History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

METHODIST REFORM
Edward J. Drinkhouse, M.D., D.D.
Volume I
CHAPTER 38
The General Conference of 1808 — Asbury and McKendree presiding — It looks into the relation
of Dr. Coke to the Conference — Asbury presents two letters from him, both of which were intended
to placate his American brethren over the letter to Bishop White, etc. — Did he inform Asbury of
the letter when he parted with him at New Castle? — A full analysis of this important point — action
of the Conference in Coke's case — the plan for a delegated General Conference; how it was brought
about, after three differing systems were put forward by leaders with the final prevalence of the
Asbury-Soule-McKendree preference — A full expose, of the whole transaction as never before
presented in any History — Has the Church a Constitution considered — Snethen's voice in 1822
as to it — Lee's "History" under ban by the Conference; reasons; how finally published — the first
delegated General Conference of 1812 in New York City — What it did; removal of the Book
Concern to New York; its significance — Asbury's conduct with Lee — The slavery question.
The General Conference of 1808. Not one of the historical sources gives information where it was
held in Baltimore, May 6, whether at the old Light Street or at the new Eutaw Street church just
[1]
finished. Asbury's record of it as usual is brief. "Friday, 6 Our General Conference opened in
peace. On Saturday 129 members took their seats. The new church on Eutaw Street was opened on
the Sabbath day and I gave a discourse on the occasion from 2 Cor. iii. 12. On the 26th the
Conference rose. We have done very little except making the rule for representation hereafter one
member of the General Conference for every six members of the annual conferences; and the
electing dear brother McKendree assistant bishop: the burden is now borne by two pairs of shoulders
instead of one; the care is cast upon two hearts and heads." The historians differ as to the order of
the business, but this is immaterial. Lee briefly outlines what was done, but as it is in harmony with
other chroniclers need not be cited.
Following the order Stevens gives, the salient events were as follows: After organization, Asbury
presiding, a committee of two from each Conference represented was appointed to report on the
subject of a Delegated General Conference. They did not report for ten days. Meanwhile the
Conference looked into the relation of Coke to the Church. He was not present for reasons already
given. Bangs gives the full report of this item. The Conference was in a mood to discipline him for
his maneuverings with the preachers in the interval. He was kept advised of these things by his
American friends, and, to make fair weather with the brethren if possible, he wrote two long letters
to the Conference, which Bangs gives; the first intended to define his position as to his farther
relations to the American brethren, which is only excelled in adroit wording and suggestions by the
second, which he designed to cover his conduct in the matter of his letter to Bishop White, of 1791,
which had become known through the Kewley pamphlet already fully considered. If this letter did
not satisfy his critics, it did save him from open censure. In it occurs that sentence as to it: "Before
I sailed for England, I met Bishop Asbury at New Castle, in the state of Delaware (from which place
I went on board), and laid the matter before him, who, with that caution which peculiarly
characterizes him, gave me no decisive opinion upon the subject." So far as is known Asbury neither