EV. JAMES O'KELLY was born in the year 1734, and died in Chatham county, North Carolina, in the triumphs of faith, on the evening of the 16th of October, 1826, in the 92nd year of his age.

      He married Elizabeth Meeks about the year 1759, and they settled in Chatham county, North Carolina. Two sons, John and William, were born to them. Mr. O'Kelly lived on a farm the deed for which stands recorded in the Court proceedings of Chatham county. He also owned a mill. Likewise his will is on record at Pittsboro in Chatham county. He wills his sons, John and William, $5.00 and $10.00 respectively, in addition to what they have had, and the balance of his estate to his wife.

      In the beginning of this year (1774), Robert Williams began to form societies in Virginia and made out a plan for a six weeks' circuit which extended from Petersburg to the south over Roanoke river, some distance into North Carolina. From the Conference, three preachers came to that circuit, John King, John Wade and Isaac Rollings: these preachers were blessed among the people and were made a blessing to them in their turn, and in the latter part of the year, there was a most remarkable revival of religion in most parts of the circuit. Christians were much united, and much [1] devoted to God, and sinners were greatly alarmed, and many of them truly changed in both heart and life. . . . . Indeed the Lord wrought wonders among us during that year." We have no account of 1775, but in May, 1776, at the fourth Conference, in Baltimore, the North Carolina circuit which had been formed was added to the Methodists. It was about that time that the Methodist preachers went through that section and Mrs. O'Kelly and one or both of her sons were converted. It is said that William, though only twelve years of age, desired to preach, but that his father dissuaded him from the idea. Soon the father was converted and forthwith began to preach. The tradition is that Mr. O'Kelly said that he dissuaded his son from preaching and the Lord imposed the obligation upon him. Regarding the revival of 1776, it is said, "It continued to spread through the southern parts of Virginia, and the adjacent parts of North Carolina, all that summer and autumn."

      It is written, "There were no ministers among the Methodists in America who had been ordained. They were authorized by the Methodist societies to preach, were sent on circuits; but were only laymen in the Episcopal church. There were none ordained to the orders of Deacon, or Priest (Elder). They took baptism and the Lord's supper only from Episcopal priests. Now it was January 2, 1775,¹ that James O'Kelly was licensed or authorized to preach, and sent on a circuit." "If Mr. O'Kelly was baptized, as doubtless he was, it was by an Episcopalian; and certain equally it is, that Mr. O'Kelly always took the Lord's supper from an Episcopalian priest." One pious and godly Jarratt is [2] mentioned. He made stated visits among the Methodists for the purpose of baptizing and administering the Lord Is supper.² "He traveled with Mr. O'Kelly to his societies for this purpose." "Now let the historic fact be remembered, that from January 2, 1775, when Mr. O'Kelly became a Methodist Lay Preacher, down to the Christmas Conference at Baltimore, . . . . he was a layman--a member of the Episcopalian church as it is commonly called.³ But he appears for the first time in the Conference minutes in 1778, and it is said that he remained on trial, which implies that he had previously entered the itinerant service.

      The Rev. Mr. O'Kelly's life "was one of those monuments of the transforming power of divine grace, so constantly springing up under that immortal band of evangelists, known as Methodist Lay Preachers, who subjected the wilderness of America to the benign sway of Christianity, and a higher religious life. The story of their bold and good deeds for the salvation of human souls, reads like a romance of the romantic age of chivalry. They have never received their just dues. They were the men who conquered this wild country, as it then was, unto the cross of Christ. Mr. O'Kelly's conversion from a wicked life was one of those romantic episodes that embellish the pages on which their glory is to be written." "When the Methodist preachers came into the Cedar Creek country, Elizabeth, his wife was at once converted and joined the society. His son, William O'Kelly, then only twelve years old, likewise was converted and joined. He felt even at that young [3] age that he ought to preach. He conversed with his father who dissuaded him from it, alleging his great youth, and that he might in the heat and ardor of youth fall from the high position. William desisted--went up into the New Hope valley in Chatham, to a Methodist preaching place somewhere on the hill where Mr. Thomas J. Herndon now resides, married Miss Mary E. Merritt," a daughter of Mr. William Merritt, a Methodist, and he settled there. (William O'Kelly was born April 29, 1763; was married March 27, 1787, and died the 24th of December, 1820, aged 57 years, 7 months and 24 days. Mrs. Mary E. Merritt O'Kelly died in 1852, at the advanced age of 84 years.) William O'Kelly entered the arena of politics and represented Chatham county frequently in both houses of the State Legislature; first in 1805 in the House of Commons, and in 1818 in the Senate.⁴ The name of John O'Kelly appears in the Court records of Norfolk county, Portsmouth, Virginia, 1795-1796, in Clerk's office.

      It will be observed that Mr. O'Kelly was about forty years of age when he was converted and became a preacher. Governor Swain, in communicating to the Rev. Dr. Caruthers an account of the Slingsby affair, and published in Caruthers's "Old North State in 1776," speaks of Mr. O'Kelly as "the young Methodist preacher." This is related, "The anecdote of the Methodist preacher, which you wished me to relate, I had from the old gentleman's own lips. Mr. O'Kelly, then a young Methodist preacher, when traveling over the country and preaching, was taken at the house of a friend or an acquaintance, by a small party of Tories. His horse and saddle-bags were taken from him, and he was tied to a peach tree. A party of Whigs coming up just at the time, a skirmish ensued; and although he was between the two fires, he was not hurt. Before this skirmish [4] was ended, Colonel Slingsby came up with a larger party of men, and the Whigs were dispersed. Recognizing O'Kelly, the Colonel asked him to preach for them, which he did, and drawing up his men in good order he stood with his head uncovered, during the whole service. Mr. O'Kelly said, when relating this anecdote to me, 'Ah! child, your grandfather was a gentleman.' An old lady who was well acquainted with Mr. O'Kelly, tells me, that the man at whose house he was taken, was also taken, bound to the same tree, and killed in the skirmish. She had heard him relate the anecdote frequently--I only once."⁵ Mr. O'Kelly was at the time of the Slingsby affair, 1781, a young preacher, having been preaching only some five or six years; but by no means was he a young man. "At the time of the Slingsby sermon, he must have been near forty-five years old."

