[Transcriber Note: Certain variations in name spellings in this volume reflect aberrations found in the original text from which the electronic edition was produced. For example: "McCombs and McCoombs" — DVM]

VOLUME 3 — BOOK V — CHAPTER I
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1792 — O'KELLY'S SCHISM

Necessity of a General Conference — Coke returns to America — The General Conference — The "Council" ignored — Excited Debates — Religious Interest — Amendments of the Discipline — The Presiding Eldership established — General Conferences ordained — Supernumeraries — Preachers' Wives — Other Amendments — O'Kelly and the Appointing Power — Great Debates — O'Kelly and others Secede — Merits of the Question — Conclusion of the Conference — Its Character — O'Kelly's Schism — Disastrous Consequences — War of Pamphlets — Asbury — Loss of Members — Results — Asbury's Interview with O'Kelly — His continued Hostility — Was there a General Conference between 1784 and 1792? — Note

Another important event, in the history of American Methodism, was at hand: the second General Conference. The first, called the Christmas Conference, (in 1784,) had been an extraordinary convention of the ministry, held, at the instance of Wesley, for the episcopal organization of the Church. No provision was made for any subsequent similar assembly. The rapid multiplication of sectional or "annual conferences" facilitated the local business of the denomination, but rendered legislation on its general interests difficult, if not impossible. If the early custom of carrying general measures from one conference to another, till all had acted upon them, still continued, it had now become exceedingly inconvenient; it delayed the enactment of such measures nearly a year; there could be no ready comparison of opinions, or answer of objections, between conferences remotely apart; and the last in the series for the year might, for want of such consultation, defeat the votes of all that had preceded it, thereby requiring the measure to be repeated in a revised form through another year. Asbury's favorite "Council" failed as a substitute; it was defective, as has been shown, by giving the bishops supreme control of its constituency, and endangering the uniformity, if not the unity, of the Church, for its enactments were to have effect only in such Annual Conferences as should approve them. Some other mode of general legislation was therefore necessary. The memorable assembly of 1784 presented the expedient example, and accordingly a General Conference was called for 1792.

Bishop Coke had left America, as we have seen, in May, 1791, on receiving the news of Wesley's death, and was absent about a year and a half. This was an anxious and busy period with him. The difficulties attending the settlement of the Wesleyan Connection, after the loss of its great founder, were exasperated by jealousy, if not maltreatment of the bishop, among the English preachers. [1] He bore patiently, however, his humiliating reception, and pursued with undiminished ardor his public labors. Besides preparing, with Henry Moore, a Life of Wesley, and beginning a Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, in six quarto volumes, (a labor of fifteen years,) [2] he attempted to introduce Methodism into France. He went to Paris with an assistant preacher, de Quetteville, and commenced public worship. The project, however, was found to be premature, and was abandoned. He returned to London, and thence hastened over much of the United Kingdom, preaching and collecting funds for his West India Missions. Successful in this task, he embarked in September, 1792, for the General Conference in Baltimore, accompanied by a missionary for the West Indies. His voyage was long, sixty days, thirteen of them spent in beating about the British channel. He began to despair of reaching his destination before the adjournment of the conference, but relieved the tediousness of the delay by constantly writing at his Commentary. "From the time I rise till bedtime," he says, "except during meals, I have the cabin table to myself, and work at it incessantly. I never was accustomed to dream much till now; but I seem to be at my pleasing work even while I sleep. I have six canary birds over my head, which sing most delightfully, entertaining me while I am laboring for my Lord." [3] Neither Wesley nor Asbury exceeded this devoted man in ministerial labors or travels, and scarcely any man of his age equaled him in pecuniary sacrifices for religion; yet, on observing his birthday on the high seas, (October 9th,) he writes: "I am now forty-five. Let me take a view of my past life. What is the sum of all? What have I done? And what am I? I have done nothing; no, nothing; and I am a sinner! God be merciful to me!"

On the 20th of October, following an annual custom of Methodism, "I renewed," he says, "my covenant with God this morning in as solemn and happy a temper as ever I experienced, my first espousals to God not excepted." On the 28th he writes: "A pilot is just come on board, and in all probability I shall be in Baltimore in time. The Lord does all things well; glory and honor be ascribed to him for ever!" Two days later he landed at Newcastle, Del. He had "seventy miles to ride in the space of a day and a few hours, in order to be in time for the General Conference;" he flew over the distance, wearing out one chaise-horse and breaking down another. "About nine o'clock Wednesday night, October 31, I arrived," he continues, "at the house of my friend, Philip Rogers, of Baltimore, with just time enough to take some refreshment, and a little sleep, before the General Conference commenced. Mr. Asbury and the preachers who were at Mr. Rogers' were surprised to see me at that critical moment. They had almost given me up, but intended to spend ten days in debating matters of the smallest importance, in prayer, and in declaring their experiences, before they entered on the weightier business, if I did not sooner arrive."

The General Conference began on the 1st of November, 1792. We have no "official" record of its proceedings; [4] but Jesse Lee, who was present, has preserved an outline of its most important doings. He represents the gathering of preachers as numerous; "from all parts of the United States where we had any circuits formed." [5] They came with "the expectation that something of great importance would take place, in the connection," in consequence of the session; they supposed that "in all probability there would never be another conference of the kind;" but that, owing to the rapid extension of the ecclesiastical field, "the conference would adopt some permanent regulations which would prevent the preachers from coming together in a General Conference." If they anticipated any regular quadrennial session, it is probable that they supposed it would thereafter be a delegated body, for Lee himself had advocated this modification, [6] and is entitled to the credit of being the author of the change, which, though resisted for sixteen years, was at last forced upon the body in 1808 by irresistible necessity.

