The Indianapolis journal., 1884-05-24
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
The Question OF Bishops.

upon them by Jesus Christ, and they exercised
them by divine right Those the apostles chose
as their successors to ordain elders in every city,
and set in order the affairs of the church exer-
cised their functions of divine right" The fore
going proposition deny, as being unsupported
by the Scriptures and ecclesiastical history and
1 challenge the Rev. E. A. Bradley to show proof
of the aforesaid high church "pretension. !"
With this denial claim that Mr.. Bradley's com
parison about the Lieutenant governor" and
his parable" about Canon Liddon" ordaining
''Dr. Farrar bishop of the Methodist Church in
America have no force or significance
whatever. Again, Mr. Bradley says
with peculiar smartness, CDR, Marine may
think he is bishop, some day, and lay his
hands on Dr. Alabaster; will that make him a
bishop?T In answer to the rectOrs overwhelm-
ing logic, 1 must intimate once more that his
premises are unsound. However square" they
may be-, they are not sound enough to bear
much weight or to achieve any very great ''suc
cess" in America. But will now give Mr.. Brad
ley, not parable but some very recent his
tory as an illustration of the scrptural basis of
the episcopacy, as l understand it, On Thurs
day of last week the General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church elected" DR.. Ninde
bishop; on last Thursday he was consecrated or
Ordained" bishop. Will that make DR.. Ninde
bishopl Yes; as ''scrptural a bishop as is
Bishop Knickerbacker or any other bishop of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States or on the globe.
The Rev. E. A. Bradley seems to be laboring
under monomania on the subject of DR.. Cokes
ordination to the Office of bishop, and judging
from his jeremiade as published in the Journal
of Saturday last, he is also laboring under
halucination about a sermon which L preached
recently in my own pulpit on the subject of
american Methodism," the whole tone of which
was 'offensively boastful" to the rector of
Christ Church Perhaps l owe this afflicted
brother an apology but before proceed to make
it, desire to correct some misrepresentation
which he has made while in his present state of
mind.
First, he misrepresented Mr. Wesley in three
instances: (a) concerning the ordination of Dr.
Coke. He says that when Mr. Wesley set
apart DR.. Coke as a superintendent 'he had no
thoughts of ordination of any kind.
In support of this sweeping assertion Mr. Brad
ley takes the liberty to garble Mr. Wesleys
letter of ordination to DR.. Coke. He
quotes as follows; II have this day set
apart as superintendent DR.. Coke" etc. Why
not finish the sentence-'by the imposition
of hands and prayer being as
sisted by other ordained ministers" Was not
this the form" of ordinationl Was it not per-
formed as ordinations usually are, with the
usual solemnities, under the protection of
Almighty God,n by imposition of hands and
prayer, with the assistance of ''other ordained
ministers2" If it was not intended as an ordina-
tion, if Mr., Wesley had mo thoughts of an ordi-
nation of any kind, why this empty farce, this
solemn mockery this trifing with sacred things!
Again, in support of the position that
Mr. Wesley had no thought of ordsin-
quotes from Charles Wesley, who, referring to
this matter, says 'He never gave me the least
hint that he intended to assume the episcopal
character" Butdoes Mr.. Bradley prove, by this
detached sentence from the writings of Charles
Wesley, that his brother John did not assume to
ordain DIR. Coke bishop The facts in the case
are these: Charles Wesley was Mortified at what
his brother had done, and raised a hue and cry,
in which others joined. John vindicated himself
by saying that he had been inportuned from
time to time to exercise his right to ordain some
of his preachers but had 'refrained for the sake
of peace but the circumstances were now so
changed that he could hesitate no longer. In
circular letter, which he wrote, he
argued and cited authorities TO prove
that under the circumstances, he was
justified in ordaining Whatcoat and Vasey to
be elders, and DR.. Coke to be bishop or superin-
tendent. But what relevancy was there in all
this if Mr.. Wesley had only pronounced bene-
diction on these ministers, and not ordained
them2 Charles Wesley in letter to clergy
man. says: that his brother John has as
sumed the episcopal character ordained elders,
conseerated a bishop, and sent him to America
to ordain our lay preachers" And his letters
show that he dreaded lest DR.. Coke should re-
turn to England and proceed to ordain the
Methodist preachers. He says: mot preach
er in London would refuse orders from the Doc
tor" They evidently regarded him as scrip
tural bishop. Bishop Coke presided at what is
known as the Christmas conference, convened at
Baltimore December a. 1854, and proceeded to
the formal organization of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church of the United States without dis
senting voice.
(b) With regard to Mr. Wesly's letter to Bishop
Asbury, in which he complained that he al
lowed himself to be called bishop instead of SUI
perintendent, Mr. Bradley misrepresents Mr..
Wesley in this. that he objected to the Office to
which Asbury had been consecrated, the dem
onstration is perfect that Mr.. Wesley did not OBJ
ject to the Office but to the title He did not
object that Coke and Asbury discharged the
functions of the episcopal office, but he was
averse to having them bear the title of bishop.
Mr. Wesley knew as every scholar does, that
the words superintendent and bishop are synony-
nous; but he had strong preference for the one
that seemed to HIM more in accordance with the
simplicity and humility of the gospel, and he had
good reasons for this. Hesaw in his own country
a class of men who were lording it over Gods
heritages on the strength of this title living in
idleness and Tapped in luxury. These high
church functionaries disgusted all pious, sen
sble men by their arrogant and absurd preten
sions. 1t is no wonder that Wesley was anxious
that plain Francis Asbury should ape none of
their pretensions My only regret is that the OBJ
lection was not made earlier, and that our
'bishops" have not ever since been known simply
as overseers or superintendents. When l see in
our own country men who subscribe themselves
bishops of the State in which they live, where
not one in five hundred of the people of the
State recognize their Office authority-men
who claim to be the successors of the
apostles, and who turn over all
who spurn their arrogant pretensions
to the uncovenanted mercies of God
who unchurch three-fourths of Protestant chris
tendon, and who declare that outside of their
own little and inefficient church there are no
true ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ, valid
administrators fthe ordnances-I am provoked
to speak of the ''effrontery, pretensions and
ignorance of churchmen" and for which offer
no kind of apology
(c) Mr. Bradley refers to Mr. Wesly as
loyal and consistent presbyter in the Church of
EnOIand from which he naver Senarotad Rut