Centennial history of American Methodism microform : inclusive of its ecclesiastical organization in 1784 and its subsequent development under the superintendency of Francis Asbury : with sketches of the character and history of all the preachers known

Front matter

CENTENNIAL HISTORY

OF

INCLUSIVE OF ITS ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION IN 1784

Contents

4 »

Chapter Page

I. The Christmas Conference 19

Introduction

Rise of Methodism in America.

THE persons whom God honored to introduce "Wesleyanism in America are known, and must be held in everlasting remembrance. The time of its first introduction is not certainly known. Whether Robert Strawbridge preached and formed a society in Maryland before Philip Embury began to preach in New York, is a question which has not yet been determined by thoroughly authenticated dates. The date of the beginning of Embury's work — 1766 — is sufficiently clear. That relating to Strawbridge, and the first society which he formed in Maryland, is not so certain. The introductory sketch of the Rise of Methodism in this country, which appeared in the early editions of the Discipline, gives no precise date respecting the origin of the first society in Maryland. It indicates that, in the view of its authors, Embury's work was begun before that of Strawbridge. Asbury, however, by a remark in his Journal, in 1801, gives historical precedence to the Maryland society.

It is certain that Methodist preaching was begun in New York by Philip Embury, and in Maryland by Robert Strawbridge. To those Wesleyan local preachers the honor of organizing the first societies in this country belongs without dispute. The question of the priority of the work of the one or the other is still debated, and will, no doubt, continue undetermined unless better authenticated dates respecting the origin of the society in Maryland than have heretofore been produced shall be brought to light.

10 Intkoducion.

The evidence which has been relied upon to show that Strawbridge preached in Maryland before Embury commenced preaching in New York is, in part, given by William Fort as follows :

" I am in possession of documents which date the conversion of John Evans in 1764. From those papers I learn, as well as from other sources, that Mr. Strawbridge lived on the farm now occupied by Mr. Jacob Keim, and that the neighbors were in the habit of going to plow his ground and sow his seed gratuitously while he was absent from home preaching the Gospel. On one of those occasions John Evans had a conversation with Mrs. Strawbridge on the subject of religion which resulted in his conversion. His house was then opened for preaching, and so continued for more than forty years. As early as 1762 or 1763 Strawbridge was not only preaching, but baptizing, in Frederick County. He had an appointment regularly at John Maynard's, who was then a Methodist ; and at one of those appointments, in 1762 or 1763, he baptized Henry Maynard, who died in 1837. Tradition says that Strawbridge was ordained by a German minister, in all probability by Mr. Benedict Swoope, who then resided in that region." *

If the dates given by Mr. Fort can be authenticated by indisputable documentary authority, then it will appear that Robert Strawbridge, and not Philip Embury, was the founder of Methodism in the United States. Unfortunately Mr. Fort, who published the above statement forty years ago, failed to exhibit the character and authenticity of the documents upon which he professed to base his claim of the priority of the work of Strawbridge.

It is remarkable that the early preachers, and especially Asbury, did not sufficiently appreciate the historical importance of the question whether or not Embury or Strawbridge began the Methodist movement in America as to

* " Chistian Advocate and Journal," July 10, 1844.

leave it settled beyond doubt. How easily might the Rev. William Colbert have determined it by the testimony of Mrs. Strawbridge ! In the early part of 1792 Mr. Colbert was traveling Harford Circuit, Maryland, and on the 24th of February, of that year, he wrote the following in his Journal :

" Yisited Sister Strawbridge, the widow of one of the first Methodist preachers that appeared in America." Mrs. Strawbridge could doubtless have given Colbert the year of her husband's arrival in Maryland, and one line in his Journal would have preserved the date.

As the case stands, New York will continue to claim precedence as to time. Should Maryland fully establish the dates which she claims, she will stand forth as the earliest field of American Methodism as she is of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

The society formed by Mr. Embury in New York was the means of calling Mr. Wesley's attention to the need of laborers in America, and he sent hither, in response to earnest appeals from that city, two missionaries in 1769. These were Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor. Mr. Wesley also sent with them to the New York society fifty pounds sterling.

