History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

to retain the former title; but a majority of the preachers agreed to let the word Bishop remain; and
in the annual minutes for the next year, the first question is, 'Who are the Bishops of our Church for
the United States?' In the third section of this form of Discipline, and on the sixth page, it is said:
'We have constituted ourselves into an Episcopal Church under the direction of bishops, elders,
deacons, and preachers, according to a form of ordination annexed to our prayer book, and the
regulations laid down in the form of discipline. From that time the name of bishop has been common
among us, both in conversation and in writing.'"
It needs to be observed that the "History" by Lee was not written for twenty-three years after 1787,
so that when he speaks of "our Superintendents" doing these things, he either forgets that
Superintendent Coke was not in the United States during the year these changes were made in the
Discipline, or that he knew it to be a fact that Asbury, by correspondence with Dr. Coke in England,
had secured his approbation to the changes.
If so, Lee might have regarded him as constructively present. While it is not probable that Asbury
secured his cooperation in this way, the inherent probability is that Coke would readily have
concurred, as he claimed to have ordained Asbury a "Bishop," as he was in fact a three-order
Episcopalian. It is, however, certain that Asbury did not write to Wesley for his concurrence, for a
reason to be given shortly, of so crushing a nature that most any man but one constituted like Asbury
would have been overwhelmed by it to the point of retraction. This work, then, of changing the
Discipline without the consent of the Conference must be fathered upon Asbury alone. He had it
reprinted this year, 1787-88. It seems passing strange that he should venture to make this substitution
of Bishop for Superintendent in the face of the moral certainty that Coke had informed him of the
solemn manner in which Wesley had admonished him, as Moore relates, that it must not be taken,
and in view of the farther facts that Asbury and others had been compelled, from the force of
Methodist disapprobation, to abandon the canonicals, and that the Prayer Book of Wesley soon fell
into desuetude, because both were esteemed by the sober preachers, and the people, so far as they
ventured opinion, mere apings of the Episcopalians. It can be accounted for only on the principle that
his ruling passion could not be controlled, and it was a 'dernier [sic] resort' for the revival of an
empty dignity. That it was an error of judgment there can be no doubt, in view of the future unity and
peace of the organization. There seems to have been in the Conference a pronounced opposition to
it in opposition which cannot be appreciated unless account is taken of the moral courage required
to dissent to any proposal of the "Bishop." A majority at last submitted, but it kindled a flame in the
minority, however trampled upon, and however suppressed, which continued to smolder, and has
never expired. It led to much discussion, and fostered the hierarchal notion among the preachers.
In letter addresses, the simple name, or the old custom of prefixing "Rev." prevailed; but this
smacked too much of equality among the "orders," so that about a year after, Lee says "At the
conference this year (1789) the bishops proposed a new plan for directing our letters to each other,
which was to this effect, that we should leave out the word reverend, and say 'to A. B. — Bishop,
Elder, Deacon, or Preacher.' Many of the preachers adopted the plan; but others who did not favor
the alteration, directed as they pleased, or as they formerly had done." O'Kelly says: "And it came
to pass about the year 1787 Francis directed the preachers that, whenever they wrote to him, to title
him Bishop. They did so, and this was the beginning of our spurious Episcopacy." This criticism
Asbury felt called upon to notice ten years afterward. "The secret and truth of the matter was this: