Conference of 1783 — Letter from Wesley; the moot of Asbury's General Assistantship before 1784 considered — William Phoebus — Jesse Lee and Thomas Ware — Asbury as correspondent with Wesley and Shadford — Story of Dr. Coke and Mathews — Twelfth Conference, 1784 — Slavery resolves — Three Conferences appointed, but not held; superseded by the Christmas Conference of 1784 — Growth of the Societies — Other heroes of these days.
The eleventh Conference was held at Ellis' and Lovely Lane, the former on the 7th and the latter on the 27th of May, 1783. Asbury gives but brief note of either of them, and Jesse Lee, who was received at this time, simply epitomizes from the minutes, except that he furnishes an important letter from Wesley, which is copied by Bangs and condensed by Stevens. Lee does not furnish the address of the receiver, but the contents show that it was not Asbury, and he farther says what he quotes is an "extract." It is dated Bristol, October 3, 1783, and exhorts the American Methodists to
"abide by the Methodist doctrine and discipline . . . together with the large minutes of the Conference" (meaning the British Conference). He warns them to be careful how they receive preachers from England. The salient paragraph is in these words, "I do not wish our American brethren to receive any who make any difficulty of receiving Francis Asbury as the General Assistant." From another paragraph in it, it is inferable that the returned missionaries had talked[1]
freely their prejudice against Asbury among the preachers, and Wesley discreetly anticipates any of this class who might go to America thus prejudiced. But does it not also show that all along from Rankin's return he had regarded Asbury as General Assistant? What it shows is that, having heard of the action of the American preachers, he does not make an issue with them over it. He was reaching a conclusion as to his appointee, and the drift was in favor of Asbury, his early choice. The tone of the letter is that he did not suspect that any one in America, much less Asbury, was drifting away from his personal authority. He discovered it later and sorrowfully, but not in time to prevent the mischief of the ordinations for America, the following year. Asbury kept up a close correspondence with Wesley and a confidential one with Shadford, and he was too ingenuous with the latter to adopt Coke's method of concealment, — "burn this letter." In fact, while Rankin was lording it over him he wrote to Wesley his grievances, but had the Christian courage to read it to Rankin before he sent it. It did not occur to him that the time would come when Shadford would disclose to Wesley the contents of some of his letters, as it will be found was the case. On the 24th of December, 1783, Asbury notes, "I received a letter from Wesley, in which he directs me to act as General Assistant, and to receive no preachers from Europe that are not recommended by him, nor any in America who will not submit to me, and to the minutes of the Conference." This is the same letter cited by Lee; from its date of October 3 to December 24, being about the space of time requisite for its transit to this country across the ocean and then by the slow mail facilities of the times to reach Asbury. The contents as epitomized by Asbury also show the identity. Interest in his reference centers in Asbury's interpretation of it — "directs me to act as General Assistant" — the fine distinction between acting and being appointed is well enough. Wesley knew that he was acting and did not interfere with it. It is all the letter can be construed to mean.
His references to the Conference of 1783 are very brief: "Our Conference began at this place (Ellis'). Some young laborers were taken in to assist in spreading the gospel, which greatly prospers in the North. We all agreed in the spirit of African liberty, and strong testimonies were borne in its favor in our love-feast. Our affairs were conducted in love." At Baltimore only this: "We began our Conference with what preachers were present. On Wednesday we had a full assembly, which lasted until Friday. We had a love-feast and parted in peace." Garrettson says "there were about sixty preachers present," out of eighty-three who received appointments. Besides Jesse Lee, William Phoebus was afterward the most notable of the fourteen received on trial. The statistics show 13,740 members, an increase of 2000. As heretofore, the principal business was done at Ellis', but confirmed at Lovely Lane. An assessment was levied upon certain prominent circuits, in the north 200 and in the south 60, for the support of the wives of eleven married preachers out of the eighty-three, so it is seen that after twelve years the Conference is still composed of mere striplings. Asbury felt like a father toward them at thirty-eight years of age, and called them his "sons in the gospel," in both a patronizing and paternal sense. Henry Boehm in his characterization says: "He had an intuitive knowledge of men. He would sit in Conference and look from under his dark and heavy eyebrows, reading the countenances and studying the character and constitution of the preachers." He molded them at will. Few had the temerity to speak unless questioned, and fewer still to dissent, whatever they might have thought. Had it not been made a law at the Delaware Conference, the pseudo-gathering of Asbury, "On hearing every preacher for and against what is in debate, the right of determination shall rest with him according to the minutes (Wesley's minutes and method)"?
