March 25, 1787 — to Richard Whatcoat

In some ways this letter represents the issue over which American Methodism broke with John Wesley. Wesley still felt he had the right to tell the American preachers what to do. It is clear here that Asbury still accepted his authority and wrote to Whatcoat advising him. However, the outcome at the General Conference was decidedly different than Wesley and Coke expected. The conference did not elect Whatcoat.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

March 25, 1787¹

[TO RICHARD WHATCOAT]

My dear Brother:

Hereby I inform you² that Mr. Wesley has appointed you a joint Superintendent with me. I can, therefore, claim no superiority over you: the way will be for you to come after me through the whole continent if called, but through the States without all doubt. The best method will be to go out to the Ohio, upon a plan I have laid out for myself, and return to the Springs; there I will meet you and form a plan for our future work. The mode of appointment is not approved of, though many of us by no means object to the person. I am, with respect,

Yours as ever,

FRANCIS ASBURY

William Guirey, The History of the Episcopacy in Four Parts, 338-39, Rare Book Collection, Library of Congress

A Letter of James O’Kelly to an Unnamed Person

This letter from O’Kelly to an undesignated person is most important. Asbury makes no mention in the Journal of why the conference, which had been listed in the Minutes of 1786, to be held at Petersburg, June 19, 1787, was not held there. On that date he was in New York State; however, the conference was held at Rough Creek, Virginia, at William White’s on April 19. Three thousand people were said to have been present for the meeting on Sunday. Some kind of meeting seems to have been held in Richmond on April 25 or 26. O’Kelly refers to Richmond. Coke had written to O’Kelly before this. At the General Conference of 1787 Coke was accused of “writing improper letters to some of our preachers, such as were calculated to stir up strife and contention among them.” Coke had been relaying information to Wesley. The issue of Wesley’s control of American Methodism was at stake. For most often years when O’Kelly was in Southside, Virginia, a large part of which he was presiding elder, he was the antagonist of Asbury. However, he was supporting Asbury at the time of this letter. Wesley had given an order to convene all the preachers in Baltimore, May 1, 1787; and this accounts for the fact that the regular conferences were not held on the dates set. Asbury makes slight reference to the Baltimore Conference in the Journal. “We had some warm and close debates in Conference, but all ended in love and peace. After much fatigue and trouble, our Conference ended on Monday the 6th of May.” When the conference opened, Coke was in the chair. He opened the new commission from Wesley and read it. The conference had been convened by order of Wesley, and he recommended that Richard Whatcoat should be ordained a superintendent for America and that the appointment of Freeborn Garrettson as superintendent for Nova Scotia and in the British Dominion should be recognized. It was already seen that the issue was one of British control. Whatcoat’s Journal, Lee’s History, and O’Kelly’s Apology give information on the debate. O’Kelly says that the matter was opened at Rough Creek, Virginia, and that he opposed the ordination of Whatcoat as superintendent. O’Kelly says, “The chief speakers on the subject were Thomas Coke and James O’Kelly.” Asbury was opposed to Wesley’s order but kept himself in the background. O’Kelly says, “I spoke after this manner: that the free people of America were exceedingly jealous of the growing body of Methodists, because of the European heads. Moreover, I did not consider the person [Whatcoat] adequate to the task because of his age; and that also he was a stranger to the wilderness of America, etc. Above all I urged that two heads would produce two bodies. Francis [Asbury] prepared for the Baltimore Conference to decide the dispute.”

At the General Conference in Baltimore, Coke pressed the order of Wesley. The preachers were strongly opposed. After much discussion and some heat a motion was made to remove Wesley’s name from the roll. It was carried. Then they criticized Coke. Coke agreed to sign an instrument of abdication (see the instrument at the end of the letter). Wesley’s name disappeared from the Minutes. O’Kelly’s argument carried in reference to Whatcoat, though Asbury had already notified Whatcoat in the above letter that they would meet at Warm Springs in Virginia “and we will make out a plan for your route through the continent.” As a result of the conference Asbury really became, as Atkinson says, “the governing mind of American Methodism.” Jesse Lee says, “We then wrote a long and loving letter to Mr. Wesley, and requested him to come over to America and visit his spiritual children.” In 1789 Wesley’s name was reinstated in the Minutes but not as before. It was in answer to the first question, “Who are the persons that exercise the Episcopal offices in the Methodist Church in Europe and America? Answer, John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by regular order and succession.” However, this question was followed by another, “Who has been elected by the unanimous suffrage of the General Conference to superintend the Methodist Convention in America? Answer, Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury.” This is recorded by Stevens in his History of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

