Chapter XX: Part 20

Here it may be asked, what necessity was there for a further deed? The answer is, that, as yet, there was no legal definition of what was meant by the term “_conference_ of the people called Methodists.” To supply this defect, Wesley, on the 28th of February, 1784, executed his famous deed of declaration, which, a few days afterwards, was enrolled in the high court of chancery. To use the language of the deed itself, its object was “to explain the words, ‘yearly conference of the people called Methodists,’ and to declare what persons are members of the said conference, and how the succession and identity thereof is to be continued.”

The document proceeds to state, that the said conference had always consisted of Methodist preachers whom Wesley had annually invited to meet him for the following purposes: namely, to advise with him for the promotion of the gospel of Christ; to appoint the said preachers, and other preachers and exhorters in connection with him, to the use and enjoyment of chapels conveyed upon trust as aforesaid; to expel unworthy preachers; and to admit others on probation.

The deed then gives the names and addresses of one hundred preachers, who are now declared to be the members of the said conference; and proceeds to state (1) That they and their successors, for the time being for ever, shall assemble once a year. (2) That the act of the majority shall be the act of the whole. (3) That their first business, when they assemble, shall be to fill up vacancies. (4) That no act of the conference assembled shall be valid unless forty of its members are present. (5) That the duration of the yearly conference shall not be less than five days, nor more than three weeks. (6) That, immediately after filling up vacancies, they shall choose a president and secretary of their assembly out of themselves. (7) That any member of the conference, absenting himself from the yearly assembly thereof for two years successively, without the consent or dispensation of the conference, and who is not present on the first day of the third yearly assembly thereof, shall forthwith cease to be a member, as though he were naturally dead. (8) That the conference shall and may expel any member thereof, or any person admitted into connection therewith, for any cause which to the conference may seem fit or necessary. (9) That they may admit into connection with them any person, of whom they approve, to be preachers of God’s holy word, under the care and direction of the conference. (10) That no person shall be elected a member of the conference, who has not been admitted into connection with the conference, as a preacher, for twelve months. (11) That the conference shall not appoint any person to the use of a chapel or chapels, who is not either a member of the conference, or admitted into connection with the same, or upon trial; and that no person shall be appointed for more than three years successively, except ordained ministers of the Church of England. (12) That the conference may appoint the place of holding the yearly assembly thereof, at any other town, or city, than London, Bristol, or Leeds. (13) That the conference may, when it shall seem expedient, send any of its members as delegates to Ireland, or other parts out of the kingdom of Great Britain, to act on its behalf, and with all the powers of the conference itself. (14) That all resolutions and acts whatsoever of the conference shall be written in the journals of the conference, and be signed by the president and secretary thereof for the time being. (15) That whenever the conference shall be reduced under the number of forty members, and continue so reduced for three years successively; or whenever the members thereof shall decline or neglect to meet together annually during the space of three years, the conference of the people called Methodists shall be extinguished, and all its powers, privileges, and advantages shall cease. (16) That nothing in this deed shall extinguish or lessen the life estate of the said John Wesley and Charles Wesley, or either of them, in any of the chapels in which they now have, or may have, any estate or interest, power or authority whatsoever.

Such was Wesley’s deed of declaration,--a deed recognised in the trust deeds of all the chapels that Methodism builds; and, hence, a deed investing a hundred Methodist preachers with the unexampled power of determining, irrespective of trustees, societies, and congregations, who shall be the officiating ministers in the thousands of chapels occupied by Methodist societies at home and abroad, throughout the United Kingdom and throughout the world. We repeat, this is an unexampled power; and the ministers, invested with it, ought to feel, that they have a corresponding responsibility to God and to His church. High is the honour; the responsibility is fearful. If Methodism should ever fail in its duty, or fall to pieces, they, above all men else, must bear the blame.

We purposely refrain from raising the vexed question about the kind of church government, involved in this great settlement; and proceed to notice the history of the deed of declaration, up to the time of its being signed on February 28, 1784.

Mr. Pawson, in his manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, states that, from the year 1750, all Methodist chapels were settled according to the provisions of the model deed that has been already mentioned; but several of the “wisest and best preachers” were not satisfied, and, from time to time, brought up the matter at the yearly conferences, and earnestly urged Wesley to do something more to preserve the chapels for the purpose which the original builders intended. Wesley replied, that the trust deed in itself was quite sufficient; that it had been drawn up by three of the most eminent counsellors in London; and that, even supposing there might be some defect in it, no one would be so mad as to go to law with an entire body of people like the Methodists. Such reasoning failed to satisfy the preachers, especially Messrs. Hampson and Oddie, both of whom, says Pawson, “were men of remarkably deep understanding and sound judgment.” At length, Wesley began to yield to the pressure that was brought upon him; and various schemes were propounded to accomplish the purpose upon which men like Hampson and Oddie had set their hearts. One was to consolidate all the chapels in the connexion into a general trust, the trustees to be chosen out of all the large societies throughout the three kingdoms. Another was to have all the chapel deeds brought to London, and deposited in a strong box, to be provided for the purpose; and, in execution of this project, many were actually sent, and some were thereby lost. All this occurred previous to Dr. Coke’s uniting himself with Wesley; and, from Pawson’s testimony, we now turn to that of Coke.

