August 5, 1813 — to William Mckendree

The Valedictory Address is a most important paper. Here is Asbury’s philosophy of the ongoing Methodist Church. He referred to the valedictory in his dying words when, in answer to a question as to whether he had anything to communicate, he replied that he had expressed his mind in reference to the church in his address to Bishop McKendree. One is reminded of the valedictory of Paul addressing Timothy. The paper was evidently meant for the press. It was most carefully prepared and was printed in Paine’s Life and Times of William McKendree. There is a copy of the Valedictory Address in Lovely Lane Museum, Baltimore. There are differences but not essential between that copy and the copy used by Paine. The copy in Baltimore is dated August 5, 1814, contrary to the date shown in the Journal. The address to the General Conference, 1816, has been called incorrectly by some the Valedictory Address.

LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA

August 5, 1813¹

[TO WILLIAM MCKENDREE]

A Valedictory Address to William McKendree, Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America. By Francis Asbury. Speaking to the Genesee Annual Conference in your presence on the subject of apostolical, missionary, Methodist Episcopal Church government, I was desired to commit my thoughts to writing. I feel the more disposed to do this, that I may leave a written testimony which may be seen, read, and known when your friend and father is taken from the evil to come.

Sir: My advice is that there be only three effective bishops, as from the beginning, traveling through the whole continent, each one to preside alternately in all the Annual Conferences, one to preside during the sitting of the same Conference, the other two to have charge of and plan the stations and perform ordinations, assisted by the elders in both branches. The plan of stations should be submitted to the President of the Conferences, in triune order, to give a final decision before it is read out. I wish to warn you against the growing evil of locality in bishops, elders, preachers, or Conferences. Locality is essential to cities and towns, but traveling is as essential to the country. Were I to name cities, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome, with all the great cities, both ancient and modern, what havoc have these made in the Churches! Alas for us! out of seven hundred traveling preachers, we have about one hundred located in towns and cities and small rich circuits. Guard particularly against two orders of preachers: the one of the country, the other for the cities; the latter generally settle themselves to purchase ministers, and too often men of gifts and learning intend to set themselves to sale. I am bold to say that the apostolic order of things was lost in the first century, when Church governments were adulterated and had much corruption attached to them. At the Reformation, the reformers only beat off a part of the rubbish, which put a stop to the rapid increase of absurdities at that time; but how they have increased since! Recollect the state of the different Churches, as it respects government and discipline, in the seventeenth century when the Lord raised up that great and good man, John Wesley, who formed an evangelical society in England. In 1784, an apostolical form of Church government was formed in the United States of America at the first General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church held at Baltimore, in the State of Maryland.

You know, my brother, that the present ministerial cant is that we cannot now, as in former apostolical days, have such doctrines, such discipline, such convictions, such conversions, such witnesses of sanctification, and such holy men. But I say that we can; I say we must; yea, I say we have. And can men claim the rights and privileges of apostles if they are impostors and not true ministers of the holy sanctuary? Instead of going to preach, they stay to preach. Hence it is that schools, colleges, and universities undertake to make men ministers that the Lord Jesus Christ never commanded to be made. The present Episcopal Churches are greatly independent of each other. All the numerous orders of Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists are also local. If we wish to see pure and unadulterated Church history, let us go to the Acts of the Apostles and mark the characters of those ministers in the time of persecution— such as Paul, Timothy, Titus, Tychicus, Archippus, Trophimus, Artemas, Luke, Epaphroditus, etc.—men who did honor to themselves as ministers of Christ. But there are too many the opposite of these, whom we can view in no other light, at present, than as men going into the ministry by their learning, sent by their parents or moved by pride, the love of ease, money or honor. Are not such moved by Satan more than by the Holy Ghost to assume the sacred office of the holy ministry? Mark well what a situation the apostles were in. If unfaithful in the discharge of their duty, God would condemn and punish them the most severely. On the other hand, the people were ready to starve, stone, or beat them to death. Modern priests will please the people, that they may not be starved or beaten; but will not God condemn such teachers to everlasting destruction? We lay no claim to the Latin, Greek, English, Lutheran, Swedish, or Protestant Episcopal Church order. It will be seen that we are so unlike them that we could not stand as related to them. Would their bishops ride five or six thousand miles in nine months for eighty dollars a year, with their traveling expense less or more, preach daily when opportunity serves, meet a number of camp meetings in the year, make arrangements for stationing seven hundred preachers, ordain a hundred more annually, ride through all kinds of weather, and along roads in the worst state, at our time of life—the one sixty-nine, the other in his fifty-sixth year?

When the Methodist preachers came first to this country, one-half of the continent was overspread with different names and orders of Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, English, French, German, Holland, Scotch, and Irish, with many Quakers. In the Southern part were Episcopalians. They had but few churches and no bishops. At this time the Methodists were, among others, not organized and had not the ordinances among us. As some in pleasantry said: “We were a Church, and no Church.” In some places we communed with the Episcopalians. In 1779, some of our brethren in Virginia attempted to organize themselves into a Church; but in 1780, the writer of this address visited them, when they agreed to suspend their administration, and with united voice call upon Mr. Wesley to make some provision for them. Accordingly, in 1784, our faithful father, Mr. Wesley, ordained Thomas Coke, bishop, or general superintendent, and Francis Asbury was elected by the General Conference held in Baltimore, Md., December, 1784, general superintendent; was first ordained deacon and elder; on December 27, bishop, or general superintendent; Richard Whatcoat in May, 1800; and William McKendree in May, 1808. Dr. Coke was ordained deacon and elder by two scriptural English bishops, and so was John Wesley. Do any ancient or modern Churches stand on any better ground than we do with respect to ordination, with John Wesley’s apostolic right? Probably Paul was ordained with Barnabas. (Acts 13:1- 3.)

