History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

media.sabda.org
from media.sabda.org More from this publisher
21.07.2013 Views

was a man with a grievance, and his attacks upon Asbury and the American Church were so severe that Asbury, shortly after the Conference, felt that he must defend himself: "I received an abusive, anonymous letter (I believe from Mr. S.), on several subjects. My spirits were low; I came from my knees to receive the letter, and having read it, I returned whence I came; I judged it prudent and expedient, and I think I was urged thereto by conscience, to tell the people of some things relating to myself. I related to them the manner of my coming to America; how I continued during the war; the arrival of Dr. Coke, and the forming of the American Methodists into a Church; and finally why I did not commit the charge of the society in Charleston to Mr. Hammett, who was unknown, a foreigner, and did not acknowledge the authority of, nor join in connection with, the American [11] Conference." He had appointed Daniel Smith to Charleston. Before following Asbury to Georgia to meet that Conference observe what Dr. Coke is doing. He spent a week or more in Charleston and then started to overtake Asbury at the Georgia Conference. How many letters he wrote to O'Kelly and others of the disaffected preachers, who, learning of his arrival, plied him with letters also, and were encouraged in their war upon the Council by finding Dr. Coke one with them, must be conjectured. That he wrote such letters is evident from what subsequently took place. Perhaps he prepared another letter famous in the esoteric history of early Methodism, the contents and purpose of which he imparted neither to Asbury nor to the confederate preachers against him. The conjecture that it was written in Charleston is based upon its elaborate character. It is dated later, "Richmond (Va.), April 24, 1791." But whether prepared at Charleston or some days later is immaterial. Sunday, March 13, at Georgetown, Ga., Asbury says: "Dr. Coke came in time to preach, and then we opened a Conference. We sat very closely to our work, and had some matters of moment to attend to in the course of our deliberations." They travel together, eat and sleep together, confer anent local Conference matters, Asbury cautiously scanning his companion since his change of mind as to the Council, and Coke, with a secret letter in his pocket addressed to Bishop White of the Protestant Episcopal Church, now resident in Philadelphia. They alternate in preaching, Asbury giving Coke the preference, as his preaching abilities were of a high order. Asbury writes: "My body is weak, but my mind has heaven and peace within. We closely employed our intervals of leisure in preparing different tracts for the press." Asbury always availed of the superior education of Coke for such literary work. Onward they go to Salisbury in North Carolina, and hold the Conference. They are in Virginia, April 10, at sister Walker's in Brunswick, "Dr. Coke went to the barn and I preached in the house; the rain rendered our meeting uncomfortable." They reach Petersburg. Asbury says, "We agreed to take different lodgings during the sitting of the Conference." Why do these friends thus part? It may be a matter of personal convenience only, and it may be that they differed so widely as to the Council that they felt more comfortable apart. They had met with O'Kelly and others in North Carolina, and Coke was more and more enlisted on their side, and was emboldened in his talks with Asbury, who says: "The business of our Conference was brought on in peace. . . . The affair of the Council was suspended until a General Conference." Just after the Conference, Monday, April 25, Asbury writes: "I found the Doctor had much changed his sentiments since his last visit to this continent; and that these impressions still continued. I hope to be enabled to give up all I dare for peace's sake; and to please all men for their good to edification." The famous — or, shall it not be said in the interest of fair dealing of man with man, Asbury with Coke and the reverse, and of impartial history, the infamous — letter which Coke had been waiting a favorable opportunity to mail is subscribed, as already cited, "Richmond, April 24, 1791." It was

[12] not mailed there, for the bishops did not stop at Richmond during this tour. April 24, they were at Colonel Clayton's in Virginia, the next day at New Castle; the 27th, in Carolina County, thirty miles from New Castle. It was probably mailed at New Castle, inasmuch as a "P.S." attached to the letter says, "You must excuse interlineations, etc. I am just going into the country, and have no time to transcribe." On the 28th, they were at Pope's Chapel, and "we hasted to Port Royal where the people were waiting, to whom the Doctor preached," etc. On Friday, the 29th of April, at Port Royal they heard through the public papers of the death of Wesley. The letter was mailed ere this, or it would not have been sent at all. This is clear from the contents. Wesley's death thwarted the purpose in view. It establishes a moral certainty that it was mailed at New Castle on the 25th of April, or four days before Coke had heard of Wesley's decease. [13] The point just made is pivotal largely of the entire matter, and reference has already been made to the disingenuous attempt of Rev. Dr. John Emory in his controversy with Rev. Alexander McCaine to overthrow it. The word disingenuous is used advisedly, and to the readers is submitted the proof for their verdict. Dr. Emory affirmed as to the date of Coke's letter to Bishop White and the date of Coke's knowledge of Wesley's death, "The fact is that Mr. Wesley at the time was dead." The italic is his own. What does he mean? He is primarily essaying to prove that the letter of Coke to White could not have been written as Rev. Kewley affirmed, echoed by Dr. Wyatt, both of the Protestant Episcopal Church, "with the sanction, if not actually by the order of Mr. Wesley." Emory says," We deny the statement and demand the proof. The fact is that Mr. Wesley at the time was [14] dead." What does he mean? That Coke could not have had an interview with Wesley before he left England for America, in which such a method of restoring peace to the American Church under the Council distractions was suggested by Coke and sanctioned by Wesley? He cannot mean that, or, to use his own language, "we deny the statement and demand the proof." What does he mean? Simply to assert that, "at that time Wesley was dead." As a naked fact it was true, for Wesley died March 2, 1791. He cannot mean that and be ingenuous; for the only point is: Did Coke know of Wesley's death April 24, 1791, the date of the letter to White? Was he misled by Drew on Coke, as to the date, as McCaine was misled by him as to the address to Washington being in 1785, instead of 1789? It is just possible, but not probable, for he does not cite Drew in proof of his allegation, though Drew says," He [Coke] had been preaching on the evening of the 20th of April at a place called Port Royal, in Virginia, and had engaged to preach about twelve miles distant at ten o'clock on the ensuing morning. But on returning after the evening preaching to the house of a merchant where he was to lodge, he was informed by him that the Philadelphia papers had just announced to [15] the public the death of Mr. Wesley." It is not probable, because Emory had Asbury's Journal before him and could have corrected Drew by Asbury. Nothing can be clearer than that April 20 in Drew is a typographical error for 29, or Drew misread Coke's posthumous notes, or Coke himself wrote 20 for 29. But Emory does not give Drew as his authority. Why not? He either knew it or he did not. If he knew it, his failure to cite exhibits the adroit misleader. If he did not know it, then the facts, as given by Asbury and of which Emory could not have been ignorant, are a demonstration that he was disingenuous when he affirmed that "Wesley at that time was dead," meaning as he must that Coke knew he was dead before April 24, 1791. He did not know it until April 29. The question may recur in the McCaine-Emory controversy of 1827-30, but it is thought best to settle it here in its proper connection. An analysis of the secret letter itself must be reserved to another chapter. *************************************

[12]<br />

not mailed there, for the bishops did not stop at Richmond during this tour. April 24, they were<br />

at Colonel Clayton's in Virginia, the next day at New Castle; the 27th, in Carolina County, thirty<br />

miles from New Castle. It was probably mailed at New Castle, inasmuch as a "P.S." attached to the<br />

letter says, "You must excuse interlineations, etc. I am just going into the country, and have no time<br />

to transcribe." On the 28th, they were at Pope's Chapel, and "we hasted to Port Royal where the<br />

people were waiting, to whom the Doctor preached," etc. On Friday, the 29th of April, at Port Royal<br />

they heard through the public papers of the death of Wesley. The letter was mailed ere this, or it<br />

would not have been sent at all. This is clear from the contents. Wesley's death thwarted the purpose<br />

in view. It establishes a moral certainty that it was mailed at New Castle on the 25th of April, or four<br />

days before Coke had heard of Wesley's decease. [13]<br />

The point just made is pivotal largely of the entire matter, and reference has already been made<br />

to the disingenuous attempt of Rev. Dr. John Emory in his controversy with Rev. Alexander<br />

McCaine to overthrow it. The word disingenuous is used advisedly, and to the readers is submitted<br />

the proof for their verdict. Dr. Emory affirmed as to the date of Coke's letter to Bishop White and<br />

the date of Coke's knowledge of Wesley's death, "The fact is that Mr. Wesley at the time was dead."<br />

The italic is his own. What does he mean? He is primarily essaying to prove that the letter of Coke<br />

to White could not have been written as Rev. Kewley affirmed, echoed by Dr. Wyatt, both of the<br />

Protestant Episcopal Church, "with the sanction, if not actually by the order of Mr. Wesley." Emory<br />

says," We deny the statement and demand the proof. The fact is that Mr. Wesley at the time was<br />

[14]<br />

dead." What does he mean? That Coke could not have had an interview with Wesley before he<br />

left England for America, in which such a method of restoring peace to the American Church under<br />

the Council distractions was suggested by Coke and sanctioned by Wesley? He cannot mean that,<br />

or, to use his own language, "we deny the statement and demand the proof." What does he mean?<br />

Simply to assert that, "at that time Wesley was dead." As a naked fact it was true, for Wesley died<br />

March 2, 1791. He cannot mean that and be ingenuous; for the only point is: Did Coke know of<br />

Wesley's death April 24, 1791, the date of the letter to White? Was he misled by Drew on Coke, as<br />

to the date, as McCaine was misled by him as to the address to Washington being in 1785, instead<br />

of 1789? It is just possible, but not probable, for he does not cite Drew in proof of his allegation,<br />

though Drew says," He [Coke] had been preaching on the evening of the 20th of April at a place<br />

called Port Royal, in Virginia, and had engaged to preach about twelve miles distant at ten o'clock<br />

on the ensuing morning. But on returning after the evening preaching to the house of a merchant<br />

where he was to lodge, he was informed by him that the Philadelphia papers had just announced to<br />

[15]<br />

the public the death of Mr. Wesley." It is not probable, because Emory had Asbury's Journal<br />

before him and could have corrected Drew by Asbury. Nothing can be clearer than that April 20 in<br />

Drew is a typographical error for 29, or Drew misread Coke's posthumous notes, or Coke himself<br />

wrote 20 for 29. But Emory does not give Drew as his authority. Why not? He either knew it or he<br />

did not. If he knew it, his failure to cite exhibits the adroit misleader. If he did not know it, then the<br />

facts, as given by Asbury and of which Emory could not have been ignorant, are a demonstration that<br />

he was disingenuous when he affirmed that "Wesley at that time was dead," meaning as he must that<br />

Coke knew he was dead before April 24, 1791. He did not know it until April 29. The question may<br />

recur in the McCaine-Emory controversy of 1827-30, but it is thought best to settle it here in its<br />

proper connection. An analysis of the secret letter itself must be reserved to another chapter.<br />

*************************************

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!