The Methodist Quarterly Review 1885

 

ART. V.- "THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS." THE question whether there is an order of bishops distinct from and superior to the order of presbyters has long agitated the Christian Church. This question is not devoid of real interest, and in view of the practical matters involved, it is a very important one, and especially so as to what views the Methodist Episcopal Church holds, and has held, upon the subject. In its ecclesiastical use, the word "order" has a very different meaning from the word "office." An "order" has certain rights and privileges that inhere in itself-are its prerogatives and therefore are exclusive and inalienable; while an "office" is endowed with only such functions as may be vested hi it by the authority that created it. Nor is any one of any given order, if elected to an office within the scope and sphere of his order, thereby elevated to another and higher order.

No one who is familiar with the history and organism of the Methodist Episcopal Church will deny that it recognizes the clerical order, and also a distinction between order and office. Its one complete ministerial order is that of an elder; but it has also the office of presiding elder, thus practically discriminating between office and order. It recognizes the presiding elder as in office over other elders but of the same order, and from this fact may be started the inquiry, whether the episcopacy is not of the same order, though superior in office to all other elders

Our study of the question will be historical, and the main purpose will be to ascertain how the episcopacy was viewed by those who originated or first received it. Of the teaching of the Founder of Methodism, Dr. Abel Stevens gives the following summary:

That Wesley, while he believed in episcopacy, belonged to that class of Episcopalians who contend that episcopacy is not a distinct "order" (in the usual technical or ecclesiastical sense of the term), but a distinct office, in the ministry; that bishops and presbyters, or elders, are of the same order, and have essentially the same prerogatives ; but that for convenience some of this order may be raised to the episcopal office, and some of the functions originally pertaining to the whole order, as ordination, for example, may be confined to them ; the presbyter thus elevated being but primus inter pures-the first among equals-a presiding officer. [Stevens's "History of Methodism" vol ii, p. 221.]

Before the war of the Revolution, the Rev. John Wesley was the governmental head of the Methodists in America as well as in Europe. He was the supreme authority, and his word was law. After the war, the American Methodists still acknowledged his authority, and in 1784 Mr. Wesley asserted it by appointing the Rev. Thomas Coke, D.C.L., who was a presbyter of the Church of England, and Francis Asbury, who was a preacher in America, to be Superintendents, as before he had appointed Thomas Rankin and Francis Asbury to be his General Assistants in directing the work of Methodism in America.

Mr. Wesley, though only a presbyter, set apart Dr. Coke to his designated work with prayer and imposition of bands. This act has been severely criticised and denounced as an absurdity, but the Rev. Richard Watson has justly remarked,

This "absurdity" could not arise from the principle which Mr. Wesley had adopted, namely, that the orders were identical, and the censure, therefore, rests only upon the assumption that bishops and priests were of different orders, which he denied. He never did pretend to ordain bishops in the modern sense, but only according to his view of primitive episcopacy. [Watson's "Life of Wesley," American edition, p.247.]

His action in setting apart a presbyter to the work of a Superintendent could not, therefore, mean the conferring of a higher order. In appointing these Superintendents, Mr. Wesley did not mean to give up his authority over the American Methodists any more than he did when he previously appointed his Assistants. He now uses a different name-that of Superintendent-for his Assistants," to whom he delegated larger powers, but it is evident that he still intended to control the Superintendents as formerly he had the Assistants.

Now that Mr. Wesley, a presbyter, considered himself superior to the Superintendents he had appointed, including Dr. Coke, whom he had solemnly set apart, shows that he did not deem a Superintendent to be of higher ministerial order than a presbyter, as manifestly it would have been inconsistent for one of a lower to exercise authority over one of a superior order. The fact that he appointed them, directed them, and himself set one of them apart, was an assertion of his superiority in authority, and, of course, his not inferiority of order. Acting under Wesley's orders, and armed with his commission as Superintend-cut, Dr. Coke came to America in the autumn of 1784. At Asbury's suggestion, the preachers in the United States were called together, and met in Conference on the twenty-fourth of December; arid this Conference, which lasted about tell days, has been called "the Christmas Conference," on account of the season in which it convened.

Superintendent Coke presided, and his first official act was the presentation of Wesley's Circular Letter, which was read to the Conference. This letter was, so to speak, the charter under which the Conference acted. It declared in unmistakable

terms the parity of bishops and presbyters as to order, for in it Mr. Wesley said : "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."

With such a declaration so explicitly made, the members of the Christmas Conference could not have supposed Wesley was giving them an episcopacy which was higher in order than the eldership. That there might be no doubt as to Mr. Wesley's relation to the American Methodists and their relation to him, this Conference formally adopted the following:

During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his sons in the Gospel, ready, in matters belonging to church government, to obey his commands.

Having thus acknowledged him as the supreme authority in ecclesiastical affairs, they must have accepted his doctrine as to the episcopacy.

The Christmas Conference, in acknowledging Wesley as supreme "in matters belonging to church government," recognized a presbyter as the chief authority in the Church. That they so recognized a presbyter as supreme, even over the Superintendents, shows that they did not esteem their superintendency or episcopacy an order above the eldership, for certainly they would not make one of an inferior order superior in authority to those of a higher order.

