History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

METHODIST REFORM
Edward J. Drinkhouse, M.D., D.D.
Volume I
CHAPTER 24
Drew on the private interview at Barratt's — Wesley's plan; Coke's confession that it was not
carried out, and Moore's averment that Wesley had nothing to do with the organization of 1784;
evidences in support of it — Coke and Asbury garbled the minutes of 1784, when printed in 1795;
cumulative proofs — Historical preface to the Discipline erroneous, and should he expunged — It
was done by the M. E. Church South, in 1866, and the M. E. Church will yet do it — Futile attempts
of historians to show that the "people" approved the polity of 1784 at the time — The hierarchy in
operation under Asbury — Snethen's foresight in aphorisms; logic correct, but facts not realized —
No change of power, but of administration.
Drew, in his "Life of Coke," says as to the private meeting of Coke and Asbury after the Barratt
chapel interview: "On leaving the chapel they repaired together to the house of a hospitable friend,
who had anticipated their interview on their arrival. Here they took into consideration the plan which
Mr. Wesley had devised for the government and discipline of the societies in America, and concerted
measures for carrying his designs more fully into execution; especially as the measures to be adopted
[1]
met the full approbation of Mr. Asbury, and therefore ensured their mutual co-operation." He was
dependent for his information upon what Coke told him, and he probably only told him as much as
the case required. Drew was not a party to the private interviews of Wesley and Coke, as Henry
Moore claims to have been to the essential matters Drew here mentions. He states the case precisely
in accord with the common opinion of the American preachers, not only at the time, but down to
McCaine's investigations in 1827-30. Coke and Asbury did take into consideration Wesley's "plan,"
but it was amended in execution by reason of Asbury's dissent to various features, so that no man
knows what that plan was. How is it known that he dissented? In one particular, as already fully
exposed: from his own pronounced deliverance; he would not be a superintendent according to
Wesley's appointment. How is it known that his "plan" was not followed? From Coke's confession
in his letter to Bishop White of the Protestant Episcopal Church, written from Richmond, Va., in
April 24, 1791, without Asbury's knowledge, although he was traveling and sleeping with him, and
some days before he had heard of Wesley's decease. In that letter Coke says "I am not sure but I went
farther in the separation of our church in America than Mr. Wesley, from whom I received my
commission, did intend. He did indeed solemnly invest me, as far as he had a right to do, with
Episcopal authority, but did not intend, I think, that our entire separation should take place." The
qualification, "I am not sure," every reader understands only makes the confession more emphatic.
If he could have enclosed Wesley's "little sketch" of church government for the Methodists, his case
would have been made very strong with Bishop White; but by this time it had been consigned to the
"tomb of the Capulets." How is it known that Wesley's plan was not followed? From the emphatic
evidence of Henry Moore, who declared that "Mr. Wesley never gave his sanction to any of these
things; nor was he the author of one line of all that Dr. Coke published in America on this subject."
"In this (calling themselves bishops) and in every similar deviation, I cannot be the apologist of Dr.
[2]
Coke." In passing it is important for the reader to note one expression here: "Wesley never gave
his sanction to any of these things." This puts the burden of proof where it belongs, and this