The heroes of Methodism common property —The decade from 1815 to 1825; the Wesleyan system essentially Presbyterian in England — Efficiency of the hierarchy not denied — Dr. John Emory's visit to the British Conference — Their foreign missionary movement under Dr. Coke — Coke and Asbury in contrast — Sketch of Coke's career — Letter to Wilberforce and the bishopric of India; analysis of it — Coke's last mission to India; his associates; death and burial at sea — The Irish Primitive Methodists of 1814 — Its growth under Averell, and its gradual decay — Notable Irish preachers.
As the purpose of this review of English Methodism in its various branches and phases is to bring into relief the facts and data which will substantiate the fundamental as set forth at the close of the first chapter, namely, that the Deed of Declaration which imposed an oligarchy upon Wesleyan Methodism was directly or indirectly responsible for all the divisions in the parent body on governmental lines, while the world over unity has been preserved in its doctrines and means of grace, it will not be expected that the history of the Wesleyan Conference shall be outlined except in the most cursory manner. The grand results of its inspirational truths as set forth by the Wesleys;
its means of grace as calculated to keep alive the flame of experiential religion; the deeds of heroism it provoked in its preachers and people; the infallible sign of its apostolical genius in its foreign missionary propagandism; its ever burning zeal and open-handed liberality, — all these belong to a common Methodism and as such are appropriated as germane to this historic plan. Those who would have fuller details are referred to Stevens' "History of Methodism" and Grindrod's, or Smith's,
"History of Wesleyan Methodism."
The decade from 1815 to 1825 is pregnant with events marking the rapid growth at home and abroad of the parent body with its occasional wise concessions to the laity in its polity, thereby distinguishing it from the iron-clad policy of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America in its dealings with Reformers and their measures. Indeed, though claiming the closest affiliation and kinship, there are but few points of agreement of the two systems. Except in its entail of property rights and the absence of lay representation as differenced from lay-delegation, Wesleyan Methodism is essentially Presbyterian, and so akin with the structure of the Methodist Protestant Church, while Episcopal Methodism in both its divisions is hierarchal, and so akin with the Protestant Episcopal Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Let it be observed, once for all, that in these pages no contention is made that this polity is not efficient, and, in given circumstances, more efficient than its more liberal associates in evangelism. What is claimed is that the hierarchy is anti-scriptural, finding no support in New Testament precedents under critical interpretation, and utterly incongruous with the brotherhood of Christians as defined by the Master, and the necessary equality of brotherhood, man with man generically understood, not to speak of natural rights, as inhering in the individual as defined under civil republican codes. It is claimed, that if violations of these rights are allowable and justifiable on the score of the efficiency of a hierarchy, then logical consistency demands that there is no place for such advocates to stop, short of its paragon, the Pope, and his train
of subordinates drawing the people after them: "Behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads, and his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven."
Ignorance is not pleaded for the fact that hierarchism is disclaimed by the officialism of the Methodist Episcopal Church in emergencies, and under the exactions of criticism. Its true genius will come under review at a later period. The objection lodged against it is, that to the degree of its hierarchal complexion, however neutral the colors as to administration under the modifying influence of surrounding ecelesiasticisms, its law-structure classes it as a hierarchy, and this is inconsistent with the basic principles of the primitive Church and apostolical methods. It is efficient and potential, and those who are wedded to it have their rights of preference, and a hail of
"God-speed" is sincerely sent them and exultation indulged with them over the magnificent results which the old glorious doctrines have achieved under it throughout the world.
During this decade of Wesleyan Conference history, like tall oaks amid the smaller growths of the forest, stood Newton and Watson and Clarke and Bunting, while Bramwell and Dawson and Seville and Hicks and Carvosso, in humbler spheres, gave proofs of the power of a heart religion in winning men to Christ. Reference has already been made to these stalwart leaders, each supreme in his sphere. The Conference itinerancy, or restrictive rule, was three years, one year more than prescribed by the Deed of Declaration, and its virtual extension beyond three, was a necessity pressing upon the ever growing connection. Evasion of the spirit of the law was the consequence.
