History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the doctor and you differ from me. I
study to be little, you study to be great. I creep; you strut along. I found a school; you a college. Nay,
and call it after your own names Oh, beware! Do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, and
Christ be all in all.
One instance of this your greatness has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you,
suffer yourself to be called a bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought. Men may call me a knave,
or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never by my consent call me a
bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this! Let the Presbyterians
do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better.
Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart; and let this, when I am no more seen,
bear witness how sincerely I am your affectionate friend and brother,
John Wesley. [1]
When did Asbury receive this letter? McCaine, referring to the note in Asbury's Journal already
quoted, makes the "Query. Could this bitter pill be the above letter?" A little investigation will make
it morally certain. The letter is dated September 20, 1788. Remembering that ship communication
with America at this date was not only uncertain, but few and far between, it is not unreasonable to
assume that a month intervened before it was posted by ship. Allow a voyage of six weeks, about
the average time, to America, and it did not reach New York, or Philadelphia, before the close of
November. Now comes its transmission by the slow passenger mail and the slower horseback pouch
in the Southern states; the delays of redirection at the several distributing offices as the postal service
sent it in search of Asbury, whose particular whereabouts was by no means certain, and three months
and a half is not an over-allowance for the distance from, say New York to Charleston, S. C., where
it was finally addressed to him, for it was known that he would attend the Charleston Conference set
for the 12th of March, 1789. Asbury acknowledged the receipt of the "bitter pill," March 15, 1789.
Collaterally, when he heard of the decease of Wesley, two years afterward, he made note in his
Journal among phrases of highest compliment, "For myself, notwithstanding my long absence from
Mr. Wesley, and a few unpleasant expressions in some of his letters written to me (occasioned by
the misrepresentations of others), I feel the stroke most sensibly," etc. Moore takes immediate
occasion to correct this impression of Asbury's, "Mr. Asbury was, however, mistaken when he
supposed that Mr. Wesley was influenced by the misrepresentations of others; and not by the facts
stated, when he wrote those letters." And on whatever other letters Moore had his mind, it is clear
that he included this one of September 20, 1788, and so far forth it stands as an acknowledgment by
Asbury that it had been received; but it is the only one he ever made, and that was covert, as is seen.
Too much importance cannot be attached to this letter, despite the futile attempt of Dr. Emory in
1827-30 to minify it, to be noticed later, and of other annalists to the same purpose by sparse citation
of it, or suppression of it altogether from their Wesleyan histories and monographs, so that no excuse
need be made for a searching investigation into it.
And it is well to start with the fact that its genuineness has never been doubted, much less denied.
How did Moore come into its possession? He says he was present when Wesley wrote it. Did he act
as amanuensis and make the copy for Wesley? It was Wesley's habit to preserve copies of all