In his “Address to the Methodist Society in Great Britain and Ireland, on the Settlement of Preaching Houses,” Coke relates that, at the conference of 1782, the preachers seemed to be universally alarmed at the danger arising from the want of a legal definition of what was meant by the term, “the conference of the people called Methodists”; and unanimously wished some method to be taken to remove a danger which appeared to them to be pregnant with evils of the first magnitude. In consequence of this, Coke took the opinion of Mr. Maddox, one of the first counsel of the day, and ascertained, that the law would not recognise the conference, without some further definition; and, consequently, that there was nothing to preserve the Methodist connexion from being shivered into a thousand fragments after Wesley’s death. To prevent this, Mr. Maddox advised, that Wesley should execute a deed, specifying the persons by name who composed the conference, together with the mode of succession for its perpetuity. Dr. Coke read Mr. Maddox’s opinion to the conference of 1783; and the whole conference expressed their wish that such a deed should be drawn up and executed. Coke immediately set to work, and, with the assistance of Mr. Clulow, a solicitor, and Mr. Maddox, the barrister, a draft of the deed was carefully prepared, and submitted to Wesley for his approval. Coke’s opinion was, that every preacher, in full connexion, should have his name inserted; and that admission into full connexion should, in the future, be looked upon as admission into membership with the conference. Wesley demurred to this, and determined to limit the number of members to one hundred, and, without any advice from Coke, made his own selections. In this form, the deed was executed; and Coke sent copies of it to all the assistants of circuits throughout the United Kingdom.[480]

We believe that this is, substantially, all that can be said respecting the origin of what has been termed Methodism’s Magna Charta.

What was the result? There were, at the conference of 1783, one hundred and ninety-two preachers appointed to sixty-nine circuits, throughout the three kingdoms. We have no hesitancy in saying, that we think it would have been wise to have inserted the names of the whole of these in the deed of declaration, with the exception of twenty-two, who were still on trial, and not admitted into full connexion. All seemed to have an equal right to this; and, thereby, all would have been satisfied. Instead of this, Wesley proceeded to the invidious task of selecting a hundred, and rejecting ninety-two. It was a perilous experiment; and the peril was augmented by the mode in which the experiment was made. For instance, sixteen were elected who had travelled less than four years; whereas among the rejected were the following.

Thomas Lee travelled 36 years.
John Atlay ” 21 ”
Joseph Thompson ” 25 ”
John Poole ” 25 ”
William Ashman ” 19 ”
Jonathan Hern ” 15 ”
William Eels ” 12 ”
Thomas Mitchell ” 36 ”
Joseph Pilmoor ” 19 ”

Besides, where was the fairness of choosing and refusing the following preachers, who, at the time, were colleagues in the same circuit?

_Names of _Years _Names of Rejected._ _Years
Chosen._ standing._ standing._
Joshua Keighley 3 William Horner 13
Joseph Cole 3 Simon Day 17
Jonathan Cousins 3 Robert Empringham 21
William Green 3 John Hampson, sen. 31
Joseph Taylor 6 John Wittam 16
William Hoskins 1 John Watson 12
William Myles 6 ⎧ John Hampson, jun. 6
⎩ George Snowden 14
William Simpson 4 Thomas Johnson 31
James Wray 2 Thomas Wride 15
Henry Foster 3 George Mowat 13

Wesley doubtless had a right to make any selection that he liked; but those who were not selected had an equal right to grumble; and we are not surprised that, sooner or later, not fewer than nearly thirty of the rejected withdrew from the connexion altogether.

John Pawson writes:

“Mr. Wesley, designedly or otherwise, left out the names of
several of the old and respectable preachers; and these good
men were exceedingly grieved and not without reason. Many of
the trustees also were alarmed, thinking that we wished to make
the chapels our own property; but nothing of the kind was ever
contemplated. The one design of the deed, to my certain
knowledge, was to prevent any preacher, who might be inclined
to settle, from taking possession of any of our chapels. The
preachers, whose names were inserted in the deed, so far from
being desirous to be distinguished above their brethren, very
cheerfully complied with Mr. Wesley’s desire, and gave up every
privilege granted to them in the deed, except that of electing
their own president and secretary, which appears to me to be a
matter of little consequence.”[481]

There can be no question, that the deed of declaration occasioned great excitement. John Hampson, jun., says:

“Every itinerant had always considered himself as a member of
conference; and, hence, when the ninety-one, who were to be
excluded, saw the deed, it was with astonishment and
indignation. The injustice of the thing stared them in the
face; and they found that, in consenting to such a deed, they
had consented, that all the affairs of the connexion should be
lodged in the hundred mentioned in the declaration; that they
should be the lords and rulers of the rest; and should have it
in their power to turn any other preacher out of the
conference, and tell him he had no business there. The
exclusion itself was both an iniquitous and a mortifying
measure. But the partiality of it rendered it still more
oppressive. Some of the oldest and ablest preachers, in the
connexion, were excluded. Many of the selected members were not
only deficient in abilities, but some of them, at the time of
their insertion in the deed, were only upon trial; while the
chief qualifications of others were ignorance, fanaticism, and
ductility. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder if the
persons excluded thought themselves aggrieved. They were really
so, and they made no scruple to declare their sentiments. They
sent circular letters, inviting all the preachers to canvass
the business at the ensuing conference; and a large number
assembled. Many of them were as averse to the deed, as those
who had so decidedly opposed it, and had repeatedly execrated
the measure, both by letter and in conversation; but they had
not the courage to avow their sentiments in conference. Mr.
Wesley made a speech, and invited all who were of his mind to
stand up. They all rose to a man. The five were found guilty,
and it was unanimously determined, that they should either make
concessions or be dismissed. Urged by the entreaties of Mr.
Fletcher, and anxious for the restoration of peace, the
preachers in the opposition apologised to Mr. Wesley, for
printing the circular letter, without having first appealed to
conference.”[482]

Such, in substance, and omitting acrid comments, is the account given by John Hampson, jun.; and there can be little doubt that, in the main, it is quite correct. The printed circular he mentions was issued by his father, and was entitled, “An Appeal to the Reverend John and Charles Wesley; to all the preachers who act in connection with them; and to every member of their respective societies in England, Scotland, Ireland, and America.”[483] Another circular was drawn up by James Oddie, in the form of a petition to Wesley and the legalised conference, to the effect, that the preachers, whose names had been inserted in the deed, would sign an agreement that, at the death of Wesley, they would refrain from taking any advantage of their position, but would invite the excluded to their first conference, and would treat them, in all respects, as equals. This was first suggested by Robert Oastler, of Thirsk; and was widely circulated, and received with favour;[484] and, perhaps, it was this that evoked the following letter, which was written on April 7, 1785, and entrusted to Joseph Bradford, to deliver to the conference, at their first meeting after the writer’s death.

“MY DEAR BRETHREN,--Some of our travelling preachers have
expressed a fear, that, after my decease, you would exclude
them, either from preaching in connection with you, or from
some other privileges which they now enjoy. I know no other way
to prevent any such inconvenience, than to leave these my last
words with you.

“I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that you never avail
yourselves of the deed of declaration, to assume any
superiority over your brethren; but let all things go on, among
those itinerants who choose to remain together, exactly in the
same manner as when I was with you, so far as circumstances
will permit.

“In particular, I beseech you, if you ever loved me, and if you
now love God and your brethren, to have no respect of persons
in stationing the preachers, in choosing children for Kingswood
school, in disposing of the yearly contribution and the
preachers’ fund, or any other of the public money; but do all
things with a single eye, as I have done from the beginning. Go
on thus, doing all things without prejudice or partiality, and
God will be with you even to the end.

“JOHN WESLEY.”[485]

This was a serious crisis in the history of Methodism. Fortunately, it passed over without any other immediate consequences than the retirement of the five principal opponents to the deed of declaration, namely, the two Hampsons, Joseph Pilmoor, William Eels, and John Atlay. Considerable excitement, however, existed; and, in the spring of 1785, Wesley found it desirable to write his “Thoughts upon some late Occurrences.” He gives the history of the origin of his conferences; and states that the term conference meant not so much conversation, as the persons that conferred, that it had become necessary to define the term, and that, at the conference of 1783, he had been requested to fix the determinate meaning of the word. He accordingly took counsel’s opinion how to act, and was advised to execute a deed of declaration. At first, he thought of naming only ten or twelve; but, on second thoughts, he believed there would be more safety in a greater number of counsellors, and, therefore, named a hundred; as many as, he judged, could meet without too great expense, and without leaving any circuit without preachers while the conference assembled. He adds:

“In naming these preachers, as I had no adviser, so I had no
respect of persons; but I simply set down those that, according
to the best of my judgment, were most proper. But I am not
infallible. I might mistake, and think better of some than they
deserved. However, I did my best; if I did wrong, it was not
the error of my will, but of my judgment.

“This was the rise, and this the nature, of that famous deed of
declaration,--that vile, wicked deed, concerning which you have
heard such an outcry! And now, can any one tell me how to mend
it, or how it could have been made better? ‘O yes. You might
have inserted two hundred, as well as one hundred, preachers.’
No; for then the expense of meeting would have been double, and
all the circuits would have been without preachers. ‘But you
might have named other preachers instead of these.’ True, if I
had thought as well of them as they did of themselves. But I
did not: therefore, I could do no otherwise than I did, without
sinning against God and my own conscience.

“‘But what need was there for any deed at all?’ There was the
utmost need of it; without some authentic deed fixing the
meaning of the term, the moment I died, the conference had been
nothing. Therefore, any of the proprietors of the land on which
our preaching houses were built might have seized them for
their own use; and there would have been none to hinder them;
for the conference would have been nobody, a mere empty name.

“You see then, in all the pains I have taken about this
absolutely necessary deed, I have been labouring, not for
myself (I have no interest therein), but for the whole body of
Methodists; in order to fix them upon such a foundation as is
likely to stand as long as the sun and moon endure. That is, if
they continue to walk by faith, and to show forth their faith
by their works; otherwise, I pray God to root out the memorial
of them from the earth.

