History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

METHODIST REFORM
Edward J. Drinkhouse, M.D., D.D.
Volume I
CHAPTER 40
Episcopacy as administered by Wesley, Asbury, and McKendree; examples and incidents; aping
of it by the Elders then and the Bishops now — Heroes of the period of 1800 onward; a roster of
them with anecdotes of these grand pioneers in the North, South, East, and West — Incidental
mention of Methodist Episcopacy in its origin — "expulsion" as a generic term in the early Minutes,
and its significance — Dr. John Emory and Dr. Nathan Bangs and Wilbur Fisk, etc. — Harriet
Stubbs, the heroine — Jesse Lee outlined — Church literature in that day — numerical success as
an argument for the hierarchic form of the Methodist government; its fallacy shown maugre Drs.
Stevens and Tigert, and their arguments analyzed; puerility of the precedence claimed as the first
American Episcopacy — A quasi claim as the National Church — End of the first volume.
The closing chapter of this volume must be devoted to some features of the administration of the
Episcopacy under Asbury and McKendree, the great revival under the camp-meeting impulse, and
to brief outlines of some of the conspicuous characters not heretofore named in this heroic period
of early Methodism.
After the enactments of 1808 in the Restrictive Articles and the Rules and Regulations, which
being accepted by the succeeding delegated General Conferences of 1812, 1816, the precedents thus
established passed under the guise of a Constitution, and have ever since been so respected, until the
General Conference of 1844 resumed its sovereignty in agreeing to a separation of the South from
the North, thus destroying the unity those iron-clad enactments were intended to render indissoluble,
while the administration of the Episcopacy in its several grades became more rigid and imperative.
From the young preacher on trial up to the presiding elder there was a natural aping of the higher
authority. For the whole policy the example of Wesley was cited and effectively, no allowance being
made for his unique position and original power. The secret spring of this clerical arrogance was the
security felt in the property sovereignty; the deeds making the investiture of all the churches and
other material wealth in the itinerant class of ministers secure. As to Wesley, Snethen, in 1825,
records an illustrative instance: "Having lodged with a certain preacher on a Saturday night, the two
went into the pulpit together on Sunday morning. Mr. Wesley, at the close of the service, without
consulting the preacher, announced an appointment for him in the evening. The preacher, repeating
his words, said he would not preach there in the evening; to which Mr. Wesley immediately
subjoined that the preacher was no longer a member of the connection. Without any apparent heat
or agitation, they returned to the house, and parted forever. Could any man who felt poor and depend
and venture on such a proceeding? Here we see the spontaneous motion of feelings, the origin and
nature of which we cannot mistake or confound with others. High-minded preachers of independent
spirits, undrilled and unbroken by power, will seldom fail to test the genuine feelings which belong
to those who have entire control of church property. Mr. Wesley in this case did not in reality partake
of the hospitality of the preacher. The house, the table, were all Mr. Wesley's as well as the chapel;
and the preacher was employed only on the condition of passive obedience." In 1827, this incident
as published in the Wesleyan Repository was used as one of the charges preferred against Reformers