April 24, 1791 — to Bishop White

A Secret Letter of Bishop Coke to Bishop White

Because of its extreme importance this letter of Bishop Coke to Bishop White of the Protestant Episcopal Church is included among these letters. On February 23, 1791, at Charleston, South Carolina, Asbury recorded in the Journal, “Long looked for Dr. Coke came to town: he had been shipwrecked off Edisto. I found the Doctor’s sentiments, with regard to the council quite changed. James O’Kelly’s letters had reached London. I left perfectly calm, and acceded to a general conference, for the sake of peace.” Coke had lined up with O’Kelly. In Charleston Coke fraternized with William Hammett. The next year Hammett split the church in Charleston.

Asbury left Coke in Charleston and proceeded north. Coke caught up later. He probably prepared the letter on the way. He dated it at Richmond. Coke carried the letter in his pocket and mailed it probably at New Castle, Hanover County, Virginia. A few days later they heard of Wesley’s death, and Coke hastened to get off to England. There has been much historical argument as to whether Wesley knew of Coke’s approaches to Bishop White and Magaw. Coke was most anxious for a reunion of the churches. He was trying to see Bishop White. He had two interviews with him before he left America. The letter was made public by Bishop White fifteen years later. In a letter to James O’Kelly written from Washington, D.C., May 4, 1791, Coke urged O’Kelly to be

resolute in his position opposing the Council and substituting the General Conference. It is clear here in this letter that Coke did not see eye to eye with Asbury. However, nothing came of the overture to Bishop White.

RICHMOND, VA.

April 24, 1791

[TO BISHOP WHITE]

Right Reverend Sir:

Permit me to intrude a little upon your time, upon a subject of great importance.

You, I believe, are conscious that I was brought up in the Church of England, and have been ordained a presbyter of that church. For many years I was prejudiced, even I think to bigotry, in favor of it; but through a variety of causes and incidents, to mention which would be tedious and useless, my mind was exceedingly biased on the other side of the question. In consequence of this, I am not sure but I went further in the separation of our church in America than Mr. Wesley, from whom I had received my commission, did intend. He did indeed solemnly invest me, as far as he had a right so to do, with episcopal authority, but did not intend, I think, that our entire separation should take place. He being pressed by our friends on this side the water for ministers to administer the sacraments to them, (there being very few clergy of the Church of England in the states), went farther, I am sure than he would have gone, if he had foreseen some events which followed. And this I am certain of, that he is now sorry for the separation.¹

But what can be done for a reunion, which I wish for, and to accomplish which, Mr. Wesley, I have no doubt, would use his influence to the utmost? The affection of a very considerable number of the preachers and most of the people, is very strong toward him, notwithstanding the excessive ill usage he received from a few. My interest also is not small; and both his and mine would readily, and to the utmost, be used to accomplish that (to us) very desirable object; if a readiness were shown by the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church to reunite. It is even to your church an object of great importance. We have now above 60,000 adults in our society in these states; and about 250 traveling ministers and preachers; besides a great number of local preachers, far exceeding the number of traveling preachers, and some of these local preachers are men of very considerable abilities; but if we number the Methodists as most people number the members of their church, viz., by the families which constantly attend the divine ordinances in their places of worship, they will make a larger body than you possibly conceive. The society, I believe, may be safely multiplied by five on an average, to give us our stated congregations, which will then amount to 300,000. And if the calculation, which I think some eminent writers have made, be just, that three-fifths of mankind are unadult (if I may use the expression), at any given period, it will follow that all the families, the adults, which form our congregations in these states amount to 750,000. About one-fifth of these are blacks.

The work now extends in length from Boston to the south of Georgia; and in breadth, from the Atlantic to Lake Champlain, Vermont, Albany, Redstone, Holston, Kentucky, Cumberland, etc.

But there are many hindrances in the way. Can they be removed?