The "Council," at its last session, in 1790, had adjourned to meet in Baltimore, or at Cokesbury College, in December, 1792, probably supposing that it would be recognized and empowered by the General Conference. But Lee, who had stoutly opposed it from the beginning, reports that "the bishops and preachers in general showed a disposition to drop it and all things belonging thereto." Asbury even "requested that its name might not again be mentioned in the conference." "It was tacitly abolished; it was dead," says Lee's biographer, "and he was present at its burial." It had threatened to disown him as a preacher, because of his opposition to it. "His triumph had come, and it was complete. He enjoyed it in silence."

In sketching the organization of the Church by the Conference of 1784, I have anticipated some of the amendments of the Discipline, adopted at the present session, and need not repeat them. On the first day rules for the government of the body were enacted. A committee was appointed to prepare and report to it all its business; as, however, the debates in the committee had to be repeated in the full assembly, it was found not to expedite, but rather retard business; it was enlarged, but at last dismissed. The chief restrictive regulation adopted provided that two thirds of all the members voting could abolish an old law or make a new one, but that a majority might alter or amend any existing law.

The first day was spent in considering the rules of the house. On the second, [7] O'Kelly introduced a motion affecting radically the power of the episcopate, and indirectly reflecting on the administration of Asbury; it absorbed all attention for nearly a week, so that the revision of the Discipline, and the most needed legislation of the session, did not begin till Tuesday the 6th. The excited debates were relieved by extraordinary religious services on Sunday, when Coke preached "a delightful sermon" on Rom. viii, 16 — the "Witness of the Spirit" — which was printed by order of the conference. O'Kelly, who was one of the most commanding men of the itinerancy, preached in the afternoon on Luke xvii, 5: "The apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith." "The power of the Lord attended the word," says a hearer. [8] At night Henry Willis, the most endeared to Asbury of all the itinerants of that day, preached on Psalm xcv, 10, 11, [Psa 95:10-11 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: 11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest. — inserted by DVM] probably with reference to the strifes of the period against the bishop, for Willis defended him and opposed O'Kelly in the conference debates. Meanwhile there was daily preaching in the city and vicinity, and a general "revival" kindled, for there were many of the preachers who cared more for the prosperity of the Churches than for the controversies of the conference.

On Tuesday of the second week began the revision of the Discipline. Regular General Conferences were ordained, and the Annual Conferences were distinguished, from these quadrennial assemblies, by the title of "District Conferences," as it was determined to hold one of them for each presiding elder's district, [9] their limits to be defined by the bishops, "yet so as not to include more than twelve, nor less than three circuits in each district." The bishops had also power to appoint the times of their sessions. The character of a "supernumerary preacher" was for the first time stated; he is "one who is so worn out in the itinerant service as to be rendered incapable of preaching constantly, but is willing to do any work in the ministry which the conference may direct and his strength enable him to perform." Provision was made for the election, ordination, and trial of bishops. The office of Presiding Elder took, for the first time, a definitive form, and the title appears for the first time in the Discipline. [10] The Order of Elders was provided in the organization of the Church of 1784; as Wesley, however, had requested that as few candidates as were absolutely necessary for the administration of the sacraments, should be appointed, only twelve were then ordained." [11] With Wesley's approval the number was afterward increased. They traveled over given sections of the Church, administering the sacraments, and maintaining a general supervision of the circuits. Their appointment to their respective sections had hitherto been without limitation in respect to time. O'Kelly, for example, had traveled the same district in southern Virginia ever since his ordination in 1784, and had been stationed there several years before. It is supposed that disadvantages, resulting from his case, led to the present modifications of the office. The new law provided that the bishops should appoint the presiding elders, not allowing them a longer term than four years on any one district; that it should be the duty of the elder to travel through his appointed district; in the absence of a bishop, to take charge of all the elders, deacons, traveling and local preachers, and exhorters within it; to change, receive, or suspend preachers during the intervals of the conferences, and in the absence of the bishop; in the absence of the bishop to preside in the conference of his district; and to call together, at each quarterly meeting, all the traveling and local preachers, exhorters, stewards, and leaders of the circuit, to hear complaints, and to receive appeals; to oversee the spiritual and temporal business of the societies; to take care that every part of the Discipline be enforced; to attend the bishop when present in his district, and to give him, when absent, all necessary information of its condition, by letter. He was to be supported by any surplus of the contributions for the ministry on the circuits of his charge, and, if there should he no surplus, he was to share equally with his corps of preachers. The office as thus developed has been of momentous importance in the progress of the Church. If the episcopate has been the right arm, the presiding eldership has been the left arm of its disciplinary administration; a virtual though subordinate episcopacy, without the right to ordain. By the present conference the presiding elder was virtually made a diocesan bishop; he had charge of a whole conference, for each district was a conference. The services of the office in the early history of the denomination, and its later importance in the new fields of the ministry, can hardly be exaggerated. Preachers' wives had been allowed pecuniary assistance from the Church; they were now made claimants upon its funds to an amount equal to that of their husbands', sixty-four dollars per annum. Besides the preacher's salary or allowance, his "traveling expenses" were to be paid by the circuit; these, in the language of the contemporary historian, were for "ferriage, horse-shoeing, and provisions for himself and horse on the road when he necessarily r ode a distance." The interdiction of fees for marriages was taken off; the preacher was now permitted to receive, but "not to charge" them. Should there, however, be a deficiency in the circuit contributions for the ministry, all such gifts were to be placed in the hands of the stewards, and be equally divided among the circuit preachers. They were required also, in order to receive any aid from the conference funds, to report "all moneys, clothes, and other presents of any kind," a rule characteristic not only of the simplicity of the times, but also of the intimate brotherhood of the ministry; "intended," says the historian, "to keep all the preachers as nearly on an equal footing as possible in their money matters, that there might be no jealousies or envyings among us; but that we, like brethren of the same family, might all labor together in the gospel of Jesus Christ." They were not allowed to "receive a present" for baptism or the burial of the dead. A rule was adopted for the settlement of disputes between brethren "concerning the payment of debts;" it underwent various modifications, from time to time, till 1812, when it received the form it still bears in the Discipline. The order of public worship was prescribed, without an allusion to Wesley's abridged liturgy; and the use of fugue tunes was disapproved. Methodists removing from one Church to another were required to bear with them a certificate that "A. B., the bearer, has been an acceptable member in C.;" still an indispensable requirement throughout the Church. Provision was made for the trial of preachers for immorality, or improper conduct, and also for heresy. "The latter," says Lee, "was to prevent the spread of the erroneous doctrines which had been imbibed and propagated in public and in private by O'Kelly, who, previous to that time had taken much pains to draw off some of our preachers into his way of thinking, and had so far succeeded in his endeavors as to get some of them confused and bewildered in their minds about the doctrine of the Trinity. At this conference we made the following rule, in addition to the former one, respecting the trial of private members: 'If a member of our Church shall be clearly convicted of endeavoring to sow dissensions in any of our Societies, by inveighing against either our doctrine or discipline, such person so offending shall be first reproved by the senior preacher of his circuit; and if he afterward persist in such pernicious practices be shall be expelled [from] the Society.' "