“JOHN WESLEY.[486]
“PLYMOUTH DOCK, _March 3, 1785_.”

We have done. All the facts, within our knowledge, have been given. The reader must form his own opinion. Comment would be easy; but we purposely refrain; only adding, that, by Wesley’s famous deed of declaration, the Methodist conference became a legally incorporated institution; and that, without this, the Methodist itinerancy must have ceased, and Methodism itself have been broken up into congregational churches.

We must now advert to another matter, which, if not of equal, was of great importance, namely, the episcopal organisation of the Methodist societies in America. This has been the subject of bewildering controversy for more than eighty years. Wesley and Coke have been bitterly assailed, and as warmly defended. We will narrate the facts as simply and briefly as we can.

During the American war, which was now ended, the American Methodists had multiplied with marvellous rapidity. In 1774, they numbered 2073; in 1784, they were 14,988; showing an increase of 12,915. They had 46 circuits, and 83 itinerant, besides some hundreds of local, preachers.[487] All these, so far as the sacraments were concerned, were as sheep without shepherds. Some of the clergymen of the Church of England had taken military commissions in the army; others were destitute of both piety and sense; and nearly all opposed and persecuted the Methodists to the utmost of their power. Bishop White testified, that “the Church of England was becoming more and more unpopular,--with some, because it was not considered as promoting piety,--and with others, because they thought the provision for it a useless burden on the community.” At the termination of the revolutionary struggle, says Dr. Hawks, himself a clergyman, “a large number of the churches in Virginia were destroyed or irreparably injured; twenty-three of her ninety-five parishes were extinct or forsaken; and of the remaining seventy-two, thirty-four were destitute of ministerial services; while of her ninety-eight clergymen, only twenty-eight remained.” The Rev. Mr. Jarratt, another clergyman of the Church of England, stated, that “most of the clergy preached what was little better than deism,” and were bitter revilers and persecutors of those who preached the truth.[488]

Under these circumstances, the Methodists demanded of their preachers the administration of the sacraments. Many of the societies had been months, some of them years, without these sacred ordinances. Five years before this, in 1779, the preachers in the south proceeded to ordain themselves by the hands of three of their senior members, unwilling that their people should longer be denied the Lord’s supper, and their children and probationary members the rite of baptism. Asbury was greatly annoyed at this, and, a year afterwards, with difficulty succeeded in persuading them to suspend the administration of the sacraments till further advice could be received from Wesley.[489] Asbury wrote to Wesley, telling him of the greatness of the work, and of the division that had taken place in Virginia, on account of the people’s uneasiness respecting the sacraments. Thousands of their children were unbaptized, and the members of the societies, in general, had not partaken of the Lord’s supper for many years.[490] “Dear sir,” says he, on March 20, 1784, “we are greatly in need of help. A minister, and such preachers as you can fully recommend, will be very acceptable. Without your recommendation, we shall receive none. But nothing is so pleasing to me, sir, as the thought of seeing you here; which is the ardent desire of thousands more in America.”[491]

Wesley’s going was impossible. He had tried (as we have already seen) to induce Bishop Lowth to ordain a minister, and had failed. What else remained? He thought of Dr. Coke, who replied as follows.

“NEAR DUBLIN, _April 17, 1784_.

“HONOURED AND VERY DEAR SIR,--I intended to trouble you no more
about my going to America; but your observations incline me to
address you again on the subject.

“If some one, in whom you could place the fullest confidence,
and whom you think likely to have sufficient influence and
prudence and delicacy of conduct for the purpose, were to go
over and return, you would then have a source of sufficient
information to determine on any points or propositions. I may
be destitute of the last mentioned essential qualification (to
the former I lay claim without reserve); otherwise my taking
such a voyage might be expedient.

“By this means, you might have fuller information concerning
the state of the country and the societies than epistolary
correspondence can give you; and there might be a cement of
union, remaining after your death, between the societies and
preachers of the two countries. If the awful event of your
decease should happen before my removal to the world of
spirits, it is almost certain, that I should have business
enough, of indispensable importance, on my hands in these
kingdoms.

“I am, dear sir, your most dutiful and most affectionate son,

“THOMAS COKE.”[492]

This is a curiously expressed letter; but if it means anything, it means, that if Wesley would be good enough to think and say, that Coke had “sufficient influence, and prudence, and delicacy of conduct,” he was willing to become Wesley’s envoy to the American Methodists.

Here the matter rested, until the assembling of the conference at Leeds. Mr. Pawson, in his manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, relates, that ordination was first proposed by Wesley himself in his select committee of consultation. Pawson was a member, and was present. He writes: “The preachers were astonished when this was mentioned, and, to a man, opposed it. But I plainly saw that it would be done, as Mr. Wesley’s mind appeared to be quite made up.”

Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey were appointed to America; and, six days after the conference concluded, Coke wrote to Wesley as follows.

