The regular Conference at Brokenback chapel, Fluvanna County, Va., May, 1779 — Determination to Presbyterianize the body in polity — Asbury's factional conference a month in advance at Judge White's in Delaware, with eleven preachers in attendance — Extracts from the minutes of both conferences and the ground of the contentions between them, with new facts incorporated, making it the fullest account ever presented in any history — How Asbury, the strategist, finally prevailed through the weakening of Gatch — Silence of the printed minutes as to the Brokenback Conference by suppression of the facts by Asbury and Coke in 1795 — Reunion of the bodies in May, 1781 — Asbury tells how he circumvented the Virginia brethren.
It has been found that the Leesburg Conference of 1778 was presided over by William Watters, Asbury being in duress at Judge White's in Delaware. Though but twenty-seven years of age, he was the chairman of the commission of five which the previous session had appointed, and whose names have been already given, to manage the affairs of the Methodist Societies. The Leesburg Conference adjourned, to meet at the Brokenback chapel in Fluvanna County, Va., May 18, 1779. It was the only regular Conference. They had adjourned with the understanding that the matter of the ordinances and ordination should receive final disposition at this Conference, and it was also known that it was about settled that the figment of episcopacy and servile dependence upon the clergy of the now scattered and practically disestablished National Church of England on American soil should be disowned. Asbury was fully acquainted with these purposes and the temper of the large majority of the preachers in their support. To circumvent them he laid under contribution all his strategic resources, and they were fully employed. The situation was critical, and no one was more keenly alive to it than Asbury. Rankin had retired, thus leaving the societies without a head of Wesley's appointment. Asbury had never presided at a Conference of which record is made in the printed[1]
Minutes. No successor was formally appointed to Rankin until 1784. It will be seen how Asbury reasserted his former position as General Assistant by assumption of its powers through the force of his personal character. One thing remained to him: in opposing the plans of the Fluvanna preachers he was in line with Wesley's purpose not to separate from the National Church, and he used this argument with the hand of a master. He at once put himself in letter-link connection with such of the preachers north of the Potomac (for all south of it were dissentients) as would yield to the cogency of this argument, and thus brought to his succor several of the native American preachers who, but for it, would on general principles have also sided with the Fluvanna men.
Among these were Watters, Garrettson, Peddicord, Gill, and Ruff. He suggested April 28, 1779, as a time for meeting him at Judge White's for conference. Besides those named, six others found their way to Asbury's place of seclusion. [2]
Once within the magic circle of his personal presence, he largely molded them at will. What they did, so far as is known, is on record in the minutes of two printed pages. Reviewing them in reverse order, as probably the actual one, the question was put, "Ought not brother Asbury to act as General Assistant in America?" Answer, "He ought: first, on account of his age; second, because originally
appointed by Mr. Wesley; third, because joined with Messrs. Rankin and Shadford by express order from Mr. Wesley." The fact of history is that Shadford was not sent as a co-general assistant with Rankin. The next question was: "How far shall his power extend?" Answer, "On hearing every preacher for and against what is in debate, the right of determination shall rest with him according to the minutes." Thus they clothed him with the plenary authority of Wesley himself, and he[3]
continued to exercise it for years afterward. And so these twelve men, inclusive of Asbury, by a highhanded act repudiated the action of the two prior regular Conferences. Some farther questions were: Shall we guard against a separation from the Church, directly or indirectly?" Answer, "By all means." This to nullify any action the Fluvanna Conference might take, under this Asburyan assumption of authority. "Why was the Delaware Conference held? For the convenience of the preachers in the northern stations, that we all might have an opportunity of meeting in Conference, it being inadvisable for brother Asbury and brother Ruff, with some others, to attend in Virginia; it is considered also as preparatory to the Conference in Virginia. Our sentiments to be given in by brother Watters." It must be admitted it was a guileful answer, with scarcely a defensible point in it, except as sending Watters as a messenger to bear to the regular Conference the sentiments of this secedent body of Methodist preachers. "Who of the preachers are willing to take the station this Conference shall place them in, and continue till next Conference?" The twelve, inclusive of Asbury, answered affirmatively. Thus they ignored the Fluvanna Conference utterly in the vital matter of the appointments. It was a step farther than the assumption that they were the Conference; it repudiated the appointing power of any other. Asbury in his Journal makes note of these things only to tell, "We had much love, prayer, and harmony," and fear of the separation of the southern brethren led to the message, with Watters as the messenger. "We wrote them a soft, healing epistle." Had that letter been preserved, it would exhibit Asbury at his best as a peacemaker, provided his will and way be accepted. He gives one fact not in the printed Minutes: "We appointed our next Conference to be held in Baltimore town, the last Tuesday in April next.
