[December 10, 1807] — to Nelson Reed

A Letter of Daniel Hitt to Nelson Reed

This letter from Daniel Hitt to Nelson Reed is included because of its unusual interest. Hitt was arguing the superintendency, and it is interesting to read his argument. Since he had been traveling with Asbury, he was in a position to see the operation of it personally. He is an able exponent of Asbury’ s view.

CAMDEN, S.C.

[December 10, 1807]¹

[TO NELSON REED]²

My dear Brother:

Yesterday evening we came to this place and had the pleasure of receiving your friendly letter, with many others from that part. I was glad to hear that you received mine from Cincinnati. Mr. Asbury gave me the reading of yours, which for some time past he has been partly obliged to do, for in some instances, I have had to answer some of his letters. While in Georgia, Mr. Asbury was greatly afflicted, so that we could not make our intended route through that state, and we are now behind our appointments, judge, by information received, the prospect in the bounds of the South Conference is quite pleasing, and we calculate on several candidates for the travelling ministry, as well as a considerable increase in membership: and it probably would have been much greater if the influenza had been less prevalent & fatal in the south.

There were two parts of your letter that drew my attention, & somewhat created my astonishment; the first was that of 7 Bishops & the second was Jno. Wilson,³ supposed to be on an electioneering journey to the South. When you say “the Preachers to the North,” I must suppose you mean those North of Maryland, for to my recollection, I know none, who were in favor of 7 Bishops, & them to be located to the seven Annual Conferences; neither do I think such a measure would have any tendency to perpetuate the Union of the general body: and we must be united, if we stand and prosper!

In my opinion nothing can keep the body united; but a well regulated, and energetic general superintendency. What was the Wesleyan in Europe, what was the American before, & since the organization of the Church in 1784, but a high toned general superintendency? Have the European Methodists prospered more since, than before Mr. Wesley? What Church, in any modern century, has prospered in number, & genuine piety, equal to the Methodist Episcopal Church? If we have been thus prosperous & successful, why should we depart from the present economy & regulations, to gratify the capricious humour of some dissatisfied individuals? Mark! I fix these observations on no individual, but attach it to the principle, to show that the principle itself is corrupt.

Secondly; as to Jno. Wilson, coming to the South on an electioneering expedition, either ecclesiastical or political, I believe no such thing. You may tell Brother Neal I had the reading of his letter & will attend to its contents as far as I can. My best respects to Sister Reed, Brother Hagerty, Brother & Sister Burnieston. Adieu.

Yours in the Lord,

D. HITT

P.S. From the personal interview I had with Jno. Wilson when in Boston & from information since I am of the opinion that his health & settlement of his business as book steward were the sole motives that brought him to the South; however, it is possible that he may have had other motives. D.H.

Drew University Library