History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

views. Such apologies for his after tergiversation are a reflection upon his whole character. It would
be more to the credit of all concerned if Methodist historians were to pass this episode in his career
in silence. This very address gives proof of the even balance of his sinewy mind: "I consider myself
justly accountable, not for the system of government, but for my administration, and ought, therefore,
to be ready to answer in General Conference for my past conduct, and be willing to receive
information and advice to perfect future operations. I wish this body to exercise their rights in these
[4]
respects." No wonder Asbury was amazed at his junior Bishop.
For the last time Asbury intimated his desire to be relieved, as "he had thoughts of going to
Europe." It was rather an amiable weakness and quite excusable as such. It has referred to a
committee with the usual result: complimentary resolutions, and then Asbury graciously yields. The
presiding elder question, as Asbury informs, occupied two whole days. In addition to Lee, [5]
Snethen, and Shinn, Stevens adds, Cooper, Garrettson, Ware, Phoebus and Hunt as in the
affirmative, the bishops being known as profoundly opposed to it." When it came to vote it was
defeated but by three. The brains of the Conference evidently did not regard the question as settled
by the constitutional provisions of 1808. Asbury, however, planted himself upon this ground, but
whether he took the cue from Soule, or Soule in 1820 from Asbury's Journal, July, 1811, cannot be
determined. He had just met the New York Conference and says: "It is said the wise men of York
Conference have discovered that it will be far better to elect the presiding elder in conference and
give them the power of stationing the preachers. I suppose we shall hear more of this." He did hear
more of it then, and six months later. He adds in connection with the New York Conference this
pronounced opinion, "If the preachers take any specific power, right, or privilege from the bishops
which the General Conference may have given them, it is clear that they dissolve the whole
contract." Put this in juxtaposition with the section of 1808, "They shall not change or alter any part
or rule of our government so as to do away episcopacy, or to destroy the plan of our itinerant general
superintendency," and you have his meaning. Soule as found was the author of it, and in 1820 he
claimed to be the interpreter of it, and overthrew the General Conference, on that issue.
Daniel Hitt, the Book Agent, and not a member of the Conference, was elected secretary, thereby
establishing a precedent in that regard. Two years before Asbury had organized the Genesee
Conference. His authority was questioned, but this General Conference approved and its delegates
were admitted. The liberalizing trend of this Conference had one result: "It was ordered that the
stewards should no longer be appointed by the preacher in charge, but be nominated by him and
appointed by the quarterly Conference." The docile laymen of the Church caught eagerly even at
straws — this was nothing but a straw. The temperance question was at a low ebb officially. Axley
made repeated attempts to have passed a rule: "No stationed or local preacher shall retail spirituous
or malt liquors without forfeiting his ministerial character among us." At the third effort he was
defeated. David Young moved that "the Conference inquire into the nature and moral tendency of
slavery." It was laid on the table. Zealots of today and forty years past may denounce this as
cowardice, but three years before even Asbury, traveling in and holding the Virginia Conference,
puts these moralizings into his Journal: "We are defrauded of great numbers by the pains that are
taken to keep the blacks from us; the masters are afraid of the influence of our principles. Would not
an amelioration in the condition and treatment of slaves have produced more practical good to the
poor Africans than an attempt at their emancipation? The state of society unhappily does not admit
of this: besides, the blacks are deprived of the means of instruction. . . . What is the personal liberty