Nathan Bangs · 69 of 73

Chapter 2. From 1787 to 1791 inclusive. · Part 2

The eastern and western shores of Maryland were blessed this year with an outpouring of the Spirit, and many were brought to the knowledge of the truth. But the most remarkable revival of religion was in the city of Baltimore; and as this was somewhat peculiar in those days, in some of its characteristics, it may be well to give it a particular notice.

In imitation of a practice adopted with so much success by Mr. Wesley, the preachers in and about Baltimore went into the fields and in the market-house on Howard’s Hill, every Sabbath in the afternoon, after the service in the churches. By this means thousands were brought to hear the word of God, who otherwise, in all probability, would never have been reached by it. Through this instrumentality a number of persons had been awakened and converted before the session of the conference in September; and during the conference many more were brought from darkness to light.

On the afternoon of Sabbath the 14th, Bishop Asbury preached in the church of the Rev. Mr. Otterbein, with whom he always maintained a Christian fellowship; and he remarks, “The Spirit of the Lord came among the people, and sinners cried aloud for mercy. Perhaps not less than twenty souls found the Lord from that time until Tuesday following.” The work thus begun went on most rapidly, and in a short time there was such a noise among the people, particularly those who were smitten with conviction for sin, that many, even of the Christians, looked on with astonishment, having never seen things “on this wise;” while others, as if frightened at what they saw and heard, fled precipitately from the house, some making their escape through the windows. This strange scene soon drew multitudes to the church, “to see what these things meant,” so that not only the house was filled, but many stood without in silent astonishment. In a short time some of those who were crying for mercy fell helpless upon the floor, or swooned away in the arms of their friends. But this scene soon changed. “Their mourning was turned to joy,” and they arose “filled with all the fulness of God,” and with joyful lips proclaimed his goodness to their souls. This had its happy effects upon the spectators, and the work continued to spread among the people, and several students in Cokesbury College were subjects of the revival. The consequence of this great work was, that about three hundred were added to the Church in the city of Baltimore.

As this work commenced at the conference, many of the preachers received a new baptism of the Holy Spirit, and went to their several fields of labor “full of faith and the Holy Ghost,” and God gave them many seals to their ministry.

Enoch Matson, Adam Cloud, and Thomas S. Chew were entered on the minutes as having desisted from traveling, but they were in fact expelled for improper conduct. Their names were entered in this way probably from tenderness toward them and their friends.

Caleb Boyer, Samuel Dudley, William Cannan, Joseph Wyatt, Michael Ellis, and Ignatius Pigman were returned as having a partial location on account of their families; but who, nevertheless, were subject to the order of the conference. The following had died since the last conference: —

Thomas Curtis, of whom it is said that he was of “upright life, successful in his labors, and triumphant in his death.” He had been seven years in the ministry.

John Major, who was an honest, loving man, and who died as he lived, full of faith and the Holy Ghost. He was one of the first missionaries that went to the state of Georgia, and was frequently called, on account of the tenderness of his feelings, “The weeping prophet.” He had been ten years in the ministry, and left behind him many witnesses to the blamelessness and usefulness of his life.

Woolman Hickson. He is said to have been a young man of promising abilities as a preacher, of an upright life and blameless conversation; but after traveling seven years he was taken from his labors by the consumption, to his eternal reward. His last labors were chiefly in the vicinity of New York, and he finally died and was buried in that city.

Elijah Ellis. An humble, diligent, and useful man, who, after laboring five years in the ministry, chiefly in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, died in peace.

Numbers in the Church: White, This year, 30,809, Last year, 21,949; Increase, 8,860; Colored, This year, 6,545, Last year, 3,893; Increase, 2,652; Total This year, 37,354, Total Last year, 25,842; Increase, 11,512; Preachers, This year, 166, Last year, 133; Increase, 33.

This large increase shows the blessed effects of the revivals before mentioned, and which exerted an extensive influence upon the surrounding population.

1789. In consequence of the extension of the work in almost every direction, for the convenience of the preachers, and that the general superintendent might perform his work with greater facility and energy, there were eleven conferences this year, as follows: — March 9th in Georgia; March 17th in Charleston, South Carolina; April 11th at McKnight’s meeting house, on the Yadkin River, North Carolina; April 18th at Petersburgh, Virginia; April 28th at Leesburgh, Virginia; May 4th at Baltimore, Maryland; May 9th at Cokesbury, Maryland; May 13th at Chestertown; May 18th at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; May 23d at Trenton, New Jersey; May 28th in the city of New York. These conferences must have been very small, and it is stated that the having so many so near together gave dissatisfaction to many of the preachers, though it is manifestly impolitic for an annual conference to comprehend a very large territory.

