History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

Returning to Dr. Stevens' historical felicitation, let the sentences be repeated "ecclesiasticism and
hierarchism to receive a shock under which they might reel for a while, but only to fall sooner or
later, to their proper subordination or desuetude." To what does he refer? Manifestly to the English
Church and its American branch, particularly in its national character. His exultation is over — "a
great nation without a state religion." It would have been opportune, if he had been in rhythmic
mood, to have cited the well-known couplet crystallizing the idea:
"A Church without a Bishop,
And a state without a King."
Yet he labors more successfully than any other Methodist historian to prove that the Methodist
Episcopal Church is the legitimate successor of the Church of England in America, and gloats over
it as though it were an achievement of which to boast. And upon what is it based? Upon the trivial
circumstance that Coke got to America, and the Conference of December 25, 1784, was organized
about six weeks before Bishop White succeeded in securing "consecration" in England, though
Seabury secured his as Bishop of Connecticut from the non-jurors of Scotland on the 14th of
November, or about six weeks before Dr. Coke ordained Asbury a "General Superintendent." The
veriest "mint and anise and cummin"! It is coveted eagerly, as a child covets its rattle. No disrespect
is intended, and there is a reason for it; the éclat of Episcopacy must be secured, not as another
example of it in church government, but as the first example of it — "Apostolical Succession,"
laughed to scorn by them in their millenary brethren of the "historic Episcopate," but seriously
maintained for Wesley's succession, as having priority in a Methodist line.
The latest of this class of writers, Dr. Tigert, joins hands with Dr. Stevens, and caps a chapter with
the most unqualified deliverance of the kind yet recorded by these enthusiasts of Episcopacy; not
surely "a moderate Episcopacy" such as Thomas Ware tells the fathers of 1784 thought they were
inaugurating, but a true succession to the Church of England in America. And that it may be seen
that the case has not been overdrawn, let space be given for the whole of this summation, so
conclusive, the author thinks, that he cites the nervous words of Stevens: "The man who gainsays
such evidence must be given up as incorrigible. There can be no reasoning with him." Tigert says:
"The one ground of the use of the term 'Episcopal' in the name of our churches [North and South he
means] is generally overlooked. The word does not imply simply that the government is episcopal
as distinguished from presbyterian or congregational. Asbury and his coadjutors, and our early
English membership, were Episcopalians; and history will sustain the point that our name meant to
indicate the organization on scriptural principles of the first (and therefore at that time the one)
Episcopal Church on the American continent. Hitherto the American Methodists had received the
sacraments from the English clergy resident in the colonies, and regarded themselves as members
of that Church. In 1784, when the Methodist Episcopal Church in America was organized, neither
the English nor the Protestant Episcopal Church existed here in legal or complete organic form. The
American Methodists, by the help of Mr. Wesley, therefore organized themselves into an American
Episcopal Church, taking the name and style already indicated. They regarded themselves as the
successors of the old Church, then defunct, and entered upon their work accordingly. The Methodist
Episcopalians still adhered 'to the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England,' and this
historical truth is fittingly embalmed in the parchment of their first bishop. American Methodism,
according to the design of its founders, has for more than a century approved itself as the great