In the year 1771 Francis Asbury and Richard Wright were appointed to re-enforce the work. Thomas Rankin and George Shadford followed in 1773. Two local preachers also came over who were useful in extending the cause and who became itinerant laborers. These were Robert Williams and John King. The latter introduced Methodism in Baltimore.

The local ministry were not only the founders of the Methodist movement in the land of its largest achievements, but they have been conspicuously useful throughout the history of the denomination in edifying the Church by their devoted labors, which were generally performed without pecuniary reward. The practical and sagacious Asbury, in the days of the severe struggles of the young Church, appreciated the usefulness and felt the necessity of maintaining the local ministry. " He would earnestly and emphatically say in the Annual Conferences that they were the body-guards of the cause." *

Thomas Bell, a Methodist mechanic from England, was in New York in 1769, and in a letter to an English friend, dated May 1, of that year, he gives the following picture of Methodism in that city. He says : " When I came to New York I found that our business was not very plentiful for strangers. Though there is a good deal of business in the town, it is entirely overstocked with trades-people ; but what added most to my satisfaction was, I found a few of the dear people of God in it. There is one Mr. Emmery, [Embury,] one of our preachers that came from Ireland nine years ago. Lately there were two that came from Dublin. They have met together and their number has increased, and they have built a large new house, costing them £600 sterling. They are very poor in this world. They expect assistance from England, but I often used to tell them they need not ; for many of the people of England were very poor themselves ; and they that had -this world's goods did not care to part with them. There is another of our preachers who was a captain in the army. He was convinced of the truth before he left England. His name is Webb. God has been pleased to open his mouth. So the Lord carries on a very great work by these two men. They were, however, sore put to it in building their house. They made several collections about the town for it. They went to Philadelphia and got part of the money there. I wrought upon it six days." f

There are mistakes in some of the earlier historical works of the denomination respecting the identity and history of two of its chief founders in the city of New York.

* "Wesleyan Repository," vol. ii, pp. 317, 318. \ "Arminian Magazine," 1807, pp. 45, 46.

A statement corrective of this important passage in American Methodist history is kindly furnished by Bishop Merrill, at the request of the author of this volume, and is here inserted as an important contribution to the historical literature of the Church. Bishop Merrill says : <

The true account of the honored persons instrumental in planting Methodism in New York has not yet appeared in any history of Methodism in this country. It is not strange that the traditions respecting these should become in a measure obscure with the lapse of years, and finally uncertain and contradictory. Such, indeed, has been the case with the accounts given of the " mother of American Methodism," Mrs. Barbara Heck. The popular impression has been that she was a widow at the time she made her famous appeal to Mr. Embury, and stirred him up to duty, and displayed such commendable zeal in gathering the congregation for the first Methodist sermon in New York. This impression, however, is erroneous, and has led to numerous mistakes and misapprehensions in regard to persons, names, and events in connection with these early transactions.

The author of that popular work, " Lost Chapters Recovered from the Early History of American Methodism," the Rev. J. B. Wakeley, following the prevalent tradition, represented Paul Heck, who was one of the original Board of Trustees of the John Street society, as the son of Barbara Heck, and ascribes to him impossible actions, and a subsequent history and family relations to which he was a total stranger. He also very strangely follows the tradition which changes the family name into Hick, and describes the original Barbara as spending her life in obscurity and poverty in the city of Ne w York, where he supposes she ultimately died and was buried. His language is, " Mrs. Hick died many years ago in the triumphs of our holy religion, and was buried in Trinity Church-yard in New York." It need not be doubted that some one whose name was Mrs. Hick — and for all we know it might have been Barbara Hick — thus lived and died in New York, and was buried in Trinity Church-yard ; but that the Mrs. Barbara Heck, who is so justly styled the " mother of American Methodism," spent her life in New York, and died and was buried there, is not true in any particular. In other words, Mrs. Barbara Heck was not a widow at the period in question ; Paul Heck, the original trustee, was not her son, but her lawful husband ; she did not live and die in New York, and was not buried in Trinity Church -yard ; and her family name was never any thing other than Heck.