The following new circuits had been formed during the past year: — Bush River and Little Peedee, in South Carolina; Pamlico, in North Carolina; Greensville and Bottetourt, in Virginia; Baltimore City was this year separated from the circuit, and for the first time a preacher was stationed in the city; Wilmington and Milford, in Delaware; Burlington, in New Jersey; Newburgh, Columbia, Coeyman’s Patent, and Schenectady, in New York; and Stamford, in Connecticut.

At the conference of 1787, in consequence of its having been pleaded by Dr. Coke that the conference was under obligation to receive Mr. Whatcoat for a bishop, because it was the wish of Mr. Wesley, the minute which had been adopted in 1784 declaring that “during the lifetime of the Rev. John Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his sons in the gospel, ready, in matters of church government, to obey his commands,” was so far modified as to leave them at liberty to depart from his advice whenever they might think it incompatible with their rights and privileges as an independent Church. In justification of this proceeding it was said that the minute in question was a voluntary act of their own, and not a formal contract entered into with Mr. Wesley, and therefore without any violation of an agreement, they had a right to act in the premises as they thought proper; and more especially, as Mr. Wesley was in England, three thousand miles distant, he could not judge what was fit and right to be done here as well as those who were on the spot, and had actual knowledge of the state of things. On this account the resolution was rescinded in 1787, and a letter written to Mr. Wesley inviting him to come over and visit his American children, that he might more perfectly understand the state of things here from actual observation.

These proceedings were not agreeable to Mr. Wesley, especially as they seemed to imply an abjuration of his authority, inasmuch as his name was not inserted in the minutes. With a view therefore to remove all unpleasantness from his mind, and to give assurance that they intended no disrespect to him, nor any renunciation of his general authority, the following question and answer were inserted in the minutes for this year: —

“Question Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal office in the Methodist Episcopal Church in Europe and America?

“Answers John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by regular order and succession.”

There appears no little ambiguity in this question and answer. Did they mean to say that these persons exercised a joint superintendency both in Europe and America? Certainly not; for neither Thomas Coke nor Francis Asbury exercised any episcopal powers in Europe. What they meant to say evidently was this, that Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury acted in this country as joint superintendents over the Methodist Episcopal Church, while Mr. Wesley exercised a similar power singly in Europe, and a general superintendence in America. This is farther manifest from the next question and answer, which are in the following words: —

“Question Who have been elected by the unanimous suffrages of the General Conference, to superintend the Methodist connection in America?

“Answers Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury.

This year was, on several accounts, an important era in these United States. The old federal constitution had been found wanting in those principles which were essential for an efficient government, and was this year superseded by the adoption of that constitution under the operation of which the country has ever since so greatly prospered, and Gen. Washington had been unanimously elected the first president. It was therefore thought advisable by the Methodist conference which sat in the city of New York at the time that the first congress assembled in the same city under the new constitution, for Bishops Coke and Asbury to present a congratulatory address to him as the public organ and head of the government. This was accordingly done. And as the author of a pamphlet quaintly called the “History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy,” has seen fit to arraign the authors of this address before the public, and even to impeach their integrity, it is thought to be a duty which we owe to the venerable men who signed the address, as well as to the interests of truth, to set this matter in a fair point of light.

The author above mentioned affirmed that the true date of the address was 1785; but as it was published under date of May 29, 1789, he inferred that for some sinister purpose, Bishops Coke and Asbury had altered the date, and thereby practiced a deception upon the public. This subject was fully investigated by the late Bishop Emory in his “Defence of our Fathers,” and all the insinuations and false assertions of the above writer fully exposed and refuted. The following letter from the Rev. Thomas Morrell, who has recently gone to his reward, to the Rev. Ezekiel Cooper, dated Elizabethtown, N. J., August 26, 1827, will throw much light on this subject: —

