03.03. REV. JAMES O'KELLY

REV. JAMES O’KELLY
A Champion of Religious
====== Liberty ======

The man is thought a knave or fool, or bigot plotting crime,
Who for the advancement of his kind, is wiser than his time.
For him the hemlock shall distill; for him the ax be bared;
For him the gibbet shall be built; for him the stake prepared.
Him shall the scorn and wrath of man pursue with deadly aim,
And malice, envy, spite, and lies shall desecrate his name.
But truth shall triumph at the last, for round and round we run,
And ever the right comes uppermost, and ever is justice done.

--Mackay.

Neither the place nor the time of James O’Kelly’s birth can be determined with absolute certainty. Virginia and North Carolina each lay claim to the distinction, and there is good reason for believing that he was a native of Ireland. Mr. W. E. MacClenny has written a full and reliable history of James O’Kelly, in which he recites the evidence concerning the birth place of the great man, and says: "In view of the above facts and the early traditions of the Christians, we come to the conclusions: James O’Kelly was born and educated in Ireland, came to America in early life, seems to have settled near Moring’s Post-office, in Surry County, Virginia, and lived there for some time before he moved to North Carolina." Be this as it may, he had the faith and the courage of an Irish patriot, and the courtesy and bearing of a Southern gentleman. There is not as much uncertainty as to the, date of his birth as to the name of the place. Appleton’s Encyclopedia of American Biography names October as the month, and 1735 as the year of his birth. This date has support in the fact that he died October 16, 1826, in the ninety-second year of his age.

However, it may be stated that wherever and whenever born, he was well born, and probably knew the Scriptures from his youth up, for on one side his ancestors were priests, or preachers, as we now call them, and church builders on the other. Indeed, the blood of many high-born generations coursed through his veins, and found expression in his thought and conduct, and it may be reasonably concluded that he was creditably educated and in all probability had a fair knowledge of Greek and Latin. Be this as it may, he spoke the language of Canaan, and was a framer of phrases, and a master of subjects, with utterances so clear that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein. His conversion from sin was of the clearest type, and true to the law of God and the need of the individual. He was converted; and had an experience with God, and it changed his whole life; he knew Him in whom he had believed, and was persuaded that He was able to keep that which he had entrusted to Him. The fact of this experience he himself sets forth in the following language:

"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! 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 declaring that during life that sacred Book should be my guide, and at the close, if I 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 moment of mercy!

"The things which followed, which were such things as belong to my peace, the inexpressible change, the instantaneous cure, I am incapable of speaking; but O, my soul was lodged in Immanuel’s breast, the city of refuge; the ark of my rest." His conversion was definitely announced, and strongly emphasized in the most forceful way, for immediately he consigned his fiddle to the flame, and forever turned his back upon worldliness. It would not be possible for a mind and soul like his to remain satisfied with even such a glowing experience, and it is not surprising that he promptly entered the public ministry of the Church.

He was not far from forty years of age at the time of his conversion, and he immediately united with the Wesleyan Societies, and was sent out as a lay preacher, but he was not ordained until 1784, when he was a lay preacher to what is known in Methodist history as the "Christmas Conference of the Episcopal Church." Here he was ordained severally, a deacon and elder, by the Rev. Thomas Coke. From the first he became more and more a preacher of power, and a man of influence--the people flocking to hear him much as they did when all Judea and Jerusalem went out to hear the wilderness preacher of their day. Not only did he increase in power and popularity, but each succeeding year marked the divergence between the autocratic spirit of the Church, and the democratic spirit of the man. The question as to whether or not preachers should be allowed to administer the communion, baptize candidates, marry people, and bury the dead, always found Mr. O’Kelly on one side, and the rule of the Church on the other. Bishop Asbury’s insistence that the laymen were to "pay, pray, and obey" was always objectionable to Mr. O’Kelly, and the divergence increased, and the chasm widened, and the point of cleavage became more prominent, so that by the time the General Conference met in 1792 a crisis was inevitable. By this time, too, Mr. O’Kelly had reached a high place in the favor of the church. He had presided over some of the largest and most important districts within the territory then occupied by the Methodist Church, and only two men out-ranked him in authority. He had, in all probability, accumulated means sufficient to put him above the necessity of salary, and most certainly he had reached a well-established leadership among his brethren. But it was not these that gave him prestige in the conference. It was his devotion to the right, his indomitable will, and his Christian courage. He would have been impressive had he been clothed in rags, and walking barefoot. The craven had no place in his makeup, either as a man or a preacher. In that memorable Conference in Baltimore, Maryland, November 1, 1792, the forces lined up for final decision. The storm did not burst suddenly, nor unexpectedly. Men felt that something was impending, and stood ready for the shock. For several days prior to the opening of the Conference, Mr. Asbury had been holding meetings with the preachers whom he knew to be true to his bidding, and with them planned the sessions. Nor had Mr. O’Kelly been indifferent to the issue, for his forces were well marshaled, and stood ready for action. One of the bitterest disappointments of his life came when Dr. Coke, contrary to all he had promised him, and all he had lead him to expect, took sides with Asbury, and announced the findings of a committee that had been previously appointed, in the following words:

