History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

emarkable when it is considered that nothing was left undone to give it an Episcopal basis, so that
the failure of the prayer book is one of the forms of dissent on the part both of the preachers, who
declined to use it, and the people, who stood by them in its discontinuance. In the second instance
they refer to the "negative" of the superintendent to any ordination, even though fully approved by
the Conference. Practically it was given, however, a wider application. The election of Coke and
Asbury is not mentioned either in the minutes of 1795, as issued by John Dickins, of which one of
the original edition is now before the writer, or in the minutes with the discipline attached, printed
in Philadelphia by Charles Cist, 1785, a reprint of which is also before the writer.
James O'Kelly, who was present at the Conference, says, "Thomas and Francis [Coke and Asbury]
were our superintendents as President elders, according to John's [Wesley] appointment, but they
were not elected by the suffrage of Conference, although it is so written in the book of discipline."
As it has been found that it is not in the discipline of 1785, how is his statement to be reconciled?
Turning to a "Form of Discipline," etc., "considered and approved in Baltimore on Monday, the 27th
of December, 1784," etc., and printed in Philadelphia, 1790, a copy of which is before the writer,
being the sixth edition, under Section III., and in answer to the question, "What is the proper origin
of the Episcopal authority in our church?" the whole answer making Section III. is new, and is
dovetailed between Section II. and Section IV. of the Discipline of 1785. As the whole of it will
come under review later, only the portion pertinent to the present purpose is cited: "At which time
the General Conference held in Baltimore did unanimously receive the said Thomas Coke and
Francis Asbury as their Bishops, being fully satisfied of the validity of their episcopal ordination."
The printed capitalizing has been followed. Who wrote this new section? Coke and Asbury, as is
confessed in their opening address or preface, to this effect, "We have made some little alterations
in the present edition, yet such as affect not in any degree the essentials of our doctrines and
discipline. We think ourselves obliged to view and review annually the whole order of our church,"
etc. Even in this statement the word "receive" and not "elect" is used, much to the confusion of the
truth, as will be seen. The query obtrudes, If they were unanimously received, and the word is used
synonymously with elected, why is this important fact not included in the printed Minutes of 1785?
Nothing but conjecture can now be indulged. One is offered, as the first of a series of proofs that
Wesley did not recommend or approve anything that was done at the Christmas Conference, as it
bears upon the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The printed Minutes of 1785, as
ordered by Coke himself, and bound up with the Sunday Service, were those which would come
under Wesley's eye. Coke left Baltimore for Philadelphia January 3, and was there from the 8th to
the 19th, during which time the minutes were printed. He returned, and on the 2d of June sailed for
England and was present at the British Conference, July 26, 1785. He undoubtedly carried copies
of the printed Minutes with him. It would have made his explanations awkward of what was done
in America if, after reading that the Conference in Baltimore determined, "During the Life of the
Rev. John Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his Sons in the Gospel, ready in Matters belonging
to Church-Government, to obey his commands. And we do engage after his Death to do every Thing
that we judge consistent with the Cause of Religion in America, and the political interests of these
States, to preserve and promote our Union with the Methodists of Europe" (capitalizing followed),
he had also learned from these minutes that Dr. Coke was not received as his superintendent in
America, and that Asbury declined the office until the Conference had unanimously by vote
appointed him also, and in the same manner passed upon Dr. Coke.