      At Leesburg in Virginia, in 1778, the sixth Conference was held, and the Fluvanna circuit was added, and the one circuit in North Carolina, the Carolina circuit, was divided into three, the Roanoke, Tar River, and New Hope. It was he that had laid the foundation of New Hope circuit in Orange, Chatham, and Wake counties. The minutes of 1779 show that he and Philip Adams were stationed on the New Hope circuit. While on this circuit he extended his labor's down the Cape Fear river, which section was later united with others to form the Bladen circuit.

      This Conference, the Conference in Fluvanna county, in 1779, was regular in its appointment and orderly in its proceedings. None of its minutes were retained except the record as to stationing the preachers and the "term of trial." From the acts of this Conference, it is evident that not only O'Kelly but most all the preachers of Virginia, North Carolina and Maryland had imbibed something of the spirit of independence which was in [5] Robert Strawbridge, the first to plant Methodism on the continent of America. From what source this independence, if not from the conditions developing in society or from such a thinker and worker as Strawbridge? "In the first Annual Conference that ever sat, Strawbridge won the day."

      The measures enacted at the Conference and the circumstances which lead up to them, are not explicitly stated in the histories of the times. While the preachers met in conferences, they were simply laymen in the Episcopal church, authorized and sent out by the Methodist societies. The Revolutionary War was raging in the land, and ministers who had come over from England had all returned except Francis Asbury who was in concealment at Judge White's in the State of Delaware.⁶

      The clergy of the Episcopal church, as a rule, were corrupt, and there were none who were authorized to administer the ordinances of the church, none to marry the living, none to bury the dead. These matters had been considered at the Leesburg Conference, and deferred to the next conference for action. O'Kelly says, "And in those days, when the number of disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring among the people and southern preachers, with respect to the ordinances: for the old church had corrupted herself. The southern preachers had a meeting on the occasion, in the county of Fluvanna, about the year 1779. And after we were come together for to consider the matter, and there had been much disputing, John, whose surname was Dickens, made appear from Scripture, that a Presbytery, and not an Episcopacy, was the divine order. Then it pleased the Conference to form a Presbytery, and ordain Elders. We went out in the name of the Lord, and the pleasure of the Lord prospered in our hands." Does the reader ask who they were? We [6] will answer later. These by the action of Asbury's Conference in Baltimore, April 24, 1780, were excluded from the Methodist societies. "Does this whole Conference disapprove the steps our brethren have taken in Virginia? Yes. Do we look upon them no longer as Methodists in connection with Mr. Wesley and us until they come back? Agreed." The condition of return was the suspension of the administration of the ordinances. It was agreed to refer the grievances to Mr. Wesley, and at the Manakintown Conference, in Powhatan county, Virginia, in 1780, it was also agreed to suspend the administration of the ordinances until Mr. Wesley could be heard from. At the Conference in Baltimore, April 24, 1781, the answer was in hand. All agreed but one to return to the old plan and give up the administration of the ordinances. If present, "O'Kelly returned home an unreconciled dissenter." But in 1780 Asbury made a conciliatory tour among the Virginia and North Carolina brethren. Reaching Cypress Chapel in Nansemond county, Virginia, he says, "Here James O'Kelly met me; he spoke, and appears to be a warm-hearted, good man; but he was troubled with the people about these times." A day or two later Asbury makes a statement in his Journal as to O'Kelly's labors. (It is to be borne in mind that Mr. O'Kelly had been appointed to the Tar River circuit by the Conference in 1780 in Fluvanna county.) Under date of July 9, 1780, he says, "Preached at Green Hill's to about four hundred souls, on Thes. 2:4. The subject was new, the people dead. James O'Kelly spoke on 'Have ye understood all these things.' He raised high and was very affecting, but to little purpose. There are evils here; the meeting was not solemn, the women appeared to be full of dress, the men full of news. These people are gospel slighters. I fear some heavy stroke will, me on them. James O'Kelly and myself enjoyed and comforted each [7] other. This dear man rose at midnight and prayed very devoutly for me and himself. He cries, 'Give me children, or I die!' But I believe no preaching or preacher will do much good at present." This place is about one mile south of Louisburg in Franklin county, North Carolina.

      In 1782, the Conference met at Ellis's meeting house in Sussex county, Virginia, and he was stationed in Mecklenburg county. Likewise in 1783, the Conference met at Ellis's house. Both these Conferences held adjourned meetings in Baltimore. Mr. O'Kelly was appointed as an assistant and stationed in Brunswick county. The twelfth Conference began at Ellis's chapel in Virginia April 30, 1784, and closed in Baltimore May 28th. At this Conference in Virginia both O'Kelly and the Rev. Jarratt preached. Mr. O'Kelly was stationed in Sussex county, Virginia.

