History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

ENDNOTES
1 Dr. Scudder, in his "American Methodism," 8vo, cloth, 1870, illustrated, furnishes a conspicuous
instance how pseudo-Methodist historians draw upon their imagination for their facts. In Chap. XII.,
he describes at length the substance of an interview between Asbury and Lee at this time, so adroitly
framed as to mislead Rev. G. C. Bacon in his booklet on the "Polity of the M. E. Church, and the
Baltimore Conference resolutions of 1895,'' into quoting from Scudder a section of this imaginary
conversation of Asbury and Lee as fact and not fiction. Scudder is full of errors, notably locating
Strawbridge's log church "in Fairfax County, Va.," etc., etc. His book is a literary romance, but
utterly unreliable for reference.
2 The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 1866, also ordered its
republication, but if published it is not used. The people called Methodists "are not Episcopalians,
and if they were legislators they would not have the sham of it, not even the title "Bishop," for the
plain, godly Superintendent, Wesley intended."
3 Atkinson's History," p. 95.
4 Bangs' "Life of Garrettson," pp. 150-187.
5 Jesse Lee's account differs somewhat from this view, but what he says cannot invalidate
Garrettson's own declarations. Lee says "Mr. Wesley had given directions for brother F. Garrettson
to be ordained a superintendent for Nova Scotia; but when the business was taken into consideration,
some of the preachers insisted that if he was ordained for that station he should confine himself
wholly to that place for which he was set apart, and not be at liberty to return again to this part of the
country. Mr. Garrettson did not feel free to enter into an obligation of that kind, and chose rather to
continue as he was, and therefore he was not ordained." It may be assumed that the preachers who
offered such an argument echoed the views of Asbury, and thus only confirm the conjecture that he
could not brook another superintendent on the American continent. It does not seem probable,
however, that Garrettson had given any reason for such an argument, inasmuch as he knew full well
that he would be under Wesley a Superintendent for Nova Scotia alone, just as he set apart Coke,
and through him, Asbury, as superintendents for America, and afterward Mather as Superintendent
for Scotland. If, however, he did make the point alleged, and would not be circumscribed, then the
case simply antedated by one hundred years the recent one of Bishop Taylor, who claimed to be a
full-fledged bishop, while the General Conference finally interpreted that he was only a missionary
bishop for Africa.
*************************************