The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-05-14
ClRcLEv1LLE, O.. May u.
Mr.. Wesley and "Bishop" Coke.

To the Editor of the indianapolis journal:
am requested by your correspondent in yes
terdays issue. to answer some questions con
corning the ordination of DR. Coke to the Office
of bishop by Mr.. Wesley, to which made refer
enee in my sermon on American Methodism last
Sabbath morning.
First-"When and where did Mr.. Wesley or
dain Dr. Coke bishop?' Tie following is the
letter of ordination which Mr.. Wesley gave to
Dr. Coke:
To all to whom these presents shall come, John Yves
ley late Fellow of Lincoln College. in Oxford pres
byter of the Church of England, sendeth greeting:
Know all men, that l. John Wesley, think myself to
be providentay 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 single eye to his glory have this day set
apart superintendent by the imposition of hands
aid prayer being assisted by other ordained minis
tersl Thomas Coke, doctor of civil law presbyter
of the Church of England and man whom judge
| to be well qualified for that great work. And do
hereby recommend him to all whom it may as
| fit person to preside over the flock of Christ.
In testimony whereof have set my seal this sec
ond day of September in the year of our Lord one
JOHN WESLEY.
The place of DR.. Cokes ordination was Eng
| land. The time is given in Mr.. Wesley's letter
as Sept. 2, 1884 This letters published in Yves
| leys works (Vov. vii, page Bill; also, in DR.
Bangs's History of the NJ f. Church Vol. l,
page l55). Mr.. Wesley used the word superin
| tendent in preference to the word bishop, but
| the Methodist Episcopal Church prefers the word
bishop iSee Discipline of NJ +. Church, page
| 313 section 497l
| Secondly-''By what authority did he under
| take to ordain a bishopW According to a delib
| crate conclusion reached by Mr.. Wesley, in ma
ture years that bishops and presbyters, or ED
ers, were of the same order in the ministry. The
| episcopacy of Methodism does not maintain the
apostolic succession Its simple idea is that certain
al ape chpCap hOdU of he agbX
ters to superintend the church. and are called
bishops, superintendent, The bishops, in
virtue of their functions, are naturally above
their brethren. With regard to the ordinary
functions of the ministry, they do not differ from
other ministers, but extraordinary func-
lions, such as ordaining, presiding
in assemblies, and the like, are
devolved upon them by their brethren, and ex-
ercised by them exclusively and of rsht-right,
| not divine, but ecclesiastical and human, found
ed upon the will of the highest representative
body of the church. Accordingly, the bishops Of
the Methodist Episcopal Church are elected by
the General Conference for life and are ordained
according to special form. (See Discipline,
chapter ill AS the Methodist Episcopal Church
does not believe in these orders in the ministry,
in setting apart presbyters to the Office of bishop
the word conservation is preferred to ordination.
Hence, we say that Mr. Wesley did not only
undertake" what he had no right to do, but
that he did ordain DR.. Coke, bishop of the Meth
odist Episcopal Church in America. There is
udfuy IL ldCV Ill Jlt history VI our country ludl
is supported by more conclusive evidence than
that John Wesley, after mature deliberation, set
apart by solemn prayer and the
imposition of hands, Dr. Coke to the
episcopal Office, and it is equally clear that Bish
op Coke proceeded without loss of time to dis
charge the functions of that office with the APP
proval and cooperation of the Methodists of the
United States
Thirdly-"Was Wesley a bishop? If not how
could he give an office he did not possessP Mr..
Wesley was not a bishop according to high
church pretensions, but he believed himself to
be ''scriptural bishop: as much so as any man
in England or Europe. He was an ordained
presbyter according to the New Testament,
of equal rank in the ministry with bishop; and
he did not regard bishops as the successors of
the apostles, he proceeded by the authority of
the Scriptures, as he understood them, to or
dain DR.. Coke bishop
He had been educated to belief in the doc
trine of apostolical succession, but a careful
examination of the Scriptures led Mr.. Wesley
to conclude that among all the fabulous theories
which Rome has palmed upon the world there is
hardly one that is more groundless than this
claim of succession as taught by high church
men of England and the United States.
A. MARINE