Francis Asbury : founder of American Methodism and unofficial minister of state

Front matter

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

MACMILLAN & CO., Limited

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd.

Preface

The author does not claim that he has exhausted the material relating to Francis Asbury. This study, however, includes all that he has been able to find out from dependable sources, both direct and collateral.

Many people have rendered gracious assistance in the search for material. Particular acknowledgment is made of services rendered by the librarians of Drew Theological Seminary, Emory University, Candler School of Theology, Carnegie Library of Atlanta, The Georgia State Library, and the Library of Congress. The American University and Hon. Charles B. Tebbs, both of Washington, D. C, have made it possible to present two excellent portraits of Asbury. Among the many individuals who have given valued assistance are Bishops Warren A. Candler and Edwin D. Mouzon; Drs. Ezra Squier Tipple, Franklin N. Parker, Henry T. Carley, R. H. Bennett, W. A. Lambeth and Forrest J. Prettyman; Justices H. Warner Hill and S. Price Gilbert of the Supreme Court of Georgia; Miss Fannie Tompkins, and Messrs. J. R. Bingham and R. B. Eleazer. Acknowledgment is also due the following publishers : Smith & Lamar for permission to quote from Galloway, Great Men and Great Movements; G. P. Putnam's Sons for the use of a quotation from Roosevelt, The Winning of the West, and the

vii viii PREFACE

Epworth Press for permission to quote from Curnock, Journal of John Wesley.

In the plan of this study it has not been possible to deal with the events of Asbury's life in a consecutive way. For those, therefore, who may not be familiar with that period of Methodist history, the following biographical and historical outline will be of value.

1745. Francis Asbury born in Staffordshire, England,

August 20 or 21. 1759. Asbury converted at the age of thirteen and a half

years. 1759 to 1765. Served as apprentice to a harness maker.

During this time he preached from three to five

times a week.

1766. Traveled nine months in Staffordshire as supply for

William Orpe.

1767. Admitted on trial in the Wesleyan connection, at

the Conference in London, August 18, and stationed in Bedfordshire with James Glasbrook, who afterward came to America as a Presbyterian preacher.

1768. Appointed to Colchester.

1769. Serves Bedfordshire with Richard Henderson. At

the Conference of this year Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor were sent as missionaries to America.

1770. Appointed to Wiltshire, South, with John Catter-

mole.

177 1. Asbury attends the Conference at Bristol and vol-

unteers for America. He and Richard Wright were accepted and sailed September 4, landing in Philadelphia, October 2y. He began his itinerant career at once.

1772. On October 10, Asbury receives a letter from Mr.

PREFACE ix

Wesley appointing him to "act as assistant" in America.

1773. Thomas Rankin and George Shadford arrive from

England, June 3. Rankin supersedes Asbury as assistant to Mr. Wesley. The first American Conference met in Philadelphia, July 14, with ten preachers present. Asbury was stationed in Baltimore with Robert Strawbridge, Abram Whitworth, and Joseph Yearbry.

1774. Boardman and Pilmoor return to England. Asbury

and Rankin are stationed in New York and Philadelphia to change every three months.

1775. Asbury stationed in Norfolk. Mr. Wesley issues

his "Calm Address."

1776. Asbury appointed to Baltimore. War troubles be-

gin, and Asbury is fined for preaching in Maryland.

1777. Rankin and Rodda leave America. Asbury given

no appointment. His chaise is shot through near Annapolis in Maryland.

1778. On March 10, Asbury retires to the home of Judge

White in Delaware. Judge White arrested on suspicion of harboring Tories. Shadford leaves America.

1779. Asbury continues at Judge White's. Calls a Con-

ference in Kent County, Delaware, April 18, and assumes control of the Societies. His appointment for the next year is "Delaware." The Virginia preachers meet at Brokenback church in Fluvanna County and vote to ordain themselves.

1780. Slavery agitation begins. Asbury has become a

citizen of Delaware and goes to Baltimore, April 22. At the Virginia Conference held in Manakintown, the ordinance question is settled by the agreement to suspend the ordinances for one

X PREFACE

year. On September i6, Asbury wrote Mr. Wesley stating the terms of agreement and making appeal for relief. Asbury plans for a school.

1781. Asbury travels and preaches. Suspension of the

ordinances is continued.

