History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

our societies in the United States, one for Antigua, and two for Nova Scotia. We spent the whole
week in Conference, debating freely and determining all things by a majority of votes. The Doctor
preached every day at noon, and some one of the other preachers morning and evening. We were in
[9]
great haste and did much business in a little time." One marvels at this record also. The business
was of such a character that haste was unseemly, yet the session was longer by several days than the
usual Conference. It is evident also that the business was "cut and dried" before the Conference
assembled. Perhaps not a thing was done that either Coke or Asbury or both had not matured at Perry
Hall. The Conference registered their pleasure. Not that dissentients were wanting, but the whole
denouement was such a surprise, the salient advantages such as all desired, as it secured ordination
and the sacraments with a church organization; and as they were impressed that the whole was
Wesley's suggestion and recommendation, the last allegement alone, for the time at least,
overslaughed all open criticism, and brought with it an outward show of unanimity. Is there any
evidence to this effect? Freeborn Garrettson says: "In the evening news came to my room that Dr.
Coke had arrived. I felt a spirit of rejoicing and hastened downstairs to receive him. I was somewhat
surprised when Mr. Wesley's plan of ordination was opened to me, and determined to sit in silence."
Note, it is not the "plan for governing the societies" that was opened to him, as it had been to
Dickins, but the ordinations. And in accordance with the purpose then formed he no doubt did sit
in silence during the Conference. For he was a dissenter through life to Asbury's continental
superintendency. The same authority says that in 1792, traveling with Asbury to Rhinebeck in New
York, some months only before the O'Kelly secession over the right of appeal, he quotes Garrettson
as recording in his Journal, "On the way we had some close conversation on church government. On
this subject there is not a perfect unanimity of sentiment," on which this authority comments: "What
particular point of church government it was concerning which they discoursed, we are not told; but
it is presumed that it related to the general superintendency, as Mr. Garrettson was of opinion that,
instead of having the whole continent under one general superintendency, it would have been better
if it had been divided among several, making each superintendent responsible for his own particular
district to the General Conference. To this opinion I believe he adhered through life, though he
calmly acquiesced in a decision of a majority of his brethren in this as well as in all matters relating
[10]
to the regulations of the discipline." Garrettson was of high reputation with the preachers for
unfeigned piety and sterling abilities, and was possessed of considerable means, so that Asbury
suffered from him, as he did from Nicholas Snethen, free criticism of his polity. There is no way of
determining how many more sat in silence and permitted without dissent the proceedings which they
saw to be foregone to have their course. Thus was organized a Church of ministers, by ministers, and
for ministers. Its only parallel in organization is the Roman hierarchy. It was also a Church of priests,
by priests, and for priests. The specious arguments by which the former was and is justified and the
refuting New Testament precedents and allied facts and arguments shall be produced at a later
period. The parental system of Asbury in imitation of that of Wesley may be condoned and excused
up to this formal usurpation of the right to select a form of church government, to organize and
proclaim it by the ministerial class solely. The task is to fasten upon it the responsibility of all the
divisions of American Methodism. Historically what has been educed thus far is preliminary.
Presently the consequents of that usurpation will demand almost continuous attention for a hundred
years. The question recurs: Did the Conference unanimously elect Dr. Coke and Asbury
superintendents? How can positive statements for and against be reconciled? If the fact be recalled
that the method of decisions was by questions and answers, there seems a simple solution of the
difficulty. It must have been a surprise indeed to those preachers, when Asbury made his demurrer