VOLUME 2 — BOOK II — CHAPTER VII
CONFERENCES AND PROGRESS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH — CONTINUED

The Two Conferences of 1779 — The Sacramental Controversy — followed by a temporary Rupture — The Right of the Question — Vindication of the Sacramental Party — John Haggerty — Nelson Reed — Philip Cox — He calls out Bishops McKendree and George — Scenes in his Ministry — Conference of 1780 — Conclusion of the Sacramental Controversy — William Partridge — James O. Cromwell — Thomas Foster — Caleb Boyer — George Mair — Scenes in a Love-Feast — Ignatius Pigman — Reminiscences

Two Conferences were held in the year 1779. The first was at the house of Judge White, Kent County, Del., on the 28th of April, to accommodate Asbury (who was there confined) and the preachers east of the Potomac; the second at Fluvanna, Va., [1] on the 18th of May. Though their records are distinct in the Minutes, they have been deemed one Conference. The sacramental controversy was still rife among the preachers in Virginia, and Asbury doubtless hoped, by the more northern, anticipatory session, to forestall its threatened issues. He writes in his asylum, "All our preachers on these stations were present and united. We had much prayer, love, and harmony, and all agreed to walk by the same rule, and to mind the same thing. As we had great reason to fear that our brethren, to the southward, were in danger of separating from us, we wrote them a soft, healing epistle. On these northern stations we have now about seventeen traveling preachers." Watters, Garrettson, Pedicord, Gill, Ruff, and about ten others, were present, besides Asbury. At this session was inserted in the Minutes, for the first time, the question, "Who desist from traveling?" locations having not heretofore been noticed. Robert Cloud and William Duke are the first names thus recorded. Sixteen preachers, probably the whole number present, including Asbury and Watters, pledged themselves "to take the station this Conference shall place them in, and continue till the next Conference;" implying, it would seem, an apprehension that the regular session at Fluvanna might dissent from the proceedings at Kent. It was ordained that exhorters and local preachers should "go only where" the assistants should appoint, and that no "helper" should make any change in his circuit, or appoint any new preaching place "without consulting the assistant." Preachers were ordered to meet the classes, at all their appointments if possible, and to meet the children once a fortnight, and counsel parents "with regard to their conduct toward them." The term of ministerial probation was changed from one year to two. Anticipating, probably, the proceedings at Fluvanna, the question was asked, "Shall we guard against a separation from the Church direct or indirect?" and answered, "By all means." Asbury was recognized as "General Assistant in America" for the reasons of his "age," his former service in that function by Wesley's appointment, and his "being joined with Messrs. Rankin and Shadford by express order from Mr. Wesley." This last reason, however, is ambiguous; Rankin and Shadford were sent out when Asbury was general assistant. Shadford was not appointed co-general assistant; but Rankin was appointed to supersede Asbury in the office, and the latter was actually ordered to England, as has been shown. During the administration of Rankin, Asbury was entirely subordinate to his authority, and sometimes grievously humiliated by it. Rankin presided at all the Annual Conferences, and made out all the appointments, sometimes appointing Asbury to circuits directly against his will. Asbury had never yet presided in an Annual Conference recorded in the Minutes. His new authority was defined, and was remarkable. "On hearing every preacher for and against what is in debate, the right of determination shall rest with him, according to the Minutes;" that is, according to the usage of Wesley, as seen in the British Minutes, these being the only Minutes yet extant. The American Minutes were not published till 1795. [2]

The statistics of the year are given only in the Minutes of the Fluvanna session. Eleven preachers were reported on trial; Pedicord was the only probationer received into full membership. The whole number of traveling preachers was forty-four, [3] a gain of fourteen. The circuits numbered twenty, [4] a gain of five; Philadelphia, Chester, and Frederick, omitted last year, reappear. The returns of members amounted to 8,577, the increase to 2,482. The success of the year had been unexpectedly great, considering the tumults of the period. Lee says that "in some places the work of the Lord spread rapidly, and bore down all before it. But in many places the Societies were thrown into great disorder and confusion, by reason of the war which continued to rage through the land. Many of the men were drafted and taken into the army, and many people left their homes to keep out of the way of the enemy, and to save their property by carrying it with them." The successful places were south of Delaware. North of Maryland there were reported but 1,114 members; but Maryland returned 1,900, Virginia nearly 3,800, and North Carolina about 1,500.

Such are the few traces of these sessions, found in the official records; but we have, from the manuscript Journal of Gatch, the leader of the Fluvanna session, a further view of the sacramental controversy; the great fact in its proceedings; though entirely omitted from its published Minutes. This momentous question had been broached in the first American Conference, 1773. At the session of 1777 it was not dismissed, but only postponed to the ensuing session; at the latter it was again postponed to the session of 1779. The Fluvanna Conference being the "regularly appointed" session of this year, had the question therefore legitimately before it — referred directly to it by the preceding session. As a further reason for determining the controversy, they said "the Episcopal establishment is now dissolved in this country; and, therefore, in almost all our circuits the members are without the ordinances." They appointed "a committee" — Gatch, Foster, Cole, and Ellis — and constituted it a Presbytery:" "first, to administer the ordinances themselves; second, to authorize any other preacher or preachers, approved by them, by the form of laying on of hands." They asked, "What is to be observed as touching the administration of the ordinances, and to whom shall they be administered?" And answered, "To those who are under our care and discipline." Shall we rebaptize any under our care?" "No." "What mode shall we adopt for the administration of baptism?" "Either sprinkling or plunging, as the parents or adults may choose." "What ceremony shall be used in the administration?" "Let it be according to our Lord's commandment — Matt. xxviii, 19 — short and extempore." "Shall the sign of the cross be used?" "No." "Who shall receive the charge of the child after baptism for its future instruction?" "The parent or person having the care of the child, with advice from the preacher." "What mode shall be adopted for the administration of the Lord's supper?" "Kneeling is thought the most proper, but, in case of conscience, may be left to the choice of the communicant." "What ceremony shall be observed in this ordinance?" "After singing, prayer, and exhortation, the preacher shall deliver the bread, saying, 'The body of our Lord Jesus Christ,' etc., after the Church order."

The committee, or presbytery, ordained one another, and afterward such of the preachers present "as were desirous of receiving ordination."

