Introduction

IT is a tragic thing that relatively so little is known of Francis Asbury, though he traveled a territory much greater than John Wesley and left as his monument a Church in America which at this writing is more populous than any other Church. Too little has been written about him. There are a few outstanding works; but when one attempts to learn much about Asbury and his times, one is confronted at every step with difficulties and information is at a premium. The houses and churches which he visited have today largely disappeared. In whole states which he visited repeatedly, it is next to impossible to find a single place which is hallowed today by the associations of his life and preaching. About the only written thing that he left is his Journal. Very few copies of it are extant. It is little known, and until this effort it has never been annotated.

When one examines Asbury's letters and Journal minutely, one discovers that Asbury was a great student. He read the books of his day. He read his Hebrew and Greek Bibles daily. He knew Latin. He was familiar with the historians and the scholars. He was a learned man-and this in spite of his continuous travel over a period of forty-five years in America! He never had the advantage of a college education; however, he literally walked with the kings and princes of the then known educational world and was acceptable in many pulpits of other denominations. He knew and associated with every known condition of men. He knew President Washington, Governors Rodney, Tiffin, Bassett, Worthington, Dickinson, Wright, and Lieutenant-Governor Van Cortlandt. He stayed in homes of the common people, and on occasion was entertained by the great.

Here was really a remarkable man. He had little time for writing. Much of nearly every day was consumed with his travels over vast distances, frequently with no place to write except in the open woods. When we compare him with John Wesley, we find that more than 2,600 letters have been collected which came from the pen of Wesley. An attempt has been made to estimate the number of letters Francis Asbury wrote. Certain it is that he wrote as many as Wesley. That was the only way he had of keeping in touch with the preachers and the people. On one occasion he referred to the fact that he wrote as many as a thousand a year. Frankly, this seems to be an exaggeration, though one would only have to write an average of less than three a day to make this figure. It is possible he did. However, in the first few years of his ministry he wrote relatively few. He did not know many people and he had not traveled very extensively. Also he had had few advantages of schooling, and the writing urge was evidently less developed in him. But as he went along, he did develop the urge.

Asbury had to keep in touch with the people. He was gradually creating an extensive ecclesiastical empire, and he must of necessity direct it and keep it going. The most tragic thing is that nearly all the letters have been lost. Frontier life knew paper to be one of the scarcest of articles. Witness the fact that Asbury's traveling companions, Whatcoat, McKendree, Boehm, Bond, and others, mainly made their notes at the bottom of Asbury's letters, if there was any space left. The letters which have been preserved show how little paper they had. N.B.'s and P.S.'s take up every spare place in the letters and sometimes on the envelopes. The difficulties of deciphering what was said are greatly accentuated, not only by the poor handwriting but by the crowded condition of the lines and the fact that every inch was used.

The matter of collecting the letters has not been easy. My interest in them and in Francis Asbury has not been an overnight interest. I was born in a Methodist preacher's home. My father had a deep interest in Asbury. My grandfather, who for fifty-two years was a Methodist preacher, was born in 1831, fifteen years after Asbury's death. His parents were disciples of Robert Strawbridge and Francis Asbury in Loudoun County, Virginia. Nine Methodist preachers have come from this one family, with an aggregate ministry of more than three hundred years. My interest in history has been a lifetime interest. Years ago I became interested in charting the journeys of Asbury in the state of Virginia and in the accuracy of the statements made about Asbury. Asbury himself calls attention to the fact that there were many errors in his Journal. He never had opportunity to correct most of it. Those errors confront one in the study of the Journal and in the sources of information. Errors have been made and repeated by the historians, and it will be found by future historians perhaps that some have been made by this writer and group of historians. At times we have been led astray by what others have mistakenly written. For instance, Tipple and others indicated that Asbury made 84 visits into the state of Virginia, which in Asbury's day included the present West Virginia. This study of the Journal and letters shows more than 120 visits were made in that total area. Some of them were simply crossings over the end of the state. However, Asbury spent more time in Virginia than in any other state. Early a great awakening took place there, and the revival of 1776 under George Shadford is said by Asbury and others to have added eighteen hundred in one year on the Brunswick Circuit. Many of the earliest leaders came from that state, such as Bishops William McKendree, Enoch George, and John Early; and Jesse Lee, the father of Methodism in New England and the historian of early Methodism.

Asbury was a tower of strength in the early church and nation.

Sad to relate, the average Methodist in America has a hard time answering any questions about him. Few historical shrines exist, and not much is done to revere his memory. He slept in far more places than George Washington is reputed to have slept in, but try to find one today. Many of his letters have been lost, and his Journal was neglected for more than a hundred years.

