History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

Asbury's "despotic" course, as O'Kelly called it, had ripened the preachers for a revolt, and probably
suggested that, if he would come over and head it, Coke's past grievances with Asbury might find
redress. Why are these surmises indulged? Because facts will soon be developed that make them
morally certain. Lee's summing up of the whole matter is worth reproducing, as the writer's statement
[5]
of the Council plan is intended to be the fullest ever yet given the Methodist people: "This Council
determined to have another meeting two years from that time. But their proceedings gave such
dissatisfaction to our connection in general, and to some of the traveling preachers in particular, that
they were forced to abandon the plan. And there has never since been a meeting of the kind. The
most violent opposer of the Council among the traveling preachers was at first one of that body —
James O'Kelly. While he was at the first Council, he appeared to be united to the plan and to the
members; but after he returned to Virginia, he exclaimed bitterly against the proceedings and against
what he himself had done in the business. He refused to have any thing at all to do with the second
Council. The supposition respecting the sudden change in the old man, and his hasty conduct in
condemning what he had just before sanctioned, was that he went to the first Council with some
expectation of being promoted in the Church; but, finding himself disappointed, he returned home
mortified. We have sufficient reason to believe that the establishment of the Council was very
injurious to the Methodist connection. The plan produced such difficulties in the minds of the
preachers and the people, and brought on such opposition, that it was hard to reconcile them one to
another. Nothing could or would give satisfaction to the people but the calling together all the
traveling preachers in a general conference; to which, after some time, the bishop consented."
A few comments are called for on this summing up. The charge that O'Kelly's motive for
opposing the Council after having taken part in the first one was disappointed ambition, was covered
by him in his "Apology" published fifteen years before Lee's "History," and with which Lee must
have been acquainted, as it was widely circulated and more extensively read by preachers and people.
He meets this charge that "he left them because he missed his expectation at the Council, where and
when he expected to be ordained bishop. . . . I can appeal to the Lord, and am ready now to be
qualified, that the man hath belied me to my face," etc. Let this be set over against Lee's charge as
echoed from others. The charge is all the more to be regretted inasmuch as it can be well established
that Lee himself cherished the expectation under encouragement from Asbury, until his defeat by
Whatcoat settled the American Episcopal "succession" through him. And it may be generally
observed that much such crimination and recrimination, imputation of motive, and aspersion of
character will be disclosed in the future of this History, specially during the great controversy of
1820-30, from which neither party was entirely free. It goes for the saying, however, that the
autocratic and oligarchic systems are surpassingly eminent for fostering scheming ambitions for
place and power. It creates grades, and holds out prizes to the aspiring. It is indeed the cohesive
cement of all hierarchies but for it they would drop to pieces both in Church and State. Another
remark upon Lee's summing up is that he paints in mild colors the damaging results of the Council
plan. The agitation, the alienation, the coercion, the resistance, both directly and prospectively, in
the O'Kelly schism, cannot be measured for injury to the Kingdom of Christ as represented by
Methodism; while the responsibility comes directly home to the Asburyan system, and is in support
of the postulate that to Paternalism in American Methodism must be traced constant internal
upheaval and its numerous denominational divisions. The Council plan was the climax of autocratic
assumption, and from its dizzy height Asbury had his first ecclesiastical fall. No reader of the full
and, as is claimed, impartial account of it these pages have traced, can reach any other conclusion.