“With regard to the information you request concerning the address to General Washington, I can furnish you with every material circumstance respecting it, having acted as a sub-agent in the transaction, and having a distinct recollection of the whole business. The history of it is, That Mr. Asbury, in the New York conference in 1789, offered for the consideration of the conference the following proposal: — Whether it would not be proper for us, as a church, to present a congratulatory address to General Washington, who had been lately inaugurated president of the United States, in which should he embodied our approbation of the constitution, and professing our allegiance to the government. The conference unanimously approved, and warmly recommended the measure; and appointed the two bishops, Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, to draw up the address. It was finished that day, and read to the conference, who evinced great satisfaction in its recital. Brother Dickens and myself were delegated to wait on the president with a copy of the address, and request him to appoint a day and hour when he would receive the bishops, one of whom was to read it to him, and receive his answer. It was concluded that although Dr. Coke was the senior bishop, yet not being an American citizen, there would be an impropriety in his presenting and reading the address; the duty devolved of course on Bishop Asbury. Mr. Dickens and myself waited on the general; and as I had some personal acquaintance with him, I was desired to present him with the copy, and request his reception of the original by the hands of the bishops. The president appointed the fourth succeeding day, at twelve o’clock, to receive the bishops. They went at the appointed hour, accompanied by Brother Dickens and Thomas Morrell. Mr. Asbury, with great self-possession, read the address in an impressive manner. The president read his reply with fluency and animation. They interchanged their respective addresses; and, after sitting a few minutes, we departed. The address and the answer, in a few days, were inserted in the public prints; and some of the ministers and members of the other churches appeared dissatisfied that the Methodists should take the lead. In a few days the other denominations successively followed our example.

“The next week a number of questions were published, in the public papers, concerning Dr. Coke’s signing the address. Who was he? How came he to be a bishop? Who consecrated him? &c., accompanied with several strictures on the impropriety of a British subject signing an address approving of the government of the United States; charging him with duplicity, and that he was an enemy to the independence of America; for they affirmed he had written, during our Revolutionary War, an inflammatory address to the people of Great Britain, condemning, in bitter language, our efforts to obtain our independence and other charges tending to depreciate the doctor’s character, and bringing him into contempt with the people of our country. As I did not believe the assertion of the doctor’s writing the address above mentioned, I applied to a gentleman who was in England at the time, to know the truth of the charge; he assured me the doctor had published no such sentiments in England during the Revolutionary War, or at any other period, or he should have certainly had some knowledge of it. And this was the fact; for the doctor had written no such thing. As there was no other person in New York, at that time, in our connection, who could meet these charges, and satisfactorily answer these queries, I undertook the task, and in my weak manner endeavored to rebut the charges and answer the questions. A second piece appeared, and a second answer was promptly published. No more was written on the subject in New York. The doctor afterward gave me his thanks for defending his character.

“Such are the material circumstances that occurred concerning the address to General Washington, and his reply: which you are at liberty to make use of in any way you think proper, — and if you judge it necessary may put my name to it. Thomas Morrell.’”

“‘I certify that the above is a true extract of an original letter of the Rev. Thomas Morrell, addressed to me, bearing the above date, and now in my possession.

“‘Ezekiel Cooper. New York, September 7, 1827.’”

“To this we add the following copy of a letter from the Rev. Mr. Sparks, of Boston, to whom the papers of General Washington have been intrusted, for the purpose of making such selections for publication as he shall deem proper; in which important work this gentleman is now engaged. And for this polite and prompt reply to our inquiries, we here tender to Mr. Sparks our most respectful thanks.

“‘Boston, September 1, 1827.

“‘Dear Sir, — Your favor of the 26th ultimo has been received, and I am happy to be able to furnish you with the information you desire. The “date” of the address presented by Bishops Coke and Asbury to General Washington is May twenty-ninth, 1789. It is proper to inform you, however, that I do not find the original paper on the files, but take the date as it is recorded in one of the volumes of “Addresses.” It is barely possible that there may be a mistake in the record, but not at all probable.

“‘It is not likely that any address from any quarter was presented to Washington in 1785. I have never seen any of that year. He was then a private man, wholly employed with his farms.

“‘I am, sir, very respectfully, “‘Your obedient servant,

“‘Jared Sparks.

“‘Mr. J. Emory.’”

That the reader may have all the information desirable in reference to this subject, I have copied the address itself from the Gazette of the United States for June 6, 1789, a file of which is preserved in the New York City Library. It is as follows: —

ADDRESS OF THE BISHOPS OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

“‘To the President of the United States: —

“‘Sir, — We, the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, humbly beg leave, in the name of our society, collectively, in these United States, to express to you the warm feelings of our hearts, and our sincere congratulations on your appointment to the presidentship of these States. We are conscious, from the signal proofs you have already given, that you are a friend of mankind; and under this established idea, place as full confidence in your wisdom and integrity for the preservation of those civil and religious liberties which have been transmitted to us by the providence of God and the glorious revolution, as we believe ought to be reposed in man.

