SNe nan SNORT Aa eee Re rer Pry tpt abe bathe ieee oe BEE, y~ a ornell University Libra’ History of Methodist reform, synoptical HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM SYNOPTICAL OF GENERAL METHODISM 1703 Tro 1898 WITH SPECIAL AND COMPREHENSIVE REFERENCE TO ITS MOST SALIENT EXHIBITION IN THE HISTORY OF THE METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH BY EDWARD J. DRINKHOUSE, M.D., D.D. (EIGHTEEN YEARS EDITOR OF “‘ THE METHODIST PROTESTANT ”’) Ad astra per aspera ‘¢ Till it be proved that some special law of Christ hath forever annexed unto the clergy alone the power to make ecclesiastical laws, we are to hold it as a thing most consonant with equity and reason that no ecclesiastical laws be made in a Christian community without consent of the laity as well as the clergy.” — BisHor Hooker. ““He who has no right to the thing he possesses cannot pre- scribe or plead any length of time to make his possession lawful.’’ — Dr. Barrow. The equity of all history is: Hear the other side. — THE AUTHOR. VOLUME I THE BOARD OF PUBLICATION OF THE METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH WM. J. C, DULANY, Agent, Battrmorz, Mp. ¥F. W. PIERPONT, Agznt, Pittspurey, Pa. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1899, By EDWARD J. DRINKHOUSE, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C. Nortoood ¥press J.S. Cushing & Co. — Berwick & Smith Norwood Mass. U.S.A. PREFACE THE writing of a History of the Methodist Protestant Church was first suggested to me by the Rev. W. C. Lipscomb in the autumn of 1877. Bassett’s History had just been issued from the press. Written from the point of view of “The Methodist” (Protestant) Church of the North and West it was found quite unsatisfactory to the East and South, not so much from what it stated, as from what it failed to state. Hence this suggestion to me, then editor of The Methodist Protestant, Baltimore, Md. It was a surprise and not entertained. I had been a close student of Methodist history since 1850. More mature reflection led to the conclusion that it might be my providential task, if proper leisure and apt environment ever came to me. It led to a pains- taking collection, often at considerable personal expense, of all the sources and authorities bearing upon general Methodism and of the Methodist Protestant Church in particular, through in- tervening years of exacting editorial toil down to 1892. Then came retirement from official position and leisure for the work. It has been diligently pursued through five years as an uncom- pensated labor of love and from a settled conviction that “the truth of history ” demanded the work at my hands. The result is before the reader in these octavo volumes. The Reform movement in the Methodist Episcopal Church dur- ing the decade of 1820-30, never contemplated a separate Church organization. This was made a necessity by the Expulsions of 1827-30, as a concerted action of the authorities of that Church. Nor for a decade of years after 1830, did the expelled and their seceding friends of governmental Reform in Methodism abandon the hope that their quondam associates would become amenable to reason and the sense of restitution on terms of reinstatement such as Christian manhood could accept. In consequence, inadequate care was taken to preserve historical documents and the local story of Reform movements. Apart from the records of its peri- U1 iv PREFACE odical press no attempt was made to embody the facts until 1843, when a twelvemo volume was issued by Rev. James R. Williams, of Baltimore, Md., the cradle of Reform as it was of Methodism. It covered succinctly the period to 1842. The small edition was soon exhausted, but it was never republished, and fugitive copies are all that remain of this initial History. It was unsatisfactory to North Carolina and the circumjacent territory as dealing too sparsely with the movement in that section. Dr. J. T. Bellamy gathered material and wrote a History, but for unexpressed rea- sons during his last illness ordered his son to burn it. Rev. Dr. John Paris, also of North Carolina, in 1849, issued a twelvemo volume of more inclusive character and historical analysis. Like the History of Williams, it answered the demand of the period, but was never republished, and scattered copies only are to be found among our preachers and people. About 1855-60, Rev. Dr. Dennis B. Dorsey, Sr., then resident at Fairmont, W. Va. pre- pared a skeleton of a Church History and had largely filled it in, but his decease cut short the work and it never appeared. The Church had now grown in the West and North with a record of its own and on lines of separation from the adhering conferences, and a demand was made fora history from its point of view. It was furnished as already suggested by Rev. Dr. A. H. Bassett in a twelvemo volume, issued in 1877. It was afterward enlarged and amended, and for a score of years has been the dependence of the reunited Church. This triangular supply of data needed a central and unsectional array with the addition of a logical con- nection and philosophical treatment. It was this task the writer undertook under the extreme advantage of many years’ residence in Baltimore, the Methodist centre of historic data. How well he has performed the work it will be for the reader to decide. The sources and authorities cited in this History, with rare exceptions noted, are in the author’s possession to be preserved intact, and held accessible for verification under any reasonable request, inasmuch as many of its allegations are at variance with the received historical statements; and a whole class of facts is disclosed heretofore minified or suppressed by, or unknown to, his- torical writers on both English and American Methodism. The writer has been careful of the ground so that a challenge is hereby recorded of successful contradiction of its averments as to matters of fact. His inferential positions may at times be strained or erroneous and these he submits to such controversial questioning as may be possible. PREFACE Vv It is the custom of most historians to prefix to their work a bib- liography of the sources and authorities consulted in its prepara- tion. Such a compilation is not only helpful but necessary, when citations have been made without such references. In this work all citations are verified as to source and authority in the numer- ous foot-notes of the current narrative, so that a bibliography would be but a repetition of these titles. Sometimes the bibliography as a porch is more imposing than the structure, and carries the sem- blance at least of pedantry. Its absence in this work is nota loss. The writer discovered when midway in his preparatory investi- gation that a History of the Methodist Protestant Church, logi- cally stated and philosophically treated, could not be prepared without an enlargement of its original purview so inclusive as to comprehend at least synoptically the whole history of Methodism. The germinal principles incorporated in its Constitution and Dis- cipline were disclosed in the governmental Reform movements during Wesley’s life and since in English Methodism. And it is a remarkable fact that, without codperation or knowledge of each other’s movements, under the instigation of a common hier- archic rule, thoughtful Methodists both of the ministry and laity on either side of the ocean were working on independent lines to the same end of governmental Reform. The writer therefore found it necessary to give a broader title to his work as “The History of Methodist Reform,” with his own denomination as the objective. The discriminating reader will discover that there was nothing new in the Methodist Reform movements from the tentative ones of Gatch, Dickins, O’Kelly