Such were the proceedings of the Conference on this important question. They were not only legitimate, but harmonious. Watters, who was present as the messenger of the Kent Conference, says: "After much loving talk on the subject, all but a few determined on appointing a committee to ordain each other, and then all the rest."

Lee calls the Kent session "a preparatory Conference;" Garrettson calls it "a little Conference," "called by the Northern brethren" for their "convenience." Watters received "no notice" of it, but, hearing of it indirectly, "determined if possible" to get there, "though in a very weak state of health," in order that he might persuade "Asbury to attend the regularly appointed Conference, to be held on the 18th of May, 1779, in Fluvanna County." [6] Garrettson again says: "In May, 1779, the regular Conference was held, according to appointment, in the Brockenback Church, Fluvanna County, Virginia. The question 'Shall we administer the ordinances?' was again agitated, and was answered in the affirmative. Some of the oldest preachers were therefore set apart to administer the sacraments. The troubles were such that we of the North did not attend." [7] These testimonies are decisive of the question, which of the sessions was the "regularly appointed one." The Kent session was not only an informal one, called after the "regular Conference" had been appointed, but was probably unknown to the Southern preachers till after its adjournment. If "no notice had been sent" to Watters, it is supposable that none was sent to any other preacher south or west of the Potomac. At the Kent Conference there were probably not more than sixteen preachers present; [8] at Fluvanna there must have been a decided majority, for we have the recorded vote of at least eighteen in the affirmative of the sacramental question, including some of the strongest men of the itinerancy, besides whatever number there may have been in the negative. Asbury admits that there were but about seventeen preachers in the appointments represented at the Kent session, and the Minutes show that there were but about seven circuits. There were twice as many circuits represented at Fluvanna, [10] and nearly twice as many preachers appointed to them. Exclusive of the men sent to Baltimore and Frederick, (circuits in the lists of both sessions,) there were at least twenty-seven preachers appointed by the Fluvanna Conference.

Any student of Methodist history must dissent with diffidence from the judgment of so high an authority as Dr. Nathan Bangs. That historian says that, "Although the Kent Conference was considered as 'a preparatory Conference,' yet, if we take into consideration that the one, afterward held in Virginia, was held in the absence of the General Assistant, we shall see good reason for allowing that this, which was held under the presidency of Mr. Asbury, was the regular Conference, and hence their acts and doings are to be considered valid." [11] The historical evidence is, however, decisively to the contrary. Wesley had superseded Asbury, in the office of "General Assistant," by the appointment of Rankin. Rankin, is has been shown, had held that office and presided in every Annual Conference down to the preceding session. At the latter Asbury was not present; he was in retirement at Judge White's house; and as he received no appointment, his name is not even mentioned, in any way whatever, in the Minutes for the year; Watters presided, and the Conference appointed its next session to be held at Fluvanna. The session at Fluvanna was, therefore, as Watters calls it, the "regularly appointed Conference." The original historian of the Church records it as "the seventh Conference," merely alluding to that of Kent as "a preparatory Conference." [12] Instead of Asbury being the General Assistant at this time, that office had been, as we have noticed, put in commission at the Conference of 1777, being vested in a committee of five, Gatch, Dromgoole, Glendenning, Ruff;'' and Watters, in view of the probable return of Rankin to England. All these commissioners, except Ruff; were within the territory of the Fluvanna Conference; one of them, Gatch, presided at its session, and was the champion of its proposed reforms. Asbury was designated to the office of General Assistant by the informal Conference in Kent; he had, therefore, no previous official authority to call that Conference, nor could his new appointment be considered legal till the majority of his brethren, who were within the Fluvanna Conference, should confirm it. Not till five years later did Asbury receive any such appointment from Wesley. [14] If; then, the question of legality is at all relevant, the Fluvanna session was clearly the legal, as well as "the regularly appointed" Conference of this year. The Kent Conference seemed indeed conscious of the necessity of acknowledging this fact, for, in the usual method of proceeding, by question and answer, they say, "Why was the Delaware Conference held?" And answer: "For the convenience of the preachers in the northern stations, that we all might have an opportunity of meeting in Conference; it being advisable for Brother Asbury and Brother Ruff, with some others, to attend in Virginia. It is considered also as preparatory for the Conference in Virginia; our sentiments to be given in by Brother Watters."

The Fluvanna Conference not only included a majority of the preachers and circuits, but comprised, in the list of its appointments, a very preponderating majority of the membership of the Church. Exclusively of the nearly fourteen hundred of the Baltimore and Frederick Circuits, (recorded in the appointments of both Sessions,) or rather assigning these to the Kent Conference, the membership territorially pertaining to the Fluvanna Conference amounted to nearly two thirds of the denomination.

Lee impartially records the facts of the controversy, though he evidently sympathizes with the Fluvanna brethren. In the course of this year he says they "concluded that, if God had called them to preach the Gospel, he had called them also to administer the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper. They chose a committee for the purpose of ordaining ministers. The preachers ordained went forth preaching the Gospel in their circuits as formerly, and administered the sacraments wherever they went, provided the people were willing to partake with them. Most of our preachers in the South fell in with this new plan; and as the leaders of the party were very zealous, and the greater part of them very pious men, the private members were influenced by them and pretty generally fell in with their measures; however, some of the old Methodists would not commune with them, but steadily adhered to their old customs. The preachers north of Virginia were opposed to this step, so hastily taken by their brethren in the South, and made a stand against it, believing that unless a stop could be put to this new mode of proceeding a separation would take place among the preachers and the people. There was great cause to fear a division, and both parties trembled for the ark of God, and shuddered at the thought of dividing the Church of Christ. The preachers in the South were very successful in their ministerial labors, and many souls were brought to God in the latter part of the year. These things all united to confirm them in the belief that the step they had taken was honored of God. And at that time there was very little room to hope that they would ever recede from their new plan in which they were so well established. But, after all, they consented, for the sake of peace and the union of the body of Methodists, to drop the ordinances, for a season, till Mr. Wesley could be consulted." [15]