1782. The Conference approves Asbury as "general

assistant/' and he continues to travel.

1783. Peace with England declared. Asbury includes

New York in his travels.

1784. On January 24, Asbury receives a letter from Mr.

Wesley asking him to act as general assistant. On November 14, Asbury meets Dr. Coke at Barrett's Chapel and learns of Mr. Wesley's plan to ordain ministers and organize the American Church. Asbury declines to be ordained superintendent upon Mr. Wesley's appointment unless elected by the Conference. He is elected and ordained by the "Christmas Conference" held in Baltimore. Twelve elders and three deacons are ordained, and the "minute" declaring loyalty to Mr. Wesley is adopted by the Conference.

1785. Asbury begins his task of administration by hold-

ing his first Conference at Green Hill's house, near Louisburg, North Carolina. Cokesbury College founded.

1786. Asbury holds three Conferences and projects work

in Kentucky.

1787. Bishop Coke makes arbitrary changes in the time

of the Conferences, and is required to give a certificate that he will not take such liberty again.

1788. Seven Conferences are held. Asbury visits Georgia

and Tennessee. Revivals break out and the membership of the church grows rapidly.

1789. Eleven Conferences held. The Council composed

of the bishops and presiding elders holds its first

PREFACE xi

session, December 3. The "minute" regarding Mr. Wesley is rescinded by the Conference. Bishop Asbury presents resolutions to President Washington on behalf of the New York Conference.

1790. James O'Kelly opposes the Council and threatens

Asbury. Wesley and Whitefield school in Georgia established. Kentucky visited. The Council holds its second session.

1 79 1. Asbury extends the work into New England.

Troubles arise with Hammett in Charleston. Mr. Wesley dies. The Council suspended.

1792. First General Conference meets in Baltimore.

O'Kelly champions a measure to give the right of appeal to the Conference for a preacher who feels that his appointment does him an injury. It is defeated. The office of presiding elder is established by action of the General Conference. Union school in Pennsylvania established. O'Kelly withdraws from the church and begins a bitter attack upon Asbury.

1793. Slight loss in the membership results from the

O'Kelly troubles.

1794. Cokesbury school in North Carolina founded.

Work undertaken in Maine and New Hampshire.

1795. Judge White dies. Asbury goes into Vermont.

Cokesbury College burned. Membership loss more than six thousand.

1796. Second General Conference held. Effort to make

presiding elders elective fails. Membership loss continues.

1797. Bishops Coke and Asbury prepare notes on the

Discipline. Ebenezer school in Virginia established. New England Conference organized.

1798. Asbury visits Maine and New Hampshire. Yel-

low fever scourge in coast cities.

xii PREFACE

1799. Tobias Gibson sent to Mississippi. Camp meet-

ings inaugurated.

1800. Third General Conference held. Richard What-

coat elected bishop. Efforts to force emancipation of slaves defeated. Asbury thinks of resigning on account of his health. Great revivals throughout the church.

1801. South Carolina agitated on account of the Address

of the General Conference respecting slavery.

1802. Asbury travels constantly. His mother dies. The

church has a year of great growth.

1803. Membership gain more than seventeen thousand,

and total membership passes one hundred thousand.

1804. Fourth General Conference meets. Conference

boundaries fixed. Missionaries are sent into Illinois.

1805. Year of normal development. Death takes some

of best preachers.

1806. Bishop Whatcoat dies. Louisiana entered. Asbury

wishes a called General Conference of seven members from each Conference to strengthen the episcopacy and to provide for a regular delegated General Conference, but Virginia defeats the plan.

1807. Asbury rides from Georgia to New Hampshire and

back, and westward to Kentucky.

1808. Fifth General Conference enacts law providing for

a delegated General Conference in the future. William M'Kendree elected bishop. Special edition of the Discipline leaving out the rule on slavery is authorized for use in South Carolina. Harry Dorsey Gough dies.

1809. The excessive toil of travel begins to tell upon

Asbury, but he continues his way.

1810. Genesee Conference organized without direct au-

PREFACE xiii

thority of the General Conference. Jesse Lee publishes his History of the Methodists.

1811. Asbury visits Canada.

1812. War with England begins. First delegated General

Conference meets in New York. Lee, Shinn, and Snethen lead fight for elective presiding eldership but lose. Asbury desires leave to visit England, but is dissuaded from doing so by the Conference.

