Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Another Denial Concerning Erasmus

Occasionally, someone will bring up the myth that John Wesley was consecrated a bishop by the Orthodox bishop Erasmus.  There is, of course, no factual support for this assertion.  Further, it flies in the face of everything that Wesley says about ordination.  Nevertheless, there are those who look for some way of placing Wesley within an historical, apostolic succession of bishops so as to shore up their own ordination.

What this attempt actually does is deny Wesley's own claimed authority to ordain as an elder given God's providential placement of him as an overseer of the people called Methodist.  In other words, by their very attempt, they are denying the validity of their own orders and hanging their hopes on this supposed myth.

Wesley, of course, denies these assertions of seeking consecration by Bishop Erasmus.  His right to ordain is on wholly other grounds.

Today, I was reading a passage where Wesley specifically addresses this issue.

In Wesley's "An Answer to Mr. Rowland Hill's Tract, Entitled, 'Imposture Detected,'" printed in volume 10 of Wesley's Works (Jackson ed.), on page 450, Wesley says:

I never entreated anything of Bishop Erasmus, who had abundant unexceptionable credentials as to his episcopal character. Nor did he "ever reject any overture" made by me. (Page 14) Herein Mr. Hill has been misinformed. I deny the fact; let him produce his evidence.
 
That sounds pretty clear, to me.  -  So, please, let's put an end to the spreading of this unfounded myth.  ☺  

3 comments:

The Jester of Qi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
china clay teapot said...

into the pot aCheap Ceramic Teapotsnd gradually forms an old sense of brightness on the surface of the pot, which is called patina, just like when we were young, the flat pole at home presents a kind of oiAuthentic Purple Clay Teapotly

Todd A. Stepp said...

Joseph Zheng,
In order to hold on to such a myth, one has to assume that Wesley is not only fearful of prosecution, but that he is so fearful as to result to dishonesty. He would be dishonest in his denials and dishonest in all that he claims about his authority / rationale for ordaining. That is a bit difficult to buy given his perfectionist commitments. Further, one would have to believe that Wesley was willing to keep a secret authority, leaving all subsequent Methodists with no way to defend their orders. (And, indeed, Methodist denominations have never made such a claim.) Finally, there is simply no academic proof for such a consecration and every evidence that the suggested claim (which is all it is) is false.