This Conference also made and placed in the Minutes this resolve: "We will form ourselves into an Episcopal Church, under the direction of Superintendents," etc. As they accepted the very title Superintendent, which Wesley had given, as well as the men he had appointed, the only reasonable sup-position is, that they accepted the superintendency in the sense Wesley intended; and, as his declaration was "that bishops and presbyters are the same order" they could not have under-stood that he was giving and they were receiving any officers of a higher order than that of presbyters; and, if so, they must have understood the word Superintendent as indicating, not an order, but an office.

This is further indicated by the fact that they voted Asbury to be a Superintendent before he had become either elder or deacon. Both Coke and Asbury were Superintendents, so far as Mr. Wesley could make them such, without any vote of the Conference. This was not disputed by the Conference, and Asbury did not deny the legality and sufficiency of his appointment by Wesley alone, who was the supreme head of Methodism; but he desired the indorsement of the preachers whom he was to superintend. So he was unanimously chosen, and Coke was unanimously accepted by the Conference; which was also a recognition by the Conference of some kind or degree of authority over the case.

That Wesley should make a man not in orders. a Superintendent, shows that he did not consider the position an order and the action of the Conference in electing a man Superintendent before he was in orders, shows that the Conference did not look upon the superintendency as an order.

That they so understood it, in connection with the points all ready given, is plain, because they officially defined it to be an office, while they never speak of the order of bishops or superintendents. Jesse Lee, the first historian of American Methodism, and well-informed respecting all these transactions, says: "At this Conference we formed ourselves into a regular Church by the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church, making at the same time the episcopal office elective." [Lee's "History of the Methodists," p.94.] The early Minutes (1785) also use the same word "office," and speak of the position as the "episcopal office." Indeed, as Lee and the Minutes show, the early Church never spoke of the episcopacy as an order, nor as an order and an office, but solely as an office, which they made elective; arid the only conclusion which can be drawn is, that they did not consider their episcopacy a distinct and higher order, but simply an office of' superintendency.

Not only did they organize by "making the episcopal office elective," as Lee and the Minutes say, but, as the same authorities declare, they made "the elected Superintendents amenable to the body of ministers and preachers." Now it is to be remembered that this Conference, and all the early General Conferences, were composed of all the preachers, whether they were elders or not. When the Christmas Conference opened there were only three, including Superintendent Coke, who had received elder's orders; and even after others were ordained at

this Conference, "the body of the ministers and preachers" was composed mainly of unordained men. That they made "the elected Superintendents amenable to the body of ministers and preachers," many of whom had no orders at all, shows that they could not have regarded their superintendency in the light of a ministerial order, but rather as an executive office. On the idea of simply an office there was some reason in all having a voice in the election of a Superintendent, because all were to be superintended by him; and so, for the same reason, there was propriety in his being responsible to them; but the thing would be an ecclesiastical absurdity, if the superintendency were a higher order, for the Superintendent to be amenable to those of a lower order and to those who had no orders at all.

Even if the Conference bad been composed entirely of elders, this amenability would imply that the Superintendents were not of a higher order, and such amenability could only be on the ground that the superintendency was merely all office of an executive or jurisdictional character, and hence, responsible to the body which created it.

But it may be objected, that writers of that day say that Mr. Asbury was "ordained" Superintendent, and that the American Methodists had received from Mr. Wesley a service entitled "The Form of Ordaining a Superintendent." That the word "ordain" was used may be admitted, but the nature of the service is not to be interpreted by the name so much as the name is to be interpreted by the declared intention of the service; and the question now at issue is not about words, hut whether this service was intended to place the presbyter in a higher order.

Mr. Wesley, who gave the service, could not have intended it in that sense, for he held that there was no higher order than the eldership, and said, at the very time he gave them the service, that "bishops and presbyters are the same order." That the Christmas Conference held Wesley's view is asserted by Bishop Simpson in his "Cyclopedia of Methodism." Refer-ring to Wesley's ordination of Whatcoat and Vasey as elders, and his setting apart of Coke as Superintendent, he says:

This ordination was performed because, according to his view of the primitive episcopacy, bishops and presbyters were of the same order. This view was entertained by the ministers who met in conference or convention in 1784 and organized the Methodist Episcopal Church. [Art. Methodist Episcopacy."]

So the Conference, accepting this view from its supreme ecclesiastical authority, could not suppose that in using such a service they were giving any order above the eldership when they did not believe there was any higher order. With this view, even if they did use the word "ordain" in this connection, they could only have used it and understood it in a peculiar sense as qualified by the idea that no higher order could be conferred, and, therefore, they could look upon the superintendency only as an office-" the episcopal office," as they termed it-and the ceremony simply as a formal service of installation inducting the elected person, in an appropriate and solemn manner, into that office.

It may be said that the service which does not place in a higher order is not an ordination, and, therefore, the word should not have been used. To that objection we reply, that a writer has a right to use a word in a peculiar sense if he so qualifies it, as Wesley did in this case, that his meaning is manifest. The word is to be defined by the thing, and not the thing by the word, especially when it is guarded and qualified by a precise declaration.

