History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

obliged to acknowledge that I acted under your direction, or suffer me to sink under the weight of
my enemies, with, perhaps, your brother at the head of them." The very exigency had occurred.
Guileless, and true as the magnet to steel, Wesley came to his relief against his brother Charles and
the other "enemies" in the American matter. Coke had not failed to emphasize the fact, made such
at his own instance, as offsetting any other infractions of Wesley's orders, that the American
preachers had resolved "During the life of Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his sons in the
gospel, ready in matters belonging to church government to obey his commands." It was a salvo very
dear to him and largely condoned the irregularities of Coke and the obstreperous temperament of
Asbury. Wesley accordingly took part in the newspaper bout, and declared over his own name: "I
believe Dr. Coke is as free from ambition as from covetousness. He has done nothing rashly that I
know; but he has spoken rashly, which he retracted the moment I spoke to him of it. He is now such
a right hand to me as Thomas Walsh was. If you will not or cannot help me yourself, do not hinder
those who can and will." It was addressed to his brother Charles.
There is not a syllable in Wesley's Journal about these matters, and the English Conference itself,
which was opened July 26, 1785, was dismissed with a few lines. The apologists of Coke and Asbury
have, however, seized upon this deliverance of Wesley as a full and satisfactory endorsement of the
Christmas Conference doings. It is the straw at which the drowning man catches. Examined
critically, however, and it is found as unreliable as such a straw, logically speaking. The reader is
requested to remember references in this history and put in juxtaposition Wesley's verdict as to Coke
then and now. Then he found him ambitious. Then he knew him to be rash and often rebuked him.
Now he is eighty-two years old and has a friend in peril. Now he does not know all the facts as
consequents of the Christmas Conference, or he could not and would not have attempted this
vindication of Dr. Coke. A writer who cannot be charged with bias against Dr. Coke says of this
vindication of Wesley, "It has been confidently quoted to refute the allegation that at the Christmas
Conference Coke exceeded the authority with which Wesley invested him. Had Mr. Wesley known
that Coke claimed he ordained Asbury a Bishop, would he thus have exculpated him from the charge
of rashness? [3]
Time must be taken to restate the true logical position on this question. It has been put by Henry
Moore, already quoted for this purpose, "Mr. Wesley never gave his sanction to any of these things."
Not a line has ever been produced to show that he did, and this burden of proof lies upon those who
assert that he did to this day. But is there any proof to the contrary? As demanded by the situation
logically, it need not be produced, but it is overwhelming in its character. It may be summarized
here, as it will be itemized in the controversy of McCaine vs. Emory, of 1820. It is in proof that when
Wesley discovered what had really been done and was made to feel the consequences of it, he was
grieved and severely rebuked the principals in it. He was never known to write or recognize the title,
The Methodist Episcopal Church, nor did the British Conference ever write or recognize it in their
official communications with the American Methodists for thirty-five years afterward, or down to
the fraternal visit of Rev. Dr. Emory in 1820. He bitterly repented of his American ordinations,
before he died, in view of the advantage which had been taken of it at said Christmas Conference,
and well-nigh lost all patience with Dr. Coke for the part he took in bringing about the separation.
His letter to Asbury reviewing his assumptions will stand forever as one of the severest examples
of Christian rebuke ever administered; which cannot be explained away nor mitigated, it contained
much more that is collateral and cogent to the same purpose.