      In 1784, there was held in Baltimore the Conference known as the "Christmas Conference," which was opened in Lovely Lane chapel, December 24th, at 10 o'clock A. M. Mr. Wesley had prepared an abridgment of the Book of Common Prayer which was printed, and sent over with Dr. Coke, Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey. Mr. Wesley also sent a letter dated "Bristol, September 10, 1784," which was addressed to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury and our brethren in North America. He says, "I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to be joint superintendents over our brethren in North America. As also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey to act as elders among them, by baptizing and administering the Lord's Supper." To put in operation this paragraph and other directions given in the letter, the Conference was called. After the ordination of Mr. Asbury, thirteen elders were chosen, all of whom (except two set apart later) were ordained respectively deacon and elder. At least six [8] of the number, LeRoy Cole, Nelson Reed, Reuben Ellis, Richard Ivey, Henry Willis, and James O'Kelly, had been ordained by the presbytery at the "regular" Conference in 1779 in Fluvanna county. Now Thomas Coke was ordained a superintendent by three presbyters, likewise was Francis Asbury; therefore any presbyterial church can easily become episcopal in government. Thus the societies became an organized church, and the Thirty-nine Articles as abridged by Wesley together with the abridged Prayer Book became the doctrinal basis of the new church. The Prayer Book, or as it was entitled "The Sunday Services of the Methodists in the United States of America," which Rev. James O'Kelly used, was a copy of this, and was doubtless obtained at the Baltimore Christmas Conference, possibly presented to him on the occasion of his ordination there or procured soon after. He was appointed to the district which consisted of Amelia, Bedford, and Orange circuits.

      In 1786, the Virginia Conference met at Laine's Chapel in Sussex county, and he was appointed to preside over Guilford, Halifax, and Mecklenburg circuits. This year James Haw and Benjamin Ogden were sent to Kentucky, but when Mr. O'Kelly withdrew they joined him. In 1787, the Conference in Virginia was held at Rough Creek church in Charlotte county, and his district embraced Bladen, New River, Tar River, Roanoke, Mecklenburg, Brunswick, Sussex and Amelia. It was at this Conference Asbury opposed the appointing of a joint superintendent. In 1781 the Conference met in Petersburg, and his district embraced Anson, Bertie, Camden, Portsmouth, Sussex and Brunswick. The Conference met again in Petersburg, in 1789, and his district embraced Amelia, Mecklenburg, Bedford, Orange, Hanover, Williamsburg, Halifax, Cumberland, Brunswick, Greenville, Bertie, Camden, Portsmouth [9] and Sussex. This year the "Council" composed of the Bishop and Presiding Elders, was held at Baltimore (Cokesbury), on the 1st of December, 1789; it was devised to meet the demands of the times, but it utterly failed. Mr. O'Kelly is said to have taken an active part in the transaction of its business, but it is well known that he soon threw the weight of his influence against it. Asbury proposed that no preaching house should be built without first obtaining the liberty of the Conference." This was opposed by O'Kelly as being an invasion of the people's "civil as well as religious liberties." No Methodist historian alludes to the cause of his opposition. He did not attend the second Council, and the third failed to meet. The Council found little favor amongst the preachers generally. In 1790, '91, and '92, he was returned to the same district as the one he had presided over in 1789. The changes were very slight, Surry, Greenbrier, and one or two other circuits being mentioned. "Throughout this territory, O'Kelly was highly esteemed and beloved. His labors were greatly blessed in the conviction and conversion of sinners, and the hearts of the preachers and the people were greatly drawn to him. No other man wielded so powerful influence over the people of this section; no man enjoyed more entirely the public confidence."

      There had not been held since 1784 a General Conference. It was to avoid this holding of a Conference that Asbury planned the Council. James O'Kelly was among the foremost to oppose the committing of the church to so few hands, and by letters influenced Dr. Coke against the Council. And in 1792, a General Conference was convened in Baltimore on the 1st of November. Mr. O'Kelly had complained of the power of the bishop, and the main business was made to be the revision of the "Discipline" of the church. Mr. O'Kelly objected to what he termed the "one man [10] power of the episcopacy, and also objected to the term "bishop." In his Journal, January, 12, Asbury says, "I received a letter from the presiding elder of this district, James O'Kelly. He makes heavy complaints of my power and bids me stop for one year, or he must use his influence against me." Again, August 21, 1791, he writes, "I received the olive branch from Virginia. All is peace: it was obtained by a kind letter from me to O'Kelly."

      The letter that elicited such a conciliatory reply stands recorded thus: "Let all past conduct between thee and me be buried, and 'never come before Conference or elsewhere.' 'Send me the dove.' I saw thy face was not towards me in all the Council, therefore, I did not treat thee with that respect due to one who has suffered so much for the cause of truth and liberty. I wrote to the Doctor that if he came here again, he would see trouble." Asbury's object seemed to be to separate O'Kelly and Coke that he might conquer.

      Later Thomas Coke says he prevailed on O'Kelly with his thirty-six preachers to remain in the connection, and submit, the matter in dispute to a General Conference; and Asbury says the General Conference was called for this purpose. The Council matter, that is, the review of its acts, was the impelling cause, but it was not permitted to be brought to light. The attention of the General Conference was directed to the revision of the Discipline. First, the Conference was prepared against any foreseen "peradventures" by adopting a two-thirds rule; that is, that no change could be made in rules of the Discipline without a two-thirds vote concurring. On Friday, the second day of the Conference, Mr. O'Kelly, introduced his resolution, modifying the appointing power of the bishop, as follows:

      "After the bishop appoints the preachers at Conference to their several circuits, if any one think himself [11] 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."

      In this discussion the ablest men of American Methodism were arrayed against each other; O'Kelly, Ivey, Hull, Garrettson, and Swift, speaking for the adoption of the resolution, and Willis, Lee, Morrell, Everett, and Reed in opposition. Lee declares that "the arguments, for and against the proposal, were weighty and handled in a masterly manner. There never had been a subject before us that so fully called forth all the strength of the preachers." At first a large majority seemed to favor the motion. John Dickens moved to divide the question thus: 1. Shall the bishop appoint the preachers to the circuits? 2. Shall the preacher be allowed an appeal? After some debate the dividing of the question was carried. The first question being put there was not a dissenting voice. But on the second, this difficulty arose as to whether it was a new rule, or an amendment. By a vote it was decided to be an amendment. After all this discussion and parliamentary tactics, the question had to be taken up as proposed at first. Thus two days had been spent on the subject of "appeal." The next day being Sunday, Coke preached in the morning a "delightful sermon" on the witness of the Spirit; in the afternoon O'Kelly discoursed on "Lord, increase our faith." On Monday the debate began afresh, and continued through the day; at night they went to Otterbein's church where it was continued until near bedtime, when the vote was taken and the motion lost.