“_August 9, 1784._

“HONOURED AND DEAR SIR,--The more maturely I consider the
subject, the more expedient it appears to me, that the power of
ordaining others should be received by me from you, by the
imposition of your hands; and that you should lay hands on
brother Whatcoat and brother Vasey, for the following reasons:
(1) It seems to me the most scriptural way, and most agreeable
to the practice of the primitive churches. (2) I may want all
the influence, in America, which you can throw into my scale.
Mr. Brackenbury informed me at Leeds, that he saw a letter from
Mr. Asbury, in which he observed that he would not receive any
person, deputed by you, with any part of the superintendency of
the work invested in him; or words which evidently implied so
much. I do not find the least degree of prejudice in my mind
against Mr. Asbury; on the contrary, I find a very great love
and esteem; and am determined not to stir a finger without his
consent, unless necessity obliges me; but rather to be at his
feet in all things. But, as the journey is long, and you cannot
spare me often, it is well to provide against all events; and I
am satisfied that an authority, formally received from you,
will be fully admitted; and that my exercising the office of
ordination, without that formal authority, may be disputed, and
perhaps, on other accounts, opposed. I think you have tried me
too often to doubt, whether I will, in any degree, use the
power you are pleased to invest me with, farther than I believe
absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the work.

“In respect of my brethren Whatcoat and Vasey, it is very
uncertain whether any of the clergy, mentioned by brother
Rankin, except Mr. Jarratt, will stir a step with me in the
work; and it is by no means certain, that even he will choose
to join me in ordaining; and propriety and universal practice
make it expedient, that I should have two presbyters with me in
this work. In short, it appears to me, that everything should
be prepared, and everything proper be done, that can possibly
be done, on this side the water. You can do all this in Mr.
C----n’s house, in your chamber; and afterwards, (according to
Mr. Fletcher’s advice,) give us letters testimonial of the
different offices with which you have been pleased to invest
us. For the purpose of laying hands on brothers Whatcoat and
Vasey, I can bring Mr. Creighton down with me, by which you
will have two presbyters with you.

“In respect to brother Rankin’s argument, that you will escape
a great deal of odium by omitting this, it is nothing. Either
it will be known, or not known. If not known, then no odium
will arise; but if known, you will be obliged to acknowledge,
that I acted under your direction, or suffer me to sink under
the weight of my enemies, with perhaps your brother at the head
of them. I shall entreat you to ponder these things.

“Your most dutiful, THOMAS COKE.”[493]

Would it not seem from this, that Wesley had no idea of ordaining any one himself; but, that he intended Coke, who, as a presbyter of the same church, had coequal power, to go out to America for that purpose? There can be no question, that there is force in Dr. Whitehead’s critique, that “Dr. Coke had the same right to ordain Mr. Wesley, that Mr. Wesley had to ordain Dr. Coke.” Wesley, we think, never intended doing this; but, at Coke’s request, he acquiesced.

Of his power to ordain others, Wesley had no doubt. Nearly forty years before this, he had been convinced, by Lord King’s Account of the Primitive Church, “that bishops and presbyters are of one order.” In 1756, he wrote: “I still believe the episcopal form of church government, to agree with the practice and writings of the apostles; but, that it is prescribed in Scripture, I do not believe. This opinion, which I once zealously espoused, I have been heartily ashamed of, ever since I read Bishop Stillingfleet’s ‘Irenicon.’ I think he has unanswerably proved, that neither Christ nor His apostles prescribe any particular form of church government; and that the plea of Divine right, for diocesan episcopacy, was never heard of in the primitive church.”[494] Again, in 1761, in a letter to a friend, he repeated, that Stillingfleet had fully convinced him, that to believe that none but episcopal ordination was valid “was an entire mistake.”[495] And again, in 1780, he shocked the high church bigotry of his brother, by declaring, “I verily believe I have as good a right to ordain, as to administer the Lord’s supper.”[496]

His right to ordain, then, was no new assumption of Wesley, adopted in his old age, or in his imbecility, as some of his critics have alleged. It was a firm conviction of forty years’ standing.

Besides, there was another fact, which might have some influence with him, but which none of his biographers have noticed. The Methodists, under the care of the Countess of Huntingdon, stood in the same relation to the Church of England that the Methodists under Wesley did. They _varied_, not _dissented_, from the Church. Recently, however, there had been a formal and avowed secession. Many of Lady Huntingdon’s chapels were supplied by ordained clergymen, and, among others, a large building in Spafields, previously known as the Pantheon. This edifice stood in the parish of Clerkenwell, of which the Rev. William Sellon was minister. Mr. Sellon claimed the right of appointing ministers and clerks to the Spafields chapel; also the right of himself to officiate within its walls as often as he liked. He further demanded the sum of £40 a year, in consideration of his permitting two of the Countess’s preachers to occupy the said chapel; also all the sacramental collections; and four collections yearly, for the benefit of the children of the charity school of Clerkenwell parish; and, finally, that, for the due performance of these demands, the proprietors should sign a bond for £1000.

Of course, the proprietors refused to comply with such demands. Mr. Sellon then instituted a suit in the consistorial court of the Bishop of London, and cited the Revs. Messrs. Jones and Taylor, the officiating clergymen, and both of them ordained, to answer for their irregularity in preaching in a place not episcopally consecrated, and for carrying on Divine worship there, contrary to the wish of the minister of the parish. Verdicts were obtained against them. The question was then removed to the ecclesiastical courts; and was again decided against the ministers of the countess, and in favour of Mr. Sellon, who obtained the name of Sanballat.

