History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

METHODIST REFORM
Edward J. Drinkhouse, M.D., D.D.
Volume I
CHAPTER 30
Asbury's address to President Washington in New York, May 29, 1789, and its connection with
the omission of Dr. Coke's name from the British minutes in 1786; and its complications in the
McCaine-Emory controversy of 1827-28; the whole subject being traversed as never before by any
writer, and a true solution found — Asbury and Sunday-schools — William Hammett, and the
secession of 1792 in Charleston, S. C., the Coke, Asbury, Wesley intricacies; and Bishop Capers'
error of statement in 1844; the knotty skein unraveled — Antecedents of the O'Kelly secession,
1791-92; final overthrow of the Council with Coke's assistance through O'Kelly; Asbury's first defeat
— Asbury and Coke together at the Conferences watching each other — Coke's secret letter to
Bishop White; when mailed; was it before or after he heard of Wesley's death? proved to be before,
and Dr. Emory discredited.
A few dropped threads of history need to be taken up ere the finality of the Council matter and
its issuance in a General Conference are resumed. At the New York Conference of 1789, held in
New York City, May 28, the first Congress of the United States under the new Constitution being
in session, and Washington, as President of the country, also present, it was thought by Asbury and
Coke a good stroke of ecclesiastical policy to make him a congratulatory address. The Conference
authorized it, and Dickins and Morrell, the leading preachers, were appointed to wait on Washington
and have him designate a day for the reception of the bishops. May 29 was designated, and,
accordingly, Asbury, Coke accompanying him and the committee, read the address, Morrell says,
"with great self-possession and in an impressive manner. The President read his reply with fluency
and animation." The full text of these addresses is given by both Bangs and Stevens. They were
afterward printed in the newspapers of the day; and other denominations followed the example set
them. They are invested with importance by the sequel, and this seems an appropriate place for its
succinct mention. Asbury makes no reference to it whatever in his Journal. The only note is: "Our
Conference began. All things were conducted in peace and order." Tyerman is silent. Drew, Coke's
biographer, brings it into prominence, and through his misleading suggestions as to the date it forms
a large part of the McCaine-Emory controversy of 1827-30. Drew introduces his account of it with
his eighth chapter, which treats of the events of 1785-86. A more careful biographer would not have
made the error, though his excuse for this and other lapses of date is found in the preface, where he
says that Dr. Coke left on his fatal voyage to India, intending to put his papers in chronological order
on the way; but his untimely death prevented, so that the papers and notes when received by Drew
were in no consecutive order; hence his blunders. Drew says — the substance is given — that on
Coke's arrival at the British Conference of 1789, his part in the address to Washington had preceded
him and was brought forward as a serious charge by those unfriendly to him. It was declared
inconsistent in him as a British subject to join in such an address, as it was "a tacit impeachment of
Mr. Wesley's political sentiments," and "calculated to provoke the indignation of government"
against the Methodists. "Dr. Coke heard these charges against him in profound silence" and "as some
decisive steps were necessary in this critical affair, it was finally determined that the name of Dr.
Coke should be omitted in the minutes of the succeeding year." Unfortunate Dr. Coke, he had