Thus it is seen that no half-way measures were proposed. May 3, 1779, he writes in his Journal:
"Today I wrote to John Dickins, to Philip Gatch, Edward Dromgoole, and William Glendenning, urging them, if possible, to prevent a separation among the preachers in the South, that is, Virginia and North Carolina. And I entertain great hopes that the breach will be healed; if not, the consequences may be bad." Significant words! There is something leonine in his attitude. Himself and eleven others separate from the regular Conference and then put the stigma of separation upon it. But he knew he occupied the coign of vantage, — he had them on the hip. Wesley would side with him so soon as he could be heard from, and so it proved. It bodes nothing in the present emergency that only five years after this time, he and Dr. Coke concoct a plan of separation not only from the Church, but a few years later separate from Wesley also; and his authority is put at defiance, just as now the regular Conference is put at defiance. Bangs, with that bias which leads him to excuse and justify everything that Asbury did, says, with a reckless disregard of facts as to the Asburyan Conference at Judge White's: "Although this was considered as 'a preparatory conference,' yet, if we take into consideration that the one afterward held in the absence of the general assistant at the Brokenback church in Virginia, we shall see good reason for allowing that this, which was held under the presidency of Mr. Asbury, was the regular conference, and hence their acts and doings are to be considered valid." Such a position is too much for the native candor and historic accuracy[4]
of Stevens. He attacks and refutes it utterly. A few citations will suffice to show his pronounced opinion: "They had the right to provide the divinely enjoined ordinances of religion for themselves
and their children, and they proceeded to do so by orderly and solemn forms. If at Fluvanna they were revolters, seceders, then it must be acknowledged that American Methodism as a whole must bear this reproach, for the proceedings of that session not only represented a majority of the circuits, preachers, and people, but were enacted in the legal assembly of the Church for the year, and by a legal majority of its recognized legislators. Nor can we accuse them of impatience. For at least six years the question had been pending, and they conceding to their opponents. . . . But assuredly these are not reasons why such faithful men, including Philip Gatch, John Dickins, Nelson Reed, Reuben Ellis, John Major, Henry Willis, Francis Poythress, and others as eminent, should be represented, however indirectly, as they have hitherto been by some of our authorities, as practically revolters and disturbers of the Church. They were, as we have seen, in every legal sense the Church itself. Historic impartiality requires this vindication of their memory. It is requisite not only for their memory, but also, as will hereafter be seen, for a rectification of a grave defect in the official records of the denomination." He makes an exhaustive vindication of the Fluvanna Conference, with[5]
contemporary references, to which those are referred who may have any doubt of his position and that of this writer.
