History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

church with true wisdom to combine to alter and amend all things that may be most pleasing in thy
sight.
I remain as ever yours in love,
S'm. Sommers.
Comment by the author. What if this lay-master of Scripture and reason had gone through the
whole Discipline of l796-97? Evidently the good Bishop did not farther seek his criticism. That
Sommers should single out the rule for the trial of laymen, with its arbitrary addition, is in proof how
offensive it was, so soon as published, to the Church, to all self-respecting laymen. The personal
history of Sommers as a layman in the M. E. Church is not much known outside of this letter, except
the items furnished by his granddaughter to the author. It is not to be wondered at that he withdrew
shortly after; it may be under pressure brought to bear upon him by the Bishop's adherents for his
bold and unanswerable objections to the existing law. Rev. W. C. Lipscomb, who knew him
personally, says he did not formally unite with O'Kelly, though there was a flourishing society near
his residence, but he became an active Reformer from 1820. As bearing perhaps upon the
provocatives of this very letter of Sommers to Asbury, even before the stringent enactment of 1796,
there is a significant note in Asbury's Journal, under date November 21, 1794, "We had a list of
names from Fairfax, who required an explanation of a minute in our form of discipline, relative to
the trial of members; inquiring whether the 'select members were as witnesses or judges, and had
power to vote members in or out of society' (Sec. 8, p.5). We answered them." Was Sommers at the
head of this list? It would be interesting to know. And was it the inciting cause of a present of the
Discipline of 1796, with Notes, as "a token of friendship" to him from the Bishop?
*************************************