That persons of such eminent worth and so intimately related to the beginning of Methodism in this country should drop into obscurity, so that their real history has been lost to the Church, has long been a mystery, and the occasion of no little speculation; but, fortunately, the facts have come into the writer's possession from trustworthy sources, and are now for the first time given to the public in this permanent form.

Paul Heck, and Barbara, his wife, came to this country from Ireland about 1760. Having been subjects of the British government in the old country, before and after their conversion, and having come to New York under the protection of the British flag, they were in heart loyal to G od and their king ; and when the Revolutionary War began, and its turbulent waves dashed about the city of their adoption, they quietly retired, as did Embury, and some others of the original class, and settled at Salem, in the State of New York, and formed the first Methodist society in that section. Mr. Paul Heck, the husband of Barbara, entered the British army under Burgoyne, whether by constraint or willingly we know not, nor does it matter, as the fact is all that concerns us. At the time that General Burgoyne's army was surrendered to the Americans, Mr. Heck was at home on furlough, visiting his family, when his presence was discovered by some patriot soldiers, who arrested him, and started to convey him to General Washington's camp as a prisoner of war. On their way they stopped at night in an unoccupied farm-house, where they wrapped themselves in their blankets and went to sleep on the floor, with their prisoner between them. Mr. Heck did not sleep as soundly as did his captors, but got up in the night without disturbing them, and left the house and went into the woods. Of course he did not return to his home, and he could not rejoin his regiment, now prisoners of war, and so he made his way into Canada, which was the most natural thing for him to do under the circumstances. In the meantime Philip Embury, who had removed from JSTew York city with the Hecks, had died, and his widow was married to a Mr. Lawrence, of the same Methodist society. As soon as practicable Mr. Heck sent for his family, and his wife and children, with the Lawrences, and some others of the first Methodists, went into Canada and settled at Augusta, where again they formed a Methodist class, so that these same persons originated Methodism in three different centers.

This statement I took from the lips of John Heck, Esq., now living in Lockport, Illinois, who is the grandson of Paul and Barbara Heck, and the only living person who was present and witnessed the death and burial of his grandmother, the veritable Christian woman, who, under God, was the mother of Methodism on this continent. The gentleman who gives this testimony, John Heck, the grandson of Paul and Barbara Heck, is now [November, 1884] living at Lockport, Illinois. He is a well-preserved gentleman, beyond fourscore, intelligent, upright, and highly esteemed; he is a communicant in the Protestant Episcopal Church, though a warm friend to the Methodists, and is in every respect worthy of the utmost confidence. He remembers distinctly his grandmother's death,

16 Inteoduction.

was present when she died, saw her buried, and grew to manhood in the vicinity of her grave. The proofs in his possession of the correctness of his statements are entirely satisfactory, although nothing beyond his word would be required by any one who knows him. I have had the pleasure of being a guest in his elegant home, and have been much interested in the details of the family history of his grandparents, while enjoying his hospitality. Paul Heck died at Augusta, Canada, toward the close of the last century, a Methodist and Christian as long as he lived, and respected and honored in the community where he lived, died, and was buried. His wife, Barbara, survived him several years, and died A.D. 1804, and was buried by the side of her husband, and there their graves remain unto this day.

That the tradition given in the " Lost Chapters " is incorrect, will appear plain to every one upon the slightest investigation. Mr. Wakeley tells us, truly enough, that Paul Heck (not Hick, as he writes it) was one of the original trustees of the John Street Methodist society as early as 1768. In proof of this he gives a copy of the original lease of ground from Mary Barclay, and the executors of the estate of her husband, to the trustees of said society, and the name of Paul Heck is in the list of that Board of Trustees. He is also shown to have been an active member of the Board, superintending the work on the preaching-house, negotiating for the ground, receipting for material for the building, and contributing to the funds. The fac-simile of his handwriting is given, showing him to have been experienced with the pen ; so that, as early as 1768, he must have been a man of mature age and judgment, occupying a position of trust which required skill and experience. But, according to Mr. Wakeley's position and statements, he was at that time a youth of sixteen !