The O’Kelly letter is an important link in the whole story of O’Kellyism and the Methodist Church, and throws considerable light on the conference of 1787 though it was written in April before the conference in May.³ The letter is badly defaced. April —, 1787

My dear Brother:

Grace, mercy and peace be multiplied unto thee. I thank my God upon every remembrance of our dear zealous faithful elders, who have a good report from every quarter. You are called not only to be a saint but a shepherd to feed the church of God. May the Lord give us one mind and way.

Since I received the Doctor’s letter with a copy of Mr. Wesley’s likewise, so many alterations of conference occasioned thereby, my fluctuating mind hath been like the troubled sea. Our sudden and unexpected call to Baltimore⁴ to confer on a point predetermined, causes the cogitations of my head to rob me of many moments of quiet rest that nature lawfully demands. Surrounded with ideal difficulties I stand, sensible of the agreement and disagreement of my ideas, but the difficulty lies in the —— station. Often have felt my —— judgment —— Reasoning called for discerning ideas, yet my judgment (as final) undetermined. Desire that my mental ideas may be really understood by you my brother. Hope you will make the matter in debate, a matter of your deep meditation and prayer to the fountain of light. My dear, our work is not temporary but for future ages, yea even for eternity. Man is fallible, his brain capable of a collection of different ideas which are but speculative, difficult to determine on responsible ——. Therefore it will not be [line badly defaced] who is ready to judge the quick and dead; respecting sheep whom we’ve begotten by the word; over whom the Holy Ghost hath made us (not the preachers in Britain)⁵ ourselves. I say we cannot trust any man’s opinion in matters so important without a reasonable inference.

When matters are thus confused and ideas complex, my council is, to listen to the voice of reason, yea where Revelation is silent, listen to the [voice of] God. Here are men of understanding, let reason —— Good Heavens! Who can be able to account for —— from a little ——.

What may men be —— hearkens to others without consulting their own reason. Even to believe man to be infallible and bread and wine to be real body and blood. Reason—O, what a gift to fallen man? This is the light that dear Jesus gives to all born into the world; if they live to be capable of using of it they find it arising with the light of nature as ideas of good and evil appear.

My dear, I am no great proficient in reasoning, but it needs no great Logician to judge plain matter of fact. Inferences can be filled without a Syllogism at all.

The want of consistency is a proof to me that the inference is not right. When we, by the directions and consent of our conference commenced a church—we gave to our presidents a sort of kingly power, viz. A negative; which is able to oppose our strong affirmative. We hitherto have acted obediently, as sons. I have not abused our liberty nor opposed theirs. The question is, Shall we give all the power incorporated in us and agree that if the Doctor and Brother Asbury [agree] it is enough, putting nothing to vote if possible, to help —— (I suppose) that unless you two are suted[?] [your] conferences no vote or voice. Mr. Wesley, whom he foreknew, him⁶ hath he predestinated, called and chosen without any further approbation. If this is given up, then (as D. Coke said) away to thy tents dear American preachers, after a long struggle thro’ wars and famine, peril and naked, feeding a few frighted sheep driven about. You’ve no lot in the matter while our elder Brethren are planning beyond the water, we may be in our circuits waiting for further orders: and, for our consolation, they may say by us as the oppressors do by the slaves, “They have nothing to do but work eat and sleep. We take care.”

As to the reason arising from —— said, am not at a loss to see, but the consequence that may follow taxes my mind. When I consider dear Mr. Wesley as the general parent under God of the Methodists so called: (only —— look back ——⁷ to their parent[?]). Lo for a bit of bread and a —— providence of God, hath brought us to be priests as the shepherd made a way for the sheep in the wilderness. O, how loath to gain say or in the least to grieve his righteous soul.⁸ But what must we do? The Lord direct.