The most that can be made out of the use of the word "ordination" in this connection, by those who would restrict its meaning, is, that those who so used it were not exact in their language. Indeed, we are not to be surprised that even Mr. Wesley should lack precision in this very thing, for the service for the American Methodists was evidently prepared in haste. Their intention in using the word is to be explained in the light of clear and positive declarations. As they held that "bishops and presbyters are the same order," it cannot be supposed that any service they applied to a presbyter, even if they called it an ordination, was an ecclesiastical ordination in the sense of conferring a higher order. It must have been a qualified " ordination "-using the term in a lower sense-and so did not give any higher order to one who was already a presbyter.

Dr. Coke, in a foot-note to his sermon delivered when Asbury was formally inducted into the superintendency, says in reference to his use of the phrase, "bishop of the Church

of Philadelphia," "I here use the word bishop in its present sense, as signifying an officer of the Church superior to the presbyters." ["Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review," July, 1840.] In his mind a bishop is an officer who is superior as such to the presbyters, as may also be seen by the fact that in the certificate he gave Asbury, Coke, though Superintendent, styles himself "a presbyter," showing that he recognized that to be his order, while the superintendency (whose functions he was then exercising) was his office. So in the certificate there is not a word about an episcopal order, but the simple statement that he "did set apart the said Francis Asbury for the office of a Superintendent." [ Bangs's "History of Methodism," vol. i, p.157.] All these facts show that Coke, and the Conference which organized the Methodist Episcopal Church, held views that harmonized with the teaching of Wesley, that bishops were the same in order as presbyters, and viewed the episcopacy as a superior office.

Leaving the first, we pass to a subsequent General Conference. Mr. Wesley had written to Dr. Coke requesting him to call a General Conference to meet at Baltimore on the first of May, 1787. The call was issued, and the Conference convened at that time.

In the same letter to Dr. Coke, Mr. Wesley indicated his reason for desiring the Conference, namely, "that Mr. Richard Whatcoat may be appointed Superintendent with Mr. Francis Asbury." Thus the presbyter who was at the head of the Church issued his orders and named the man he desired to have act as Superintendent. Mr. Wesley considered this his right, and the Conference at which the organization had been made had agreed, "in matters belonging to church government, to obey his commands."

The Conference understood Wesley to direct that Whatcoat be made Superintendent, though Wesley's order was couched in courteous terms. Lee says: "Mr. Wesley also directed that Richard Whatcoat should be ordained a joint Superintendent with Mr. Asbury." [Lee’s History, p.126.] Coke also understood Mr. Wesley as ordering the selection of Whatcoat as superintendent. As Lee says: Dr. Coke contended that we were obliged to receive Mr. Whatcoat, because [of what] we had said in the Minutes taken at the Christmas Conference."

Most of the preachers, however, objected to having Whatcoat made a Superintendent, and the strongest reason seems to have been that given by Lee: " That they were apprehensive that if Whatcoat was ordained Mr. Wesley would recall Mr. Asbury, and he would return to England." [Lee's History, p. 126.] This was another recognition of the fact that Wesley claimed supreme authority over the Superintendents, and a clear implication that Asbury could not have been in order above a presbyter when he was under a presbyter's control.

Wesley had evidently in some way given an intimation of an intention of removing Asbury from the superintendency and recalling him to England. Asbury, in a letter he wrote the Rev. Joseph Benson some time after this, said of Mr. Wesley:

He rigidly contended for a special and independent right of governing the chief minister or ministers of our order, which in our judgment meant not only to put him out of office, but to remove him from the continent to elsewhere that our father saw fit. [Atkinson's Centennial History of American Methodism," p.57.]

This shows not only Presbyter Wesley's estimate of his authority, but also his opinion that a Superintendent occupying the " episcopal office" could be removed from the position at his pleasure and that without any cause, such as crime or improper conduct, being alleged,-a view which cannot be harmonized with the notion of the superintendency as a higher order, but which is compatible with the idea of the episcopacy as an office.

In this letter to Benson, and in this very connection, Mr. Asbury speaks of "the right of electing every Church officer, and more especially our Superintendent," which shows that As-bury looked upon the superintendency as an office and the Superintendent as an officer, and his remark that Wesley's claim "meant to put him out of office," implies the same idea.

The outcome of the whole matter was, that notwithstanding the agreement made at the Christmas Conference to obey Mr. Wesley "in matters belonging to Church government," the General Conference of 1787 refused to have Whatcoat as a Superintendent. Recognizing the apparent awkwardness of their position they went further, and struck out the record of the agreement, and also removed Mr. Wesley's name from the Minutes.

It is not in the line of our theme to discuss the wisdom or propriety of thus cutting the Gordian knot, but good came out of it. The spirit of the American Revolution evidently seemed to be on the Conference. It was another declaration of independence. It was a revolution, and to Wesley it seemed as a rebellion. It was an emphatic declaration by the General Conference that it meant to be above him who was superior to its Superintendent, and that the General Conference would not permit any executive power or official authority to be above itself; and in making their decision, they actually deposed Wesley, their chief Superintendent, and this assertion by the ministers implies that they recognized no higher order than that which was possessed by the members on the floor of the Conference.

This action was a heavy Now to Wesley, who complained because Asbury did not exert himself to avert it, saying that "Mr. Asbury quietly sat by until his friends, by common consent, voted my name out of the American Minutes."

