Victor R. Claveau, MJ
John Wesley (1703 – 1791) was the second son of Samuel, a former Nonconformist (dissenter from the Church of England), and Susanna Wesley. After six years of education at the Charterhouse, London, he entered Christ Church, Oxford University, in 1720. Graduating in 1724, he resolved to become ordained a priest; in 1725 he was made a deacon by the bishop of Oxford and the following year was elected a fellow of Lincoln College. He was ordained a priest on September 22, 1728, and remained an Anglican until his death. The evolution of Methodism into a separate denomination was a gradual process as Wesley desired to remain within the Anglican Church and at the same time, meet the distinct spiritual and organizational demands of the Methodist community. The Methodist Episcopal Church was created in 1784 when it formally separated from the Church of England. The first major schism occurred in 1830 with the formation of the Methodist Protestant Church. Today, there are many different types of Methodists, each with its own beliefs and practices. Some of the most common types of Methodists are Regular, Primitive, and Wesleyan. There are over two hundred different Methodist denominations, each with its own history and identity. In the United States, the two biggest names in Methodism are the United Methodist Church, and the new Global Methodist Church.
The Methodist movement had its beginning with John Wesley and Charles Wesley in 1739, two hundred years after the deaths of Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Luther.
The theory of Private Judgment was the foundation of his new church. “The freedom of the Gospel was not slow in bringing forth its fruits. The simple-minded, as well as the righteous, set about interpreting the Scriptures after their own individual lights. And under the alleged impulse of the Holy Spirit which they claimed as their own.[1] This theory was “to sow the wind and reap the whirlwind” (Hosea 8:7) as liberal Protestants of today are so fractured that there are thousands of denominations and independent Fundamentalist groups.
By what authority did Wesley start a new church? To answer this question, we have to review the history of priestly ordination during the Protestant Revolt in England. From 1531 the clergy in England were content to recognize Henry VIII as supreme head of the Church of England.
Thomas Cranmer (2 July 1489 – 21 March 1556) was a theologian, leader of the English Reformation and in 1533 made Archbishop of Canterbury. He reigned in that office during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI and, for a short time, Mary I. He is honored as a martyr in the Church of England.
During Cranmer’s tenure as the Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, the ordination rite was modified which invalidated Anglican orders.
The question of validity of Anglican Orders was reopened by Leo XIII, and an adverse decision was handed down in the encyclical Apostolicae Curae. The sole point at issue was the validity of the new formula of ordination introduced by Thomas Cranmer and his associates at the time of Edward VI. It was the pontiff’s contention that Cranmer deliberately changed the meaning of the rite of orders by eliminating from it all reference to sacrifice, which alone gives significance to the Christian priesthood; that in so doing, he gave the rite a new meaning, namely, to make “ministers of the word,” and not Catholic priests; and in consequence, that those who use this rite express externally—whatever their subjective intention or belief—the intention of doing, not “what the Church does,” but what the Reformers were doing in fact, that is ordaining “ministers of the word and sacraments.” The distinction between subjective and objective intention is indeed delicate, but it stresses the Church’s traditional teaching that the “form” or formula of the sacrament approved by the Church must be used to guarantee “the intention of doing what the Church does.”
In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of a sacrament, due distinction is made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, usually called “the matter and the form.” Now all know that the sacraments of the New Law, inasmuch as they are sensible and efficacious signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be expressed in the whole of the essential rite—in the matter and the form—it belongs principally to the form; since the matter is of itself the undetermined element, being determined by the form… Fully aware of the necessity connection between “the rule of faith and the rule of prayer,” under the pretext of returning to the primitive form, they [Cranmer and his associates] corrupted the liturgical ordinal in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole ordinal [of Edward VI] not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood, and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice, but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in those prayers of the Catholic rite which they entirely rejected was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way, the native character, or what may be called the spirit, of the [new] ordinal clearly manifests itself…
The imposition of hands being retained, the form of ordination was reduced to these words: “Receive the Holy Spirit. The sins that you shall remit shall be remitted, those that you will retain, shall be retained. Be a dispense of the word of God and His holy sacraments.”
With this inherent defect of form is joined the defect of “intention” which is equally essential to the sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is by nature internal; but in so far as the intention is manifested externally, she is bound to judge of it. When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and matter requisite for effecting and conferring a sacrament, he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred through the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite is employed. On the other hand, if the rite is changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by Christ’s institution belongs to the nature of a sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.
The Decree of Leo XIII (1896)
“Therefore, strictly adhering in this matter to the decrees of Our predecessors in the pontificate, and giving them complete confirmation, and, as it were, renewing them by Our own authority, of Our own motion (motu proprio), and with certain knowledge, We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and void.”
There can be little doubt that Leo XIII himself intended to decide the question definitively. In a letter to Cardinal Richard of Paris in November 1896, Leo wrote, “It was our purpose to deliver final judgment and to settle completely that most important question of Anglican ordinations… All Catholics should receive our decision with the utmost respect, as being perpetually fixed, ratified, and irrevocable”. The definitive nature of the Bull is therefore clear.
As John Wesley’s ordination was invalid, he had no authority to ordain. Yet, Wesley took the unprecedented step of ordaining two lay preachers to serve in the United States. He also appointed Thomas Coke[2] (who met John Wesley in 1776 and became one of his closest assistants) as the first Methodist bishop and together they co-founded Methodism in America.
References:
Piette, Maximin, John Wesley in the Evolution of Protestantism, Sheed and Ward, 1937.
Sources of Christian Theology, Vol. 1, Sacraments and Worship, The Newman Press, 1955, pp. 119-122; 126-128.
Van Noort, G., Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, Christ’s Church, The Newman Press, 1957, pp. 179-180.
A Catholic Dictionary of Theology, Vol. Two, Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd, 1967, p. 193.
[1] Piette, Maximin, John Wesley in the Evolution of Protestantism, Sheed and Ward, 1937, p. 18.
[2] Thomas Coke (1747 – 1814) was ordained as an Anglican priest in 1772, but expelled from the Anglican Church for being a Methodist.