N

CHAPTER XV.

THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1792.

O official Minutes of this Conference are extant.

"The

Minutes of the General Conference for 1792," says Dr. McClintock, "were never printed to my knowledge, nor can I find the original copy." This is confirmed by Jesse Lee, who says in his History: "The proceedings of that Conference were not published in separate Minutes, but the alterations were entered at their proper places, and published in the next edition of the Form of Discipline." † The title of this eighth edition is, "The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, revised and approved at the General Conference held at Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, in November, 1792: in which Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury presided." This Discipline, Lee's History, Coke's and Asbury's Journals, together with the reminiscences of Ware, Garrettson, and Colbert, are our sole, but sufficient, sources, for the transactions of this First Quadrennial General Conference.

The attendance was large. Lee says that

Our preachers who had been received into full connection came together from all parts of the United States where we had any circuits formed, with an expectation that something of great importance would take place in the Connection in consequence of that Conference. The preachers generally thought that in all probability there would never be another Conference of that kind, at which all the preachers in connection might attend. The work was spreading through all the United States and the different Territories, and was likely to increase more and more, so that it was generally thought that this Conference would adopt some permanent regulations which would prevent the preachers in future from coming together in a General Conference. §

* Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 4.

In reply to some inquiries of Bishop Morris, in the Christian Advocate and Journal, in 1858, F. S. De Hass says, "We are happy to say that the Minutes are not entirely lost, and at some future day we may give the Minutes of these two important Conferences in full." So far as known, he has never done so, and as one of the "two important Conferences" is an alleged General Conference in 1788, we may despair of Mr. De Hass's possessing any Minutes of 1792. Title-page, Discipline of 1792; Emory, Hist. of Discipline, p. 88. Hist., pp. 176, 177.

17

(257)

Bishop Coke was just in time. He arrived in Baltimore at 9 P.M., Wednesday, October 31: the next morning the General Conference convened. Mr. Asbury and the preachers "had almost given me up," he writes. "Whilst we were sitting in the room at Mr. Rogers'," says Asbury, “in came Dr. Coke, of whose arrival we had not heard, and whom we embraced in great love." *

The first day was consumed in the adoption of rules of order, a precedent faithfully followed ever since. One of the regulations was, "It shall take two-thirds of all the members of the Conference to make a new rule [of Discipline], or abolish an old one; but a majority may alter or amend any rule." A business committee was appointed to mature and bring forward measures for the action of the Conference, with the idea of saving time, but, as its debates were repeated on the floor of the House, it was found useless, and first enlarged, and then dismissed; when "any preacher," says Lee," was at liberty to bring forward any motion." A rule of debate was, "That each person, if he choose, shall have liberty to speak three times on each motion."

On the second day, Friday, O'Kelly introduced his historic resolution, radically modifying the appointing power of the Bishops, and indirectly reflecting on Asbury's administration. It was framed in these words:

After the bishop appoints the preachers at Conference to their several circuits, if any one think 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.t

"I felt awful at the General Conference," writes Asbury, "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. Some individuals among the preachers having their jealousies about my influence in the Conference, I gave the matter wholly up to them,

*Journal, II. 146: Oct. 31, 1792. †Lee, Hist. of the Methodists, p. 178.

and to Dr. Coke, who presided: meantime I sent them the following letter:

"MY DEAR BRETHREN: 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 stay 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 bear 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 yours, etc.,

FRANCIS ASBURY."*

Under the presidency of Coke, therefore, with Asbury delicately retiring from the Conference room, and ill at his lodgings, the first great General Conference debate, on a point vital to episcopacy and itinerancy, proceeded. It was led by O'Kelly, Ivey, Hull, Garrettson, and Swift, speaking for the adoption of the resolution, and by Willis, Lee, Morrell, Everett, and Reed in opposition.† Lee declares, “the arguments, for and against the proposal, 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." He gives our only outline of the parliamentary proceedings:

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 as 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 an old rule. Of course after all these lengthy debates we were just where we began, and

* Journal, II. 146, 147. † Colbert's Journal

had to take up the question as it was proposed at first. 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.*

The Sunday intervening was a high day. In the morning Coke preached a "delightful sermon" on the Witness of the Spirit; in the afternoon O'Kelly discoursed on "Lord, increase our faith;" Henry Willis closed at night with an appropriate text from the Psalms.†

As Lee supplies us with the parliamentary details of the debate, so Thomas Ware, who was a member of the Conference, furnishes us with a résumé of the arguments employed:

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 other 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 case 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.

O'Kelly, on the defeat of his measure, at once abandoned his seat in the Conference and his place among the Methodists. Garrettson, who had been with O'Kelly in the pro

* Short Hist. of the Methodists, p. 179. † Colbert's Journal.