As to the merits of the question in debate between the two parties, for parties they now were, few modern Methodists will hesitate to accord the claim of the Fluvanna brethren as right, if not as expedient. Strawbridge, the founder of the Church in the central colonies, had strenuously contended for this right, as we have seen, during some years. The recent revolutionary events of the country seemed now to justify it more than ever; but the foreign preachers had thus far successfully resisted it. The denomination was rapidly extending; its thousands of members, its tens of thousands of hearers, had, for years, been almost destitute of the Sacraments, by the flight of the English clergy, especially in the central and southern colonies, where the denomination was having its chief sway. Methodists, with Wesley, deemed the "apostolic succession" a "fable," and therefore not essential to the validity of these means of grace. In the yet uncertain prospects of the Revolutionary War, any hope of early relief from England could be but precarious. They had the right to provide the divinely enjoined ordinances of religion for themselves and their children, and they proceeded to do so by orderly and solemn forms. If, at Fluvanna, they were revolters, seceders, then it must be acknowledged that American Methodism, as a whole, must bear this reproach, for the proceedings of that session not only represented a majority of the circuits, preachers, and people, but were enacted in the legal assembly of the Church for the year, and by a legal majority of its recognized legislators. Nor can we accuse them of impatience. For at least six years the question had been pending, and they conceding to their opponents. Happily the difficulty was compromised, and the sacramental party, proving their moderation by prudent delay, accomplished their purpose more effectively, by pursuing it more peacefully, and achieved at last the most auspicious event of our history, the independent and Episcopal organization of American Methodism. But assuredly these are not reasons why such faithful men, including Philip Gatch, John Dickens, Nelson Reed, Reuben Ellis, John Major, Henry Willis, Francis Poythress, and others as eminent, should be represented, however indirectly, as they have hitherto been by some of our authorities, as, practically, revolters from and disturbers of the Church. They were, as we have seen, in every legal sense the Church itself. Historical impartiality requires this vindication of their memory. It is requisite not only for their memory, but also, as will hereafter be seen, for the rectification of a grave defect in the official records of the denomination. [16]

Most of the preachers who entered the itinerancy at these two sessions retired after a few years. Some, however, became known as important laborers. John Haggerty, born in Prince George County, Md., in 1747, [17] was a convert of the ministry of John King about 1771. In 1772 King lodged at his house, preached in the market place, and formed a class, consisting of Haggerty and thirteen others. He began to preach, among his neighbors, the same year, and continued to labor diligently for the Church, under the direction of Strawbridge, Rankin, and King, till he entered the regular itinerancy in the present year. He preached in both English and German. He was instrumental of the conversion of not a few men of ability, who became ornaments of the ministry. His appointments extended from Annapolis to New York. At the close of 1792 he was compelled to locate by the sickness of his wife. He settled in Baltimore, where he "continued to preach with great acceptability. Few men were more cordially disposed to serve the Church. At any hour, night or day, he was at the command of the people. Distance, weather, or season was no consideration with him when duty called. He was often known to rise from his bed at midnight and ride, for miles, into the country, to visit the sick or dying, without fee or reward. He was one of the original elders of the Church, and died in the faith in 1823, aged seventy-six years. "We called," writes Bishop Soule, "to see him on the preceding Sunday, and found him in a very comfortable frame of mind. Upon remarking to him that he appeared to be drawing nigh to eternity, he replied, 'Yes and all is straight; the way is clear before me.' In the afternoon we called again, and prayed with him. He now appeared to have heaven in full anticipation. His eyes sparkled, and his whole theme was thanksgiving and praise. On Thursday evening, September 4th, he breathed his last without a struggle or a groan." He was of commanding person, robust, erect, energetic, with prominent features, and a noble, intellectual forehead; in all respects a worthy representative of the original ministry of American Methodism.

Nelson Reed was born in Anne Arundel County, Md., in 1751, and converted, under the ministry of William Watters, in 1775. He began his labors as a local preacher the same year, and continued them with ardor and success, till admitted, in 1779, to the itinerant ranks. He assisted at the organization of the Church in 1784, and was one of the first elders. During forty-five years did this faithful evangelist serve in the traveling ministry, often occupying important positions, and always commanding the public veneration by his effective talents and his unblemished life. His whole ministerial course composed sixty five years. He died in 1840, at Baltimore, in the eighty ninth year of his age, revered by the denomination as its most venerable patriarch, having attained the distinction of being the oldest Methodist preacher in the world. He was a man of transparent purity, solid talents, unswerving firmness, and rare symmetry of both mental and moral character. One of his personal friends, himself a veteran in the itinerancy, says: "There was no man to whom I would sooner go, as a counselor in time of difficulty, than to Nelson Reed. I can truly say that I have rarely known a brother toward whom my heart has been more strongly attracted; and now, after he has been resting for many years in his grave, his many admirable qualities come before me in most grateful remembrance, and his very name touches one of the tenderest chords in my heart. He was of low stature, not more than five feet eight or nine inches high, strongly built, and uncommonly lithe and active in all his movements; a decidedly fine looking man. His mind was of a very marked cast, possessing at once great force and great compass. His perceptions were quick and clear, his judgment discriminating, and his ability to arrange and combine with the best effect very uncommon. While He could not be charged with anything like impulsiveness or impetuosity, he had a strength of conviction, a tenacity of purpose, that nothing could overawe, and that generally formed a perfect security for the accomplishment of his ends. He moved forward like a pillar of light and of strength, until, by fair, well-considered, and honorable means, you saw that he had attained the object at which He was aiming. I hardly need say that these qualities gave him a preeminence in the General Conference, as well as in all the other councils of the Church. Nelson Reed commanded great attention as a preacher. He had a strong, round, full but not very melodious voice; and I presume He never found himself in any audience where it was not easy for him to make himself heard to the extreme limit. His sermons were generally argumentative, and thoroughly wrought, and seemed to require not much of passion in the delivery. He was deeply versed in the science of theology, having given to it a large amount of study, and from his rich stores of biblical and theological knowledge he drew largely in every sermon that He preached. He used to be called by a homely nickname, which, however, in that part of the country indicated the high estimation in which He was held; it was nothing more nor less than the 'bacon and cabbage preacher,' by which it was intended to be understood that his preaching was of the most substantial and nourishing character. I remember to have heard of an incident in the earlier history of Mr. Reed, I think it was in the year 1796, that may serve to illustrate his remarkable fearlessness and energy. It occurred in the Conference which was then holding its session in Baltimore. Dr. Coke, one of the superintendents of the Church, was present; and one of the striking features of his character was that He was impatient of contradiction, and not wholly insensible to his own personal importance. He had on this occasion introduced some proposition in the General Conference, which seemed to some of the preachers a little dictatorial; and one of them, an Irishman, by the name of Matthews, who had been converted in his native country from Romanism, and had fled to this country from an apprehension that his life was in danger at home, sprang to his feet, and cried out, 'Popery, Popery, Popery!' Dr. Coke rebuked the impulsive rudeness of Matthews, when He replied in his Irish manner, 'Och,' and sat down. While the Conference was now in a state of great suspense and agitation, Dr. Coke seized the paper containing his own resolution, and, tearing it up, not in the most moderate manner, looked round upon the preachers, and said, 'Do you think yourselves equal to me?' Nelson Reed instantly rose, and turning to Bishop Asbury, who was also present, said, 'Dr. Coke has asked whether we think ourselves equal to him; I answer, yes, we do think ourselves equal to him, notwithstanding he was educated at Oxford, and has been honored with the degree of Doctor of Laws; and more than that, we think ourselves equal to Dr. Coke's king.' The doctor now rose, with his passion entirely cooled off, and said, very blandly, 'He is hard upon me.' Bishop Asbury replied, 'I told you that our preachers are not blockheads.' The doctor then asked pardon of the Conference for his abrupt and impulsive demonstration, and thus the matter ended." [18]

