EZEKIEL COOPER AND THE ASBURY-LEE DISPUTE OF 1793-94 by Lester B. Scherer In 1781 the American Methodists, proliferating rapidly around the Chesapeake, brought into their circle a Maryland squire's son named Ezekiel Cooper (1763-1847). He became one of the prominent figures in the young denomination: preacher, presiding elder, gen- eral book steward, and leader in Conference debate. For twenty months beginning in February 1793 Cooper served in New England, initially on the slowly growing- Boston circuit. He soon became an unwilling participant-Ga hsciplinary dispute (and evidently a personal struggle) between Bishop Francis Asbury and Jesse Lee. The first indication that anything was amiss appears in Cooper's journal for March 23,1793. I found that my dear brother Lee has not enforced the Discipline in this place (i.e., Lynn). It was a considerable exercise to my mind to think that an old preacher of his standing should introduce such a precedent in our church as to dispense with a plain and positive rule as long as he had done in this town. Any who choose may come to the classes, and as long as they please, without joining. Six months, nine months, nay, a year and not join.' Customarily persons were permitted to visit class only a few times without applying for membership. In the Notes to the 1798 Discipline Bishops Asbury and Coke gave the reason for this old Methodist rule. To admit frequently unawakened persons to our society meetings and love feasts would be to throw a damp on those profitable assemblies and cram, if not entirely destroy, that liberty of speech which is always made a peculiar blessing to earnest believers and sincere seekers of salvation.' On April 25 Cooper reported: "I met two classes today, but we had only a dead time. I find it will not do for so many to come who are not members." Cooper was at a loss as to how to act in the situation. "If Brother Lee does not attend to the proper rule, I be- lieve that when I visit Lynn I shall omit meeting the classes." The following week Cooper had an opportunity to speak to Lee about the problem, but Lee's response was not recorded.4 Then in June a different element was added to the trouble. The Lynn society had a group of singers, who were fond of using fugue tunes to proclaim the Lord's praises. Lee objected, perhaps on the ground that such music was too ornate. The offended singers raised 'Ezekiel Cooper Papers at Garrett "uoted in Frederick A. Norwood, (hereafter ECPG), vol. 11, sec. 9: quoted Church Membership in the Methodist Tra- in George A. Phoebus, Beams of Light on dition (Nashville, etc.: The Methodist Pub- Early Methodism in America (New York: lishing House, 1958). pp. 67-68. Phillips and Hunt; Cincinnati: Cranston 3 Journal, ECPG, vol. 11, sec. 9. and Stowe, 1887), p. 180. Ibid. (April 4, 1793). 44 quite a stir, after the manner of church choirs of more recent times. Cooper (who apparently liked fugue singing anyway) tried to play I the role of peacemaker, but with no success.6 Late in July, as the preachers gathered for the annual conference I in Lynn, the stage was set for some unpleasant business. Cooper was convinced that Lee was lax in the important matter of class meetings and overly strict in censuring the singers. Asbury, for ) these reasons and probably others as well, sought to mend the situa- tion by putting Cooper in Lee's position as preacher in charge at 1 Lynn and presiding elder over eastern New England! Cooper's ac- count of the Lynn conference of 1793 reveals the dimensions of the conflict, another of the inevitable crises of expansion, which how- ever, threatened to weaken or destroy the work of the Methodists? Asbury rarely left a man two years in the same place, but in 1792 I he had reappointed Lee to Lynn, to the satisfaction of preacher and people alike. Now, according to Asbury's principles, it was time for a change. Furthermore many of the Lynn Methodists now wanted Lee to move; some even threatened to return to the Congregational- ists if he stayed. Lee, for his part, had a theory that the Methodists would not be successful in Massachusetts until they could settle preachers in each town like the Congregationalists.8 That principle, along with personal reasons that lured many preachers to settle down, made him argue strongly to stay in Lynn. Asbury wanted Lee to go to New York, but the latter persuaded the bishop to ap- point him instead to open up Methodist work in Maine. Then (Lee) wanted his name printed (in the