An extended search has been made for the letters. Old books have been searched. The Arminian Magazine, The Methodist Magazine, The Quarterly Review, Advocates, and other possible sources have been examined and have yielded letters. Libraries have been contacted. Librarians have ably assisted in searching for originals or copies. All state libraries and many others within the area covered by Asbury were requested to help. The response has been remarkable, and many letters have come to light. They are properly credited to the various institutions. Some of these letters have been printed in one place or another, thanks to the historical interest in them. But even some of these are in old books which are in a bad state of preservation. A good wind would blow them away. Drew University has performed a valuable service in preserving some of the letters on microfilm; but these are mainly the ones collected in the libraries of Drew, Garrett Biblical Institute, and the Baltimore Conference (Lovely Lane Museum).

This collection of letters represents a geographical distribution of interest which covers a large part of the United States and England. Many persons have been interested in the search for the letters. The collection in Drew University numbers about a hundred. These, however, are not all originals. No volume of Asbury's letters has ever been published prior to this one. Asbury had a feeling that he was the historian of early Methodism, as these letters indicate. He felt that it was necessary for him to collect a "focus," namely the records of the early preachers. He thought that this would be achieved and that they would be put into a volume. However, only a small number of these letters from preachers telling the story of advances in Methodism were ever published. During Asbury's day there were few newspapers. People to whom he wrote as a rule had no access to the newspapers. It was characteristic of Asbury that he felt he was responsible for spreading news, and he did it by writing letters.

A man is always known by his letters if he left any. It is natural to ask, "What did he say in those letters to his relatives, to his friends, to those who disagreed with him" One wishes by some coincidence a trunk full of his letters could be found. However, so far no such trunk has turned up, and only a few more than three hundred letters have been discovered though the search has gone on for about five years. The letters which have been discovered have revealed far more of the real Francis Asbury than was known before. It has been repeatedly conjectured that he had never had any love interest. Without doubt he had at least one. However, little is known about this; but the letters reveal that her name was Nancy Brookes.

Asbury even had some people who despised him, and the letters give some of the history of these conflicts. Persons who have been lost sight of have come to life, and new friends have been found because they were the friends of Francis Asbury. Insights into his character are discovered, and the human Asbury comes out more alive. The greatness of the man is revealed in his human characteristics. One is reminded of Abraham Lincoln in that the human side is often the attractive side. As with Lincoln, the glorified side is frequently unhistorical, not human, and unattractive.

In order to see more of the real Asbury, a few letters which were written by others have been introduced into the correspondence. These are placed as a rule in chronological order to fit into the chronological development of Asbury's life. Some of these will enable the reader to see the other side of the picture, and some throw more light on the human Asbury.

As said above, though Asbury became an extremely well-informed man, he was entirely self-educated. He became a highly educated man, but only because he was self-educated. His writings are not English classics. However, as a rule the letters were fairly well written. The earlier letters were rather crude, but he speedily improved. The most serious criticism that could be made of his letters would be of the length of his sentences. Frequently they had no end. However, his grammar was good, and there were not many mistakes. There was a quaintness about them which was characteristic of the times. He uses words which were in use in that day but are now archaic. These have been preserved in this printing of them. Sometimes he uses interesting play on names and words to carry his point.

He was exceedingly anxious about the way his written works would appear to posterity. He wanted them to appear grammatically correct. In a letter to Thomas Haskins on August 22, 1801, he says, "You will only say to Brother Cooper that you think I only `wish good pointing, and a few words to make it explicit.' But it is not the Journal of Ezekiel Cooper, or any other but Francis Asbury, and as such I wish it to appear." Again, to Ezekiel Cooper he writes on December 31, 1801, "I have been taught to understand that a printer should point; and if he could not point he could not print. I do not choose to print any man's journal but my own. My language in preaching and writing is my own-good or bad." To George Roberts on August 23, 1802, he writes, "I cannot blame Brother Cooper for my journals, first from my great affection to Thomas Haskins and high opinion of his literary abilities. I wished him to read, correct and strike out what was improper. Secondly, I desired Brother Cooper to print it as it was, except some pointings. I had stricken out many things; and oh that I had stricken out many more but I left chasms and incoherence in the copy. If I had left him [Cooper] at liberty it would have been done better." It can be seen from these statements of Asbury that he was exceedingly interested in having his sentences correctly "pointed." His directions were evidently followed out with the Journal and with the letters which were published in The Methodist and TheArminian Magazines. The originals of some of the letters have come to light, and one can see how they were edited by comparing them with the printed copies. Sometimes whole sections were left out.