Another troublesome question before the General Conference of 1787 was one raised in regard to Dr. Coke. The doctor had been out of the country, and while abroad had undertaken to exercise his functions as Superintendent in America. The preachers were dissatisfied with this, and, at this Conference, vigorously expressed their discontent. Lee says:

The preachers complained of Dr. Coke, because he had taken upon himself a right which they never gave him, of altering the time and place of holding our Conferences, after it had been settled and fixed on at a previous Conference. . . . At that time the doctor saw that the preachers were pretty generally united against him; he acknowledged his faults, begged pardon, and promised not to meddle with our affairs again when he was out of the United States. He then gave a certificate to the same purpose.

The preachers then agreed to forgive what was past, provided this condition should be expressed in the Minutes, which was done thus:

Q. Who are the Superintendents of our Church for the United States A. Thomas Coke (when present in the States) and Francis Asbury." [Lee's History, p. 124.]

This shows that the General Conference held that it was superior to the Superintendents-that while they were Superintendents of the Church the General Conference superintended them. That presbyters, and preachers who had not attained even that order, could call a Superintendent to account and direct his official action, shows that they did not look upon the superintendency as a higher order, with its higher prerogatives, but as an office, with only its definite functions. That Dr. Coke acquiesced in their procedure would seem to show that he admitted their right and held the same view as to his position.

That the General Conference took a Superintendent to task "because he had taken upon himself a right which they never gave him," shows not only that a Superintendent had no right to do any thing that was not specified in the Discipline, but also that to his position attached no power excepting that which the General Conference expressly and explicitly delegated (and which they could at any time recall), which is quite consistent with the idea of an office, but not so with that of a hinher ministerial order.

This General Conference asserted also the right to limit a Superintendent's jurisdiction, and to limit the exercise of his functions after he had been elected, and that though for years he had occupied the "episcopal office." It declared Dr. Coke a Superintendent only in the United States; that when he went out of the United States he lost all power of superintendency, and if he stayed out he ceased to be a Superintendent. Now, if the superintendency had been an order, Dr. Coke must have carried it with him every-where, for this is one of the peculiar characteristics of an order as contrasted with an office. Thus a presbyter is a presbyter always, and the order goes with him upon whom it has been conferred wherever he goes, unless he be entirely deposed from the ministry. That they limited the superintendency, as in the case of Coke, shows that the General Conference did not look upon it as an order, but as an office.

One educated as Coke had been, and knowing the rights of religious orders, would not have so yielded had he considered the superintendency to be an order. That he considered it simply an office appears also from the fact that in the written agreement he gave in this matter he uses the expression, "By virtue of my office as Superintendent of the Methodist Church." [Bangs's History, vol. i, p.257.]

Subsequently to the General Conference of 1787, but in the same year, "Mr. Asbury reprinted the General Minutes; but somewhat changed from what they were before." In these Minutes the title of Bishop was first used. Lee says:

This was the first time our Superintendents ever gave themselves the title of Bishops in the Minutes. They changed the title themselves, without the consent of the Conference; and at the next Conference they asked the preachers if the word Bishop might stand in the Minutes, seeing that it was a Scripture name, and the meaning of the word Bishop was the same with that of Superintendent. Some of the preachers opposed the alteration and wished to retain the former title; but a majority of the preachers agreed to let the word Bishop remain ; and in the Annual Minutes for the next year the first question is, " Who are the Bishops of our Church for the United States" [Lee's History, pp. 127, 128.]

Admitting that both titles mean the same thing (which, how, ever, is not the case in their relations to ecclesiastical affairs) nevertheless it was an act of usurpation for Asbury, or Asbury and Coke, to change a title which had been adopted by the Church, without first obtaining the consent of that Church-Had the title Superintendent remained unchanged, in all probability the question as to whether the Methodist episcopacy was an order above the eldership never would have been raised, for the name Superintendent would not have suggested the idea of order, but of office.

Still it is to be remembered that the change of the name did not change the thing, and it was expressly declared that " the meaning of the word Bishop was the same with that of Superintendent," so making the latter interpret and limit the meaning of the former, as used in this case. So the equivalent title Superintendent still stands in some places in the Discipline; and since the change of title the Bishops have frequently referred to themselves as the General Superintendents, and the Conference which assented to the change explained its action by inserting in the Minutes the following note:

As the translators of our version of the Bible have used the English word Bishop instead of Superintendent, it has been thought by us that it would appear more scriptural to adopt their term, Bishop.

When the official designation was changed from Superintendent to Bishop, Wesley expressed his dissatisfaction in a most emphatic manner. Probably because he supposed or knew that Asbury was the prime mover in the matter, he wrote him a most scathing letter. In this letter Wesley says to Asbury:

One instance of this [your greatness] has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be called Bishop ... . 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! [Wesley's Works, vol. vii, p.187.]

It may be that Wesley's preference for the title Superintendent was to avoid the danger of prelatical notions which many attached to the word Bishop, and which had become inseparably associated with it in ecclesiastical literature and in the public mind; but the change of the name made no change in the thing ; it was confessed that it here represented the same kind of superintendency that the Church had before.

