History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

it. Besides, even allowing that Coke and Asbury had a right to designate themselves bishops of the
Methodist churches in America, what was their authority for pronouncing Wesley the bishop of the
Methodist Church of Europe? They had none. It was an unwarrantable liberty taken with the name
of a venerable man, who had censured the use of such an appellation, and whose humility and
modesty Coke would have been none the worse for copying. As it was, Wesley was held up to
ridicule and made to suffer, on account of the episcopal ambition of his friends." [9]
Let this dismiss for the time the unsavory business, except to cite the second question allied to
the first in the Discipline of 1789. "Q. Who have been elected by the unanimous suffrages of the
General Conference to superintend the Methodist connection in America? A. Thomas Coke and
Francis Asbury." The phrasing is wonderful: that Asbury should make a parade of "elected by the
unanimous suffrage," at the very time he was now scheming to do away with the last vestige of it in
the "Council" which he set on foot only a few months after these minutes came from the press. And
the modesty of it passes belief: "to superintend" — no longer a "bishop" for a purpose — "the
Methodist connection in America," — no longer the "Methodist Episcopal Church in America." And
poor, vain, supercilious, yet cringing Dr. Coke is quite overborne because his name is once more
coupled with Asbury's. He is now ready to do his bidding, and talked so freely of his exploits that
the chagrined and disappointed Wesley lost patience with him in his efforts to bring about the same
state of things in England. Pawson says in reference to the English ordinations: "A few months
before his death, he was so annoyed by Dr. Coke's conduct in persuading the people to depart from
the original plan, that he threatened in a letter to have no more to do with him unless he desisted
from such a course." However Asbury's essay to conciliate Coke had succeeded by these questions
and answers in 1789, Wesley was not influenced by them. As a Christian gentleman he did not refuse
answers to Asbury's letters; for, though some of them have been quoted to show how ironical must
have been their relations, not a line has ever been produced indicating that he gave counsel for the
organization of an Independent Church, or that he recommended the Episcopal form of government
for it, or that he ever recognized the Christmas Conference, even to pen the title of Asbury's Church,
or in any way to countenance the separation from him and the Church of England to the day of his
death. He treated the whole business with silent repudiation, having better things to employ his time
than in unavailing remonstrance. Once only was he exasperated into breaking that silence, but then
it was to the purpose in the letter to Asbury of September 20, 1788.
Thus the negative evidence is complete, while the positive is cumulative and equally decisive.
During this very year 1789, and onward to his death, Wesley publicly repented of his ordinations for
America, and wherefore? His whole object had been abused and perverted by Coke and Asbury, for
if in anything they had carried out his intent there would have been no occasion for his bitter regrets.
One of these parties, Dr. Coke himself, is witness, though unwittingly. In his letter to Bishop White
in 1791, he says: "He [Wesley] went farther, I am sure, than he would have done [the ordinations],
if he had foreseen some events that followed. And this I am certain of — that he is now sorry for the
separation." Another unimpeachable witness is Rev. James Creighton, who took part at Wesley's
request in the ordinations, replying to a pamphlet of Samuel Bradburn's published in 1793, says with
emphasis: "I must take the liberty publicly to contradict you [Bradburn had denied that Wesley ever
expressed regrets]. He did repent of it [ordinations], and with tears in his eyes expressed his sorrow
both in public and private." Again he says: "He likewise expressed his sorrow respecting this matter
[10]
at Leeds Conference, in 1789, and occasionally afterward in London, until his death." McCaine,