When the question of how to print the letters arose, the problems had to be faced. Should they be printed as they appear in the originals We would have preferred to have them printed just as Asbury wrote them. However, many of the letters could not be obtained in the originals. The printed copies are all that are extant. If the policy to print as Asbury wrote were followed, part would appear edited and the others would be copies of the originals. Asbury wished them to be edited if they were to be printed. He gave instructions to this effect when some were requested for printing in The Methodist Magazine; therefore his wishes were followed in the first printings. The above quotations of Asbury have determined the policy of printing here. "My language in preaching and writing is my own-good or bad," he said; and Asbury's language has been preserved. Pointings have been put in as he desired and in conformity with the early printings of some of the letters. The letters here printed follow the pattern of the Journal as it was published by Hollingsworth and upon which several had worked as editors. The rule has been to let the writer speak his own mind and have his say. How we wish there were more of the letters! What we have makes us wish for more. Asbury comes more alive as one reads his correspondence.

A reader of the letters is at times exasperated because of the omissions of time between them. One wishes that the gaps could be filled. There are great chasms between the events. Fortunately, as a rule, the Journal supplies the information. However, when great issues are before Asbury and the Church, and one wishes to peer behind the scenes, he is frequently lost in the vacuum of no letters.

The letters present the real Asbury. They are the only source of his writing except the Journal, and it is largely done in an epitomized form. When one reads the Journal, he is exasperated at times because Asbury did not go into more detail. What there is of the letters is in more detail. Asbury had a real concern for the preachers. He had a concern for the homes, for widows and children, for his country, for the aged, and for animals. He loved scenery. He had no narrow view of religion. He was not narrowly sectarian in his viewpoint. As a rule, he loved preachers and was able to preach in pulpits of pastors of other denominations. One marvels that he could travel in spite of the many illnesses to which he was heir. At times he seemed to have the complex of Paul. He rejoiced in being a martyr. He was sensitive to criticism. He felt driven to preach and to travel. He had a sense of duty which drove him to constant exertion. Within him there was a drive to be educated, and his growth in his intellectual life was most astonishing.

Asbury was a talented man. It was said of Wesley that he was a Method-ist. So was Asbury. He had a method for everything. He invented methods for the societies, the classes, the bands. He had methods for his daily travel, his sermons, the writing of his letters and Journal; methods for study, Bible reading, and prayer. However, he was so human that he was welcomed everywhere. He was called "Father" and became a Methodist saint among the people. He made enemies, but not many. The enemies he made were people who essentially differed from him on account of his policies of administration. They differed over the developing episcopacy. There were few differences with him over doctrines, though these letters refer to several who were accused of differences. Asbury was a man of humor. On some occasions he was accused of being too humorous. On Wednesday, December 11, 1782, he said:

I rode to Williamsburg-formerly the seat of government, but now removed to Richmond; thus the worldly glory is departed from it; as to Divine glory it never had any. I preached in James City court-house. The place has suffered and is suffering: the palace, the barracks, and some good dwelling-houses burnt. The capitol is no great building, and is going to ruin; the exterior of the college not splendid, and but few students; the Bedlam-house is desolate, but whether because none are insane, or all are equally mad, it might, perhaps, be difficult to tell.

There was a frankness in his letters which was refreshing. When the occasion demanded it, he wrote directly, even critically, to a person who needed criticism. He was a born leader, and this gift of leadership showed itself strongly at times in dealing with his friends.

I am conscious of the fact that the letters sometimes conflict with the histories which have been written. For instance, many interpretations of the relationship between Asbury and Coke have appeared in print. The historians have not agreed. Frequently their disagreements have been violent. The editor of the letters has included the Coke letters in the volume with the idea of letting them tell their own story. They speak for themselves. The last word has not been said upon this and other subjects, nor will the last word be said here. Again one could wish that we had much more of the correspondence. Further light would certainly be thrown upon some of the mooted questions. However, there are enough letters here to tell a story that is more correct because much light has been discovered in recent years. Again it can be said that the human qualities of the "Prophet of the Long Road" stand out in that this remarkable man becomes more remarkable as his actual characteristics are more fully understood from his letters. No wonder that the United States Government has paid tribute to this man, and no wonder that the National Historical Publications Commission is concerned that the Journal and the letters be published. It is hoped that the letters will create the kind of interest that will help writers in the future to write more perfectly of the real Francis Asbury.

An arbitrary rule has been adopted as to the text of the letters to be used in this volume. Wherever possible, the originals have been used-in fact, in every instance where originals have come to life. Sometimes there are copies of the originals in other places, and these have been examined. The credit line at the bottom of the letter indicates the source from which the letter was taken. It does not refer to places where the letters have been published unless so stated. In some cases letters have been published several times.