This was a momentous matter. Hitherto, Romaine, Venn, and others had preached for the countess; but now, as ordained clergymen, in danger of prosecution, they had to withdraw their services; and some of the most important chapels were left without supplies. The crisis was serious. The countess took counsel with her friends; and, at length, it was determined, that Messrs. Wills and Taylor should formally secede from the Church of England, and should take upon themselves to ordain others: both of them had received episcopal ordination themselves, both were scholars and able preachers, and Mr. Wills had married Miss Wheeler, the countess’s niece. Accordingly, these two ministers issued an address to the archbishops and bishops of the Church of England, stating that, because they could not, as clergymen of the Established Church, continue preaching to their present congregations, without “knowingly and wilfully opposing the Church’s laws,” they had resolved to secede peaceably, and to put themselves under the protection of the Toleration Act.

Here then was a formal Methodist secession from the Established Church. But more than this: on March 9, 1783, these two seceding clergymen began to do what Wesley did eighteen months afterwards,--they held their first ordination. This was in Spafields chapel. The service commenced at 9 a.m., and lasted about seven hours. The names of the six young men, then set apart to the Christian ministry, were Thomas Jones, Samuel Beaufoy, Thomas Cannon, John Johnson, William Green, and Joel Abraham Knight. During the service, Mr. Wills addressed the congregation, and assigned his reasons for believing that he had the right to ordain, namely, that presbyters and bishops were the same order, and that, as he and Mr. Taylor had been ordained presbyters, they had really been ordained bishops, and had as much right to ordain others as any bishop in the land.[497]

Wesley was acquainted with all this, though he never mentions it. For aught he knew, an action might be commenced against himself and the other clergymen preaching in City Road, West Street, and elsewhere, similar to that which had been successfully prosecuted against the Countess of Huntingdon’s preachers at Spafields. It was time to look about. He held exactly the same views respecting presbyters and bishops that had been publicly avowed by Messrs. Wills and Taylor; and now, in September 1784, reduced them to practice by proceeding to Bristol, and there ordaining Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey.

Passing by the ordinations of Whatcoat and Vasey, which involve no difficulty except Wesley’s churchmanship, the ordination of Coke is a perplexing puzzle. Coke had been already ordained a deacon and a priest of the Church of England; and, hence, his ministerial status was the same as Wesley’s. What further ordination was needed? Wesley intended none; but Coke wished it.

Wesley was the founder and father of the Methodists. There were 15,000 in America whom he had never seen. In no sense were these members of the Church of England; for, at the termination of the war, no state church was recognised. What were they? Not presbyterians, not Dissenters, not quakers, not anything, except simple Methodists. They were without sacraments. They wished to have them. As Christians, they had a right to them. But who was to administer? Common sense would have said, the men by whose preaching they had been converted; but here priestly prejudice stepped in, and forbad men, whom God had called to preach, to administer the sacraments, until episcopal or presbyterian hands had been put upon them. Things were brought into a dead lock. The question was, are the Methodist preachers in America to administer the sacraments without ordination? Or shall Wesley or some one else go from England to give them ordination? Wesley, a man of action, decided to send Coke, and Coke consented; but, before starting, he wished to have an additional ordination himself. What was that ordination to be? The only one possible was this. Wesley was the venerable father of the 15,000 Methodists in America. He was not able to visit them himself; but sends them Dr. Coke. The doctor pretends, that it is more than possible, that some of the American preachers and societies will refuse to acknowledge his authority. To remove this objection, Wesley, at Bristol, in a private room, holds a religious service, puts his hands upon the head of Coke, and, (to use his own words,) sets him apart as a _superintendent_ of the work in America, and gives him a written testimonial to that effect. This was all that Wesley did, and all that Wesley meant; but we greatly doubt whether it was all that the departing envoy wished.

With the highest respect for Dr. Coke, and his general excellences, it is no detraction to assert, that he was dangerously ambitious, and that the height of his ambition was a desire to be a bishop. Some years after this, Coke, unknown to Wesley and Asbury, addressed a confidential letter to Dr. White, bishop of the protestant episcopal church of Pennsylvania, which, if it meant anything, meant that he would like the Methodists of America to be reunited to the English Church, on condition that he himself was ordained to be their bishop. In 1794, he secretly summoned a meeting, at Lichfield, of the most influential of the English preachers, and passed a resolution, that the conference should appoint an order of bishops, to ordain deacons and elders, he himself, of course, expecting to be a member of the prelatical brotherhood. And again, it is a well known fact, that, within twelve months of his lamented death, he wrote to the Earl of Liverpool, stating that he was willing to return most fully into the bosom of the Established Church, on condition, that his royal highness the Prince Regent, and the government, would appoint him their bishop in India. These are unpleasant facts; which we would rather have consigned to oblivion, had they not been necessary to vindicate Wesley from the huge inconsistency of ordaining a coequal presbyter to be a bishop. Wesley meant the ceremony to be a mere formality likely to recommend his delegate to the favour of the Methodists in America: Coke, in his ambition, wished, and intended it to be considered as, an ordination to a bishopric. This will be clear as we proceed farther. The following are the “letters testimonial,” which Coke asked to have.

