History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

to the joint authorship of the Circular Letter by "Mr. Wesley and himself," as all the evidence shows
that it was Wesley's work alone.
An examination of the Maryland Journal for January 5, 1785, the very day the Conference
adjourned, shows that the Circular Letter of Wesley to Coke, Asbury, and the American societies,
including the expurgated paragraph beginning "and I have prepared a liturgy," etc., which was not
in the Letter was made known to the Christmas Conference, and given by Lee in his "History," in
its garbled condition, evidently because he had probably never seen the Letter in its full text, was
published by some one signing himself "Christianus." Who this was cannot even be guessed at this
day. He was caustically attacked in February, by "Americus Patrite," for publishing it, and "A
Protestant," from "Baltimore County, February 8," appears in the paper of February 15, 1785, in
rejoinder, and he says, among other equally caustic remarks, "Comments and remarks on a little
sketch directed to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and the Methodist Brethren in North America, signed by
that reverend gentleman (Mr. Wesley)." This is a clear instance of one near the times identifying the
Circular Letter and "the little sketch," apparently as one and the same, but he gives no more reason
for so doing than does Dr. Collins Denny and Dr. Kerley, as exposed in the extended notes on the
question near the close of Chap. X. Vol. II. of this History. ''A Protestant" further says: "It is certain
Mr. Wesley never conceived this piece would have found its way into a newspaper, and the
gentlemen to whom it was directed and the society had no intention in that manner to lay it before
the public."* It cannot even be guessed who "A Protestant" was, but his last statement adds to the
inexplicable things of this Letter and tire "little sketch." Lee says, page 9, of his "History," that this
Letter was intended "to be printed and circulated among us." There is no evidence that it was ever
done, except in ways this writer says were surreptitious. But more curious still, and adding to the
complexity of the situation, under date of February 23, 1785, and published in the Maryland Journal
for March 11, 1785, "A Marylander" enters this controversial bout, and asserts of this Circular,
whether it was "the little sketch" or not, that "Mr. Wesley never knew of, much less penned, this
'little sketch.' It cannot even he guessed who "A Marylander" was, but he seems to fortify the
dubitation entertained by some that Dr. Coke and not Mr. Wesley was the author of the Circular
Letter. But "A Protestant" rejoins to "A Marylander," March 15, 1785, and two excerpts are given:
"Wesley's little sketch as genuine or no," and his query, "Is it likely that a whole society of Christians
could easily believe so gross an imposition to be practiced upon them?" Calling the Circular Letter
the "little sketch" seems to be a mere echo one of the other of these anonymous writers, and this
confusion is in evidence that though these controvertists wrote immediately after the adjournment
of the Christmas Conference, they were as much in the dark as the Conference itself as to the
suppressed "plan of government" in "the little sketch," as differenced from the "Circular Letter." In
fairness, however, to those who believe the contrary, this newly discovered evidence is given for all
it is worth, but the discriminating reader will remember that even could it be indubitably established,
an impossibility as the case stands, it does not invalidate in the least the mass of collateral evidence
that Wesley was not the author or instigator of American Episcopacy in its Methodism. The writer,
in conclusion, requests only that the reader who is disposed to weigh the whole matter shall carefully
read these notes in conjunction with those near the close of Chap. X. of Vol. II. on the same subject,
and exhaustive of all that can be said on either side of the question.
*It is impossible to conjecture why this writer, evidently one of the Conference preachers, or a
close friend of the Methodists, so seriously objects to the publication of this Circular Letter in a daily