We are delighted to make acknowledgment of the help we have received from many persons and agencies which have co-operated to bring this volume to completion. To Frank Baker, secretary of the Wesley Historical Society of England, we are deeply indebted for his great interest in this enterprise. He has not only transcribed and provided a number of the letters but also provided notes which have given the English background of the letters. His contribution has been outstanding. We are indebted to Mr. L. E. S. Gutteridge of the Epworth Press, who has helped in providing materials and has transcribed the longest letter, that to Joseph Benson, January 16, 1816. William Warren Sweet has allowed us the privilege of using the letters from his collection of copies. This prominent historian has placed his materials at our disposal. He has also been an invaluable source of historical information. Robert S. Dolliver, who for years has done work in this field, has loaned us his list of letters. He has provided some, and altogether has helped to make our list of letters complete. We acknowledge our debt of gratitude to Albert D. Betts, who has been of great assistance in providing information and transcribing some letters which have been found in South Carolina. He has searched in many places to give help. W. G. Smeltzer has likewise provided information and transcribed some letters with notes from the Pittsburgh Conference area. Lawrence Sherwood has assisted in many ways in research in reference to West Virginia and the surrounding areas, and has provided letters from various collections, including his own. He has also transcribed some of the letters. We are also indebted to Wallace H. Harris, who has provided photographs of letters and other information, and in addition helped with the materials in Pennsylvania. Arthur Bruce Moss has been most helpful in supplying information from New York and has repeatedly helped with the project. Herbert Hucks, Jr., Wofford College librarian, has been most helpful with some of the Asbury materials, including supplying copies of letters in the Wofford library. Robert B. Pierce has loaned the Journal of William Spencer, which has been a valuable addition to our study. Some of it is used in this volume. Mrs. Frederick Brown Harris has allowed the use of the letter from Francis Asbury to her distinguished ancester Daniel Fidler. Mr. and Mrs. H. Carstairs Bracey have done much to locate historic names and places in several counties of Virginia and North Carolina. Miss Elizabeth Hughey has provided copies of letters in the library of the Methodist Publishing House in Nashville and helped in our research.

A debt of gratitude is due to Gordon Pratt Baker, who has read the manuscript through and has made valuable contributions to it by suggestions in reference to the copy. It has been a great help to the editor to have the advice and the careful reading which have characterized his work with the copy. A debt of gratitude is also due to Harry Denman, the general secretary of the General Board of Evangelism of The Methodist Church, for his friendly interest in the project, and to D. E. Jackson, our business manager, and the staff of The Upper Room, who have taken such an interest in the project and helped in it in so many ways. Brooks B. Little, my editorial associate and the librarian of The Upper Room Devotional Library, has been of invaluable help. He has been indefatigable in his research, running down sources in libraries, discovering copies of letters, photographing them, collecting them, and in many other ways he has made his contribution. Over a period of about five years my secretary, Clarice Marie Winstead, has helped with the letters, studied them, typed them, and familiarized herself with them until she has become an authority on them. Likewise, her sister, Annie Lee Winstead, who has been called in to help over a period of months and who has lived with the letters through that time, has made an extraordinary contribution to the work. These ladies have had a most important part in the entire project. Mrs. Louise Stahl, Dr. Clark's secretary, has frequently provided information, copies of letters, and other materials, and has made her contribution in a most worth-while way. Others who have helped with the copying of the letters are Willena Woodard, Katherine Campbell, Carrie B. Chenault, Sylvia Holloway, and Evelyn Butts.

We have also received help from Edward J. Fortney, formerly librarian at Drew University, who put at our disposal the resources of Drew library. Through him we have had much valuable advice and information. Kenneth R. Rose, pastor of Lovely Lane Methodist Church, Baltimore, has given us access to the historical collection there. It is an invaluable collection, and many of the materials have been used. Proper credits have been given to that library. Albert W. Cliffe, pastor of St. George's Church and the librarian of the Philadelphia Historical Society, has made available everything at St. George's Church. Many of the most valuable materials extant are in Old St. George's Church, Philadelphia; and much material in this volume has been placed here through the help of the pastor. We are grateful to Harold H. Hughes for his research.

This ministerial family of mine has been an unending source of help through these years as I have worked with the letters and Journal. My mother, Mrs. R. H. Potts, who in her eighties has been blessed with a remarkable memory, has helped in many ways. Especially do I owe my wife, Agnes, more than I can estimate for her constant encouragement as she has worked with the magnifying-glass in deciphering letters, gone with me to out-of-the-way places to find materials, worked in libraries, helped with research, and with reading copy and proof.

Finally, we are indebted to many of the staffs of libraries and institutions which have provided invaluable help in locating, preparing copies, photographing, and helping in so many ways to provide materials for the volume. We also owe a great debt of gratitude to many persons across America who have had a particular interest in some one piece of historical material and have helped to point up that particular matter. To all these, and to many others, we are most indebted.

J. MANNING POTTS