Undeterred and unawed by the proceedings of Asbury and those who conferred with him, the regular Conference was held as appointed. The printed Minutes are as brief as those of Asbury's Conference, but they alone furnish the statistics and the full Plan of Appointments. Philip Gatch was elected to preside. The whole number of preachers was 44, though these minutes say 49, from the error of twice counting those on two Maryland circuits. It was a gain of 14. The circuits numbered 20, a gain of 5. Philadelphia, Chester, and Frederick reappear, omitted the year before on account of the interruptions of the war. The members reported are 8577, a gain of 2482. Numerically, three-fifths of them were within the territory south of the Potomac, as were all the commissioners, save one. For the outcome of the sacramental controversy Stevens says history is indebted to Gatch's manuscript Journal of the proceedings. The printed Minutes take no note of it whatever. It will be remembered that these printed Minutes of 1795 were revised by the bishops, Asbury and Coke, and they included or left out just what they pleased, as John Dickins, the first book agent, who had become a pervert to the views he held in 1778-79, did their bidding. This garbling of minutes and[6]
suppression of facts is a frequent occurrence, as will be seen as advance is made into the secret things of Methodist Episcopal organization. At this session they took action. Their justification[7]
was that "the Episcopal establishment is now dissolved in this country, and therefore in almost all our circuits the members are without the ordinances." They therefore appointed Gatch, Foster, Cole, and Ellis "a Presbytery," first, to administer the ordinances themselves; second, to authorize any other preacher, or preachers, approved by them, by the form of laying on of hands. Some of the questions and answers were: "What is to be observed as touching the administration of the ordinances, and to whom shall they be administered? To those who are under our care and discipline.
Shall we re-baptize any under our care? No. What mode shall we adopt for the administration of baptism? Either sprinkling or plunging, as the parents or adults may choose. What ceremony shall be used in the administration? Let it be according to our Lord's commandment, Matt. xxviii. 19, short and extempore. Shall the sign of the cross be used? No. Who shall receive the charge of the child after baptism for future instruction? The parent or person having the care of the child, with advice from the preacher. What mode shall be adopted for the administration of the Lord's Supper?
Kneeling is thought the most proper, but in case of conscience may be left to the choice of the communicant. What ceremony shall be observed in this ordinance? After singing, prayer, and
exhortation, the preacher shall deliver the bread, saying, 'The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc., after the Church order.'"
It is observable that though this Conference was outlawed by Asbury, these regulations were found so sensible, broad, and scriptural that they remain to this day parts of the Discipline except that the Prayer Book forms, which these liberal-minded preachers practically rejected, were incorporated when Mr. Wesley's Sunday Service for the American Methodists was brought over by Dr. Coke and accepted by the Christmas Conference of 1784. The plan of appointments (there is no information as to the manner of making it, whether by Gatch or the Commission) covered the whole field except Delaware and points north of Maryland. Asbury's name does not appear in the printed Minutes at all, as it had not in the two previous Conferences. The appointments for Baltimore and Frederick were the same in both bodies. The vote being taken on the sacramental question, it was carried by a vote of eighteen in the affirmative. Watters, the only member who attended both sessions, says, "A few did not agree" with the affirmative. It is due to Watters to record in passing that he "received no notice of the Asbury Conference, but hearing of it indirectly, determined if possible to get there, though in a weak state of health, in order that he might persuade Asbury to attend the regularly appointed Conference." He was President of the Leesburg Conference of 1778, and there is little[8]
doubt that he was at the time in sympathy with the Fluvanna brethren. Freeborn Garrettson, who was also at the Asbury Conference, in his semi-centennial sermon admits that Fluvanna was the regular Conference. So that, of the eleven preachers who attended, it is far from conclusive that they did so because they approved his proceedings, but, once under Asbury's magnetic influence and persuasive reasoning, they agreed to his proposals.