Should any ask why we did not seek ordination from other Churches, we answer them by asking if we should go to local men to be ordained traveling bishops. Should we go to Presbyterians to be ordained Episcopal Methodist? or to Episcopalians, who at that time had no bishop or power of ordination in the United States till application was made to the British Parliament, and that legislative body passed a law for the express purpose authorizing their bishops to consecrate and ordain bishops for the thirteen States of America, in 1785? Here let it be observed, that the Methodist was the first Church organized after the establishment of peace in 1783, and that the Protestant Episcopalians were not organized as a Church until after there was a law passed by the British Parliament. Or could we subscribe to Calvinian articles? Surely, no. Or could we submit to locality? By no means. Let local men ordain local men, baptize, or rebaptize local men; we must shape our course otherwise and prepare to meet the different Annual Conferences from Maine to Georgia and the Mississippi, and to retain all the ancient essential branches of Methodism in all its parts and try sacredly to maintain our traveling plan and support a true missionary, apostolic Church. And suppose this excellent constitution and order of things should be broken, what shall the present or future bishops do? Let them do as your noble countryman² did—resign and retire to private life. It is a serious thing for a bishop to be stripped of any constitutional rights chartered to him at his ordination, without which he could not and would not have entered into that sacred office, he being conscious at the same time he had never violated those sacred rights. Comparing human Church history with the Acts of the Apostles, it will manifestly appear that the apostolic order of things ended in about fifty years. With the preachers and people of that day, the golden order was lost. But we must restore and retain primitive order; we must, we will, have the same doctrine, the same spirituality, the same power in ordinances, in ordination, and in spirit. Joseph Pilmoor had been but a short time on his mission to this country before he saw that it would not be proper for the Methodists to continue an Episcopal society. He was for forming an independent Church of England. Mr. Wesley was called for near twelve or thirteen years, repeatedly, to do something for his people in America. Dr. Whitehead reproached Mr. Wesley, in writing his “Life,” for ordaining preachers in America, unless he had the voice of preachers and people in America; yet, if my memory serves me right, the Doctor grants Mr. Wesley’s right so to do if he had had their voice; and this he most assuredly had, and it had been communicated to him by word and letter; or why did every heart leap with joy and the members of society and the congregations in America embrace our Church form and order and by thousands giving up themselves to the ordinances and presenting their children for baptism for nearly thirty years last past?

You have often heard me say that Church governments changed with the Church into strange, incredible forms—as monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, and legal establishments—when scholars, lawyers, doctors, and peers became bishops and bishops became kings, temporal princes, and peers, and presbyters became assemblymen and senators; in this country they become chaplains to Congress; yes, members of Congress! It will come to this conclusion, that ours is the apostolic plan. But say you, Are all apostles? Are all that we have ordained holy men? They might have been. Were Judas, Simon Magnus, and Demas faithful unto death? Ministers may fall from grace and office; and no wonder if we, on ordaining four thousand local and nearly two thousand traveling preachers, should find some to turn out apostates.

Thus I have traced regular order and succession in John Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury, Richard Whatcoat, and William McKendree. Let any other Church trace its succession as direct and as pure, if they can. Does any one doubt the experience, piety, or labors of these men, so long tried, known, and read of all men, both friends and enemies, for so many years?

William P. Otterbein,³ of Baltimore, a regular Presbyterian—the German apostle to America—whose piety, labors, and learning were great, this man of God assisted T. Coke, R. Whatcoat, and T. Vasey in the ordination of Francis Asbury. You will say if our Church were as pure as the primitive Church, will it not, may it not, like other modern, decline? I answer, We live in a purer age and in a free country. If discipline be maintained, men that carry sand instead of salt for the sheep will be constrained soon to leave us, to join some more honorable, but perhaps fallen, Church where they can have more ease and greater emoluments. We have lived to see the end of such persons who left us and set up for themselves— witness Hammett and O’Kelly.

Thomas Haweis,⁴ a moderate Episcopalian, fifty years a beneficed minister, is one of the most impartial historians on the subject of episcopacy. I shall close this address with several quotations from his work, wherein you will see that he, without knowledge or design, has given the order of Episcopal Methodism the plume of honor above all others:

“From the morning spread upon the mountains to the meridian splendor of the Sun of righteousness, I wish to trace the progress of his gospel amidst the storms of persecution, till his glory shall be finally revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. Contemptuous infidelity, proud philosophy, bigoted superstition, atheistical immorality, heretical and schismatical depravity, may unite their powers against the child Jesus and his everlasting gospel, but the gates of hell shall never prevail. His persecuted Church shall rise. I have continued to prefer an episcopal mode of Church government, unless I can find a better. I am satisfied that the Methodist mode of episcopal government is more apostolic than the Church of England ever was, will, or can be, without a radical reformation from its essential form of locality, written sermons and prayers, State laws, and human policy.” (Vol. I, p. 12, of his Introduction.)