      The Rev. Thomas Ware, who was a member of the General Conference of 1792, describes this extraordinary debate thus:

      "When the adjustment of the powers of the officers [12] in church or state is the subject of reflection we are not always certain how far we ought to yield ourselves in voluntary submission. We may give up too much--more than the object is worth or the exigency of the case requires. Had Mr. O'Kelly's proposition been differently managed it might possibly have been carried. For myself, at first I did not see anything very objectionable in it. But when it came to be debated I very much disliked the spirit of those who advocated it and wondered at the severity in which the movers and others who spoke in favor of it indulged in the course of their remarks. Some of them' said that 'it was a shame for a man to accept of such lordship, much more to claim it;' and that they 'who would submit to this absolute dominion must forfeit all claims to freedom, and ought to have their ears bored through with an awl, and be fastened to their master's door and become slaves for life.' 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 if they chose, but for his part he must be excused for saying he could not.'

      "The advocates of the opposite side were more dispassionate and argumentative. They, urged that 'Mr. Wesley, the father of the Methodist family, had devised the plan, and deemed it essential for the preservation of the itinerancy.' They said that, 'according to the showing of Brother O'Kelly, Mr. Wesley, if he were living, ought to blush, for he claimed the right to station the preachers to the day of his death.' 'The appeal,' it was argued, 'was rendered impracticable on account of the many serious difficulties with which it was incumbered. Should one preacher appeal and the Conference say his appointment should be altered, the bishop must remove some other one to make him room; in which case the other could complain and appeal in his turn; and then again the first might appeal from the new appointment, [13] or others whose appointments these successive alterations might interrupt.' Hearing all that was said on both sides, I was finally convinced that the motion for such an appeal ought not to carry."

      On the next day, Tuesday, "James O'Kelly wrote a letter to the Conference, that he should leave the traveling connection on account of the vote that was taken the night before. When the letter was read, many of the preachers wept heartily." Lee says further, "It was a sorrowful day to me, yet I could say, 'The will of the Lord be done.'" A committee was at once appointed to wait upon him and induce him to come back. Garrettson, who was with O'Kelly in the proposed reform, was one of the committee. He says of the interview: "Many tears were shed, but we were not able to reconcile him to the decision of the Conference. His wound was deep, and apparently incurable." Dr. Coke was much displeased, and said he, "I am obliged to extend charity towards O'Kelly and others: they have done violence to their public faith, because they promised to abide by the decision of this Conference!" One arose and declared that the assertion was entirely wrong. Then arose Thomas [Coke] in great warmth, and bound it with an 'affirmation.'" To Coke wrote O'Kelly, "O sir, reverse the case; it was thyself that acted thus. 'T is you that betrayed thy trust to me and others." In reply Coke asked to meet O'Kelly and the Virginia preachers at candle light, and promised satisfaction. They met and O'Kelly says, "I rehearsed his former engagements with me and others, and I considered such treatment exceeding cruel. Stephen Davis not only charged him [Coke] of being guilty of false assertions, but 'vulgar swearing.' I was grieved at the hard speech. The Doctor appeared very calm." According to his usual method in such cases, Coke confessed his errors, charging himself with false zeal, and asked ten thousand [14] pardons. Then privately he enquired of O'Kelly on what terms he would return to the Conference. O'Kelly replied, "In my distress--for peace's sake, only let an injured man have an appeal, and I will return." He answered and said, "That cannot be granted." Consequently O'Kelly never returned.

      As a further evidence of Coke's false friendship for O'Kelly, the following letter, written by him while delayed in Delaware on account of sickness, is given:

TO BROTHER O'KELLY:

      Dear Friend,--I have written a letter of a sheet and a half to you, but on consideration I believe I shall not send it to you till I reach Europe; then I shall probably write as much again to you. By this time you probably have been informed of our great loss in the death of Mr. Wesley. I am hastening to Europe in this important crisis. You may depend on my being with you, God willing, at the General Conference. I think no step will be taken during my absence to prevent the General Conference; it would be so gross an insult on truth, justice, mercy, and peace, that it will not be, I think, attempted. If it be so, and successfully, we will call a congress.

      I expect you to be faithful. But as Mordecai said to Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape more than others; for if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed. Oh, be firm, be very firm, and very cautious, and very wise; and depend upon a faithful friend in--

THOMAS COKE.7

      "He left accompanied by Rice Haggard, John Robertson, John Allen, William McKendree, and perhaps a few [15] others, who subsequently helped him, though they did not secede at this time, among them Hope Hull and Philip Bruce."

      The following letter written about the time of O'Kelly's withdrawal gives expression to his feelings:

TO DEAR BROTHER NICHOLSON,
      Local Preacher:

      "O my brother! Alas! my brother. I beseech God to grant you a share in every blessing of the everlasting covenant. O brother, the heart knows its own bitterness! I am too often giving way to the overflowings of a full heart. O the heart-breaking thoughts! The Methodist preachers who stood together like regular soldiers are now afraid of each other, as you told me last evening that you feared me! Fearful prelude to a universal decline, or a fearful separation! Find out the cause; search for the Achan. One there is in our camps; and if the lot justly falls, on me, cast me away, and there will be a calm. But be sure, before God, to give me justice. I am not given to change. A Methodist I am, and how can I change? The Elders of the North, not knowing what to accuse me of, make me their table laugh; still I am loath to go away. What have I done? Overturned government? What! the Council--not Methodism. I only say no man among us ought to get into the Apostle's chair with the keys, and stretch a lordly power over the ministers and kingdom of Christ. 'T is a human invention, a quicksand; and when my grey hairs may I be preserved under ground, I may be remembered. We ought to respect the body before any mere man. A consolidated government is always bad. We have published that we believed a General Conference to be injurious to the church. District Conferences have lost their suffrages; men of wit will leave the traveling connection. Boys with their keys, under the absolute sway of one who declares his authority and succession from [16] the apostles--these striplings must rule and govern Christ's church, as master-workmen; as though they could finish such a temple. People are to depend on their credibility. These things are so; I know what I say; I am able, when called upon, to answer it. I am a friend to Christ to his church, but not to prelatic government. If your read the bishop's address to me and others of the preachers who opposed the late proceedings, there you will the heresy reflections--and the manner of the new constitution; unless you look over and over it, 't is hard to understand. My dear brother, farewell; reject me, all of you, and let me feel the sneers, the frowns of strangers. My days are few among you; when the members reject me, I drop my journeyings, I am, etc.,

JAMES O'KELLY .

