History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

appointed by Mr. Wesley; third, because joined with Messrs. Rankin and Shadford by express order
from Mr. Wesley." The fact of history is that Shadford was not sent as a co-general assistant with
Rankin. The next question was: "How far shall his power extend?" Answer, "On hearing every
preacher for and against what is in debate, the right of determination shall rest with him according
[3]
to the minutes." Thus they clothed him with the plenary authority of Wesley himself, and he
continued to exercise it for years afterward. And so these twelve men, inclusive of Asbury, by a
highhanded act repudiated the action of the two prior regular Conferences. Some farther questions
were: Shall we guard against a separation from the Church, directly or indirectly?" Answer, "By all
means." This to nullify any action the Fluvanna Conference might take, under this Asburyan
assumption of authority. "Why was the Delaware Conference held? For the convenience of the
preachers in the northern stations, that we all might have an opportunity of meeting in Conference,
it being inadvisable for brother Asbury and brother Ruff, with some others, to attend in Virginia; it
is considered also as preparatory to the Conference in Virginia. Our sentiments to be given in by
brother Watters." It must be admitted it was a guileful answer, with scarcely a defensible point in it,
except as sending Watters as a messenger to bear to the regular Conference the sentiments of this
secedent body of Methodist preachers. "Who of the preachers are willing to take the station this
Conference shall place them in, and continue till next Conference?" The twelve, inclusive of Asbury,
answered affirmatively. Thus they ignored the Fluvanna Conference utterly in the vital matter of the
appointments. It was a step farther than the assumption that they were the Conference; it repudiated
the appointing power of any other. Asbury in his Journal makes note of these things only to tell, "We
had much love, prayer, and harmony," and fear of the separation of the southern brethren led to the
message, with Watters as the messenger. "We wrote them a soft, healing epistle." Had that letter
been preserved, it would exhibit Asbury at his best as a peacemaker, provided his will and way be
accepted. He gives one fact not in the printed Minutes: "We appointed our next Conference to be
held in Baltimore town, the last Tuesday in April next.
Thus it is seen that no half-way measures were proposed. May 3, 1779, he writes in his Journal:
"Today I wrote to John Dickins, to Philip Gatch, Edward Dromgoole, and William Glendenning,
urging them, if possible, to prevent a separation among the preachers in the South, that is, Virginia
and North Carolina. And I entertain great hopes that the breach will be healed; if not, the
consequences may be bad." Significant words! There is something leonine in his attitude. Himself
and eleven others separate from the regular Conference and then put the stigma of separation upon
it. But he knew he occupied the coign of vantage, — he had them on the hip. Wesley would side with
him so soon as he could be heard from, and so it proved. It bodes nothing in the present emergency
that only five years after this time, he and Dr. Coke concoct a plan of separation not only from the
Church, but a few years later separate from Wesley also; and his authority is put at defiance, just as
now the regular Conference is put at defiance. Bangs, with that bias which leads him to excuse and
justify everything that Asbury did, says, with a reckless disregard of facts as to the Asburyan
Conference at Judge White's: "Although this was considered as 'a preparatory conference,' yet, if we
take into consideration that the one afterward held in the absence of the general assistant at the
Brokenback church in Virginia, we shall see good reason for allowing that this, which was held
under the presidency of Mr. Asbury, was the regular conference, and hence their acts and doings are
[4]
to be considered valid." Such a position is too much for the native candor and historic accuracy
of Stevens. He attacks and refutes it utterly. A few citations will suffice to show his pronounced
opinion: "They had the right to provide the divinely enjoined ordinances of religion for themselves