1. Our ordained ministers will not, ought not to give up their right of administering the sacraments. I do not think that the generality of them, perhaps none of them, would refuse to submit to a reordination, if other hinderances were removed out of the way. I must here observe that between 60 and 70 only, out of the 250, have been ordained presbyters, and about 60 deacons (only). The presbyters are the choicest of the whole.

2. The preachers would hardly submit to reunion if the possibility of their rising up to ordination depended upon the present bishops in America. Because, though they are all, I think I may say, zealous, pious, and very useful men, yet they are not acquainted with the learned languages. Besides they would argue, if the present bishops would waive the article of the learned languages, yet their successors might not.

My desire of a reunion is so sincere and earnest, that these difficulties make me tremble; and yet something must be done before the death of Mr. Wesley, otherwise I shall despair of success; for though my influence among the Methodists in these States, as well as in Europe, is I doubt not increasing, yet Mr. Asbury whose influence is very capital, will not easily comply; nay, I know he will be exceedingly averse to it. In Europe, where some steps had been taken tending to a separation, all is at an end. Mr. Wesley is a determined enemy of it, and I have lately borne an open and successful testimony against it.

Shall I be favored with a private interview with you in Philadelphia? I shall be there, God willing, on Tuesday, the 17th of May.² If this be agreeable, I’ll beg of you just to signify it in a note directed to me at Mr. Jacob Baker’s, merchant, Market Street, Philadelphia; or if you please, by a few lines sent me by the return of the post, at Philip Rogers’, Esq., in Baltimore, from yourself or Dr. Magaw; and I will wait upon you with my friend Dr. Magaw. We can then enlarge upon the subjects. I am conscious of it that secrecy is of great importance in the present state of the business, till the minds of you, your brother bishops, and Mr. Wesley, be circumstantially known. I must, therefore, beg that these things be confined to yourself and Dr. Magaw, till I have the honor of seeing you. Thus you see that I have made a bold venture on your honor and candor, and have opened my whole heart to you on the subjects as far as the extent of a small letter will allow me. If you put equal confidence in me, you will find me candid and faithful.

I have notwithstanding been guilty of inadvertences. Very lately I found myself obliged (for the pacifying of my conscience) to write a penitential letter to the Rev. Mr. Jarratt,³ which gave him great satisfaction; and for the same reason I must write another to the Rev. Mr. Pettigrew. When I was last in America I prepared and corrected a great variety of things for our magazine, indeed almost everything that was printed, except some loose hints which I had taken of one of my journeys, and which I left in my hurry with Mr. Asbury, without any correction, entreating him that no part of them might be printed which could be improper or offensive. But through great inadvertency (I suppose) he suffered some reflections on the characters of the two above mentioned gentlemen to be inserted in the magazine, for which I am very sorry; and probably shall not rest till I have made my acknowledgements more public, though Mr. Jarratt does not desire it.

I am not sure whether I have not also offended you, sir, by accepting one of the offers made me by you and Dr. Magaw of the use of one of your churches, about six years ago, on my first visit to Philadelphia, without informing you of our plan of separation from the Church of England. If I did offend, (as I doubt I did, especially from what you said to Mr. Richard Dallam of Abingdon,) I sincerely beg yours and Dr. Magaw’s pardon. I’ll endeavor to amend. But, alas! I am a frail, weak creature. I will intrude no longer at present. One thing only I will claim from your candor: that if you have no thought of improving this proposal, you will burn this letter and take no more notice of it, (for it would be a pity to leave us entirely alienated from each other if we cannot unite in the manner my ardent wishes desire), but if you will further negotiate business, I will explain my mind still more fully to you on the probabilities of success. In the meantime permit me, with great respect, to subscribe myself, right reverend sir,

Your very humble servant in Christ,

THOMAS COKE

P.S. You must excuse interlineations, etc. I am just going into the country and have no time to transcribe.

Edward J. Drinkhouse, History of Methodist Reform and Methodist Protestant Church, I, 398-400