History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

world over; as well as for contrast of governmental methods, equal prosperity attending diverse
polities, and thus demonstrating that it was primarily due, not to any particular system, but to the
doctrines and means of grace formulated by the Wesleys out of the Scriptures and the needs of the
period. As collateral to this method and an irrefragable corollary from the facts of history, one of the
fundamentals of this work is submitted as proven; to wit, that the dominant system on either shore
of the Atlantic is responsible directly or indirectly for all the divisions of Methodism, and that in
consequence organic unity is an impossibility, even if it could be shown politic, until the divisive
elements in the dominating systems are eliminated.
These reasons must be the author's plea for occupying the entire first volume in what is really a
preparation for the History of the Methodist Protestant Church. No apology is therefore offered for
the extended space given to the vindication of the two men who have been most vilified and
misrepresented, — Dr. Whitehead of the Wesleyan Methodists and James O'Kelly of the Asburyan
Methodists. In both cases much new information is furnished; and while no effort is made to
condone their errors of temperament and judgment, earnest, and it is believed successful, effort is
made to rescue their memories from unmerited obloquy. It will also be discovered that nowhere in
current Methodist history can such a running biography of Francis Asbury be found, portraying every
side of his wonderful character and meting out with an even hand the merits and demerits of an
unique system, of which he was the father, in emulation of the methods of John Wesley, the founder
of it. Biographically it is believed that valuable new information is furnished, and fuller extracts
made from Asbury's Journal than has been essayed by any other historiographer.
In discussing and narrating the so-called "Radical" controversy of 1820-30, the writer claims
exceptional advantages, and if he has come short of the occasion, it has not been for want of a mass
of material never before in large part at the disposal of a historian. he has endeavored, prayerfully
and reflectively, at every step to hold an even balance between the contending parties. It cannot,
however, be reasonably expected that a History of the Methodist Protestant Church could or should
be written by him from the point of view apologetic and excusatory of its historical foes. The
defensive task has been abundantly performed by a large number of partial and able writers in
England and America. It has never been performed on the behalf of Reformers in any such
exhaustive pleas, unless the present work shall be accepted by impartial readers as equal to the
subject. The writer believes indeed that nowhere else can such a collocation of records of those
troublous times be found in continuity of presentation. But passing mention need be made of the
class who ruefully deprecate the revival of "dead issues," as they call the contentions of this History.
All history consists of dead issues, but it is the truth of them that demands their resurrection, and the
vindication of the truth can never be untimely. If anywhere, after careful revision, he has been
betrayed into sharpness of language or purposeful imputation of motive as to individuals, he will
express regret and make amends if possible, or in palliation direct attention to the severity of average
animadversions of the Reformers as found in the standard histories and fugitive monographs of
Methodist literature. He has felt it, however, his first duty to set himself vigorously to the vindication
of the fathers of American Methodist Reform, and to do this a restatement of the old controversy was
inevitable.
In the progress of the work, in the second volume, he found himself confronted with two difficult
performances. First, a determination to rescue from a swift-coming oblivion the Reformers of