and others in Virginia as early as 1778; of O’Kelly, M’Kendree, Rice Haggard, Hope Hull and others in 1792; the more effective ones of Snethen, Emory, Stockton and others in 1820-24 ; and later of Shinn, Jen- nings, Brown, Dorsey, McCaine and others for 1824-30. The ob- jections they formulated and the protests they entered against the Paternal system of Asbury and the hierarchic features embodied by his pliant followers in the “Rules and Regulations” of the Methodist Episcopal Church of 1784, are all to be found in the seed of kindred objections and protests made by Wesleyan Meth- odist preachers and laymen from quite an early period of English Methodism down to the climacteric movement of 1849, which shook the parent body to its foundations. Another great advantage of this historical method is, that it furnishes our own denominational readers succinctly all of vi PREFACE Methodist literature without recourse to historians and mono- graphists whose coloring is unfavorable to liberal views. As common property it is, therefore, appropriated for information as to the rise and progress of doctrinal Methodism and its spiritual agencies, called “imeans of grace,” touching which perfect unity has been preserved among our coreligionists the wide 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 Scrip- tures 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 Metho- dism, 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. White- head 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 success- ful, 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” contro- versy 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 PREFACE vii every step to hold an even balance between the contending parties. It cannot, however, be reasonably expected that a His- tory 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 behoof 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 animadver- sions of the Reformers as found in the standard histories and fugi- tive 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 restate- ment 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 de- termination to rescue from a swift-coming oblivion the Reformers of 1820-30. Many of them sleep in unmarked graves, and more of them have no historical embalmment. It has been a great labor to incorporate these biographical mentions, from a line or two to a page or more, as the judgment of the writer dictated or the material at command made possible. These interjec- tions may seem to the critical reader to mar the flow of the narrative, but they often contain important facts, and no careful reader will pass them over. Many worthy men, for lack of obit- uary notice in the periodicals of the Church, or by inadvertent oversight, are no doubt unmentioned, despite the diligence of the writer to avoid such omissions. Then, in covering that section of the Church history from 1858 to 1877, marking the division and reunion of the denomination, that the author might be impartial, a Double history has been written. He has not knowingly omitted vill PREFACE any fact or argument for either side, and if his personal convic- tions anywhere appear, the feature is inseparable from an histori- cal work, not a simple summary of naked figures and facts. The personal equation of a historian ought not, and indeed cannot, be excluded from his work. He has assurances from some who have read the History in manuscript, that this period will not prove unsatisfactory. It was a part of the original design of the work to include in appendices brief histories of the several annual conferences, but it was found impracticable and was abandoned. The appendices which have been furnished are essential and invaluable, and the writer earnestly requests every reader and critic to make a care- ful perusal of them in their close connection with the running text, as indispensable to a right understanding of the subject. Brief histories of the Book Concerns as such, as well as of the offi- cial colleges — Adrian, Western Maryland, and Kansas Univer- sity — have been omitted, for the reason that they have been largely incorporated in the running text, and more extended data are easily obtainable. The appendices for Ministerial Education, the Women’s Foreign Missionary Society, the Foreign and the Home Missionary Boards, etc., have all been added to the first volume, though properly belonging to the second, in order that the relative size of the two books may in this way be preserved. The principal claim of this History is, that it discloses and verifies a whole class of facts not heretofore given their proper accent by Methodist historians because not in alignment with the received opinions and traditional views of the great actors in the evangelistic movement, on both sides the ocean, called Methodism. It also places these received opinions and traditional views in other lights than those reflected by such historians, keeping in mind the great equity of all history: hear the other side. Many portions of the first volume, dealing as it does with gen- eral Methodism, are rigidly condensed, while in the second volume the critical reader, especially if not denominationally connected with the Methodist Protestant Church, will discover minutie of detail not always consonant with the dignity of history. Much of this period is within the memory of participants in it, and for the latter half within the personal recollection of the Author, so that many things are named by reason of an importance thus exaggerated. The numerous illustrations were largely an afterthought, and are the best that could be secured at considerable expense and PREFACE ix much labor, The likenesses of early Reformers and some others are given with as much regard to sections and conferences as was possible. The writer regrets that no portrait of W. W. Hill, A.G. Brewer, Adjet McGuire, and others could be obtained. No living men appear for a reason that must be obvious, however worthy. No pretension is made to literary style, and while indulgence is not asked of the critics as to fact and argument, forbearance is solicited when failure is exhibited in perspicuity or elegance of diction. The writer will find his reward if the readers shall dis- cover that he is not without the “historic sense.” THE AUTHOR. Battimore, Mp., November, 1898. CONTENTS VOL. I Preface — Origin of this History —Its predecessors— Method of this work —Synoptical of universal Methodism as a logical necessity and as furnishing its literature without recourse to other sources — Special difficulties of the author — Obituary sketches of the early Reformers, lay and clerical— Special claim of this work is that it discloses and verifies a whole class of facts heretofore minified or suppressed by, or it may be unknown to, other Methodist annalists —The Appendices and their importance to a right understanding of this History . CHAPTER I Introductory — Purview— Paternalism of Wesley and Asbury — Bird’s- eye view of Methodist history from 1703 to 1898 in England and America a necessity of a logical and philosophical treatment of Methodist Protestantism — Fundamentals on which the conclusions of this History are based . CHAPTER II 1708-1788 — The career of Charles Wesley outlined: and his consist- ency vindicated as drawn from his Journal and Whitehead’s ‘‘ Life” — His proper place in early Methodism — Contrast of his character with John — Their differences — His triumphant death CHAPTER HI 1708-1743 — John Wesley — Early history, life in Georgia, begin- ning of Methodism —A leader of men — Whitefield and Wesley — First Society — ‘‘ General Rules,’? Moravians — Lay-preachers — Wesley’s mother — Chapels and growth of Societies down to 1748 . CHAPTER IV 1744-1764 — The first ‘‘Conference’’ and subsequent ones— Wesley's loves — Break with Charles— John a born autocrat — Apology for him and philosophy of the situation — Of the three leaders, White- field, John and Charles Wesley, John was the only organizer — Reflections . 