“When I speak of episcopacy as most correspondents in my poor idea to the apostolic practice and general usage of the Church in the first and generally esteemed purer ages, let no man imagine I plead for that episcopacy which, rising very early on the stilts of practical pride and worldly-mindedness, has since overspread the earth with its baneful shadow; or suppose those to be true successors of the apostles who, grasping at power and preeminence over Churches which their labors never planted nor watered, claiming dominion over districts, provinces, and kingdoms beyond all power of individual superintendency.” (P. 14.)⁵

Here, Bishop, mark: “Planted or watered.” We have planted and watered; although our continent is three thousand miles in length, we have measured it year after year, embracing fifty-one or two districts, about six hundred circuits, and nine Annual Conferences, all which, with very few exceptions, we have visited. Then, according to our author, we are apostolic bishops; for we have both planted and watered, and do water still. As to temporal power, what have we to do with that in this country? We are not senators, congressmen, or chaplains;⁶ neither do we hold any civil offices. We neither have, nor wish to have, anything to do with the government of the States, nor, as I conceive, do the States fear us. Our kingdom is not of this world. For near half a century we have never grasped at power.

“All united in one Church fellowship [so the Methodists] under the superintendency of apostolic men at first and on their decease, the most distinguished for zeal, wisdom, sufferings, influence, or respectability of any kind, was called by the suffrage of the elders and people to be their superintendent, president, praeses; hegoumenos, a leader; and thus the name of bishop (kat’ exochen), on account of preëminence, became very early appropriate to one who was primus inter pares; and, as Archbishop Usher says, differed only in degree of advantagement and not in order. These were, I apprehend, always from the apostolic days raised to their station by the voice of the people and their fellows. They preside in the deliberations of their several Churches, with the presbyters, their assessors. They were deputed to all synods which treated of ecclesiastical matters; and whilst every congregation judged its own members, they received the accusations against elders who were charged with offenses and censured or removed them. They examined the chosen candidates for the ministry, and, with the presbyter, ordained them by imposition of hands. This dangerous eminence marked them as peculiar victims in days of persecution. Far, therefore, from being an enviable or desirable situation, no man dare to aspire after or occupy it but such as counted their lives not dear unto themselves, that they ‘might finish their course with joy, and the ministry which they had received from the Lord to fulfill it,’ whether as confessors or martyrs.” (P. 16.)

“The sudden ability of illiterate men of so great a number in a moment, and with perfection, to speak in all languages, to express themselves with such propriety and force as not only to be dearly understood, but impressive on the consciences of the numerous foreigners then at Jerusalem from every nation under heaven, such a phenomenon could not but strike the hearers with astonishment and afford an evidence of divine agency too incontestible to admit of a rational doubt.” (P. 28.)

Now, Bishop McKendree, I will make this remark, that to take this transaction of the Divine Spirit prophetically, it saith to every minister, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature”; and that in all ages to come, unlettered men should be raised up to preach the gospel with the power of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. One may say, This man speaks well!—ah, he is a college-taught man! Again it may be said, This man speaks well; he is a scholar! But you are mistaken. He has only a common education—a plowman, a tailor, a carpenter, or a shoemaker! Then he must be taught of God, if he is not taught of man. Then we may rationally conclude that learning⁷ is not an essential qualification to preach the gospel. It may be said no man but a fool will speak against learning. I have not spoken against learning. I have only said that it cannot be said to be an essential qualification to preach the gospel. It was once reported that two impostors (Roman priests) came to England, entered themselves as porters or draymen, but said they had received the gift of tongues and were called to preach. But Dr. Doddridge, being in the city, was requested to examine them and found they were scholars; but when he examined them in Welsh, the cheat was found out. And too often the learned priests deceive the people by their learning, or professing so to be; because the first preachers were blest with the gift of tongues immediately from heaven; so that a man must spend four or seven years in learning languages before he is permitted to preach the gospel. And who is to decide the question? Their practice and that of our Lord does not strictly agree.

But to our author. “The Church at Jerusalem seems to have been under the presidency of the Apostle James. The great luminary was now rising to carry the light of the everlasting gospel into the heathen nations and to display a scene of labors and successes unequaled in the records of the Christian Church. The greater part of the Acts contain the account of his (Paul’s) life and labors, recorded by his faithful attendant and companion in the work, Luke the Evangelist. Paul stands allowedly in the first ranks of eminence, in nothing behind the very chief of the apostles, whilst the generality of the others were out of the lowest orders of society (agrammatoi kai tidiotai), unlettered or private and laymen (Acts 4:13) men of no literary acquirements. Paul seems to have been born in the superior rank of life.” (Pp. 30, 31, 33.)

Thus not many wise or rich men of the earth, in the past as well as the present age, have obeyed the call of the gospel.

“He (Paul) flew as with the wings of a seraph over the habitable globe; and the vastness of his success corresponded with the rapidity of his movements and the indefatigable labors of his ministry. From Damascus to Arabia, Judea, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and round about Illyricum, he had fully preached the gospel of Christ. Returning with the same unwearied diligence to visit all the Churches his ministry had planted, he received a divine intimation that he must shortly visit Italy also. And he extended his views into Spain. An eye (geographical) cast over this immense tract of country will fill us with astonishment, how one man’s labor could fill so extensive a sphere, and demonstrates how much may be done when the Spirit of Jesus animates and the benedictions of the Holy Ghost accompany the Word with power and much

assurance. There is one particular I may not forget and which we Gentiles are bound to acknowledge with peculiar thankfulness, that he is our apostle. A ministry of more than thirty years was terminated, it is probable, by martyrdom.” (Pp. 36, 37.) “I regard Paul as the first of human beings, to whom more are indebted for salvation, under the great Head of the Church, than to any other creature. If his labors and preaching, as recorded, be taken into the account, if we consider his Epistles to the several Churches—the inestimably blessed effects of which must be felt and acknowledged in all Churches to the end of time.” (P. 38.) “It seems to have been a matter decided by the Church respecting the two itinerant apostles that Paul should go to the Gentiles and Peter to the circumcision. I suppose there was great wisdom herein displayed.” (P. 40.)

