History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

Now cull from O'Kelly's "Apology" some of the unpublished proceedings in and out of the first
Council. He says (the reader will make some allowance for the lapse of memory, perhaps, in some
things, and the fiery blood of this pious and able Irish-American), "Francis refused two worthy
ministers a seat in Council, in his absolute manner, without rendering any reason for so doing." Who
were they? It is unknown. He says of the plan as Asbury unfolded it, "a few sentences at a time": "I
confess that on one side it discovers weakness, and on the other hand policy. But as we were men
under authority, we feared to offend our superior. He would often pray that God would deliver the
preachers from the curse of suspicion. This prayer had the desired effect on some of us. . . . However,
I told Francis that, instead of counselors, we were his tools, and that I disliked to be a tool to any
man." After the Council O'Kelly and Edward Morris traveled homeward together, and made critical
examination of the plan. "In observing the contents, we discovered a new constitution of a very
despotic nature. Nine men could act as the legislature, but the Bishop had the negative on the
Council for time to come. Edward signified to me that he would not travel under such a government,
and went straightway and married a virtuous damsel, and located himself as others have also done."
O'Kelly now attempted to beard the lion, and wrote Asbury a letter, of which he gives a glimpse:
"Brother, you know our infant state, grant us one year to consider the matter coming before us. Or,
if you refuse this, take away your negative — and if you refuse, 'I shall as a duty I owe to the Church
use mine influence,' etc." "Francis received my letter by the hand of the messenger, but he utterly
refused to comply with my request. He answered me after this manner 'Thy letter greatly alarmed me,
but pray who boldly demands my negative? My negative is my own. I never have received such a
check from any preacher in America.'" Had the Council plan as presented to the Conferences
expressly or by implication given him a negative? It had not, it would have been equivalent to its
rejection even by these subservient preachers; but no sooner had it assembled than Asbury asserted
his negative on any proceedings that did not please him. Whence its source then? Far back in 1777,
when the little group of preachers he called together to circumvent the Fluvanna brethren agreed that
he should have a virtual negative, and he never surrendered it to the day of his death.
The next year Asbury modified the plan and carried it with him to the Conferences for approval.
When he reached that at Petersburg, Va., it was submitted, and O'Kelly says, "I easily discovered that
in every alteration he took care to secure his power." A private caucus of the preachers was held,
"and we all the next morning came before the president, in number about twenty-one, if I remember
right. The president proposed it as above stated, and we all (except two) with one voice rejected it
altogether. Then answered Francis and said, 'ye have all spoken out of one mouth.' Henceforth 'ye
are all out of the union.' Then as one in distress he gathered up his papers; so ended the Conference
without prayer. The young ministers wept. I was struck with astonishment to find that we were all
expelled the union, by the arbitrary voice of one man; for no offense but voting according to our own
matured judgment! We could have appealed to the people of our care, and produced our godly
character, but ah, no! the people have no power to help themselves! Now I began to see!" O'Kelly
proposed the call of a convention, two from each district, but Asbury would not hear to it. O'Kelly
proposed that he should be allowed to visit and submit his arguments to the northern Conferences,
but Asbury rejected this also. O'Kelly concludes: "The interpretation is this; nineteen ministers, I
believe called and approved of by God, and beloved by the people, were expelled the union of the
Church, containing sixty or seventy thousand souls, by the voice of Francis. Is the like of this to be
found in the annals of history? Should it be said that our expulsion was a natural consequence, or