History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

important letters, and, knowing how vital it would be as an historical document some time not very
distant, did Moore make the third copy for his own use, and is this the one from which he quotes?
Or, did Wesley make the copy himself which was preserved among his papers? Moore's "Life" was
not published until 1824, or thirty-six years after the letter was written, and yet he gives the
Methodist world the first and only knowledge of it. It was not found in Coke's and Moore's "Life of
Wesley," published in 1792, and it is not quoted or referred to by Whitehead; Asbury suppressed the
original and finally destroyed it, as there was no hint of it among his posthumous papers. It will be
remembered that Coke, Moore, and Whitehead were Wesley's literary executors, with authority
jointly to publish or burn as they might decide. All the papers were soon thereafter put into
Whitehead's hands to write Wesley's life. How did it occur then that he does not include this letter
in it, unfriendly as he was known to be to both Coke and Asbury? Was it abstracted before he saw
the papers, and by whom? If Coke knew of its existence, he never disclosed it. All these inquiries
challenge you and will not down. The conclusion is irresistible: Moore either abstracted it, having
access to the papers, or he made a third copy, and suppressed it for thirty-six years, long after all the
parties were dead.
The reader is left to surmise the motive — the writer confesses that he cannot, except it be the
unparalleled severity of it, and its disclosures which show both Coke and Asbury in so unenviable
a light. Moore gives a reason for revealing the letter even at so late a date: "I have thought it my duty
thus to show how invariably Mr. Wesley cherished those principles which so eminently shone in the
early period of his Christian course, and which issued in what may be called a hatred of all display,
except that of truth, love, and victory over the world; and when the Lord had given him so great a
people, and such a number of able coadjutors." He then endeavors to palliate the offense the letter
so unsparingly denounces; but in turn he seems to forget that it is to him history is indebted for the
kindred information that Wesley had solemnly charged Coke, and Asbury through him, that the
prelatical title was not to be taken by either of them. It is plain that this is the gist of the offense. In
proof, Jonathan Crowther, an English Wesleyan preacher, has limned the salient temper of Wesley
with the brush of a verbal master. "His natural temper was warm and vehement. Religion had done
much in correcting this, yet it was visible. Persecution from without he bore without wrath, and
apparently almost without feeling. But when he was opposed by his preachers or people, his
displeasure was visible. But never did the sun go down upon his wrath, nor did he in this respect give
place to the devil; generally it was over almost in a moment: he was easily pacified, and ready to
forgive injuries and affronts. It has been said of him, that:
'He carried anger as the flint bears fire;
Which, much enforced, shows a hasty spark,
And straight is cold again.'
Of this imperfection, however, he was very sensible, and very readily acknowledged it, and
sometimes asked forgiveness in such a spirit of genuine humility, as greatly affected those who
[2]
witnessed it." This feature from life is so admirably drawn that it has been wrought into the
historical compositions of others, and at times without credit. The point of it for present purpose is,
that "when he was opposed by his preachers or people, his displeasure was visible," and concurrent
testimony is to the same effect.