FRUITS OF THE YEAR,

315

met with many difficulties, but at the end of the year reported fifty-six members.

Throughout this year general revivals took place in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and Georgia, and one of special interest occurred in the city of New York. The record of the year showed an increase of 14,020 members and 64 preachers, giving a total of 144,590 members and 516 preachers. There was an increase of 2606 members of African descent, making nearly 30,000, notwithstanding disaffection among that people in certain sections.

CHAPTER XIII.

INTRODUCTION OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

WHEN the General Conference of 1808 assembled in Baltimore on the first day of May Asbury was the only bishop present, Whatcoat having died, and Coke being in Europe. There were thirty-two members from the Philadelphia Conference, among them Thomas Ware and Henry Boehm (who survived until the present generation, becoming by his writings and by his public and private verbal communications a valuable contributor to the history of American Methodism); thirty-one from the Baltimore, among them Stephen G. Roszel, Enoch George, Asa Shinn, and Robert R. Roberts; nineteen from the New York, including three whose names appear frequently in the history of Methodism-Garrettson, Cooper, and Bangs; eighteen from the Virginia, the most widely known being Philip Bruce and Jesse Lee; eleven from the South Carolina, among whom were William Phœbus, Lewis Myers, and John Gamewell; eleven from the Western, led by William McKendree; and seven from the New England, all of whom were already influential, and two, Joshua Soule and Elijah Hedding, conspicuous.

The relations of Coke to American Methodism, which, although on the whole of great service, had always been an occasion of discussion, had now become so delicate that their final settlement was imperatively demanded.

CONTROVERSY CONCERNING COKE.

317

After his return to Europe he married, but sent over a proposal to take up his permanent residence in America, on condition that the continent should be divided as nearly equally as possible between him and Asbury as superintending bishops. This proposition was not acceptable. On the 16th of November he addressed a letter to the General Conference, in which he said that if they declared that his residence with them would assist to preserve their union, and if they agreed that he should have a full right in the General and Annual Conferences to give his judgment on the making of laws, stationing of preachers, sending out of missionaries, and everything else which as a bishop or superintendent belonged to his office, he would settle his affairs and come to the United States for life. And he added, "You may observe, I do not desire any decisive power. I want no new condition."

This business was settled by a resolution of thanks to Coke, one consenting that he might continue in Europe "until called to the United States by the General Conference, or by all the American conferences respectively "; and another that his name be retained in the minutes after the names of the bishops, with a footnote stating that, "at the request of the British Conference and by consent of this General Conference, he resides in Europe, but is not to exercise the office of superintendent among us until he be recalled as above stated."

Important as was the settlement of this question, another connected with Coke created much more excitement. A remarkable disclosure had been made by the publication of a letter sent by Coke to Bishop White, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, suggesting the union of the Methodists with that body. It was written April 24, 1791. White replied, and certain interviews were held. The bishop kept the correspondence confidential until 1804, when he

revealed it to Simon Wilmer, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and John McClaskey, a member of the Philadelphia Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. At a later period White gave a copy of Coke's letter to the Rev. Dr. Kemp, of Maryland, and in a pending diocesan controversy it was published.

Prejudice against Coke was increased by the charge that he initiated this correspondence without consulting Asbury. Much correspondence had been had between Coke and American Methodists in the interval between the publication of his negotiations with White and the assembling of this General Conference. To justify himself he addressed a long letter to the conference. In it he explains that at the time he wrote there were no regular General Conferences, and claims that he proposed the establishment of such bodies; that in the latter end of 1792 he "proposed and obtained that great blessing to the American connection, permanency for General Conferences, to be held at stated times"; that at the time he wrote his letter to White he feared lest the connection would lack stability; that he differed from Bishop Asbury in the matter of the Council, which had come to so disastrous an end; and that he did believe that "under God the connection would be more likely to be saved from convulsions by a union with the old Episcopal Church than in any other way-not by a dereliction of ordination, sacraments, and the Methodist discipline, but by a junction on proper terms." He maintains that he had provided" in the fullest manner, in the indispensably necessary conditions" which he laid down, " for the security and independence of Methodist discipline and places of worship." He states that he did not consult Asbury before he took these steps because he was in the South and inacces sible; that he did not intend to do more. than begin a negotiation; and that on the 16th of the following May he

COKE AND Bishop WHITE.

319

did lay the matter before Asbury at New Castle, Del., from which place he embarked for England, and that Asbury, "with that caution which peculiarly characterizes him, gave no decisive opinion on the subject."

In some of the letters which had been sent to Coke an answer had been demanded to a very serious question: "If you did not think that the episcopal ordination of Mr. Asbury was valid, why did you ordain him? Was there not duplicity in this business?" To this he answered:

"(1) I never, since I could reason on those things, considered the doctrine of the uninterrupted apostolic succession of bishops as at all valid or true.

"(2) I am of our late venerable father Mr. Wesley's opinion that the order of bishops and presbyters is one and the same.

"(3) I believe that the episcopal form of church government is the best in the world when the episcopal power is under due regulations and responsibility.

"(4) I believe that it is well to follow the example of the primitive church, as exemplified in the Word of God, by setting apart persons for great ministerial purposes by the imposition of hands, but especially those who are appointed for offices of the first rank in the church.

"From all I have advanced, you may easily perceive, my dear brethren, that I do not consider the imposition of hands, on the one hand, as essentially necessary for any office in the church; nor do I, on the other hand, think that the repetition of the imposition of hands for the same office, when important circumstances require it, is at all improper.

"If it be granted that my plan of union with the old Episcopal Church was desirable (which now, I think, was not so, though I most sincerely believed it to be so at that time), then if the plan could not have been accomplished