“A multitude of worthies have their names recorded in the Acts of the Apostles whose itinerant labors, with those of Paul, had the most powerful tendency to spread the Christian faith.” (P. 47.) “A Church without evidence of the influence and experience of the operation of the Holy Ghost hath but a name to live and is dead, and whatever may be its forms, or however sound its confession of faith, it hath no more title to be reckoned a Christian Church than a statue or corpse to be esteemed a living man. The form in which the Church appeared in the best, the primitive age, under the immediate inspection of the apostles and disciples of the Lord, deserves our consideration. And here, drawing around me the sacred circle, I wish to confine myself to the words of the Holy Ghost without any regard to the traditions of men. And I shall begin at Jerusalem. This was the fruitful womb from whence issued the noble army of martyrs, confessors, and evangelists, who, holding up the word of light, diffused the blessings of the glory of God the Saviour to the ends of the earth. These were the fruits of our Lord’s ministry during his labors in Judea and the adjacent countries. They consisted of twelve men, first chosen, called apostles, or persons sent. To these were added seventy others, who were sent out to preach and teach. They were all endowed with miraculous powers; and on their return from their itinerancy through the nation, reported with triumph the wonders they had wrought. About five hundred brethren were summoned to behold our Lord’s ascension into heaven.” (P. 52.)

“Three thousand believed on the first day (Pentecost), and myriads followed them. The immensity of this number affords us two views of their Church order: First, as necessarily distributed into various congregations, no one place being capable of containing such myriads or any one bishop or elder sufficient to administer the ordinances among them. We accordingly find them breaking bread from house to house (Acts 2:46), preaching and teaching in every house (Acts 5:42), which seems to describe the Church at Jerusalem. Second, these several house Churches formed one united Church body under the presidency of James, and not Peter. (Acts 15:13.) He was at the head of the first council. To him Paul addressed himself (Acts 21:18) when all the elders or presbyters being assembled by him he reported to them the happy success of his ministry among the Gentiles. The necessity of a president where so great a number of elders resided and so many congregations were formed seems as natural for the preservation of order as it appears actually the case in this mother of all the Churches.” (Pp. 54, 55.)

“The care of the poor widows led to the institution of the order of deacons. This originated in a complaint of real or supposed partiality in the distribution of the alms of the faithful to the native Jewish widows, in preference to the Hellenists. (Acts 6:1.) The apostles themselves being too much engaged to attend to these temporal concerns, recommended it to the Church to elect seven persons for the discharge of this office. These were accordingly chosen by general suffrage, not for each separate congregation, but for the whole body, and were set apart by the apostles after solemn prayer and imposition of hands, to this service. Though the care of the widows was immediately intrusted to them, it prevented them not from being employed in other labors of love. Philip was an evangelist and Stephen a like zealous advocate of Christ and his cause. In consequence of his boldness in the synagogue of the Libertines, the blood of this first martyr was shed by the fury of his enemies, and a great and general persecution following, all the principal disciples were dispersed except the apostles who remained at Jerusalem. (Acts 8:1.) These, flying in different directions, everywhere preached the gospel and with great success through Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, and some as far as Antioch, Damascus, Phenice, and Cypress. They were village preachers, highway preachers, and were not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. Paul (Acts 24:23), in revisiting the Churches which had been planted principally by himself, edifies, comforts, and establishes them by ordaining elders in every Church with prayers and fasting.” (P. 56.)

“Returning through Pisidia and Attalia, they arrived happily at Antioch, communicating the glad tidings of their success and of the Gentile Churches which they had planted. I can only observe here that I find in all these widely dispersed and numerous congregations no mention made of any appointment but that of presbyters, all cemented in one bond of union under the supervisal of the great itinerant evangelists.” (P. 62.)

And so it should have continued, and would have continued, if there had been a succession of a faithful seed of holy men to follow apostolic order, but as early as the second century they must have their local bishops or local apostles.

“Though James was not superior to Peter or the other apostles at Jerusalem [he may mean he was not superior as to age, gifts, or standing; but certainly he was superior, inasmuch as he had never so publicly denied his Lord], he had been evidently appointed to fill the place of president, or primus inter pares. Yet neither he nor any of his apostolic associates assumed to themselves authority to decide but by the suffrage of the whole body of the Church under immediate divine direction.” (P. 63.)

Our Annual, or more particularly our General Conference resembles this grand council at Jerusalem, where James presided and all the other apostles, elders, and brethren solemnly discussed the cause or causes before them, and James pronounced sentence according to the unanimous suffrage of the assembly, and the definitive decree was in favor of Gentile liberty.