Philip Cox, an Englishman, was one of the itinerant heroes of his day, preaching with power from Long Island to Western Virginia. He became a Methodist in 1774, and, in 1777, began to travel under Rodda. He was one of the earliest Methodist preachers in Sussex County, Del. In 1778 Asbury sent him to Kent Circuit. When He first began to travel he was unable to procure a horse; his poverty obliged him to be a pedestrian itinerant, carrying his scanty wardrobe and library in a linen wallet swung across his shoulder; thus, with staff' in hand, He proclaimed the message of salvation. Pitying his destitution, the daughters of Judge White spun thread and wove it into garments for him. After a while, through the kindness and contributions of his friends, He was able to travel as an equestrian." [19] Bishop McKendree began his itinerant labors under Cox, on Mecklenburg Circuit, Va., and the zealous Englishman had the honor also of calling out Bishop George. Cox was "traveling book steward" at this time; he found young George on his route, and taking him to Asbury, then bishop, said, "I have brought you a boy, and if you have anything for him to do you may set him to work." Asbury looked at the youth for some time, and then calling him nearer, and laying his head upon his knee, stroked it with his hand, and said, "Why, he is a beardless boy, and can do nothing." George then thought his traveling was at an end; but the next day the bishop accepted his services, and appointed him to a circuit. [20]

Though a remarkably small man, weighing only about a hundred pounds, Cox was full of moral and mental force. He remained single till He was fifty years old, that He might pursue unembarrassed his favorite evangelical travels; and, after his marriage, continued, contrary to the custom of that day, to itinerate till he fell heroically by death. In 1787, while laboring on Sussex Circuit, Va., his energy stirred the whole region, and was attended with one of the greatest "revivals" of those times. He had accidentally injured a limb, and designed to repair it by taking a season of rest; but he was called to attend the funeral of a child. A hundred persons were present, to whom he preached, sitting upon a table, from the words, "Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye cannot enter into the kingdom or heaven." Half of his congregation were professors of religion; the other fifty professed to be converted before the conclusion of the meeting. The next day he sat preaching on a table or chair, in a forest, and sixty souls were converted. At a quarterly meeting on this circuit He writes: "Before the preachers got there the work broke out, so that when we came to the chapel above sixty were prostrate, groaning in loud cries to God for mercy. O'Kelly tried to preach, but could not be heard for the cries of the distressed. It is thought our audience consisted of no less than five thousand the first day, and the second day of twice that number. We preached to them in the open air, in the chapel, and in a barn at the same time. Such a sight my eyes never saw before, and never read of; either in Mr Wesley's Journals, or my other writings, concerning the Lord's pouring out of his Spirit, except the account in Scripture of the day of Pentecost. Never, I believe, was the like seen since the apostolic age; hundreds were at once down on the ground in bitter cries to God for mercy. Here were many of the first quality in the community, with their silks and broadcloths, powdered heads, rings, and ruffles, and some of them so affected that they could neither speak nor stir; many stood by, persecuting, till the power of the Lord laid hold of them, and then they fell themselves. We are not able to give a just account how many were converted, and as we had rather be under than over the number, we believe that near two hundred whites and more than half as many blacks professed to find Him of whom Moses and the prophets did write." In his Journal, January 8th, 1778, Asbury says, on the authority of Cox, "that not less than fourteen hundred, white and black, have been converted in Sussex Circuit the past year."

Cox shared in the sufferings of his brethren. He was "taken up," [persecuted in some way — DVM] says Asbury, "by a man of property, who lived about one year afterward, and languished out his life." "I do not," adds the bishop, "recollect one preacher who has been thus treated, that something distressing has not followed his persecutors." Remarkable and frequent coincidences of this kind led most Methodists of that age to agree in the opinion of Asbury.

The old Minutes commemorate the services and death of this brave man. They say he "had been in the ministry about sixteen years, and traveled extensively through several of the United States; that he was a man of small stature, but great spirit; having quick apprehension, a sound judgment, and a love of union; that he often prayed and preached, to the admiration of many; that he did great service in the circulation of books of religious instruction." After a western journey he was attacked with mortal disease. "He observed on Sunday, the first of September, 1793, that it was such a day of peace and comfort to his soul as he had seldom seen. On Sunday, the eighth, he departed in peace." [21]