"The members of this Conference represent the people; and we are to all intents the legislature of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the government is autocratical. You may call me a weather-cock." On the second day of the session James O’Kelly offered the following resolution:

"After the bishop appoints the preachers at Conference to their several circuits, if anyone thinks himself injured by the appointment, he shall have the liberty to appeal to the Conference, and state his objection, and if the Conference approve his objection, the Bishop shall appoint him to another circuit." This motion was discussed by the strongest minds, and ablest debaters, in the most masterly way, and was carried on at times with all the heat, passion and prejudice of the human heart, for three days. At one time it looked as though the motion would carry by a large majority, for the preachers in America had heard that the England Methodists had inaugurated the "Stationing Committee," which included the right of appeal. Finally the motion was divided into two parts, as follows: 1. Shall the Bishop appoint the preachers to the circuits? 2. Shall a preacher be allowed to appeal? The first part was put, and carried unanimously, and with great enthusiasm. When the second part came to be considered, the question was raised as to whether or not it was a new rule, or an amendment to an old one. A new rule would require a two-thirds vote, while an amendment would require but a majority. It was after much wrangling that it was decided to be an amendment to an old rule. At one time during the debate, Mr. O’Kelly stood with a copy of the New Testament in his hand, and said: "Brethren, hearken unto me, put away all other books, and forms, and let this be the criterion, and that will satisfy me." He says, "I thought the ministers of Christ would unanimously agree to such a proposal, but alas, they opposed the motion." The Rev. John Dickens declared that the Scriptures were by no means a sufficient form of government; that the Lord had left that business to his ministers. O’Kelly says that he withstood him for a season, but in vain. "I now saw, " said he, "that moderate Episcopacy was rising to its wonted and intended dignity. I discovered also that the districts had lost their suffrages." A Sunday intervened during the debate. The Rev. Dr. Coke preached in the forenoon, and James O’Kelly in the afternoon. All day Monday, and far into the night, was spent in debating the subject, when the vote was taken, and lost by a large majority. It is safe to assert that the debate was carried on at such length for the purpose of causing a feeling of disgust with the oft repeated question, and oft reproduced argument, and that if the vote had been taken earlier, it would not have been seriously defeated, had it been lost at all. Three things should be kept in mind: One. James O’Kelly did not withdraw from the Methodist Church, but from the Methodist Conference. He did all that conscience and honor would allow to remain in the Church of his first years, and left it only when compelled so to do. Two. His withdrawal was on the question of government, and not on that of doctrine. Three. He was not alone in his withdrawal, neither was he alone in his opinions and decisions. Some of the best men of the Church stood with him in the debate, and followed him when he went out. When the conclusion was announced, James O’Kelly, and nineteen other ministers, withdrew from the Conference, to be followed by the churches they served. Mr. O’Kelly, and those associated with him in the withdrawal, held a conference at Piney Grove, Virginia, more to comfort each other than for any other reason. They had not withdrawn from the Methodist Church, nor did they desire so to do. While together they formulated an address to Bishop Asbury, asking that the whole matter be reopened and reviewed, and sent it to him by the hand of chosen men. They then adjourned to meet at Manakintown, Virginia, to hear the report from the Bishop. They met on the 25th day of December, 1793, and received from the Bishop the following reply:

"I have no power to call such a meeting as you wish; therefore, if five hundred preachers should come on their knees before me, I would not do it."

After hearing this reply, there was nothing left for them to do but separate themselves from the Methodist Church, or slavishly submit to an ecclesiasticism which they had determined to resist, and they unanimously chose the former. They formed their ministers on an equality, gave the lay members a balance of power in the legislation, and left the executive business to the Church collectively. On the fourth day of August, 1794, they met at Lebanon Church, in Surry County, Virginia, and held their session with open doors, which was wholly different from the method of closed doors, and secret sessions, as was the custom of the Bishop. Efforts were made to form a plan of government, but to no purpose. A committee of seven chosen men were appointed to draft the form. The committee could not agree, and the finality was that all else was set aside, and the "Word of God as revealed in the Scriptures" taken instead. Very prominent among the things they had to do at that Conference was the selection of a suitable name for the new organization. For the time since they withdrew they had been known as Republican Methodists. Whether or not this name had been formally chosen, or incidentally applied, the writer does not know. After much discussion and earnest prayer, the Rev. Rice Haggard, standing with a copy of the New Testament Scriptures in his hand, said:

