History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

ENDNOTES
1 Drew's "Life of Coke," edition 1837, pp. 43, 44.
2 There never was a greater misnomer, and it is remarkable that it should have been selected by
Wesley who absolutely repudiated the people as a factor in his governmental scheme. Whitehead
criticizes it severely in the Deed of Declaration, while Moore as severely replies by the weak
argument that it occurred of necessity in the Deed of Declaration inasmuch as that instrument was
intended to legalize that very title in the original chapel deeds to Wesley, as though Whitehead could
mean that it was subject to criticism as occurring in the Declaration, but not in the Deeds. His
criticism, justly made, was of the title itself. It was one of the paradoxes of the autocratic mind of
Wesley.
3 Whitehead's "Life," Vol. II. pp. 250-254.
4 Tyerman's "Life," Vol. III. pp. 417-426.
5 Watson's "Life," edition 1831, p.141.
6 Tyerman's "Life," Vol. III. pp. 425, 426.
7 Stevens, in his "History of Methodism," Vol. II. pp. 213, 214, intimates that Fletcher approved the
ordinations. "Wesley," he says," did not yield till urged by his most revered counselors. Fletcher, of
Madeley, was one of these." Again, "Fletcher was present with Wesley and Coke at the Leeds
Conference, and there with his assistance the question was brought to an issue." Neither Wesley, nor
Moore, nor Drew, nor Watson, nor Tyerman, and lastly, though first in order of time, nor Whitehead
supports this view. Whitehead says, Vol. II. p.255, that Fletcher advised that "a bishop should be
prevailed upon, if possible, to ordain them (Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey), and then Mr. Wesley
"might appoint them to such offices in the societies as he thought proper, and give them letters
testimonial of the appointments he had given them." And Coke, in his letter of August 9, 1784,
makes plain that this was as far as Fletcher ever went. Coke says, "And afterward (the ordinations)
according to Mr. Fletcher's advice, give us letters testimonial of the different offices with which you
have been pleased to invest us." Wesley could not get a bishop to ordain them, and when he did it
himself there is not a scintilla of proof that Fletcher approved the act. At the Leeds Conference he
was a peacemaker, and probably saved the Conference from disruption on account of these
ordinations, but he was too consistent a Churchman to countenance ordination, except by a
third-order bishop. If anything be wanting to clinch the position here taken, it is furnished by Rev.
James Creighton, who participated in the setting apart service of Coke and company, in a letter
addressed to Mr. Samuel Bradburn, printed in London in 1793, two years after Wesley's death, in
which he says, "You take notice of a meeting which Mr. Wesley had with some clergymen at Leeds
in August, 1784, at which he consulted them concerning the ordination of preachers for America.
Mr. Fletcher was present, and I believe Mr. Seldon, and two or three others. They did not approve
of the scheme because it seemed inconsistent with Mr. Wesley's former professions respecting the