It has been remarked that the just representation of the relations between the Kent and Fluvanna sessions of the Conference of 1779 is necessary for the rectification of a defect in the official records of the denomination. The year upon which we now enter, 1780, presents that defect. The Fluvanna session being, as has been shown, the "regularly appointed" Conference, legitimately adjourned from the preceding year, under the authoritatively appointed commissioners of superintendence, presided over by one of those commissioners, and comprising a majority of the circuits, preachers, and people, unquestionably the legal or rightful session of the body. The legitimate session for the next year must therefore be that to which the Fluvanna session adjourned. Its adjournment was to Manakintown, Powhattan County, Va., May 8th, 1780. [22] But the Minutes give none of the proceedings of this Conference; it is unmentioned in all our contemporary official documents; the indirect indications of its session are so obscure that few Methodists are today aware that any such Conference was ever held. It did meet however, and, notwithstanding the efforts made, during the preceding year, to counteract the measures of the Fluvanna session, the session at Manakintown represented fully one half the circuits and nearly one half the preachers and membership of the denomination, Asbury designated by the informal session in Kent to the office of General Assistant, called a Conference of the more northern preachers, at Baltimore, on the 24th of April, and thus anticipated the Manakintown session by two weeks. Garrettson justly says, "The next Conference was appointed to be held at Manakintown, Va., May, 1780. Prior to this Conference we northern preachers thought it expedient, for our own convenience to hold one in Baltimore, at which Messrs. Asbury, Watters, and Garrettson were appointed, as delegates to the Virginia Conference, to bring them back if possible to our original usages. The proposition that we made to them was, that they should suspend the administration of the ordinances for one year; in the mean while we would consult Mr. Wesley; and in the following May we would have a union Conference in Baltimore, and abide by his judgment. To this proposal they unanimously agreed; and a letter, containing a circumstantial account of the case, drawn up by Mr. Dickens, was sent to Mr Wesley. In May, 1781, we met and received Mr. Wesley's answer, which was, that we should continue on the old plan until further direction. We unanimously agreed to follow his counsel, and went on harmoniously." [23] We have the proceedings only of the Baltimore session of 1780, except the list of appointments made at Manakintown, which, after the fortunate reconciliation of the parties, was inserted in the Minutes of the year, though apart from the list made at Baltimore.

This statement of the facts of the case is, I repeat, due to the integrity of history and to the memory of the Fluvanna brethren, who, as has been seen, were no schism or faction, but really, at the time of their session, the Church, represented in its legitimate conference. Their measures were equally legitimate; they were conducted with dignity and solemnity; and they were at last effectuated, to the signal advantage of American Methodism. If not at the moment expedient, though right, yet the question of expediency itself could be rightfully determined only by the majority in the regular Conference, and it was so determined. That these brethren yielded the question for the sake of peace and unity should not discredit them, but commend them to peculiar respect. Nor need either party be discredited for any apparent irregularity in its proceedings. Both were composed of the most devoted men the American Church has ever known; they were yet in the forming period of their history, without clearly defined ecclesiastical laws and were surrounded with the anarchy of a terrible war. In the general confusion, and their zealous solicitude to maintain till better times, the integrity of their cause, they could have hardly escaped some errors. But, as we shall presently see, they quickly redeemed themselves, by a rare example of forbearance and a perfect restoration of harmony. Garrettson says: "I do not think that Drew, in his Life of Coke, has, in several particulars, done justice to our American brethren. He represents them as very refractory, and supposes that Asbury had much trouble with them; whereas the fact is, they went forth in the power of the Spirit, disseminating divine truth, and suffering much persecution and many privations; while Asbury had a quiet retreat at Judge White's, and that during the hottest the of our conflict. It is true, our southern brethren, to satisfy the people and their own consciences, did administer the ordinances in what they thought an extreme case. The leading members of the Fluvanna Conference were Dickens, Gatch, Yergain, Poythress, Ellis, Tatum, etc., all faithful, pious, zealous men of God, who would have done credit to any religious connection. I admired their goodness in cordially agreeing to consult Wesley, and to follow his judgment, and, till they should receive his advice, to suspend the administration of the ordinances. If I am prolix [redundant — DVM] on this subject it is to show that our Virginia brethren were undeservedly accused of schism." [24]

With their contemporary historian we must consider the proceedings" of both sessions "together, as it respects the general work." [25]

The Baltimore session was held in the new church on Lovely Lane; Asbury, who now finally ventured out of his retirement, presided. The Minutes show twenty circuits; some old ones disappear, merged in new ones, of which there are three: Sussex, Del., Dorset, Md., and Yadkin, N. C. There are forty-three traveling preachers, including Asbury, [26] a decrease of one. Five are recorded as received on trial, [27] and five "into full connection." The members returned are 8,504; showing a loss of seventy-three. Important measures were adopted this year. All the preachers were required to change circuits semi-annually to "make conscience" of rising at four, or, latest, at five o'clock in the morning; to have written licenses, signed by Asbury, certifying their connection with the Conference; the Local preachers and Exhorters to have licenses renewable quarterly, and the circuit "assistants" to secure the settlement of all chapels by Trustees. It was "determined to continue in close connection with the Church, and to impress the people to closer communion with her;" to "grant the privilege to all friendly clergy of the Church of England, at the desire of the people, to preach or administer the ordinances" in Methodist chapels; to allow the wives of itinerants an equivalent, with their husbands, in "the quarterage," if they should need it; to meet the colored people in class, and appoint white men to lead them; to "speak, if possible, with every person, one by one, where they lodged, before prayer, or give a family exhortation after reading a chapter;" to observe in the Societies quarterly fasts; to "disapprove the practice of distilling grain into liquor, and disown all who would not renounce it." Preachers holding slaves were required to "give promises to set them free." It was declared that "this Conference acknowledges that slavery is contrary to the laws of God, man, and nature, and hurtful to society; contrary to the dictates of conscience and pure religion, and doing that which we would not that others should do to us and ours;" and that "we do pass our disapprobation on all our friends who keep slaves, and advise their freedom." Methodism thus early recorded its protest against Negro slavery, anticipating its abolition in Massachusetts by three years, [28] in Rhode Island and Connecticut by four years; the thesis of Clarkson, before the University of Cambridge, by five years; and the ordinance of Congress against it, in the Northwestern Territory, by seven years.

Respecting the proceedings at Fluvanna, it was declared that "this whole Conference disapproves the step taken by the brethren in Virginia;" that "we look upon them no longer as Methodists, in connection with Mr. Wesley and us, till they come back;" and Asbury, Watters, and Garrettson were appointed to "attend the Virginia Conference, to inform them of their proceedings, and receive their answer." The ''conditions of union with the Virginia brethren" were, that the latter should "suspend all their administrations, and all meet together in Baltimore the next year."