Newton spent thirty-five years on five circuits, being transferred from one to the other and back again in technical obedience to the three-year rule. Twenty years of his ministerial life were spent in London and Manchester. Bunting spent the whole of this decade in London; during one year he was President and during three, editor at its Book Room. Like Newton, he was also incessantly engaged in special missions in the counties. Adam Clarke's failing health compelled a virtual location. In 1815 he purchased a rural home near Liverpool. There he pursued his learned labors and preached as opportunity allowed. Among those whose names and deeds will not die were John Smith and Hodgson Casson. The shifts of the Conference in evading the restrictive rule that foremost men might be utilized where most needed, is an adverse commentary upon the unwisdom of irrepealable and inflexible legislation binding upon a new generation amid new environments. It will receive frequent illustration in the course of this History.
It seems in order in connection with the English restrictive rule to take brief notice of the fraternal visit of Rev. Dr. John Emory of the Methodist Episcopal Church to the Wesleyan Conference in 1820. He will be a conspicuous figure in American Methodism. His visit to the British Conference was the first of such interchanges. He was charged with an adjustment of the Canadian question, a contention between the missionaries of the Methodist Episcopal Church and those of the English Conference. He was cordially received, and made the most of the occasion. He was struck at the Conference session with the essential and radical differences of the mode of appointments as modified since Wesley's time. Stevens says: "The discussion of the appointments was a novel fact to the visitor, and in contrast with the American usage. A list prepared by a committee before the meeting of Conference was reported to it and published throughout the country, and preachers and people had opportunity of petitioning or remonstrating. "This," Emory remarks, "is often done in[1]
strong terms and gives not a little trouble; a preacher of any standing is seldom sent where he is not willing to go." During his Address to the Conference, he ventured upon a laudation of the Episcopal system which he represented. It was not altogether palatable, and, despite his presence and the
courtesy due him, was thought too pronounced to be passed uncriticized, and open exceptions were made to what appeared invidious comparisons of the two systems. Clarke and Watson came to the rescue and made cogistic remarks upon the American Episcopacy as "of a truly apostolic and primitive character." He was delighted with his reception, and made a most favorable impression by his eloquent preaching and social intercourse, for he was a scholarly Christian and a courteous gentleman. The almost inspired vaticination he made in his address as an expression of human forecast deserves embalmment here. He said: "We hope the time is not far distant when we shall join hands on the Asiatic shores of the Pacific Ocean. We are constantly advancing in our labors toward the West and you are extending to the East, not only on the continent, but over the islands of the sea.
Is it chimerical, then, to suppose that at some future day we shall have compassed the earth and girded it round with glorious bands of gospel truth? Oh, no; faith says it shall be done." And it has been done. The sun in his course is now followed by Methodist evangelism around the world.
This leads to consideration, briefly, of the missionary movements of the Wesleyan Conference for this decade. From the beginning it was a characteristic; for a heart religion cannot be content with a concealment of its treasure. If the Great Commission had not been uttered, it must "go into all the world" and tell the marvelous story. Methodism stood for universal evangelization, and it has proven true to it to this day. Beginning in the West Indies, under that devoted layman Gilbert, in 1760, and in Nova Scotia, by Coughlin, in 1765, it came to America in 1760-66, through Strawbridge and Embury, local preachers. Dr. Coke, the personification of missionary zeal and activity, projected a mission for Asia as early as 1786; also in the Dutch, Swedish, and French islands. Notably, at St.
Eustatius, for which Coke ventured to ordain William Mahy in 1791, the only ordination he ever attempted out of America, and for which he was severely rebuked by the Wesleyan Conference of 1792, so little virtue and authority did they attach to Wesley's third ordination of Coke and others;
but nothing dampened his ardor for the cause of missions, neither rebuke nor rebuff nor failure could deter him from pushing the work. In 1796 a small colony was dispatched by him to Africa, but it failed. It was fitting that this man should wind up his eventful career by becoming a missionary himself and dying in pursuit of his great India mission.