1. Does he look upon our country preachers to be men of so low breeding as not fit to govern?

2. Or does he think that we are a class of novices, fond of popularity, and so out of love to us, aims to keep us out of the snare of the devil?

3. Or does our dear Father conclude that we are prone to revolt or what he may call rebellion?

4. Or is there any political scheme in it?

If all my propositions are groundless; the Lord deliver me from such surmisings.

Who are capable of managing our affairs and our children under God —? Who has stood by them in perils and dangers? Who can endure hardship better than the Americans? Who will be better received here than ourselves? Let Conference chuse and if dear brother Whatcoat is their choice well. For my part would gladly sit at Mr. Wesley’s feet, cleaning his boots, hearing his gracious words. But expecting his time, in time to be short [?] and to give up both ends of the staff, who can tell what will follow?

Am perfectly willing if Brother Asbury thinks well to chuse one or two superintendents as the work is too great for Brother Asbury to act in conjunction with him as the younger; and all in subordination to Conference, but let our dear preachers have this liberty, to choose their master.

It depends much upon the elders, as many of our dear young faithful preachers would not wish to say much. I intend to contend for the simple faith once delivered to the dear Methodists [God saw] Israel was a child, God loved him. —— and humble sacrifice —— and faithful. I —— the cause of the poor and oppressed at the —— of my life. Yet hope always to take counsel in order to add to my courage, knowledge and in all points confer with my dear Brethren. I ever observe that prudence dwells with wisdom and so finds out witty inventions. Altho I was defeated in my aim at Richmond,⁹ yet am not out of head nor out of breath. Know there was good done respecting of it there.

I still love God, as the first day I knew him. I have with pleasure seen Zion in great bloom. Have sacrificed my little all, and the tenderest pledges of God’s love on earth as to earthly comforts, viz. my tender wife and children. I count not myself dear to myself so that God will make [?] us useful. Whether it be —— —— or zeal, God knows. I hope God hath cleansed my poor heart from unrighteousness; and God wants a servant to labour in the word. Here is poor old Brother O’Kelly. Large add. of 40.¹⁰ Farewell dear brother. Write a few lines to me.

[JAMES O’KELLY]¹¹

Coke’s Instrument of Abdication [referred to above in introduction]: I do solemnly engage by this instrument that I never will, by virtue of my office as Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal church, during my absence from the United States of America, exercise any government whatever in the said Methodist church during my absence from the United States. And I do also engage that I will exercise no privilege in the said church, when present in the United States, except that of ordaining according to the regulations and laws already existing or hereafter to be made by said church, and that of presiding when present in Conference, and lastly that of travelling at large. Given under my hand, the second day of May, in the year 1787.

THOMAS COKE

Witnesses John Tunnell, John Hagerty, Nelson Reed

Edward J. Drinkhouse, History of Methodist Reform and

Methodist Protestant Church, I. 328

N.B. You may show my thoughts and give my love to any of our preachers if you chuse.

Methodist Historical Society of the Baltimore Conference (Lovely Lane Museum)

This printed letter, or address, is in the Miscellania Volume of Pamphlets from the private library of George Washington. The collection is now housed in the Athenaeum Library in Boston, Massachusetts. Without doubt Asbury had sent this to General Washington. Asbury had visited Washington in 1786, and he visited him again in 1789. The address has great interest because it is a charter of the philosophy of Coke and Asbury in reference to education. The document goes into detail as to how the college should be run and how the students should behave. The references to play and exercise are rather humorous. The emphasis on Christian education is what might be expected. It would be interesting to know whether Washington contributed to Cokesbury. Since the little volume was preserved so carefully in Washington’s library, it is probable that he did make some contribution. Asbury held Washington in great esteem.

NEW YORK

May 18, 1787

An Address to the Annual Subscribers for the Support of Cokesbury College¹² Dearly beloved in the Lord:

Through the Assistance of our generous Friends, to whom in behalf of the Conference and ourselves, we return our most grateful Thanks, our College is under cover, and will, we trust, be opened for the Education of Youth, by next Christmas at farthest. The Debts we have contracted by the considerable Exertions that have been made (notwithstanding the great Benevolence of the Subscribers) oblige us for the present to confine ourselves to a contracted Plan, and to begin with a President, two Tutors and sixty Students. The Students will be instructed in English, Latin, Greek, Logic, Rhetoric, History, and as soon as the proper instruments or Apparatus can be procured, in Geography, natural Philosophy and Astronomy. To these Languages and Sciences shall be added, when the Finances of our College will admit of it, the Hebrew, French, and German Languages.