The Rev. Richard Watson, referring to Wesley's objection to the change, says

The only objection he could have to the name was, that from long association it was likely to convey a meaning beyond his own intention. But this was a matter of mere prudential feeling confined to himself: so that neither are Dr. Coke nor Mr. Asbury to be blamed for using that appellation (bishop) in Mr. Wesley's sense, which was the same as presbyter as far as order was concerned, nor the American societies (as they have sometimes inconsiderately been), for calling themselves, in the same view, "The American Methodist Episcopal Church," since their episcopacy is founded upon the principle of bishops and presbyters being of the same degree-a more extended office only being assigned to the former, as in the primitive Church. [Watson's "Life of Wesley," American edition, p.247.]

In the Discipline of 1787 another change of some importance was made, probably by the person or persons who changed the official title. The question and answer in which it was said " We will form ourselves into an Episcopal Church, under the direction of superintendents, elders, deacons, and helpers," etc., were stricken out, and a section "On the Nature and Constitution of our Church" was introduced. In this a reason is given why the American Methodists are no longer connected with the Church of England, and why they do not unite with its successor.

In this section a contrast is drawn between the kind of Church they propose and the Church of England and its successor in the United States, and especially between the Methodist episcopacy and the episcopacy of the aforementioned Churches. It contains a positive rejection of the doctrine of apostolic succession, and states that " as we are persuaded that the uninterrupted succession of bishops can be proved neither from Scripture nor antiquity, we therefore have constituted ourselves into an Episcopal Church, under the direction of bishops, elders, deacons, and preachers," etc. It also affirms that "the most excellent mode of Church government, according to our maturest judgment, is that of a moderate episcopacy."

The whole tenor of the passage is a contrast between the episcopal government they had chosen, and that of the Church of England and the new Protestant Episcopal Church; and, in the light of this and of other facts before mentioned, the legitimate inference must be, that that which they called their "moderate episcopacy" rejected all notions of a higher order.

The main point in view at that time, however, was a denial of apostolic succession. Others claimed, that to be a Church it was necessary to have the succession from the apostles; but they claimed that this doctrine was untenable, and therefore could not stand in the way of their forming a new Church. They evidently conceded the divine right of the order of elders, and they recognized no order above this.

Two years after this, in 1789, this declaration was stricken out and another statement in the form of question and answer was substituted. This change, which was made probably by the same party or parties, had a new purpose, namely, to show the source of the episcopal authority in the new Church, and to declare their belief that it was proper and valid. The question propounded was as follows: "Ques. 1. What is the proper origin of the episcopal authority in our Church" and the purpose of this question is to be kept before us in interpreting the answer. The answer states, in substance, that they trace its origin to the Rev. John Wesley, "the father of the great revival of religion now extending over the earth by the means of the Methodists;" that he sent over "three regularly ordained clergy," and, hence, even in a churchly sense, their ordination was not irregular, but had a "proper origin;" that he solemnly set apart by the imposition of his hands and prayer one of them, namely, Thomas Coke, Doctor of Civil Law, late of Jesus College in the University of Oxford, for the episcopal office."

It will be noticed here, and throughout this paragraph, that the office in question is not called an order, but "the episcopal office," which phrase occurs no less than three times.

It is to be observed, further, that the source of their episcopacy to which they point is presbyterial. No one of any higher order than that of a presbyter takes part. Wesley is a presbyter, and so is each one who assists him in setting apart Dr. Coke to "the episcopal office," and the American Methodists declare they are "fully satisfied with the validity" of this procedure by presbyters. No one ordained to any higher order than that of presbyter took part, and, consequently, according even to higher order ideas, no higher order was conferred.

Dr. Coke could not have been admitted to any higher order, though he was set apart for the work of an office, for Wesley, who set him apart, affirmed that there was no higher order than that of presbyter. So Superintendent Coke remained a presbyter, and, as this paragraph states, Wesley " commissioned and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury, then General Assistant of the Methodist Society in America, for the same episcopal office; he, the said Francis Asbury, being first ordained deacon and elder." This was done, Dr. Coke officiating, and " other regularly ordained ministers assisting in the sacred ceremony."

It will be observed that the point here is, that Asbury received his episcopal ordination "in regular succession" from Wesley, and his jurisdiction from the Conference; and it is to be noticed that in this paragraph a distinction is made between an ordination and the service inducting one into the superintendency. Of Asbury it is said, that he was "ordained deacon and elder," but it is not said he was "ordained" Superintendent, but that he was "set apart for the said episcopal office." This change of the form of words suggests an incidental recognition of a difference between ordaining one a presbyter and setting apart a presbyter for the "episcopal office."

The statement in relation to Dr. Coke, that Wesley, "having delivered to him letters of episcopal orders, commissioned and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury," should receive some consideration. The question may arise whether the phrase "letters of episcopal orders" means that the episcopacy is a higher order than the eldership

It has been clearly shown that the Methodist Episcopal Church from the first regarded the superintendency as an office, and not as an order different from and higher than the eldership, and this cannot be neutralized by any doubtful phraseology. They had accepted the Wesleyan doctrine, that as to ministerial order a bishop was merely a presbyter, and here they speak of the episcopacy as an office. This phrase cannot be construed according to higher-order notions, for that would make the writers of the paragraph guilty of falsification in asserting that which was contrary to the facts ; for the fact is, that Wesley never did give any letter certifying to a higher order, or calling the episcopacy an order at all. The Protestant Episcopal Church has, at the head of its form of certificate, the words "Letter of Orders," but no such phrase is connected with Wesley's testimonial letter. In the body of its form that Church says of one made a bishop that he was "ordained and consecrated" a bishop, but nothing of the nature of an order in Coke's superintendency is intimated in Wesley's letter.