      We give also another letter, which is addressed--

TO COLONEL WILLIAMS:

      No doubt you have heard I had resigned my place in Conference. I protest against a consolidated government, or any one Lord or Arch-bishop, claiming apostolic authority, declaring to have the keys. Thus our ministry have raised a throne for bishops, which being a human invention, a deviation from Christ and dear Mr. Wesley, I cordially refuse to touch. Liberty is contended for at the point of the sword in diverse ways, monarchy, tyranny, tumbling both in church and kingdoms, while our preachers are for erecting a throne for gentlemen bishops in a future day, when fixed with an independent fortune they may sit and lord it over God's heritage. I speak in the fear of God, and feel for the dear people. District Conferences are nugatory, having given their suffrages. Our preachers, so powerfully influenced by a few wise men, part located, have voted away their own liberty; no appeal for an injured man. The Preacher sent hath sole power to receive or reject whom [17] he will; if a sinner is by him admitted to the Sacrament, members are subject to commune with him and accounted accursed if they depart. What I say, I am able to make appear in the spirit of meekness with fear. I am still a true man, and know what I say. If I would hold my peace and stay at home, I might have during life £40 per annum. Would I do as others wish, I might have peace and cash. I can do nothing against the truth; nor can I turn my mind as a man can his coat. I'd rather suffer with my own people.

JAMES O'KELLY.8

      Dr. Bennett in his "Memorials" I calls attention to these letters adversely, but he fails to remark on the adverse treatment of O'Kelly by Asbury in the Council. "Men find what they look for." We have already seen that Asbury confessed his mistreatment of O'Kelly in the Council. In the light of Mr. O'Kelly's later writings these letters will show how deeply he was wounded in spirit. The letters were written to strong men.

      After Mr. O'Kelly had returned home, Mr. Asbury sent messengers after him to inform him how sorry he was for the "loss of his right eye, right hand, and right foot." But these expressions he deemed insufficient to answer his purpose; therefore at the Manchester Conference which met November 26th, he moved "That whereas Mr. O'Kelly was an aged and dependent man, and might be driven by necessity to certain measures which in other circumstances he would not have recourse to, it would be best, if he would consent to [18] it, to let him have a supernumerary station and his usual salary." While the motion was warmly seconded by his friends, it was opposed by his despotic enemies. However the following minute was passed by a large majority: "Whereas it appears that James O'Kelly's absence intimates an intention in him to stop traveling at large, as we suppose, on account of his not being allowed an appeal; We the Manchester Conference conclude that if the rejection of the motion for the appeal be his only objection; and if he will travel, we will grant him the exclusive privilege of traveling where he pleases, of preaching where he pleases, and of his £40 per annum as usual; Provided nevertheless, that he shall be amenable to the Conference for his moral and ministerial character." Mr. O'Kelly accepted the use of the Methodist pulpits, but not the £40. He went out again preaching the everlasting gospel. He says, "I was quickly shut out of doors; none to publish my appointments, the people warned against hearing me preach the gospel."

      "The friends of Mr. O'Kelly, who disapproved of Methodist despotism, were not idle but manfully struggled for their religious liberties." Two meetings were held in Charlotte county, where they proposed some amendments to the government of the church, to obtain which they dispatched two messengers, John Chappell and Edward Almond, to Mr. Asbury with, their petition. This petition was lost, but a second was drawn up which the people were forbidden to sign under penalty of expulsion. Thus it was suppressed. On the 2nd of August, 1793, Mr. O'Kelly and his friends assembled themselves at Piney Grove, in Chesterfield county, and at this Conference it was decided, "We will address the bishop as an individual at the District Conference; and although he has not the power himself to redress us, yet if we can obtain his consent to call a meeting on the subject, as requested in our petitions, in order to form [19] a permanent plan for peace and union, taking the Holy Scriptures for our guide,--we will cheerfully wait." The delegates from the Piney Grove Conference presented the petition to Mr. Asbury, which he laid before the Conference then in session in Petersburg. Shortly after he returned the following answer: "I have no power to call such a meeting as you wish, therefore if 500 preachers would come on their knees before me I would not do it." According to adjournment, Mr. O'Kelly and his friends met at Manakintown, in Powhatan county, Virginia, on December 25, 1793, to receive the answer from Asbury. The delegates reported. The Conference then resolved to separate entirely from the Methodists, and they formed themselves into a religious body, under the title of Republican Methodists."

      The next Conference was held August 4, 1794, at Lebanon, in Surry county, Virginia, and the name by which they decided to be known was that of simply "Christians." From this time forward the denomination has been known as the "Christian Church."

      At the Manakintown Conference, at which they decided upon a separation, they formed their "ministers on an equality; gave the lay-members a balance of power in the legislature, and left the executive business in the Church collectively." About one thousand souls joined them in a few days. At the Conference at Lebanon, a committee of seven presented a brief "Sketch" for the government of the Church. Those preachers who were eligible were set before the Church, and the holy qualifications, as laid down by Paul, were read and explained. Then after prayer they were ordained in the following manner: "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, by the authority of the Holy Scriptures with the approbation of the Church and with the laying on of the hands of this presbytery, we set apart this brother to the holy order and office of Elder in the Church of God: [20] In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost--Amen."