3 ‘ 5 ‘ . - 5 is xi PAGE iti 11 19 28 xii CONTENTS CHAPTER V 1765-1771 — Trustees of chapels, but property vested in Wesley — What led to it Open to abuse —The Salvation Army plan under General Booth and the probable outcome — The subject considered — The first missionary collection at Newcastle, 1767 — The property question must be settled Deed of Declaration as conceived by Dr. Coke— Asbury for America in 1771 . : , i . CHAPTER VI 1772-1782 — Wesley attacks the principle that ‘‘the people are the source of power’? — His book business — Irregularities discovered — Concord by submitting to his will— Dr. Coke comes upon the scene — Various estimates of him — Dominating idea ambition — Wesley bends to save a break in the Societies— Charles retires — Whitehead aspersed — Property question again ‘ 2 . é CHAPTER VII 1783-1784 — The climacteric year of Methodism because of the ordi- nations and separation — The ‘people called Methodists’? — Coke and the Deed of Declaration — Review of it — Fletcher no party to it — Coke’s so-called ordination — What it was and how brought about — The ‘‘ Sunday Service’ for the Americans 7 . CHAPTER VIII 1785-1790 — Ordination of Mather — Was it or was it not the same as Coke’s ? — Rare London pamphlet on Wesley — The Poll-Deed causes secessions — Dr. Coke father of missions— Charles Wesley’s death — Wesley an autocrat to the last — The preachers outwit him — His last testimony against separation . 5 r s A CHAPTER IX 1791-1792 — Methodism outside of the British islands — Wesley’s last letters, sermon, illness, and Dr. Whitehead — Pen-pictures — Eulo- gies— A lost chapter as to his obsequies— Whitehead’s sermon — Secret reasons for Whitehead’s persecution by the Conference party — A full vindication in Appendix A . CHAPTER X 1791-1797 — Distractions in Methodism after Wesley’s death — Coke’s return to England — Analysis of his character— Rev. Alexander Kilham’s expulsion — Rev. William Guirey, a new witness against Coke — Organization of the New Connexion Methodists — Individual force against automatic paternalism — Forerunner of the Methodist Protestant Church . . 5 ; : : PAGE 35 47 61 76 90 CONTENTS xiii CHAPTER XI PAGE 1797-1805 — Heroes of Methodism —The Poll-Deed quelling liberal sentiments — Coke’s letter to the Bishop of London — Failure of his plan to be a bishop — He leads the Foreign Mission work of the Conference — Lay-delegation vs. lay-representation— Leaders and heroes of Methodism — Prosperity of the Reform Methodist bodies 122 CHAPTER XII 1805-1815 — Modifications of the Poll-Deed extorted — Lorenzo Dow, Clowes, and the Bournes— Expulsions— Origin of the Primitive Methodists in 1810, a direct result of paternalism — Marvellous success of the new movement under liberal principles. és . 1380 CHAPTER XIII 1815-1825 Common property in Methodist heroes— The Wesleyan system not akin to American Methodist Episcopacy — Affiliation claimed — Dr. John Emory’s fraternal visit to England — Coke and Asbury in contrast—The former’s letter to Wilberforce and the bishopric of India — The Indian mission — Voyage thither and death— Irish Primitive Methodists — Rise and decadence i . 139 CHAPTER XIV 1825-1839 — The centenary of English Methodism — The hierarchal and liberal systems contrasted — Perpetual warfare of the two— Dr. Warren’s defection — Clerical pretension of English preachers — What a hundred years of conflict has accomplished for the priest- hood of the people. ‘ ‘ é é . : : . 162 CHAPTER XV 1839-1849 — Glance at Wesleyan Methodism from 1840 to 1890 —The Reform of 1877-— The Bible Christians — Expulsion of O’Brian, 1809 — Coalition of secedent bodies, Methodist Free Churches— Expulsion of Griffith, Everett, and Dunn — Origin of Free Metho- distsin 1849. 5 ; : : 5 4 A ‘ ‘ - 161 CHAPTER XVI 1760 or 1766-1773 — Methodism in America — Robert Strawbridge and Philip Embury —Priority fully considered — Captain Webb and other early preachers— Asbury the monumental man — Arrival in Philadelphia, 1771 — Jealousies of Boardman, Rankin, and erate —Shadford’s place . - 3 . ‘ 5 i j . 174 xiv CONTENTS CHAPTER XVII 1773-1774 — First American Annual Conference, July, 1773 — The Rankin-Asbury contention — Principles of the Revolution and the Methodist polity in conflict—Character of Asbury, a full sketch — His celibacy and its effect on the preachers and the people — Rev. William Otterbein and Asbury —Close friendship . ‘ CHAPTER XVIII 1774-1779 — The conferences of 1774 and 1775 —The Revolution — Asbury as a loyal Tory retired to Judge White’s in seclusion— Council of preachers to act in his absence — Memorable preachers from 1774 to 1779 — Effect of ee s course on the preachers — Sketch of Asbury. 3 ‘ : ‘ ‘ - ‘ . CHAPTER XIX 1779-1781 — The ‘‘regular’’ Conference in Fluvanna County, Va., in 1779 — A crucial period — Asbury’s rump conference a month in advance in Delaware — New facts— Asbury’s strategy and how he circumvented the Virginia brethren by the weakening of Gatch — Methodism’s lost opportunity — Reunion of the preachers in 1781 CHAPTER XX 1781-1783 — Wesley did not recommission Asbury as General Super- intendent until 1784 — Muzzling of the Virginia preachers — Ter- giversation of Dickins — Jarrett helps Asbury’s plans — Prominent early preachers . : 2 : 5 ‘A "i . . é CHAPTER XXI 1783-1784 — The moot of Asbury’s general assistantship before 1784— Asbury as correspondent with Wesley and Shadford — Twelfth Conference of April, 1784— Three others appointed, but superseded by the Christmas Conference of 1784 — Heroes of those days . CHAPTER XXII 1783-1784 — Events antecedent to the Christmas Conference — The English Deed of Declaration and the Episcopal organization in America either the acme of wisdom or fundamental errors — Which ? — What did Wesley intend by Coke’s ordination, so-called, thoroughly considered — English Wesleyan opinion — Suppression or garbling of the instructions and testimonials Coke bore with him to America — Verified tender to Coke and Asbury of union with the inchoate Protestant Episcopal Church — New evidence . r PAGE 191 201 212 226 240 250 CONTENTS KV CHAPTER XXIII PAGE 1784 — The conscience of humanity rewrites history — Antecedents and consequents of the Christmas Conference of 1784— Wesley’s plan rejected by Asbury, and Coke connived at it— The Perry Hall con- ference— The Baltimore Conference— Who were present — What it did—A Church organized of ministers, by ministers, and for ministers — Asbury ordained — To what ? A is : a - 271 CHAPTER XXIV 1784— Coke’s confession and Moore’s averment that Wesley’s plan was not carried out at the Christmas Conference — Historical proofs — Preface to the historical matter of the ‘‘ Discipline of the M. E. Church ’’ erroneous, and should be expunged as was done by the M. E. Church South in 1866 — Did the ‘‘people’’ approve the Episcopal plan of Coke and Asbury ? —The hierarchy in operation under Asbury . : 7 . ‘ . F . : A . 294 CHAPTER XXV 1785— Asbury travels and feels the pulse of the Societies and the community as to the Episcopal organization — Methodists in canon- icals — Coke returns to England June 2, 1785, to give an account to Wesley of his doings— How he was hoodwinked — His after grief and rebuke of the offenders— Garrettson forestalled as a ‘‘ superin- tendent’’ in Canada, of Wesley’s appointment, cs Asbury — New evidence — Coke again in America . z “ i F . 