History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

upon his work with his accustomed diligence, though not without some pressure of spirit, as he had
reason to suspect that some unfriendliness had been manifested toward him, though he knew not by
whom. To Dr. Coke he felt a strong attachment and the sincerest affection, and says that 'they
mingled their tears together at this Conference.'" [4]
A few observations are called for on these statements. It was not the Conference that altered its
mind, and the implications all are that it did not. If it had during any of the after temporary absences
of Garrettson from the sessions, he would assuredly have been informed of it. He declares that he
had no suspicion of any change in his destination until his name was read out for the Peninsula. [5]
Who was it then exhibited this unfriendliness? In a system like that of the Methodist Episcopal
Church the power behind the throne is a frequent factor in administration, but palpably in this case
it need not be looked for as it did not exist. It could not have been Wesley, nor Coke, nor Black, nor
Cromwell; it was Asbury. Had Garrettson signified promptly his acceptance of the superintendency
from Asbury, there is little doubt that it would have been confirmed instead of repudiated at this
Conference. He showed instead a disposition to confer with Wesley and Coke by preference. It was
enough to decide the question adversely while other reasons may have entered into it. Another
superintendent on the North American continent might have proven inconvenient, if not of Asbury's
appointing.
Subsidiary facts establish the hypothesis. Wesley, either in honest simplicity of confidence in the
resolution to obey him in all matters of church government, or as a test of the honesty of the
resolution itself, in a letter dated September 6, 1756, ordered Dr. Coke to call "a General Conference
of all our preachers in the United States to meet in Baltimore on May 1, 1787." It was a principal
cause for leaving Wesley's name off the minutes at that very Conference, and of the degradation of
Dr. Coke by compelling him to sign an instrument that he would never thereafter exercise his office
as a Superintendent when absent from America, and that he would surrender all right to make the
appointments when present, and confine himself to traveling and ordaining. These crucial events are
here mentioned only for the specific purpose of connecting this arbitrary Episcopal assignment of
Garrettson to an unexpected field with them.
What his own personal opinions may have been of the transaction there are no means of knowing,
inasmuch as Garrettson never was a preacher with a grievance. Manly in the statement of his views,
he never provoked hostility by persistent combativeness. Hence, he remained true to the Church of
his choice to the end, though he may be claimed as the first of Reformers among the preachers
antedating Snethen in this field. In proof, his biographer furnishes unwittingly enough for the
purpose. Elected a member of every General Conference from that of 1812 to the close of his life,
through the respect and confidence he commanded of his brethren and not by truckling subserviency,
his biographer says "In this character, though he often differed with some of his brethren on certain
points of church government, he always manifested the most stern and inflexible opposition to any
innovation upon the established doctrines of the Church; at the same time cheerfully bowing to the
will of the majority on matters of indifference." In 1792 he was pronounced in favor of the election
of the presiding elders by the Conference, and of a diocesan Episcopacy instead of the General
Superintendency, and he adhered to his opinions to the end. In the General Conference of 1824,
though he had not reached the stage occupied by Snethen and his compeers, his biographer admits:
"Though Mr. Garrettson, in coincidence with the majority of his brethren, thought it inexpedient,