Stringent regulations were passed against local preachers who held slaves, and against making, selling, and drinking spirituous liquors. The moral boldness of these resolves can hardly be appreciated at this day. Two Thanksgiving and two Fast days are appointed for the year, the first for the conclusion of the treaty of peace between America and the mother country, and the second for the glorious work of God. It was determined that those who were to be received into connection, as well as the assistants, should attend the ensuing Conference, named for Baltimore alone, fourth Tuesday in May, 1784. For the first time general stewards are appointed, Samuel Owings, John Orick, and be it observed that these are laymen. It is their first official recognition as being competent to receive and distribute the assessments. Jesse Lee, William Phoebus, and Thomas Ware, who were received at the Conference of 1784, are landmarks in Methodism. The first has been noticed and will often obtrude hereafter. Phoebus was of Maryland, and after traveling fifteen years, located in New York, studied and practiced medicine till 1806, when he reentered the work. In 1821 he became a "supernumerary," and died in New York in 1831, aged seventy-seven. His literary abilities were considerable, a good but not a popular preacher. He edited a magazine for some time in the interest of the denomination. The minutes say, "He sweetly fell asleep in Jesus." Thomas Ware was of New Jersey, born in 1758. He entered the army at the breaking out of the war, and was dismissed as an invalid with "camp fever." Under Peddicord he was converted; had an interview with Asbury, and was sent to a circuit in 1783. After having been invited to preach, he was ejected by vestrymen from an Episcopal church. Long afterward he became associate book agent with Dickins in New York, and for fifty years served the Church with fidelity. His historical reminiscences are most valuable because so reliable, and farther notice must be made of him in connection with stirring events. The labors and apostasy of Rawlins or Rollins are noticed at length by Stevens about this time, but it is not to edification except as warning. During this year, Stevens says, Asbury wrote one of his confiding, affectionate letters to Shadford. Among other things he enumerated the clergymen of the Episcopal Church who were friendly: Jarratt of Virginia, Pettigrew of North Carolina, Dr.
Magaw of Philadelphia, and Mogden of New Jersey. He says that he traveled four thousand miles a year. The letter is fervent, spiritual, exultant, and closes with a burst of enthusiastic loyalty: "O America! America! it certainly will be the glory of the world for religion! I have loved and do love America. I think it became necessary after the fall that government should lose it. Your old national pride as a people has got a blow. You must abate a little."
He also writes to Wesley as the next Conference approached. It was opportune; for he was now seriously engaged in the solution of the American question as to the ordinances, and Coke was urging him on to overstep the old restrictions of the National Church. It does not need imagination to show how Wesley's fellow-feeling would be appealed to, and how he would be influenced favorably toward the man who would so write: "You know, sir, it is not easy to rule, nor am I pleased with it. I bear it as my cross; yet it seems that a necessity is laid upon me. Oh, pray for me that I may be filled with light and power, with zeal and prudence, and above all with humility." It was written March 20, 1784 (see Arminian Magazine, Vol. 9, p. 681). It was just such language as Czar Nicholas might privately address to a brother emperor; as the Pope might address to the conclave of cardinals.
They reign by the grace of God, and they waver under the fearful responsibility. Providentially ordained to their mission, schooled into the full persuasion that to resign the burden that so oppresses them would be sacrilege, the solace is compensating that they could not, if they would, be or do otherwise. Wesley had a full realization of this autocratic instinct, and it was still growing in Asbury.
