History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

affirmed nor denied the truth of this allegation. The assumption was made when that parting at New
Castle was traversed in these pages that in view of the environment at the time the matter could not
have been opened between them. It was farther assumed that from the necessary sequence of dates
he had in his possession Bishop White's reply, but that gives but a meager and unsatisfactory idea
of Coke's letter in its details. So that if Coke did refer to it in that hurried parting, he did not give
Asbury its contents, otherwise it puts the latter in the embarrassing position before the Conference
of 1808 of being a silent partaker in the offensive business; for it is certain that he never reported any
such conversation as held with Coke at New Castle. The logical dilemma for him then is this: If he
knew of Coke's letter to White when this sentence was read to the Conference, he deemed it politic
to be silent. If he did not know it, he was equally politic in not disowning it, as he knew the fate of
Coke was sealed with the American brethren, and allowed it to pass. It is morally certain from the
postscript to the White letter that Coke made no copy of it, and, therefore, could at the best only give
Asbury an idea of what it contained. It consequently compromises Asbury too seriously to credit any
other theory than what Coke had told him at New Castle did not make his plan with Bishop White
clear to Asbury. This would account for the indecision Coke admits he exhibited; for if he did
understand it, Asbury was not the man to have "no decisive opinion on the subject." The Conference
disposed of him by resolving "that Dr. Coke's name shall be retained on our minutes, after the names
of the bishops, in an 'N.B. Dr. Coke, at the request of the British Conference, resides in Europe: he
is not to exercise the office of superintendent among us in the United States until he be recalled by
the General Conference or by all the annual Conferences respectively.'" He was, as genteelly as his
past services would allow, laid upon the shelf. It is noteworthy that both of Dr. Coke's letters to the
Conference are addressed "To the General American Conference." He claimed to have been the
originator of the Methodist Episcopal Church, but for prudential reasons, writing from England, he
omits its corporate title when he officially addresses it. Wesley never penned the title. It is among
the facts the apologists and advocates of the American Episcopacy pass in silence; suppression, as
in this whole class of facts, being opportune.
Before unraveling farther the interchanging business of this, the most momentous General
Conference ever held, in its pregnant results, it is needful to recur to the appointment of the
committee of fourteen, two from each Conference, whose report the thread of history awaits. It is the
key to the position, and was never before so lucidly and convincingly set forth as by Dr. Tigert in his
[2]
work, the objective of which is to establish the superior constitutional status of the Methodist
Episcopal Church South along the lines of Asburyan Episcopacy. He gathers his materials from the
General Conference Journal of 1808. It was composed of most of the strongest men of that day, and
presently the leaders will close in a veritable battle of the giants. Three men may be named as
conspicuously embodying as many theories, which were brought forward in this triple contest,
namely, Jesse Lee, Joshua Soule, and Ezekiel Cooper, with Asbury supporting the Soule section. The
composition of the Conference was as follows: New England, 7, New York, 19, Western, 11, South
Carolina, 11, Philadelphia, 32, Virginia, 18, and 31 from Baltimore. It was found that the proposition
of a Council, or Conclave, of 49 delegates, seven from each Conference, proposed in 1807 to give
"permanency to the Episcopacy" was defeated by Lee and Bruce, though it was inclusive of a
Delegated General Conference. Four of the seven Conferences had approved, but these four had but
48 representatives on the General Conference floor as against the three non-concurring Conferences
with 81. On the surface the prospect of carrying the measure, complicated as it was, and suspicious
as it was to the liberal elements of the Church, was doubtful. But parliamentary strategy often