Such were the principal amendments of the Discipline made at this General Conference. In their preface to the next edition the bishops say: "We have made some little alterations in the present edition, yet such as affect not in any degree the essentials of our doctrines and discipline. We think ourselves obliged frequently to view and review the whole order of our Church, always aiming at perfection, standing on the shoulders of those who have lived before us, and taking advantage of our former selves." [12]

But the chief subject of its deliberations was the proposition of O'Kelly, to so abridge the episcopal prerogative that, "after the bishop appoints the preachers, at conference, to their several circuits, if any one thinks himself injured by the appointment he shall have liberty to appeal to the conference and state his objections; and if the conference approve his objections, the bishop shall appoint him to another circuit." O'Kelly doubtless had prepared the way, among the preachers, for the agitation of this radical innovation, and Asbury evidently anticipated it; for he writes, "I felt awful at the General Conference." [13] The motion was obviously a reflection on his administration, but he bore it with admirable magnanimity. He adds: "At my desire they appointed a moderator, and preparatory committee, to keep order and bring forward the business with regularity. We had heavy debates on the first, second, and third sections of our form of discipline. My power to station the preachers without an appeal was much debated, but finally carried by a very large majority. Perhaps a new bishop, new conference, and new laws would have better pleased some. I have been much grieved for others, and distressed with the burden I bear, and must hereafter bear. O my soul, enter into rest! Ah, who am I, that the burden of the work should lie on my heart, hands, an head?" Having secured the organization of the body, with Coke for moderator, he retired anxious and sick, but his "soul breathing unto God, and exceedingly happy in his love." He addressed the following characteristic letter to the conference: "Let my absence give you no pain; Dr. Coke presides. I am happily excused from assisting to make laws by which myself am to be governed: I have only to obey and execute. I am happy in the consideration that I never stationed a preacher through enmity, or as a punishment. I have acted for the glory of God, the good of the people, and to promote the usefulness of the preachers. Are you sure that if you please yourselves the people will be as fully satisfied? They often say, 'Let us have such a preacher;' and sometimes, 'We will not have such a preacher, we will sooner pay him to stop at home.' Perhaps I must say, 'His appeal forced him upon you.' I am one, ye are many. I am as willing to serve you as ever. I want not to sit in any man's way. I scorn to solicit votes. I am a very trembling, poor creature to hear praise or dispraise. Speak your minds freely; but remember, you are only making laws for the present time. It may be that, as in some other things, so in this, a future day may give you further light." "I am not fond of altercations," he writes in his journal at the time; "we cannot please everybody, and sometimes not ourselves. I am resigned." The discussion, as we have seen, occupied nearly a week; it was the first of those great parliamentary debates which have given pre-eminence to the deliberative talent of the body. It was led chiefly by O'Kelly, Ivey, Hull; Garrettson, and Swift for the affirmative, and by Willis, Lee, Morrell, Everett, and Reed for the negative, [14] all chieftains of the itinerancy and eloquent preachers. The mere intimations respecting it, found in the writings of contemporary Methodists, show that it was an occasion of extraordinary interest. Lee says "the arguments, for and against, were weighty, and handled in a masterly manner. There never had been a subject before us that so fully called forth all the strength of the preachers." Coke, however anxious for the issue of the controversy, sat in the chair rapt in admiration of the talent it elicited. Lee records a brief outline of the proceedings. He says: "A large majority appeared at first to be in favor of the motion. But at last John Dickins moved to divide the question thus: 1. Shall the bishop appoint the preachers to the circuits? 2. Shall a preacher be allowed an appeal? After some debate the dividing of the question was carried. The first question being put, it was carried without a dissenting voice. But when we came to the second question, 'Shall a preacher be allowed an appeal?' there was a difficulty started, whether this was to be considered a new rule, or only an amendment of an old one. If it was a new rule, it would take two thirds of the votes to carry it. After a considerable debate it was agreed by vote that it was only an amendment of old rule. Of course after all these lengthy debates we were just where we began, and had to take up the question as it was proposed at first. One rule for our debates was, 'That each person if he choose shall have liberty to speak three times on each motion.' By dividing the question, and then coming back to where we were at first, we were kept on the subject, called the Appeal, for two or three days. On Monday we began the debate afresh, and continued it through the day; and at night we went to Otterbein's church, and again continued it till near bedtime, when the vote was taken, and the motion was lost by a large majority."