But are they not honest and sincere? Just as much so as any other form of lunacy, there is no sincerity like it. In 1801 he was reading Ostervald's "Christian Theology," and met with the sentiment that in the "primitive Church there was always a President who presided over others, who were in a state of equality with himself," etc. He had also been reading Cave's "Lives of the Fathers," who was a high Churchman, and Asbury is quite in accord with him, so he combats Ostervald's Presbyterian view in these words, "There is not, nor indeed in my mind can there be, a perfect equality between a constant president, and those over whom he always presides." He cannot mean by this that a[2]
presiding officer officially and while in the chair is superior to those over whom he is called to preside, as that would be a bald truism. He evidently means that such an officer, by reason of the perpetual relation, becomes in a well-defined sense a superior person as well. Dr. Coke grew into it earlier, as early as 1796, at the General Conference of that year in Baltimore. Alfred Griffith, well known to American Methodism, in his sketch of Nelson Reed says, illustrative of his moral courage:
"Dr. Coke, one of the superintendents of the church, was present; and one of the striking features of his character was that he was impatient of contradiction, and not wholly insensible to his own personal importance. He had on this occasion introduced some proposition in the General Conference, which seemed to some of the preachers a little dictatorial; and one of them, an Irishman by the name of Mathews, who had been converted in his native country from Romanism and had fled to this country from an apprehension that his life was in danger, sprang to his feet and cried out, 'Popery, Popery, Popery!' Dr. Coke rebuked the impulsive rudeness of Mathews, when he replied in his Irish manner, 'Och,' and sat down. While the Conference was now in a state of great suspense and agitation, Dr. Coke seized the paper containing his own resolution, and, tearing it up, not in the most moderate manner, looked around upon the preachers and said, 'Do you think yourselves equal to me?' Nelson Reed instantly arose, and, turning to Bishop Asbury, who was also present, said, 'Dr. Coke has asked if we think ourselves equal to him; I answer, yes, we think ourselves equal to him, notwithstanding he was educated at Oxford and has been honored with the degree of Doctor of Laws, and, more than that, we think ourselves equal to Dr. Coke's king.' Coke had now cooled off, and
blandly said, 'He is hard on us.' Asbury replied, 'I told you our preachers are not blockheads.' Coke apologized, and thus the matter ended." In addition to the direct point it makes, it throws light[3]
upon some of the transactions of the early Conferences, in which the repressed manhood of the preachers was provoked to outspoken resistance. It is delightful to turn from such phases of great and good men's characters, and look at the Christian side of them. August 4, 1783, Asbury journalizes:
"Rose early to pour out my soul to God. I want to live to Him, and for Him; to be holy in heart, in life, and in conversation this is my mark, my prize, my all — to be in my measure like God."
Nothing higher of saintly aspiration can be expressed. In his travels and preaching it is almost impossible to keep track of him, the transitions from state to state are so constant and the incidents so varied amid all sorts of adverse surroundings and physical sufferings.
The twelfth Conference met for the Virginia brethren at Ellis', though Baltimore alone was named as the place, April 30, 1784, for two days. The minutes say it ended on the 28th, but these discrepancies are numerous. Asbury devotes but a few lines to it: "Brother O'Kelly gave us a good sermon, and Jarratt gave us a good discourse; our business was conducted with uncommon love and unity." The allusions to the Baltimore session, May 25, 1784, are almost as brief: "Our Conference began all in peace. William Glendenning had been devising a plan to lay me aside, or at least to abridge my powers. Mr. Wesley's letter settled the point, and all was happy. The Conference rose on Friday morning." This was the letter already referred to. No annalist gives even an inkling of what Glendenning proposed as a reform in governmental methods, but it is clear that he was by far too erratic to reform anything. There are always forward men who have an idea that something ought to be done, but they utterly lack the sense and prudence to do it. They set back the cause they would befriend. More of it will develop in the next decade. Glendenning received, however, the appointment to Brunswick, one of the best in the Conference — Asbury found it best to handle him gingerly. The printed Minutes occupy six pages. Eleven preachers were received on trial. The examination of character was never overlooked, and every rumor of irregularity among the preachers canvassed. Seven new circuits were recognized, four in the South and three in the North, — Juniata, Trenton, and Long Island. The plan of appointments now covered forty-six stations and circuits.
There was a gain in membership of 1248, total 14,988, nearly three-fourths of them south of Pennsylvania, yet the resolves against slavery continued as stringent as ever. If nothing else was accomplished, testimony was borne. Jesse Lee quaintly remarks: "However good the intentions of the preachers might be in framing these rules, we are all well assured that they never were of any particular service to our societies. Some of the slaves, however, obtained their freedom in consequence of these rules." As a moral question every man answered to his own conscience.