Paul and Barnabas separated for a while (Acts 15:39); but probably God overruled this for good, and perhaps the Churches were more profited by their distinct labors than if they had traveled in company. Dr. Haweis continues: “It is evident that Timothy was still but a youth (1 Timothy 4:14), and whatever office he sustained or with whatever gifts he was endued he received them by the laying on of Paul’s hands and of the presbytery. (1 Timothy 4:14.) Did presbyters then ordain bishops, or were the terms synonymous?” Query, Had there not been two distinct acts in his ordination? Compare 1 Timothy 4:14, and 2 Timothy 1:6: “The laying on the hands of the presbytery, stir up the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands.” That Timothy was left at Ephesus with superintending authority, where there were many bishops, is evident. (1 Timothy 1:3.) He was enjoined to encourage and honor those who presided over the congregations well, and especially such as were more actively laborious in preaching and catechising. (V. 18.) Respecting hands, he was to lay hands suddenly on no man; and, without partiality or personal respect, he was to admit none into the ministry but after proper examination and conviction of their call and qualifications. He was also cautiously to receive and weigh all accusations against elders who should give offense and pronounce the sentence due to their unfaithfulness, acts strongly marking superior jurisdiction, and I hence infer that particular Churches neither ordained nor censured their own ministers, although they elected and recommended; and, if faulty, accused them by two or three witnesses before the great itinerant evangelists.” (P. 76.) Mark well the similarity of apostolic order and government and the Methodist Episcopal form of things!

In the Second Epistle to Timothy, Paul appears to have “returned again to the house of his prison at Rome, and ready to be offered up on the altar of martyrdom. He had detached his faithful itinerant helpers to a variety of services [although a prisoner, yet clothed with the authority of Christ, he appointed men of God their work], Cresens, to Galatia; Titus, to Dalmatia; while Timothy himself had been left in Asia, from whence he was shortly to proceed to Rome with Mark, who had once departed from the work, but had now returned to the labors and dangers of itinerancy. The principal subject of the Epistle is the dying charge of the great apostle to his beloved son respecting his own teaching and conduct and worthy the attentive consideration of every bishop or presbyter upon earth.” (See p. 77.) Paul’s two favored sons, Timothy and Titus, were his chief companions, and greatly employed in the regulation of the congregations which had been raised by his labors. The postscript of his first Epistle calls Timothy the first bishop of the Church of the Ephesians; but there is no such title given him by Paul or any intimation of his being at Ephesus but as one of the great itinerant evangelists, the companion of Paul and deputed by him to assist in bringing the congregations into a regular order of worship and discipline.

“It nowhere appears that Titus was more the Bishop of Crete than of Dalmatia (2 Timothy 4:10) or of Nicopolis (Titus 3:2) or had any fixed residence or diocese, he being one of the great itinerant evangelists who went about preaching everywhere in season, out of season. And therefore as soon as he had settled the Cretan Church in the most edifying manner, he was ordered to come and winter with Paul at Nicopolis, and Artemas or Tychicus should be dispatched to fill his place in the Cretan congregations.

“A general superiority in all the Churches which they visited appears to have been exercised by these great evangelists, though none appears stationary in any one place. They ordained, censured, regulated, were the cementing bond of union to the different Churches [so should the Methodist bishops be], maintaining a unity of order and procedure through the whole. They all bore the name of apostles (2 Corinthians 8:23), were everywhere received with reverence and obeyed with filial affection. [‘Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be enquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.’] They assumed no domain over their faith, but were helpers of the joy of the faithful wherever they went. The gifts, abilities, and zeal which they displayed, with every divine temper which adorns the Christian ministry, could not but give them weight and procure them influence by whatever name they might be distinguished, and in every Christian Church, in the very nature of things, such men must possess superiority, whatever be its constitution. Even where the most absolute parity is established, to these their fellows naturally give place. They are the presidents in all associations; heard with respect, commanding obedience; capable of swaying the decisions of their brethren; consulted in all difficult cases, and placed foremost in the hour of danger. To them is intrusted the care of eleemosynary distributions for the benefit of the body to which they belong, and in private and public all concede to them the seal of honor.” (P. 78.) If the elders that rule well are worthy of double honor, then the bishops that rule well must be worthy of triple honor, especially when they do so large a part of ruling, preaching and presiding in Conferences. “In the primitive Church [in speaking or writing it was common to consolidate the first churches into one, although they consisted of many societies, so we say the Methodist Episcopal Church], this superiority, was vested in the apostles and their companions, the great itinerant evangelists, Barnabas, Silas, Artemas, Tychicus, Titus, Timothy, and many others, chief men among the brethren.” (P. 79.)

Notwithstanding all these were great men in the Church of God, yet, as we have seen, none of them were writers. The Epistle to Titus bears some resemblance to that to Timothy. Men placed in similar situations were called to act under the same principles and to employ the same means. If we are willing, here we may see the propriety of our superintendency, presiding elders, as in the second part of the primitive Church, which order was lost in the first and not found again until the seventeenth century, partially in Europe but more perfectly in America in the organization and establishment of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

“I conclude, as soon as a little society was formed of Christians, a room was opened for their assembling and the most apt to teach appointed to minister to them in holy things [perhaps not unlike a class leader and local preacher in one]. He was a man of gravity, generally of the more aged, approved by his fellows and willing to devote himself to their service. His appointment was signified by prayer and imposition of hands by the Apostle Paul or some of the itinerant evangelists and the presbytery, and without this I meet no ordination. Every Church that is, every society exercised discipline over its own members, to admit, admonish, or expel. Before these itinerating evangelists all accusations against offending presbyters were brought. [These evangelists seem not to have been stationary, but to have gone about everywhere, chiefly under the direction of the apostle Paul.]