Mr. Wakeley makes the statement that he was the son of

Barbara Heck; that lie was "appointed a class-leader soon after the Revolutionary War ;" that " for nearly thirty years he filled the office of a trustee in the Methodist Episcopal Church ;" and adds that he " filled both these offices to the dav of his death." He furthermore tells us that "he died March 16, 1825, aged seventy-three years." Now look at this : He was a trustee nearly thirty years, and held that office to the day of his death. But thirty years backward from March 16, 1825, the day of his death, would not reach back to 1778, but only to 1795, leaving a gap of twenty-seven years ! Again, as above remarked, if he was trustee, as Mr. Wakeley proves, in 1778, and died March 16, 1825, as Mr. Wakeley asserts, and had been a member of the Methodist society fifty-five years, as Mr. Wakeley also states, then he was a trustee of the Methodist society two years before he was a Methodist. He must have been a remarkable youth to have been an active trustee, contributing three pounds and ten shillings to the preaching-house, and doing so much for the cause, before he was a Methodist, and at the age of sixteen ! The absurdity of all this is apparent at first glance.

The truth is, Mr. Wakeley has confounded two men of the same name, and ascribes to one the deeds of the other. In the list of subscribers to the original building fund, as given in the " Lost Chapters," there appears the name of Jacob Heck, contributing one pound. This Jacob was a distant relative to Paul Heck, and came from the same place in the old country, and settled in New York about the time that Mr. Embury began preaching. It is not at all impossible that his wife's name was Barbara, although on this point we have no evidence, and he, no doubt, had a son, Paul, a lad of fourteen when Methodist preaching was established in 1766. This young Paul, who was neither the husband nor son of the original Barbara Heck, was probably converted in 1770, and subsequently married Hannah Dean, and filled the offices of class-leader and trustee till the day of his death, March 16, 1825.

In regard to the mooted question as to whether the name of the founders of Methodism should be Heck or Hick, I only deem it important to direct attention to the fac-simile of Mr. Heck's signature, as given several times, with unvarying accuracy, in the " Lost Chapters," (written in 1769, as follows :)

(Written in 1769.)

In a foot-note, in his " History of the Methodist Episcopal Church," Dr. Bangs refers to Mrs. Barbara Heck in these words : " The name of this pious woman was Hick, the mother of the late Paul Hiclc, who became a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church in his youth, and was subsequently a class-leader and trustee, in which offices he continued to near the close of his life, and finally died in the triumphs of faith in the seventy-fourth year of his age." This Mr. Hick was the same mentioned by Mr. "Wakeley, but was not, and could not have been, the original Paul Heck, who was trustee in 1768. In this particular both these authors were strangely misled, and gave utterance to the absurdity of making a lad of sixteen one of the most important officials and active agents in founding Methodism in New York, and that, too, before he was himself a Methodist.

CENTENNIAL HISTORY

OF

AMERICAN METHODISM.

Chapter I. The Christmas Conference

IN a plain meeting-house in Lovely Lane, in Baltimore, there assembled on the day before Christmas, in the year 1784, a unique company of men. They were plainly attired, and most of them bore the marks of service and exposure. They were mostly young men — but few, indeed, had reached middle life.

At the call of heralds, one of whom rode over twelve hundred miles in about six weeks to summon them together, they had come on horse and saddle-bags from the Middle States, and from a portion of the South. Most of them had traveled far, and had spent days in making the journey, amid the blasts of late December.