minutes) to Lynn and Maine both. This was to keep his place and hold upon Lynn, which he seemed resolved to hold if he could. To this the bishop would not agree; and I am afraid this will be the foundation of evil. If he is printed to Lynn, I fear that he will be a trouble to us; and if he is not, I fear that he will resent it so highly that he may take some improper step.' Although Cooper was under the impression that Asbury had re- fused Lee's request for the unique double appointment, the printed Minutes for that year reflect the conflict between the two ecclesias- tical war horses: "Province of Maine and Lynn, Jesse Lee. ' 10 Although Cooper was appointed as Lee's superior and had par- ticular charge of the Lynn society, Cooper correctly predicted that Lee's vestigial toehold in Lynn would lead to further trouble. In Ibid., sec. 10 (June 6, 10, 11, Aug. Journal and Letters of Francis Asbury, 1, 1793). ed. Elmer T. Clark, J. Manning Potts, O Ibid. (July 31, 1793); Minutes of the Jacob S. Payton (London: Epworth Press; Annual Conferences of the Methodist Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1958), I, 767. Episcopal Church, VoI. 1, 1773-1828 (New Jesse Lee, A Short History of the York: T. Mason and G. Lane for :he Methodists in the United States of Ameri- Methodist Episcopal Church, 1840), p. SO. ca (Baltimore: Printed by Magill and ECPG, vol. 11, sec. 10 (Aug. 1, 1793); Clime, 1810), p. 168; Letter to Cooper, Phoebus, pp. 168-71. Asbury commented: Mar. 3, 1792, ECPG, vol. XV, item 25. "Circumstances have occurred which 'Journal, ECPG, vol. 11, sec. 10 (Aug. have made this conference more painful 1, 1793). than any one conference beside." The Minufes, Vol. I, p. 50. 46 METHODIST HISTORY fact Lee had neglected (deliberately, in Cooper's estimation) to arrange his affairs so that he could leave immediately for Maine. Wistfully Cooper wrote on the day after the conference ended, "We all left Lynn excepting Brother Lee, who is resolved to stay awhile. I propose to return in three or four weeks to see if he will. go away." l1 Alas for Cooper's tranquility, Lee did not go away. On August 26 "a very great and disagreeable altercation took place between Brother Lee and I." (Lee) very imprudently kindled a fire from a conversation which passed (at conference) between himself, the bishop, and I. He strove to raise a prejudice in one particular person, consequently it might spread to others, against the bishop and I, so that I had to enter into a proper statement and defense of the conduct and conversation of the bishop and myself relative to the case.12 Even though Cooper appeared to be successful in his defense, he was deeply troubled. "My mind was never so hurt with a preacher before." He evidently wrote Asbury expressing a desire to quit the traveling ministry. Asbury replied in somber accents, "I waited long to hear from my brother Cooper, but it was awful tidings. Married or single leaving the work is my distress. " I3 Cooper also considered resolving the dispute in a less radical fashion by station- ing another preacher in Lynn in place of himself. However, early in September Lee eased the tension by beginning his long-delayed journey to Maine.14 Cooper then resumed his supervisory tour through Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Again in December Lee, having returned from Maine, sought to make a case against Cooper with some of the Lynn people. Cooper rebuked him privately - in- what appears to be the last serious clash between the two men.lb Before Cooper left New England the following autumn, he and Lee were reconciled. "Although there was a great trial between us some time ago, yet now we are as friendly as ever, having made up our difference. I think he is as near to me as he ever was. fl 16 The foregoing account, although it ought not to detract from Lee's trailblazing efforts in New England, may serve to correct the im- pression that he worked unaided and without fault. Abel Stevens' assertion that "the history of Methodism in New England . is but the personal biography of its remarkable founder," requires a quali- fying footnote.17 Journal, ECPG, vol. 11, sec. 10 (Aug. 4, 1793). 5, 1793); Phoebus, pp. 170-71. l6Ibid. (Dee. 14-20, 1793). l2 Journal, ECPG, vol. 11, sec. 10 (Aug. Ibid. (Oct. 2, 1794). 26, 1793). 17 Quoted in The History of American '"ov. 23, 1793, ECPG, vol. XVIII, Methodism (New York and Nashville: item 4. Abingdon Press, 1964), I, 411. Journal, ECPG, vol. 11, sec. 10 (Sept. .