Thomas Ware was a member of the conference, and has left us a further glimpse of the great discussion. He says: "It was allowed on all hands that no sacrifice could be too great to accomplish the object we had in view, namely, the salvation of souls; but the question was, whether the means were the most perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of that object; whether for this purpose so large a body of men should hold themselves ready to go wherever the general superintendent should deem it best in his judgment to send them. The number of traveling preachers was at this time two hundred and sixty-six. Had O'Kelly's proposition been differently managed it might possibly have been carried. For myself, at first I did not see anything very objectionable in it. But when it came to be debated, I very much disliked the spirit of those who advocated it, and wondered at the severity in which the movers, and others who spoke in favor of it, indulged in the course of their remarks. Some of them said that it was a shame for a man to accept of such a lordship, much more to claim it; and that they who would submit to this absolute dominion must forfeit all claims to freedom, and ought to have their ears bored through with an awl, and to be fastened to their master's door and become slaves for life. One said that to be denied such an appeal was an insult to his understanding, and a species of tyranny to which others might submit if they chose, but for his part he must be excused for saying he could not. The advocates of the opposite side were more dispassionate and argumentative. They urged that Wesley, the father of the Methodist family, had devised the plan, and deemed it essential for the preservation of the itinerancy. They said that, according to the showing of O'Kelly, Wesley, if he were alive, ought to blush, for he claimed the right to station the preachers to the day of his death. The appeal, it was argued, was rendered impracticable on account of the many serious difficulties with which it was encumbered. Should one preacher appeal, and the conference say his appointment should be altered, the bishop must remove some other one to make him room; in which ease the other might complain and appeal in his turn; and then again the first might appeal from the new appointment, or others whose appointments these successive alterations might interrupt. Hearing all that was said on both sides, I was finally convinced that the motion for such an appeal ought not to carry. The next morning, after the decision of the question, the conference was startled by a letter from O'Kelly and "a few other preachers," declaring that they could no longer retain their seats in the body, "because the appeal was not allowed." A committee of preachers was immediately appointed to wait upon them and persuade them to resume their seats. Garrettson, who had taken sides with them in the controversy, was on this committee. He says: "O'Kelly's distress was so great on account of the late decision, that he informed us by letter that he no longer considered himself one of us. This gave great grief to the whole conference. Two persons were appointed with me as a committee to treat with him. Many tears were shed, but we were not able to reconcile him to the decision of the conference. His wound was deep, and apparently incurable."

Before the week closed O'Kelly had an interview with Coke, but availed himself of it to criminate the doctor and the conference. Finally, says Lee in his naive style: "He, and the preachers that were particularly influenced by him, set off for Virginia, taking their saddle-bags, great coats, and other bundles on their shoulders or arms, walking on foot to the place where they left their horses, which was about twelve miles from town. I stood and looked after them as they went on; and observed to one of the preachers that I was sorry to see the old man go off in that way, for I was persuaded he would not be quiet long, but would try to be head of some party. The preacher then informed me that O'Kelly denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and preached against it, by saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were characters, and not persons; and that these characters all belonged to Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The preacher further said, that it was his intention to have had O'Kelly tried at that conference for the false doctrines which he had been preaching and he believed that his leaving the conference was more out of fear of being brought to trial than on account of the appeal. But so it was, James O'Kelly never more united with the Methodists." Asbury had triumphed by his wise silence; his supporters in the debate had prevailed not so much by the abstract merits of their side of the question, as by the practical good sense, and loyalty to the Church, with which they drew their arguments from its peculiar circumstances and necessities. Abstractly considered, O'Kelly's proposition seemed not unreasonable, for it must be remembered that the bishop had absolute power over the distribution of all the preachers, from Boston to Savannah, there having been yet no "cabinet" of presiding elders to assist in his appointments. We are not surprised, therefore, that, on the first appearance of the question, such men as Garrettson, Ware, Hull, Ivey, and Reed sustained O'Kelly. It should not be forgotten, also, that at this very time had commenced those debates in the British Conference, occasioned by the recent death of Wesley, which resulted in the reorganization of Wesleyan Methodism, with precisely the "appeal," advocated by O'Kelly, recognized as a constitutional right of every itinerant preacher; a right still maintained by Wesleyan Methodism throughout the world. But the Wesleyan ministry deemed no such right expedient while Wesley remained at their head; and Asbury was now, to American, what Wesley had been to British Methodism. The ecclesiastical system of the American Church had hitherto been, by common consent, a sort of military regime; only as such could it meet the peculiar wants of its vast, its new and ever-opening field. Its ministry was a volunteer corps; no one was constrained to remain in the ranks; they wisely chose to have an effective commandant, invested with decisive authority, and willing, as well as able, to throw them to any point of the great field, in to any deadly breach; they demanded of him only that the victory be won. If they had an abstract right to O'Kelly's "appeal," they believed that they had also the right to waive that right, for the general good. Their vote, therefore, was not an act of servility; it was heroism. And they knew, moreover, that the legislative power of the Church was in their own hands; that they could qualify the episcopal prerogative whenever they should see it expedient to do so; their choice not to do so now was voluntary and commendable. After the withdrawal of O'Kelly peace and the old brotherly spirit again pervaded the conference. Asbury, by request of his brethren, preached to them on the appropriate text of 1 Peter iii, 8: "Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another; love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous." He had preached his text during the session, by his example, and could now effectually preach it from the pulpit. A solemn ordination of James Thomas and William Colbert, two itinerant pioneers, took place the day after O'Kelly's secession. On Thursday, the fifteenth and last day, the business being ended, Coke preached before the conference on James i, 27, ("Pure religion," etc.) It was the befitting climax of the occasion; a profound feeling pervaded the assembly, "a solemn awe rested upon them." "The meeting was continued till about midnight," he says, "and twelve persons, we have reason to believe, were then added into the family of God. This was a glorious conclusion; a gracious seal from Heaven to our proceedings." [15]