In the testimonial letter there is nothing about an episcopal order or episcopal orders. Even the word "ordination" is not used in connection with Coke, but the phrase "set apart ;" neither is bishop or even " episcopal office" used, but simply "Superintendent." Its form is, "I have this day set apart as a Superintendent," etc. [Bangs's "History of the Methodist Episcopal Church," vol. i, p.155.] Thus the letter itself shows that it is not in any higher-order sense "letters of episcopal orders," but simply a testimonial letter given by Wesley certifying that he had set Coke apart as a Superintendent.

To be consistent with himself, this is all that Wesley could have intended; it is all that could fairly have been meant by those who used the phrase in question, and this is evidently what the paragraph shows it to mean. The whole purport is, not to show whether the episcopacy is a higher order, but merely to designate the "origin of the episcopal authority in our Church;" and so it affirms that Wesley, having appointed [l7-FIFTH SERIES, VOL.1.] and set apart Coke as Superintendent, gave him a letter to that effect. The phrase, therefore, must have been used in a modified sense, and as a warrant of supervisory authority.

The concluding part of the paragraph may also demand a passing notice. It says that the Conference " did unanimously receive" Coke and Asbury, "being fully satisfied of the validity of their episcopal ordination ;" but there is in this nothing that teaches that the episcopacy was a higher order than the eldership, any more than there was in Wesley's giving a service for the "Ordaining of Superintendents," which he qualified by saying, "bishops arid presbyters are the same order," or the use of the same wood in regard to the setting apart of Superintendents by the Christmas Conference when its members accepted the same qualification.

As we have seen, the so-called " ordination," as it was qualified, amounted to nothing more than a formal induction into official duty, and, for the same reasons, it must be so understood here. Even in this paragraph the word "ordination," as used at the close, is qualified by its equivalent " set apart" "to the episcopal office," which is used in every instance in regard to Coke and Asbury's entrance into their special work, and of course it fails to give any legitimate support to the higher-order idea.

We conclude, therefore, that when Wesley set apart Coke, he did not mean to confer on him any higher order; and when Asbury was set apart, the doctrine of the parity of bishops and presbyters, as to orders, was admitted ; so that the use of the word "ordination," here, in regard to Coke and Asbury, can mean nothing more than it meant when Wesley used it, and it must therefore be understood with the same limitation.

Again, it must be borne in mind that the discussion is net as to whether the episcopacy is an order or an office, but as to the source of the " episcopal authority of Coke rind Asbury," thus involving the idea of office rather than of ministerial order. The object is to assert the validity of the Methodist episcopacy, that though presbyterial in its origin it is just as valid as any other, and its Bishops are just as legitimately and genuinely bishops as are those of any other Church. They were properly appointed, properly elected, arid properly set apart; and though all this was done by presbyters and not by bishops of a so-called higher order, and claiming apostolic succession, members of the Conference were satisfied of its validity, and fully believed that it had a "proper origin."

At this Conference (1789) the name of Mr. Wesley was restored to the Minutes, evidently to mitigate his displeasure on account of its omission; and though there may be room for doubt as to what is meant by "the regular order and succession" in which they are placed, there can be none respecting "the episcopal office."

Wesley was in order a presbyter, and nothing more, for in the testimonial he gave Coke he calls himself a "presbyter of the Church of England." Surely these early Methodists could not have understood the episcopacy to be an order higher than the eldership, or they would not have placed or recognized a presbyter, as Wesley certainly was, in that position. Yet here they recognize "Presbyter" Wesley as in the ' episcopal office," and place his name before the names of "Bishop" Coke and "Bishop" Asbury.

Further, it is evident that they laid no stress upon the service which had been styled an ordination, and that they did not consider that Wesley's setting apart of Coke, or that the so-called "ordination" of Asbury, gave any higher order, for they recognized Wesley, who never had been so set apart by any "sacred ceremony" for the episcopacy, and who never had received any ordination above that of the eldership, as not only the equal but the superior of Coke and Asbury, who had been specially set apart with religious service. The service of setting a part, or the so-called " ordination," was not, therefore, considered as having any virtue as to giving any higher order, but must have been looked upon as a not essential though appropriate ceremony, which left the presbyter to whom it was applied as to ministerial order neither more nor less than "an elder in the Church of God."

With them, a bishop was a presbyter in authority over other presbyters; and if the superintending presbyter exercised such power, he was a' true episcopos whether he had or had not been subject to a special setting apart, and whether he had or had not been formally elected to that position. Wesley had neither been formally elected nor set apart to a higher order; and so, the ruling idea must have been that the bishopric was not an order, but an office occupied by a presbyter.

This single fact, that in the very year the aforementioned paragraph was introduced, Mr. Wesley was recognized as the chief episcopos of Methodism, relieves any obscure expression it may contain, and dissipates any doubt such an expression might create ; so that "letters of episcopal orders" cannot he understood as implying any higher order than that of presbyter, for no higher order was recognized.