His most successful labors were in the West Indies. Here he fairly revels amid spiritual trophies and aggressive conquest. In his "History of the West Indies" he gives the religion experience of the blacks, so genuine in spirit and so devoted in life. He bears testimony to their wonderful fidelity to their masters amid uprisings and plots. Restrictive legislation was attempted in Jamaica, but an appeal to the Home government thwarted the design. Wilberforce's great Emancipation Act was pressing to a successful issue, and in 1807 it was proclaimed for all England's dependencies, dating from the 1st day of August, 1834, $100,000,000 being paid to the masters for this species of property. Neither Coke nor the Conference behind him gave any countenance to inflammatory appeals or indiscreet measures by the missionaries, Stevens quotes from the official instructions:
"Promote the moral and religious improvement of the slaves without in the least degree, in public or in private, interfering with their civil condition." He italicizes a sentence of his own: "No Methodist slave was ever proved guilty of incendiarism or rebellion for more than seventy years, namely, from 1760 to 1834." In 1791 there were Methodists in West Indies: 12 missionaries and 5645 members; when Coke died, 1814, 31 missionaries and 17,000 members; in 1839, 83 missionaries and 42,928 members.
The crowning incidents of Dr. Coke's career are at hand, and it is fitting to notice some of them before tracing his final missionary efforts for Methodism and the world. From about 1796 to 1804, when he retired from the American continent to visit it no more, an interesting correspondence was kept up between Asbury, Coke, and the Wesleyan Conference as to the respective claims of the two countries to the services of Coke. From the time Asbury met him at Barratt's chapel in Delaware, and embraced him in the pulpit, in November, 1784, this keen-sighted and discerning man had measured his co-superintendent in all the strong and weak points of his character. From that period until his superior strategy and prudential wisdom had won from Coke all the cooperation needful for his own preconceived plans of Episcopal organization for America, and then allowed his personal mistakes of an official nature to limit his influence with the American Methodists until he withdrew, having been shorn of the prerogatives Wesley designed him to wear jointly with Asbury, their personal relations were often strained, as will be seen when this period is under direct examination. In his declining years and as the infirmities of the body grew upon him, Asbury turned to his old friend and helpful ally in the one questionable transaction of their respective lives: the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church at the Christmas Conference of 1784, in that phase of it only which connects John Wesley as an authority for it or as recommending it in his instructions to Coke, either written or verbal. It was a just if not a generous impulse that would win him back to America.
Stevens does not notice this correspondence, but Drew furnishes patches of it with one full letter.
Asbury knew the worth of Coke and now wished his aid; and for 1803-04 outlined an itinerary of
[2]
five thousand miles among the Conferences for him, but he pursued it but in part. The letter in its full text referred to is found in Drew's "Life of Coke," pp. 299, 300. It is subscribed, "Signed by order and in the behalf of the general conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the Unites States of America, Francis Asbury, Richard Whatcoat." The significant fact is not noted by other historians, that in this correspondence under official seal the foregoing subscription is never acknowledged;
neither the title, bishop, nor the name, Methodist Episcopal Church, occurs in it. Dr. Coke before leaving America, finally, in 1804, preached, by invitation, in the Capitol of the United States before the assembled Congress an eloquent discourse.
Arrived in England, Dr. Coke, now about sixty years of age, gave himself up to the great missionary operations of the Wesleyan Conference. A missionary was sent to Gibraltar in 1804, and another, on the decease of the first, in 1808. In 1805 he married Miss Penelope Smith, a maiden lady of piety and wealth, but of delicate constitution. It was Coke's first marriage. She lived but six years.