1813. Asbury writes his will. Prepares valedictory to the

presiding elders. Greatest membership gain in the history of the church.

1814. Asbury has a serious illness near Lumberton, New

Jersey, Bishop Coke dies on the way to establish a mission in British India and is buried in the Indian Ocean. Loss in membership due to the war with England.

181 5. Asbury's strength fails, but he travels, distributes

tracts, and collects his "mite subscription."

18 1 6. Asbury has serious illness in South Carolina, but

improves and continues his way toward Baltimore. Preaches his last sermon in Richmond, Virginia, March 24, and dies at the home of George Arnold near Fredericksburg, March 31. During Asbury's American career about eighteen hundred preachers were received. Twenty- five of these withdrew, thirty-three were expelled, one hundred and thirty-one died in the service, and approximately nine hundred located. The location of preachers caused the greatest difficulty of Asbury's administration.

William L. Duren St. Mark Church, Atlanta January 15, 1928

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

Preface vii

I. Preliminary Survey 3

Chapter I

"Why is it that, often in hours of the deepest despondency, the Hstening to the rehearsal of the incidents and adventures of early times will arouse the soul to manly fortitude and buoyant hope?"

— Larrabee, Ashiiry and His Coadjutor's

''Francis Asbury is the most distinguished man that the Methodist Episcopal Church has ever produced, and the most important ecclesiastical personage that our country has ever seen."

— CoGGSHALL, in MetJiodist Quarterly Review

"What a wonderful experience he must have had, this prophet of the wilderness ! Who shall say where his influence, written upon the immortal souls of men, shall end?"

— President Calvin Coolidge

"... the tale of the way in which Francis Asbury dragooned Methodism into becoming the thing he wanted it to be is a tale worth telling. As a study in personality, this imperious marshal of the early circuit rider hosts offers a chance for a memorable 'psychograph.' "

— Hutchinson, in The Christian Century

"Francis Asbury, worn out in the service of God, entered into his eternal rest. It is well to revive the memory of his life in the minds of the Methodist people. Whoever helps to do that, either by tongue or pen, is a benefactor."

— Bishop E. E. Hoss

FRANCIS ASBURY CHAPTER I

Probably no man of the pioneer days has a more distinct claim to the grateful homage of the American people than Francis Asbury. Surely, few characters offer such a rich and splendid opportunity for biographical interpretation. This does not mean that his life is easy to interpret to the satisfaction of the multitudes who share the fruits of his evangelistic toil and devotion. He occupied such a unique place in the religious development of the nation, rendered such conspicuous service in such an unselfish way, and wrought to such tremendous purpose in shaping the thought and character of the whole people, that it has never been easy to do him justice as a religious and social force in the making of the nation. He labored under conditions which were calculated to develop a spirit of ecclesiastical autocracy; but his piety deepened as his power increased, and his goodness and greatness found exquisite setting in his perfect simplicity. In addition to this, there is the difficulty of reproducing in our thinking the atmosphere of the social and economic life to which he belonged.

The volume of the material relating to Asbury has been reduced by the passing years, but there has been a deepening of the sense of obligation for his splendid moral and spiritual leadership. The Journal which he kept is the source from which we must get the larger part of our information regarding his Hfe and work. On account of the stress of circumstances under which he kept his Journal, his abbreviated style, and his reticence concerning things affecting himself, these records are much less informing than they might have been. His disconnected style and the abruptness of his thought transitions have made many references in his letters unintelligible to those who undertake to read them now. Added to this is the fact that much of the literature produced by his apologists is so saturated with the extravagances of eulogy as to conceal his faults and thus give the reader an incomplete and one-sided picture of the man. There were reasons, perhaps, at the time for such impassioned writing in defense of Asbury; but time has answered, more effectively than any apologist could do, the attacks of those whose charges expressed more of self-interest and personal feeling than of truth.

The literature concerning Asbury which has been produced outside of church circles is unimportant and unilluminating. Dr. George Eayers of London calls attention to the fact that the Historian's History of the World, in its many and pretentious volumes, does not mention Coke, Asbury, Garretson, or Cartwright; and that H. G. Wells' Outline of History makes no reference to Asbury, but twice alludes to Ayesha, the ''mischievous old lady" who was the favorite wife of Mohammed.^ This same silence occurs in practically

^ Methodist Review, New York, 1924, p. 22.

all the secular historians who have undertaken to analyze the forces of our national development.