“‘We have received the most grateful satisfaction from the humble and entire dependence on the great Governor of the universe which you have repeatedly expressed, acknowledging him the source of every blessing, and particularly of the most excellent constitution of these States, which is at present the admiration of the world, and may in future become its great exemplar for imitation; and hence we enjoy a holy expectation, that you will always prove a faithful and impartial patron of genuine, vital religion, the grand end of our creation and present probationary existence. And we promise you our fervent prayers to the throne of grace, that God Almighty may endue you with all the graces and gifts of his Holy Spirit, that he may enable you to fill up your important station to his glory, the good of his Church, the happiness and prosperity of the United States, and the welfare of mankind.

“‘Signed in behalf of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

“‘Thomas Coke,

“‘Francis Asbury.

“‘New York, May 29, 1789.’”

The following is the reply of President Washington: —

To the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

“‘Gentlemen, — I return to you individually, and through you to your society collectively in the United States, my thanks for the demonstrations of affection, and the expressions of joy offered in their behalf, on my late appointment. It shall be my endeavor to manifest the purity of my inclinations for promoting the happiness of mankind, as well as the sincerity of my desires to contribute whatever may be in my power toward the civil and religious liberties of the American people. In pursuing this line of conduct, I hope, by the assistance of divine Providence, not altogether to disappoint the confidence which you have been pleased to repose in me.

“‘It always affords me satisfaction when I find a concurrence of sentiment and practice between all conscientious men, in acknowledgments of homage to the great Governor of the universe, and in professions of support to a just civil government. After mentioning that I trust the people of every denomination, who demean themselves as good citizens, will have occasion to be convinced that I shall always strive to prove a faithful and impartial patron of genuine vital religion — I must assure you in particular, that I take in the kindest part the promise you make of presenting your prayers at the throne of grace for me, and that I likewise implore the divine benediction on yourselves and your religious community.

“‘George Washington.’”

Though the fact that Dr. Coke signed the above address to Washington exposed him to some keen censure from some of his friends in England, because they contended that it was incompatible with his duty as a subject of the British empire thus to eulogize the American constitution and the president of the republic, yet the act itself originated from the sincerest sentiments of veneration for the excellent Washington; and the spirit which the address breathes is evidence of the most genuine piety and patriotism. And whatever may be said for or against Dr. Coke on account of the double relation he held to the two bodies of Methodists in England and America, no whisper could be breathed against the propriety of Bishop Asbury’s conduct in this affair, as he had become an American citizen, was cordially attached to the constitution and government of his adopted country, was seeking to promote its best interests, and regarded the newly elected president with ardent affection and profound veneration. Nor were the expressions of devotedness to the government and its president less the sentiments of the conference, and the Methodist people generally, than they were of the venerable men who signed it. The high estimation in which Bishop Asbury held Washington may be seen from the following remarks which he made on hearing of the death of that great man. He was then at Charleston, South Carolina, and had just adjourned a conference which had been held in that city, January 1800. He says, —

“Slow moved the northern post on the eve of new year’s day, and brought the distressing information of the death of Washington, who departed this life December 14, 1799.

“Washington, the calm, intrepid chief, the disinterested friend, first father, and temporal saviour of his country under divine protection and direction. A universal cloud sat upon the faces of the citizens of Charleston — the pulpits clothed in black — the bells muffled — the paraded soldiery — the public oration decreed to be delivered on Friday the 14th of this month — a marble statue to be placed in some proper situation, — these were the expressions of sorrow, and these the marks of respect paid by his fellow-citizens to this great man. I am disposed to lose sight of all but Washington. Matchless man! At all times he acknowledged the providence of God, and never was he ashamed of his Redeemer. We believe he died not fearing death. In his will he ordered the manumission of his slaves — a true son of liberty in all points.”

I have made this quotation, the sentiments of which seem to have been the spontaneous effusion of the writer’s heart in respect to this universally beloved and respected man, for the purpose of showing that the above address was not intended as an unmeaning compliment, merely to court the popular favor by a servile fawning at the feet of a great man; but that it contained the genuine feelings of the heart, and was intended as a tribute of gratitude to God for favoring the American people with such a noble monument of his wisdom and goodness in the person of this illustrious chief, and in that admirable constitution which his hands helped to frame, and which he was now called upon, by the unanimous suffrages of a free people, to administer and carry into practical effect.

It was indeed but natural for those who had suffered so many privations through a bloody and protracted war, and had since contended with many sorts of opposition from malignant foes, and not a little low scurrility from the exclusive spirit of sectarian bigotry, to rejoice in beholding the adoption of a constitution which guarantied to all denominations their rights and privileges equally, and to see this constitution committed to the hands of men who had ever manifested an impartial regard for each religious sect, and for the inalienable rights of all mankind.