These measures were witnessed by two of the Fluvanna preachers, Gatch and Ellis, who were at Baltimore "to see if anything could be done to prevent a total disunion, for they did not wish that to be the case," says Watters, who, throughout this perilous controversy, acted generously and wisely as a conciliator. Being one of the delegates from the Baltimore session to that of Manakintown, he has left us the best account of their momentous mission and its happy results. He says that Gatch and Ellis "both thought their Baltimore brethren were hard with them, and there was little appearance of anything but an entire separation. They complained that I was the only one, who did not join them, that treated them with affection and tenderness. I awfully feared our visit would be of little consequence, yet I willingly went down in the name of God, hoping against hope. We found our brethren as loving and as full of zeal as ever, and as determined on persevering in their newly-adopted mode; for to all their former arguments they now added (what with many was infinitely stronger than all other arguments in the world) that the Lord approbated and greatly blessed his own ordinances, by them administered the past year. We had a great deal of loving conversation, with many tears; but I saw no bitterness, no shyness, no judging each other. We wept and prayed and sobbed, but neither would agree to the other's terms. In the mean time I was requested to preach at twelve o'clock. As I had many preachers and professors to hear me, I spoke from the words of Moses to his father-in-law: 'We are journeying unto the place of which the Lord said, I will give it you; come thou with us, and we will do thee good; for the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel.' After waiting two days, and all hopes of an accommodation failing, we had fixed on starting back early in the morning; but late in the evening it was proposed by one of their own party in Conference (none of the others being present) that there should be a suspension of the ordinances for the present year, and that our circumstances should be laid before Mr. Wesley, and his advice solicited; also that Mr. Asbury should be requested to ride through the different circuits, and superintend the work at large. The proposal, in a few minutes, took with all but a few. In the morning, instead of coming off in despair, we were invited to take our seats again in the Conference, where, with great rejoicings and praises to God; we, on both sides, heartily agreed to the accommodation. I could not but say it is of the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes. I knew of nothing upon earth that could have given me more real consolation; and I could not but be heartily thankful for the stand I had taken, and the part I had acted through the whole contest. I had, by several leading characters on both sides, been suspected of leaning to the opposite; could all have agreed to the administration of the ordinances, I should have had no objection; but until that was the case, I could not think ourselves ripe for so great a change. We have had every reason to believe that everything would end well; that the evils which had actually attended our partial division would make us more cautious how we should entertain one thought of taking a step that might have the least tendency to so great an evil." [23]

Asbury has left a brief record of the memorable scene. On his way to Manakintown he found "the people full of the ordinances," for the question had become a popular one. On arriving there he was saddened to perceive the "inflexible" spirit of the preachers, who were led by the commanding minds of Gatch, Dickens, and O'Kelly. On Tuesday, 9th of May, he writes: "The Conference was called. Brothers Watters, Garrettson, and myself stood back, and being afterward joined by Brother Dromgoole, we were desired to come in, and I was permitted to speak. I read Mr. Wesley's thoughts against a separation; showed my private letters of instructions from Mr. Wesley; set before them the sentiments of the Delaware and Baltimore Conferences; read our epistles, and read my letter to Gatch, and Dickens' letter in answer. After some time spent this way, it was proposed to me, if I would get the circuits supplied, they would desist; but that I could not do. We went to preaching. I spoke on Ruth ii, 4, and spoke as though nothing had been the matter among the preachers or people, and we were greatly pleased and comforted; there was some moving among the people. In the afternoon we met; the preachers appeared to me to be further off; there had been, I thought, some talking out of doors. When we, Asbury, Garrettson, Watters, and Dromgoole, could not come to a conclusion with them, we withdrew, and left them to deliberate on the condition I offered, which was to suspend the measures they had taken for one year. After an hour's conference we were called to receive their answer, which was, that they could not submit to the terms of union. I then prepared to leave the house, to go to a near neighbor's to lodge, under the heaviest cloud I ever felt in America. O what I felt! nor I alone, but the agents on both sides. They wept like children, but kept their opinions. Wednesday, 10th, I returned to take leave of the Conference, and to go off immediately to the North; but found they had been brought to an agreement while I was praying, as with a broken heart, in the house we went to lodge at; and Brothers Watters and Garrettson had been praying upstairs, where the Conference sat. We heard what they had to say — surely the hand of God has been greatly seen in all this. There might have been twenty promising preachers and three thousand people seriously affected by this separation, but the Lord would not suffer this. We then had preaching by brother Watters, afterward we had a love-feast. Preachers and people wept, prayed, and talked." [30]

"We set our faces toward the North," says Garrettson, "with gladness of heart, praising the Lord for his great goodness." [31] Thus did the little bark, freighted with so much of the future welfare of the nation, and of Protestant Christendom, pass the threatening breakers and spread its sails, unrent, to those auspicious breezes, which, with the return of national peace, were soon to waft it on its career of unparalleled prosperity.

Few of the preachers who began their ministerial travels this year continued long in the itinerant service. Half of them at least retired, in from two to five years. Some, however, were eminent in their day either for talents, or for services before or after their location. We catch a few glimpses of them in our early publications.

William Partridge, a Virginian, born in 1754, and converted in 1775, became well known as an evangelist to the far South. He located, after nine years of laborious service, but re-entered the itinerant ranks again in 1814, and died a veteran, in 1817, in Sparta, Georgia. "Though surrounded," say the Minutes, ''with those who held slaves, He would have none." He not "only professed sanctification, but lived it." A neighbor who had lived near him more than twenty years declared that "he was the greatest example of piety I have ever known." "For me to die is gain," was one of his exclamations on his death-bed.

James Oliver Cromwell will hereafter recur in our narrative, as the colleague of Garrettson, in the founding of Methodism in Nova Scotia in 1785. He located in 1793, but lived long an humble, sweet-spirited old minister."

Thomas Foster, a native of Virginia, did heroic service in the itinerancy down to the year 1792, and, during many additional years, as a Local Preacher. "No minister was more esteemed on account of sound talent and a holy life."

Caleb Boyer was born in Delaware, and converted under the ministry of Garrettson in 1778. At the organization of the Church he was elected one of its original elders, and "was one of the greatest preachers that the Methodists then had." The "allowance" of an itinerant could not support his family, and He located in 1788. He lived about twenty-five years at Dover, Del., working for the Church to the last.

