method than that
I have taken.
It has indeed been proposed to desire the English bishops to ordain part of our preachers for
America. But to this I object. 1. I desired the Bishop of London to ordain only one, but could not
prevail. 2. If they consented, we know the slowness of their proceedings; but the matter admits of
no delay. 3. If they would ordain them now, they would likewise expect to govern them. And how
grievously would this entangle us? 4. As our American brethren are now totally disentangled both
from the state and from the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again either with the one
or the other. They are now at full liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive church.
And we judge it best that they should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has so strangely made
them free. — John Wesley.
Drew, Coke's biographer, says of this letter, which he gives in full, that it was prepared by Wesley
in the interval of Coke's waiting in London, and which Dr. Coke "was directed to print and circulate
among the societies on his arrival in America." Moore probably obtained this item of information
already cited from Drew. A few observations on this circular are called for, though full consideration
will be given it later. It was not printed and circulated among the American societies, as Wesley
directed, "on his (Coke's) arrival in America." An essential portion of paragraph four was suppressed
by Coke at the Christmas Conference, with Asbury's knowledge and approval. The suppressed
portion begins with the words, "And I have prepared a liturgy," etc., down to the close of the
paragraph. The probable reasons for this unwarrantable suppression will be given later. Wesley's
excuses for not deferring longer for ordination to the Bishops of the National Church require
comment. The first, the refusal of the Bishop of London, has already been considered, — by canon
law it was impossible for him to consent without an exceedingly loose construction of his
prerogatives. They would be "slow," Wesley says, even if consent could be obtained, and the "matter
admits of no delay." This is a curious reason, when it is considered that for four years the same
urgency existed. "If they would ordain them now, they would expect to govern them. And how
grievously this would entangle us!" This is the true reason. Wesley could not entertain for a moment
any expedient that deprived him of headship over the Methodists of the world. But for this reason
it would have been easy enough at this period to secure ordination for the American preachers
through legitimate channels Episcopally considered. Wesley was aware of it when he made these
excuses. For early in 1784 Dr. Samuel Seabury of Connecticut was elected by a voluntary convention
of the clergy of that state a Bishop. But how should he get consecration? He went to England, but
finding the See of Canterbury vacant, and the Archbishop of York unable to take measures for the
consecration of an American citizen without consent of Parliament, thus making a long delay
unavoidable, he proceeded to Scotland, and received consecration from the Bishops of the Scotch
Episcopal Church, and was ordained at Aberdeen on November 14, 1784. Through him Wesley, or
for that Asbury himself, might have obtained Episcopal ordination, and thus American Methodism
would have been corporately, what it was ostensibly, a part of the Protestant Episcopal Church of
America. It is to these facts that Charles Wesley refers, when, on April 28, 1785, he wrote to Dr.
Chandler, an Episcopal clergyman, who was about to embark for America, "Had they [the American
preachers] had patience a little longer, they would have seen a real Bishop in America, consecrated
by three Scottish Bishops, who have their consecration from the English Bishops, and are