Few of them could be called polished or cultured men. They were, however, men of thought and men of purpose. They were marked by a serene dignity of mien and calm earnestness of spirit. They were eminently men of action. They had entered into a Christian movement, called Methodism, which about twenty years before appeared in feebleness and obscurity on this continent. Through that movement they learned the way of salvation by faith, and were led into the experience of sins forgiven. By that movement they were thrust forth as wandering preachers of the great salvation. To that movement they had devoted themselves by holy vows; and in the face of derision, toil, and danger, they had gone forth, like the Master they served, homeless, and without where to lay their heads. One of them* had written to Mr. Wesley a few months before : " The present preachers suffer much ; being often obliged to dwell in dirty cabins, to sleep in poor beds, and for retirement to go into the woods. But we must suffer with, if we labor for, the poor." Some of them, like Paul and Silas, had suffered imprisonment and stripes for the sake of the Gospel. Their chief leader was Francis Asbury, who as he met hardship, and at times almost starvation in his laborious travels, exclaimed :

" In hope of that immortal crown,

I now the cross sustain ; And gladly wander up and down,

And smile at toil and pain."

And they were all like-minded. Asbury, in those words of Charles Wesley, expressed their, as well as his, feeling.

Now they were assembled in Baltimore, a band of heroes as true and noble as ever toiled for God and man. One who was there says, "There were in that assembly a goodly number of very wise men, for lo, they had turned many, very many, to righteousness." f Another who was present says : " Perhaps such a number of holy, zealous, godly men never met together in Maryland before." J Dr. Coke, who was there as the embassador of the father of the Methodist family, bore a letter from Mr. Wesley, which set forth that inasmuch as the American provinces had been totally disjoined from the British Empire, and become independent States, and as there

* Asbury, in letter dated March 20, 1784, and published in "Arminian Magazine," 1186.

f The Rev. T. Ware, in " Methodist Quarterly Review," vol. xiv. \ William Black, " Armiuian Magazine," 1791, p. 411.

were no Bishops in America, and but few clergymen of the Church of England; and as therefore the holy sacraments could not be administered to the extent required by the societies, he did not scruple to appoint Dr. Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury to be joint superintendents of the Methodists in America.

In that humble meeting-house, which was without a stove, and the seats in which were without backs, until, in the language of Dr. Coke, the " friends in Baltimore were so kind as to put up a large stove and to back several of the seats," for their comfort, that remarkable company of men sat in Conference, under the presidency of Coke and Asbury, to receive and act upon the communications made to them by Mr. Wesley through his chosen representative.

The overture of Mr. Wesley was heard by the Conference in Lovely Lane with gladness. The members congratulated each other upon the welcome intelligence conveyed to them by Dr. Coke. The most reliable historical documents indicate that on the day that they assembled they adopted a resolution to organize a Church. The discussion of that resolution was, therefore, brief. The need of better order than the societies had previously enjoyed was strongly felt. Again and again had Mr. Wesley been addressed on the subject of the necessity of an ordained clergy to administer the sacraments. Asbury says, " Mr. Wesley was called for near twelve or thirteen years repeatedly, to do something for his people in America."* Wesley was a loyal churchman, and therefore was slow to subvert the order of the Church. Consequently the American Methodists became discontented. They could not appreciate the reasons assigned why the men whose ministry had led them to Christ should be forbidden to administer to them Christ's ordinances. In Virginia the Conference proceeded to solve the difficulty by appointing a committee who ordained one another, and then

* Bishop Asbury 's Valedictory Address.

administered the sacraments. This course was strongly opposed by Asbury, who was a decided Episcopalian. With him agreed most of the Northern preachers. A rupture was threatened. Mediators were sent to the Southern Conference to see if the division could be averted. At first the mission promised no good results. At last brotherly love and forbearance triumphed amid prayers and tears, and the Virginia preachers consented to suspend the sacraments for a year, taking measures to have their cause placed before Mr. Wesley meanwhile.*