3805 CHAPTER XXVI 1785-1787 — Tripartite contention of Wesley, Coke, and Asbury for the supremacy — Cokesbury College — General Conference of 1787 called by Wesley through Coke— How Asbury resented it — Coke’s punishment — Whatcoat rejected as a superintendent of Wesley’s naming — The proceedings of the Conference of 1784 as ‘‘ question- able and unwarrantable’’ established ‘ é ° , é . 3819 CHAPTER XXVII 1787-1789— The story Coke had to tell Wesley on his return to Eng- land May 27, 1787, about the treatment of Asbury and the Ameri- can Conference — The Shadford letter and the facts about it— Coke returns to America, 1789— Asbury’s reprint of the Minutes — Changes, who made them and why — Asbury’s new ‘‘succession,”’ himself an apostle. ‘ ie a : . . : . . 304 xvl CONTENTS CHAPTER XXVIII PAGE 1789— Asbury’s attempt to be ubiquitous as well as omnipotent — Meets Coke near Charleston, 8. C. — Receives Wesley’s ‘bitter pill’? — Identified as the scorching letter he sent Asbury — Asbury and Coke travelling together — Motives for changing the early Min- utes — Division of 1844 foretold by both McCaine and Snethen — Wesley’s tearful regrets over the ordinations of 1784 proven . . 347 CHAPTER XXIX 1789-1790 — Of eleven Conferences held this year only that of Balti- more was authoritative — Objection to this method led Asbury to contrive the ‘* Council’ plan — The fullest account of it ever printed —O’Kelly’s connection with it and Asbury’s ‘‘ negative’? — End of the Council — The term ‘‘ presiding elder”? first introduced. . 866 CHAPTER XXX 1789-1791 — Asbury’s address to President Washington in New York in 1789, and its connection with the McCaine-Emory contention over it, and the omission of Coke’s name from the British Minutes in 1786 — The true date of the address and a full exposition of the whole matter—The Hammett secession in Charleston, S. C.— Antecedents of the O’Kelly secession of 1792 — Final overthrow of the ‘‘ Council” through Coke and O’Kelly — Coke’s secret letter to Bishop White — Was it mailed before or after he heard of Wesley’s death ? — Proved to be before and Dr. Emory discredited ‘ . 882 CHAPTER XXXI 1791-1792 —Full text of Coke’s letter to Bishop White and a catena- tion of facts about it making an account never before published — Dr. Coke’s mancuvring with the preachers and O’Kelly to outwit Asbury, and Asbury in turn makes overtures to both Coke and O’Kelly —Their relations not kind— Asbury finally humbles Coke, and in 1792 they act together against O’Kelly . : : . . 398 CHAPTER XXXII 1791-1792 — The delegated General Conference — Who suggested the idea ?— The suppression of individuality under forms of law leads to its clandestine assertion without law — Philosophical reflections on the hierarchy — Preparations for the General Conference of 1792 — Lay-representation in the newly organized Protestant Episcopal Church of 1785 lost upon the Bishops of the M. E. Church as an example and precedent : 5 . . . ‘ . 415 CONTENTS xvii CHAPTER XXXIII PAGE 1792-— The General Conference of this year— Dr. Coke repentant is received by Asbury, and they act together in all things —The Coun- cil matter, to consider which the Conference was called, ruled out by the Bishops— O’Kelly brings forward his ‘right of appeal’? — Methods for its defeat, Asbury’s strategy — Ingenious scheming — Defeat of O’Kelly and his secession . 3 ; 3 : 7 . 426 CHAPTER XXXIV 1792-1794 — O'Kelly and others secede —Charged with heresy on the Trinity — Thoroughly examined and proved false — M’Kendree de- serts O’Kelly after a private interview with Asbury —The Republi- can Methodists—Complete history —Strong and weak points in O’Kelly’s character — The fullest and fairest account of the move- ment ever published, with many new facts : 7 j ‘ - 440 CHAPTER XXXV 1794-1796 — A bead-roll of heroes—The General Conference of 1796 —Coke present—-The British Conference address— Proposal to elect another bishop — Adroit management of Asbury — Coke ac- cepted under conditions— The ‘Discipline’ of 1796 with Notes by the Bishops as authorized by the General Conference — Digest of it— Asbury sends a copy to Major Simon Sommers of Fairfax County, Va., and asks his opinion of it— He gets it to his discom- fiture in a letter now published for the first time. See Appendix D 464 CHAPTER XXXVI 1796-1800 — The Wilbraham Annual Conference — Assistant bishops proposed by Asbury — How overthrown — Lee in the Episcopal saddle — Asbury’s failing health — Sudden appearance of Dr. Coke in Virginia — He plays coy with the British and American brethren, and Asbury begins to play fast and loose with him—Coke at the General Conference of 1800—He must be a codrdinate bishop or nothing — His final departure from America after 1804 — His letters to McCaine : ‘ ‘ ‘ é ‘a ‘ a : « 417 CHAPTER XXXVII 1800-1807 — The General Conference of 1800—Contest between Lee and Whatcoat for the bishopric— Election of the latter— The elder- ship question again — Reformers still working —The quadrennium of 1800-1804 the most eventful for revivals —Camp-meetings intro- XVili CONTENTS PAGE duced — The General Conference of 1804—Snethen and a delegated Conference— Two ‘Disciplines’? issued, one for the North and one for the South— Death of Whatcoat— An abortive convention called — Defeated by Lee . z . - 7 . 3 j - 492 CHAPTER XXXVITI 1808-1812 The General Conference of 1808—Coke’s relation and final disposition of him — A delegated General Conference agreed to — How it was brought about as never before exposed — Has the Church a Constitution ? — Lee’s ‘‘ History of the Methodists’’ not favored by the officials — How finally published — Book Concern removed to New York — The first delegated General Conference of 1812— Asbury’s conduct with Lee . A A F 3 . 604 CHAPTER XXXIX 1812-1816 — Effect of the War of 1812 on Canada Methodists — Organ- ization of Reformed Methodists in 1814 — True account — The General Conference of 1816 — Elective eldership again revived — Asbury’s valedictory — Election of George and Roberts as bishops —Death of Asbury, March, 1816 — Full account — His funeral in Baltimore, with facts never before published — Black’s estimate of him — The author’s analysis of his character and work — The Epis- copal system can never be made a basis of Methodist Union . . 621 CHAPTER XL 1816-1820 — Episcopacy as administered by Wesley, Asbury, and M’Kendree— The grand pioneers of the period of 1800-1816 — Episcopacy as administered to-day— An iron hand still in the velvet glove — The Minutes on Coke’s death — ‘‘ Expulsion”? as a generic term in the old Minutes— Exceptions — Application in 1827- 30 — The stigma never removed from morally pure men by any act of the M. E. Church —Some sketches of notable preachers — End of volume first . 5 ; ‘ 3 ‘ : ; s ‘6 . 541 APPENDICES FROM A TOJ . 5 3 ° és . ‘ . . 665 ILLUSTRATIONS VOLUME I PAGE THE AUTHOR . . ‘ ° . . . - Frontispiece CHARLES WESLEY . . . . . . . . . - JOHN WESLEY . ‘ . ° ‘ ° . . 19 SusannaH WESLEY . F 7 7 . e . 27 GrorGE WHITEFIELD ‘ . . . ° . . . 38 Tuomas CoKE . ‘ . 3 . . ; ° ° » O51 Countess oF HUNTINGDON . . 5 . . 4 . 72 JoHn FLETCHER : . ‘ . 7 . . . 81 RicHarD WATSON . ‘ . . . . . ‘ . 122 ADAM CLARKE . . . . . : . ‘ . ; 131 Barpara Heck . . - : ; . * r . » 175 RoBeRT STRAWBRIDGE . 7 . . . . . F - 180 THomas WEBB . 3 . . . : . é s . - 188 Francis ASBURY . 7 is . . . 5 7 307 Witiiam M’KENDREE.. s 7 . . : . 7 . 485 ALEXANDER McCaINE . ¢ é a . ‘ < . 487 NicHoLas SNETHEN . a. ‘ . a é : . . 527 SamMuEL K. JENNINGS . ‘ . a - é . A .. 530 Asa SHINN . ; . 5 . : * . 3 . . 