“These evangelists were usually supported by the Churches or societies but often, like Paul, maintained themselves by their own labors. During the first ages, the ministry was not appropriated to gentlemen or scholars. No man was bred to it as a profession or went into it for a maintenance. They were pastors of a different stamp. The stationary presbyters, or bishops, during the lives of the apostle and his associate evangelists, were under their superintendency. But it will appear very early in the second century, when the first race of great itinerants departed [or were slain for the testimony of Jesus], that one among the ministers in every place began to have the name of bishop (kat’ exochen) on account of preëminency, with presbyters, his coadjutors, acting with him as one body.” (Pp. 86, 87.)

This leads me to conclude that there were no local bishops until the second century; that the apostles, in service, were bishops, and that those who were ordained in the second century mistook their calling when they became local and should have followed those bright examples in the apostolic age. I am not under the difficulties that some are respecting the same men who were ordained elders being called sometimes bishops, I am not sure that what was written to Timothy and Titus, that they themselves must be blameless as bishops, or overseers, excluded them from being evangelists. As to those at Ephesus who were elders in office, they were in charge and duty overseers. In some sense among us every leader of a class, every local preacher, traveling preacher, and every officer in the Church may be called an overseer. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons, seem to have been the established form in all the Asiatic Churches in the second century. “Hitherto not a man eminent for science or letters had appeared in the Church. All those whose works have come down to us bear a stamp of simplicity divested of human attainments. Yet by these the gospel had been supported in its purity, afforded a noble army of martyrs, and been spread to the ends of the earth, from the Pillars of Hercules to the Parthians, from the savage nations of the North to the Indies and Abyssinia.” (P. 146.)

“Considering the time and regarding the persons called to be saints, a learned ministry cannot be supposed in the primitive Church. The presbyters have been, in general, men simple and unlettered, though full of faith and the Holy Ghost, the qualifications which then determined the suffrage of the several flocks. And after all the fine things so elegantly written (by the heathen philosophers) about virtue and morals, their own conduct afforded a pregnant example of the impotence of the doctrines which they taught, whilst the Christian bishops not only lived what they professed to teach, but were every day ready to go to prison and to death for the name of the Lord Jesus.” (P. 126.) No man counting his life dear who stood for Jesus, “bold to seal the truth with blood.”

“A learned and ingenuous age prides itself on its superiority in defense of revealed religion and apologizes for the Bible, but what hath (this mode) of arguing proved? The plain story of a plain unlettered man telling of the sufferings of Christ and the glory which hath followed with their consequences hath done more in the way of conversion to real and vital Christianity than all these great polemics put together. [The learned may smile in Saul’s armor, but give me the sling and the stone, and the gigantic Goliath falls.] I see the smile on the wise academician and the contemptuous infidel, but I am not ashamed of that gospel of Christ which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, nor of the sound though unlearned teacher who, having diligently read his Bible and then taught of God himself, is blessed with their conversation.” (P. 148.)

O my son, by diligence, discipline, and faithfulness, God hath made us a blessing to hundreds and thousands of those who have died within these last thirty years! Thus our work and reward have gone before us and more work and reward are given to us daily. Let the Annual Conferences, the quarterly meeting Conferences, let the presiding elders, deacons, and preachers, all feel their dignity, do their duty, and especially guard against every danger and innovation. Alas for us, if ever our excellent constitution and order of things be changed or corrupted! (It is said that a good old bishop prayed that he might be taken away if Arius were restored, but the heretic himself was taken away.) I believe that those who would divide the body of Christ will be “divided in Jacob and scattered in Israel.” Thirty years’ labor and experience have taught us something.

Be diligent to see and know how the different charitable contributions are disposed of. Sign no journals of an Annual Conference till everything is recorded, everything appears correctly and fairly. Should there be at any time failures in any department such as you cannot cure or restore, appeal to the General Conference. Be rigidly strict in all things. Examine well those who come as candidates for the ministry. It is ours to plead, protest, and oppose designing men from getting into the ministry. It is the peculiar excellence of our Church and the superintendents’ glory and stronghold that the character of every minister among us must undergo a strict examination once a year. Put men into office in whom you can confide. If they betray your trust and confidence, let them do it but once. Of all wickedness, spiritual wickedness is the greatest; and of all deceptions, religious deception is the worst. Beware of men who have a constitutional cast to deception. Let every office, grade, and station among us know his place, keep his place, and do his duty; then you need not fear for the ark of God. The Lord Jesus will take care of and support his own cause. If we have not men of great talents, we have men of good hearts. Endeavor to obtain and preserve a noble independence of soul, the willing servant of all, but the slave of none. Put full confidence in men who merit your confidence. Never be afraid to trust young men; they are able, and you will find enough willing to endure the toils and go through the greatest labors; neither are they so likely to fail as old men are.