He left the city with a higher estimate of the American itinerants than he had ever formed before. "We continued our conference," he says, "for fifteen days. I had always entertained very high ideas of the piety and zeal of the American preachers, and of the considerable abilities of many; but I had no expectation, I confess, that the debates would be carried on in so very masterly a manner; so that on every question of importance the subject seemed to be considered in every possible light. Throughout the whole of the debates they considered themselves as the servants of the people, and therefore never lost sight of them on any question. Indeed, the single eye, and the spirit of humility, which were manifested by the preachers throughout the whole of the conference, were extremely pleasing, and afforded a comfortable prospect of the increase of the work of God throughout the continent."

Asbury resumed his labors and travels, recording that "the conference ended in peace; my mind was kept in peace, and my soul enjoyed rest in the Stronghold." Lee says that "notwithstanding we had some close debates, and some distressing hours, and, withal, some of our preachers were so offended as to leave the conference before the business was half finished, yet it was a comfortable time to most of us, and we were highly favored of the Lord with his presence and love in the last of our sitting. Our hearts were closely united together, and we parted in great union, love, and fellowship. Some of the preachers who came to conference were quite dissatisfied; but at the close of the meeting they were perfectly reconciled, and returned to their circuits fully determined to spend and be spent in the work of the ministry, and in the fellowship of the Church."

The generous heart of Garrettson was deeply affected by the final spectacle of peace and brotherly concord. At the close of the session he wrote: "O what a wonder to see so large a body of preachers gathered from all parts of the country, and like little children sitting at each others' feet, united as the heart of one man, and all engaged in one common cause, namely, to demolish the kingdom of Satan, and to build up that of the Redeemer! I retired to my room, not indeed alone, for I trust my blessed Saviour was with me. O my God, let me rather die than cease to love thee." [16] Ware has left a favorable testimony for the session, though he says, probably in allusion to some personal treatment in the debates, that "some of the painful sensations I felt, during it, have caused me at times to wish I could forget there had been such a meeting;" but he adds, "we went through our business amicably; and there was a gracious work of revival in the congregations throughout the city. As to the conference, I was pleased with the spirit in which its business was transacted."

Some serious consequences were, however, to follow these transactions. Lee's prediction that O'Kelly would not remain quiet, but would become the head of a party, was to be verified. He had long lived on the border between Virginia and North Carolina, as circuit preacher and presiding elder. His influence swayed the ministry and people, on both sides, all along that line. He had been a devout and zealous man; an eloquent preacher; a strenuous Methodist; a tireless laborer; an heroic opposer of slavery, [18] enforcing the antislavery law of the Church. Yet his restless temper had led him into conflict with Asbury some time before the conference of 1792. [19]

He was now a veteran, broken with age, an Irishman of fiery temperament, and, as usual with such temperaments, his, conscience was weak, easily swayed by his prejudices; weak to yield to them, though strong to defend them. He returned to Virginia prepared to upturn the foundations he had helped to lay. Asbury hastened thither also, and held a conference in Manchester. Already O'Kelly had begun his pernicious work; some of the most devoted people and preachers had been disaffected; and, in this day, we are startled to read that William McKendree; afterward one of the saintliest bishops of the Church, and Rice Haggard, sent to Asbury "their resignations in writing." The conference knew the infirmities of O'Kelly, and was inclined to forbearance; it resolved to permit the disaffected itinerants still to preach in its pulpits. It compassionated the veteran leader, and, says Asbury, "as he is almost worn out, the conference acceded to my proposal of giving him forty pounds per annum, as when he traveled in the connection, provided he would be peaceable and forbear to excite divisions." He accepted the offer, used the money for some time, but at last relinquished his claim, and devoted himself, with his characteristic zeal, to the promotion of schism. The refusal of the conference to qualify the episcopal power to appoint the preachers was his ostensible argument. It was plausible, but not logical, in the peculiar circumstances of the Church. It was quite irrelevant to himself personally. "For himself," writes Asbury, "the conference well knew he could not complain of the regulation. He had been located to the south district of Virginia for about ten successive years; and upon his plan might have located himself, and any preacher, or set of preachers, to the district, whether the people wished to have them or not." It was a period of general excitement in Virginia by the political contests of the Republicans and Federalists, the former being the dominant party. O'Kelly adroitly availed himself of these party agitations, and formed his associates into a Church with the title of "Republican Methodists." Their organization gave them a temporary power, and disastrous results followed. They held "conference after conference," devising a system of Church government; but insubordination reigned among them. In 1793 they had a number of societies, but, says the historian of the times, [20] they were "formed on a leveling plan." "All were to be on an equal footing. One preacher was not to be above another, nor higher in office or in power than another. No superiority or subordination was to be known among them. They promised to the lay members of the Church greater liberties than they had formerly enjoyed among us, and prevailed with a good many of our people to leave us and join them. In some places they took from us whole societies together, and in many places they drew off a part. Others they threw into confusion; and in some places they scattered the flock and separated the people one from the other, without securing them to their own party. They took a few meeting-houses from us, and preached in them themselves; and some houses we left and would not preach in them, in order to avoid contentions. The disaffected party then began to pour out a flood of abuse against us, to ridicule us, and to say all manner of evil against us; and withal, they took unjustifiable steps in order to set our members against the preachers. The divisive spirit prevailed more in the south parts of Virginia than in any other place. There were some of our societies in the northeast part of North Carolina who felt the painful effects of the division, and were considerably scattered and greatly injured. Several of our local preachers and many of our private members were drawn off from us, and turned against us. The societies were brought into such troubles and difficulties that they knew not what to do. Many that were drawn off from us would not join with the other party. Brother was turned against brother, and one Christian friend against another. The main contention was about the government of the Church; who should govern it, or in what manner it ought to be governed. In this mist of darkness and confusion, many religious people, who had been warm advocates for the life and power of religion, began to contend about Church government, and neglect the duties of religion, till they were turned back to the world, and gave up religion altogether. It was enough to make the saints of God weep between the porch and the altar, and that both day and night, to see how 'the Lord's flock was carried away captive' by that division. Those preachers who turned aside from the truth did abundance of mischief among the people that were not religious, many of whom became so deeply prejudiced against religion and religious professors, that they would hardly attend on preaching at all. It might well be said, 'Without were fighting, and within were fears.' "