“To all to whom these presents shall come, John Wesley, late
Fellow of Lincoln College in Oxford, Presbyter of the Church of
England, sendeth greeting.

“Whereas many of the people in the southern provinces of North
America, who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere
to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, are
greatly distressed for want of ministers to administer the
sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper, according to the
usage of the same Church; and whereas there does not appear to
be any other way of supplying them with ministers:

“Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself to be
providentially called, at this time, to set apart some persons
for the work of the ministry in America. And, therefore, under
the protection of almighty God, and with a single eye to His
glory, I have this day set apart as a superintendent, by the
imposition of my hands, and prayer, (being assisted by other
ordained ministers,[498]) Thomas Coke, doctor of civil law, a
presbyter of the Church of England, and a man whom I judge to
be well qualified for that great work. And I do hereby
recommend him to all whom it may concern, as a fit person to
preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony whereof, I have
hereunto set my hand and seal, this second day of September, in
the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
eighty-four.

“JOHN WESLEY.”[499]

“BRISTOL, _September 10, 1784_.

“_To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in North America._

“BY a very uncommon train of providences, many of the provinces
of North America are totally disjoined from the mother country,
and erected into independent states. The English government has
no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any
more than over the states of Holland. A civil authority is
exercised over them, partly by the congress, partly by the
provincial assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims
any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar
situation, some thousands of the inhabitants of these states
desire my advice, and, in compliance with their desire, I have
drawn up a little sketch.

“Lord King’s account of the primitive church convinced me, many
years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and
consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years, I
have been importuned, from time to time, to exercise this
right, by ordaining part of our travelling preachers. But I
have still refused; not only for peace sake, but because I was
determined, as little as possible, to violate the established
order of the national church to which I belonged.

“But the case is widely different between England and North
America. Here there are bishops, who have a legal jurisdiction;
in America there are none, neither any parish minister; so
that, for some hundreds of miles together, there is none either
to baptize, or to administer the Lord’s supper. Here,
therefore, my scruples are at an end; and I conceive myself at
full liberty, as I violate no order, and invade no man’s
rights, by appointing and sending labourers into the harvest.

“I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury
to be joint superintendents over our brethren in North America;
as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey, to act as elders
among them, by baptizing and administering the Lord’s supper.
And I have prepared a liturgy, little differing from that of
the Church of England, (I think the best constituted national
church in the world,) which I advise all the travelling
preachers to use on the Lord’s day, in all the congregations,
reading the litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays, and praying
extempore on all other days. I also advise the elders to
administer the supper of the Lord, on every Lord’s day.

“If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way
of feeding and guiding these 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 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 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
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 set them free.

“JOHN WESLEY.”[500]

“These are the steps,” says Wesley in another place, “which, not of choice, but necessity, I have slowly and deliberately taken. If any one is pleased to call this _separating from the Church_, he may. But the law of England does not call it so; nor can any one properly be said so to do, unless, out of conscience, he refuses to join in the service, and partake of the sacraments administered therein.”[501]

Eight days after the date of the above letter, Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey set sail for America, where they arrived on November 3. A conference of nearly sixty preachers met in Baltimore on December 24. Three days later, Coke ordained Asbury; and the two then ordained a number of elders and deacons. Coke preached a sermon, which was published, with the title, “The Substance of a Sermon preached at Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, before the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the 27th of December, 1784, at the Ordination of the Rev. Francis Asbury to the office of Superintendent. By Thomas Coke, LL.D., Superintendent of the said Church. Published at the desire of the Conference.” 12mo, 22 pages.

The title is worth observing. Coke and Asbury are _superintendents_; the Methodist church is _episcopal_,--a church governed by _bishops_. The sermon begins with an onslaught on the Church of England in America. “The churches had, in general, been filled with the parasites and bottle companions of the rich and great. The humble and importunate entreaties, of the oppressed flocks, were contemned and despised. The drunkard, the fornicator, and the extortioner, triumphed over bleeding Zion, because they were faithful abettors of the ruling powers. But these intolerable fetters were now struck off; and the antichristian union, which before subsisted between church and state, was broken asunder.” Coke then proceeds to answer the question, “What right have you to exercise the episcopal office?” “To me,” says he, “the most manifest and clear. God has been pleased, by Mr. Wesley, to raise up, in America and Europe, a numerous society, well known by the name of Methodists. The whole body have invariably esteemed _this man_ as their chief pastor, under Christ; and we are fully persuaded, he has a right to ordain. Besides, we have every qualification for an episcopal church, which that of Alexandria possessed for two hundred years; our bishops, or superintendents (as we rather call them), having been elected by the suffrages of the whole body of our ministers through the continent, assembled in general conference.”