Before the Conference at Fluvanna adjourned, the "presbytery" before noted ordained one another, and then all of the preachers but the few who did not agree. As Watters attended Asbury's Conference from Fairfax County, Va., as he tells, in order to persuade him to go to the regular Conference, it would seem that he might have done so if he had wished, as it must have been as easy and as free from risk for Asbury to find the Fluvanna Conference as it was for the invited brethren to find him, thus establishing a probability that, foreseeing that he would be overborne by the action at Fluvanna, he determined not to attend, but call in anticipation an irregular conference to do his will. To use a vulgar illustration, "He took the bit in his teeth." Philip Gatch had retired in 1777, being one of the few married men, but such was the respect in which he was held that he was elected to preside over the Conference of 1779. That he was liberal in his sentiments, one proof is in the fact that to him the laity of the societies were indebted for a change in the mode of trial. Stevens says,
"The Church owes to him one of its most momentous legislative measures: the trial of accused members by committees in place of the previous clerical power of excommunication." The Fluvanna Conference adjourned, to meet at Manakintown, Powhatan County, Va., May 8, 1780. Asbury records in his Journal, under date July 30, 1779: "I received the minutes of the Virginia Conference, by which I learn the preachers there effected a lame separation from the Episcopal Church, that will last about a year. I pity them; Satan has a desire to have us that he may sift us as wheat." The irony is biting, and it stands with numerous other deliverances which prove that this good man was after all severely human. Of such references the candid Stevens says: "Asbury's judgment was always severe in such cases. His own iron conscientiousness, and his rigorous habits of 'discipline,' led him to condemn deviations from 'order' as dangerous, if not disastrous sins; and many of his allusions
to men whose opinions disagreed with his own, or whose infirmities clouded their last days, require no little qualification from the charity that 'hopeth all things.'"
From the silence of the annalists of these early days it must not be inferred that the two parties into which the societies and the preachers were now divided did not press their divergent views of Conference polity, the one under the lead of Gatch, unfortunately for the cause now retired, and for this reason not so influential as he would have been, supported by Poythress, Ivy, Willis, Dickins, Yeargan, O'Kelly, Tatum, Gill, Cole, Glendenning, Reed, Major, Tunnell, Ellis, as well as Watters and others, to the number of nearly thirty out of the forty-four preachers, paving the way for a Presbyterian system; while Asbury, with the less hearty support of some dozen American preachers, Ruff, Garrettson, Cooper, Hartley, Chew, Cromwell, and Peddicord being the principals, predetermined that it should be hierarchal, an Episcopacy of three orders, with property rights and ecclesiastical authority exclusively vested in the preachers, as in Wesley's day. The former were equally conscientious, and if they had been equally firm in the maintenance of their convictions, the organic form of American Methodism would have been conformed to the precedents of the New Testament churches, which established the priesthood of the people with a ministry to serve in honor for their works' sake. Had it prevailed, it is patent that the O'Kelly secession of 1792 would have been forestalled, and the societies saved the most disastrous destruction of their unity they ever experienced, until the climax of disunion in 1844. Had it prevailed, a strong probability would be established, as will be seen, that the organic unity of American Methodism would have been preserved, with what advantages denominationally, and what honor as a magnificent section of Christ's earthly fold, the pen of the historian cannot describe. All the Scripture, all the methods of the primitive Church for two centuries, all the logic, all the rights of manhood Christianized, all the political sentiments of the American Methodists and revolutionary people, were on the side of the Fluvanna's large majority of the preachers and three-fifths of the people.
On the other hand, Asbury could cite the talismanic name of Wesley and show letters from him.
All but two of the preachers — Dickins, who was an Englishman, and Glendenning, who was a Scotsman were native-born. It is doubtful whether Wesley had much personal acquaintance with any but Asbury, so that likely he alone kept up a correspondence with the father of Methodism. There is no doubt that he plied him diligently with letters setting forth his own views and convictions, and as they were in accord with the Wesleyan policy in England, he would have had little difficulty in recommissioning him as General Assistant, but for the counter fact that Rankin, and, strange to say, Shadford, his bosom friend in America, and Boardman, and other returned missionaries of Wesley's, did not make favorable representations of Asbury's disposition and aspirations; so that, distracted, he finally wrote, as his will in the case of the dispute in America, through Dickins, that "they should continue on the old plan until farther directed," as is gleaned from Garrettson's semi-centennial sermon, about the only record extant of these transactions.
Asbury called his Conference to meet in Baltimore, at Lovely Lane chapel, April 24, 1780. He[9]
had now come from his retirement after twenty-five months' seclusion, and presided over the Conference. His personal influence brought together twenty-four of the preachers, but not by accessions from the regular Conference. The proceedings, as usual in the printed Minutes, are brief, the most important items as follows: "What preachers do now agree to sit in Conference on the origin plan, as Methodists?" The significance of the form of this query will strike every careful