At the Conference of 1792 occurred the schism led by James O'Kelly. Though he did not withdraw on account of the nature of the episcopacy, he soon began to call it a "spurious episcopacy." Lee says of the seceders:

The name of bishop they abhorred. They acknowledged that the word bishop and the word elder in the Scriptures meant the same thing; yet they showed great indignation against the word bishop, and were well pleased with the word elder. [Lee's History, p.204.]

This incidental allusion by Lee shows that at that day the Methodists understood the words bishop and elder to mean the same order. [As they do in their scriptural, but not in their ecclesiastical, use.-ED.]

Another Methodist preacher who started an independent movement about the same time was the Rev. William Hammett. Both of these leaders were men of ability, and their attacks upon the Methodist Episcopal Church and its episcopacy led to more careful statements and a more guarded phraseology.

One who defended the Church against Hammett's attack was the Rev. John Dickins, the first American preacher to whom Coke imparted the plan for the new organization. He was a member of the Christmas Conference, and consequently knew the original intention, as well as the understanding, at the time he wrote.

Emory, in his " Defense of our Fathers," quotes from a pamphlet written by Dickins in 1792, and says:

The late Rev. John Dickins, in his remarks on the proceedings of Mr. Hammett, says, in relation to the superiority of our Bishops as derived not from their "separate ordination," but from the suffrages of the body of ministers : "Pray, when was it otherwise" and "how can the Conference have power to remove Mr. Asbury and ordain another to fill his place, if they see it necessary, on any other ground" Mr. Hammett had said: "Let your Superintendents know, therefore, that their superiority is derived from your suffrages, and not by virtue of a separate ordination. Gain and establish this point, and you sap the foundation of all arbitrary power in your Church forever." Mr. Dickins replies: "Now, who ever said the superiority of the Bishops was by virtue of a separate ordination If this gave them their superiority, how came they to be removable by the Conference If, then, what you there plead for will sap the foundation of all arbitrary power, it has been sapped in our connection from the first establishment of our constitution." (P.31.) Again he remarks (p.32): "We all know Mr. Asbury derived his official power from the Conference, and therefore his office is at their disposal." [Emory's Defense, pp. 109, 110.]

This father of the Church calls the episcopacy an office. He states that the Bishops have no superiority "by virtue of a separate ordination;" and it follows, therefore, that if the so-called "ordination" gave no superiority, it gave no higher order. He declares that the Bishop "derived his official power from the Conference," and that the "separate ordination" had nothing to do with his superiority, and that there is not " any other ground" on which the Conference has "power to remove" a Bishop and " fill his place, if they see it necessary," with another. Finally he affirms that this view, that there is no virtue in the "separate ordination," and that the Bishop derives his superiority solely " from the suffrages of the body of ministers," has been held " from the first establishment of our constitution," and he boldly asks, "Who ever said the superiority of the Bishops was by virtue of a separate ordination" [Ibid., pp. 109, 110.]

Emory, commenting on this quotation from John Dickins, says:

The pamphlet containing the above sentiments was published by the unanimous request of the Conference held at Philadelphia, Sept. 5, 1792; and may be therefore considered as expressing the views both of that Conference and of Bishop As bury in relation to the true and original character of Methodist episcopacy." [Ibid. p. 110.]

Four years after Dickins published his pamphlet, Coke and Asbury, by request of the General Conference, prepared and

printed explanatory notes to the Discipline, and they were appended to the Discipline of 1796.

We turn to these "Notes," and ask Coke and Asbury whether they understood the service of setting apart a Superintendent or Bishop to be an ordination in the same sense that the service for elders was an ordination. Their answer is substantially that it was not an ordination in the same sense, but that when the word "ordination" was used in reference to Bishops it was in the sense of consecration. Thus they say that Mr. Wesley "first consecrated one for the office of a Bishop." Again, they say Mr. Wesley " consecrated two Bishops, Thomas Coke and Alexander Mather, one before the present episcopal plan took place in America, and the other afterward, besides ordaining elders and deacons."

This section has the heading, "The Election and Consecration of Bishops," while other sections have " The Election and Ordination of Traveling Elders," and "The Election and Ordination of Traveling Deacons." Here, then, when they come to contrast the services, they make a distinction, and show that the service for Bishops, though termed an ordination, was not an ordination in the sense in which the word was used for elders and deacons, and they endeavor to express the distinction by the use of the word consecration, which indicates the setting apart to an office; and so, while they rise the word "ordain" for elders and deacons, whose ordination is recognized as conferring orders, they use the word "consecrate" in reference to the bishopric, which they call an office.

They group the episcopacy with "the presiding elder's office," and ask, "Is it not strange that any of the people should complain of this or of the episcopal office" and go on to speak of them as "these offices," so that with them the bishopric was an office the same in kind with the presiding eldership, though superior in authority. Now, no one pretends that the presiding eldership is an order, and according to Coke and Asbury's grouping neither is the bishopric. So, having a service of installation for presiding elders would not make the office an order, and neither would any definite or indefinite extension of the term. The characteristic of both is official authority mainly of an executive nature, and so they are both fitly grouped together as offices.

The "Notes" also declare that the Bishops "are perfectly subject to the General Conference"-"that their power, their usefulness, themselves, are entirely at the mercy of the General Conference," which is consistent with the idea of the bishopric being an office, but totally inconsistent with the idea of bishops being of a higher order than presbyters.