564 xix HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY The subject in purview — Roots of Methodist Protestant history — Paternalism of Wesley and Asbury — The growth of the system in England and America — Synoptical outline must cover Methodist Reform as necessary to a philosophical and logical treatment of the Methodist Protestant Church — Historical method of this work in a bird’s-eye view — The Poll-Deed in England and the Episcopal organization in America exclusively clerical, responsible for all the divisions of Methodism — Fundamentals on which the conclusions of this History are based. Tue history of the Methodist Protestant Church finds its roots in the personal and paternal government instituted by John Wesley for the Methodist Societies of Great Britain and perpetu- ated, under his example, by Francis Asbury for the Methodist Societies of North America. It shall be my task to uncover these roots; mark the growth of the anomalous system under the Father and Founder of Methodism; show how it flowered and brought forth its legitimate fruitage in the Deed of Declaration,! which entailed its principles and sowed the seeds of frequent and disas- trous divisions in the parent body, with a like result for American Methodism from the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church. In pursuance of this historical method and as germane to a his- tory of the Methodist Protestant Church, — which will soon close the third quarter of a centennial existence as a standing Protest against ecclesiastical Paternalism, — as much of general Methodist narration in its origin and growth shall be given as will satisfy the reader without resort to other literary sources. It is a wide field. D’Aubigne, in his “History of the Reformation,” has well 1 Otherwise called the Poll-Deed, an act of Parliament which vested all the rights of property in chapels, etc., as well as the right of Conference appointment of the preachers, before held absolutely by John Wesley in person, in a close and self-perpetuating body of one hundred preachers named by him. The plan was devised by Dr. Coke and his attorneys acting for Mr. Wesley. VOL. I—B 1 2 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM observed that “the encroachments of power form a large portion of all history; the resistance of those whose rights are invaded forms the other part; and the ecclesiastical power could not escape that intoxication which leads those who are lifted up to seek to raise themselves still higher. It felt all the influence of this general weakness of human nature.” More forcibly still he declares, in the Preface to his masterful work, that “the His- tory of the Reformation is altogether distinct from the History of Protestantism. The latter might claim the attention of Protes- tants; but the history of the Reformation is a book for all Chris- tians, or, rather, for all mankind.” And in accommodation of this language the writer affirms, in justification of the comprehen- sive character of this work, that the History of Methodist Reform which it outlines is something inseparable from and parallel with the History of the Methodist Protestant Church as its most salient expression. The latter might claim the attention of its members and adherents only; the former challenges the attention of all Methodists, or, rather, of the Christian world. It is therefore the History of Methodist Reform that is here synoptically related, as it furnishes the only philosophical and logical basis for a specific History of the Methodist Protestant Church. It alone clothes its anatomical structure with fleshly symmetry. The parallel runs farther. Methodist Reform sus- tains the same relation to the parental Methodisms of Wesley and Asbury that the Reformation sustained to Romanism, while Protestantism sustains the same relation to doctrinal Romanism as Methodist Protestantism sustains to ecclesiastical Methodism. And the continued numerical inferiority of the one has its paral- lel in the continued numerical inferiority of the other. So that those who maintain the rightfulness of hierarchal Methodism on the score of its continued material and numerical superiority, must also maintain the rightfulness of hierarchal Romanism on the same score. There is no escape from the logical dilemma. J)’ Aubigne further affirms that “the Protestant Reformation was accomplished in the name of a spiritual principle.” Methodist Reformation was accomplished in the name of an ecclesiastical principle. This principle is traced through the Methodisms of the world inthese pages. Besides the bird’s-eye view thus fur- nished, the method followed enables the writer to accomplish the double purpose of claiming for the Methodist Protestant Church all that is heroic in Wesleyan development as common property — its doctrinal teaching and means of grace — and of demonstrat- INTRODUCTORY 3 ing that ecclesiastical paternalism is responsible for all the schism in the parent body subsequent to the Deed of Declaration as epochal of an organized departure from New Testament prece- dents. This review will be necessarily sketchy and condensed, but will be inclusive of everything material to the main purpose of disclosing the reasons for Wesley’s paternal polity as it cul- minated in the Deed of Declaration; its destruction of English Methodist unity; the steady assertion of more scriptural and liberal principles by the English Reformers and their repeated excision by the Conference having its empire in property; the organized protest of. the secedent bodies and their reflex influence in modifying exclusive ministerial rule until it is well established that full lay participation in governmental methods is a certain futurity of English Methodism.? The purview of this History suggests the same general course in the treatment of North American Methodism. Every great movement has its causative force, and the verdict of impartial history will be that, on the human side of it, Francis Asbury was that causative force in the Methodist Societies of this country. A born leader of men with a genius for control not inferior to John Wesley himself, he found on this side of the Atlantic a sphere for the exercise of his rule-loving propensities — a domi- nating passion which knew no subordination, except to his higher consecration to the kingdom of God and the salvation of souls.? By native predilection and educational direction he was a mon- 1Dr. Neely, fraternal messenger to the Wesleyan Conference of 1894, informs his readers through the N. Y. Christian Advocate that the Conference was com- posed of 250 ministers and 250 laymen, the Legal Hundred of course being the final legislative authority as legally settled by Wesley in the Deed of Declaration. These laymen, it must be observed, however, were only delegates, not represent- atives direct from the societies, but chosen by the Districts. What would be the amazement of Wesley and Coke could they revisit the ‘“‘Conference’’ and find these laymen ensconced ? Verily, the whirligig of time makes all things even. 2The Rev. Devereux Jarrett, rector of Bath Episcopal Church, Va., ardently cooperated with the Methodists in the early days, and was well acquainted with Asbury ; held him in admiration, and on Jarrett’s death Asbury preached a memorial sermon on his character and labors. Jarrett wrote his own life in a series of letters. One under date August 2, 1780, says: ‘“‘Mr. Asbury is the most indefatigable man in his travels and variety of labors of any Iam acquainted with, and though his strong passion for superiority and thirst for domination may con- tribute not a little to this, yet I hope he is chiefly influenced by more laudable motives.’”’ These pages will demonstrate that there was never a more impartial judgment pronounced. See Rev. Dr. John Atkinson’s ‘‘ History of the Origin of the Wesleyan Movement in America,’’ etc., Jersey City, N.J., 1896, large 8vo, 458 pp., cloth. It is exhaustive of American Methodism prior to 1773, and is of original research. It will be cited hereafter. Present quotation on page 288. 