History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

of his endeavor to notify them, though Jesse Lee in his "History" intimates that he could have done
even better, but being fond of preaching, he loitered on his way, and, in consequence, some of the
more southern preachers did not get notice, himself among them. McCaine, who had unequaled
opportunities and diligently employed them, says of those who assembled: "A list of the names of
the members now lies before me; but whether it is correct or not we have no means of ascertaining.
Instead, therefore, of transcribing their names we shall give the number of those who are marked
present, and the years they were in the traveling connection when the Conference met." Dr. Coke
says "About sixty were present, and most of these were young men. "Of these," says McCaine, "one
had traveled 10 years; three, 9 years; three, 8 years; eight, 7 years; four, 6 years; six, 5 years; eight,
[4]
4 years; thirteen, 3 years; eight, 2 years; and eleven, 1 year." This analysis shows forty of them had
traveled under four years and were probably under twenty-five years of age. Coke was thirty-seven
and Asbury thirty-nine, quite a father among these striplings, and fourteen years in America. The
minutes were printed the following spring in Philadelphia, bound up with the Sunday Service sheets,
which Coke had brought over; but there are no official documents of this Conference, save what is
in the printed Minutes of 1795, and the "Discipline" of that year, so that the information is very
meager. Glimpses are furnished by Coke, Asbury, Whatcoat, Ware, Garrettson, O'Kelly, and Watters,
who were present. Were there any spectators? Coke preached every day at noon, and it is probable
that the society members came at this time, but during the deliberations Wesley's and Asbury's
method of closed doors was observed. McCaine says, "We have never seen any document which
would justify us in saying that sittings and deliberations of that Conference were conducted with
open doors." The Conference began on the morning of the 24th, Friday, and ended on Monday,
January 3, 1785. Stevens endeavors to furnish something of a consecutive account of the proceedings
by a patchwork method, the best that could be done. Observe what can be made of it.
Dr. Coke presided as Wesley's appointed superintendent. Religious service ended, Stevens says,
"Coke presented a letter from Wesley, dated Bristol, September 10, 1874, and addressed to Dr. Coke,
Mr. Asbury, and our brethren in North America." Let the reader refer back to chapter 22d and keep
the full text of it before him. Stevens gives it, minus the section of paragraph fourth. Lee, as early
as 1810 gives it, and Bangs, minus the suppressed section. Not one of them furnishes any hint that
the text had been tampered with. The first did not know it probably, though in its official form it was
[5]
printed in the minutes of the British Conference of 1785. The last two did know it. As they do not
explain their own silence it must be explained for them as far as it can be.
The explanation offered is, that it was the first of three palpable departures by Coke, with Asbury's
approval, of Wesley's instructions, and it is printed in its garbled form in the minutes of the
Christmas Conference. Finding it in this altered form, officially published as the letter Wesley sent,
they discreetly, for their side of the story, leave it alone. It is dangerous to touch — it is verbal
dynamite. It may be well to reproduce the omitted section. "And I have prepared a liturgy, little
differing from that of the Church of England (I think the best constituted National Church in the
world), which I advise all the traveling preachers to use on the Lord's Day, in all the congregations,
reading the litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays, and praying extempore on all other days. I also
advise the elders to administer the Supper of the Lord on every Lord's Day." It seems impossible to
conjecture the motive for this liberty with Wesley's letter intended for the societies. Even McCaine,
ready as he was to construe and find motives, does not attempt to assign any. The fact of its omission