In 1793 they held a conference in Mannakin Town, Va., the scene of a former dissentient Methodist assembly, in the famous "sacramental controversy." They there framed a constitution, and O'Kelly, as their leader, ordained their preachers. In 1801 they discarded their laws and title and assumed the name of "The Christian Church," renouncing all rules of Church government but the New Testament, as interpreted by every man for himself. O'Kelly published a pamphlet attacking Asbury and the Methodist Episcopal Church. [21] "Asbury collected documents for a reply, and presented them to the conference, which appointed one of its ablest members, Nicholas Snethen, to prepare them for publication. He issued "A Reply to an Apology," etc., to which O'Kelly responded in "A Vindication of an Apology." Snethen rejoined in "An Answer to James O'Kelly's Vindication of his Apology." Asbury's administration appears unimpeachable in Snethen's pages. In referring to his accusers the bishop says: "I bid such adieu, and appeal to the bar of God. I have no time to contend, having better work to do. If we have lost some children, God will give us more. Ah! this is the mercy, the justice of some, who, under God, owe their all to me and my 'tyrants' so called. The Lord judge between them and me."

The war of pamphlets ended, though Lee also prepared, in part, a manuscript reply to O'Kelly [22] but the internecine [Oxford Dict. internecine adj. mutually destructive. — DVM] war went on disastrously for some years. It occasioned "a great falling away from the Church." "In the years of its greatest influence, 1793-4-5, there was a clear loss in the membership of 7,352. But, although this loss was so great, there is no sufficient reason to believe 'The Republican Methodists,' as they were then called, had met with corresponding success. It has been the aim of some writers to show that there were numerous accessions to Methodism during this period, and that the loss of the Church was so much greater in proportion to the amount of these accessions; and that therefore the gain of O'Kelly was proportionally great. But this argument is unsupported by any facts we have been able to discover." [23]

It was impossible, however, that a schism so badly managed could long succeed. It broke into parties; several of its preachers fell away from it, and formed a new "plan of their own in Charlotte County, Va.;" many individual members and preachers, tired of the conflict, sought peace again in the parent Church; and Lee, writing in 1809, says: "They have been divided and subdivided, till at present it is hard to find two of them that are of one opinion. There are now but few of them in that part of Virginia where they were formerly the most numerous; and in most places they are declining."

Ten years after O'Kelly's revolt Asbury met him again in Winchester, Va. The bishop notes in his Journal, August 20, 1802, that "Mr. O'Kelly having been taken ill in town, I sent two of our brethren, Reed and Walls, to see him, by whom I signified to him that if he wished to see me I would wait on him: he desired a visit, which I made him on Monday, August 28. We met in peace, asked of each other's welfare, talked of persons and things indifferently, prayed and parted in peace. Not a word was said of the troubles of the former times. Perhaps this is the last interview we shall have upon earth." Bangs [24] supposes this interview was "near the close of O'Kelly's life," and expresses the hope that he died reconciled and "forgiven." Asbury's Journals, however, show that for many years later the energetic seceder still fought his hopeless battle. In 1805, the bishop, passing through Virginia, writes: "Mr. O'Kelly has come down with great zeal, and preaches three hours at a time upon government, monarchy, and episcopacy; occasionally varying the subject by abuse of the Methodists, calling them aristocrats and Tories; a people who, if they had the power, would force the government at the sword's point. Poor man!" He survived till the 16th of October, 1826, when he died in his ninety-second year, retaining "to the latest period of his life unabated confidence in the purity and power of his system. In age and feebleness his hope in the work of his hands did not desert him. He went down to the grave, according to one of his followers, satisfied with the past, and peaceful and trustful with respect to the future." [25]

Singularly devoted, romantically chivalric as were these primitive itinerants, still they were but men. Their human infirmities were oftener revealed in their personal or private relations, than in their public connections with the great cause for which they labored, and therefore come but seldom within the purview of the historian. It seems indeed providential that, uneducated, enthusiastic, not to say superstitious, as not a few of them were, their individual weaknesses and eccentricities so rarely touched their public work. The extraordinary regime of their ministerial system doubtless held them in check, and exhausted their superabundant energy in systematized and beneficent labors. The first and purest of men fell in Paradise; David fell at the head of God's elect people; Judas and Peter in the apostolic band. Some of these good men also fell. We have had to record examples of their downfall into fanatic insanity, schism, intemperance, and, in one instance, even into murder. Such cases were indeed surprisingly few, and quite exceptional to their general fidelity and sanctity; but to omit them in our pages would be to write romance, not history, and to suppress the important lesson, taught not only in Holy Scripture, but in all ecclesiastical history, that "all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world have come. Wherefore let him that standeth take heed lest he fall." [The last sentence is a slight misquotation of 1 Cor 10:12 . The verse actually reads: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." — DVM]

———————————————————————————-

ENDNOTES

[Endnote #26 below was placed by the author at the end of this chapter, titled simply NOTE. I have placed it instead as Endnote #26, the last of the regular Endnotes below, and I have placed the three notes within Endnote #26 at its end as *(a), *(b), and *(c) — DVM]

1 Drew's Life of Coke, p. 232.

2 His friend, Samuel Drew, aided him in this and most of his other literary labors; but to what extent, Drew never would reveal. Drew's Coke, p., 361.

