January 29, 1808 — to the General American Conference

A Letter of Bishop Coke to the General American Conference The correspondence between Bishop Coke and Bishop White had come to light, and Coke felt that he had to clear himself with the General Conference. He therefore wrote the following letter. However, only a part of the original letter was printed in Moore’s Pioneers of Methodism.

NEAR LEEDS [YORKSHIRE]

January 29, 1808

TO THE GENERAL AMERICAN CONFERENCE

My very dear Brethren:

…I find that a letter which I wrote to Bishop White in 1791 has been animadverted upon, though, if I mistake not, the letter itself has not yet been published.

There are very few of you who can possibly recollect any thing of what I am next going to add. Many of you were then only little children. We had at that time no regular General Conferences. One only had been held in the year 1784. I had, indeed, with great labor and fatigue, a few months before I wrote this letter to Bishop White, prevailed on James O’Kelly, and the thirty-six traveling preachers who had withdrawn with him from all connection with Bishop Asbury, to submit to the decision of a General Conference. This Conference was to be held in about a year and a half after my departure from the States. And at this Conference—held, I think, the latter end of 1792—I proposed and obtained that great blessing to the American Connection—a permanency for General Conferences, which were to be held at stated times. Previously to the holding of this Conference (except the general one held in 1784), there were only small district meetings, excepting the council which was held at Cokesbury College, either in 1791 or 1792. Except the union which most justly subsisted between Bishop Asbury on the one hand, and the preachers and people on the other, the Society, as such, taken as an aggregate, was almost like a rope of sand. I longed to see matters on a footing likely to be permanent. Bishop Asbury did the same; and it was that view of things, I doubt not, which led Bishop Asbury, the year before, to call, and to endeavor to establish, a regular council, who were to meet him annually at Cokesbury. In this point I differed in sentiment from my venerable brother. But I saw the danger of our situation, though I well knew that God was sufficient for all things. I did verily believe then that under God the Connection would be more likely to be saved from convulsions by a union with the old Episcopal Church than any other way—not by a dereliction of ordination, sacraments, and the Methodist discipline, but by a junction on proper terms. Bishop White, in two interviews I had with him in Philadelphia, gave me reason to believe that this junction might be accomplished with ease. Dr. Magaw was perfectly sure of it. Indeed (if Mr. Ogden, of New Jersey, did not mistake in the information he gave me), a canon passed the House of Bishops of the old Episcopal Church in favor. Bishop Madison, according to the same information, took the canon to the lower house, “but it was there thrown out,” said Mr. Ogden—to whom I explained the whole business— “because they did not understand the full meaning of it.” Mr. Ogden added that he spoke against it because he did not understand it; but that it would have met with his warm support had he understood the full intention of it.

I had provided in the fullest manner, in my indispensably necessary conditions, for the security, and I may say for the independence, of our discipline and places of worship. But I thought (perhaps erroneously, and I believe so now) that our field of action would have been exceedingly enlarged by that junction, and that myriads would have attended our ministry in consequence of it who were at that time prejudiced against us. All these things unitedly considered led me to write the letter, and meet Bishop White and Dr. Magaw in Philadelphia.

But it may be asked why did I not consult Bishop Asbury before I took these steps. I answer, It was impossible. I was at and near Philadelphia, and he was somewhere in the South. We had finished our district meetings, and he was to be in the State of Maryland about the time of my sailing for England. I wanted that every thing should be prepared against my return— God willing—in about a year and a half, for further consideration; that Bishop White, etc., should have time to consult their convention, and that I might also lay the matter before Bishop Asbury, and correspond with him on the subject, and after that, if proper, bring the business before the General Conference, which was to be held in order to take into consideration James O’Kelly’s division. Before I sailed for England, I met Bishop Asbury, at New Castle, in the State of Delaware (from which place I went on board), and laid the matter before him, who, with that caution which peculiarly characterized him, gave me no decisive opinion on the subject.

The next objection (and I think the only important one remaining) is the following: “If you did not think that the episcopal ordination of Mr. Asbury was valid, why did you ordain him? Was there not duplicity in this business?” I answer:

“1. I never, since I could reason on those things, considered the doctrine of the uninterrupted apostolic succession of bishops as at all valid or true.

“2. I am of our late venerable father Mr. Wesley’s opinion—that the order of bishops and presbyters is one and the same.

“3. I believe that the episcopal form of Church-government is the best in the world, when the episcopal power is under due regulations and responsibility.

“4. I believe that it is well to follow the example of the primitive Church as exemplified in the word of God, by setting apart persons for great ministerial purposes by the imposition of hands, but especially those who are appointed for offices of the first rank in the Church.” From all I have advanced you may easily perceive, my dear brethren, that I do not consider the imposition of hands, on the one hand, as essentially necessary for any office in the Church; nor do I, on the other hand, think that the repetition of the imposition of hands for the same office, when important circumstances require it, is at all improper.

If it be granted that my plan of union with the old Episcopal Church was desirable (which now, I think, was not so, though I most sincerely believed it to be so at that time), then, if the plan could not have been accomplished without a repetition of the imposition of hands for the same office, I did believe, and do now believe, and have no doubt, that the repetition of the imposition of hands would have been perfectly justifiable for the enlargement of the field of action, etc., and would not, by any means, have invalidated the former consecration or imposition of hands. Therefore, I have no doubt but my consecration of Bishop Asbury was perfectly valid, and would have been so even if he had been reconsecrated. I never did apply to the general convention, or any other convention, for reconsecration. I never intended that either Bishop Asbury or myself should give up our episcopal office, if the junction were to take place; but I should have had no scruple then, nor should I now if the junction were desirable, to have submitted to, or to submit to, a reimposition of hands in order to accomplish a great object; but I do say again, I do not now believe such a junction desirable.

And now I conclude with assuring you that I greatly love and esteem you; that it is my delight to pray for your prosperity; and that I am your very affectionate brother and faithful friend,

T. COKE

M.H. Moore, Pioneers of Methodism in

North Carolina and Virginia, 161-64