James O'Kelly seems to have been a man of great personal magnetism and the popular idol of many of his frontier parishioners. He was a man of strong likes and dislikes, and of high personal ambitions. Nevertheless, since he had thoroughly imbibed the democratic ideals of Revolutionary times, he was desirous of seeing those principles extended to the church government. In other words, he was decidedly out of sympathy with, if not openly hostile to, the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church. MacClenny, O'Kelly's biographer, after discussing the history of that church, declared:

"We may now sum up the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America from 1784 to 1792, and say that it was without even so much as a semblance of a constitution, and during this time there was but one law and that was: The will of Mr. Francis Asbury. This Mr. O'Kelly could not endure, for in the heat of the struggle for civil liberty he had shouldered his musket, and fought and suffered imprisonment in order that he might with others be rid of tyranny and oppression, and now he was not willing to be oppressed in ecclesiastical matters by any man, unless he might have some means of redress."'"

In support of this view, MacClenny quoted an undated letter from O'Kelly to Colonel Hollowell Williams, of Currituck County, North Carolina. Williams had been a member of the North Carolina Constitutional Convention of 1776, and he still was a leading Methodist. In the letter, apparently written about 1795, O'Kelly said:

MacClenny, W. The Life of Rev. James O'Kelly, 79, 80.

"No doubt you have heard I had resigned my place in the conference. I protested against a consolidated government, or any one lord or archbishop, 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 worth contending for at the point of the sword in divers ways monarchy, tyranny tumbling both in church and kingdom-while our preachers are 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.'

O'Kelly's opposition, whether due to an unfaltering belief in democratic principles, disappointed ambition, or impending fear that he would be tried on the question of orthodoxy culminated at the Baltimore Conference of 1793. At this meeting, he made the proposal that

"after the bishop appoints the preachers at a conference to their several circuits, if any one think himself 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."'*

The democratic spirit was so thoroughly at work that a large majority at first appeared to be in

8 MacClenny, W.

The Life of Rev. James O'Kelly, 207.

He had been accused of denying and preaching against the doctrine of the Trinity, by saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were characters, and not persons, that these characters all belonged to Jesus Christ, and that Christ was the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Stevens, Abel. History of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, III., 26, 27).

'Buckley, J. M. History of Methodism, I., 339.

favor of the motion, but one of the members, John Dickens, moved to divide the question thus: (1) Shall the bishop appoint the preachers to the circuits (2) Shall a preacher be allowed an appeal? The first question was carried without a dissenting voice. On the second, however, a difficulty at once arose-Shall this be considered a new rule or only an amendment to an old rule? If it were regarded as a new rule, a two-thirds vote would be necessary; otherwise, a simple majority would suffice. After some debate the conference decided that the motion was merely an amendment to an old rule. The Methodist regulations allowed every member to speak three times on each motion, if he desired. Many so chose, and the debate lasted three or four days before the vote was taken.

The arguments advanced in favor of the motion are rather interesting because they clearly show, both in scope and in passion, the influence of American and French revolutionary thought. The radical friends of the appeal maintained that it was a shame for a man to accept such lordship, and even more so to claim it, and that any man who would submit to such absolute dominion would forfeit all claims to freedom and ought to have his ears bored through with an awl, be fastened to his master's door, and become a slave for life. One of the speakers, not quite so extreme as certain others, held that to be denied an appeal was an insult to a man's understanding, and a species of tyranny to which others might submit if they chose, but for

his part he must be excused for saying that he could not.

On the other hand, the enemies of the motion were more dispassionate and argumentative. They declared that Wesley, the father of the Methodist family, had formed the plan, and deemed it essential to the preservation of the itinerancy. "According to you, Mr. O'Kelly," they argued, "Wesley ought to blush, if he were alive, for he claimed the right to station preachers until the day of his death." Perhaps the strongest argument advanced in opposition, however, was the impracticability of the appeal. Should one minister appeal and the conference sustain his request, the bishop would have to remove some one else to make room for him. The second might appeal in his turn, and again the first might appeal from his new appointment. Moreover, others whose positions successive alterations would interrupt might appeal in turn. The calm, dispassionate arguments of the conservatives won, and the motion was defeated by a large majority.'

The defeated members, nevertheless, refused to abide by the decision. The next morning the Conference received a letter from them, saying that because an appeal from the decision of a superintendent in the making of appointments was not to

Buckley, J. M. History of Methodism, I., 339-341, and Stevens, Abel. History of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, III., 23, 24.

Stevens, Abel. History of Methodist Episcopal Church III., 23-25.

...

be allowed, they could no longer sit with that body. A committee of three was at once appointed to treat with the seceders. Bishop Coke also interviewed O'Kelly, but the combined influence of his former co-workers was insufficient, and the Irish leader, accompanied by several other preachers, set off for Virginia. Immediately after the conference adjourned, Asbury hastened to the center of conflict. O'Kelly had already persuaded William McKendree and several other ministers to refuse to go to their appointments, but by wise management Asbury effected a compromise, which included a proposition to give O'Kelly his former salary as presiding elder, provided he would stop exciting divisions. The fiery seceder at first accepted, but soon relinquished the appropriation."

This secession movement injured the Methodist Church. Even Methodist writers freely admit the loss. Thus Stevens wrote:

"In the years of its greatest influence, 1793-4-5, there was a clear loss in membership of 7352. But, although this loss was so great, there is no reason to believe 'The Republican Methodists,' as they were then called, had met with corresponding success. It has been the aim of some writers to show that there were numerous accessions to Methodism during this period, and that the loss of the church was so much greater in proportion to the amount of these accessions; and that therefore the gain of O'Kelly was proportionally great. But this argument is unsupported by facts we have been able to discover.'''

8 Buckley, J. M. History of Methodism, I., 841, 342.

• History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, III., 34, 35.