But our first Object shall be, To answer the Design of Christian Education, by forming the Minds of the Youth, through divine Aid, to Wisdom and Holiness; by instilling into their tender Minds the Principles of true Religion, speculative, experimental and practical, and training them in the ancient way, that they may be rational, scriptural Christians. For this Purpose we shall expect and enjoin it, not only on the President and Tutors, but also upon our Elders, Deacons and Preachers, to embrace every Opportunity of instructing the Students in the great Branches of the Christian Religion.

And this is one principal Reason why we do not admit Students indiscriminately into our College. For we are persuaded that the promiscuous Admission of all sorts of Youth into a Seminary of Learning, is pregnant with many bad Consequences. For are the Students likely (suppose they possessed it) to retain much Religion in a College where all that offer are admitted, however currupted already in Principle as well as Practice? And what wonder, when (as too frequently it happens) the Parents themselves have no more Religion than their Offspring. For the same Reason we have consented to receive Children of seven Years of Age, as we wish to have the Opportunity of “teaching their young ideas how to shoot,” and gradually forming their Minds through the Divine Blessing, almost from their Infancy, to Holiness and Heavenly Wisdom as well as human Learning. And we may add, that we are thoroughly convinced with the great Milton (to whose admirable Treatise on Education we refer you) that it is highly expedient for every Youth, to begin and finish his Education at the same Place: that nothing can be more irrational and absurd, than to break this off in the Middle, and to begin it again at a different Place, and perhaps in a quite different Manner. And on this Account we earnestly desire that the Parents and others who may be concerned, will maturely consider the last Observation, and not send their Children to our Seminary, if they are not to complete their Education there, or at least make some considerable Proficiency in the Languages, and in the Arts and Sciences.

It is also our particular Desire that all who shall be educated in our College, may be kept at the utmost Distance, as from Vice in general, so in particular, from softness and effeminacy of Manners.

We shall therefore inflexibly insist on their rising early in the Morning; and we are convinced by constant Observation and Experience, that this is of vast Importance both to Body and Mind. It is of admirable Use, either for preserving a good, or improving a bad Constitution. It is of peculiar Service in all nervous Complaints, both in preventing and in removing them. And by thus strengthening the various Organs of the Body, it enables the Mind to put forth its utmost Exertions.

On the same Principle we prohibit Play in the strongest Terms: and in this we have the two greatest Writers on the Subject that perhaps any Age has produced (Mr. Locke and Mr. Rousseau) of our Sentiments: for though the latter was essentially mistaken in his religious System, yet his Wisdom in other respects and extensive Genius are indisputably acknowledged. The Employments therefore which we have chosen for the Recreation of the Students, are such as are of the greatest public Utility, Agriculture and Architecture; Studies more especially necessary for a new settled Country: and of consequence the instructing of our Youth in all the practical Branches of those important Arts, will be an effectual method of rendering them more useful to their Country. Agreeably to this Idea, the greatest Statesman that perhaps ever shone in the Annals of History, Peter the Russian Emperor who was deservedly stiled the Great, disdained not to stoop to the Employment of a Ship-Carpenter. Nor was it rare during the purest Times of the Roman Republic, to see the Conquerors of Nations and the Deliverers of their Country, return with all Simplicity and chearfulness to the Exercise of the Plough. In conformity to this Sentiment, one of the compleatest Poetic Pieces of Antiquity (the Georgics of Virgil) is written on the Subject of Husbandry; by the Perusal of which, and Submission to the above Regulations, the Students may delightfully unite the Theory and the Practice together. We say delightfully for we do not entertain the most distant Thought of turning these Employments into Drudgery or Slavery, but into pleasing Recreations for the Mind and Body.

In teaching the Languages, care shall be taken to read those Authors, and those only, who join together the Purity, the Strength and the Elegance of their several Tongues. And the utmost Caution shall be used, that nothing immodest be found in any of our books.