4 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM archist in the State anda hierarchist inthe Church. He cherished these views with a good conscience, and his selected readings, as we learn from his Journal, were all to the end of confirming him in his convictions. Evidently he made John Wesley his model. To be to American Methodism what he was to English Methodism was the goal of his life. Paternalism found its personification in him. It goes for the saying that no man comes to its successful and continuous exercise who has not large qualifications for it. The infant Society in America found in him a master spirit. His devotion and spirituality and love for souls were seen and read of all men and his striking personality asserted itself among his lay preacher peers almost without visible effort. He grew into their affections and confidence and that of the Society, and he ruled them by large consent irresponsibly ; there being no one his equal in practical wisdom, in strategic ability, in arduous labors and single-eyed consecration. Nicholas Snethen, the ministerial father of Lay Representation for American Methodism, has aptly said of this juncture: “Though nothing, or next to nothing, was at- tempted in the way of instruction, so as to make the elder preachers the teachers of the younger ones; yet no preacher of any grade or station was ever left a day without a superior. The principles and germs of a hierarchy were thus incorporated in the very foun- dation of our primitive existence.”' This hierarchy was a marvel- lous development. Under the inspiration of Asbury it grew with the growth of the American colonies in the Methodist Societies, though through all this period, say from 1770 to 1785, the doc- trine of “passive obedience and non-resistance ” in the State had been repelled by the colonies until it culminated in a revolution of blood and a finality of civil independence. Freedom from kings and bishops was the end attained by the inchoate States of the American Union, while the enthronement of kings and bishops was the inevitable outcome of the paternal system in the inchoate Methodist Church within the same territorial limits. Not a few of the preachers, especially among the native born, chafed under the Asburyan rule from the beginning. It was utterly incongru- ous with the free air all about them, but they saw in their leader such an example of unfeigned piety and self-sacrifice that they submitted for the gospel’s sake, a gospel of free grace and full 1 Snethen on ‘‘ Lay Representation,’’ Baltimore, 1835, 12mo, 384 pp., for this and all other quotations from him in the course of this work, unless otherwise noted. The book is a summation of all he wrote upon this subject in the Reform periodi- cals of 1821-30. INTRODUCTORY 5 salvation. If any openly demurred, it was sufficient answer that the plan was Wesleyan, it bore his credentials. Without aban- doning the contention that the doctrines and means of grace peculiar to Methodism would have prevailed under the Divine blessing just as fully if it had been possible for Wesley and As- bury with their rule-loving natures to have administered a more liberal polity, it detracts nothing from the contention to admit that, accepting Abel Stevens’s crystalline definition of Methodism, “ A revival church in its spirit, a missionary church in its organi- zation,” the paternal government of both Wesley and Asbury, at least in the formative stages of the United Societies in Britain and America, was admirable and effective. But, as has been inti- mated, an intimation to be followed in due course by abundant proof, it was the ill-advised perpetuation of paternalism in the Deed of Declaration for the former, and the purposeful perpetua- tion of it in the hasty organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church for the latter, that made a Church for the ministry and not a ministry for the Church; the scriptural, rational, and natural order. It was the will and work practically of two men, —Thomas Coke, then but thirty-seven years of age, and Francis Asbury, but thirty-nine, and the acquiescence of fifty-nine other preachers out of the eighty-three then in the travelling connection, most of them mere striplings in age and experience; without consulting with the locality, now growing to the dignity of a third estate in Methodism, or of the whole body of the laity. It shall be my task to demonstrate that this second and aggravated departure from New Testament precedents of Church polity is directly respon- sible for the many divisions of American Methodism and the per- petual agitation against the exclusive rule of the ministerial class, who vested in themselves all legislative, judicial, and executive powers. The conclusion is reached, then, that the Deed of Declaration was the cardinal error of English Methodism, in giving corporate form to an oligarchic entail of governmental power; and the or- ganization of the Methodist Episcopal Church was the cardinal error of American Methodism, with a like result, greatly exag- gerated. The astute Snethen has expressed this conclusion with nervous energy: “ Every matter of fact evidence, every argument a posteriori, goes to demonstrate that paternal power, as soon as it ceases to be qualified by parental affection, begins to degenerate into tyranny, and therefore ought not to be perpetuated beyond the life of the real father himself.” It may be conceded that 6 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM Mr. Wesley for the United Societies of Great Britain, and Mr. Asbury for the United Societies of North America, acting as he did by his authority as general assistant for several years, and then by assumption, up to the Christmas Conference of 1784, gov- erned by a plan which was more efficient than any other could have been, in the circumstances. Snethen makes the same con- cession: “Itis, indeed, beyond all doubt that any leader in Church or State, with absolute authority, can do more than if he were fet- tered by a system; and yet it is a universally admitted fact that no governments are so liable to sink under their own weight as absolute ones. The ancient Romans had their temporary dictators in the emergency of the State; but when the dictatorship became perpetual, their liberties were lost forever.” The fact and phi- losophy just hinted shall receive fuller treatment in the course of this History; and, joining issue as it does with those who see in these cardinal errors the acme of wisdom, the fundamentals of the issue shall be staked upon a vindication of this conclusion. In pursuance of this method, the Christmas Conference of 1784, with its outcome, shall receive thorough exposure. The chief actors in it, John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, each God-fearing and conscientious in his sphere, shall be brought upon the stage of scrutiny, and another attempt made to unravel one of the most perplexing mysteries of ecclesiastical history. Perhaps no three men ever figured in Church activities who were so utterly free from love of personal ease and worldly wealth, twin frailties of so many who are not thoroughly consecrated to Christ and his kingdom; and perhaps no three men ever devel- oped a stronger dominating passion for leadership in the Church of God. The first stoutly adhered to his paternal views as he aged to senility, though broad reading and the force of the exi- gent made him willing, at times, to change his mind and his meas- ures. The second cherished a life-long aspiration for hierarchal honors. Highly educated, and abundantly wealthy for his day, he was by far the weakest of his compeers in natural endowments and asserting personality; but what he lacked in virile strength he made up in insinuating diplomacy. The third was a rugged character, a self-made