History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

White's, where about twenty preachers met together to hold a Conference." It must have been that
he named the place and time, and invited those who came. It was the way Wesley did for long years,
the Conference was made of those whom he invited, and for any other to attend was an
insubordination. There is no record as to who they were. Jesse Lee's "History" says of it: "1781 —
On the 24th of April the ninth Conference met in Baltimore. But previous to this a few preachers on
the Eastern Shore held a 'little conference' in Delaware state, near Choptank, to make some
arrangements for those preachers who could not go with them; and then adjourned (as they called
it) to Baltimore; so upon the whole it was considered but one Conference." The italicized words and
the parenthetic sentence are Lee's. They smack of contempt. It will be remembered that the "History"
was written in 1809-10, ten years after his defeat for the bishopric. He had been encouraged by
Asbury with his influence for the position. Henry Boehm says: "They elected Richard Whatcoat
bishop, he having a majority of four votes over Jesse Lee. I witnessed the excitement attending the
different ballotings. The first, no election; the second, a tie; the third, Richard Whatcoat was
[2]
elected." It was a great disappointment to Lee, and he became afterward enough of a reformer to
tell some things in his "History" Asbury did not relish, as will be seen farther on. Neither is there
record as to what was done. It may be safely assumed that Asbury felt the pulse of them all, gauged
them, and gave some hints of their appointments. Though there is no record of it, the circumstances
make it probable that they largely journeyed together to Baltimore. His notice of the Conference in
his Journal is almost as brief as that of the preliminary one. "Our Conference began in Baltimore,
where several of the preachers attended from Virginia and North Carolina. All but one agreed to
return to the old plan, and give up the administration of the ordinances: our troubles now seem over
from that quarter; and there appears to be a considerable change in the preachers from North to
South; all was conducted in peace and love." Turning to the printed Minutes it is found that
thirty-nine preachers were in attendance out of fifty-four. A number of young men were received at
this Conference. It seems that there were forty in all present, thirty-nine subscribing to the question
which brought them again under Asbury's yoke. "What preachers are now determined after mature
deliberation, close observation, and earnest prayer, to preach the old Methodist doctrine, and strictly
enforce the discipline, as contained in the notes, sermons, and minutes published by Mr. Wesley, as
far as they respect both preachers and people, according to the knowledge we have of them, and the
ability God shall give, and firmly resolved to discountenance a separation among either preachers
or people?" Jesse Lee says, "Most part, if not all, the preachers 'subscribed,'" but he was not present,
not yet having been received.
Asbury, as found, says that "all but one" agreed. Who was this stanch dissenter? He is named by
no one of the early annalists, but an examination of the minutes brings to light the fact that James
O'Kelly's name disappears from the roll with this session, neither is he among those "who desist from
travel," which now appears among the questions for the second time. They were Dickins, Tatum,
Moore, Green, and Ruff, mostly because married men; for in these days, though plenty of young men
offered, in three to five or, in rare cases, in ten years they located. O'Kelly returned home an
unreconciled dissenter. Next to Asbury, and perhaps Watters, he was the most influential preacher
in the connection. The sequel of this act is yet eleven years in the future. The statistics show 10,539
members, a gain of 2000, the principal increase being in Delaware, now returned at 1052 as against
150 the year before, Lee says, by reason of great revivals. Asbury, it appears, was not satisfied with
the prior reason for a preliminary Conference as given, the accommodation of the preachers, so the
additional question is asked, "Is there any precedent for this in the economy of Methodism? Answer,