George Mair was a bright and shining light of that age, especially in New Jersey, where he labored generally and mightily. He was not only a flaming preacher, but was noted for his happy tact in colloquial exhortation, and in adapting his familiar appeals to all classes. Many were the converts he won at their own doorways. Some of the hardest characters and lowest families, otherwise inaccessible to the Gospel, were thus reached, and raised up to exemplary virtue and domestic piety and comfort. If, in these labors, occasional examples of native simplicity and rudeness, or even fanaticism, occurred, they were more than redeemed by the salutary results of the prudent itinerant's counsels. He delighted to gather such converts in the love-feasts of Methodism, where remarkable scenes were often witnessed. A Methodist of the times has described one of these occasions, at which some striking examples of Mair's usefulness were presented. "I saw," he writes, "a pleasing exhibition in a love-feast at a quarterly meeting held by our missionary, George Mair, previous to his taking leave of his spiritual children in the northwest part of East Jersey. I saw there those who had cordially hated, lovingly embrace each other, and heard them praise the Lord who had made them one in Christ. The meeting was held in a barn, attended by several preachers, one of whom opened it on Saturday, and great power accompanied the word. Many wept aloud, some for joy, and some for grief. Many, filled with amazement, fled, and left room for the preachers to have access to the mourners, to pray with and exhort them to believe in the Lord Jesus, which many did, and rejoiced with great joy. Such a meeting I had never seen before. Next morning we met early for the love-feast. All that had obtained peace with God, and all who were seeking it, were invited, and the barn was nearly full. As few present had ever been in a love-feast, Mair explained to us its nature and design, namely, to take a little bread and water, not as a sacrament, but in token of our Christian love, in imitation of a primitive usage, and then humbly and briefly to declare the great things the Lord had done for them in having had mercy on them. James Sterling, of Burlington, was the first who spoke, and the plain and simple narrative of his Christian experience was very affecting to many. After him rose one of the new converts, a Mr. Egbert, and said, 'I was standing in my door, and saw a man (Mair) at a distance, well mounted on horseback, and as he drew near I had thoughts of hailing him, to inquire the news; but He forestalled me by turning into my yard and saying to me, "Pray, sir, can you tell me the way to heaven " "The way to heaven, sir we all hope to get to heaven, and there are many ways that men take." "Ah, but," said the stranger, "I want to know the best way." "Alight, sir, if you please; I should like to hear you talk about the way you deem the best. When I was a boy I used to hear my mother talk about the way to heaven, and I am under an impression you must know the way." He did alight, and I was soon convinced the judgment I had formed of the stranger was true. My doors were opened, and my neighbors invited to come and see and hear a man who could and would, I verily believed, tell us the best way to heaven. And it was not long before myself; my wife, and several of my family, together with many of my neighbors, were well assured we were in the way, for we had peace with God, with one another, and did ardently long and fervently pray for the peace and salvation of all men. Tell me, friends, is not this the way to heaven? It is true, many of us were for a time greatly alarmed and troubled. We communed together, and said, It is a doubtful case if God will have mercy on us and forgive us our sins; and if He does, it must be after we have passed through and deep repentance. But our missionary, to whom we jointly made known our unbelieving fears, said to us, "Cheer up, my friends, ye are not far from the kingdom of God. Can any of you be a greater sinner than Saul of Tarsus? and how long did it take him to repent? Three days were all. The Philippian jailer, too, in the same hour in which He was convicted, was baptized, rejoicing in God, with all his house. Come," said he, "let us have faith in God, remembering the saying of Christ, 'Ye believe in God, believe also in me.' Come, let us get down upon our knees and claim the merit of his death for the remission of sins, and He will do it; look to yourselves, each man, God is here." Instantly one who was, I thought, the greatest sinner in the house, except myself; fell to the floor as if dead and we thought he was dead; but he was not literally dead, for there he sits, with as significant a smile as any one present." Here the youth of whom he spoke uttered the word 'glory,' with a look and tone of voice that ran through the audience like an electric shock, and for a time interrupted the speaker; but He soon resumed his narrative, by saying, 'The preacher bid us not be alarmed; we must all die to live. Instantly I caught him in my arms, and exclaimed, The guilt I felt and the vengeance I feared are gone, and now I know heaven is not far off; but here and there, and wherever Jesus manifests himself; is heaven.' Here his powers of speech failed, and he sat down and wept, and there was not, I think, one dry eye in the barn. A German spoke next, and if I could tell what he said as told by him, it would be worth a place in any man's memory. But this I cannot do. [32] After him one got up and said, for months previous to the coming of Mr. Mair into their place he was one of the most wretched of men. He had heard of the Methodists, and the wonderful works done among them, and joined in ascribing it all to the devil. At length a fear fell on him; He thought He should die and be lost. He lost all relish for food, and sleep departed from him. His friends thought him mad; but his own conclusion was that He was a reprobate, and he was tempted to shoot himself that He might know the worst. He at length resolved He would hear the Methodists; and when he came, the barn was full. There was, however, room at the door, where He could see the preacher and hear well. He was soon convinced he was no reprobate, and felt a heart to beg of God to forgive him for ever harboring a thought that He, the kind Parent of all, had reprobated any of his children. And listening, he at length understood the cause of his wretchedness. It was guilt, from which Jesus came to save us. The people all around him being in tears, and hearing one in the barn cry, 'Glory to Jesus!' hardly knowing what He did, He drew his hat from under his arm, and swinging it over his head, began to huzza with might and main. The preacher saw him, and knew he was not in sport, (for the tears were flowing down his face,) and smiling said, 'Young man, thou art not far from the kingdom of God; but rather say, Halleluiah, the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.' Several others spoke, and more would have spoken had not a general cry arisen, when the doors were thrown open, that all might come in and see the way that God sometimes works." [33]

Mair fell at his post in 1785, "a man of affliction," say the old Minutes, ''but of great patience and resignation, and of an excellent understanding." He was the second itinerant who died after the organization of the Church, his friend Pedicord being the first.