We do not need at this time a defense of the character or a eulogy of the virtues of this ancient worthy of the Methodist hosts, but a study that really interprets the man. The counsel of an eminent teacher of church history is : ''Do not be afraid to tell the truth about Asbury; he is great enough to stand it." Surely that is good advice for any writer of biography, for honest biography must deal with virtue in its true setting. Character study that depends upon concealment for a part of its value is of doubtful merit, to say the least, for it means little unless there is back of it a man whose life story is worth knowing. To put it in the phrase of Mahatma Gandhi, the brilliant Indian philosopher : ''Of what elevation to man is a method of broadcasting when you have only drivel tO: send out?"

Efforts looking toward the publication of a biography of Bishop Asbury began immediately after his death. At the session of the Baltimore Conference in 181 7, Bishop M'Kendree urged that steps be taken to compile and publish a suitable biography, and the minutes show that a committee was appointed to collect material and secure a biographer. They secured the services of Dr. Samuel K. Jennings, a physician, whose work was to be submitted to the committee for approval. Dr. Jennings prepared a manuscript of 269 folio pages, and on June 15, 1819, the committee met and twice read through the manuscript. They declined to -recommend its publication, giving six reasons for their action in the case: i. The work contained "too much foreign and unnecessary matter; particularly . . . the tracing of the cause of truth from the time of Adam to the day of Pentecost; the abridgement of Mosheim; the frequent and large quotation from the Edinburgh Review, Wilberforce, Simpson's Plea," etc. 2. Because it was "radically defective," in that it contained ''no syllable" of the parentage and early history of Asbury. 3. It contained "sl variety of sentiments on doctrines and ecclesiastical polity which we deem at least questionable." 4. The "style is not carefully atended to." 5. The spirit was controversial and tended to goad others. 6. The reasoning was "inconclusive and unsatisfactory." This report was signed by Nelson Reed, Joshua Wells, S. G. Roszel, Thomas Burch, Alfred Griffith, J. Emory, and Beverly Waugh.^ The biography was not published.

In 1 82 1 the Journal of Asbury was published, and for a time stopped the clamor for a biography ; but the Journal afforded only a temporary satisfaction. In the years since 1821 at least ten volumes dealing with the life of Asbury have come from the press. A magazine article attributed to Edward Everett Hale says of one of the earliest biographies : "Mr. Strickland's book is not altogether what we might desire. It seems as though a man really inspired with his subject, in writing such a biography, would hardly have failed to have invested it with a more powerful dramatic interest, and would have carried us more thoroughly into the very life of the individual, instead of turning aside here and there to commonplace moralizing, or to detail facts which have no immediate connection with the subject of his work." ^ Of still another effort we have the following: "Here is as disappointing a book as I have

^ Methodist Review, New York, 183 1, pp. 82ff.

' The Christian Examiner, Boston, Vol. LXVI, p. 382.

read in a long time . . . the book itself proves to be almost a complete dud." * Of the last book from the press, a reviewer expresses disappointment that the author failed to elaborate the facts with his own opinions.

These criticisms indicate primarily a dissatisfaction with the efforts with which they deal, but concealed in the heart of them is a much more radical matter. It is the problem of digesting out of a mass of incident and of unsystematized acts of administration such an interpretation of the character and heart of Bishop Asbury as would satisfy the great body of American Methodists. This pioneer was not only the most unique and original of the great men of early Methodism; but, on account of his spirit of self-sacrifice and his unparalleled achievements, he is regarded with a peculiar reverence bordering upon worship. These criticisms, it is just to say, reveal the real difficulties of the task, and should not be taken as reflections upon the ability of the biographers.

After Dr. Jennings' manuscript was abandoned it was more than thirty years before another effort was made, and in the meantime the material collected was destroyed in the fire that burned the Book Concern in New York. This disaster made the difficulty of writing greater than ever. The various efforts that have been put forth since are based largely upon Asbury's Journal and have dealt with him as a pioneer, pathfinder, incessant traveler, sufferer, and saintly soul. But with all that has been written, there seems still to be room for others to exercise their gifts of interpretation, for each new book that comes from the press is * The Christian Century, Chicago, Vol. XLIV, p. 691.

hailed with the expectant hope that it may cause the mighty man of the early days to live again.