      At the Methodist General Conference in 1796, there was passed this item published in their minutes: "A few indeed who were as great enemies to the civil government under which they lived as to our discipline, have left us; and now we have not a jarring string among us." Mr. O'Kelly says respecting this accusation, "We took it into consideration in our last Conference, and it was unanimously answered thus: 'It is the unanimous opinion of this Conference that the charge is unjust and cruel; and so far as it applies to us--false.'" No Methodist historian makes the slightest allusion to the revival of liberal principles at this Conference. "The right of appeal, modified as the right of an elective presiding eldership, was brought forward." Asbury says, "At this Conference there was a stroke aimed at the President Eldership."

      To the Manchester Conference, which met November 26, 1792, Rice Haggard and William McKendree sent their resignation to Asbury in writing; Haggard never wavered, but McKendree soon returned to the Methodists. He said at Laine's chapel, that O'Kelly had led him astray for a long time; but by reading "church polity" he found himself in error; and was now ready to defend the Methodist Episcopal Government. McKendree was thirty-four years old when the General Conference met in 1792, and to be unduly influenced at that age shows that his greatness was slow in developing. McKendree exculpates, himself thus: "I therefore refused to take a regular station at Conference, because I expected to reject the 'monstrous system' [of O'Kelly] when it should appear, but met you [Asbury] and the presiding elder a few days after the Conference and took a station." Why send in his resignation, if it was his purpose to reject the "monstrous system?" Mr. O'Kelly [21] says that he was quite out of the secret when he spoke at Laine's chapel. In 1798, Asbury writes: "Mr. O'Kelly hath now published to the world what he hath been telling to his disciples for years." And in 1799, Mr. O'Kelly had sent out another pamphlet. About this time he published his "Apology."⁹ At the General Methodist Conference of 1800 Mr. Asbury presented a mass of materials and documents which he had prepared and collected as an answer to O'Kelly's Apology. The Conference was not eager to accept these, but finally appointed a committee to compile a "Reply." Rev. Nicholas Snethen performed the greater part of the work. To this O'Kelly rejoined in "A Vindication of an Apology," issued in 1801, Joseph Gales, Printer, Raleigh, North Carolina.

      Mr. O'Kelly exerted his energies toward the spread of the truth, and like Whitfield did not gather together the fruits of his labors, but others reaped where he sowed. He is not to be regarded as "an able constructionist so that the gathered forces were of slight structure." While he was active, he held the churches together and governed them by his personal influence. "In the neighborhoods where it [the new Church] carried most of the old churches with it the work prospered;" but not a few returned to the old church and others were scattered,--all for the lack of proper pastoral oversight. The lay revolt exceeded in proportions the ministerial. The Conferences of the new Church were regularly held. Already the Christian Conference had considered and answered the charge as to being "enemies to the civil government," published in the Methodist minutes of 1796. Some of the ministers who were laboring with O'Kelly then and during the next ten years were Rice Haggard, Joshua Worley, Clement Nance, [22] Burwell Barrett, Adam Cloud, James Haw, Micajah Debruler, Joseph Hartley, William Glendenning, and others. In 1801, Mr. O'Kelly was still traveling through the southern part of Virginia; he preached in Nottoway county, and at one of his appointments Rev. Thomas E. Jeter was converted. At this fame Revs. Rice Haggard and William Dameron were traveling in this section. In 1802, while O'Kelly was preaching in the neighborhood of Winchester, Virginia, was taken sick. He was visited by Mr. Asbury, who wrote in his Journal: "We met in peace, asked of each other's welfare, talked of persons and things indifferently, prayed, and parted in peace. Not a word was said of the troubles of former times--perhaps this is the last intercourse we shall have upon earth."

      The General Meeting for 1805 was held at Shiloh church on the line of Pittsylvania and Halifax counties. Here James O'Kelly was in attendance. The presbytery appointed to ordain Rev. Thomas E. Jeter was composed of the following Elders: James O'Kelly, Clement Nance, Joseph Hackett, William Moore, and Coleman Pendleton. The General Meeting of the Conference was held at Raleigh, North Carolina, in 1807, also in 1808, and of those present were James O'Kelly, James Warren, Thomas Reeves, Micajah Debruler, John Hayes, Henry Hayes, Stephen Turner, Joseph Thomas, and others. These Conferences were more than probably held in Glendenning's chapel, built at his own expense. This chapel was named Bethel, and was the first Christian Church in Raleigh.

      The General Meeting, in 1809, was held at Shiloh, in Virginia, and, on June 4th of this year, O'Kelly preached at Apple's chapel and administered the Lord's Supper. Five other ministers were present. In 1810, the General Meeting of the Conference was held at Pine Stake church in Orange county, Virginia. It was here that a [23] division occurred on account of a difference of opinion in respect to "the mode and subjects of water baptism," "which led to the organization of the North Carolina and Virginia Conference." Mr. O'Kelly was a strong effusionist, and in his book entitled "The Prospect before Us by Way of Address to the Christian Church," he says, "But to illustrate the figures still further. The ark may be a figure of Christ's Church; the family that entered into the ark and were saved so as by water, may answer as a figure of household baptism under the gospel dispensation. Now, brethren, attend to another illustrious figure that appears, as interpreted by our apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 10:2. That the whole Jewish nation were all baptized unto Moses, that is to say, 'unto' Moses's faith, order, and government. The subjects of this figurative baptism were male and female, old and young, from families to the including the whole nation. The adults passed through by faith, and their offspring with them. Isaiah 61:9, 65:23. 'They are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them.' This Moses was an eminent figure of Christ, and their baptism a figure of family and national baptism; and that by water applied to the subjects, and not the subjects to the water." "Our Lord Jesus went with his church through the wilderness; thus the Jews were his people, the males received the seal of circumcision under the first Testament; this seal was put on adult believers and young innocents. And in process of time Jesus the word came down," he continues, "and was clothed with a vail of flesh, for a certain purpose; saying, I take away the first, and establish the second, and thus he changed ordinances but not the subjects; changed the ordinance from blood to water. These must appear to be seals to an everlasting covenant, rather than the performance of a great duty." He denies that infant baptism began in the Romish church, but [24] shows clearly that it began with the ancient Hebrews.

