In 1780, ’Having had opportunity of seeing several Churches abroad, and having deeply considered the several sorts of Dissenters at home, I am fully convinced our own Church, with all her blemishes, is nearer the Scriptural plan than any other Church in Europe.’  In 1783, ’In every possible way I have advised the Methodists to keep to the Church.  They that do this most prosper best in their souls.  I have observed it long.  If ever the Methodists in general leave the Church, I must leave them.’  In 1786, ’Wherever there is any Church service I do not approve of any appointment the same hour, because I love the Church of England, and would assist, not oppose it, all I can.’  In 1788, ’Still, the more I reflect the more I am convinced that the Methodists ought not to leave the Church.  I judge that to lose a thousand—­yea, ten thousand—­of our people would be a less evil than this.  “But many had much comfort in this.”  So they would in any new thing.  I believe Satan himself would give them comfort therein, for he knows what the end must be.  Our glory has hitherto been not to be a separate body. “Hoc Ithacus velit."’ And finally, within two years of his death, in his striking sermon on the ministerial office, ’In God’s name stop!...  Ye are a new phenomenon on the earth—­a body of people who, being of no sect or party, are friends to all parties, and endeavour to forward all in heart-religion, in the knowledge and love of God and man.  Ye yourselves were at first called in the Church of England; and though ye have and will have a thousand temptations to leave it, and set up for yourselves, regard them not; be Church of England men still; do not cast away the peculiar glory which God hath put upon you and frustrate the design of Providence, the very end for which God raised you up.’

But some years before John Wesley uttered these memorable words had he not himself done the very thing which he deprecated?  Consciously and intentionally, No! a thousand times no; but virtually and as a matter of fact we must reluctantly answer, Yes.  Lord Mansfield’s famous dictum, ‘Ordination is separation,’ is unanswerable.  When, in 1784, John Wesley ordained Coke and Ashbury to be ‘superintendents,’ and Whatcoat and Vasey to be ‘elders,’ in America, he to all intents and purposes crossed the Rubicon.  His brother Charles regarded the act in that light and bitterly regretted it.  How a logical mind like John Wesley’s could regard it in any other it is difficult to conceive.  But that he had in all sincerity persuaded himself that there was no inconsistency in it with his strong Churchmanship there can be no manner of doubt.

The true explanation of John Wesley’s conduct in this matter may perhaps be found in the intensely practical character of his mind.  His work in America seemed likely to come to a deadlock for want of ordained ministers.  Thus we come back to the old motive.  Everything must be sacrificed for the sake of his work.  Some may think this was doing evil that good might come; but no such notion ever entered into John Wesley’s head; his rectitude of purpose, if not the clearness of his judgment, is as conspicuous in this as in the other acts of his life.