The premiership of Francis Asbury among church founders and religious leaders of the New World is probably one of the most unchallenged facts connected with the history of our country. Such eminence is not accorded him by the unanimous consent of the generation to which he belonged ; for, in common with all outstanding men, he had to endure a sharpness of criticism and a fierceness of opposition from his contemporaries which would be difficult to believe if it were not that the records are too plain and unequivocal to be mistaken. Neither is his greatness due to the official recognition which he received at the hands of his brethren. Professor John Miley well observes in this connection that ''it was the man who made the office," and that "it would have fallen with feebleness at its very beginning" but for the fact that Asbury's character lifted it out of obscurity.^ The obtuseness of the writers of American history has been such that they have found no place for this mighty organizer of the religious forces of the early years. The canonization of Bishop Asbury, therefore, has been effected in the hearts of the multiplying millions of Methodists, whose head he was at the beginning and whose future was largely determined by his consecrated genius. With the spread of Methodist influence in America and throughout the world, it is but natural that increasing attention should be paid to this great captain and that he should come into his rightful recognition as a constructive force in the national life.

^ Miley, Methodist Centennial Conference, p. 134.

The revival of interest in Asbury tends to show that he was much more than an ecclesiastical patriarch of American Methodism. His true and complete biography will never be written until very definite attention shall have been paid to his contribution to the social and political life of the nation. To be sure, his first interest was neither social nor political ; it was religious. He was not as active politically as was Mr. Wesley, nor as daring as Dr. Coke ; but he kept in contact with governors, he sought approach to legislatures, and he cultivated the friendship of President Washington. His interest in anti-slavery measures led him to approach the governor of North Carolina,^ and he signed petitions to the legislatures of both North Carolina and Virginia. He records his rejoicing when Nicholas Snethen is made chaplain of Congress."^ His frequent observations upon roads, bridges, ferries, the steamboat, and the sanitary conditions in the homes of the people witness to his great interest in the public welfare; but above all matters of internal improvement he unfailingly puts questions relating to the integrity, the sobriety, and the moral quality of the citizen.

The American people are entitled to know this spiritual chieftain of the early days ; and it is to the credit of those who have written about him that they have earnestly attempted to portray his character, to do justice to his fame, and to render a service to mankind in this way. It is a labor worth while to discover the virtues of his simple and direct ministry from door to door over the vast and expanding settlements in the wilds

® Crowther, Life of Coke, p. 185. '' Asbury's Journal, Vol. Ill, p. z?^.

lo FRANCIS ASBURY

of America; and it is no part of the purpose of this book to subtract from the interest in other books which tell that story. As will be seen from the citations, all these books have furnished suggestion and help, and their contributions have been much greater than will appear from references to the various texts. In no small degree they have supplied the subsoil in which this book has grown ; and for whatever merit this study may have the author owes much to his predecessors in this field.

The plan of this book does not follow Bishop Asbury up and down the country in those forty- five years of ceaseless activity as an itinerant preacher, and as a master in bringing order and system out of the social and religious chaos of the unregulated conditions of colonial life. There is a real charm about the prodigious toils of an invalid prophet and a perennial interest in the deeds of a man of iron, no matter what the cause to which he may give himself. There is romance in the restless abandon of energy, though it be but a waterfall plunging over the face of a cliff. The psychology that can conquer such handicaps of body and of circumstance has a special appeal and challenges attention. But it was not through toil and suffering that Francis Asbury came at last to be the triumphant leader of the most militant spiritual host on the American continent. To allow interest in him to rest upon his travels and his sufferings is to submerge the achievements of the mightiest apostle of modern times in a sea of senseless commiseration; to attribute his fame to the greatness of the church which he founded is to make of him one of the accidents of history and an

PRELIMINARY SURVEY ii

object of pity ; and to accord him a place in history upon any other foundation than the sterHng virtues of his own soul is to quench the light of the mightiest spiritual beacon that ever blazed on this continent.

