History Of Methodist Reform, Volume I - Media Sabda Org

already stated, in 1792 about fifty-eight; so he survived that General Conference thirty-four years,
and Asbury ten years, being his senior about twelve years. His after career to the period under
consideration has been sufficiently traced. The imputation of false doctrine was broadcast by the
unfriendly. How it came to be linked so closely with his name and that of his followers in later years
will be seen in the sequel of his history and the denomination here presented.
After the Conference in Surry County, Va., in 1794, the new organization pursued its way with
the fluctuations of fortune common to secessions among Methodists. The work was manned largely
from the locality until preachers arose out of the converts of many successful revival meetings held
by the Republican Methodists. O'Kelly cannot be regarded as an able constructionist, so that the
gathered forces were of slight structure. Jealousies and bickerings grew apace among them, owing
to diverse views and many other causes of distraction. In the neighborhoods where it carried most
of the old Methodists with it the work prospered; but where there was division the strife was
continuous, and the communities were vexed with the controversies of embittered partisans. O'Kelly
issued pamphlet after pamphlet, which were answered by the friends of Asbury with the logical
advantage so greatly with the New Side that Lee and Asbury were both stirred to replication. The
former, however, never published his manuscript, anticipated probably by the voluminous
preparations Asbury made, but which he also hesitated to publish. As late as July, 1798, he writes:
"Mr. O'Kelly hath now published to the world what he hath been telling to his disciples for years.
Mr. Hammett was moderate; Glendenning not very severe; but James hath turned the butt-end of his
whip and is unanswerably abusive: the Lord judge between us! And he certainly will in that day of
days." And later still, September, 1799: "James O'Kelly hath sent out another pamphlet, and
propounds terms of union himself for the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists.
I ask in turn, what will James give up? His Unitarian errors? . . . I am now more fully satisfied
than ever that his book is not worth answering." So it is seen that if O'Kelly could use the butt of his
whip Asbury knew how to parry and thrust. A Unitarian! Whatever else he was, if to be a Unitarian
is to deny the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, then he was the last remove possible from being one,
as will be exposed presently. Probably Asbury took no pains to be better informed — he joined in
the hue and cry. And he did answer him, forging out the arguments, but hiding himself under a
proxy. Lacking some of the elements of effective leadership, O'Kelly could not control other
aspirants within the new Church. Extremes were advocated, factions arose, and one of them
convened in Charlotte County, a stronghold of the seceders, and organized on a plan of their own.
Amid these distractions not a few returned to the old Church and others were scattered for lack of
proper pastoral oversight. There was much in the movement that was educating in two directions:
first, as deprecatory of premature schism; and second, in sowing liberal principles and enfranchising
the laity, an influence which was subsequently felt throughout the whole Methodist Church. So
matters continued until the meeting of the General Conference of 1796. It and concurrent salient
events in the Methodist Episcopal Church shall receive attention later, so as not to break the
continuity of the O'Kellyite history, one action of the Conference excepted as a part of it. It has
already been cited — a slur and slander unworthy of the Conference.
It is time to group the concluding events of this divisional struggle. John Dickins entered the fray
with a pamphlet, in 1795, in which the extremist positions as to the Episcopacy were taken, and, as
may be inferred from his abilities, with much plausibility. From the General Conference of 1796, in