3 Extracts of the Journals of the Rev. Dr. Coke's Five Visits to America, p. 159. London: 1793.

4 The Journals of the General Conferences were published by order of the session of 1852, and edited by Rev. Dr. McClintock, who says in his preface, "The Minutes of the General Conference for 1792 were never published, to my knowledge, nor can I find the original copy. Those of 1796 were published in a compendium form, which is now reprinted." Our official records of these sessions, then, begin in the latter year. Those of 1784 and 1792 seem to be irrevocably lost; the substance of the former, however, was embodied in the Discipline of 1785, and has been given in my preceding volume. For an account of the chief proceedings of 1792 we are indebted to Lee's "History of the Methodists."

5 Lee's History, p. 176.

6 Dr. Lee's Life, etc., of Jesse Lee, p. 270.

7 For the order of the proceedings of about half the session I am indebted to an extract from "a manuscript of William Colbert," a member, given in Peck's "Early Methodism," etc., p. 39.

8 Peck's Early Methodism," etc., p. 39.

9 The Annual Conferences are thus called throughout the Discipline of 1792, but never afterward. From 1820 to 1811 the title reappears in the Discipline as the name of certain Local Preachers' Conferences. (Emory's History of Discipline, p. 110. One of our most important historical standards.)

10 The title does not appear in the Annual Minutes, however, till 1797, though it had been used in 1789 in the scheme of the "Council" and in the Minutes.

11 The Bishop's Notes to the Discipline of 1796.

12 In 1792 the Discipline of the Church was revised and somewhat altered. The sections were distributed into three chapters, of which the first, containing twenty-six sections, related to the ministry; the second, containing eight sections, to the membership; and the third, containing ten sections, embraced the temporal economy of the Church, the Doctrinal Tracts, and the Forms. — Emory's History of the Discipline, p. 84.

13 "Asbury's Journals, 1792.

14 Peck's Early Methodism, p. 39.

15 "Journals, p. 264.

16 "Bangs' Garrettson, p. 207.

17 Life, etc., p. 222.

18 He not only preached against slavery, but published "An Essay on Negro Slavery," Philadelphia, 1789, the first American Methodist publication of the kind that I can recall; a pamphlet by Garrettson was the second.

19 Asbury's Journals, ii, p. 69. He had professed perfect reconciliation, however, with the bishop a year before the conference. (See p. 134.)

20 Lee, p. 503.

21 The author's Apology for Protesting against the Methodist Episcopal Church Government." — Lee's Life of Lee, p. 276. Dr. Lee gives a full account of the schism.

22 Dr. Lee inserts it at p. 273.

23 Lee's Life of Lee.

24 Hist. M. E. Church, vol. 1, p. 355.

25 Lee's Life of Lee, p. 287, and also an obituary by Rev. John P. Lemay, attached to an edition of the Apology, published in Hillsborough, N. C., in 1829.

26 NOTE. — It has already been intimated (see vol. ii, p. 498, Note) that the numbering of this General Conference as "the second," has been questioned. Was the session of 1792 the first held after the Christmas Conference of 1784? Was not the Conference of 1787 (held in Baltimore) a General Conference, and the next held there, in 1788, an adjourned session of the same body? Such is the question which many readers may recall, as stoutly debated in the Christian Advocate, New York, in January and February, 1859, by Rev. Mr. De Hass and Rev. Dr. Coggeshall, respectively affirmative and negative in the dispute. The debate was without a satisfactory issue. It is singular how plausible the argument for the affirmative appears, and yet how decisive that of the negative really is. I can give here but a summary of the evidence, pro and con, not confining myself, however, to the two able disputants named, but presenting additional data on both sides.

1. An important fact, in favor of 1787, is a letter of Wesley requesting Coke to hold a General Conference at that time. The letter is dated September 6th, 1786, and says, 'I desire that you would appoint a General Conference of all our preachers in the United States, to meet at Baltimore on May 1st, 1787, and that Mr. Richard Whatcoat may be appointed superintendent with Mr. Francis Asbury." (See Lee's Life, etc., of Jesse Lee, p. 196, Note.) This is certainly a plausible initiative for the affirmative. Moreover,

2. Coke did, by correspondence, (from the West Indies, I suppose,) invite the preachers to such a meeting.

3. The session of the Baltimore Conference, which had in 1786 been appointed for Abingdon, Maryland, on the 24th of July, 1787, was actually changed, and the body did, in fact, meet in Baltimore on the 1st of May, the day proposed by Wesley. (Lee's History, p. 124.)

4. There was much important business done at this session which properly belongs to a General Conference, according to all our modern ideas of the relations of General and Annual Conferences.