man, who followed his convictions unerr- ingly under the severe limitations of preconceived opinions, com- bined with a generalship which developed a fine strategy, and made him in this respect the pronounced superior of his associates. A tripartite contention will be disclosed as a key to the mystery of otherwise unaccountable transactions of these three in dealing INTRODUCTORY T with each other. Wesley, the father and founder of Methodism, and excusably jealous of his position, holding to a settled purpose that, during his lifetime, he should be respected as such by the Methodists, whether in Britain, in America, or the islands of the sea; Coke, the untiring go-between, prevailing on Wesley to take © advanced steps in paternalism for America, and then exceeding his instructions, after his conference with Asbury, and finding himself at last foiled in his personal ends; Asbury, every inch worthy of all he claimed as leader in America, outwitting Coke and antagonizing Wesley unto final insubordination to his author- ity, because he was entirely too massive to be thrown from his equipoise by either of them. Quick to discern the whole situa- tion, with its possibilities, after his interview with Coke, his op- portunity had come to organize a Church after his own model, and, as he sincerely believed, to the glory of God. It was not to be lost; so, with unprecedented haste, the Christmas Conference was summoned to meet in Baltimore, and within a short week pater- nalism was enthroned, and the power of the keys was in his own steady grasp. Snethen says of this unseemly haste: “I never reflect upon the chapter of our history which related to the forma- tion of our Church without feeling it in my heart, for the sake of those concerned, to wish that it were blotted out. It is a mortify- ing monument of the want of diplomatical ingenuity.” There was, however, a deep method in it which will be disclosed when it is treated in detail. Around it, as the centre of a fray, have gath- ered its apologists and their opponents. The gist of the contro- versy was: Did, or did not, Mr. Wesley intend to organize a Church for the American Methodists, and “recommend the Episco- pal form of government”? Itwill be shown to a moral certainty, as positive demonstration is impossible on either side, that he did neither. That the American Societies were so impressed by Coke and Asbury need not be questioned. The means employed to this end will be traversed when the ancient controversy is covered, and the reader left to determine on which side of this darkly drawn line the truth is found. The period from 1784 to 1792 will be carefully considered, a period which marked the growth and consolidation of a Methodist hierarchy, under much agitation, and final upheaval in the seces- sion of James O’Kelly and others, with more than one-fifth of the Methodist people. This secession disclosed to Asbury two weak places in the government, which a subsequent General Conference strengthened by enacting a rule for expulsion of members or 8 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM preachers for other reasons than immorality; namely, “sowing dissensions” and “inveighing against either our doctrine or dis- cipline”; and the deed of settlement for church property plac- ing the title in “the ministers and preachers of said church at their general conferences.” The Council Plan of Asbury was intended to supersede the assembling of the preachers except in segregated annual conferences; the reasons for its miscarriage, with the outcome of a Delegated General Conference enacted in 1808, which was the first formal recognition of the voting power, or the right of suffrage, but confined exclusively to the ministers in Annual Conference. It will be shown that grave dissatisfac- tion existed all this time among the thoughtful laity because they were absolutely ignored as an estate in the Church, but who, for the most part, silently endured with patient acquiescence, for the sake of doetrines and means of grace which gave them soul liberty and spiritual peace. The same restive spirit found exhibition among the ministers in the right of appeal from the appointing power, O’Kelly’s objective, and the election of presiding elders by the Annual Conferences, which had among its advocates a preponderance of the leading ministers from 1800 to 1820, when the measure was carried by a two-thirds majority in the General Conference of that memorable year. It brought with it, however, the amazing revelation of the superiority of the Episcopacy to the General Conference. The bishop-elect, Soule, entered his virtual veto, while the senior bishop, M’Kendree, solemnly protested ; by indirection the resolution was suspended, and finally aban- doned, and Episcopal prerogative reigned supreme, as exercised by Wesley and Asbury. It marked its culmination —it also marked its decadence. A new epoch in the history of governmental Methodism dates from 1820. The effort of Bishop M’Kendree to secure the indorsement of the Annual Conferences for the reactionary step of Bishop Soule and himself opened the discussion of Episcopal prerogatives, and for the first time the intelligent laity of the Church looked more critically into the Discipline. In April, 1821, the Wesleyan Repository was issued from Trenton, N. J., by W. 8S. Stockton, a leading layman of the Church, and was continued for three years, its columns being open for the po- lemical study of Church polity; and lay participation in the discussion took tangible form. The synoptical review of this Introductory chapter is not the place for historical details. The General Conference of 1824 was a red-letter one, inasmuch INTRODUCTORY 9 as it was called to answer the petitions of the laity for recogni- tion. That answer was in turn an amazing revelation of exclu- sive claims for the ministry, and was intended to silence the membership, as the action of Soule and M’Kendree was intended to silence the ministry, as to the modification of the unlimited sway of Episcopal prerogatives. It gave birth to “The Mutual Rights of the Ministry and Laity of the Methodist Episcopal Church,” a monthly publication issued from Baltimore; and of the Union Societies. ‘The expulsions in various places for read- ing and circulating it and for being members of the Union Societies led to a crisis with the Reformers. The preliminary Convention of its friends in 1827; the delegated Convention of 1828; the formation of The Associated Methodist Churches, with its culmination in the Convention of 1830; the institution of The Methodist Protestant Church; its Constitution and Dis- cipline; the growth of the infant Church under persecutions, and its subsequent history to the present time,—furnish the material for this work. As necessary to the vindication of its principles parallel notice will be taken of the revived agitation in the Methodist Episcopal Church; the modifications wrought at least in the administration of its Discipline by the prospering existence of its liberalizing offshoot; the gradual incorporation of lay delegation, if not of lay representation in the former; the inauguration of fraternity with its excised Branch; the argu- ments to be furnished that a voting, lay-representation Church has succeeded, other things being equal, as well as a non-voting, clerically governed Church; thus dissipating the fears and over- throwing the prognostications of those who had stigmatized Re- formers as “the enemies of Methodism.” Equal sincerity will be conceded to the staunch advocates of these diverse systems and an attempt made in these pages, while unflinchingly vindi- cating the men and measures of The Methodist Protestant Church, not to impugn the motives or question the honesty of those who stood as the