Owners within the societies lived and died Christians and were buried by these preachers with Christian rites, after their triumphant experiences in sickness and death. As a political question these resolves helped on mightily the final extirpation of an institution at war with the higher Christian principles, but for which the whole country was about equally responsible in its moral aspects.
The questions and answers are more numerous than usual. They relate to vacancies in the interval of the Conference, preaching-places that do not show fruit, erection of chapels and debts, superfluity in dress, reform in singing, and Conference collections. There are now thirteen married preachers who ask for a support for wives: Wyatt, Moore, Thomas, Mair, Ellis, Scott, Forrest, Pigman, Hagerty, Morris, O'Kelly, Dromgoole, and Dickins. Three hundred and two pounds is assessed for the purpose. The General Assistant is allowed twenty-four pounds, with his expenses for horse and
traveling, assessed and paid at Conference. "What preachers have died this year?" It was a new question. The answer is, "William Wright, Henry Metcalf." That is all. Lee commends it. For many of them it was all that lay between them and oblivion. It was ever afterward asked, but the answer rarely extended to over a dozen lines even for the best and most useful of them. "What preachers desist from traveling?" This form answered for all who dropped out for any cause. Wesley's suggestions as to European preachers were adopted rigidly. Fast days were made more binding, "By writing it upon every class paper. To be the first Friday after every quarterly meeting." Many Methodists, following Asbury, fasted every Friday. The last question, "When and where shall our next Conferences be held?" The answer shows the entering wedge to a division of the work into Conferences. "The first at Green Hill (North Carolina) Friday, 29th, and Saturday, 30th, of April; the second in Virginia, at Conference chapel, May 8; the third in Maryland, Baltimore, the 15th of June."
Time is allowed for Asbury to travel from one to the other, and for such of the preachers as could and would get to Baltimore — the Conference in fact and law. The first two were not convened, and the last was anticipated by the Christmas Conference at the close of 1784.
Lee adds a note to the end of his observations on the Conference of May 28, 1784, to the effect that the minutes, heretofore kept only in manuscript, were from this date printed every year. As already found, the whole from 1773 to 1795 were printed and bound into a volume by order of the bishops, by John Dickins, the book agent of the Concern, now removed from Philadelphia to New York. This volume is very scarce. In 1813 a new volume was issued, covering the minutes from 1773 to 1813, as mentioned elsewhere, by Daniel Hitt and Thomas Ware, who succeeded Dickins, and several changes of importance were quietly made by order of the bishops in the text, and not a few typographical and other errors crept into the new edition. The preface to this volume thus summarizes the work: "In the year 1773 the first Methodist Conference in America was held in Philadelphia, and consisted of ten traveling preachers, at which time there were only 1160 members in society. In the space of forty years you see the astonishing increase, amounting to 678 traveling preachers, besides those in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, with several thousand local preachers of sufficient worth to grace any pulpit, and members amounting to upward of 214,000, . . . likewise you will find that, in the space of forty years, there have been about 1800 preachers admitted into the traveling connection, and about 110 died in the glorious work . . . To view between six and seven hundred faithful ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ, spread from the northern extremities of the province of Maine to St. Mary's and the Altamalia River in the southern extremities of Georgia; and from the seaboard in the Atlantic States to Erie, Detroit, Michigan, Wabash, and Missouri in the west; and southwestward to the Mississippi, Natchez, upper and lower Louisiana to New Orleans and the Tombecktee settlements, — what may we not expect and look for from the hands of a gracious God, in answer to prayer, and the rewards of the faithful and diligent laborers?" Note must be taken of the farther fact elicited from these statements, that of 1800 preachers who entered the work in these years between 1773 and 1813, over 1000 retired after an average of service less than ten years by reason of the hardships and the celibacy it enforced, or an average of twenty-five a year. That the depleted ranks should be annually filled by young recruits in more than like numbers is in evidence of the impelling zeal and Holy Spirit call of a heart-religion as genuine as in apostolic days. Thomas Ware was admitted at this Conference of May, 1784. Of Asbury he writes: "Among these pioneers Asbury by common consent stood first and chief. There was something in his person, his eye, his mien, and the music of his voice, which interested all who saw and heard him. He possessed much natural wit, and was capable of the severest satire; but grace