History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

of his promise." No farther attention need be paid to the argument, now that it is so clearly
established that the conclusion reached was foregone. The following is the instrument of abdication
he signed before witnesses.
I do solemnly engage by this instrument that I never will, by virtue of my office as Superintendent
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, during my absence from the United States of America, exercise
any government whatever in the said Methodist Church during my absence from the United States.
And I do also engage that I will exercise no privilege in the said Church, when present in the United
States, except that of ordaining, according to the regulations and laws already existing or hereafter
to be made by said Church, and that of presiding when present in Conference, and lastly that of
traveling at large. Given under my hand, the second day of May, in the year 1787.
Thomas Coke
Witnesses: John Tunnell, John Hagerty, Nelson Reed
Was ever defeat more overwhelming — was ever humiliation more complete? And this is the
explanation of the parenthetic qualification of the minute (when present in the States). Asbury
probably took no open part in the debate whatever; but it is evident that not a step was taken about
which he was not consulted by his loyal adherents, so that the action of the Conference was his
action as well. Well might Coke take up the soliloquy of Banquo — "Thou hast it now, King,
Cawdor, Glamis, all." With the expunging of the minute, Wesley's name disappeared entirely from
the official records. "Who are the Superintendents of our Church in the United States? Thomas Coke
(when present in the States) and Francis Asbury."
The next important matter was the nomination of Whatcoat to be a joint Superintendent. It was
easily disposed of, for the king being dethroned, the arguments of O'Kelly prevailed and the
Conference resolved to non-concur. As late as 1796, Coke in a letter avers that, at the Charleston
conference of 1787, Asbury acquiesce in the appointment of Whatcoat as a joint Superintendent, and
Philip Bruce in the same year affirmed that he was not opposed to the appointment, and Whatcoat
himself declared that he received a letter from Asbury shortly after the arrival of Coke in Charleston
advising him to meet Asbury at the warm springs in Virginia, "and we will make out a plan for your
route through the continent." And Snethen, through Asbury in his Reply to O'Kelly reminds the latter
that at Dick's Ferry upon Dan River, he told O'Kelly that it was "best to accept Richard Whatcoat."
This evidence is collocated by Dr. Emory in the McCaine-Emory Controversy. No doubt Asbury on
the first blush of the subject thought it "best" to "acquiesce." He was far too politic a man to throw
[2]
himself into a deadly breach before he had time to reconnoiter. But who does not see that, with
his dominating influence with the Baltimore Conference whenever he chose to assert it, he could
have turned the scale for Whatcoat by saying as much then, two months later? The same may be said
of leaving Wesley's name off the minutes. In this, too, Emory, citing from Snethen's Reply to
O'Kelly, Asbury, speaking through Snethen, who simply edited the manuscript Asbury had himself
prepared as a Reply, as will be shown later, says — "Asbury was not deserving of the smallest blame
in the whole business." This, however, goes farther than Asbury himself ventures to go in his Journal
account — "I was mute when it was expunged. And for this very reason the responsibility lodged
with him. He was content to see it done and the more so because he did not seem to be the doer of
it. For who does not see that his persuasive force and iron will, if at all exerted, could have prevented