History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

would make stimulating reading if it were known what was said; Coke, in his Journal of 1793, says,
"Asbury received him very coolly."
It will be remembered that the Conferences for this year were appointed for Salisbury, N. C., May
17th; at Petersburg, Va., June 19th; and Abingdon, Md., July 24. But here is an order from Wesley
to convene all the preachers in Baltimore, May 1, 1787. Asbury does not appear to have given any
sign of resistance to this exercise of authority, clearly reposed in Wesley by the Christmas
Conference; but who can tell the letters that were written on the route back as Asbury and Coke
traveled together, preaching on the way and notifying the preachers of the change of base, with
inklings of Wesley's commands. Can there be any doubt that they were tentative? That Coke and
Wesley meant to test Asbury? The two reached Salisbury where the first conference was to be held.
Asbury preached and they traveled on, one or the other and sometimes both preaching. They reached
Richmond, Va., where Coke preached, and on the 28th of April, in Alexandria, Va., he also
preached, thence to Bladensburg, and to Baltimore by Monday noon, April 30th, the day before the
Conference. Momentous as were its transactions, Asbury's Journal dismisses it with the observation,
"We had some warm and close debates in Conference; but all ended in love and peace. After much
fatigue and trouble, our Conference ended on Monday, the 6th of May." There is here a strange
mingling of terms, much trouble, warm debates, love, and peace. Jesse Lee says the conference that
was to have been held at Salisbury, May was held March 17, and that which was to have been held
in Petersburg, Va., June 19, was held at Rough Creek, Va., on the 19th of April. Asbury and Coke
must have both been present, but, as already seen, Asbury makes no mention of that at Salisbury, and
the printed Minutes do not recognize it. Notwithstanding, it seems quite certain that a number of
these preachers attended the Baltimore Conference, which gave it the character of a General
Conference. But as already discovered, these southern conferences since the Fluvanna days were
ignored legislatively. Neither is it known who, or how many, of the preachers were present. The
printed Minutes, though they occupy eleven pages, a larger space than usual, make no note of the
salient and vital events of the Conference. The incidental business was: regulations for the spiritual
instruction of the Negroes, now so termed; that married preachers shall not demand more than 48
(Pennsylvania currency) for salary a year; register books for marriages and baptisms, and a rule for
organizing the children into classes to be met weekly where practicable; and the appointment of six
conferences, the last in Baltimore, September 10, 1758. The opening question and its answer by a
parenthetic sentence reveals the vital business, "Who are the Superintendents of our Church for the
United States? Thomas Coke (when present in the States) and Francis Asbury."
A new paragraph is demanded for its consideration and understanding. It may be assumed as the
natural order that soon after the formal organization, Coke by precedence occupying the chair, he
opened his new commission from Wesley; the Conference had been convened by his order, under
a change both of time and place as appointed by the Conference of 1786, with his recommendation
that Whatcoat should be ordained a Superintendent for America, as well as the recognition of his
appointment of Garrettson as Superintendent for Nova Scotia in the British dominions. Such
unexpected claims put a number of the leading preachers upon their mettle. It was clearly seen that
the issue was raised between Wesley and Coke, and Asbury and the Conference. The "cool" manner
in which Asbury received Coke at Charleston was a precursor of the treatment he was to receive by
the Conference. Not a few of the Baltimore preachers had come to revolve around Asbury like
satellites around their superior orb, and his displeasure at what he regarded as an officious