But this is not all. We shall take care that our books be not only inoffensive but useful: that they contain as much strong Sense, and as much genuine Morality as possible: as far therefore as is consistent with the foregoing Observations, a choice and universal library shall be provided for the Use of the Students.

Our annual Subscription is intended for the Support of the charitable Part of the Institution. We have already in our former Address enlarged so fully on the nature and Excellency of the Charity, that little perhaps need be said upon it at present. The relieving our travelling Ministers and Preachers by educating, boarding and cloathing their Sons, is a Charity of the most noble and extensive Kind, not only towards the immediate Subjects of it, but also towards the Public in general; enabling those “Flames of Fire,” who might otherwise be obliged to confine themselves to an exceedingly contracted Sphere of Action for the Support of their Families, to carry the Saviour of the Gospel to the remotest Corners of these United States. We are not certain whether our Friends in Abingdon will include the Article of Washing for the Students in their Board at 20/. a Year: but we engage to furnish sufficient and convenient Rooms in the College as soon as possible for the Students, that the whole Expence, either in or out of the College, may be reduced to as reasonable a Standard as the Circumstances of Things will allow.

The 10/. a Year for Tuition, we are persuaded, cannot be lowered, if we give the Students that finished Education which we are determined they shall have. And though our principal Object is to instruct them in the Doctrines, Spirit and Practice of Christianity; yet we trust that our College will in Time send forth Men that will be Blessings to their Country in every laudable Office and Employment of Life, thereby uniting the two greatest Ornaments of intelligent Beings, which are too often separated, deep Learning and genuine Religion.

We are not able to determine at present with minute Exactness the State of our Expences; but we compute that the Debt on the College will amount to a Thousand Pounds at the Time of opening it; and it will require Two Thousand more to complete and furnish it fully, and to lay out the Land which appertains to it, in proper Order.

The Rules and Regulations with which you are here presented, have been weighed and digested in our Conference: but we also submit them to your Judgment, as we shall be truly thankful for your Advice, as well as your Prayers for the Success of the College, even where the Circumstances of Things will not render it expedient to you to favour us with your Charity: and for this End we shall desire our Elders, Deacons and Preachers, to read this Address and the Rules of the College, to all our Societies through the States. And we shall esteem ourselves happy, if we be favoured with any new Light, whether from the Members of our own Church or of any other, whereby they may be abridged, enlarged, or in any other way improved, that the Institution may be as near Perfection as possible.

Notes (12)

1. Though this letter has been dated 1789, it is evidently March 25, 1787. Asbury was not in Charleston on March 25, 1789; but he was there in 1787. ↩
2. Wesley in a letter to Coke, September 6, 1786, says, “I desire that you would appoint a General Conference of all our preachers in the United States, to meet at Baltimore on May 1st, 1787, and that Mr. Whatcoat may be appointed superintendent with Mr. Francis Asbury.” (Jesse Lee’s A Short History of the Methodists, 124.) Coke invited the preachers from the West Indies. Coke indicates (Journal, 1793) that on reaching the country in March, 1787, he was coolly received by Asbury. On arriving at the conference he was rebuked by the preachers. He had to pledge himself to “do so no more.” ↩
3. See Edward J. Drinkhouse, History of Methodist Reform and Methodist Protestant Church, I, xxvi, xxvii, for his account of these facts. ↩
4. Ordination of Richard Whatcoat, which did not occur. ↩
5. The reference to the British preachers is rather sharp. ↩
6. Richard Whatcoat. O’Kelly uses strong language. ↩
7. Part of letter torn off. ↩
8. John Wesley. O’Kelly is objecting strenuously to Wesley’s propositions and lists his reasons. ↩
9. O’Kelly was evidently opposed to calling the General Conference. ↩
10. Evidently refers to new members. ↩
11. Not signed. ↩
12. An Address to the Annual Subscribers for the Support of Cokesbury- College, and to the Members of the Methodist Society to Which Are Added, the Rules and Regulations of the College, by Thomas Coke, LL.D., and Francis Asbury, Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church. (New York: Printed by W. Ross, in Broad-Street. M.DCC.LXXXVII.) ↩