History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

to men whose opinions disagreed with his own, or whose infirmities clouded their last days, require
no little qualification from the charity that 'hopeth all things.'"
From the silence of the annalists of these early days it must not be inferred that the two parties
into which the societies and the preachers were now divided did not press their divergent views of
Conference polity, the one under the lead of Gatch, unfortunately for the cause now retired, and for
this reason not so influential as he would have been, supported by Poythress, Ivy, Willis, Dickins,
Yeargan, O'Kelly, Tatum, Gill, Cole, Glendenning, Reed, Major, Tunnell, Ellis, as well as Watters
and others, to the number of nearly thirty out of the forty-four preachers, paving the way for a
Presbyterian system; while Asbury, with the less hearty support of some dozen American preachers,
Ruff, Garrettson, Cooper, Hartley, Chew, Cromwell, and Peddicord being the principals,
predetermined that it should be hierarchal, an Episcopacy of three orders, with property rights and
ecclesiastical authority exclusively vested in the preachers, as in Wesley's day. The former were
equally conscientious, and if they had been equally firm in the maintenance of their convictions, the
organic form of American Methodism would have been conformed to the precedents of the New
Testament churches, which established the priesthood of the people with a ministry to serve in honor
for their works' sake. Had it prevailed, it is patent that the O'Kelly secession of 1792 would have
been forestalled, and the societies saved the most disastrous destruction of their unity they ever
experienced, until the climax of disunion in 1844. Had it prevailed, a strong probability would be
established, as will be seen, that the organic unity of American Methodism would have been
preserved, with what advantages denominationally, and what honor as a magnificent section of
Christ's earthly fold, the pen of the historian cannot describe. All the Scripture, all the methods of
the primitive Church for two centuries, all the logic, all the rights of manhood Christianized, all the
political sentiments of the American Methodists and revolutionary people, were on the side of the
Fluvanna's large majority of the preachers and three-fifths of the people.
On the other hand, Asbury could cite the talismanic name of Wesley and show letters from him.
All but two of the preachers — Dickins, who was an Englishman, and Glendenning, who was a
Scotsman were native-born. It is doubtful whether Wesley had much personal acquaintance with any
but Asbury, so that likely he alone kept up a correspondence with the father of Methodism. There
is no doubt that he plied him diligently with letters setting forth his own views and convictions, and
as they were in accord with the Wesleyan policy in England, he would have had little difficulty in
recommissioning him as General Assistant, but for the counter fact that Rankin, and, strange to say,
Shadford, his bosom friend in America, and Boardman, and other returned missionaries of Wesley's,
did not make favorable representations of Asbury's disposition and aspirations; so that, distracted,
he finally wrote, as his will in the case of the dispute in America, through Dickins, that "they should
continue on the old plan until farther directed," as is gleaned from Garrettson's semi-centennial
sermon, about the only record extant of these transactions.
Asbury called his Conference to meet in Baltimore, at Lovely Lane chapel, April 24, 1780. He
[9]
had now come from his retirement after twenty-five months' seclusion, and presided over the
Conference. His personal influence brought together twenty-four of the preachers, but not by
accessions from the regular Conference. The proceedings, as usual in the printed Minutes, are brief,
the most important items as follows: "What preachers do now agree to sit in Conference on the
origin plan, as Methodists?" The significance of the form of this query will strike every careful