History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

accomplishes what fair, open dealing cannot, even in religious bodies. Let the reader observe this
dexterously played game of ecclesiastical chess.
The memorial of the forty-eight was presented to the General Conference. The day following
Asbury "called for the mind of the Conference, whether any future regulation in the order of the
General Conference" was necessary. It was carried. Then Stephen G. Roszel of Baltimore and
William Burke of the West moved for a committee "to draw up such regulations as they may think
best, to regulate the General Conferences." Here Bishop Asbury (did he leave the chair to do it?)
interposed with a motion that "the committee be formed from an equal number from each of the
annual Conferences." It was a master move of the pawns by the king of the board. Tigert says, "this
was excellent parliamentary tactics, for it insured to the memoritists a majority of the committee"
— the forty-eight had this advantage over the eighty-one. If he ever merited his cognomen, "a
long-headed Englishman," it was now. The motion carried, no one objecting; it seemed so fair. The
committee was named: Cooper and Wilson from New York; Pickering and Soule from New
England; McKendree and Burke from the West; Phoebus and Randle from South Carolina; Bruce
and Lee from Virginia; Roszel and Reed from Baltimore; McClaskey and Ware from Philadelphia.
Tigert says, "The memorialists had a clear majority of two, and thus, by the old Bishop's timely help,
had won the skirmish for position." The sequel will show that it had won everything: an impregnable
constitutional support to an unamenable Episcopacy, with a Delegated General Conference of one
member for every five to be chosen by seniority, or choice, at the discretion of the Annual
Conferences, etc.
The committee thus constituted retired and went to work. The official records of the Conference
must be supplemented by the revelations of later days, from which it is learned that in session a
sub-committee was formed to draft a paper for their action, and Ezekiel Cooper, Joshua Soule, and
Philip Bruce were appointed. It was fair, as they represented the three theories striving for mastery.
The whole fray centered around the Episcopacy as may be assured. The three theories crystallized:
that of Soule, a supreme Episcopacy; that of Cooper, an election of seven Bishops; one for each
annual Conference, a species of diocesan episcopacy and no eldership, with Asbury for the time
President of the bishops; that of Bruce, as representing Lee, for Annual Conference rights on a more
liberal scale, and the principle of seniority. That of Soule he embodied in the third Restrictive
Article, and must be given: "The General Conference shall not change or alter any part or rule of our
government, so as to do away Episcopacy or destroy the plan of our itinerant general
superintendency." Finally, in sub-committee Bruce sided with Soule, then the plan was submitted
to the fourteen and agreed upon; and in that form came before the Conference. It is generally
admitted that Soule was the master mind of the Conference, and that the report as framed was his
work, save unimportant amendments.
Despite the space required, Methodist Episcopacy cannot be understood by the reader unless the
whole report, consisting of "Section III. of the General Conference," is given:
1. The General Conference shall be composed of delegates from the Annual Conferences.
2. The delegates shall be chosen by ballot, without debate in the Annual Conferences respectively,
in the last meeting of Conference previous to the meeting of the General Conference.