At the General Conference of 1796, it was proposed, on account of Asbury’s ill health and Coke’s frequent absence, that an assistant Bishop be elected, but Dr. Coke offered his services. To this offer there was strong objection in the Conference until Asbury interposed, and said, "If we reject him, it will be his ruin," etc. [Kobler’s letter to Dr. Lee in "Life and Times of Rev. Jesse Lee."] The matter then was left to Asbury’s judgment, and Coke gave an agreement in writing, in which he, the first Superintendent or Bishop, is reduced, or reduces himself, to the position of an assistant to Asbury; and agrees, as he says, "not to station the preachers at any time when he is present," and only "to exercise episcopal duties when I hold a Conference in his absence, and by his consent." [Bang’s History, vol. ii, p. 56.]

Such control of a Bishop which the Conference claimed, and which both Asbury and Coke conceded, is not at all in harmony with the idea that the bishopric is a higher order, but it agrees perfectly with the idea that it is an executive office.

In the year 1800, Mr. Asbury "proposed to resign his office as Superintendent," and "take his seat in the Conference on a level with the elders," but the Conference took formal action on "his intention of resigning his official station," and requested "a continuation of his services as one of the general Superintendents." [Lee’s History, p. 265.] This shows that Asbury and the Conference, as well as Lee, the historian, understood the episcopacy to be an office, and that when the Bishop resigned "his official station" he resigned all that he had above that which the ordinary elders possessed.

At this Conference of 1800, Richard Whatcoat was elected Bishop "on an equal footing" with Asbury, and Coke "obtained liberty to return to Europe again, upon the condition that he should return to America as soon as his business would allow; or, at farthest, by the next General Conference." [Ibid., p. 266.] Some years after this, the Wesleyan Conference in England requested the return of Dr. Coke, and the General Conference of 1804 passed a resolution permitting Dr. Coke to return to Europe "subject to the call of three of our Annual Conferences to return when he is requested, but at farthest, that he shall return, if he live, to the next General Conference," [Bang’s History, vol. ii, p. 154.] All of which was an assertion of power, certainly not as dealing with an order whose prerogatives are indefeasible, but as controlling an officer as to the use or disuse of his functions.

Dr. Coke was not present at the General Conference of 1808, but he wrote to that body, giving reasons for his absence and making certain propositions as a condition for his return to episcopal duty in America. Referring to his visit to America, four years before, he said: "I was not sure whether you would, in your circumstances as they respected Bishop Asbury, receive me as an efficient Superintendent or Bishop among you in any degree or manner." [Ibid., vol. ii, p. 197.] He now wants them to define what powers he would have should he return to America, so conceding, by a necessary implication, the complete power of the Conference over him in respect to his position; and the Conference, taking him at his word, resolved that "he is not to exercise the office of Superintendent among us in the United States until he be recalled by the General Conference, or by all the Annual Conferences respectively."

A distinguished authority has said : "The action of the Conference was, to all intents and purposes, a deposition of the Bishop, though it was so expressed as to give him as little offense as possible." The same authority remarks that the Discipline "as acted upon by the General Conference . . . established the right of the General Conference to depose or suspend a General Superintendent, for any cause which that body may believe renders that deposition or suspension necessary, without the process of trial or impeachment." [Editorial in "Christian Advocate and Journal," T. E. Bond and G. Coles, Editors, August 14, 1844.]

In another letter to the General Conference of 1808, Dr. Coke says : "I am of our late venerable father Mr. Wesley’s opinion, that the order of bishops and presbyters is one and the same." This restates Wesley’s opinion, and, coming from the man who was said to have received "episcopal ordination" and "letters of episcopal orders," shows that these phrases were used in a qualified sense, and that he did not consider that he or Mr. Asbury had received any higher order than that of presbyter, for "the order of bishops and presbyters is one and the same." That he made such a statement to the Conference, without objection, may also be taken as reflecting the sentiment of that body.

Bishop Asbury died on the last day of March, 1816, and, on the twenty-third of the following month, the Rev. Ezekiel Cooper delivered a funeral discourse on the deceased Bishop. Mr. Cooper was present at the first meeting of Coke and Asbury, and was familiar with the views of the early Church. In this sermon he affirms that "our church government . . . is founded on . . . the Scriptures, and also the usages of the primitive Church;" and in the Appendix he speaks of the Methodist episcopacy as a "presbyterial episcopacy," and maintains that bishops and presbyters or elders are "the same order." [Cooper on Asbury, pp. 109 and 115.]

Thus we are brought down to the death of Asbury, which may be said to close the first period of the history of the Methodist episcopacy. Through all this time the identity of bishops and presbyters as to order is in numerous cases both positively and tacitly affirmed. It may be admitted that there was, especially at one period, some confusion in the use of terms, and it is possible that some may have misunderstood the nature of the episcopacy ; but the prevalent tenor of the transactions of the General Conference, as well as the statements of prominent individuals, demonstrate that the early Methodist Episcopal Church understood that a bishop had no order above that of presbyter or elder, and that the bishopric-"the episcopal office," as they called it-was not an order, but an office of an executive character, and that he who filled it, though he was in office a Superintendent or Bishop, was in order only a presbyter or elder.

Proofreading, HTML conversion, and other modifications by Brandon Boyd.

Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.