Coke found in her a congenial spirit, and their united means made their liberality lavish. He contracted a second marriage in December, 1811, with Miss Loxdale, an elderly maiden. December 5, 1812, she died. Meantime he was busy in the Master's work, much upon the wing, while carrying out the literary labors of his life: the great Commentary which the Conference imposed upon him as a task, and his "System of Philosophy," and his "Recent Occurrences in Europe." It is an open secret since his death that nearly all this labor was performed by Samuel Drew under compensation, and is so acknowledged by him, though he seems to feel it an obligation to carry the details of it as secret to his grave. It would have been better for the memory of both if the whole truth of a simple business transaction had been told. It is known that the Commentary was plagiarized almost bodily from the work of the unfortunate Dr. Dodd, though it bears Dr. Coke's name on the title-page as author. It has been found, however, that it was an age of easy manners as to literary purloining. John Wesley was not free from it, Henry Moore was conspicuously guilty, and Coke notorious. Later on, Watson and Adam Clarke redeemed Methodist literature from the stigma. Dr. Coke was his own publisher, and,
like Wesley, betrayed his ignorance of business methods, and was fleeced by selfish friends until he surrendered his whole copyright to the Conference for a nominal sum before he set sail for India.
Bereft of his last companion, approaching his seventieth year, much of the missionary work of the Conference now consolidated and settled on a secure basis; as he saw the sun of his life nearing its setting, he turned his face resolutely toward its rising in the east. A mission to India had long been a favorite idea with him, and he had secured much useful information bearing upon it. He appeared before the Conference of 1813, and Stevens says, "pleading even with tears to be sent himself as a missionary to Asia." No one may doubt the perfect sincerity of this proposal, separated from all other considerations, for he gave proof of the singleness of his purpose by his final arrangements for the India mission. It will not be forgotten, however, that he was an extreme Churchman, and at heart attached no importance to his third ordination by Wesley. An aspiration to the bishopric he believed legitimate, nor did he doubt his qualifications for it. The expiring embers of an almost extinguished ambition flamed up once more only to die into the white ashes of a hopeless desire. He had learned that the British Foreign Office proposed to send a Bishop to India that this great empire of the Crown might have the benefits a National Church is supposed to confer upon a country; but he had also learned through Wilberforce that Parliament was "set against granting any countenance to Dissenters or Methodists in favor of sending missionaries to India." But Dr. Coke could not be deterred by such trifles. He pressed his application. He wrote to the Earl of Liverpool, but received no answer. He next addressed Wilberforce, then in the bloom of his Parliamentary career, a letter characteristic of him. It is not given by Stevens except such fragments as answered the bias of his "History" in favor of all that Coke did and apologetic of his "imprudence" and "weaknesses," as his apologist calls his proposals to Wilberforce. Drew, his biographer, does not refer to it at all, though a copy must have been found among Coke's papers, unless, like his letter to the Earl of Liverpool, he would have had to make the confession, "I have either mislaid the copy of it, or destroyed it at the time, for fear of its falling into improper hands." It was the misfortune of Dr. Coke in this as in kindred previous transactions — his letter to Bishop White of America suggesting his ordination as a true Bishop, and the union of the American Societies with the Protestant Episcopal Church, as another example — to make the conditions with his correspondents, "burn this letter," or "let this be kept secret."
Nothing of the kind can be found in all the correspondence of the Wesleys, of Whitefield, or of Asbury. It is not forgotten that charity demands that of two constructions of another's language or motive the extenuating one should be followed, or, as Stevens puts it as to the letter to Wilberforce,
"his life and character forbid any ungenerous interpretation of the correspondence."
Church historians are squeamishly sensitive to the charge of ambition against their favorites, as though it could have no excusable place in the career of a Christian man. An American statesman has aptly said, "When you eliminate ambition from the human soul, you shut out the visions that entice men upward." This letter to Wilberforce did not see the light until the Correspondence of that eminent British statesman was published, and it must stand upon its own merits. The full text of[3]
it is given in Appendix B. A digest of it may be given. It was written at Leeds, April 14, 1813. The opening paragraph makes it plain that Coke entered upon it with some misgivings lest its exposure should involve him with the British Methodists in an inconsistency that could not be explained. Two sentences must be set over against each other; to wit, "Could I but close my life in being the means of raising a spiritual church in India, it would satisfy the utmost ambition of my soul here below."
"I am not conscious, my dear, respected sir, that the least degree of ambition influences me in this