History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

METHODIST REFORM
Edward J. Drinkhouse, M.D., D.D.
Volume I
CHAPTER 21
Conference of 1783 — Letter from Wesley; the moot of Asbury's General Assistantship before
1784 considered — William Phoebus — Jesse Lee and Thomas Ware — Asbury as correspondent
with Wesley and Shadford — Story of Dr. Coke and Mathews — Twelfth Conference, 1784 —
Slavery resolves — Three Conferences appointed, but not held; superseded by the Christmas
Conference of 1784 — Growth of the Societies — Other heroes of these days.
The eleventh Conference was held at Ellis' and Lovely Lane, the former on the 7th and the latter
on the 27th of May, 1783. Asbury gives but brief note of either of them, and Jesse Lee, who was
received at this time, simply epitomizes from the minutes, except that he furnishes an important
letter from Wesley, which is copied by Bangs and condensed by Stevens. Lee does not furnish the
address of the receiver, but the contents show that it was not Asbury, and he farther says what he
quotes is an "extract." It is dated Bristol, October 3, 1783, and exhorts the American Methodists to
"abide by the Methodist doctrine and discipline . . . together with the large minutes of the
Conference" (meaning the British Conference). He warns them to be careful how they receive
preachers from England. The salient paragraph is in these words, "I do not wish our American
brethren to receive any who make any difficulty of receiving Francis Asbury as the General
[1]
Assistant." From another paragraph in it, it is inferable that the returned missionaries had talked
freely their prejudice against Asbury among the preachers, and Wesley discreetly anticipates any of
this class who might go to America thus prejudiced. But does it not also show that all along from
Rankin's return he had regarded Asbury as General Assistant? What it shows is that, having heard
of the action of the American preachers, he does not make an issue with them over it. He was
reaching a conclusion as to his appointee, and the drift was in favor of Asbury, his early choice. The
tone of the letter is that he did not suspect that any one in America, much less Asbury, was drifting
away from his personal authority. He discovered it later and sorrowfully, but not in time to prevent
the mischief of the ordinations for America, the following year. Asbury kept up a close
correspondence with Wesley and a confidential one with Shadford, and he was too ingenuous with
the latter to adopt Coke's method of concealment, — "burn this letter." In fact, while Rankin was
lording it over him he wrote to Wesley his grievances, but had the Christian courage to read it to
Rankin before he sent it. It did not occur to him that the time would come when Shadford would
disclose to Wesley the contents of some of his letters, as it will be found was the case. On the 24th
of December, 1783, Asbury notes, "I received a letter from Wesley, in which he directs me to act as
General Assistant, and to receive no preachers from Europe that are not recommended by him, nor
any in America who will not submit to me, and to the minutes of the Conference." This is the same
letter cited by Lee; from its date of October 3 to December 24, being about the space of time
requisite for its transit to this country across the ocean and then by the slow mail facilities of the
times to reach Asbury. The contents as epitomized by Asbury also show the identity. Interest in his
reference centers in Asbury's interpretation of it — "directs me to act as General Assistant" — the
fine distinction between acting and being appointed is well enough. Wesley knew that he was acting
and did not interfere with it. It is all the letter can be construed to mean.