As this year was the beginning of Methodism in New England, perhaps it may be proper to give some account of the state of that part of our country, that the reader may duly appreciate the difficulties with which it had to contend.

It has already been seen in the introduction that Congregationalism was the prevalent system of Christianity established in this portion of the country. As the early settlers fled here on account of the persecutions which they endured at home, and built themselves up in a separate community, their religious and civil regulations were interwoven, so that they were made mutually to support each other. Thus churches were built, ministers settled and supported, schools and colleges established according to law; and a tax was laid upon the people, in proportion to their property, to sustain these things in conjunction with their civil institutions. In thus providing by law for their own support, they took care to guard against the introduction of other sects, as far as they consistently could, simply tolerating them in holding their meetings, while they were abridged of many of their rights. According to these regulations all were born members of the Congregation Church, and, when grown maturity, were obliged to pay their proportion toward its support, unless they lodged a certificate in the office of the town clerk that they had attached themselves to some other society.

But the Ideological creed of the country differed in some important particulars from that of the Methodists. I need barely say that the Congregationalists of New England were Calvinist: of the highest order, and, at that time, excessively rigid in their opposition to Arminian or Methodistical doctrines, professing to esteem them as heretical, and dangerous to the souls of the people. And, moreover, as there were very generally ministers established in every parish — for the whole country was divided into parishes — they considered it an encroachment upon their rights for a stranger to intermeddle with them. This was the general state of things in New England. Professing a system of religion which had been handed down to them from their Puritan fathers, guarded and supported by their laws, and defended too in the pulpit by men in general well educated, they wanted not motives to resist the intrusions of Methodist itinerants, who could boast little from their human learning and science, though they certainly stood high for their piety, and were by no means inferior to their fellows in their knowledge of divine things.

But with all these advantages — and surely they were not few — “pure religion" was not generally pressed upon the people from the pulpit. Among the Baptists, some congregations of whom were found scattered through the country, experimental religion was enforced, and no doubt enjoyed by many. But generally speaking, I believe it may be said that, at the time of which we are now speaking, experimental and practical religion was at a very low ebb throughout the churches of New England and in some portions of the country, particularly in Massachusetts, the Unitarian heresy was beginning to show itself in some of the congregations, more especially in and about the city of Boston. This destructive heresy has since spread itself extensively in Massachusetts, has taken possession of Cambridge College, and infected most of the churches in Boston and its vicinity.

This was the general state of things when the Rev. Jesse Lee entered this field of labor. It was on the 17th of June, 1789, that he preached the first Methodist sermon ever delivered in the state of Connecticut, in the town of Norwalk. Such was the state of feeling in that country that no house could. be procured for preaching, all being afraid to open their houses to the stranger. Mr. Lee, therefore, who was not to be intimidated by such discouragements, went into the street, began to sing, and then to pray; and this being heard by a few, a tolerable congregation soon collected, to whom he preached, no one interrupting him. On the 21st of June he preached for the first time in the city of New Haven. He proceeded in his work until he formed a regular circuit, including the towns of Norwalk, Fairfield, Stratford, Milford, Redding, Danbury, and Canaan, with several, intermediate places. The manner of his preaching, without notes, the fervency of his spirit, as well as the doctrines he delivered, so opposite to the Calvinism which they had been accustomed to hear, excited much curiosity and drew multitudes to hear him; and some, he says, were brought to feel the weight of the truths he uttered. But they were by no means mere passive hearers. Priests and people, men, women, and children, from their education and habits of life, were fond of disputation, and often, after the preaching, would enter into controversy with the preacher, and especially upon those points on which he differed from the prevalent doctrines of the day. Their objections, however, were generally founded upon the erroneous representations, drawn by themselves as an inference from what they had heard, that the Methodists held to salvation by the merit of good works. This they inferred from the denial of the doctrine of irresistible grace, unconditional and personal election and reprobation, and not because that dogma had ever been asserted; for no such doctrine had ever been held or promulgated by Mr. Wesley or any of his preachers. Mr. Lee, however, endeavored to avoid, as much as possible, all thriftless controversy, by striving to direct their attention to the more important inquiry, whether they had ever been “born of the Spirit,” and whether, as a consequence, they now enjoyed “peace with God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” The silent manner in which these questions were listened to, showed evidently that the disputants were more anxious about “lesser matters,” than they were concerning “the things which accompany salvation.”