The ease was, indeed, momentous. Most of the Episcopal clergy, to which Church many of the Methodists considered themselves as belonging, were destitute of personal godliness. Some of them were charged to their face by one of their • number, who was devout, with the use of cards, dice, etc., and with allowing laymen to swear, unrebuked, in their presence. Intoxication was not rare among them, and one of them is described as being carried after dinner to his gig by servants and there tied to prevent him from falling out, while a servant conducted him to his home in a state of drunkenness.f The Rev. Devereux Jarratt, a zealous clergyman of the Church of England, in writing to Mr. Wesley, in 1773, said concerning the clergy in Virginia : " We have ninety-five parishes in the colony, and all except one, I believe, are supplied with clergymen. But, alas ! you will understand the rest. I know of but one clergyman of the Church of England who appears to have the power and spirit of vital religion. All seek their own, and not the things that are Christ's. Is not our situation then truly deplorable ?" $ It is not strange that a band of men and women who were in deep earnest about their souls' salvation should object to being denied the

* The embassy to the Southern Conference consisted of Asbury, Watteis, and Garrettson.

f Bennett's "Memorials of Methodism in Virginia." % "Armiuian M;ig:izine," 1786, p. H97. .

sacraments of Christ, except they received them from uncleansed hands.

The clergy of the Church of England were loyalists, and most of them left the country during the war of the Revolution. Consequently the Methodists, and especially those in the South, could not in many instances reach an ordained minister except by traveling afar ; and if found, he was likely to be such as a Christian of tender conscience and strict fidelity would shrink from approaching at the altar.

The difficulty concerning the sacraments, and the division of action resulting therefrom, was so grave, that the escape of the Methodist societies from a disastrous rupture seemed only due to providential interposition. Asbury thought that twenty preachers and three thousand people would have been involved in the disaster had it happened ; "but," he said, "the Lord would not suffer this." Dromgoole, who joined the embassy from the North in their effort to restore harmony, wrote to Wesley some time subsequently : "The Lord has effectually healed our divisions, and we are now more firmly united than ever." Yet Thomas Ware records his opinion that the influence of Asbury, great as it was, could not much longer have restrained the preachers from administering the sacraments.

With all these facts fresh in their memories, it is not strange that the members of the Christmas Conference hailed with joy the letter of Mr. Wesley, which contained his plan for giving them the sacraments, and at the same time two superintendents. It was promptly " read, analyzed, and cordially approved." * Neither is it strange that so quickly, and with perfect unanimity, the Conference proceeded to take such important action. The decision of the preachers was in a spirit befitting their sublime vocation. There was no jealously, no strife. Companions in heroic labor, seeking nothing but the glory of God and

* The Rev. T. Ware, in " Methodist Quarterly Review," vol. xiv, 1832.

the welfare of his kingdom, their deliberations were conducted in the sweetness of love. One of their number says that throughout the session not an unkind word was spoken either in public or private, neither was " an unbrotherly emotion felt ; Christian love predominated, and under its influence we kindly thought and sweetly spoke the same." With entire unanimity they gave the name Methodist Episcopal to the Church they founded.

According to the recollection of that occasion retained to advanced age by Thomas Ware, the preacher who suggested the name of the Church was John Dickins, an Englishman by birth, and probably the ablest man upon the floor of the Conference. He was also the first to learn from Coke after his arrival the nature of his mission, and he was the near friend of Asbury. Ware, whose recollections furnish some of the most important data for a correct view of that great Conference, informs us that " Dr. Coke was in favor of taking the name Methodist Episcopal Church," and " argued that the plan of General Superintendency was in fact a species of episcopacy."* Asbury, as the action in the Conference of his friend Dickins would suggest, was doubtless in accord with Coke as to the name of the Church,- and it is not strange, therefore, that Coke's speech in favor of that name should have controlled the decision of the preachers, whose inexperience would lead them to defer to the opinions of those who surpassed them as much in knowledge as in years. Besides, Coke, no doubt, spoke persuasively, for Ware, nearly half a century subsequently, said of him : " He was the best speaker on a Conference floor I ever heard."