champions of the mother Church as or- ganized by the fathers. It shall be the aim to record and not make history, and as far as it is possible, without utterly obliter- ating the personality of the writer, to leave inferences to the reader. If, as has been affirmed, “the most attractive phase in the his- tory of each denomination is the season of its adversity,” these pages will not lack for attraction. Within its purview, moreover, it shall be incumbent to preserve under proper limitation of space 10 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM the history of the initial Conferences, as well as to rescue from a rapidly coming oblivion by a brief biography, all the early partici- pants in the Reform movements, with quadrennial statistics of church growth, thus to a given extent reversing the dictum of John Morley, the historian — “ The interest of historic study lies in tracing the devious course of the sacred torch, as it shifts from bearer to bearer. Itis not the bearers who are most interesting, but the torch.” The writer of these pages therefore realizes that, a large section of this work will have an unromantic side based upon the clear necessity of embalming records which of themselves make stimulating reading to those only who are willing to become close students of historic remains. With this synopsis of the gen- eral purpose the reader is invited to enter a wide field of Metho- distic study. CHARLES WESLEY. CHAPTER II Charles Wesley — Birth, education, Episcopal bias— Visit to America with John —Return, and itinerates among the Societies — Differences with his brother over lay-preachers and separation from the National Church — Friendship with Whitefield — Leaves the itinerant plan— Final separation from his brother — Whitehead’s “‘ Life,” from his Journal and other papers — Triumphant death. JOHN AND CHARLES WESLEY are names immortal in the annals of Methodism. The former the exponent of its doctrines, the secret of its marvellous success, and the organizer of its primitive disci- pline, an accessory to that success. The latter was the comple- ment of his brother as his most efficient helper and the author of its psalmody. They were sons of Rev..Samuel Wesley, rector of Epworth, England, and of his wife, Susannah. It is not within the scope of this History to treat of the Wesley family. Those who are curious as to its genealogy will find it exhaustively pre- sented in Whitehead’s “ Life,” ? the source of all succeeding biog- raphies, and in Clarke’s “Memoirs of the Wesley Family,’? the concluding sentence of its 432 octavo pages, crystallizing a verdict which loses all extravagance under his illumination: “Such a family I have never read of, heard of, or known; since the days of Abraham and Sarah, and Joseph and Mary of Nazareth, has there ever been a family to which the human race has been more indebted.” Charles Wesley was the junior of his brother by over five years, and was born December 18, old style, 1708. It seems demanded 1 Whitehead’s ‘‘ Life of the Wesleys,’’ genuine edition, in distinction from a fraudulent one issued shortly after the author’s death, by Coke and Moore and emasculated by them. A reprint of the genuine was issued by W.S. Stockton in Philadelphia, Pa., 1845, large 8vo, 548 pp., cloth, two volumes bound in one, treat- ing of Charles and John Wesley respectively, Whitehead being the literary executor of both brothers. This edition was embellished with steel-plate portraits of the brothers, and an introduction defensive of the author by Rev. T. H. Stockton, from the traducements of his enemies. Another edition of the genuine had been issued a few years earlier in Boston, Mass. 2 Dr. Adam Clarke’s ‘“‘ Memoirs of the Wesley Family,”’ reprint from the Eng- lish edition, by Bangs and Mason, New York, 1824. One large octavo, and ex- haustive of the family genealogy, etc. 11 12 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM in view of his conspicuous position in early Methodism and the scant reference accorded him in its annals generally, that a worthy place be given him inthis outline.’ His education was as thorough as his brother’s, and his intellectual capacity in no wise inferior ; his piety was as deep and his experience and grasp of evangelical doctrines as pronounced and comprehensive. The tutelage he re- ceived under his eldest brother, Samuel, gave him a high Church bias, which if it maintained his consistency, a quality his brother did not so fully esteem when it crossed his purpose, was the cause of the ultimate separation of the twain in their declining years of self-abnegating service in a common devotion to a spiritual king- dom without, and yet of the National Church. He accompanied John to America and shared in the hardships of the sojourn in Georgia. To this end he was ordained deacon and priest, and crossed the ocean as secretary to the governor, Oglethorpe; and also of Indian affairs. While detained at Cowes by contrary winds for six weeks, after sailing from Gravesend, October 22, 1735, he preached several times, “ great crowds attended his min- istry ;” a foretoken of a popularity that followed him through life and made early Methodism a large debtor to his unremitting labors. Arriving at Savannah, John was stationed in the city and Charles at Frederica, an Indian station some miles distant. He soon became embroiled with the inhabitants by reason of his rigid discipline, strict preaching, and pure life, and they conspired against him either for the ruin of his reputation with the gov- ernor, or to take him off by violence. His health gave way under the climate and his persecutions ; he resigned his position, shipped for England, but by stress of weather was driven to Boston and re-shipped for home, whither he arrived about thirteen months after his embarkation for America.? His private Journal, which came into the hands of Whitehead, his literary executor, and whose life of Charles is the most authentic, if not comprehensive one, extant, furnishes details of 1 Jackson’s ‘‘ Life of Charles Wesley,’’ English edition, never reprinted in Amer- ica, is an exception, as it is quite full but not so impartial as Whitehead’s. 2 John Wesley’s “‘ Calm Address to the Inhabitants of England,” in the year 1777, London, printed at the Conference office, 1812, pamphlet, 16 pp. On page 3 he says: ‘In the year 1737,* my brother took ship in order to return from Georgia to England. Buta violent storm drove him up to New England ; and he was for some time detained at Boston. Even then he was surprised to hear the most serious people, and men of consequence, almost continually crying out, ‘ We must be inde- pendent ; we shall never be well until we shake off the English yoke.” Thus early the American ‘rebellion’ began.” * Te reached England December 8, 1736 (Whitehead, p. 97). ACTIVITY OF CHARLES WESLEY 13 his acquaintance with Count Zinzendorf, head of the Moravian Church, and Peter Béhler, prominent in its ministry, and his experience of the “New birth,” by spiritual regeneration with his brother John who had also returned to England, through their instrumentality. This experience led to the use of extem- pore prayer under special demand of public worship. A born poet, from his youth he was a singer in verse, and now his muse, under the inspiration of his new and rich communion with God, through a reconciled Saviour, as the fact was answered in his personal consciousness, incorporated his devotions in hymns whose spiritual fervor and musical rhythm have fired the hearts of evangelical Christians in every clime and for every age. Watts alone shares with him in this lyrical triumph, though John gave out fitful evidences of the same gift when he fully yielded to the afflatus. His public ministry was fruitful.