B. Early Tensions
2. The Controversy of 1787
Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, John Wesley was convinced that he could continue to exercise control over the American Methodists
throughout the final years of his life. As a result, he responded to the insubordination of Asbury by appointing a third “superintendent” in 1787.
Wesley’s actions helped wreck a divisive split between the British and American Methodists.
301 Wesley, Letters, 8: 91.
By the mid-1780s, Wesley’s influence in America was waning. He
complained to Thomas Coke “of his hearing very seldom from any of his sons in the United States.”302 Wesley did maintain an irregular correspondence with a few of the American Methodist preachers, such as Freeborn Garrettson and Ezekiel Cooper. Most of this correspondence concerned spiritual matters, such as Wesley repeatedly imploring Garrettson to transcribe and send his journal.303
The majority of Wesley’s communication with the Americans occurred through Thomas Coke. Throughout the 1780s, Coke traveled widely. He rarely was in the United States for prolonged periods of time and he made frequent trips to England, where he aided Wesley in a variety of endeavors. Wesley wrote of Coke, “I can exceedingly ill spare him from England, as I have no clergyman capable of supplying his lack of service.”304
Wesley gave Coke detailed instructions before he sent him back to America. In a letter dated September 6, 1786, Wesley wrote, “I desire that you would appoint a General Conference of al our preachers in the United States, to meet at Baltimore on 1st May 1787. And that Mr. Richard Whatcoat may be appointed Superintendent with Mr. Francis Asbury.”305
While Asbury consented to call the General Conference, he was unhappy with Wesley’s interference with American affairs. In March of 1787, Thomas Coke met with Francis Asbury. According to Coke, the meeting was, at least
302 Phoebus, 114. Coke recounted this complaint in a letter to Ezekiel Cooper.
303 Bangs, Life of the Rev. Freeborn Garrettson, 146-153.
304 Letter was reproduced in Bangs, Life of the Rev. Freeborn Garrettson, 153.
initially, quite tense. Coke noted, “Our interview at first was rather cool, but soon the spirit of peace and love came upon us, and all jealousies were immediately removed.”306
In August 1788, Asbury wrote a letter to Jaspar Winscom in which he more fully expounded upon his sentiments. Winscom was a shopkeeper turned Methodist local preacher in Winchester, England; he and Asbury became
acquainted when the latter was stationed in the Wiltshire South Circuit. In this uncharacteristically frank letter (written to a “confidential friend”), Asbury provided an explanation for his frustration with Wesley. In Asbury’s estimate, it was impossible for someone who was thousands of miles away to make
decisions for the American Church. “I am sure that no man or number of men in England can direct either the head or the body here unless he or they should possess divine powers, be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.”307
In Asbury’s opinion, it was impossible to properly exercise authority without having proper relationship and understanding of the plights of the preachers. Asbury conceded that he found it difficult to visit with all the circuits in a given year and, thus, it would be impossible for Wesley. He wrote, “I have been prevented from visiting some circuits that have been formed 3 or 4 years that have wanted my pastoral care…if I was wholly at my own disposal I should see them all in the space of 12 or 15 months.” And, there was no way that the American preachers would submit to someone who had no relationship with them. Asbury recorded, “That one thousand preachers traveling and local; and
306 Coke, Journals, 85.
307 Asbury, 3: 63.
thirty thousand people would submit to a man they never have nor can see, his advice they will follow as they judge it right.”308
Wesley also lacked a clear understanding of the emerging American national identity. According to Asbury, his stance against the American
Revolutionary War had made Wesley unpopular in America. Asbury recounted,
“There is not a man in the world so obnoxious to the American politicians as our dear old Daddy.”309 Asbury feared that Wesley’s continued interference might invoke an examination by the government. He recorded, “We have a number of Captains and Colonels and men that are deep in the policy of their country and they will examine the policy of our CHURCH, to see if it is sound.”310
Asbury’s sentiments reflected the concerns of many of the American Methodist preachers. At the Conference of 1787, the preachers refused to acknowledge Wesley’s appointment of Whatcoat. Furthermore, the Methodist preachers decided to remove Wesley’s name from the list of superintendents.
Solidifying the separation, Asbury and Coke introduced the word “bishop” in the Minutes of 1788. Jesse Lee insisted that the decision was not made by the Conference but, instead, by the two bishops. Lee wrote,
They changed the title themselves without the consent of the Conference and then asked the preachers at the next Conference if the word ‘bishop’
might stand in the Minutes…Some of the preachers opposed the alteration and wished to remain the former title, but a majority of the preachers agreed to let the word ‘bishop’ remain.311
308 Ibid., 3: 62f.
309 Ibid., 3:62.
310 Ibid., 3:64.
The American preachers were concerned with the power being exercised by Wesley. Thomas Ware noted that many of the Americans feared that Wesley would attempt to govern the Methodist Episcopal Church, much as he did the Methodist Connection in England. In England, “Mr. Wesley had been in the habit of calling his preachers together, not to legislate, but to confer…. but the right to decide all questions he reserved to himself.”
The majority of the American Methodist preachers believed that weighty decisions, such as the selection of superintendents and issues of church policy, should be made by the Conference. Ware wrote, “To place the power of deciding all questions discussed, or nearly all, in the hands of the superintendents, was what could never be introduced among us.”312 Therefore, the preachers did not respond favorable to Wesley’s decision to change the date and place of the General Conference and to appoint Whatcoat to the superintendency. Ware wrote,
The liberty he took liberty in changing the time and place of holding the conference gave serious offence to many of the preachers. But this was not all, nor even the chief matter, which caused some trouble at the conference.
Mr. Wesley had appointed Mr. Whatcoat a superintendent…there was not one of the preachers inclined to submit, much as they loved and honoured him.313
It is important to realize that neither Asbury nor the majority of American Methodists had serious problems with Richard Whatcoat.314 The opposition
312 Ware, 130.
313 Ibid., 129f.
314 For more information on Richard Whatcat, see the following sources: P.
Douglass Gorrie, The Lives of Eminent Methodist Ministers (Auburn: Derby and Miller, 1853), 212-223; Richard Whatcoat, To Go and Serve the Desolate Sheep in
levied against Whatcoat’s appointment to the episcopacy was aimed strictly at Wesley. As evidence of that, Whatcoat was actually elected to the episcopacy in 1800.
Whatcoat was, in fact, a very uncontroversial minister. Born in Gloucestershire, England, he served as a band leader, class leader, steward, and local preacher in England, Ireland, and Wales prior to volunteering to accompany Thomas Coke to America in 1784. As previously noted, he was present at the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church. And, he served in large districts in America in the years following the Christmas Conference. He was known for being, “a man of the amiable temper, unassuming simplicity, and saintly piety.” He died in 1806 and was memorialized in the Minutes of that year. The author – presumably Asbury - wrote,
We will not use many words to describe this almost inimitable man. So deeply serious-who ever saw him light or trifling? Who ever heard him speak evil or any person? Who ever heard him speak an idle word? Dead to envy; pride, and praise; sober without sadness; cheerful without levity;
careful without covetousness, and decent without pride. 315