History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

in any district till it has been agreed upon by a majority of the Conference which is held in that
district. 4th. The bishops shall have authority to summon the council to meet at such times and
places as they shall judge expedient. 5th. The first council shall be held at Cokesbury, on the first
day of next December."
The plan in its sequence of events, and its lack of rhetorical finish, betrays the hand of Asbury
alone; there is nothing of the classical touch of Coke's pen in it, though he fully endorsed it at the
Conferences. Lee was suspicious of it, and looked at it askance. He further says: "This plan for
having a council was entirely new, and exceedingly dangerous. A majority of the preachers voted
in favor of it, but were soon sensible that the plan would not answer the purpose for which it was
intended. The council was to be composed of the bishops and the presiding elders; the presiding
elders were appointed, changed, and put out of office by the bishop, and just when he pleased; of
course the whole of the council was to consist of the bishops, and a few other men of their own
choice or appointing." In this he touches the very marrow of the plan, and it is wonderful that he does
not seem to see also that this is the genius of the system the Christmas Conference imposed upon
itself. The bishop is in supreme control, and all the verbiage about checks, here and there, and
references to the Conferences mean nothing as such. He also saw a dangerous provision in the third
clause, and says: "This I saw clearly when the plan was first proposed; and to which I then objected."
The first Council met in Baltimore instead of at Cokesbury, and Lee gives the proceedings in full,
but they need not be reproduced, except in the salient portions.
"The Proceedings of the Bishop and Presiding Elders of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in
Council assembled, at Baltimore, on the first day of December, 1789." "The following members
which formed the Council were present: Francis Asbury, Bishop, Richard Ivy, Reuben Ellis, Edward
Morris, James O'Kelly, Philip Bruce, Lemuel Green, Nelson Reed, Joseph Everett, John Dickins,
James O. Cromwell, Freeborn Garrettson." An examination of the minutes of this year shows that
these were all the Presiding Elders, except John Tunnell, who was absent, probably on account of
ill-health, as he was consumptive; Richard Whatcoat was absent, but Everett, being on the same
district with him as co-elder, took his place. Lemuel Green also took the place of Henry Willis as
a co-elder, and Francis Poythress was so absent. They spent an hour in prayer and then went to
business. Two things only need be noted, that deacons were put upon a three years' probation before
they could be ordained elders, and when the plan as passed by the Conference was read in the
Council, it was found that the item objected to by Lee was changed, probably by Asbury himself; for
the Bishop in that day did anything he wished to do, or thought best, so that, Lee says, "If a majority
of the preachers in the different districts should approve the proceedings of the Council, it should
then be binding on every preacher in each district, instead of a majority in every district." Lee
quaintly says that he gives the minutes in full "that the reason may be known why it [the Council]
was opposed, and why it was so soon given up, and rejected both by the Methodist preachers and
people." He also tells, in unwitting confirmation of the surmise of these pages, that the object of the
Council in its secret purpose was to substitute the assembling of the preachers, and so thwart any
answer they might concoct in opposition to the Episcopacy. "The number of conferences was
increased, so that but a small number of the preachers could collect at one place. There were fourteen
conferences appointed for the next year (1790)." [1]