History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

1 Page 99.
ENDNOTES
2 Moore's "Life of Wesley," American edition, Vol. I. p.279.
3 There is a moral certainty that the foot-note was not added and the word bishop interlarded in this
historical statement, until after the title bishop had been assumed in 1787, if indeed it was not the
work of Coke and Asbury when the minutes from 1775 to 1794, inclusive, were printed in one
volume by John Dickins under the authority of the now called bishops in 1795. When the minutes
of 1786 were printed the preachers discovered that without consulting the Conference the title
superintendent had been changed to bishop by Coke and Asbury themselves, and they were called
upon at the Conference of 1787 to explain. They then asked that the word might remain, and after
a contest, not a few of the preachers demurring, it was finally allowed by a majority of them. This
was the probable reason for inserting the foot-note and the word bishop as synonymous with
superintendent. This view is sustained by Dr. Atkinson in his "Centennial History of American
Methodism": "Such a notable procedure required explanation and justification. Therefore a note was
inserted in the minutes as follows 'As the translators,' etc." See pp. 88, 89.
4 Inquiring of my friend, Bishop Alpheus W. Wilson, of that Church, for an explanation of this
action, he furnished me this information with the pleasant remark that some of them were not so well
pleased that it was done. Why did the committee on revision do it? Since our conversation with the
Bishop the following motive was suggested by my reflections. The leader in that committee was the
late learned Rev. Dr. Summers. He was a Wesleyan preacher before he came to the United States,
and thought strongly partisan in his attachments to the M. E. Church both before and after the
division of 1844 when he went with his section of it, he knew full well that few Wesleyan preachers
or people believed that Wesley counseled and recommended the M. E. Church organization; so in
the interest of the truth of history he quietly, as chief reviser, left the preface out of the Discipline.
Should this motive for the act be questioned, let a better one be suggested, and it will be accepted.
In this the Church was wiser than their quondam brethren North, as well as in introducing full lay
parity of delegation in their General Conference at that same meeting in 1866.
5 This statement needs qualification. That General Conference appointed a committee to revise the
Discipline, of which Bishop Andrews was chairman, and an examination of the revised book shows
that the Historical Statement came under the revision, probably the work of Bishop Andrews. Dr.
Warren's suggestions, reinforced by other indubitable facts, may have led to this recast of the old
preface. The objectionable wording; claiming John Wesley for the direct paternity of Methodist
Episcopacy has been eliminated, though the bold declaration is made — The plan of Mr. Wesley was
submitted to them (the Conference of 1784), and it was unanimously and heartily approved." So that
the statement still needs expurgation on the ground that it cannot be verified, while the facts of this
History distinctly disprove it. In one other particular the Bishop makes an effort to shoot around the
corner when he states that Mr. Asbury was duly "consecrated a Bishop." This is the modified
language of the amended Form, but fails to state the truth in the light of 1784.