CHAPTER XI.

OUT OF THE OLD CENTURY INTO THE NEW.

COKE sailed for London on the 14th of May, 1791.

General protest compelled the bishops to consent to indefinite postponement of the Council; thus it was tacitly abolished, and none too soon, for it had "brought on such opposition in the minds of the preachers and people that it was hard to reconcile them one to another."

The General Conference assembled November 1, 1792, in Baltimore. No official record is extant; but Lee was present, and has preserved in his "History" a synopsis of the proceedings.

James O'Kelly, of Virginia, proposed a radical change, to the effect that "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."

O'Kelly became a Methodist preacher in 1778, was ordained in 1784, and sent to a region in which he had attained popularity, and where for the eight years preceding this conference he had continued as presiding elder. He had come into note as a representative of the preachers against the authority and life-tenure of the superintendents, and was supported in his propositions by Freeborn Garrettson, Richard Ivey, Hope Hull, and others of equal

weight. The chief debaters on the other side were Henry Willis, Jesse Lee, Thomas Morrell, Joseph Everett, and Nelson Reed.

Lee and Ware state that the arguments for and against the proposition were weighty, and handled in a masterly way. Asbury's account of the matter is:

"Some individuals among the preachers having their jealousies about my influence in the conference, I gave the matter wholly up to them 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 brother 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 brother;" and sometimes, "We will not have such a brother; 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 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 other things so in this, a future day may give you further light. I am,

666 'Yours, etc.,

"FRANCIS Asbury.''

Ware says that when the proposition was broached he did not see anything objectionable in it; but when it came

O'KELLY'S DISCOMFIture.

341

to be debated, he disliked the spirit of those who advocated it, and wondered at their severity against what they had formerly defended. "Some of them said that it was a shame for a man to accept of such a lordship, much more to claim it. . . . 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, . . . but he could not.

O'Kelly's opponents replied that such assertions were reflections upon Wesley, who founded the plan and executed it until his death, and that to allow the appeal would make the itinerancy impracticable.

Ware thus concluded an interesting report of the debate: Hearing all that was said on both sides, I was finally convinced that the motion for such an appeal ought not to carry." 1

On the final vote O'Kelly's proposition was defeated by a large majority.

The next morning a letter was received from him and others, informing the conference that, because an appeal from the decision of a superintendent in the making of appointments was not to be allowed, they could no longer sit with the body. Garrettson and two others were appointed to treat with him. He remained in the city, and had an interview with Bishop Coke, raising many objections against him and against the conference; the committee could not prevail, and he and the preachers whom he was able to persuade set off for Virginia.

The conference revised the Form of Discipline, but made no alterations affecting the essentials of doctrine and discipline. It was decided to convene another General Conference in four years, and that all traveling preachers who should at that time be in full connection should be entitled

1 "Memoir of Rev. Thomas Ware," pp. 221, 222.

to a seat. Provision was made for the formation of districts, which was committed to the judgment of the bishops, who also were to appoint the time of holding district conferences. In the event of the death of bishops, or of their inability to travel through the districts, they should be regulated in every respect by the conference or presiding elders, ordination excepted. A rule was made for the trial of bishops, and the office of presiding elder was defined and made legal. For several years prior to this such officers had been appointed by the bishop, though some doubted his power to make such appointments.

The first rule limiting by time the tenure of a particular class of ministers was enacted at this conference; it provided that the bishops should not have power to appoint an elder to preside in the same district more than four successive years.

When the conference adjourned, Asbury hastened to the center of conflict in Virginia. O'Kelly had already induced William McKendree and several other preachers to decline to go to their appointments. By wise management Asbury effected a temporary compromise, which included a proposition to give O'Kelly, whose health was impaired, forty pounds per annum, the amount which he received as a presiding elder, provided he would forbear to excite divisions. He accepted the offer, and for some time received the appropriation, but afterward relinquished it.

The contests between the Republicans and Federalists were strenuous and exciting. The Republicans prevailed, and O'Kelly formed a church with the title of Republican Methodists. One traveling and several local preachers agreed with him, and they held conference after conference, promising great privileges to lay members. In some places they led away whole societies, and in others threw the church into confusion. Some meeting-houses they seized,