This is scarcely conclusive reasoning, but it shows that, from the very first, Coke assumed, what Wesley never gave him, the title of a bishop. Five years later, in May, 1789, Coke and Asbury presented an address to Washington, the president of the United States, beginning with the words, “We, the _bishops_ of the Methodist _Episcopal_ Church”;[502] and at the conference of the same year the first question asked was: “Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal office in the Methodist church in Europe and America? Answer. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by regular order and succession.”[503]

This grandiloquent parade of office must not be ascribed to Wesley. He never sanctioned it; he positively condemned it. Besides, even allowing that Coke and Asbury had a right to designate themselves bishops of the Methodist churches in America, what was their authority for pronouncing Wesley the bishop of the Methodist church in Europe? They had none. It was an unwarrantable liberty taken with the name of a venerable man, who had censured the use of such an appellation, and whose humility and modesty Coke would have been none the worse for copying. As it was, Wesley was held up to ridicule, and made to suffer, on account of the episcopal ambition of his friends.

We have no fault to find with the American Methodists being called the Methodist Episcopal Church. They have the fullest right to such a designation if they choose to use it; but it was a name which Wesley never used; and to censure him for ordaining bishops is to censure him for what he never did. He ordained a _superintendent_; but he never thought to call him _bishop_. Hence the following to Asbury.

“LONDON, _September 20, 1788_.

“... There is indeed a wide difference between the relation
wherein you stand to the Americans, and the relation wherein I
stand to all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the
American Methodists; I am, under God, the father of the whole
family. Therefore, I naturally care for you all in a manner no
other person can do. Therefore, I, in a measure, provide for
you all; for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he
could not provide, were it not for me,--were it not that I not
only permit him to collect, but also support him in so doing.

“But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid, both
the doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little; you
study to be great. I creep; you strut along. I found a school;
you a college! nay, and call it after your own names![504] O,
beware; do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, and
‘Christ be all in all!’

“One instance of this, of your greatness, has given me great
concern. How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be
called bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may
call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am
content; but they shall never, by my consent, call me bishop!
For my sake, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake, put a full end
to this! Let the presbyterians do what they please, but let the
Methodists know their calling better.

“Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart.
And let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how
sincerely I am your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[505]

Coke, in his letter, dated August 9, 1784, mentions the “odium” which Wesley was likely to incur by the ordinations which he himself was soliciting; and, with a want of chivalry not to be commended, requests Wesley to acknowledge that the deed was all his own, otherwise Coke would “sink under the weight of his enemies, with Charles Wesley at the head of them.” The apprehension was not unfounded. Charles Wesley knew nothing of the ordinations in Bristol till they were over; but, of course, it was impossible to keep them secret; and great was the excitement which the revelation created. One of the preachers wrote:

“Ordination among Methodists! Amazing indeed! Surely it never
began in the midst of a multitude of counsellors; and, I
greatly fear, the Son of Man was not secretary of state, or not
present, when the business was brought on and carried. Who is
the father of this _monster_, so long dreaded by the father of
his people, and by most of his sons? Whoever he be, time will
prove him to be a felon to Methodism, and discover his
assassinating knife sticking fast in the vitals of its body.
Years to come will speak in groans the opprobrious anniversary
of our religious madness for gowns and bands.”

Another wrote: “I wish they had been asleep when they began this business of ordination: it is neither _episcopal_ nor _presbyterian_; but a mere hodge-podge of inconsistencies.”[506]

On April 28, 1785, Charles Wesley addressed a long letter to Dr. Chandler, an episcopal clergyman, who was about to embark for America, from which the following is an extract.

“I never lost my dread of separation, or ceased to guard our
societies against it. I frequently told them: ‘I am your
servant as long as you remain in the Church of England; but no
longer. Should you forsake her, you would renounce me.’

“Some of the lay preachers very early discovered an inclination
to separate, which induced my brother to print his ‘Reasons
against Separation.’ As often as it appeared, we beat down the
schismatical spirit. If any one did leave the Church, at the
same time he left our society. For near fifty years, we kept
the sheep in the fold; and, having filled the number of our
days, only waited to depart in peace.

“After our having continued friends for above _seventy_ years,
and fellow labourers for above _fifty_, can anything but death
part us? I can scarcely yet believe it, that, in his
eighty-second year, my brother, my old, intimate friend and
companion, should have assumed the episcopal character,
ordained elders, consecrated a bishop, and sent him to ordain
our lay preachers in America! I was then in Bristol, at his
elbow; yet he never gave me the least hint of his intention.
How was he surprised into so rash an action? He certainly
persuaded himself that it was right.

“Lord Mansfield told me last year, that ordination was
separation. This my brother does not and will not see; or that
he has renounced the principles and practice of his whole life;
that he has acted contrary to all his declarations,
protestations, and writings; robbed his friends of their
boasting; and left an indelible blot on his name, as long as it
shall be remembered!

“Thus our partnership here is dissolved, but not our
friendship. I have taken him for better for worse, till death
do us part; or, rather, reunite us in love inseparable. I have
lived on earth a little too long, who have lived to see this
evil day. But I shall very soon be taken from it, in stedfast
faith, that the Lord will maintain His own cause, and carry on
His own work, and fulfil His promise to His church, ‘Lo, I am
with you always, even to the end!’