The story of Francis Asbury is a religious classic, but it is more than that. It constitutes one of the thrilling and romantic and inspiring chapters of our history, and its influence will abide as long as moral values have a place among the factors which enter into the making of life and character. A diamond with some of its facets unpolished is none the less a diamond, but it cannot be fully appreciated because of those unpolished facets. So it is with a great man whose life-story is not fully told; he is still a great man, but the world looks for the granite pillars upon which his fame rests and is disappointed when it does not find them. It is not the purpose of this book to create a hero or to make a biography; its one aim is to interpret a life, and the hope of its author will be fulfilled if it may contribute something toward polishing another facet of the wonderfully inspiring story of Francis Asbury.

The plan, as will appear from the Contents, begins with a brief account of his parentage and early years, and undertakes to trace each separate phase and activity up to the evolution of a great ecclesiastical and national figure, whose permanent influence and power abide as fixed pillars of our national life. In the pursuit of this aim use will be made of all sources available, both direct and collateral, and references will be given for the benefit of those who may desire to look more carefully and fully into the authorities for the matters discussed. In all cases where Asbury's Journal is manifestly the original source of information, that will be cited as the authority. At the end of the book will be found a bibliography listing the principal sources which have been consulted. With this understanding of purpose and plan, we turn to the story itself.

Chapter II

*'I was born in Old England, near the foot of Hampstead Bridge . . ., on the 20th or 21st day of August, in the year of our Lord 1745. My father's name was Joseph, and my mother's, Elizabeth Asbury: they were people in common life; were remarkable for honesty and industry, and had all things needful to enjoy."

*'I remember when I was a small boy and went to school, I had serious thoughts, and a particular sense of the being of God ; and greatly feared both an oath and a lie."

"I was awakened, as I think, when about thirteen years six months old ; at the age of sixteen I began to read and pray in the public congregation."

"When about twenty-one I went through Staffordshire and Gloucestershire, in the place of a travelling preacher; and the next year through Bedfordshire, Sussex, etc."

"I feel my spirit bound to the New World, and my heart bound to the people, though unknown."

CHAPTER II

The story of the ancestry and early years of Francis Asbury is soon told, for there seems to be no detailed record concerning them. No imposing shrine marks the place where he was born, and no historic family of noble blood is brought forward to explain the character and achievements of this far-famed prophet. He simply came as the barbarian conquerors came to Rome, and he was revealed in his coming. Surely no other man could say more truly than he, "1 am what I am by the grace of God"; and no other life illustrates more completely the all-sufficient grace of God to do for us and through us "exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think."

Asbury himself furnishes the most that we know concerning his family and his early years, and practically all of this information is to be found in his Journal. In the *'Emory Collection" of manuscripts at Drew Seminary is a letter to his parents under date of February 14, 1790, in which he asks about "Sarah Rogers" and "John Rogers." These were evidently relatives of his mother, concerning whom she had written him. He tells us in his Journal that his father was Joseph Asbury, who was born about 171 3, reckoning from his age at the time of his death. His father was a gardener for the rich ; he was industrious and he was poor. His mother^ was EHzabeth Rogers Asbury, born about 1 71 5 and descended from respectable Welsh stock on her paternal side. The family lived first at the foot of Hampstead Bridge, about four miles from the city of Birmingham, but moved to the village of Barre, about a mile distant, when Francis was only a child. There they spent the greater part of their days on earth, Joseph Asbury dying in^ 1798 and his wife in 1802. They had only two children, Francis and Sarah, and the latter died in infancy. With these few facts we have told all that is definitely known of the birth, the residence, the temporal circumstances, and the death of the parents of Francis Asbury. "^

As one would naturally expect, Asbury goes more into detail in discussing the religious aspects of his home life. He says that his parents were not religious up to the time of the death of Sarah, his sister. To use his own phrase, his ''mother was a woman of the world.'' In a letter to his parents, dated September 7, 1793, he refers to their lack of piety thus: ''You have been witnesses to my many midnight walks when I came home to hide appearances from my poor ungodly, yet otherwise kind mother." "" His meaning in the letter is not clear, except as to the lack of religious experience upon the part of his mother. The Journal says that on account of her great sorrow she developed a melancholia, from which she was not relieved for many years; and that her interest in religion was the result of the sorrow which drove her to the Scriptures for consolation and hope. She was converted and for