History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

— there is no contention on the other side over it. What is contended is that Wesley never intended
the organization of an independent Church; that he never recommended the Episcopal, or any other
form of church government, except that contained in the "little sketch," of which nothing is known,
and that he meant to be mandatory without a General Conference or any other kind of a conference.
Nevertheless, the impression was made upon the preachers in 1784 that such was the fact, and
traditionally it was so received down to the investigations of Alexander McCaine. That this
impression was consummated by the suppression of some papers, the garbling of others, followed
by the violation of Wesley's most positive injunctions, known to Coke and presumably to Asbury.
That to make a show of Wesley's participation, unhistorical averments were introduced into the
Discipline and changed in phraseology from time to time as they were made before and after
Wesley's death. That these averments have been persisted in despite of abundant proof of their not
having been verified in the Methodist Episcopal Church to this day.
As noted before, the extreme ground of Alexander McCaine is not taken in this History, but the
position is believed to be impregnable that the proceedings were "questionable and unwarrantable."
This will be made transparent in the McCaine-Emory controversy of a later day. either is there
contention that what was done in 1784 and 1787 cannot be largely justified by expediency. Such
questions only raise a controversial dust to obscure or hide the real issues, as shall be disclosed in
season. And it may be repeated that no contention is made that the system of Asbury was not
efficient and potential, as much so in its measure, as that of Rome as perfected by Ignatius Loyola.
The contention is that the system of Asbury was false to manhood in its natural and inalienable
rights; false to New Testament precedents and the apostolical Church; false to the equality of
brotherhood and that priesthood of the people inculcated by the direct precepts and positive
implications of the Christian's only Master, the Lord Jesus Christ. The treatment of these subjects
by Bangs is pronounced in its partisan prejudice and needs no notice. That by Stevens is more
amiable to reason, and, though based in part upon misinformation or the lack of information, and
often fallacious, is masterful in its weakness of conclusion, and shall receive respectful consideration
in the proper place. It is certain that he would not and could not state the case today as he did thirty
years ago. Atkinson has rearranged the story, and, with his additional lights and native candor,
presents the whole matter as fairly and fully as any one could not a Methodist Dissenter. The view
of this History is that of such a Dissenter, which has never before been so fully educed and, it is
claimed, fairly presented.
A brief paragraph will suffice for the remaining doings of the Conference of 1787. As though
conscious that Wesley and his commissioner had been roughly handled, the preachers, Lee says,
endeavored to mollify him with a letter: "We then wrote a long and loving letter to Mr. Wesley, and
requested him to come over to America and visit his spiritual children." No record is known of this
letter. It was no doubt "long" and "loving" and kindly intended; but there is a flavor of sarcasm in
the invitation to cross the ocean to an old man of eighty-four years. Richard Owens, "one of the first
local preachers on the continent," has a brief obituary this year. The question recurs at all these
Conferences, continued in some form to this day, and has been a guarantee against irregularity of life
and immoral conduct in the preachers: "Are all the preachers blameless in life and conversation?
They were all strictly tried, one by one, before the Conference." The Methodist Church in all its
organizations has never waited for charges to be preferred — it has sought them out by this
examination. Conferences were ordered for "Charleston, S. C., March 12, 1788; in Georgia, April