History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

continued to this day in the Methodist Episcopal Church, but was abolished in the Church South in
1866. It was found that in this year the qualifications as to Coke (when present in the United States)
were dropped, as a step of Asbury's toward his conciliation and that of his preacher friends in the
Conference. And now it appears that a farther concession was made, in 1789, perhaps to mollify, if
possible, Wesley, of whose treatment there began to be loud complaint; so the minutes were changed
again, and the following is the remarkable record: "Q. Who are the persons that exercise the
Episcopal office in the Methodist Church in Europe and America? A. John Wesley, Thomas Coke,
and Francis Asbury, by regular order and succession." Here is an asterisk and a foot-note, "See the
fourth section of the fifth edition of our Form of Discipline." That section disavows apostolical
succession as held by high churchmen in England, but there is no evidence that it was appended in
this year, while it is morally certain that it was added by Asbury when the minutes from 1775 to 1794
were printed and bound together, in 1795, or at the same time that the explanatory note was added
as to Bishop and Superintendent being interchangeable terms and more scriptural, as already
demonstrated. The minutes farther say: "Q. Who have been elected by the unanimous suffrages of
the General Conference to superintend the Methodist connection in America? A. Thomas Coke and
[3]
Francis Asbury." These radical changes, let it be understood first, were the work of Coke and
Asbury, and were not submitted to the Conference at all. The preachers came to their knowledge of
them when the printed minutes were placed in their hands some months after adjournment. Nothing
else has given the apologists of Coke and Asbury so much trouble as these questions and answers,
and with good reason. As to the motive for the changes, Lee confirms the surmise as to it, "As some
persons had complained of our receding from a former engagement made by some of our preachers,
that, 'during the life of Mr. Wesley in matters belonging to church government they would obey his
commands,' and as others had thought that we did not pay as much respect to Mr. Wesley as we
ought; the bishops introduced a question in the annual minutes which was as follows," etc.; then he
gives question first. "The next question was asked differently from what it had ever been in any of
the former minutes, which stands thus," etc., and then he cites the second question. Bangs, taking
his cue from Lee, though without acknowledgment, makes a lame effort at a similar explanation,
while his comments upon both the questions and answers, specially the "regular order and
succession" sentence, show him ill at ease as the truth forced itself upon him; but of which his
prejudices forbid the confession: so he straddles the difficulties, "There appears no little ambiguity
in this question and answer," followed by a direct charge that Coke and Asbury did not say what they
[4]
meant, and then proceeds to tell the reader what they did mean. Stevens does not attempt to handle
these questions and answers, except to say that it is "ambiguous" and "clumsy," certainly no
compliment to the classical learning of Coke and the direct style of Asbury, and dismisses them
entirely with a foot-note, "Both Lee and Bangs give the cause I have italicized (regular order and
succession), but it is not in the bound reprint of the Minutes. Bangs animadverts cautiously on the
[5]
peculiar phraseology of the answer." He either had no knowledge of the printed and bound volume
of minutes of 1795, or, purposely ignored it; for it is in this printed and bound volume of the minutes
that the "regular order and succession" is found and nowhere else. Reprints after 1795 do not
contain it, another evidence of the unwarrantable liberty the Bishops took with the only documents
through which the truth of history could be conveyed, and without a parallel in the records of any
other Christian Church, that of Rome alone excepted, in which similar changes and suppressions can
be found. Let us look closely into it. "By regular order and succession" is found in these questions
and answers, changed in order and in phraseology also, for reasons presently to be investigated, in
the minutes of 1789, 1790, and in those of 1791; but omitted in those of 1792 and from this date