"Brethren, this is a sufficient rule of faith and practice, and by it we are told that the disciples were called Christians, and I move that henceforth and forever the followers of Christ be known as Christians simply." The motion was enthusiastically and unanimously adopted, since which time they have had no other. The Rev. Mr. Hafferty moved to take the Bible itself as the only creed, and this motion also was enthusiastically adopted. No interpretation of the public life and service of James O’Kelly can be even approximately correct, except it be made in the light of his private character, and the time in which he lived and wrought. It is not difficult to deduce from even his meager writings, and that which has been written about him, sufficient evidence to prove that his personal character was beyond reproach. He must have been tender-hearted and deeply sympathetic; evidently he was manly, brave and generous; from what is revealed to us, it is safe to conclude that in him were the rugged, stalwart virtues of the man, joined with the softness and gentleness of disposition of the woman; he must have been incapable of guile, and liberal in his estimate of men, and was at times too little suspicious of the guilefulness of others, though he was no mean judge of human character. Quick in his conception, rapid in his processes, he was sometimes hasty in his judgments, but always held them subject to evidence and argument, and with singular absence of personal pride, he would change them upon conviction. He had an instinctive horror of injustice, and a genuine contempt for meanness, and yet his hatred of the one, and his contempt for the other, were often modified by his abounding charity for all men. One must be impressed in reading of this noted man that, after he had strongly denounced a wrong, he would seek some palliation for the wrong doer, and try to find some mitigation for an offense which he could not overlook. He must have been firm in his friendships, and it seems that nothing could tempt him to an act which his conscience did not approve; no sophistry, no personal appeal, no promise of betterment, could move him from his fixed idea of the right. We know him to have been a man of profound religious conviction, holding unyieldingly to the truths of revealed religion. At times his faith seems almost superstitious, while his love for his home, and his own, was as deep and pure as the fountain of life. His big-heartedness, his unfaltering honesty in faith and practice, his frank and open manner, his independent thinking, his unswerving devotion to God and country, his lifelong service for the Church, together with the other personal virtues which have been named, and many more which might be mentioned, makes the Rev. James O’Kelly a leader whose following would honor the greatest and the best. And now, having had a hasty and imperfect glance at his personal and public life, attention should be given to the time in which it was spent. It was a time when the passions of men were stirred to their depth; when the sky of the future was darkened by clouds of approaching conflict. It was the time of the birth-throes of a nation, and the beginning of a sect. Methodism was being born, as well as American civilization, and political and religious tyranny was asserting itself to the limit of its power. England’s heavy heel was on the neck of the colonists, and religious liberty was threatened with the domination of sectarian bigotry, and ecclesiastic intolerance. Asbury, the leading man of the new movement under Wesley, had declared, "That he came to teach the people, and not to be taught by them." The Church itself was not free from censure for its laxness in morals and devotion to truth, for sinful indulgence was as common among the clergy as neglect of duty in the laity. Drinking was a common habit of the Episcopal clergy, many of whom would drink to excess, and be hailed before the magistrate for disturbing the peace of the community, even at the dead hours of the night. A clergyman of that early day was known to officiate at the morning worship, go home with a parishioner, and drink so much brandy that he would have to be tied to his gig, and a servant sent to lead his horse home, lest he lose his way and miss his house. Many of the people of that day were very poor, and some were quite rich, and there were constant clashings between squalor and luxury. The priests were proud, selfish, ignorant, and the laity openly wicked. And worst of all, it was a time of religious persecution, and that child of hell, now full-grown and wrathful stalked abroad, seeking victims for his wrath, and occupants for whipping post and jail; and be it said to the shame of the clergy, that they furnished their full share of information, and did their full duty in persecuting the saints for righteousness’ sake. And in addition to all this, and much more of like character, the American Revolution was on, and honest men were so much at variance with each other on matters of government, that the Tory and the Whig, though they knelt at the same altar, oftentimes throttled each other for political reasons, and fought until friendships died, fellowship perished, and in many cases the body fell bleeding at the feet of a hitherto friend. There was a religious frenzy, and a political volcano, into which men were plunged, whether they would or not. The war clouds were scudding across the sky, the war dogs had been unleashed, and all men were standing at arms, both in the state and in the Church, and no man dared to speak who was not ready to die. Into this seething, sizzling, boiling, turbulent condition of human society, James O’Kelly threw himself with an indomitable courage and heroic faith, and gave to the cause he had espoused all the vigor of his strength, all the force of his character, and all the means with which he had been blessed. My interpretation of James O’Kelly leads me to present him as a Christian Democrat, a Moral Hero, and a Pioneer of Christian Liberty.