These are certainly strong proofs; they would seem almost, if not quite, conclusive of the question, and they show how liable we are, in the obscurity or ambiguity of our early Church documents, to fall into mistakes respecting some most important events. But let us look at the other side of the question,

1. Taking together the first three of these arguments, it may be replied that the facts of Wesley's requesting a General Conference, and of Coke's correspondence calling it, and changing the date of the Baltimore Annual Conference for the purpose, are undenied and undeniable. But it must be further replied, that though Coke did these things, presuming on the authority of his episcopal office, and by the sanction of Wesley, yet Asbury and the preachers generally dissented from his proceedings. Coke, on reaching the country in March, 1787, to attend the Conference, says (Coke's "Journals," 1793) that he was "very coolly" received by Asbury; and when they arrived at the Conference he was rebuked severely by the preachers for his change of the time of the session, his correspondence, etc. He had to give, over his sign manual, a pledge to do so no more; and Wesley's name was omitted from the Minutes, and the old recognition of his authority in the American Church was erased. Evidently the preachers dissented fr om Wesley's wish and Coke's measures.

2. The session of 1787 did not do the business for which Wesley had proposed a General Conference. Richard Whatcoat was not elected a bishop, nor was Freeborn Garrettson, though Wesley requested both appointments. Bangs (Life of Garrettson) says, that the suggestion of the latter by Wesley was "unanimously sanctioned" by his brethren, but he shows that there was no election. Lee's account of Garretson's case is quite inaccurate, (according to Garrettson's own statements;) but Lee himself shows that there was no election nor ballot on either case. (History of the Methodists, p. 126.)

3. That many of the measures of the sessions of 1787-88 were of a general character, appropriate only to the general action of the ministry, cannot be denied, but this fact can be easily explained. The first General Conference (of 1784) assembled for the organization of the Church, and having accomplished its business, adjourned without providing for any subsequent session. General as well as local business went on as before. Measures of a general character were submitted to the successive Annual Conferences, and, at the final session of the year, were considered to be determined by the majority of votes in all; the Minutes of all appeared still, in print, as the records of but one conference; and their enactments were from time to time inserted in the Discipline without reference to where or how they were enacted. Now it so happened that the Baltimore session for 1787 was the last session for that year, (Lee's Hist., p. 124,) and therefore its reported doings were given as the results of all the sessions of the year; that is to say, not of a General Conference, but of the Conferences generally. I am also of the opinion, from scattered allusions in contemporary books, that not a few important measures, applying to the whole Church, were decided sometimes by one or two of the principal conferences, (like that of Baltimore, Philadelphia, or New York,) without reference to the remoter sessions. In fact the Church was yet in its forming process, and, like an army on the march or in the field, was not very fastidious about questions of law. If the Baltimore sessions of 1787 and 1788 should be considered General Conferences, because of their important or general enactments, so then should that of Charleston, South Carolina, of 1789 (then on the southern frontier of the Church) for its doings about the Book Concern, "the College," the famous "Council," Sunday-schools, etc., and also that of 1785, which suspended the anti-slavery law of the Church.

4. Jesse Lee, the contemporary historian of the denomination, was at the sessions of 1787 and 1788, and was stationed in Baltimore in the interval of these sessions, and yet he nowhere speaks of them as General Conferences, but numbers them and reports them among the other annual sessions. This was an unpardonable oversight in the first historian of the Church, if they were General, not Annual Conferences. *(a)

5. But Lee, on the other hand, distinctly names the session of 1792 as "the first regular General Conference." If it be replied, that he meant, by the "first regular" session, only that it was the first of the series which, from 1792, met regularly every four years, but that the session in question was an irregular one, the rejoinder might properly be that there was no reason for any such discrimination, for the session in question (especially as adjourned to 1788) was held at the same distance of time before 1792 as the session of 1796 was after it. Other contemporary writers uniformly speak of the session of 1792 as "the first General Conference." *(b)

6. "Straws show which way the wind blows," says the familiar maxim; and sometimes, when the air is too still for any more conspicuous indicator to show its course, a feather, by its very lightness, can decide the question. There is a brief clause in Asbury's Journals which I think has a similar significance in the present case. We have seen that when Coke arrived in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1787, from the West Indies, on his way to the supposed General Conference, he was "very coolly" received by Asbury. Now it so happened that when James O'Kelly withdrew from the Church, five years later, in his pamphlet against Asbury he accused the bishop of all sorts of maladministration, etc., and among other charges said that he treated Coke at his arrival in Charleston with excessive "sharpness." About fourteen years after the alleged General Conference, Asbury, in noticing this pamphlet, says, "There was no sharpness at all upon my side with Dr. Coke, at Charleston, respecting the proposed General Conference, (which was afterward held in 1792.) I was fully convinced that nothing else would finish the unhappy business with O'Kelly, and that did finish It." *(c)

Evidently, then, Coke's "proposed General Conference" was not held in 1787 or 1788, but "afterward, in 1792." The session of 1792 was therefore not only "the first regular," but also the Second General Conference; there having been none before it since the first or Christmas session of 1784.

**********************************************

*(a) The phrase "General Conference" was, nevertheless, sometimes vaguely applied to Annual conferences, in the early days of the Church, to distinguish them from Quarterly Conferences.

*(b) William Burke, a leader of Western Methodism at this time, says: The first General Conference in the United States met early in the fall of this year." Autobiography in Finley's "Sketches of Western Methodism," p. 33. The session of 1784 was usually called the "Christmas Conference," and as it was a convention far a special purpose, it was not commonly called a General Conference, though it really was such, and is so named by early writers. See Lee's account of it in his "History."

*(c) Journals iii, 8.

---

Text scanned and proofread by Rev. & Mrs. Duane V. Maxey
Holiness Data Ministry
P. O. Box 482
Coeur D' Alene, WA 99208

HTML conversion by Paul Leclerc and George Lyons
Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology
of Northwest Nazarene University,
Nampa, Idaho 83686.

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided this notice is left intact.
This text may not be redistributed in any for-profit form or mirrored at any other website without the expressed, written consent of the Wesley Center.

If you have any questions regarding these files, please contact the Wesley Center for Applied Theology.