      From this time we have not been able to find any record of his attending the conferences of the Church, but it is known that he continued to preach up to the time of his death. During this time he also continued the use of his pen as will be seen from the works that have been preserved, and were published as late as 1822. "The Prospect before Us" must have been written soon after the Pine Stake Conference as might be inferred from its subject-matter. The General Meeting, in 1811, was held in Caroline county, Virginia. Rev. Joseph Thomas was in attendance; but as to O'Kelly's attendance, nothing is said.

      Let us now consider carefully. Rev. Jesse Lee, who should have known and doubtless knew better, accused on hearsay, as he says, Mr. O'Kelly of heresy. This served the purpose of its time in stigmatizing Mr. O'Kelly, which is now a stigma upon the character of that historian and those who knowingly retailed it after him. Mr. Asbury himself dared to use it against O'Kelly, and it is probable that the reference in O'Kelly's letter to Rev. Jesse Nicholson is to this. However, their own brethren have refuted the charge. This is the statement of a prominent Methodist historian:

      "Impartial history requires us to say we find no evidence of the heresy alleged against James O'Kelly--that he was unsound on the Trinity, and hastened his secession for fear of being brought to trial. An error so radical must have worked out, in him and his followers, striking manifestations; but none such appear. The few preachers and people who continue to represent him represent also, so far as known, a sound doctrine and experience. The trouble was governmental, not doctrinal; and in the later adjustments of Episcopal Methodism, occasion could hardly be found for its recurrence."¹⁰ [25]

      From Mr. O'Kelly's Hymn Book, "Hymns and Spiritual Songs," published in 1816, we take the following:

      From Hymn 91, entitled "God in Christ"--

      From Hymn 92, entitled "To us there is one God"--

      From Hymn 74, entitled "God over all"--

      In this connection we give also a short selection from "The Prospect before Us," published at Hillsboro, North Carolina, 1824, as follows: "Now, brethren, learn how the New Testament succeeded the Old, as the ceremonies, the priesthood, laws, and ordinances did; and here I am able to show you where baptism in order succeeded circumcision, and where the Lord's Supper succeeded the Passover, as sure as the apostles and gospel ministers succeeded the prophets. As Paul observes of the Christians, in Christ we are spiritually circumcised, and are buried by outward baptism as Christians; not only freed from circumcision, but from all the old carnal ordinances." [26]

      From Mr. O'Kelly's "The Divine Oracles Consulted," we submit the following as a further illustration of his teaching and what he believed respecting the divinity of Christ: "The divine child growing in favor with God and man may be illustrated as follows: With respect to man, previous to his public ministry, he was much admired for his beauty, his virtue, humility, and wisdom, a display of which, in the twelfth year of his humanity, astonished the great doctors of Jerusalem. Thus the Deity favored the humanity, until the perfect humanity received the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and thus, being perfect God and perfect man, he became a full and complete Saviour. He was the great Immanuel. Not a demi-god; but the all-wise God, our Saviour. He was the divine Emanation, proceeding from the divine Center of eternal perfection; but being incarnate, God in the flesh, possessing both natures, he was prepared to feel trouble, sorrow and distress.

      "What is written may suffice, out of the abundance that may be advanced, that Jesus is both Lord and God in one exalted person; who at length will show who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light which no man can approach unto; to him be honor, and power everlasting. Amen. 1 Tim. 6:15, 16.

      "Friendly reader, let me entreat thee to weigh this subject with all your sense, and pray daily to the Great One to illuminate your understanding, that you may believe in Christ as Lord God, and have power to trust in him as your all-sufficient, loving Saviour. I testify against all those who view Jesus less than God; therefore, if any man refuse to give him equal honor with the Father, he will lightly esteem that man, if not utterly reject him. Here is a stumbling-block to Arians; that they should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father, which they refuse to do. [27]

      "If Jesus be divided from the Father, so are all believers in Christ. The only way that fallen man could ever be in union with God, was effected by the divinity and humanity becoming one. If Christ be not, then being grafted into Christ availeth nothing. Facts are stubborn things. If God and Christ be not the same, how can believers who are grafted in the Vine, partake of the root and fatness? Read D. Jarratt's first volume."¹¹

      In an introduction to a short pamphlet written by Mr. O'Kelly, he relates his first impressions and religious experience, which we give and which, no doubt, will be of interest to the reader. Though it is short, it will give some idea of the evangelical character of the converts turned from the power of satan to a religious life by the instrumentality of such men: "My first mental alarm was not through the blessed means of preaching, but by the kind illuminations of the invisible Holy Spirit. I saw by this divine light, that I was without God, and destitute of any reasonable hope in my present state. Now being moved by faith through fear, I attempted to flee the wrath to come and seek a place of refuge! But, O what violent opposition did I meet with! [28] After many sorrowful months I formed one resolution; with a low cadence of voice and fearful apprehension, I ventured like Queen Esther who approached the King's presence, at the risk of her life, so I ventured in a way of prayer, to speak to the Almighty! With the Bible in my hand, I besought the Lord to help me, and during life that sacred book should be my guide, and at the close, if I am sunk to perdition, said I, just, O God! yet dreadful! but if thy clemency and divine goodness should at last rescue me from the jaws of a burning hell, this miracle of grace shall be gratefully remembered by me, a monument of mercy.