“The simplicity of gospel truth ill accords with a farrago of rites and ceremonies. Nothing could be more unadorned than the primitive worship. A plain man, chosen from among his fellows, in his common garb, stood up to speak, or sat down to read the Scriptures, to as many as chose to assemble in the house appointed. A back room, and that probably a mean one, or a garret, to be out of the way of observation, was their temple. Hymns sung to Christ, as their God, appeared to the heathens a prominent and striking feature of the Christian worship. The Holy Scriptures were read in portions; and the presbyter, or bishop, or two or three of the congregation who were endued with talents, spoke a word of exhortation to the people agreeably to the scripture which had been read. Prayer from the heart, without a prompter, followed, to which the people replied with a loud and audible amen. He that led the worship prayed from his heart, and out of its abundance. I have no doubt the Lord’s Prayer always made a part of their public services. The Supper of the Lord closed the devotions of his day. I think it was as constant as the return of that day, and every member of the Churches as constantly participant. A friendly feast, or meal, called agape, from the love and union with which they kept it, served at one as an opportunity of ministering an act of charity to the poor, where all distinctions of rich and poor were laid aside and no man took before others his own supper, but all with humble equality acknowledged themselves members of the living head, Christ, and of one another.” (P. 150.)

“Then, also, I apprehend every man produced, according to his ability, weekly what he had laid by for charitable purposes, which formed a fund of obligations under the control of the Church, through the ministration of the bishop, presbyter, and deacon, for all the various purposes of general good such as purchasing the elements for the Lord’s Supper, the provisions for the table of the agape, for the necessaries for the poor, the support of evangelists, the relief of the persecuted, and for the welfare of such Churches and persons whose indigence called for the help of their richer brethren. As yet I can perceive no part of this fund appropriated to pay the salaries of any minister of the sanctuary, unless he came under the title of an itinerant evangelist, and, being incapable of providing his own maintenance and wholly occupied in the gospel work, was justly entitled, as preaching the gospel, to live by the gospel. I very much doubt if the bishop or presbyter and deacons received anything for their labors of love. I am persuaded they thought their work their best wages.

“Amid the flames of persecution kindled without and the corruptions and errors broached within the Church continued to raise her scarred head, encircled with glory, and to enlarge her borders farther and wider. After the departure of the great itinerant evangelists to their rest in glory and on the increasing extent of the Christian Church in every place the desirableness of a stationary president seems to have introduced a change in the government of several evangelical cities and churches. The very learned Chancellor King⁸ endeavors to prove that in the largest cities there was but one Church and one bishop. I have already given my reasons for differing from him and for supposing the necessity of many house congregations where the body of Christian professors was so great, and as they sought to avoid observation and to attract as little as possible the attention of the rulers, they would not, assuredly, in such immense multitudes, have assembled in one place. That about the beginning of the second century a bishop appears at the head of a presbytery, can hardly be doubted, and the name became appropriate to one which before all the presbyters had equally borne. Being now no longer under the superintending care of the great apostolic evangelists, who went about everywhere to establish, to preserve the unity of the Church, and be the cementing bond of the whole body, the several presbyters and Churches seem to have chosen one of their own body to supply the precedence these had before exercised. Whether the largest cities, as King argues, formed only one congregation with many presbyters, or rather, as I think, consisted of many congregations with presbyters in each of them, the whole seems now to have formed one body under a superintendent (or episcopus, overseer) chosen by themselves. Every Church exercised discipline over its own members, in which the whole assemblage of the faithful gave their suffrage. Their reverence for their pastors was great; but clerical dominion had, as yet, found no place.” (P. 126.)

We have a few more thoughts to add. It is my confirmed opinion that the apostles acted both as bishops and traveling superintendents in planting and watering, ruling and ordering the whole connection; and that they did not ordain any local bishops, but that they ordained local deacons and elders. I feel satisfied we should do the same. I found my opinion on Acts 14:23: “And when they had ordained them elders in every Church, and had fasted and prayed with them, they commended them to the Lord.” “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou should set in order things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I have appointed thee.” (Titus 1:5.) That is, do what Paul has left undone. Mark! it was in the second visit that Paul and Barnabas established order; and why was Timothy or Titus sent if elders could ordain elders? And why had the apostles to go or send, if it was not held as the divine right of the apostles to ordain? I shall not unchristian any Church or Churches that have the truth of the gospel and the power of God among them, as I have already said.

The Presbyterian Churches, at the first, should have established a moderate episcopacy and apostolic form from whence they came, one from the high steeples of the Church of Rome and the other from the high steeples of the Church of England. An elective, easy government, and a traveling and local ministry, with a judicious discipline, would have been better than steeples, bells, schools, colleges, and universities to make men ministers whom the Lord never called. The ninth century appears to have been the time of midnight darkness. The light of the Reformation began to dawn in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The reformers were great men; but such was the state of affairs that no doubt there was yet much darkness mingled with the light; hence, it might be said: “All heads, and no heads.” And I should be more afraid of a many-headed monster than of a single-headed one.

You know that for four years past I have, with pleasure, resigned to you the presidency of the nine Annual Conferences. This has removed a great burden of care from me and given me much ease. You have my letters addressed to you on the subject. It may be objected by some that our form of Church government partakes too much of the government of the nation. It does not partake of its nature; but there are some similitudes of form, but not of nature. The one is civil, the other spiritual and entirely disunited. Our government being spiritual, one election to office is sufficient during life, unless in cases of debility, a voluntary resignation of the office, corruption in principle, or immorality in practice.