Ignatius Pigman was a man of renown in these days, one of the most eloquent preachers of Methodism. He located in 1788 to provide for his family. Our best antiquary of this period says "All the preachers received on trial this year continued to honor God and Methodism during life. Some of them soon ended their itinerant career; others had a longer race. Stephen Black and George Mair soon died in the Lord. The latter was no ordinary preacher. William Partridge, James O. Cromwell, and Thomas Foster continued many years as lights and ornaments of Methodist Christianity. Their memory is blessed. Caleb Boyer was regarded as a great preacher in his day, and his life was untarnished to the end." [34]

The venerable Thomas Ware, who began his Methodistic career about these times, often alludes with emotion to these faithful, self-sacrificing men. He speaks of Mair as "the grave, the undaunted, who was invincible to everything but truth.'' Boyer and Pigman he says were "among the first preachers. They were esteemed men of superior claims; and it is presumed that there have been few, in any age or country, who could extemporize with either of these primitive Methodist missionaries. Be that as it may, in preaching Boyer was the Paul, and Pigman the Apollos of the Methodist connection at that time. When Whatcoat and Vasey heard them, at the Christmas Conference, they said they had not heard their equal in the British connection, except Wesley and Fletcher. These men, who copied with great fidelity and exactness the example of humility and self-devotion set by the apostle of the Gentiles, were held in high estimation by the Methodists of 1788. It was accordingly a matter of much grief when they abandoned the itinerant ranks."

———————————————————————-

ENDNOTES

1 At what is well known in the history of the Church as the "Brockenback Chapel."

2 Lee, p. 89.

3 The Minutes say forty-nine; but repeat those on Baltimore and Frederick Circuits.

4 The Minutes give nineteen; but by uniting Philadelphia and New Jersey.

5 Gatch's Life, p. 67.

6 Watters' Life, p. 72.

7 Garrettson's Semi-centennial Sermon.

8 'Lednum, p. 228.

9 Besides Watters, the only member who attended both sessions, "there were," he says, "a few who did not agree" with the affirmative.

10 Baltimore and Frederick were recognized by both.

11 Bangs, i, p. 128.

12 Lee, p. 67.

13 Wrongly named Rufford in Gatch's Memoir, p. 59.

14 Asbury's Journals, anno 1784.

15 Lee, p. 69.

16 For the justificatory evidence of the views here given, see Judge McLean's Life of Gatch, and Dr. Lee's Life and Times of Jesse Lee.

17 Sketch of Haggerty by Bishop Soule, Meth. Mag., 1824.

18 Rev. Alfred Griffith, in Sprague's Annals of the American Pulpit, vol. vii, p. 69.

19 Lednum, p. 246.

20 Atkin's Memorials, p, 135.

21 Minutes, i, p. 54.

22 Judge McLean's Life of Gatch, p. 75.

23 Garrettson's Semi-centennial Sermon.

24 Semi-centennial Sermon. Dr. Lee (Life, etc., of Lee, chap. iii) amply vindicated the Fluvanna preachers by original documents. See also Judge McLean's Life of Gatch, p. 62, et seq.

25 Lee, p. 70.

26 Lee says thirty-six — a mistake. Bangs makes out a decrease of seven; he did not notice that the appointment for Baltimore and Frederick Circuits were given twice in the preceding year.

27 Lee says fourteen; Lednum eleven; the Minutes record none received at Manakintown. Lee and Lednum may have had unpublished information respecting this session.

28 It ceased in Massachusetts by a decision of the Supreme Court, founded upon "The Bill of Rights.

29 Watters' Life, p. 79.

30 Journals, May, 1780. His statistical estimates are conjectural and inaccurate.

31 Bangs' Garrettson, p. 112.

32 He attempts it, however, and the incident is so characteristic, not only of the success of Mair, but of the simple piety of the times, and of a class of conversions not at all uncommon in that day, that I insert it here. "When the preacher did come to mine house, and did say, 'Peace be on this habitation; I am come, father, to see if in these troublesome times I can find any in your parts that does know the way to that country where war, sorrow, and crying be no more; and of whom could I inquire so properly as of one to whom God has given many days? When He did say this I was angry, and did try to say to him, Go out of mine house; but I could not speak, but did tremble; and when mine anger was gone, I did say, I does fear I does not know the way to that goodist place, but mine wife does know; sit down, and I will call her. Just then mine wife did come in, and the stranger did say, 'This, father, is, I presume, your wife, of whom you say she does know the way to a better country — the way to heaven. Dear woman, will you tell it me?' After mine wife did look at the stranger one minute, she did say, 'I know Jesus, and is not he the way?' The stranger did then fall on his knees and thank God for bringing him to mine house, where was one that did know the way to heaven. He did then pray for me and mine children, that we might be like mine wife, and all go to heaven together. Mine wife did then pray in Dutch, and some of mine children did fall on their knees, and I did fall on mine; and when she did pray no more, the preacher did pray again, and mine oldest daughter did cry so loud. From that time I did seek the Lord, and did fear he would not hear me, for I had made the heart of wife so sorry when I did tell her she was mad. But the preacher did show me so many promises that I did tell mine wife if she would for give me, and fast and pray with me all day and all night, I did hope the Lord would forgive me. This did please mine wife, but she did say, 'We must do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.' About the middle of the night I did tell mine wife I should not live till morning, mine distress was too great. But she did say, 'Mine husband, God will not let you die;' and just as the day did break mine heart did break, and tears did roll so fast, and I did say, 'Mine wife, I now believe mine God will bless me,' and she did say, 'Amen, Amen, come, Lord Jesus.' Just then mine oldest daughter, who had been praying all night, did come in and did fall on mine neck, and said, 'O mine father, Jesus has blessed me.' And then joy did come into mine heart, and we have gone on rejoicing in the Lord ever since. Great fear did fall on mine neighbors, and mine barn would not hold all the peoples that does come to learn the way to heaven.' His looks, his tears, and his broken English kept the people in tears, mingled with smiles, not with lightness, but joy, for they believed every word He said." The "dignity" off history contemns such scenes, but the human heart will ever respect and weep over them. Even history, at least the history of Methodism, would be fatally defective were it totally to ignore such illustrative data.

33 Ware's Life, p. 63.

34 Lednum, p. 306.

---

Text scanned and proofread by Rev. & Mrs. Duane V. Maxey
Holiness Data Ministry
P. O. Box 482
Coeur D' Alene, WA 99208

HTML conversion by Paul Leclerc and George Lyons
Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology
of Northwest Nazarene University,
Nampa, Idaho 83686.

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided this notice is left intact.
This text may not be redistributed in any for-profit form or mirrored at any other website without the expressed, written consent of the Wesley Center.

If you have any questions regarding these files, please contact the Wesley