      "The things which followed, which were such things as belonged to my peace, the inexpressible change, the instantaneous cure, I am incapable of speaking of; but O, my soul was lodged in Immanuel breast, the city of refuge; the ark of my rest. And in those days God sent preachers into our dark regions, who were burning and shining lights. They came to us under the direction of John Wesley, whose name to me is of precious memory. His writings magnified the Bible and gave it preference and honor; he declared he regarded the authority of no writings but the inspired. He urged the sufficiency of the Scriptures for faith and practice, saying, 'We will be downright Bible Christians.' This doctrine pleased me and so did the conduct of the holy preachers. I entered that connection in the year (I think) 1776, and soon entered the list among the traveling ministers, where I labored night and day, pleading with God for that connection in particular, and the world in general. But in those days Wesley was rejected, and his name blotted out of our book. I took an alarm! In the year (I thin k) 1789, I contended against a growing power, though myself in legislature;¹² this [29] contention until the Conference for 1792, from thence I withdrew. But as a free man I have continued to travel. I soon found myself undesignedly in a little band, the Christian Church. I think by the grace of God, if all should seek my life, I would never change my Christian name, nor subscribe to any government (as to religious conduct) but contained in Christ's word and that which rests on his shoulders."

      From his works we have drawn freely; our space does not admit of further specimens. But we cannot forbear to say that James O'Kelly was an author of no mean proportions in his day. In his "The Author's Apology for Protesting against the Methodist Episcopal Government," which was written after his secession from the Methodist Episcopal church, he states facts, which never have been and never will be controverted, and such was the onslaught on the Methodist discipline, that the little leaven that he then threw into the meal tub was more productive of good results than might otherwise have been accomplished in generations. Luther's reformation was on a grander scale and more glorious, but O'Kelly's, like the silent dews from heaven, has wrought out the teaching of the simplicity of the gospel of Christ and that earthly religious potentates are not necessary to the salvation of souls. And today the Christian world should thank him as one of those reformers, who have secured religious liberty in the new world, even more effectively than American heroism and patriotism have done in matters of state. In his works entitled "The Divine Oracles Consulted" and "Letters from Heaven Consulted," published at Hillsboro, 1822, and in his "Hymn Book," published by the "Minerva Press" in Raleigh, North Carolina, in 1816, he has shown himself [30] almost if not altogether the peer of Edwards and Wesley. "In those days, and before his voice was heard and the productions of his pen were read from Baltimore to the South Carolina line, and whether he preached in the rude log hut which answered for a church in those primeval times, or prayed as he did under the shade of a tree at the command of the Tories in the dark days of the revolution, the breathings of his heart went up to God to establish those blessings, which we now enjoy.

      Speaking in one place, he says, "To me it appears that to deny Jesus Christ as being equal Deity is a destructive idea; and in fact it is, at least, in effect denying the atonement." And no more orthodox theology has been taught than is to be found in his writings, and it is a matter of great regret that most of the productions of his pen were never published. But they were destroyed by his wife who survived him, in order that, said she, "should there be anything in them that would offend any one it should never see the light." In his latter days he would sit and instruct the congregation in the church which now bears his name (O'Kelly's Chapel, in Chatham county, North Carolina), saying that Christ his Master taught the people sitting and he was only following in his footsteps.

      He was the compeer and friend of Patrick Henry, whose name he mentions in his Apology, and also the friend of Thomas Jefferson by whom he was in after years received with distinguished recognition in the halls of the National Legislature, and so he may well be said to have been rocked in the cradle of civil and religious liberty. Living in an age when liberty was the key to thought, and among men whose lives were devoted to free institutions, what other course could the mind of this great religious teacher have taken? The ideal embodied in the Church that took its rise with him more [31] strongly now than ever demands recognition from all classes and kinds of people. The descendants of Mr. O'Kelly have been noted for their sentiments of liberty, whether in church or in the affairs of state.

      Half way from Morrisville, on the Southern Railway, to Chapel Hill, the seat of the University of North Carolina, stands on a considerable eminence the church known as O'Kelly's Chapel, at which place he often preached. Leaving here the great highway, we take a country track for nearly a mile to the once residence of Thomas J. Herndon, who married his grand-daughter. A few yards from this house is the burying ground of the O'Kellys. Here the grave of the old hero of the "Three months' Circuit" was long neglected, as are those of the dead descendants, who slumber so quietly around the decaying form of their illustrious ancestor. The burying ground is on a small hill, and surrounded by tall, stately cedars. In 1850, at the Conference at Union Chapel in Alamance a county, North North Carolina, Revs. George G. Walker, James A. Turner, and Dr. E. F. Watson were appointed a committee to have a suitable monument erected at the grave of the Rev. James O'Kelly. It was unvailed in October, 1854, during a session of the North Carolina and Virginia Christian Conference held at O'Kelly's Chapel. The shaft is of pure white marble, is perfectly plain, square at base, and tapering to an apex at the top. Its height is eight feet two and a half inches. The apex is six inches in height, making the entire height of the shaft eight feet eight and a half inches, including the marble pedestal eight feet and eleven inches. If it were completed, by the addition of one or two pedestal stones proportionate to the height and size of the shaft, it would be a very imposing structure. The base is square, having one foot nine inches to the side; at the top one foot one inch.

      On the western face of the monument, the following [32] simple inscription is guilded by the rays of each setting sun":

      One elegant writer, who has embalmed the memory of this worthy hero in words of grace and beauty, says of him that he deserves "the respect and gratitude of all good men, and impartial history, though slow, is now doing, and will yet do, full justice to the name, the fame, and the services of James O'Kelly. And his memory is held in veneration by all classes and denominations in the community where he was the first to spread the knowledge of the truth." But as by way of contrast he further says that "the people in the New Hope Valley in Chatham, seem utterly oblivious of the great historic character that sleeps in their midst." How peacefully he sleeps, life's toils and battles over--the hero of the "Three months' Circuit." At morn and eve heaven's gentle breezes chant the solemn requiem around his quiet grave.

[LCM 1-33]