History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

etween Front and Second streets, and by the Methodist Ministers and Preachers throughout the
United States. 1798." l2mo, 208 pp., sheep. These statements show that ten editions were sold within
about a year. The preachers were diligent in circulating them, and Asbury was very proud of the
Notes, and frequently sent copies to special friends and those whom he thought needed conversion
from liberal views. A striking instance of his method and its result in one notable case shall be given
presently. They began at the prefatory statement and remolded it. They then added a new section on
the Origin of the Church, which is a wide departure from their previous accounts in 1784 and later.
It is a studied effort to show all Episcopacy derived from Wesley, and it is a mild criticism to say that
the facts are wrested to make them quadrate with the theory. McCaine severely arraigned them for
it, and there is no escaping the verdict just given.
The Notes to this section cover three closely printed pages in fine type. It is the arsenal from
which has been furnished the arms and ammunition to the defenders of its polity to the present day.
The line of the argument is that as apostolical succession as held by the high churchmen of the
National Establishment in England cannot be maintained, "It follows, therefore, indubitably that
every church has a right to choose, if it please, the episcopal plan." This is a truism, but the objection
to its application to the Asburyan Church is that as such it did not choose it, and that it was foisted
upon the preachers who organized it. The literature of the subject fills volumes for and against, but
the allegation made has already been proved and submitted for the verdict of the reader. "The late
revered John Wesley recommended the episcopal form for the societies in America and the general
conference, which is the chief synod of the church, unanimously accepted of it. Mr. Wesley did
more. He first consecrated one for the office of a bishop, that our episcopacy might descend from
himself." It seems difficult to understand how these good men could bring themselves to make this
unqualified record. There is no solution but to assume that, having a case to make, and believing the
end justified it, they strained the facts of history. "Mr. Wesley, therefore, preferred the episcopal
form of church government and God has (glory be to his name!) wonderfully blessed it amongst us."
The true question is evaded throughout. Mr. Wesley, it is known, was an Episcopalian of the
low-church school, and he avows that for "a National Church he knows no form as good," and this
is not disputed. Neither is it the question, if Wesley had ordained a polity for the American societies
that he would have preferred the Episcopal to the Presbyterian polity, though in the new American
environment, and his instructions to the American Methodists in his letter to them, it is doubtful. The
question is: Did he recommend the Episcopal form, and did he authorize the formation of an
American Church under it? Facts enough have already been presented at an earlier stage of this
History to demonstrate that he did not, and that Coke and Asbury knew he did not though it was
adroitly concealed from the preachers in 1784, and the catenation of adverse facts were not exhumed
and made known until 1827-30 by Alexander McCaine. His statement of the facts has never been
invalidated, though his style of statement was open to objection and weakened the force of his
allegations, as will be exhibited in its proper order. Coke and Asbury did not fail to clinch their
averments with the old-time Methodist acclamation, "glory be to His name!" and so challenged
contradiction. The scripture argument for the Episcopal plan, and just such a plan as the Asburyan,
is put as strongly as it can be — the learning of Coke and the shrewdness of Asbury combined upon
it. They take up the Articles of Religion, and under XXII. administer a severe animadversion against
the "spirit of division," in the main unexceptionable, but for its direct thrusts at O'Kelly and his
friends. Next the Discipline proper is taken up, and an ingenious defense made of it. They meet the
question (showing the lay agitation of that early day), "But it may be asked, Why are not delegates