The great diversity of gifts, both among our traveling and local ministry, is happily diffused abroad by our mode of circulation, to the benefit of hundreds and thousands. Many of our local ministers are men of approved abilities, with grace and gifts worthy to fill any pulpit. Many of them travel hundreds of miles in the year, are gladly received, and readily employed to preach by their traveling brethren, and feel themselves at perfect ease and completely at home on the different circuits and at camp meetings where they visit, having no fear they will be considered as intruders. Further, it may be asked, Is it proper to have no learned men among us? Answer: Men who are well read I call learned men; and we have men of learning among us, both traveling and local. Where are our young men who are bred to the law? and some are doctors; and many others who are very studious and making great progress in Latin and Greek; and many have competent knowledge of the English language. Particularly, see in the British connection such men as Drs. Coke and Clarke; a Benson, Creighton, and others. And in many instances men who profess the least know the most.

A venerable German divine once wrote in Latin to the English doctors; but he had to complain that they answered him in English. But you may say, Would we not derive great advantages from reading the Scripture in their original tongues and judging of the correctness of the translations? Undoubtedly; but these advantages are in the margins of the best editions of the Bible. As to our translation, it is, perhaps, one of the best and most correct upon earth. To attain to a proper knowledge of the etymology of all the words used, even in the Septuagint, I know not how many languages you must know besides the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. If you suggest anything more, I will maturely consider it.

My dear Bishop, it is the traveling apostolic order⁹ and ministry that is found in our very constitution. No man among us can locate without order, or forfeit his official standing. No preacher is stationary more than two years; no presiding elder more than four years; and the constitution will remove them; and all are movable at the pleasure of the superintendent whenever he may find it necessary for the good of the cause. It is the privilege of every traveling minister with us to say: “I am not obliged to serve you another year; I will speak to the superintendent who will not impose on you a second year.” We must conclude that all the ancient, imperial, Latin, and Greek Churches were episcopal from their foundation to this very day, though in a crooked, muddy succession; perhaps all corrupted in ordinances, and many of them in doctrines; and, in too many instances, the vilest of men have filled the most sacred offices in the Church. The Reformed English, Scotch, Danish, Swede, Episcopal Churches, have all currupted their ways before the Lord. Let Presbyterians say and write what they may, as if episcopacy never existed, it must be granted that in the first, second, and third centuries many of the bishops were holy men, who traveled and labored in the ministry very extensively, not unlike their grand pattern, St. Paul, and the other holy apostolical men, of which we have good historical evidence, which is all the evidence that can now be given. To the people of our day we give ocular demonstration, and the generations to come may read our Church records and Conference journals, where they shall see what vast tracts of country we traveled over in visiting the nine Conferences annually. As to the doctrines of the Reformation, we have said, in a second reformation they were the real gospel. They have been well introduced and complete forms of Church government established. Presbyterians and Independents were formed too about the sixteenth century.

Finally, farewell in the Lord!

Yours,

FRANCIS ASBURY

Robert Paine, Life and Times of William McKendree, 185-201

Notes (9)

1. See Journal, 1852 ed., August 4, 1813. ↩
2. George Washington. “The unanimous vote of the electors made him the first President of the United States; their unanimous vote elected him for the second time in 1792-1793; and even after he had positively refused to serve for a third term, two electors voted for him in 1796- 1797.” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, “George Washington,” 347.) ↩
3. Asbury’s testimony in reference to the German fathers, and especially Otterbein given in 1812, while Otterbein was yet living, was as follows: “Pre-eminent among these is William Otterbein, who assisted in the ordination which set apart your speaker to the superintendency of the Methodist Episcopal Church. William Otterbein was regularly ordained to the ministry in the German Presbyterian Church. He is one of the best scholars and greatest divines in America. Why, then, is he not where he began? He was irregular. Alas, for us! the zealous are necessarily so to those whose cry is ‘Put me into the priest’s office, that I may eat a morsel of bread.’ Osterwald has observed, ‘Hell is paved with the skulls of unfaithful ministers.’ Such was not Boehm, such is not Otterbein; and now his sun of life is setting in brightness. Behold the saint of God leaning upon his staff, waiting for the chariots of Israel!” (Drury, History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, 181-82. Otterbein Press. By permission.) (Elmer T. Clark.) ↩
4. He had charge of Lady Huntingdon’s College. (See Letters of Wesley, II, 206.) ↩
5. Page references are to Haweis’ History of the Church of Christ, Vol. I. ↩
6. Jesse Lee was chaplain of the House of Representatives in Washington at this time. ↩
7. An interesting observation for Asbury to make since he studied so hard to be learned. ↩
8. Peter King (1669-1734), lord chancellor of England. ↩
9. It is interesting to note that less than two years after this address was read at the General Conference of 1816, two of the oldest and most loyal retired preachers, William Watters and Edward Dromgoole, were discussing the value of the episcopal form of government. The following postscript is taken from Watters’ letter to Dromgoole, dated Fairfax, Virginia, February 7, 1818, and preserved in the Dromgoole collection in the University of North Carolina Library. “P.S. Query. If Bishops and Presbyters are of the same order as the venerable Wesley asserts in his circular letter and the new testament knows nothing but one order of ministers (excepting the apostles) would it not be safer if we had but one order amongst us—that the general conference might be at liberty to appoint once in four years one or more to superintend the whole work without any suspect to their being ordained for that purpose? Is not the English mode of directing their districts by a chairman better than ours by presiding elders? If Mckendree was gone to his rest could the late elected men fill their places? These are not questions I have agitated but which I wish [there] in your ears, they arise in my mind—I look forward. W. Watters.” ↩