History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

It is noteworthy that neither Bangs nor Drew makes the slightest reference to this salient episode
in Coke's career, intimately interwoven as it is with the history of American Methodism. Stevens
gives no hint of it in his "History of the M. E. Church," and but a single line in his "History of
Methodism," Vol. III., p. 339: "Coke's attempt with Bishop White to unite the Methodist and
Protestant Episcopal Churches," and this furnishes no information. Is the old maxim correct: A
suppression of the true is a suggestion of the false? Indeed, Bangs' is culpable in an effort to conceal
the relations of Asbury and Coke at this time by quoting in full a letter from Asbury to Coke of the
most amicable character, taken from Drew as though it had been written amid these events. The
effort to conceal is found in that he suppresses the date of the letter, which Drew gives as
[14]
"Georgetown, February 12, 1791," a few lines in advance of the letter itself. Let it be examined
and see if this letter was not written before Asbury could know of Coke's change of mind toward him
in the Council matter and in the affair of the White-Seabury-Coke correspondence. Examining
[15]
Asbury's Journal, it is found that he was at Georgetown, S. C., on the date of the letter. He was
expecting Dr. Coke at Charleston, which Asbury reached on the 15th, but Coke did not arrive until
the 23d, hence this letter goes for nothing as to the ironical spirit of it.
This chapter must close by completing the episode of the Coke letters to White and Seabury.
Drew has told of the parting of Coke with Asbury and the preachers at New Castle, May 14 or 16,
the first date the very day the Seabury letter was written. Asbury confirms what Drew says as gleaned
from Coke's papers, and gives the date of departure as the 16th of May. "I rode to New Castle and
had the last interview with Dr. Coke." That is all. The next day he rode to Philadelphia and opened
the Conference. He gives a fragment about Hammett: "Mr. Hammett came from Charleston with
wonderful lists of petitioners desiring his return; to this so far as I had to say, I submitted; but — I
see and hear many things that might wound my spirit; if it were not that the Lord bears me up above
all." He went to New York and held the Conference. Hammett was there also. "Mr. Hammett's
preaching was not well received. . . . I expect some things will be retailed to my disadvantage. Be
it so — I trust the Lord."
Did he know of the Coke letter to White when he bid him adieu at New Castle? It is extremely
probable, if not certain. The presence of the "other preachers" may have deterred reference to it, or
Asbury may have been politic enough to keep silence, a gift he had at opportune times. Comparing
such data as are at hand, and it is established that Bishop White's letter to Coke in answer was
received at Philip Rogers' between the departure of Coke from Baltimore, May 2, and Asbury's
departure after the Conference had adjourned. It was handed to Asbury by Rogers as, in his
estimation, the proper custodian. Bishop White says that he ascertained his letter "was opened in his
[Coke's] absence" by Asbury, and with true Christian courtesy endeavors to extenuate it. Was Asbury
justified in this act? Only as White has put it: "Such a freedom being understood, as I supposed, to
arise out of the connection between the two gentlemen. But for this part of the statement I cannot
vouch." Their relations at this time, to the contrary, were strained. Coke's sermon on Wesley had
greatly displeased Asbury, most of the preachers, and the people. Would Coke have opened a letter
addressed to Asbury in like circumstances? It must be confessed that it is likely that he would. It is
material only as offsetting the contention of those who are satisfied to believe that not only were
these "joint superintendents" always on friendly terms, but would not think of violating conventional
proprieties with each other. Asbury opened the letter, and what a revelation it contained! The plotter
is now a marplot. Is even McCaine's language, vitriolic as were the droppings from his pen at times,