History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

connection with it might lead to "similar designs and attempts in these United States"; and
opposition to a National Church as the "bane of truth and holiness, and a great impediment to the
progress of vital Christianity." It is quite a severe, if a truthful, arraignment at the time. His second
paragraph gives the gist of it: "For these reasons, we have thought it our duty to form ourselves into
an independent church. And as the most excellent mode of church government, according to our
maturest judgment, is that of a moderate Episcopacy; and as we are persuaded that the uninterrupted
succession of Bishops from the Apostles can be proved neither from Scripture nor antiquity; we,
therefore, have constituted ourselves into an Episcopal Church, under the direction of Bishops,
Elders, Deacons, and Preachers, according to the forms of ordination annexed to our prayer book,
and the regulations laid down in this form of discipline."
Ten years had now elapsed since Asbury usurped authority and, with his retainers, virtually
expelled the regular Conference in Fluvanna County, Va., by reason of their liberal reconstruction
of the American Methodist Society polity: organizing a Presbytery for ordination and opening the
way to such a system. Then, as Drew, Coke's biographer, recites, gathering his information from
Coke himself, Asbury "had not yet shaken off the rusty fetters of 'apostolical succession.'" His
ecclesiastical reading at that date was confined to Potter. But, as his Journal indicates, in after years
he came to widen his investigation into church history, and in this way he was delivered from the
"rusty fetters." But it would be premature to conclude that his views were abstractly moderated. In
declining to recognize Wesley as the source of his Episcopal functions in this revised statement, it
will be plainly observed that he was growing into the opinion that in some sense, plainly enough
defined in his own mind, he was an Apostle. It was not until 1805, seventeen years after the
Conference of 1788, that he formulated and published it. He came to the Widow Sherwood's in New
York State, May 22, and says: "In this state the subjects of succession, rebaptism, are much agitated.
I will tell the world what I rest my authority upon. 1. Divine authority. 2. Seniority in America. 3.
The election of the General Conference. 4. My ordination by Thomas Coke, William Philip
Otterbein, German Presbyterian minister, Richard Whatcoat, and Thomas Vasey. 5. Because the
signs of an apostle have been seen in me." It seems to mean that he had established a new "
succession," of which evidence shall be submitted when the Conference of 1789 is reached in course.
The new Discipline, with its emendations and additions as set forth, was adopted. When the
minutes of this Conference were printed another conspicuous change was made, and for which there
seems to have been no Conference action. Lee says: "When the minutes for this year were printed
the condition of Dr. Coke's being a bishop 'when in the United States' was left out, and the question
was changed and was entered thus: Q. Who are the bishops for our Church for the United States?
A. Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury." The change was immaterial, as the Conference held his
abdication paper, and it may have been one of Asbury's methods of conciliating a man to whom he
owed so much.
The preachers, Matson, Cloud, and Chew, are noted as "desisting from travel," but Lee says this
was a mild way of expelling those who did not stand a trial. The rigors of the itinerancy six months
in a place — were so felt, that Boyer, Dudley, Cannon, Wyatt, Michael Ellis, and Pigman had "a
partial location," having families. Four died, Major, Hickson, Curtis, and Elijah Ellis. Nineteen new
circuits were taken in and fifty-two young preachers were received. There was an increase, Lee says,
of 11,481, 9000 of them south of Pennsylvania. There were now 85 circuits and 165 preachers.