|

ar
\
| Wh
| |
\
| ol

ing
WHY ANOTHER SECT:

/
CONTAINING A

REVIEW OF ARTICLES BY

BISHOP SIMPSON AND OTHERS

ON THE

PRE ME TEODIST CHURCH.

By REV. B. T. ROBERTS, A. M.

f

“He that is first in his own cause, SEEMETH just: but his
neighbor cometh and searcheth him.”—Prov. xviii, 7.

1

ROCHESTER, N. Y.:
“THE EARNEST ‘CHRISTIAN ” PUBLISHING HOUSE.

1879
a}
Entered ‘according to, act of Congress in the year 1879
By BENJAMIN 'T. ROBERTS,

in the office of the Libiarian of Congress at Washington, D. C.

| UNIVE
net BS yp,
TO The = 7%

President White

   
DEDICATION.

Paul, in writing to the Hebrew Christians, says:
“ But call to remembrance the former days, in which,
after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight
of afflictions; partly, whilst ye were made a gazing
stock, both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly,
whilst ye became companions of them that were so
used. For ye had compassion of me in my bonds,
and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing
in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an
enduring substance.”—Heb. x, 32-34.

The spirit of primitive Christianity still survives.
When a number of preachers were expelled from the
Genesee Conference of the M. E. Church, on account
of their fidelity to God, there were those that rallied
around them and held up their hands.

To those who gladly suffered, for Christ’s sake, ex-
clusion from privileges which they prized, and from
churches which they had helped build, this simple
narrative of events in which they participated, is in-

scribed by their brother,
B. T. Roperts.
PREFACE.

 

Twenty years ago, I sat in a little room in
the village of Perry, Wyoming County, N.Y.,
awaiting the verdict of the Genesee Conference
of the M. E. Church, which was to sever me
from religious associations which I had formed,
as I supposed, for life. I was a Methodist
from conviction ; and as a Methodist preacher
I had endeavored to do my duty. My ministry
had been successful ; and my standing, both
among the people, and in the Conference, was
all that I could have desired. But issues came
up, relating to the nature of the religion which
we were to spread, and I felt called upon to
take sides with Methodism as we had received
it front the fathers—with holiness and truth.
But the ruling influence was against us,
and its leaders were exasperated by their
growing unpopularity with the people.
While awaiting their. decision—a decision
which I had no doubt had been pre-determined
upon before the trial begun, I was troubled
most with the reflection that now we should
have nothing to doin the blessed cause of God.
But immediately I seemed to hear the voice of
_ the Master saying, ‘“‘I will give you plenty to
' PREFAUCE.

do.’’ I opened my, Bible to these words, which
were applied to my heart with all the force of
a direct revelation : ‘‘ Therefore thus saith the
Lorp, If thou return, then will I bring thee
again, and thou shalt stand before me: and if
thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou
shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto
thee ; but return not thou unto them. And I
will make thee unto this people a fenced bra-
zen wall: and they shall fight against thee, but
they shall not prevail against thee» for lam
with thee to save thee and to deliver thee,
saith the Lorp.’’—Jer. xv, 19, 20. These
words have given us encouragement and
strength ever since.

The next evening, the large Baptist church
of the village was opened, and to a crowded,
sympathizing audience, the expelled ministers
set forth, at length, the issues on which we were
thrust out. From that day to this, we have
not lacked the sympathy and fellowship of
devout people of all denominations.

When the committee of the General Con-
ference of 1860, selected to hear our appeal,
refused, in utter violation of a plain provision
of the Constitution of the M. E. Church, to
entertain it, I said, 1 aPpPEAL To GoD AND
THE PEOPLE. This appeal has been entertained;
and, so far as we have the means of knoWing,
vi PREFACE.

the decision has been favorable. Here we
should have let the matter rest, but those op-
posed to us will not permit it. They have
published, and sanctioned the most bare-faced,
flagrant falsehoods, which they intend shall
pass as a history of the affair. We should be
wanting in our duty to the cause which is
dearer to us than life, and to the noble men
and women who have given us their confi-
dence, if we allowed these falsehoods to pass
uncontradicted.

With the doctrines and government of the
M. E. Church we have no controversy. For
many of its ministers and members we have a
sincere respect and affection. But its General
Conference, its highest representative body, has
committed against us, and others, acts of the
greatest injustice. In making this charge we
have no resentment to gratify. They meant it
for evil—God meant it for good.

God has always had a church upon earth. It
is one in spirit—-in outward forms many. An-
ciently there was one Israel—but twelve tribes.
In former years the most bloody persecutions
arose from the effort to produce uniformity
where God meant there should be only unity.
At the present, the most fierce, relentless, big-
oted sectarians are those who make it their
business to denounce all sects. Reforms in the
PREFACE. ; vii

church have generally been effected by new or-
ganizations which have re-acted upon the old,
and infused into them new life and vigor. The
Roman Catholic Church was greatly improved
by the formation of Protestant churches. The
Established Church of England has been more
spiritual in its tone,and more evaugelical in its
teachings since the days of Wesley and
Whitefield. In this country the mouths of
Methodist preachers were closed on the subject
of slaveholding, until the Wesleyan church
was organized. After that event, those who
advocated the rights of the slaves were not
persecuted, for fear they would join the
Wesleyans.

So, the FreE Metruopist CHuRcH is exerting
a salutary influence upon the parent body.
Doctrines and practices which would scarcely
be tolerated when we were thrust out, are be-
coming popular. The Rev. Wm. B. Osporye,
one of the most devoted, self-sacrificing
leaders of the Holiness Movement, now of the
India Conference, said at one of our camp
meetings in New Jersey: ‘‘Z have come jifty
miles to thank the Free Methodists for the pri-
vilege I have of preaching holiness in the M.
E. Church, unmolested.”? No notice is taken
of ministers in that church who publish in the
papers articles which reflect upon the church
viii PREFACE.
a

much more severely than the one did for wri-
ting which we were expelled.

The multiplication of sects which do not dif-
fer essentially from those already in existence
is to be deplored. But the FreE METHODIST
Cuurcn is not one of this kind. It is the only
one with which we are acquainted that requires
of every person, who joinsitin full connection,
to give an affirmative answer to the question,
‘‘Have you that perfect love which casteth out
fear? If not, will you diligently seek until
you obtain it?’ In all its church edifices it is re-
quired—not that there be free seats—but that all
the seats be free. It has a mission from God to
hold up the New Testament standard of relig-
ion; and to preach the Gospel to the poor. In
this work it should not be embarrassed by un-
true and slanderous reports as to its origin, in
books claiming the dignity of a history,or the
arch-dignity of an encyclopedia.

With the leading facts which I narrate in
this volume, I was personally acquainted. I
have endeavored to state them plainly, in a
Christian spirit, and without the slightest
exaggeration. I have given proofs which can
not be set aside without practically denying
the validity of human testimony. But I am
conscious of laboring under this great disad-
vantage : the action of the Genesee Conference,
PREFACE. ix

sustained by the General Conference, was so
gnjust and unprovoked—so contrary to any-
thing which we might look for in a body of
respectable men, even though they laid no
claim to -piety, that the plainest narrative of
the events, looks like wild exaggeration. But
I have endeavored to give the simple truth,
without the slightest coloring. I have réad
my manuscript to several intelligent, judicious
brethren, familiar with the the facts, and they
give it their hearty indorsement.

It is but justice to say, that notwithstanding
our position on secret societies, some well
known Masons, both in the Conference and
out of it, stood by us heartily through the
entire conflict. They insisted that it was a
gross perversion of Masonry, to use it as a
means for controlling the affairs of a church.

There are some who judge of actions by the
position occupied by those who do them.
From such we do not expect a favorable ver-
dict. There are others who feel free to con-
demn a wrong, whoever perpetrates it, and we
ask the candid attention of these to the follow-
ing pages. - 2B. T. Roperrs.

RocuEster, N.Y., Aveusr 6, 1879.
CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
BISHOP SIMPSON ON THE FREE METHODIST CHURCH.

“The Cyclopedia of Methodism” — Letter to
Bishop Simpson -His Reply—Reply exam-
ined—The Cyclopedia article on ‘‘ The Free
Methodists,” : ‘ 3 : 15-21

CHAPTER II.
NAZARITE ORGANIZATION.

Did it exist in reality ?—Denial of its existence—
‘“Genesee Conference Matters,” quoted
from the Northern Independent—Who the
Seventeen Signers of this Article were—
Their Character estimated—Asa Abell—J.
P.Kent—Samuel C.Church—Charles D. Bur-
lingham—Amos Hard—Statements of Jo-
seph McCreery —Infallibility of Genesee
Conference questioned — Value of a Con-
ference Vote,. 2 ; : : : 22-43

CHAPTER III.
FACTS IN THE CASE.

Transition State of the M. E. Church—The Sla-
very Question—Two Parties—Rise of North-
ern Independent—Masonry a disturbing Ele-
ment—Conference at Buffalo, 1848 — The
Crisis—Promoters of Holiness—Asa Abell—
Eleazer Thomas — William C. Kendall—
Loren Stiles—Isaac C. Kingsley—Charles D.
Burlingham—Bishop Hamline—Attacks by
the Buffalo Advocate, 5 : ‘ 44-63

x
CONTENTS. xi

CHAPTER IV.
SECRET MEETINGS.

The Secret Society nen in secret Meeting—Orig-
inal Minutes of one Meeting—Testimony
that Secret Meetings were held—Of Sanford
Hunt—Of ThomasCarlton Of D.F.Parsons
—Acts of the Association—Sketch of Wil-
liam C. Kendall—His Labors and Death—
Letter from Seymour Coleman, ‘ 3 64-82

CHAPTER V.
RELIGION OF THE MAJORITY.

New School Methodists— Article on‘‘ New School
Methodism,” in full—Buffalo Advocate on
‘‘ Religious Interests in Buffalo” — Comments
of the Northern Independent upon the re-
port on ‘‘ The State of the Work,” in 1865--
Report of Conference Minutes for 1858 and
1878, contrasted—Jesse T. Peck on the relig-
ous condition of the M. E. Church at that
time—Dr. Newman, . . . .  . 83-112

CHAPTER VI.
THE PROSCRIBED RELIGION.

Accounts of it by its Opposers—Favorable Testi-

' mony of its Character by Rev. Win. Reddy
—By Rev. B. I. Ives, in his account of the
‘‘Bergen Camp-meeting”.in 1858—By Rev.
J. T. Crawford, in published account of Ber-
gen Camp Meeting, 1859—By Rev. Ira A.
Weaver, J. Palmer and others, . ‘ . 118-187

CHAPTER VII.

CHURCH TRIALS.

Joseph McCreery—Complaints of Enoch Pease
against three Preachers—Genesee Confer-
xii

CONTENTS.

ence covering Fraud—Desperation of the
Regency -Charges against B. T. Roberts
and William C. Kendall —Trial of B. T.
Roberts —He is Admonished—Work on the
Pekin Circuit,

CHAPTER VIII.
TWO EXPULSIONS.

The Estes Pamphlet— George W. Estes re-

sponsible for it— Charges against B. T.
Roberts--Counsel refused—Change of Ve-
nue refused—Trial by Committee refused—
Testimony in the matter of the Estes
Pamphlet—C. D. Burlingham on the Ver-
dict for Expulsion—Trial of Joseph Mce-
Creery—His account of his Trial—Appeals
to the General Conference—B. T. Roberts
and Joseph McCreery join on Probation—

CHAPTER IX.

LAYMEN’S CONVENTION.

Convention called by One Hundred Laymen

meets at Albion, 1858— Resolutions adopted
—Course of the Northern Christian Advo-
cate,

CHAPTER X.

WAR AGAINST THE MEMBERS.

Arraigned for Praying—The Case of Claudius

Brainard—Expelled for attending the Lay-
men’s Convention—His Appeal disregarded
—Reason for voting against his appeal—
Others expelled at Chili—Trial of Thomas
B. Catton—Of Jonathan Handley—Of Jas.
H. Brooks—Second Laymen’s Convention
called,

138-158

159-190

191-205

206-217
CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XI.
MORE PREACHERS EXPELLED.

Powers of a Conference—Charges against Rev.

L. Stiles—Expelled for keeping the rules of
the Discipline—Case of Charles D. Burling-
ham—Case of Rev. William Cooley—Appeal
of Rev. John A. Wells—Northern Indepen-
dent on the Expulsion of these Ministers—
Death of Rev. L. Stiles—Funeral Sermon by
Rev. W. Hosmer—Notice of the career of
some of the Expelled Ministers in years sub-
sequent to their Expulsion—Second Lay-
men’s Convention at Albion, March, 1859—
Its Proceedings — Encouragement to the
Regency,

? CHAPTER XII.

EXPULSION BY WHOLESALE..

Speech of Thomas Carlton at Brockport Confer-

ence—How a Preacher can get a majority in
a Quarterly Conference—Rey. A. L.Chapin’s
career at East Otto—Proceedings of 8. M.
Hopkins at Le Roy—B. F. McNeal, on the
Tonawanda and Ridgeville Circuit, adopts
a similar policy—Case of Rev. Henry Horns-
by—The Work in Illinois—Dr. Redfield at
St. Charles—Expulsions in Ilinois—What
came of them, 3 4

CHAPTER XIII.

THE APPEALS,

General Conference of 1860—A Resolution to in-

\

vestigate Genesee Conference matters op-
posed by James M. Fuller—Loyalty defined
—Court of Appeals—The Appeals not enter-
tained — Final Appeal— Bishop Simpson’s

xiii

218-262

263-278
xiv CONTENTS.

Statement denied—Provisions of the M. E.
Discipline examined—Rev. William Hosmer
on the Appeal Cases—Appeal of Rev. C. D.
Burlingham— Remarkable decision—Action
of the General Conference reviewed—Expe-
dients of Thomas Carlton—‘‘ Official Exposi-
tion of Law,”; : ‘ 3 ‘ ‘ i 279-303

CHAPTER XIV.
REVIEWS.

Bishop Simpson’s Article on ‘‘The Free Meth-
odists ” reviewed — Untrue statements — .
Conable’s ‘‘ History of the Genesee Con-
ference—A Remarkable Book—False State-
ments alleged and proved—History of the
Bergen Camp Ground—Measures of the
Regency to obtain possession—Result of
a suit-at-law, j . ‘ ‘ : ‘ 304-316

CHAPTER XV.
CONCLUSION.

Summary of the Points Proved against the Gen-
esee Conference of the M. E. Church—against
the M. E. Church at large—and its Histori-
ans—Personal Attitude of the Author, . 317-319

APPENDIX.

Facts and Statistics relative to the ‘‘ Free Meth-
odist Church,” from its organization in 1860,
to the General Conference in 1878 . e . 820-321
WHY ANOTHER SECT.

CHAPTER I.
BISHOP SIMPSON ON THE FREE METHODIST
CHURCH.

“The Cyclopedia of Methodism,”’ is a new
book, edited by M. Simpson, D. D., one of the
Bishops of the M. E. Church.

A cyclopedia is a book which no one should
write without the utmost candor, and great
patience of research. The brilliancy of ima-
gination which may fit one to shine as an orator
or an essayist, should have no play in compi-
ling sober facts, or established truths. A history
is often read for entertainment, as well as for
instruction ; but a cyclopedia is useful only as
a book of reference ; and if its statements can
not be relied upon, it is worthless.

Of the necessity of fairness the Bishop ap-
pears to have been fully mindful when he
wrote his preface, and singularly forgetful
when he ‘admitted his article on ‘‘The Free
Methodist Church.’ This article contains
several important misrepresentations. This
we undertake. to establish to the satisfaction
16 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

of every candid mind, notwithstanding the
difficulty of proving a negative.

We do not charge the Bishop with wilfully
misrepresenting a single fact. With his mo-
tives we have nothing to do. We would not,
knowingly, do him the slightest injustice.
But false statements, coming from a reputable
source, do not need to proceed from malice, to
be capable of doing so much harm as to de-
mand correction.

Soon after reading the article referred to, we
wrote the Bishop as follows :

_Rocusster, N. Y., Supr. 13, 1878.
Rev. M. Smreson, D. D.,
Bishop of the M. E. Church.

Dear Sir: I think when one makes incorrect state-
ments, he should have the privilege of correcting them.
I therefore take the liberty to address you in reference
to the article in your “ Cyclopedia of Methodism,” on
the Free Methodist Church. In your preface you
say: “The aim has been to give a fair, and impartial
view of every branch of the Methodist family. For
this purpose, contributors and correspondents were se-
lected, as far as practicable, who were identified with
the several branches, and who from their position,
were best qualified to furnish information as to their
respective bodies.”

Either no such selection was made from the Free
Methodists, or the information which they furnished,
with the exception of the bare statistics, was not

ss
\

CYCLOPEDIA OF METHODISN. 17

given to the public in that article. In either case,
what becomes of the claim of fairness ?

In this article there are some fifteen statements or
re-statements, which are utterly untrue, and some
five or six statements which, though in a sense true,
yet are, from the manner in which they are made,
misleading.

If furnished with proof, satisfactory to candid
minds, that these statements referred to are untrue,
and misleading, will you correct them in the church
periodicals, and in future editions of your book? If
not, will you give the authority upon which the state-
ments complained of, are made?

Yours most respectfully,
B. T. Rozserrs.

To this the Bishop replied as follows:

PuILaDELPuia, Oct. 23, 1878.
Rey. B. T. Rosrrts.

Dear Sir: Returning home from a long tour in
the west, I find your letter of September 13th, com-
plaining of inaccuracies in the article on Free Meth-
odism, but without specifying what those inaccuracies
are.

I am not aware of any incorrect statements in the
article, but if you will furnish me with corrections
and the accompanying proofs, I will gladly make any
alterations in a future edition, should such edition be
called for. I desire to have perfect accuracy in every
article, and it will give me as much pleasure to cor-
rect, as it can you to furnish the corrections.

Yours truly,
M. Simpson.
18 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

On reading this letter, the intelligent reader
will notice :

1. That the Bishop fully assumes the respon-
sibility for the accuracy of the article in
question.

2. That he does not, even if convinced of
inaccuracies, offer to correct them, wntil a fu-
ture edition of his book is called for, and not
at all unless such edition is called for, leaving
the article, meantime, to create all the prejudice,
and do all the injustice of which it is capable.

3. That he gives no authority for his state-
ments.

4. That he does not profess, as claimed in
his preface, in order ‘‘to give a fair and im-
partial view’’ of this ‘‘ branch of the Methodist
family,’ to have selected a ‘‘contributor’’
from the Free Methodists who was ‘‘identified’’
with it, and who, ‘‘ from his position was best
qualified to give information’’ as to his partic-
ular body. Nor does he give any reason why
this was not considered ‘‘ practicable.’’ In the
city where he resides, were men capable of
giving such information !

We copy, from the Cyclopedia, the article
which contains the statements of which we
complain. For the sake of reference, we have
marked the clauses which we consider untrue,
with figures; and those which are mislead-
CYCLOPEDIA OF METHODISM. 19

ing, with letters. We give the article entire,
except the statistics.

“THE FREE METHODIST CHURCH.”

“The organization of the Free Methodist Church
dates from. August 23, 1860, at a convention com-
posed of ministers and laymen, who had been mem-
bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, but became
adissatisfied with the workings of its government.
Though organized at that date, the movement com-
menced several years earlier, within the bounds of
the Genesee Conference, and originated in an lasso-
ciation of ministers, who *thought they had not been
properly treated by the leading men of the confer-
ence. They privately adopted a platform, and in
this organization were known as ‘Nazarites.’ In
their writings, and speeches, they complained of the
decline of spirituality in the church, >charging the
church with tolerating, for the sake of gain, the
worldly practices of its members, and its departure,
both in doctrine and discipline, from the teachings of
the fathers. They professed themselves to be moved
by the Holy Spirit, and believed it was their duty to
bear open testimony against what they alleged to be
the sins of the church. This 5organization, and its
Spublications, containing such charges against the
leading members of the Conference, led in 1855, to a
very unpleasant state of feeling, and resulted in
various church trials. In 71858, two of the leaders
were expelled from the Conference ; they appealed to
the ensuing General Conference, held at Buffalo in
1860; but as they had 8declined to recognize the
authority of the church, and %had continued to exercise
20 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

their ministry, and to organize societies, the General
Conference declined to entertain the appeal. Even
previous to the trial, some of the ministers had
established appointments, and organized societies in
opposition to the regular church services.

At the organization of this church in 1860, they
accepted the doctrines of Methodism, as contained in
the Articles of Religion, and placed a special stress
on Christian perfection, or sanctification. They
added an additional article which says: ‘Those that
are sanctified wholly, are saved from all inward sin,
from evil thoughts and evil tempers. No wrong
temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul.
All their thoughts, words and actions, are governed
by pure love.

Entire sanctification takes place subsequently to
justification, and is the work of God, wrought instan-
taneously upon the consecrated, believing soul. After
a soul is cleansed from all sin, it is then fully prepared
to grow in grace.’

They also added a second article on future rewards
and punishments.

‘In church polity, the name of bishop was aban-
doned, and a general superintendency substituted.
The 4conference organizations were retained as in the
M. E. Church, and laymen, in’ numbers equal to the
ministers, were admitted into each of these bodies.
eThe name of presiding elder was changed to that of
district chairman. No one is admitted as a member,
even after probation, without a confession of saving
faith in Christ. The !reason alleged by them is, that
much of the defection in other Methodist churches, is
due to the fact that multitudes who have joined the
CYCLOPEDIA OF METHODISN. 21

church as inquirers, have failed to pursue a strictly
spiritual life. fThey also require their members to
be exceedingly plain in their dress, and they prohibit
any one connected with the church from being a
member of any secret society. They require not only
abstinence from intoxicating liquors, but also from
the use of tobacco, except as a medicine.

In its early history, some of its leaders encour-
aged a spirit of wild “fanaticism, claiming the
power of healing by the Jaying on of hands. In many
cases the excitement connected with their meetings
passed into extravagance, which was sanctioned by
their leading men, as being evidence of the influence
ot the Holy Spirit. As the denomination has pro-
gressed, and has extended its boundaries, though their
services are still characterized by much fervor, there
is less of these manifestations. The Free Methodist
Church is confined almost exclusively to the Northern
states. There are at present ten annual conferences,
which report for 1876, the following statistics.”

We give statistics in full in the appendix.
CHAPTER II.
NAZARITE ORGANIZATION, 2

Men sometimes become so impressed with
hearing a matter frequently repeated that they
finally believe it, not only without evidence,
but in opposition to positive evidence to the
contrary. This appears to be the case with
Bishop Simpson, in reference to the ‘‘ Nazarite
Union,” or “‘ Band.’”’ That there was such an
organization among the members of the Gen-
esee Conference of the M. E. Church, was
confidently affirmed, both in private and
through the press ; though we can hardly see
how it is possible that those making such
affirmation did not know that it was false. But
the statement is still made, as confidently as
though it were a conceded fact.

It was talked of at the time as fully proved,
by those who opposed the doctrine of holiness,
as specially advocated by the men who were
charged with being members of such an organ-
ization. Official papers of the Church helped
on the delusion. Though it was emphatically
denied by those members of the Genesee
Conference who had knowledge of the matter,
and who were supposed to belong to the
NAZARITE ORGANIZATION. 23

‘““Nazarite Band,’ no notice whatever was
taken of their denial. And from Bishop
Simpson’s book, it appears that the statement
is still clung to with great pertinacity. Is it
on the principle that a story often told is at
last believed? Or is it because it is the only
shadow of an excuse that can be made for an
act of ecclesiastical tyranny and proscription,
which, looking back upon after the lapse of
twenty years, we deliberately pronounce to be
without a parallel in modern times, for its in-
justice ?

We shall give proofs so conclusive that no
such organization ever existed, as to forever
set the question at rest with every person who
lays the slightest claim to candor.

And first, we call attention to the following
paper, which was prepared and signed by the
men who were supposed to be prominent in
the ‘‘ Nazarite organization.’’ It was published
at the time in the Worthern Independent, and
inafly-sheet form. A copy was given to Bishop
Simpson.

“ GENESEE CONFERENCE MATTERS.
READ AND THEN JUDGE.

Certain reports having been put into circulation,
charging a portion of the Ministers of the Genesee
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, with
the disreputable and unworthy act, of having organ-
24 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

ized a society “bearing certain marks of secrecy”
under the name of the “Nazarite Band or,Union,”
the object, of which, it has been reported, is to con-
trol the appointments, and direct the affairs of the
Conferénce ; and this charge implicating many of
our Ministers as taking steps unworthy the Christian,
and derogatory to the Ministerial character :

Therefore, We, the undersigned, Members of ‘the
Genesee Conference, hereby declare, that after careful
inquiry, we are fully convinced that no such society
has ever existed in the bounds of this Conference.
The whole excitement with reference to the supposed
organization, grew out of certain letters, indicating
the existence of such a society, written by a single
individual, who, on the floor of the Olean Conference
in 1855, publicly declared, that he alone was respon-
sible for the whole affair. These letters were written
without our knowledge, and have never received our
approval. Though the existence of such a society
has been repeatedly denied, in various ways and on
numerous occasions, yet in public and in private, and
especially through the columns of the Buffalo Chris-
tian Advocate, these reports have been spread abroad,
to the injury of the Ministerial reputation, and
Christian influence and usefulness of numbers of our
Ministers, by creating an unjust prejudice against
them; among whom are some of our most able and
efficient men.

Connected with the charge of association, is that
of encouraging fanaticism, and extravagance in re-
ligious exercises and worship. This charge we declare
to be-as groundless as the other. We have never
encouraged excesses, and with them we have not the
NAZARITE ORGANIZATION. 25

least sympathy. But while we stand opposed to all
improprieties in religious exercises and worship, we
declare ourselves in favor of a consistent and vitalized
religion; not a dead formalism, but the power of
Godliness. Not that form of religion that expresses
itself in confused irregularities on the one hand, or
on the other, in sermons without life and without
adaptation,—the abandonment of social meetings,
and the neglect of family and private prayer; but in
a religion that moves the heart, and prompts to every
good work; not of beneficence alone, but also of
devotion.

These charges then, of forming an association or
encouraging fanaticism, having their origin, in the
opinion of some, in ambition and jealousy; made and
reiterated, it has been feared, with a design and for
effect—if applied to us, we unhesitatingly pronounce
to be unjust, iniquitous, slanderous and FALSE.

A. ABELL, Isaac C. Kinesey,
Joun P. Kent, C. D. Buriinenam,
SamuEL C. Cuurcu, A. Harp,

Lorren Stites, Jz., 3B. T. Rozserrs,

Joun B. JENKINS, E. 8. Furman,
W. Gorpon, R. E. Tuomas,

"A. W. Lwcz, Dantet B. Lawton,
J. MiLier, Wm. Ketioae,

Le Roy, September 1857. J. Bowman.”

The seventeen members of the Genesee Con-
ference who signed this emphatic denial, were
prominent among those commonly designated

s ‘‘ Nazarites.’’ If there was any such associ-
26 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

ation, they must have known it; for they were
the men‘ of whom this association was said to
be, in the main, composed. Five of the num-

ber had been presiding elders, and four of
them members of the General Conference. Out
of the entire number, only three were ever
members of the Free Methodist Church. One
we believe, afterwards joined the Presbyte-
rians, another, the United Brethren. The rest,
so far as we know, are either in the M. E.
Church, or remained in it until they died.
Some of them, in process of time, became the
most bitter enemies of the Free Methodist
Church. Yet we have never heard that any
of them ever made any statement, inconsistent
with what they here say.
That these men were in circumstances to
know the truth of what they affirm, no one
can question. Does Bishop Simpson, does any
one believe that these seventeen men, and min-
isters of the Gospel, deliberately published
what they knew to be false? Did the Bishop.
appoint, from year to year, to take charge of
churches, and guide souls to Heaven, men
who, as he believed, loved and made’ and pub-
lished a lie, and stuck to it? Would the
Bishop have the public understand that delib-
erate, wilful, persistent falsehood does not
disqualify men from being pastors in the
NAZARITE ORGANIZATION. 27

Methodist Episcopal Church? Is it Christian
charity to lay, without evidence, seventeen
ministers of the Gospel—some of whom
died, to all appearance, in holy triumph—under
the imputation of wilful falsehood, in a matter
concerning which they could not possibly be
mistaken ?

There is a plain, an irreconcilable contradic-
tion between the statement of the Bishop, and
the statement of these men. The Bishop says
of .the Free Methodist movement, that it com-
menced ‘‘ Within the bounds of the Genesee
Conference, and originated in an association of
ministers who thought they had not been
properly treated by the leading men of the
Conference. They privately adopted a plat-
form, and in this organization were known as
Nazarites.’’ These seventeen men say: ‘‘ We
hereby declare that, after careful inquiry, we
are fully convinced that no such society has
ever existed in the bounds of this Conference.”’

They investigated the subject under circum-
stances the most favorable possible’ for a
thorough investigation. They were themselves
not only suspected, but openly accused of
being members of such an association. If
there were any such members, apart from
themselves, these men, their friends, would
have found it out. They declare that they
28 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

made ‘‘ careful inquiry.’’ And the result left
no doubt upon their minds. They say they .
are FULLY CONVINCED. Their denial is not in
the cautious, evasive language of those who
seek to conceal the truth under a specious
subterfuge. It is open, frank, and compre-
hensive. They do not deny merely that there
is a Nazarite organization,—leaving the suspi-
cion on the mind that there was one, but it
had been dissolved—but they are ‘‘/ully con-
vinced that no such society has ever existed in
the bounds of this Conference.” They not
only give the result of their inquiry as to oth-
ers, but with reference to themselves they
say: ‘‘This charge of forming an association
or encouraging fanaticism, if applied to us, we
unhesitatingly pronounce to be unjust, iniqui-
tous, slanderous, and FAtsE.”’ Is it possible
to form a denial more specific, and more com-
prehensive? Either their statement is’ false,
or the statement of the Bishop is false. There
is no possible way to reconcile them.

The Bishop does not profess to speak from
personal knowledge. Relying upon informa-
tion, he might easily be deceived. These
seventeen ministers do profess.to speak from
personal knowledge. They could not possibly
be deceived. If their statement is untrue, it
is knowingly, and from set purpose, untrue.

=
NAZARITE ORGANI ZATION. 29

In addition to signing the foregoing denial,
the Rev. Asa Abell, in an article published in
the Northern Independent, March 10th, 1859,
says:

“Tt does seem to me that I have been so circum-
stanced, that had there really been any such Union or
Society, it could not have failed to come to my
knowledge ; and I solemnly declare that I neither
know now, nor have ever known of any society called
by the name in question, neither in form nor in fact :
nor of any association like to the one whose existence
is so boldly and positively asserted ; nor of any such
league or combination whatever, by any name what-
ever.

All this I intend to assert, without any such men-
tal reservation as would leave what I say to be true,
and yet in some hidden and mysterious sense true, ,
that there is, or has been such an organization or soci-
ety. No man has yet proved, and I am sure no one
ever can prove, the existence of such a league or
society, for the reason that no one can prove a non-
entity to be an entity. I never knew or heard of any
meeting for the purpose of forming such a society, or
league, or union, nor of any meeting of any such
society ; nor of any meeting of reputed officers of
any such society.”

In a matter of this kind the personal char-
acter of the witnesses is to be considered. With
that of the Bishop we have nothing to do.
We may concede, in this respect, all that his
warmest friends may claim for him. For he
30 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

does not assert that he ever attended a meeting
of the ‘‘association,’’ or that he is a personal
witness in the matter. He gained his knowl-
edge from others. All experience has shown
that it is not difficult to impose on one of a
generous and confiding nature. Free from
guile himself, he is slow to suspect that those
to whom he has given his confidence, and who
stand in the relation to him of personal friends
and official advisers, can practice deception
upon him. So that:in showing the falsity of
the statements of the Bishop, we make
no reflection upon him. But the char-
acter of these seventeen men is an important
element in this investigation. They are volun-
tary witnesses, who come forward, in order to
remove an unjust aspersion, and who speak in
relation to a matter which they were generally .
supposed to understand; and which they
claimed to understand. Are they men to be
believed? Is their general character such as
to render them credible witnesses? We know
of but one of the entire number whose charac-
ter for veracity was ever called in question.
We will leave him out. As to the rest, they
are men whose testimony would be given full
force in any court of justice, in any concern,
however important. Some of them were men
who spent long and useful lives in the ministry.
NAZARITE ORGANIZATION. 31

Asa Abell was one of the pioneers of Meth-
odism in Western New York. He joined the
Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church in 1821. During his long and remark-
ably successful ministry, he was presiding
elder for eighteen years. He was a member of
four successive General Conferences of the
Church. When the Free Methodist Church
was organized, he showed his devotion to the
principles he had always advocated, by volun-
tarily severing his connection with the Church
to which he had given the best energies of his
life ; and uniting with a few proscribed and
persecuted men, when, as yet, it was doubtful:
whether they would be able to maintain their
existence, as a denomination. During his long
life, even the breath of calumny never dared
whisper anything against his fair name.

John P. Kent was in the ministry for a
longer period, and always bore a reputation
above. reproach. He never left the M. E.
Church, but isan honored, superannuated min-
ister.

The records of the Genesee Conference of
the M. E. Church say of Rev. Samuel C.
Church, D. D.: ‘‘ His conscientiousness would
not allow him to be a neutral. His good sense
and generosity kept,him from mere partisan-
ship.”
32 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

Charles D. Burlingham was an able, upright,
genial-hearted man, loyal to the M. E. Church,
in which he died an acceptable, respected
minister. The minutes of the Western New
York Conference of the M. E. Church for
1875, say: ‘Brother Burlingham was a man
of superior talents, a man of culture and
sound piety, an able writer and preacher, an
excellent pastor, greatly respected and loved
by all who knew him. His departure was
unexpected and sudden, yet he was fully pre-
pared ; and died as he had lived, a true Chris-
tian, an honored and faithful minister of
Christ.”’ :

Did Bishop Simpson, in his large experi-
ence with men, ever know one more conscien-
tious and God-fearing than Amos Hard? Who,
ever questioned his honesty of purpose? Is
it possible for a man to give a better proof of
genuine piety than this man did, down to the
sudden end of his useful, self-denying life?
Of him the minutes of the Genesee Conference
of the M. E. Church for 1878, say: ‘‘ Brother
Amos Hard, as a Christian was thorough and
earnest. He tolerated nothing superficial in
himself, or others. In the words of his life-
long friend, Rev. Dr. Reddy, ‘He abhorred all
shams.’ His study and prayer to find out
what the Bible meant by ‘holiness,’ his hun-
|
NAZARI. TE ORGANIZATION. 33

ger for its experience, his wrestlings and
fastings, and rigorous self-testings, and the
unutterable sweetness of divine love, with
which his whole soul was filled, as related by
himself, constitute one of the most vivid pic-
tures of a Christian mightily in earnest.
‘Measured by the standard of success in
winning souls to Christ, few have gone from
among us to a richer reward, or leaving behind
a more glorious record.”’

In making up a history of events in which.
such men bore a prominent part, is their tes-
timony respecting these events to be set aside,
without even assigning any cause? Is it tobe
assumed, without evidence, that they placed
themselves on record as falsifiers of facts with
which they were well acquainted? And is
such assumption to pass: into history unchal-
lenged? Is partisan prejudice, or denomina-
tional pride to supercede the necessity of
candidly weighing evidence, and honestly
endeavoring to ascertain and state the truth?
Tf no notice is to be taken of the testimony of
such men as these, what isthe use of human
testimony? History may as well be written
wholly from the imagination.

If these men are to be believed, then is
Bishop Simpson’s statement that the Free
Methodist Church had its origin in an ‘ asso-
34 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

ciation of ministers’ who “‘ privately adopted
a platform, and in this organization were
known as Nazarites,”’ utterly false.

But what is to be done with the ‘‘ Docu-
ments of the Nazarite Union?’ Do they
not assume that.there was such an organiza-
tion? We reply: Does not every work of
fiction speak of the events which it relates as
though they in reality took place? But who,
on that account, quotes them as history? The
only proot ever adduced, to our knowledge,
(and we presume we have read all. that has
been written on the subject,) that such an or-
ganization ever existed, is drawn from the
writings of one man, his letters and the pam-
phlet entitled, ‘‘Documents of the Nazarite
Union of the Genesee Conference of the M. E.
Church,” and on the vote of the Genesee Con-
ference, based on these documents.

The body ot this pamphlet was read by the
Rev. Joseph McCreery, to the Conference at
its annual session at Olean in 1855. But he
stated at the same time, that he was ‘‘the
‘Nazarite Union,”’ that he alone was responsible
for the whole affair. Others, supposed to
belong to it, corroborated his statement, that
the whole matter was a fancy of his own crea-
tion. Joseph McCreery more than intimates
thisin the preface of his pamphlet. He says:
NAZARITE ORGANIZATION. 35

“A certain pamphlet published in New York has
represented the Nazarites as a secret society devoted
to the propagation of doctrinal tenets. It is enough
to say that its author has been imposed upon by his
zealous correspondent, both as to the fact and pur-
pose of the Nazarites. It is only as yet a mere
proposal to return to the ‘old paths.’ ”

Notice that the author of this pamphlet
states: ‘‘That it is only as yet a mere proposal
to return to the old paths.’”’ But a proposal
is not proof that the thing proposed is an ac-
complished fact. Other proof is needed to
show that the proposal was carried out. That
proof, in this case, does not exist.

Before the Genesee conference at its session
at Perry, in 1858, Joseph McCreery testified :

“T wrote everything relating to the Nazarite Band.
I wrote the documents. I did design dn association,
and prepared the documents in anticipation of such,
but when we got to Conference we had enough to do
of other business. We did not organize, and the
question of organization has been an open question
ever since. I never administered the vow to any
one and I never took it myself—not formally. The
association was never practically formed; I stated
nearly so on the. floor of the Olean Conference. I
stated that the whole thing was provisional, and pro-
spective and Z alone was responsible for the whole
concern. The preface to the pamphlet is a mythical
concern altogether.”

Is not this plain ?
36 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

In a letter to Rev. H. Hornsby, Rev. J.
McCreery explains still more fully:

; “Parma CENTRE, Nov. 11, 1855.
Rev. H. Hornspy:

The general argument is this: A number of .
preachers informally agreed among themselves to re-
turn as far as practicable to the discipline and customs
of the church, and because of the comparative
inability of one here and there doing this, they sug-
gested the propriety of extending a general invitation
to those deemed inclined in the same direction to
join in the movement. This is the sum and substance
of the whole concern. The only wonder in the case
is that this should be considered a crime of such

“magnitude as to alarm the whole Conference and
keep it in a stir for several days. For all the circum-
stantial trappings—the mystic numbers, names, and
parables I am responsible. I gave them for the pur-
pose they have answered so eloquently well. It gave
an air of mystery to the matter which could not fail
to attract the most intense attention in certain quar-
ters. It was pursued only far enough to accomplish
that purpose, and then relinquished. It was only
a unique incident of the concern. The Lord helped
at every turn, and permitted the Buffalo Regency to
humbug itself most beautifully.

No one had signed the obligation. No one had
adhered to the “ practical propositions.” The Regency
did not even suspect the existence of the “Lamen-
tations ” or “Recommendations.” They thought they
were fighting a mere political electioneering plot,
got up by plotters like themselves. Misleading
themselves by the cabalistic circulars, like “Don
NAZARITE ORGANIZATION. 37

Quixotte of yore they attacked a windmill ”—and
it is thought with about the same sort of result.
The whole matter was as yet only a principle pro-
posed. It had no formal embodiment. It was a
society sams constitution, sans laws, sans members,
sans everything but officers and they ignorant of
their official standing. In a strict legal sense it was a
“fiction.” At this impalpable fiction the Buffalo
Regency lit off the whole park of their artillery load-
ed to the muzzle. They fired at nothing and hit
it, while the rebound of their guns kicked the whole
battalion “hors du combat.” The report was fright-
ening, deafening, but nobody was killed, for the very
good reason that there was nobody there to be killed.
The terrible “ Nazarite Band” was “non est inventus,”
and the passage of the famous compromise resolu-
tion leaves it non est inventus still. Hence my second
of the same. .

The hue and cry of “censoriousness” is but the
flapping of empty sails with the wind taken out of
them. No one either makes or hears it seriously. It
is “gammon” by common consent. All the
artillery in the world, and the Buffalo Regency to
boot, can not shoot a ghost, and at the same time a
ghost is more terrible out of the body than in. My
judgment is that we should keep it in its present
ghostly condition, without form, and void of organic
properties, urging every where its principles and
threatening its embodiment only in case the Buffalo
Regency refuses to become defunct. Already, like
Banquo’s ghost, it haunts them in all their ways.
They have already scared themselves into madness
by gazing upon it.
38 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

The Buffalo Regency brought the war upon us.
They made the strife. They cried, and roared, and
bellowed. They disturbed the peace. They read
intercepted private letters to cause strife. They read
scandalous bills of information. They railed and
ridiculed Bishop and Presiding Elder. They passed
resolutions of insubordination, of refusal to take
appointments except such as they had parceled out to
themselves in advance of Conference. Z'hey called
for pacification committees, to be frightened by sham:
threats of location into their service, to recommend
to the Bishop a compliance to their demands. This
they did causing all the strife there was. They were
the doers of everything done; we were only the
“did.” And as an evidence of our quiet and Chris-
tion spirit in the midst of all this commotion we sat
serene in peaceful silence, “like Patience sitting on
a@ monument, smiling at grief.” We did not even
laugh at their farcical attempts to befool the Confer-
ence and the Bishop. All we did was to sit still and
let them fume and fret it out.

Our special argument is this: will a close and posi-
tive adherence to the forms and customs of Method-
ism engender a departure from its doctrines? Is it
likely to encourage any other “ism” than Method-
ism? On the contrary is there not a special reason,
founded on the prevalence, in these days, of all these
vagrant “isms” for a more explicit and firm adhesion
to Methodism ?

So that instead of favoring fanaticism, it is our
only sure defense against it,—a defense eminently
demanded by the times. An emphatic and decided
Methodist is of all men the least likely to fall into
NAZARITE ORGANIZATION. 39

any of the numerous delusions around us. It is only
when men forsake the fountain of living waters that
they hew out to themselves the broken cisterns of
Odd-fellowism, spiritualism, and the like.

We shall-go right on in the path of “Old Line
Methodism,” and whoever or whatever meets us in
an opposite direction must either give the road, or run
against us as heretofore. We shall neither seek nor
shun any strife. We shall neither attack any foe, nor
flee from him. Wc shall simply, in the name of the
Lord our God, run through whatever troop, and leap
over whatever wall crosses “the path our fathers
trod. Amen. J. McCreery.”

At the Perry Conference the question of the
existence of a ‘‘Nazarite organization’? was
judicially investigated. The utmost pains
were taken to prove its existence. But all the
proof that was brought was the ‘‘ Documents”’
in question. But if these ‘‘Documents”’ are
admissible as evidence, then the declaration
of their author concerning them is equally
admissible, and is entitled to equal weight.
But this declaration, in his own language is,
that ‘‘The whole concern is a fiction—prepared
and ready to become a fact, when we should
see fit to make it such.’ That time never
came.

But it is said that the Olean Conference
voted that there was such a society. Their
vote relating to this matter is published in the
minutes as follows :
40 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

“We regret that in view of such deficiencies as
may exist, and with the ostensible purpose of return-
ing to first principles, any of our members should
have associated together, as we find they have done,
under the name of the ‘“ Nazarite Band,” or other
similar appellations, with some forms of secrecy, and
with the claim to be peculiar in this respect; and
we pass our disapprobation upon such associations,
and hereby express our full expectation that it will
be abandoned by all members of_this Conference.”

We must confess our inability to understand
this language. It looks absurd to charge that
the ‘‘ Nazarites’”’ ‘‘ claimed to be peculiar”’ in
respect to having ‘‘some forms of secrecy.”’
That men who had for years been opposing
secret societies, should be charged with mak-
ing such a ‘‘claim,’’ seems extremely marvel-
lous. They knew that there were many socie-
ties which had ‘‘ forms of secresy.”’

It is by no means certain, supposing this to
be a true copy of the record, that the record
is correct. We have known instances where
secretaries quite as competent as the one who
made that record, have, without intending it,
in copying documents upon the journal, made
such mistakes as to seriously affect the mean-
ing.

But supposing the copy and the record to be
correct, suppose the Conference voted as it is
here said they did, their vote that a fact existed
NAZARITE ORGANIZATION. 41

does not prove that it actually existed. Shall
we concede infallibility to the Genesee Confer-
ence, blinded by partisan fury, when we deny
it to the Pope and his General Council, acting
in a dispassionate manner? The vote does not
even prove that the Conference believed that
what they voted was true. It simply proves
that they had power to pass such a vote, and
did pass it. This same Genesee Conference at
its session at LeRoy in 1857, voted as a fact
what every man voting KNEW was not a fact.
They did so on my trial. With my printed
article before them, they voted that I said in
that article, what they knew I did not say. J
called their attention to it, and madeit so plain
that the dullest could not fail to see it.

That a vote of a Conference that a fact exists
is no proof of its existence, is shown by the
records of a far more respectable body of the
M. E. Church than the Genesee Conference.

The Journal of the General Conference held
at Philadelphia, May, 1864, has the following
record:

“The long contest on the subject of slavery seems
drawing to’a close, and no doubtful tokens indicate
the will of God, and point unerringly to the destruc-
tion of a system so inhuman.

We rejoice that we have, from the beginning been
foremost among American Churches in the contest
against slavery.”
42 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

The men who voted this self-congratulation
were elected from the various Conferences to
represent the piety and the wisdom of the
Church. They were men above the average of
Methodist preachers.

These men must have known that there were
upon the Journal of the General Conference,
having the force of law, resolutions passed
only twenty-eight years before, which plainly
contradict the above claim to ‘“‘ have from the
beginning been foremost among American
Churches in the contest against slavery.”’

We doubt whether any respectable body
ever gave a greater insult toa reading people.

We copy from the Journal of the General
Conference of the M. E. Church for 1836 :

“Resolved by the delegates of the Annual Con-
_ ferences in General Conference assembled:

1. That they disapprove, in the most unqualified
sense, the conduct of two members of the General
Conference who are reported to have lectured in this
city recently upon, and in favor of modern. Aboli-
tionism.

Resolved, 2. That they are decidedly opposed to
modern Abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right,
wish, or intention to interfere in the civil and political
relation between.master and slave as it exists in the
slave-holding States of this Union.

Resolved, That the committee appointed to draft
a pastoral letter to our preachers be, and they are
hereby instructed to take notice of the subject of

\
NAZARITE ORGANIZATION. 43

modern Abolition that has so seriously agitated the
different parts of our country, and that they let our
preachers, members, and friends know that the Gen-
eral Conference are opposed to the agitation of that
subject, and will use all prudent means to put it
down.”

Can you, after reading the action of these
two General Conferences of the M. E. Church,
believe that the vote of a Methodist Episcopal
Conference proves anything more than that
they passed it # :

Are you not then convinced that the asser-
tion of Bishop Simpson, that the Free Meth-
odist movement ‘‘originated in an association
of ministers, who privately adopted a plat-
form, and in this organization were known as
Nazarites,’*’ is utterly false? Can you possibly
come to any other conclusion? Ought not the
Bishop to have given these facts some candid
attention, before he admitted into his book, a
statement so foundationless and false 4

His fundamental assertion being proved
false, it follows that all those dependent upon
it are equally false.

If there was no organization, then it could
have had no name, no platform, and no publi-
cations.
CHAPTER IIL.

THE FACTS IN THE CASE.

Methodism in this country, was at that time
in what Dr. Stevens, then editor of the Chris-
tian Advocate and Journal, called ‘‘its tran-
sition state.” It still retained much of the
vital religion, fervor, simplicity and plainness,
which at the first, constituted its only apology
for an existence as a distinct denomination.
Generally, in going into their houses of wor-
ship, in time of service, one could tell at a
glance that it was a Methodist congregation.

Buta change had already commenced. It
was accelerated when the census of the United
States disclosed the fact that the M. E. Church
was the largest, Protestant denomination in
this country, and had the greatest amount of
church property. This gratifying intelligence
was often dwelt upon in the church periodicals,
and in addresses at Conferences, and at other
large gatherings. The effect was soon visible.
The Discipline still read, in answer to the ques-
tion : ‘

“Ts any thing advisable in regard to building

churches ?”
“Let all our churches be built plain and decent,
THE FACTS IN THE CASE. 45

~ and with free seats ; but not more expensive than is
absolutely unavoidable; otherwise the necessity of
raising money will make rich men necessary to -us.
But if so, we must be dependent on them, yea, and
governed by them. And then, farewell to Methodist
discipline if not doctrine too.”

The directions concerning dress were positive.

“ Question: Should we insist on the rules concern-
ing dress?

Answer. By all means. This is no time to give
encouragement to superfluity of apparel. Therefore,
receive none into the Church till they have left off
superfluous ornaments.” ‘In visiting the classes be
very mild, but very strict.” “Allow of no exempt
case: better one suffer than many.”

So reads the Discipline of 1846. But con-
formity to the world increased rapidly in these
respects. Still there were many, both among
the ministers and the members, who did not
take readily to the new order of things that
was being introduced. The Bible stood in
their way. They had been taught that it
meant what it said; and if it did, and their
rules were, as they believed, in accordance with
it, they thought their rules should be enforced,
and not repealed. They had not learned to
explain away the plain precepts of the Word
of God. These, too, held to the doctrine of
holiness as taught by Wesley—that entire
sanctification was to be sought ky faith, subse-
46 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

quently to pardon. Others opposed making
holiness a distinct-issue, and were content with
preaching it only in a general way, and carried
the idea that it was to be obtained gradually.
One old preacher said he had been seeking
holiness twenty years, and when questioned
closely, admitted he was no nearer it, as he
could see, than when he began.

At this period slavery was the all-absorbing
question in the M. E. Church, as in the nation.
The M. E. Church had been divided on the
slavery issue, but it was on the question of the
right of ministers to hold slaves. The right of
members to hold slaves was granted. There
was then, on the slavery question as there is
now in some Conferences on the tobacco ques-
tion, one standard of morality for the preach-
ers and another for the laymen. Up to the
day that slavery was abolished by the sword,
there were thousands of slave-holders in good
standing in the M. E. Church. The M. E.
Discipline tolerated slavery to the last.

But many of the preachers and members at
the North were zealously and honestly en-
gaged in the effort to banish, by proper enact-
merits, all slave holding from the M. E.
Church. Inthe Genesee Conference, as else-
where, there were two classes—one decidedly,
and at all times, openly and avowedly opposed
REV. WILLIAM H OSMER. AT

to slavery ; others claimed to be opposed to
slavery but objected to the measures proposed
to get rid of it. Those in the Genesee Confer-
ence who were asking for ‘“‘the old paths’
were abolitionists of the most. pronounced
type. :

The Rev. F. G. Hibbard had, by the pro-
slavery men of the General Conference been
elected editor of the Northern Christian Advo-
cate over the old editor, Rev. William Hosmer,
who was very emphatically the choice of the
patronizing Conferences. The anti-slavery men
of these Conferences would not tamely submit
to this usurpation of the slave power. So
they started the Worthern Independent, and
made Hosmer editor. This paper had a wide
circulation and a powerful influence. In
intellect and courage, Hosmer was the John
Knox of his day. His anti-slaveryism was
not of that’ sentimental kind which opposed
slavery at the South and defended tyranny at
home. ' With true nobility of soul he hated
injustice and oppression every where, and con-
demned them just as strongly when found in
the North as in the South, in his own church
as in the world. He not only opened his,
columns for those whom the dominant party of
the Genesee Conference proscribed, but spoke
out editorially in vigorous condemnation of
48 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

the oppressive acts of the majority of the
Conference.

About this time began the revival of Mason-
ry in this country. In the excitement which
followed the adbuction and murder of Morgan,
the lodges had generally disbanded. But
Odd Fellowship had paved the way for their
re-organization. In the Genesee Conference
several of the leading preachers became con-
nected with one or both of these seciet socie-
ties. Collisions had taken place between
these preachers and some of the older and
more conscientious members of the churches
which they were appointed to serve. Men of
God, in whose minds the remembrance of the
Morgan tragedy was fresh, felt that they
could not, in conscience, support preachers
who took upon them oaths which required
them to commit similar crimes should occasion
demandit. Such men were often put out of the
church. But this action brought about dissat-
isfaction and division.

In this view of the case we are confirmed by
the Rev. C. D. Burlingham, who, ina pamphlet
which he wrote and published in 1860 entitled
‘An Outline History of the Genesee Confer-
ence Difficulties,”’ said :

“Some sixteen or eighteen years since a disturbing,
element was introduced into the Genesee Conference.
A DISTURBING ELEMENT. 49

Our church, as well as the community in general,
had for a number of ycars been much agitated by the
Masonic question, and the anti-Masonic excitement
consequent upon the abduction and murder of Wil-
liam Morgan, of Batavia, in1826. As the tumultu-
ous waves were gradually subsiding into a calm, this
new element of discord began to introduce itself in,
our church, professedly as a mutual insurance com-
pany against temporal want, and a newly discovered
and remarkably successful Gospel appliance for
bringing the world, reformed and saved, into the
church, But our people very naturally looked upon
it with suspicion, dreading its power as a secret
agency acting through affiliated societies, and doubt-
ing its utility as a financial scheme, they feared that
it would drag the church—debased and corrupted—
into the world.

Under the influence of its friends in the Confer-
ence—several active and aspiring young men— Odd
Fellowship became a fixture in the Conference ; not
however as a formal organization among the “ Fel-
low” preachers, probably not, but virtually such; as
the “Fellows” were members of the “Order” they
were a unit in policy, and prepared to act as an asso-
ciated body in Conference and elsewhere.”

The preachers who belonged to these secret
societies, and the time-serving and the timid
naturally came together.

There were many in the Conference who re-
sisted strongly the encroachments which the
world was thus making upon the church, and
sought “to check the growing tendency to
50 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

worldly conformity. They had joined the
Methodist Church because they honestly be-
lieved its doctrines ; and, considering their or-
dination vows as binding upon them, they
faithfully endeavored to bring themselves and
their members, both in experience and life, to
the Discipline which they had promised to en-
force. These men, calm, trustful, and ignorant
of the tactics of the lodge, received their ap-
pointment, as from the Lord, not knowing that
there was a power at work, secretly, to fill the
chief places of the Conference with those who,
at least were not opposed to the workings of
the lodge.

There is nothing that brings heart to heart
* like a similarity of religious experiences, es-
pecially when suffering persecution for Christ’s
sake.

Thus there was an issue in the Conference
which gradually became more and more clearly
defined, on Scriptural holiness, slavery, and
secret societies.

Matters were brought to a crisis, and the two
parties took shape and form at the Buffalo
Conference held in 1848. This was the session
at which I joined the Conference on probation.
At one of its sittings, Rev. Eleazer Thomas
gave to each preacher in his seat, a copy of a
pamphlet written by Rev. C. D. Burlingham
SECRET SOCIETIES. 51

showing the infidel character of Masonry and
Odd Fellowship.

With prophetic foresight the author pointed
out the evils that would result from preachers
uniting with these societies.

“Tt is believed that the direct tendency of Odd
Fellowism is the formation of parties in the Confer-
ence, in the Church, and in Civil Society; parties
injurious to the cause of God and dangerous to the
State. As allthe operations and movements of the
order are arranged in secret conclave, all persons,
except the initiated, are supposed to be ignorant of
its nightly transactions. It must be well known,
that a small purty, acting in perfect concert and in
secret, bound together by strong partisan feeling,
and under the influence of an obligation imposed up-
on its members, deemed by them as sacred, perhaps
as an oath, is able to control, in almost any given
case, a multitude of unsuspecting men, who are not
under the influence of such affinities. And may we
not justly fear, when a score or two of the members
of our Conference, embracing the various intellectual
grades in the Ministry, shall combine under such in-
fluences as above named, that a favoritism (if nothing
more) will be practiced, on account of attachment to
the Order, which will create envyings and jealousies
in the Ministry, and very much injure all the inter-
ests in the church ?”

The wildest excitement followed the distri-
bution of this pamphlet. The adherents of
the lodge insisted that Messrs. Burlingham
and Thomas had charged them with being in-
52 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

fidels. Thomas Carlton said, with great em-
phasis, that if he was ‘‘compelled to leave
either, he would leave the Church before he
would the lodge.’? After a while matters qui-
eted down and compromise measures were
adopted. They were to the effect, that neither
party should do anything calculated to keep
up the agitation. This was construed by the
secret society men to mean that they might
still continue in the lodge, and get all the oth-
ers to join that they could; and the others
must say nothing against it, as that would
tend to keep up the agitation. Their opposers
construed it to mean that those who were in the
lodge must get out as soon and as quickly as
they could, and no others must join.

The breach thus begun was never healed.
The secret society men were busy recruiting
their forces, both in the ministry and in the
membership. They used every inducement to
persuade the young preachers to join, giving
them to understand that their position in the
Conference would depend upon the party with
which they affiliated. As fast as they could,
they took the Church into the lodge, and the
lodge into the Church. In a few years the
power of the lodge was exercised to control
the affairs of the Church.

Rev. J. B. Alverson, one of the old, influ-
THE FACTS IN THE CASE. 53

ential preachers, endeavored to dissuade
Thomas Carlton from running for Book Agent,
on the ground that he could not be elected ;
Carlton replied: ‘‘I can command sufficient
secret society influence in the General Confer-
ence to secure my election.”

_ The event showed that he had not misjudged.

He was elected—re-elected, and became a
wealthy man.

Those opposed to this union of the Church
and the world, went out to promote, as best
they could, the life and power of religion.
They endeavored to enforce the Discipline,—
and they preached plainly and clearly the doc-
trine of holiness.

Prominent among these were Asa Abell,
Eleazer Thomas, and William C. Kendall. Asa
Abell made a distinct profession of the blessing
of entire sanctification at the Byron Camp-.
Meeting, in 1851. He preached it on his dis-
trict, and secured at different times, the services
of Fay H. Purdy, then in his early prime, a
lawyer, who had received a mighty baptism.
of the Spirit, and whose efforts for the awa-
kening of formal churches met with remarkable
success. Deep and powerful revivals broke
out in Parma, Kendall, and other places, and
the district generally was in a prosperous,
spiritual condition.
54 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

Rev. Eleazer Thomas kept the Cattaraugus
district, to which he was appointed, in a flame
of revival. He said that, like Asbury, he felt
divinely commissioned to preach holiness in
every sermon. At a camp-meeting which he
held in Collins, Erie Co., N. Y., at which Dr.
and Mrs. Palmer were present, we received the
blessing of holiness: and from that time our
troubles in the Conference commenced. Broth-
er Thomas introduced at each of his Quarterly
Conferences and secured the passage of reso-
lutions against choir singing and instrumental
music in worship. His camp-meetings were
seasons of great power. The lines were as
closely drawn, and the truth as plainly
preached as now among the Free Methodists.

Rev. William C. Kendall had extensive and
powerful revivals on his charges; and, under
his labors, many came out in the enjoyment
and the profession of the blessing of holiness.
Other preachers—especially on the districts
named, entered heartily into the work of soul-
saving, and there was a steady increase, both
in the number of members and their spiritual-
ity, in many of the charges.

Meanwhile, the secret society men and their
adherents were busy, seeking to build up the
church in external splendor. They read fine
sermons—sometimes without being particular
REV. ELEAZER THOMAS. 55

as to the source where they were obtained.

‘Was not that an eloquent sermon which
our preacher delivered yesterday?’ said one
of the stewards to John A, Latta, one Monday
morning.

‘Perhaps you enjoyed itso much you would
like to hear it again,’ replied Mr. Latta. He
then took down a book and read him the iden-
tical sermon, word for word.

Thus matters went on without any open
collision for several years. But it was clearly
apparent that the salvation party was making
headway the faster. They had also this ad-
vantage: while, generally,appointments which
men of the secret society party had filled for
several years welcomed a change, those appoint-
ments which the salvation preachers had filled,
would, with the utmost reluctance, receive one
of the other party. Thus the secret society
men felt that important appointments in the
Conference were being gradually closed against
them. Something must be done or they would
be left in a hopeless, powerless minority.

Under a specious pretext, Rev. Eleazer
Thomas, the acknowledged leader of the sal-
vation party, was sent to California, and, as is
well known, was afterwards killed by the Mo-
docs. The venerable Dr. Samuel Luckey was
appointed to the Genesee district. Though
56 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

great efforts had been made to stigmatize the
work as fanatical, this veteran preacher recog-
nized it at once as the work of God ; and with
all his great ability helped it on. The Bergen
Camp Meetings had become famous for their re-
markable manifestations of saving power. The
religious interest did not decline under his ad-
ministration. He encouraged what was called
the fanaticism of the district, and was not re-
appointed Presiding Elder. He was succeeded
by the Rev. Loren Stiles. Mr. Stiles was a
young man, a graduate of the Methodist Theo-
logical Seminary at Concord, N. H. He had
already become celebrated in Western New
York as a pulpit orator. Amiable in his dis-
position, pleasing in his manners, and a tho-
rough gentleman in all his bearing, it was
taken for granted that he would instinctively
recoil from what was branded as the ‘‘coarse
fanaticism’? prevalent in the district. It was
supposed that he would win the hearts of the
people, and gradually turn them, without fric-
tion, back to the respectable quiet of spiritual
death. But never were men more grievously
disappointed. His prejudices were based sole-
ly upon the reports which he had heard and
read. Thoroughly sincere, he recognized as
soon aS he came on the district the marks of
the work of God. He saw that many had a
REV. LOREN STILES. 57

Spiritual power which he, as yet had never re-
ceived. He sought it at once; and he who
was sent to put down the work of holiness,
‘helped it on with all the influence he possessed.
His Quarterly Meetings were thronged, and
many of the people consecrated themselves
wholly to God.

«On the Niagara district a similar disap point-
ment was experienced. The Rev. Isaac C.
Kingsley, the Presiding Elder, was a graduate
of an Ohio college. He had been brought up
a Presbyterian, and still retained many of his
Presbyterian ways. He sometimes read his
sermons, and was rather stiff in his manners,
and precise in his way of doing things. He
was intellectually a strong man, examined
things for himself, and when he came to a
conclusion had the honesty and the courage
to-avow it, though he might differ from others.
After a careful survey of the work he decided
that what was branded as “ fanaticism,’’ was
- only the vital godliness which he had expected
to find when he joined the Methodist church.
So, instead of opposing it he gave it his cordial
support.

The Rev. Charles D. Burlingham was push-
ing on the work of God on the Olean District
with a hearty zeal and abundant success.
Fee interest on the subject of holiness was
58 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

kept up, and the Quarterly meetings were
lively and interesting.

The secret society men, stirred up by this
state of things, began to publish unfavorable
criticisms upon those prominent in the holiness
movement, and to throw out insinuations
against them. Their accredited organ was the
Buffalo Advocate. x

One of the first direct attacks made by the
Buffalo Advocate was in an editorial reflecting
upon Ex-Bishop Hamline. It was as follows:

“An article is going the rounds of the papers
which states that Bishop Hamline has donated $25,000
toa Western College. We don’t believe a word of
it. He who was once Bishop, is, if we are correctly
informed, as snug and keen in the management of
his finances as any other property-famed man. He
may have given something nevertheless.”— Zhe Ad-
vocate, April 12th, 1855.

After several efforts from the friends of the
Bishop to have the above corrected, the editor
finally admitted he stood corrected, that the
Bishop had given the above sum, and added
the sneer :

“Noble man! he shall have all our praise, if it will
do him any good.”

Other articles reflecting still more severely
upon the Bishop were published from time to |
time in The Advocate. Why all this?
BISHOP HAMLINE. 59

Bishop Hamline was eminent Sor the advo-
cacy of the doctrine of holiness.

The first public declaration that there was a
‘‘Nazarite Association”? was made in an edi-
torial in the Buffalo Advocate, of July 19th,
1855, in the following language :

“We have learned from a reliable source, and have
had sufficient evidence placed in our hands to prove
that there exists, among the ministers of a certain
Protestant sect of Western New York, a secret, re-
ligious organization, where one would be least sus-
pected. The purpcso of this Jesuitical order we
will not at this time attempt to explain; but the con-
sequences of it, unless its progress shall be arrested,
and its existence blotted out, it takes no prophet’s
eye to foresee,—incurable, ministerial factions and
ruined churches must otherwise be the inevitable
result. This order has been designated by various.
appellations; but the authorized cognomen is, ‘THE
NazariTe Banp.’ It is to be hoped that those who
have assumed this solemn and suggestive title have
weighed well what they are doing, and what the sol-
emn imposition of the name upon themselves implies.
To us it appears like impious mockery, and if “any
good can come out of Tus Nazareth,” then can a
clean thing thing come forth from an unclean. - We
know well the men who are the originators of this
singular movement, and have been watching. their
down-sittings and up-risings for a long time. Our
editorial, secret drawer contains the secret of many
curious facts relating to the ministerial career of
some of these eminent and most notable characters.
60 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

We learn that the society is constituted by three
degrees or “divisions.” Into the third or highest,
are admitted only the leading spirits of the order,
or those whom it is supposed will heartily favor the
purpose of the order. The first degree, it would
appear, is so indefinitely constituted, that one may
get into it, and not be himself aware of the fact. It is
only required of the candidate that he express his
approbation of certain men and measures, and for-
sooth he straightway becomés a Nazarite, and that
before he knows it. He is, after this, carefully ap-
proached, and his opinions drawn out with respect to
certain other measures, and if he can be “trusted,”
is advanced! There are many considerations which
give this new organization a novel, not to say ludi-
crous aspect. One is, that its originators have here-
tofore made themselves somewhat notorious, by their
blazing hostility to secret societies. They have pub-
lished and spoken great and hard things. They have
for years been bent on giving both lay and clcrical
Odd Fellows and Masons “ particular jesse.” Indeed,
it is a main purpose of this Nazarite Band to oppose
the influence which, it is alleged, secular, secret soci-
eties are seeking to exert in religious affairs. Another
beautiful feature of this new order is the peculiarly
lovely, personal and religious characteristics of those
by whom it was conceived and brought forth. Their
character is a strange compound of sanctity and
slander, of pompous humility and humble pride, of
peccability and perfection. Their preaching of the
Gospel of peace is always attended or followed by
jealousies, heart-burnings, and fanatical dissensions.
Peevish and fretful tyrants at home, they have a
THE FACTS IN THE CASE. 61

very ardent charity for the “dear sisters” abroad,
some of whom “they lead about.” Without any
remarkable “sanctity of manners undefiled,” their
professions reach to heaven, and clothe them with
the most spotless garment of assumed purity. Asa
specimen of this class, we would refer the reader to
a certain individual living in Orleans County, called,
according to the Nazarite nomenclature, Ban1, who is,
we are informed, the high priest of this new pro-
fession.”

Such was the accusation. But the “ suffi-
cient evidence’’ was never given. It appears
from the next week’s issue of The Advocate,
that a prompt denial was made, by the only per-
son competent to make either a denial, or a con-
firmation of the charge. He had, of his own
accord, written the letters to which we have re-
ferred, and he manfully came forward and
took the responsibility for what he alone had
written.

How was his denial treated? Another ex-
tract from the same paper will show.

«We learn that ‘Bani’ denies that the NaZarrrzs
are an organized band, as we asserted them to be in
our last week’s issue. We would remind this very.
conscientious and notable individual of the impor-
tance of keeping truth on his side, as far as circum-
stances will permit; and not by gratuitous and
voluntary denials of facts, place himself in a very
embarrassing position, and one in which honest men
seldom find themselves. Bani, it is not right, it is
62 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

decidedly wrong to make statements which you know
to be false, and you must not do so any more.”

These extracts are favorable specimens of
the articles which appeared in that paper from
time to time. Compare them in tone and
spirit with the one which we wrote entitled
** New School Methodism,”’ and then remember
that the editor who wrote the above extracts was
afterwards admitted to the Conference and
made Presiding Elder, while we were visited, for
writing that article, with the heaviest anathe-
mas of the church !

This then is all there ever was to the ‘‘ Naz-
arite Union.”

Rev. Joseph McCreery wrote several letters.
to different preachers, proposing that they
work in harmony in their efforts to persuade
the people to return to the old paths of Meth
odism. There, in all probability, the matter
would have rested ; but some of these letters
were shown to the editor of the Buffalo Advo-
cate, who made the most of them, and stirred
up some excitement. Anticipating that the
subject would be brought up at Conference, the
Rev. J. McCreery prepared a statement of the
whole affair, including copies of the letters he
had written. This he read to the Conference
at Olean in 1855. This ‘‘Document’’ or
“ Roll,” as it was called, was greatly misrepre-
THE FACTS IN TH# CASE. 63

sented. To correct these misrepresentations it
was published by Rev. Wm. C. Kendall.
This is all there was to this affair as far as the
preachers belonging to the Conference were
concerned. After the FREE Metnopist CHURCH
was organized, some who opposed its organiza-
tion, held meetings by themselves, and called
themselves ‘‘ Nazarites.”’ Some of these still
retained their membership in the M. E. Church,
and some did not; but all arrayed themselves
against the FREE MerHopisr CHURCH.

They have always been its unrelenting op-
ponents. ‘They insist that a great mistake was
made in leaving the M. E. Church, or in not,
when thrust out, uniting with it again, and
keeping up the agitation within its pale.
CHAPTER IV.
SECRET MEETINGS.

In any deliberative assembly, a minority
composed of men of average intelligence,
bound together by secret oaths, unknown to
the rest, can generally carry their measures.
Scattered about, their concerted action appears
to be spontaneous ; and so they often secure a
favorable decision before their opponents have
time to rally. In this way the Jacobin Club
gained control of the National Assembly, or
Legislature of France. In this way the secret so-
ciety men of the Genesee Conference obtained
the controlling influence.

At several sessions of the Conference, they
held meetings so secret that their existence was.
not even suspected for some years. They act-
ually did what they falsely charged upon the
others. We have proved that the ‘‘ Nazarite
Union” was a fiction. We shall show that
those who assumed its existence, held secret
meetings and adopted measures to crush those
who could not in conscience fall in with their
worldly policy. When this was accomplished,
they assigned as their excuse, that their vic-
tims had formed ‘‘ The Nazarite Union, having
REV. WM. C. KENDALL. 65

some marks of secresy.’’ Was there ever an in-
consistency more glaring 4

The knowledge that they had secret meetings
came into our hands providentially. A friend
gave us the original minutes of one of their
meetings. They read as follows:

“Le Roy, Sept. 3, 1857.

Meeting convened according to adjournment ;
Brother Parsons in the chair. Prayer, by, Brother
Fuller. Brethren present pledged themselves by
rising, to keep to themselves the proceedings of this
meeting.

Resolved, That we will not allow the character of
Rev. B. T. Roberts to pass until he has had a fair
trial. Passed. Moved, That we will not pass the
character of Rev. W. C. Kendall, until he has had a
fair trial. Passed.

Moved, That Brother Carlton be added to the
committee on Brother Kendall’s case. Passed.”

We shall refer to this remarkable document
again, but for the present will only say:

1. That it was read to Conference; and re-
peatedly published, and its genuineness was
never questioned. :

2. That it proves that they not only held
secret meetings, but had an organization with
the usual officers, chairman, secretary and
committees.

3. That it not only held its meetings in
66 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

secret, but that it was pledged to keep its
proceedings secret.

4, That it was engaged in the most infamous
business of, plotting against the reputation and
ministerial standing of some of their brethren.

The clue thus obtained was followed up.
Several of the men who attended these secret
meetings, were called upon to testify in my
trial, concerning them. Some reluctantly gave
important testimony; others answered by
evasions. From these reluctant witnesses it
was ascertained that they had a secret organ-
ization as far back as the Medina Conference,
in 1856—and how much farther was not ascer-
tained.

Rev. Sanford Hunt testified :

“T was present at meetings at the house of John
Ryan. I think there was a chairman and secretary
at that meeting; we had about three meetings; there
were generally twenty or thirty at the meeting.”

At the LeRoy Conference, the number who
were brought into the conspiracy was in-
creased.

Rev. Thomas Carlton testified :

“T attended three of the meetings at the house of
John Ryan during the session of the Medina Confer-
ence. I attended some of the select meetings at
Le Roy ; not all. J should think there might have

been sixty at one of the meetings, at another, about
forty; they ranged from thirty to sixty.”
A SECRET ASSOCIATION. 67

Rev. D. F. Parsons testified :

“J was chairman of these meetings held at Le Roy.
There was a person who kept brief minutes of the
meetings.”

If Bishop Simpson will not believe the sev-
enteen men who testified that there never had
been in the Genesee Conference, a ‘‘ Nazarite
organization,’’ will he believe these three men
who testified that they attended, from time to
time, secret, organized meetings! They are
men to whom he lent a willing ear. If the
Free Methodist Church originated ‘‘in an asso-
ciation of ministers,’’ then this must have
been the association. For in this association
originated the proscriptions and persecutions
that rendered its formation necessary.

That this association was remarkably secret
is evidenced by the fact that it had been hold-
ing meetings for two years at least, before its
existence was suspected. It was remarked that
about thirty men voted solid on allissues touch-
ing old or new fashioned Methodism, but this
was supposed to be owing to natural affinities
and to the influence of the lodge. Those against
whom they were plotting, were not wanting in
ordinary sagacity ; they were on the lookout ;
yet the meetings held at two successive Con-
ferences were so carefully concealed, that not a
whisper was heard concerning them.
G8 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

The first action of this association which
has come to our knowledge was a successful
effort to secure the removal of Revs. L. Stiles
and I. C. Kingsley from the office of Presiding
Elders. They were both popular upon their
districts and the work of God prospered under
their care. But they were not in sympathy
with the secret society men who now aimed to
gain entire control of the Conference. There-
fore it was secretly decided that they must be
removed. About thirty of the preachers signed
a petition to the Bishop asking for their re-
moval. The Bishop was told that unless they
were removed, these thirty men would not
take work. This was proved by the testimony
of some of the number. At the Le Roy Con-
ference, the following testimony on this point
was given.

Rev. Wm. Barrett called :

“JT saw at the Medina Conference a petition asking
for the removal of Brothers Stiles and Kingsley
from the office of Presiding Elders. I can not state
the wording of the petition, but understood it to be
this: that we would refuse to take work if Brothers
Stiles and Kingsley were continued in the Presiding
Elders’ office.”

Rev. J. M. Fuller called :

Ques. Did you state at the Medina Conference
that you would not take work under either Stiles or
Kingsley ?
A SHCRET ASSOCIATION. 69

Ans. “I did.”
Ques. Did you hear any one else say the same ?
Ans. “I heard others say what would amount to

about the same.”

Were there this amount of testimony that a
‘“Nazarite organization’’ ever existed, and that
it sought to control appointments, it would be
regarded as a complete vindication of the
extreme measures of the Conference. But is
there any justice, anything partaking of the
common fairness which we have a right to
look for between man and man, leaving Chris-
tianity entirely out of the account, for one
class of men to turn others out of the church,
under the false pretext that they had done
what they were themselves habitually doing ?
If so, then it would be right for men who live
by making counterfeit money to send honest
men to prison under the false accusation of
passing counterfeit money.

Their next step was to keep out of the
Conference pious young men offering to join
who. would not, as they supposed, place them-
selves under their guidance and control. Several
young men of good abilities, education, and of
deep piety, who professed and preached holi-
ness, were compelled to go to other Confer-
ences. In reference to this action the Buffalo
Advocate said of the Conference.
70 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

“Hot-heads and fanatics, from any quarter, will
find it hereafter difticult soil on which to produce any
of their mischief or scandal. Some attempted to’
gain admittance to the Conference at its last session,
but were repulsed at the threshhold, and passed
away, disgusted with the forebodings of order and
manliness, which a kind Providence permits shall
govern hereafter. These, with their sympathizers in
and out of the body, are the agencies employed in
writing scandal of those who now hold the reins, and
who mean to live and govern for God and holiness—
and respectable position.”

But the worst use that was made of this or-
ganization was to shield the guilty and punish
the innocent. Charges backed up by the most
responsible parties, made against some of its
members for dishonest transactions amounting
almost to States Prison offences, were sum-
marily dismissed; while men of spotless
lives, accused of being Nazarites, were turned
out of the church under pretexts so slight as
to admit of no defence.

One of the first victims selected was WIL-
trAM C. Krnpauu. He was one of the most
godly, laborious, and successful ministers in
Western New York, and was the most perse-
cuted. Charges against him were prepared at
the last session of the Conference, which he
attended ; but he was told that they were not
prosecuted for want of time, but would be
REV. WM. C. KENDALL. 7

next year. But he died too soon for that,
He was removed from the impending evil.
His case reminds us of the devout Rutherford,
whom he so much resembled in spirit. Ruth-
erford was summoned to answer at the next
Parliament on a charge of high treason.
The summons found him on his death-bed.
On hearing of it, he calmly remarked that
he had got another summons before a su-
perior judge and judicatory, and sent the mes-
sage, ‘‘I behoove to answer my first summons;
and ere your day arrives, I will be where few
Kings and great folks come.”’

William C. Kendall was ofan old, highly re-
spectable, Methodist family in Wyoming Co.,
N. Y. He was our class-mate in academy,
college and Conference, and a brother beloved.
While in college he experienced the blessing
of holiness. He kept the flame of perfect love
alive, by laboring to bring others into the same
blessed state. He graduated in the summer of
1848, and soon after joined the Genesee Confer-
ence on probation. God had given him every
qualification to labor successfully in his vine-
yard. He had a fine, manly form of noble
bearing ;a frank, open countenance on which
rested a sweet, heavenly smile; a pleasant voice
of unusual compass and power, perfectly at
his command; a mind carefully stored with
72 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

divine truth as well as with classic lore—and
above all a heart fully sanctified to God.

A remark made by Bishop Hamline left a
lasting impression upon his mind. The Bishop
hearing that some preachers were accused of
making holiness their hobby, said: ‘‘ Woe to
that Methodist preacher, that son of perdition,
who does not make holiness his hobby.”

Brother Kendall went to his first circuit,
Cambria, Niagara Co., N.Y., resolved to make
‘holiness his hobby.’? During his two years
there, many were converted and many were
sanctified to God. At Royalton, in 1850, he
had a good work ; and at Pike, the next year,
one hundred were converted and added to the -
church: under his labors. Here, as elsewhere,
he strongly insisted on both inward and out-
ward holiness, entire sanctification, while he
endeavored to keep the standard of justifica-
tion where God’s word has placed it.

The results were, clear and strong conversions,
and converts pressing into the enjoyment of
entire holiness. These were strong to labor,
and of course were active in the meetings.
This excited the jealousy of some who had
been longer in the Church, but Imad failed to
go forward in their experience. A committee
was appointed to request the preacher not to
preach so much on holiness, “lest he should
REV. WM. C. KENDALL. 73

drive away men-of influence needed to the
Church.’ Foremost among those who were
afraid of holiness, lest it should divide the
church, was a leading member, who had long
been prominent in the community. It was
afterwards proved that for ten years, including, .
this period, this man had been forging indorse-
ments to bank-notes! These he paid on matu-
rity ; but at last being sick when a note became
due, his crime was discovered, and he pun-
ished. Chiefly through the influence of this
man, Brother Kendall was removed at the
close of the year. On the Covington Circuit,
to which he was sent, multitudes were saved.

In September, 1854, he was sent to Albion.
His predecessor warned him against preaching
here as he had done elsewhere, on the subject
of dress. But he was very kind, yet very firm,
and did not ‘‘shun to declare the whole coun-
sel of God.” Notwithstanding the most vio-
lent opposition of several of his official board,
he had one of the most powerful and extensive
revivals the place has ever known. Hundreds
were converted and sanctified, and over a hun-
dred added to the church.

The next year he was sent to Brockport,
where the opposition became still more intense
and assumed a more organized form. Many
-were saved. But they were branded as fana-
74 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

ties, and a pamphlet was written by a former
travelling preacher, against the work, and
extensively circulated.

In a letter written at this time, Brother Ken-
dall says: ‘‘In the afternoon we had our official
meeting, at the close of which two hours were
devoted to my case. The council of course
were divided—we hare some brethren who are
firm on the side of religion. I did, myself, lit-
tle more than deny untrue assertions. We
adjourned without final action on my case.
Next Monday evening is our regular meeting
again. What will befall me then, I know not.”
He was accustomed to say in his preaching,
‘IT stand on the Bible and the Methodist Dis-
cipline ; when I get outside of them, then lay
hands on me.”

When the appointments were read out at
the Medina Conference, at the close of this
year, and it was seen that Brothers Stiles-and
Kingsley were removed from being presiding
elders, and were transferred to another Confer-
ence ; and it was evident that the party known
as ‘The Buffalo Regency,’ had every thing
their own way, the hearts of most of those
who were in favor of old fashioned Methodism
sank within them in discouragement. But not
so with William C. Kendall. He saw thingsas
therest saw them. In addition to the generally

f
REV, WH. C. KENDALL. TH

bad state of affairs, he had been again removed
at the end of his first year, and sent to a far
less important appointment. But ' when, in
closing the Conference, the Bishop called on
some one to sing, Brother Kendall arose, and in
clear, triumphant notes called out:

“*Come on my partners in distress.”

At the close of the first verse, spme acted
as if they wished to kneel, and so close the
singing. But he struck in joyously:

“Who suffer with our Master here, |

We shall before his face appear,
And by his side sit down.”

One to have looked on would have supposed
from the appearance, that the vanquished were
victors. By the time the singing was finished
we were all ready to go to the ends of the
earth, if need be, to proclaim a free and full
salvation.

At’ Chili, to which he was sent, the opposi-
_ tion was still more determined. Yet many
were converted, reclaimed and sanctified.

Speaking of one point on his charge, where
some were seeking religion, he says: ‘‘ Last
evening I requested that none come to the
altar who were unwilling to pray for them-
selves. Some who had been as seekers, staid
away. Far better than that they should be
bolstered up with false hopes—Lord give us a
76 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

thorough Christianity ! Save us from spurious
revivals.”’

At the next session of the Conference two
bills of charges were presented to him, which
were, as was alleged, laid over till next year,
for want of time.

From the LeRoy Conference he was sent to
West Falls Circuit. It was considered one of
the poorest in the Conference. The presiding
elder told him that ‘‘Tf he pleased the people
pretty well, they might board him and his
wife around, from house to house, but they
would not be able to support him if he kept
house.’’ The people had been told by their
presiding elder prior to Conference, that he
‘doubted whether ghere was a man in the
Conference small enough for them.”’

To this circuit Wm. C. Kendall, a man capa-
ble of filling with credit any Christian pulpit,
was sent. When he brushed away the last
tear at Conference, he smiled, and said tri-
umphantly ‘I will trust in God to make them
repent they ever sent me to West Falls to cure
or punish me.”’ He found things were worse
than was represented. There was but little of
even the form of godliness. But he went to
work, with resolute courage and a strong faith,
to promote a revival of religion. His labors
were helped beyond all expectation. One of
REV. WM. C. KENDALL. 77

the first who contributed to his support was
an old friend Quaker, who, at the close of one
of his searching sermons, stepped up and
placed a bank-bill in his hand saying, ‘‘ Wil-
liam, I perceive that God is with thee.”

A revival broke out that swept with almost
resistless power all through that region. With
untiring zeal, he went from house to house and
prayed with the people. Whole families were
converted. Stout hearted infidels fell pros-
trate under the power of God, and were glad
to have those pray for them whom once they
had hated. It was said that for eight miles
-along the main road there was not a house but
that some of its inmates had been converted in
this revival. In the village when he entered
it there were but three houses that had family
prayer—when he left it there were but three in
which they did not have family prayer.

But at last, his incessant labors, and the
unceasing persecution to which he was sub-
jected, and which originated with his brethren
in the ministry, told upon his nervous system,
and his strong constitution gave way.

On Saturday, the 16th of January, 1858, he
was threatened with symptoms -of the typhoid
fever. Yet, the following day, as there was
no one to fill his appointment, he rode eight
miles to it, preached twice with great power,
78 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

returned home and went to bed, todie. He
gradually grew worse, but was conscious and
happy. He would often sing his favorite
hymns:

“How happy every child of grace

Who knows his sins forgiven.”

And
‘“My soul's full of glory,

Inspiring my tongue.”

One morning on waking he said, ‘‘I have
seen the King of Glory, and slept in his
palace. I was so intimate with the angels!’

Not a murmur once escaped his lips, in the
most severe paroxysms of pain. Sabbath
morning, the 31st of January, he was thought’
to be dying, and his room was filled with a
weeping multitude. His voice failed, and he
lay gazing into heaven, all entranced with its
glories that were beaming down upon him.
He was waving his hands in triumph. His
wife bent her ear to his lips and heard him
whisper, Hail! hail! all hail! !

After a short silence, he suddenly roused
and sung :

‘‘ We'll praise him again
When we pass over Jordan.”

His father asked: ‘‘ William, is all well 7’
With a look of unspeakable joy he answered
three times, ‘‘ Allis well.” ~

Gradually the silver cord was unloosed, and
REV. WM. C. KENDALL. 79

on Monday morning, Feb. 1, 1858, at half-past
ten o’clock, this Christian warrior, who had
ever been valiant for the truth, laid aside his
armor to wear his crown. But he was victori-
ous in death, as in life.

After his death, those who had been his vio-
lent persecutors seemed to vie with each other
to do honor to his memory. It has always
been so with formal, persecuting churches.
It was so in our Saviour’s day.

Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hyp-
ocrites ! because ye build the tombs of the
prophets, and garnish the sepulehres of the
righteous and say, If we had been in the
days of our fathers, we would not have been
partakers with them in the blood of the proph-
ets.—Matt. xxiii, 29-30.

The Genesee Conference, at its next session,
instead of trying and expelling him, adopted
the following tribute to his memory :

“He fell at his post, in the midst of one of
the most promising revivals that had ever at-
tended his labors. It was remarked by his pre-
siding elder, Rev. G. Fillmore, that notwith-
standing all his previous ministerial success, he
had never known a time when there was sucha
prospect before him of extensive usefulness as
when he was taken sick; and he had never
known an instance where a preacher had so
80 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

interwoven himself into the affections of all
the people.

It may be said of Brother Kendall, that he
fella martyr to his work. The day after he
was taken sick, he went to an appointment,
and preached with much earnestness and pow-
er ; and when his wife endeavored to dissuade
him from going to another, his Christian reply
was, ‘‘] want to say something to the people
at Potter's Corners, which they will always
remember.’’ He made the effort, but was soon
obliged to stop. This was his last effort. He
was taken home, and never after left his house
till he was conveyed from it to his resting
place in the grave.

His end was such as a life like his can not
fail to insure.It was not only ‘peaceful, but
triumphant. A short time before he died, he
said, ‘I have been swimming in the waters of
death for two days, and they are like sweet
incense all over me.’’ Sometimes he would
wave his hands in ecstacy, saying, ‘‘ Why,
heaven is coming down to earth! This is
heaven! I see the angels! They are flying
all through the house.”? He often sang his
favorite hymns, suggestive of the bliss of
heaven. .

Just before his departing, his afflicted com-
panion held her ear to catch the accents of
REV. WM. C. KENDALL. 81

what he seemed to be uttering in a whisper,
and distinctly heard him breathe out, as from
his inmost soul, ‘‘ Hail! Hail! All hail! I see
light, light !’ Z see was uttered with emphasis.
One asked, ‘‘Is all well?’ He sweetly replied,
and repeated it three times, ‘‘Allis well!’ He
suffered a brief conflict with the powers of
darkness, but soon obtained the victory, and
exclaimed, ‘‘Jesus the conqueror reigns !’’ Thus
lived and died our beloved brother, William
C. Kendall, a man honored of God, and greatly
beloved by all who knew him.”’

Well may the Conference place upon its Re-
cords that ‘‘HE FELL A MARTYR TO HIS WORK.”’
Would it not be well for the surviving partici-
pants in the proscription which sent him upon
alarge, hard circuit, and who followed him
with their calumnies until his sensitive nature
could bear no more, to ask who is responsible
for his martyrdom? He belonged to a long-
lived family, had a vigorous constitution, and
was capable of doing an amount of work which
but few men could perform. To all human
appearance he should have lived and labored
for years.

We close our chapter with the following
extract from a letter written to us by Rev.
Seymour Coleman, now gone to glory—then a
venerable preacher of the Troy Conference :
82 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

Fort Epwarp, Marcu 8, 1857.

Drar Broruer RosErts:

This morning I received your letter, giving the
information of the death of our dear Brother Ken-
dall. You say he died in triumph. Let us raise the
shout of victory for him here, while he sings praise
above. He will have no more hard appointments;
thank God!

The hours I have spent with him are very pleasant
in their recollection. I think the church, and the
world might have had him longer, if they had used
him better.

I shall try to build on the Rock against which the
gates of Hell can not prevail. I can yet say, none
of these things move me. The truth of God, “the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” I am en-
deayoring yet to publish to a lost and helpless world,
and am not left alone in so doing. I have been at
various places the past winter, laboring to bring men
to Christ, and have seen the salvation of the Lord.

Please write to me as often as you can. Keep me
apprised of all movements that are of interest to
yourself or the cause of God.

Iremain as ever, your brother and companion in
the labor and patience of Jesus, and hope to meet
with you and yours in the glorious rest that remains
for the people of God.

Farewell.
SEYMouR CoLuMan.
CHAPTER V.
RELIGION OF THE MAJORITY.

Bishop Simpson says, speaking of those.
with whom the Free Methodist Church origin-
ated :

“In their writings and speeches they complained
of the decline of spirituality in the church, charg-
ing the church with tolerating, for the sake of gain,
the worldly practices of its members, and its depart-
ure both in doctrine and discipline from the teachings
of the fathers.”

In showing the state of religion promoted
by the dominant party in the Genesee Contfer-
ence, we shall first lay before our readers the
accounts which we published respecting it at
the time. We shall then show from their own
confessions that our representation was more
favorable than the reality.

In the church trials that took place at that
time, every effort was made by the dominant
party to make out as strong a case as possible
against those whom they intended to expel.
In making out charges against those whom
they had decided to try, it is right to conclude
that they brought the worst accusations which
they thought they could prove. Party feeling
ran high, and inclination and interest com-
84 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

bined to lead them to make out as bad a case
as possible against their opponents. They
were not in a mood to convict one of these of
handing a brother an obnoxious tract, when
they thought they could convict him of any-
thing serious.

I was tried for writing an article published
in the Northern Independent, entitled ‘‘ New
School Methodism.’’ It is fair to conclude
that this is as bad a specimen of the class of
writings to which the Bishop alludes, as could
be found.

We had previously been styled ‘‘New school
Methodists,’’ in an article published in the
Buffalo Advocate, the organ of the dominant
party. We showed that the appellation prop-
erly belonged to our opponents. Though
differing with them, we wished to treat them
fairly. So we took this course. For fear that
we might misrepresent their views, we stated
them as we found them expressed by one of
their leading preachers in an editorial of the
Buffalo Advocate, and copied into the New
York Christian Advocate and Journal. It set
forth, as we believed then, and as we believe
still, the doctrinal views from which we diff-
ered. This article, from which we quoted
fairly, was indorsed by leading men of the
dominant party. We never heard of its being
NEW SCHOOL METHODISM. 85

disapproved by any of that party. The fact
that there was a great division in the Con-
ference had become notorious. Our opponents
had, from time to time, in the Buffalo Advo-
cate and other papers, in neither truthful nor
respectful language, set forth their version of
matters. We thought the time had come for
us to set ourselves right before the public.
This we endeavored to do in the following
article which was published over our well
known signature in the Worthern Independent,
of which I was at the time, a corresponding —
editor. ‘

We call especial attention to it, as it is their
- own selection of the worst things which we
had said against them.

“NEW SCHOOL METHODISM.

The best seed, sown, from year to year, on poor
soil, gradually degenerates. The acorn, from the
stately oak, planted upon the arid plain, becomes a
stinted shrub. Ever since the fall, the human heart
has proved a soil unfavorable to the growth of truth.

Noxious weeds flourish everywhere spontaneously,
while the useful grains require diligent cultivation.

Correct principles implanted in the mind need con-
stant attention, or monstrous errors will overtop
them and root them out. Every old nation tells the
tale of her own degeneracy, and points to the golden
age when truth and justice reigned among men.

Religious truth is not exempt from this liability to
86 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

corruption. “God will take care of his own cause,”
is a maxim often quoted by the cowardly and the
compromising, as an apology for their base defection.
When His servants are faithful to the trusts reposed
in them, it is gloriously true; when they waver,
His cause suffers. The Churches planted by the
Apostles, and watered by the blood of martyrs, now
ouivie heathenism itself in their corruptions. No
other parts of the world are so inaccessible to Gospel
truth as those countries where the Romish and Greek
Churches hold dominion.

As a denomination, we are just as liable to fall by
corrupting influences, as any were that have flour-
ished before us. We enjoy no immunity from
danger. Already there is springing’ up among us a
class of preachers whose teaching is very different
from that of the fathers of Methodism. They may
be found here and there throughout our Zion; but in
the Genesee Conference they act as an associate body.
They number about thirty. During the last session
of this Conference, they held several secret meetings,
in which they concerted a plan to carry their meas-
ures and spread their doctrines. They have openly
made the issue in the Conference. It is divided.
Two distinct parties exist. With one or the other
every preacher is in sympathy. This difference is
fundamental. It does not relate to things indiffer-
ent, but to those of the most vital importance. It
involves nothing less than the nature itself of Chris-
tianity.

In showing the doctrines of the New School Meth-
odists, we shall quote from Zhe Advocate of the
sect, published at Buffalo. This is the organ of the
NEW SCHOOL METHODISM. 87

party. It is sustained by them. They act as its
agents. Where their influence prevails, it is circu-
lated to the exclusion of other religious papers. Its
former title was “ The Buffalo Christian Advocate.”
But since its open avowal of the new doctrines, it
has significantly dropped from its caption, the ex-
pressive word “ Christian.” This omission is full of
meaning. It is, however, highly proper, as we shall
see when we examine its new theory of religion’ We
commend the editor for this instance of honesty. It
is now simply “ Zhe Advocate ;” that is, the only
Advocate of the tenets it defends.

The New School Methodists affect as great a de-
gree of liberalism as do Theodore Parker and Mr.
Newman. They profess “charity” for everybody
except their brethren of the Old School. In an arti-
cle on “ Creeds,” published in 7’he Advocate of April
16th, under the signature of W. the Rev. writer, a
prominent New School minister, lays it on to “the
sects whose watchword is a creed,” in a manner not
unworthy of! Alexander Campbell himself. He says,
“No matter how holy and blameless a man’s life may
be, if he has the temerity to question any tenet of
‘orthodoxy,’ he is at once, in due ecclesiastical form,
consigned to the Devil—as a heretic and infidel.
Thus are the fetters of a spiritual despotism thrown
around the human reason. * * * * And so it has
come to pass, that in the estimation of multitudes—
the teachings of Paulare eclipsed by the theories of
Calvin, and the writings of John Wesley ate held in
higher veneration than the inspired words of St.
John.” Is not this a modest charge ?

But their theory of religion is more fully set forth
88 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

in the leading editorial of The Advocate for May
14th, under the title—Christianity a religion of
beneficence rather than of devotion.” Though it ap-
pears as editorial, we have good reason to believe
that it was written by a leading New School member
of the Genesee Conference. It has not been dis-
avowed by that party. Though it has been before
the public for months, no one has expressed a djssent
from its positions. It is fair to suppose, that it repre-
sents the views of the leaders of this new movement.

It says, “Christianity is not characteristically, a
system of devotion. Jt has none of those features
which must distinguish a religion grounded on the
idea, that to adore the Divine character is the most
imperative obligation resting upon human beings. It
enjoins the observance of but very few sacred rites;
nor does it prescribe any particular mode for paying
homage to the Deity. It eschews all exterior forms,
and teaches that they who worship God mniust wor-
ship him in spirit and in. truth.”

The Old School Methodists hold, that “to adore
the Divine character” is the most imperative obliga-
tion resting upon human beings—that Christianity
has al/ of those features that must distinguish a religion
grounded on this idea. That he who worships God

“rightly, will, as a necessary consequence, possess all
social and moral virtues ; that the Gospel does not
leave its votaries to choose, if they please, the degra-
ding rites of heathenism, or the superstitious abomi-
nations of Popery; but prescribes prayer and praise
and the observance of the sacraments of baptism and
the Lord’s Supper, “as particular modes for paying
homage to the Deity;” that there is no necessity for
NEW SCHOOL METHODISM. 89

antagonism, as Infidels and Universalists are wont
to attirm, between spiritual worship and the forms of
worship instituted by Christ.

The following sneer is not unworthy of Thomas
Paine himself. It falls below the dignity of Vol-
taire. “ Christianity in nowise gives countenance to
the supposition, that the Great Jehovah is so affected
with the infirmity of vanity, as to receive with pecu-
liarly grateful emotions, the attention and offerings
which poor human creatures may pay directly to Him.
in worship.”

The above may be sufficient to show what Chris-
tianity is not, in the opinion of these New School
divines. Let us now see what it is. “The character-
istic idea of this system is benevolence; and its prac-
tical realization is achieved in beneficence. It conse-
crates the principle of charity, and instructs its
votaries to regard good works as the holiest sacrifice,
and the most acceptable which they can bring ie the
Almighty. * * % * * %

“Whatever graces may be necessary to constitute
the inner Chritian life, the chief and principal one of
these, is dove to man. * * * The great condition
upon which one becomes a participant of the Gospel
salvation, is—some practical exhibition of self-abne-
gation, of self-sacrifice for the good of others. Go
sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, were
the only terms of salvation which Christ proposed to
the young man, who otherwise, was not far from the
kingdom of heaven.”

The Old School Methodists hold that benevolence
is only one of the fruits of true religion, but by no
means the thing itself. In their view, “The principal
90 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

grace of the inner Christian life” is LovE ro Gop;
and “the most acceptable sacrifice we can render
Him, is a broken and contrite heart. They teach
tbat the great condition upon which one becomes “ a
participant of the Gospel salvation’? Is FAITH 1N
Curist—preceded by repentance. They read in the
Gospel that the young man referred to, was com-
manded by Christ to “ come, take up the cross and
follow me.” The giving of his goods to the poor
was only preparatory to this.

The New School Methodists hold that justification
and entire sanctification, or holiness, are the same—
that when a sinner is pardoned, he is at the same
time made holy—that all the spiritual change he may
henceforth expect, is simply a growth in grace.—
When they speak of “holiness,” they mean by it
the same as do evangelical ministers of those denom-
inations which do not receive the doctrines taught:
by Wesley and Fletcher on this subject.

According to the Old School Methodists, merely
justified persons, while they do not outwardly commit
sin, are conscious of sin still remaining in the heart,
such as pride, self-will, and unbelief. They continu-
ally feel a heart bent to back-sliding; a natural
tendency to evil; a proneness to depart from God,
and cleave to the things of earth. Those that are sanc-
tified wholly, are saved from all inward sin—from
evil thoughts, and evil tempers. No wrong temper,
none contrary to love, remains in the soul. All the
thoughts, words and actions are governed by pure
love.

The New School ministers have the frankness to
acknowledge that their doctrines are not the doc-
NEW SCHOOL METHODISM. 91

trines of the Church. They have undertaken to cor-
rect the teachings of her standard authors. In the
same editorial of “The Advocate,” from which we
have quoted so largely, we read: ‘So in the exerci-
ses and means of grace instituted by the Church, it
is clearly apparent that respect is had, rather to the
excitation of the religious sensibilities, and the cul-
ture of emotional piety, than the development of
genial and humane dispositions, and the formation of
habits of active, vigorous goodness.”

Here the evils complained of are charged upon
“the exercises and means of grace, instituted by the
Church.” They do not result from a perversion of
the means of grace, but are the effects intended to be
produced in their institution. It is TuE cHURCH,
then, that is wrong—and so far wrong that she does
not even aim at the development of proper Christian
character. ‘The means of grace,” in the use of
which an Asbury, an Olin, a Hedding, and a host of
worthies departed and living, were nurtured to spirit-
ual manhood, must be abolished; and others, adapted
to the “ development of ‘genial and humane disposi-
tions,” established in their place. The lodge must
supersede the class and the love feast; and the old fash-
ioned prayer meeting'must give way to the social
party! Those who founded or adopted “the exercises
and means of grace instituted by the Church ”—
Paul and Peter, the Martyrs and Reformers, Luther
and Wesley, Calvin and Edwards—all have failed to
comprehend the true idea of Christianity—for these
all held that the sinner was justified by Faith in
Christ, and not by “some practical exhibition of self-
abnegation.” The honor of distinctly apprehending
92 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

and clearly stating the true genius of Christianity,
was reserved for a -few divines of the nineteenth
century!

In our next we shall show the usages and results so
far as developed, of New School Methodism.

USAGES—RESULTS.

Differing thus in their views of religion,’ the Old
and New School Methodists necessarily differ in their
measures for its promotion. The latter build stock
churches, and furnish them with pews to accommo-
date a select congregation; and with organs, melo-
deons, violins, and professional singers, to execute
dificult pieces of music for a fashionable audience.
The former favor free churches, congregational sing-
ing, and spirituality, simplicity and fervency in
worship. They endeavor to promote revivals, deep
and thorough; such as were common under the labors
of the Fathers; such as have made Methodism the
leading denomination of the land. The leaders of the
New Divinity movement are not remarkable for pro-
moting revivals; and those which do, occasionally,
occur among them, may generally be characterized as
the editor of “the Advocate” designated one which
fell under his notice, as “ splendid revivals.” Preach-
ers of the old stamp urge upon all who would gain
heaven, the necessity of self-denial—non-conformity
to the world; purity of heart and holiness of life;
while the others ridicule singularity, encourage by
their silence, and in some cases by their own example,
and that of their wives and daughters, “the putting
on of gold and costly apparel,” and treat with dis-
trust all professions of deep Christian experience.
When these desire to raise money for the benefit of
NEW SCHOOL METHODISM. 93

the Church, they have recourse to the selling of pews
to the highest bidder; to parties of pleasure, oyster
suppers, fairs, grab-bags, festivals and lotteries; the
others for this purpose, appeal to the love the people
bear to Christ. In short, the Old School Methodists
rely for the spread of the gospel upon the agency of
the Holy Ghost, and the purity of the Church. The
New School Methodists appear to depend upon the
patronage of the worldly, the favor of the proud
and aspiring; and the various artifices of worldly
policy.

If this diversity of opinion and of practice among
the ministers of our denomination, was confined to
one Conference, it would be comparatively unimpor-
tant. But unmistakable indications show that pros-
perity is producing upon us, as a denomination, the
same intoxicating effect, that it too often does upon
individuals and societies. The change, by the Gen-
eral Conference-of 1852, in the rule of Discipline, re-
quiring that all our houses of worship should be built
plain, and with free seats; and that of the last Gen-
eral Conference in the section respecting dress, show
that there are already too many among us, who would
take down the barriers that have hitherto separated
us from the world. The fact that the removal is
gradual, so as not to excite too much attention and
commotion, renders it none the less alarming.

Every lover of the Church must feel a deep anxiety
to know what is to be the result of this new order of
things. Jf we may judge by its effects in the Gene-
see Conference, since it has held sway there, it will
prove disastrous to us as a denomination. It so hap-
pened, either by accident, or by management, at the
94 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

division of the Genesee Conference, eight years ago,
that most of the unmanageable veterans, who could
neither be induced to depart from the Heaven honor-
ed usages of Methodism, by the specious cry of
“progress” nor to wink at such departures, by the
mild expostulations of Eli, “Why do ye thus my
sons!” had their destination upon the east side of
Genesee River. The first year after the division, the
East Genesee Conference had twenty superannuated
preachers: the Genesee Conference but five. ‘“ Men
of progress” in the prime of life, went west of the
river, and took possession of the Conference. For
the most part, they have borne sway there ever since.
Of late, the young men of the Conference, uniting
with the fathers, and thus united, comprising a ma-
jority of the Conference, have endeavored to stop
this “ progress” away from the old paths of Method-
ism. But the “ progressives” make up in manage-
ment what they lack in numbers. Ilaving free ac-
cess at all times to the ears of the Episcopacy, they
have succeeded, for the most part, in controlling the
appointments to the districts and most important
stations. If, by reason of his obvious fitness, any
impracticable adherent of primitive Methodism has
been appointed to a district or first class station, he
has usually been pursued, with untiring diligence,
and hunted from his position before his constitutional
term expired.

In the bounds of the Genesee Conference, the peo-
ple generally are pre-possessed in favor of Method-
ism. During the past eight years there have been no
external causes operating there against our prosper-
ity, that do not operate at all times and in all places.
NEW SCHOOL METHODISM. 95

Within this period, the nominal increase of the Church
in that Conference has been but seven hundred and
eighty. The East Genesee Conference has had an
increase, within the same time, of about two thous-
and five hundred. In order to have simply kept
pace with the population, there should have been
within the bounds of the Genesee Conference, one
thousand six hundred and forty-three more members
than there are at present. That is in eight years,
under the reign of new divinity, the Church has suff-
ered, within the bounds of this one Conference, a
relative loss of fifteen per cent in members.

The Seminary at Lima, at the time of the division,
second to none in the land, has, by the same kind of
management, been brought to the brink of financial
ruin,

We have thus endeavored to give a fair and impar-
tial representation of New School Methodism. Its
prevalence in one Conference has already, as we have
seen, involved it in division and disaster. Let it
generally prevail, and the glory will depart from
Methodism. She has a special mission to accomplish.
This is, not to gather into her fold the proud and
fashionable, the devotees of pleasure and ambition,
but, “to spread scripture holiness over these lands.”
Her doctrines, and her usages, her hymns, her history
and her spirit, her noble achievements in the past,
and her bright prospects for the future, all forbid
that she should adopt an accommodating, compro-
mising policy, pandering to the vices of the times.
Let her go on, as she has done, insisting that the great,
cardinal truths of the Gospel shall receive a living
embodiment in the hearts and lives of her members,
96 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

and Methodism will continue to be the favored of
Heaven, and the joy of earth. But let her come
down from her position, and receive to her com
munion all those lovers of pleasure, and lovers of the
world, who are willing to pay for the privilege, and
it needs no prophet’s vision to foresee that Methodism
will become a dead and corrupting body, endeavor-
ing in vain to supply, by the erection of splendid
churches, and the imposing performance of powerless
ceremonies, the manifested glory of the Divine pres-
ence, which once shone so brightly in all her sanctu-
aries.

‘Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways and
see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way
and walk therein; and ye shall find rest for your
souls.’ ”

Is there anything wrong in that article?
That was our representation of the state of
religion in the Genesee Conference at that time.

We give the opinion which responsible parties
expressed of that article when it first appeared.

Dr. Hibbard, who was, at that time, editor
of the Northern Christian Advocate, to whom
we sent the article for publication sent us the
following letter. After it was clear that we
were in the minority, Dr. Hibbard wrote against
us with great zeal and, as we think, unfairness.
“Dear BRoTHER ROBERTS:

I return your communication as you requested, not

feeling it prudent to publish. I presume you can
not see things as I do from my stand point. Your
,

REV. F.-G. HIBBARD. 97

communication would involve me in hopeless contro-
versy, which would make me much trouble and
perplexity, with no hope, as I view it, of doing sub-
stantial good to the church, or cause of. Christ.
I do not speak this against your article considered by -
itself, but of the controversy which your article would
oceasion. Your article appears to me to be written in,
as mild and candid a tone as such facts can be stated
in. Be assured, my dear Brother, that in the doc-
trine of holiness, in the life and power of religion,
in the integrity and spirit of Methodism, I have a
deep and lively interest. I labor to promote these.
But I could not feel justified. i in taking sides in the
question that now unhappily divides the Genesee
Conference. May the Lord bless you ‘and. all his
ministers, and give peace and purity to the churches.
Ever yours in Christ,
Avpurn, Aug. 10, 1857. F. G. Hrpsarp.”

A presiding elder of the Oneida Conference
_ wrote us, soon after the publication of our ar-
ticle, as follows:

“Sept. 1, 1857.
Dear Brotruer:

I am gratified with your exposure of the “New
Divinity,” that is cursing our church. It is creeping
into our Conference and doing immense mischief.
Keep the, monster in the light.”

Another prominent minister of the same
Conference wrote us:

“Tf you had belonged to our Conference we would
have given you a vote of thanks for writing that
article.”
98 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

Such is the opinion of distinguished men,
well qualified to judge, of our account of the
state of religion. which the dominant party were
promoting.

We give a few extracts from their own wri-
tings to show that their opinion, when they had
the candor and the courage to express it, did
not differ so materially from ours. Read them
carefully, and see if their own representation
of the state of religion among them is not worse
than the one we gave.

The following editorial from the Buffalo
Advocate, was copied into the Christian Ad-
vocate and Journal :

“RELIGIOUS INTEREST IN BUFFALO.

We have none; we have no more than is usual
through the year. Wedo not intend to convey the
idea by the above heading that there is any special
movement among us, or that there is any marked
efforts toward getting souls converted, or keeping
those converted who are already in the Church.
The great movement among us is, we judge, to deter-
mine how far the church can go back to the world,
and save its semblance to piety, devotion, and truth.
Hence, many, many Church members have become
the most frivolous and pleasure-loving, and folly-tak-
ing part of our towns people. They love, give and
sustain the most popular, worldly amusements, such
as dancing, parties, card-parties, drinking-parties,
masquerade and surprise parties, and have no dispo-
sition to come out from the world and be senarate
RELIGION IN BUFFALO, 99

from it. All this may be seen, read and known in
more or less of the Buffalo churches.”

We ask any intelligent person if these are
not more serious charges than any to be found
in our article on ‘‘New School Methodism.”’
We dealt more with speculative opinions—
but this article accuses them of a want of ex-
perimental and practical piety.

The Rev. Wm. Hart commented in the
Northern Independent on the above article
as follows :

“Now the question is, are these charges true or
false? If false, is the Advocate aware what it costs
to slander the church in these days? It saw a couple
of men beheaded for an offence which dwindles into
superlative insignificance, when compared with. these
wholesale charges. Let us look at them.

Ist. No effort towards getting souls converted.

2d. No effort to keep souls converted.

3d. ‘The great movement,’ ‘the marked effort
is to gain a position where they can just balance be-
tween God and the devil.’

4th. ‘The church members are frivolous, folly-
loving, and pleasure-taking, even more so than those
who are openly in the way to hell.’

5th. ‘They love, give and sustain dancing parties,
card-parties and drinking- parties ; etc., and have no
disposition to do otherwise.’

These are the charges; now for the testimony.
Bro. Robie called. Are the above charges true respect-
ing the churches in Buffalo? Ans. ‘All this may be
100 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

seen, read and known in more or less of the Buffalo
Churches.’

Dr. Stevens sends out these awful charges to his
thoysands of readers, on the simple assertion of the
ldvocate, without waiting to know the facts. How
he has anathamatized the Northern Independent, as
villifying and slandering the church; but since its
commencement, to the present day, where will we
find anything to equal the above from Bros. Robie
and Stevens? Now if the above charges cannot be
sustained, should not Bro. Robie be prosecuted for
slandering the Buffalo churches, and Dr. Stevens for
“publishing and circulating” “slanderous reports ?”
If they belonged to the Genesee Conference, and
were charged with abusing and slandering the church,
they would, ecclesiastically, be sent higher than
Haman. In the Genesee Conference, the above extract
from the Advocate, would be considered as slander-
ous, whether true or false. So, Messrs. Editors, you
had better take care. What was Bro. Roberts’ and
McCreery’s fault, compared with yours? Where or
when have these brethren ever said anything half so
severe as this from the Advocate? But, if what
Bro. Robie writes be true, why all this hue and cry
against the so-called Nazarites? The same ungodly
influences, and the same proneness to comply with
them exist in other places as well.as Buffalo. And
would it be strange, if like causes produce results

“like those now being experienced by the Churches
in Buffalo? The same state of things narrated by
the Advocate, has and does exist in other places. The
temptations of the devil have been listened to, and
the prayer meeting has given way to the social party;
RELIGION IN BUFFALO. 101

entire consecration has died, out and the spirit of com-
promise between the Church and the world obtains;
formality and indifference respecting the salvation of
souls, have taken the place of spirituality, and the
love which constrains ‘to seek the wandering souls
of men.’ To counteract these effects, a few faithful
souls stood up for Jesus, and like the Hebrew chil-
dren, declared they would not fall down and worship
the worldly gods which those ‘frivolous, folly-loving
and pleasure-taking members’ and ministers are
setting up. This, as everybody Knows, that knows
any thing about it, was the origin of Nazaritism. The
natural antagonism between sin and holiness has
caused all the trouble. While the current flows
along, as Bro. Robie says it does in Buffalo, and no-
body stands up for Jesus and proclaims the whole
trnth, they will have peace and prosperity; but it
will be the peace of death, and the prosperity of
those ‘ whose eyes stand out with fatness.’ If Bro.
Robie would stand out as an uncompromising expo-
nent of the whole truth, and in the might of the
Spirit bear a decided and open testimony against all
worldly connections and associations that are cursing
the Churches in Buffalo, he would see such a commo-
tion and storm of opposition, as has-been seen and
felt in other places. But, glory to God, souls would
be awakened and saved. Then would commence the
work of persecution, for, as he that was born after
the flesh, persecuted Him that was born after the
Spirit, ‘even so is it now.’ If Bro. Robie would
take this position with an eye single to the glory of
God, and seek to root out dead formality, by a living,
earnest Christianity, and make ‘ special efforts’ for
102 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

the conversion of sinners, he would be to all intents
and purposes, a Nazarite. Will Bro. Robie take
this stand, and see and fee] the salvation of God, or
will he let the Buffalo Churches drift down to ever-
lasting woe, unwarned, he following in their wake ?”

The means adopted to promote this religion,
which ridiculed without mercy ‘‘a religion of
devotion,” were not unworthy of the religion.
sought to be promoted.

We extract from the Buffalo Courier the
following friendly notice of a ‘‘ Clam bake and
chowder festival,’ held for the benefit of the
Niagara Street M. E. Church:

“CLAM BAKE AND CHOWDER.

The spot selected for the clambake was Clinton
Forest, situated about a half a mile from the road.
This place, containing about twenty acres, was sur-
rounded by a neat board fence, and ten cents was
demanded from each visitor for admission within the
enclosure. Within we found thousands of people,
some ventilating their garments on swings, some
playing games of different descriptions, hundreds
eating ice-cream, coffee, ham, fowls, and other sub-
stantials, while the great mass opened, swallowed or
gorged themselves with clams. Clams was the cry—
from every corner came the echo, clams! clams! and
the odor of clams went up and down, odorous as ex-
quisite ottars, and fragrant as a back-kitchen about
dinner-time.

At other points on the ground were many tables,
spread with delicacies of all sorts, behind which hand-
some women added their voices to urge on appetite;
CLAM BAKE AND CHOWDER. 103

flower tables were many, where young and pretty
damsels waylaid pecunious young men with their cyes,
and persuaded them into floral purchases; ive-cream
booths, where shillings were exchanged for the frigid
luxury, accompanied with parallelogrammatic sec-
tions of sponge cake ; there were other places where
money could be laid out to advantage in many ways,
but of them we remember none. At the rope-walk,
a building which appeared to us to be a mile long, a
large crowd had collected, and to the music of two
bands were jumping about and perspiring to their
heart’s content, which privilege cost each dancer ten
cents. The air in this place was so intensely hot and
high flavored, that we positively failed to get the
programme of the dances. In the main grounds,the
Union Cornet band, with their new instruments, de-
lighted the crowds with their music, while the Twi-
light Serenaders were kept musical all day long, by
the voices of women and girls, who surrounded them
with a rampart of charms, denying their egress
without some specimen of their vocal attributes.
The singers fairly made themselves hoarse with their
efforts. All was hilarity and enjoyment throughout
the afternoon, everybody appearing to be happy just
in proportion as they had absorbed clams. We
eall particular attention to this new social meteor,
in consequence of hearing some gentlemen,who never
were considered musical, successfully attempting the
«Star Spangled Banner,” with variations, about thirty
rods from Clinton Forest, where a contraband lager
beer merchant had opened his wares. No one will
be unkind enough to intimate that the music came
from the lager. No!
104 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

The festival altogether was a success, and has ini-
tiated a new order of excursions, which we hope will
be followed up. The receipts at the gate were over
four hundred dollars, we understand, and at the dif-
ferent booths, etc., several hundred dollars more.
The proceeds are for the benefit of the Niagara street
Methodist Church, and will prove a great assistance
to them in paying off the debt of the church. The
ladies, particularly, deserve the highest encomiums
for their efforts and attempts to make the festival a
model one, and carrying it on to triumph.”

The person who stood at the door of the
rope-walk and collected ‘ten cents’’ of each
one who attended the dance, was said to bea
member of one of the M. E. churches in the
city ; and the proceeds, after ‘‘ paying for the
music,’? went to the benefit of the church.
The character of those who in a city like Buf-
falo would be likely to attend a ten-cent dance
held under the auspices of a respectable
church, may be readily imagined.

The Niagara St. Church, for the benefit of
which this festival was held, was the oldest
M. E, Church in the city. It was once highly
prosperous. Here Eleazer Thomas preached
holiness, after the pattern of Asbury, in the
power of the Holy Ghost. At this church we
were stationed the fifth year of our ministry.
It was the only appointment made for us with
which we ever tried to interfere. We felt
RELIGION IN BUFFALO. 105

deeply our lack. of ability, experience and
grace, to fill so important a position. We en-
treated the Bishop not to send us there. But
when we were sent, we resolved to do our duty
faithfully. God kept us from compromising,
and gave us a good revival of religion. The
members generally weré quickened and many
sinners were converted. A few—less than half
a dozen—composed of secret society men, and
one or two proud women, encouraged by a
former, secret society pastor, held out and op- ,
posed the work.

Ever since the church edifice had been built,
there had been on it a mortgage of a few thou-
sand dollars. This we agreed to see paid if
they would make the seats free. We had a
good proportion of the amount necessary to
doit pledged, when at the end of the first
year, through the influence above referred to,
we were removed, and a man of the other party
sent in our place. The people were finally
persuaded that what they needed was a more
imposing church edifice. So the church—a very
substantial stone building—was remodeled,
a new front built, a large organ placed in the
gallery, and tall gothic chairs in the pulpit.
All the money was raised that could be raised
by selling the pews, by taxing the members to
the utmost of their ability, and by making one
106 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

of the largest liquor dealers in the city trustee
and treasurer. So great was the zeal excited
among the members to ‘‘save the church,”
that one of the most godly women we had
known up to this time, was induced to preside
at one of the tables at the clam-bake and
chowder entertainment !

But all was of no avail—the church edifice
was sold to pay the indebtedness upon it, and
the members were scattered. This church has,
for many years, been a Jewish synagogue.

After violently freeing the Conference from
the presence and influence of those whom they
had pronounced ‘‘disturbers of its peace,”’
and obstacles to its prosperity, the dominant
party became alarmed at its rapid decline from
even their own standard of prosperity. In
their minutes for 1865, they published a report
on ‘The State of the Work,’’ on which report
the editor of the Worthern Independent had
the courage to comment as follows:

‘““GENESEE CONFERENCE OF M. E. CHURCH.

A copy of the Minutes of the last session of this
Conference lies upon our table. Its mechanical exe-
cution is excellent, and reflects credit upon all
concerned. With the matter in general, we are
equally pleased. Each page, if we except the account
of the “ Conference Camp-meeting,” bears marks of

diligence and candor. But what strikes us most, is
the report on the ‘State of the Work.’ It is able,
GENESEE CONFERENCE RELIGION. 107

pungent, truthful, humiliating. Yet it would have
been more so, had all the facts in the case come out.
Their language of confession wants translating, and
then it would read much like the following:

‘They said one to another, we are verily guilty
concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish
of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not
hear : therefore is this distress come upon us.’ And
Reuben answered them, saying, spake I not unto
you, saying, ‘Do not sin against the child, and ye
would not hear? Wherefore behold also his blood is
required.’—Gen. xlii, 21, 22.

But let us have their own statement of the sad
condition of affairs in a Conference from which all
traces of Nazaritism and ‘Contumacy’ have been
carefully excluded. As this purgation has been
eminently expensive to common sense, moral princi-
ple, and Methodist Discipline, one would suppose
that it might have been prolific of mere numbers and
of a certain kind of self-respect. Yet, even in these °
poor results it fails, and hence they say :

1. “Our revivals have not been, either in number
or extent, what we desired, or had reason to expect.
Are we God’s ministers, commissioned and sent forth
by the Great Head of the Church, to win souls
to Christ, and must we, in so many instances,
pass on, year after year, with no marked results?
Are we doing our whole duty, as preachers of the
everlasting Gospel, while the years go by, and that
Gospel seems essentially powerless in our ministra-
tions? While we are the appointed guardians of the
churches, must we, of necessity see them moving on
to inevitable extinction? This is not God’s will.
108 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

The fault lies, in part, at least, at our own doors.
There is, on the part of many of us, cause for pro-
found humiliation before God, and for the most
serious inquiry whether we are not essentially failing
of the great ends of our ministry.

2. “Another unfavorable feature in our condition
is the fact, that in many, perhaps in most of our
churches, the membership is made up, almost wholly,
of persons far advanced in life. We see among
them very few of the young. In a large portion of
our churches, we rarely find a young man in the
Official Board. This indicates a lamentable want of
extensive revivals among us, for the PAST TEN YEARS.
These aged persons in our churches are true and
faithful, and worthy of all honor. But they will
soon pass to the church triumphant. There are, per-
haps, scores of churches in our Conference, the very
existence of which seems to depend on the lives of
one, two or three men now far advanced in years.
These men are rapidly passing away. It is obvious
that, in many places, nothing can save our cause but
powerful and far reaching revivals of religion.

“Another very great evil among us, and one fraught
with most damaging results to God’s cause and all
our interests as a Conference, is the engaging in sec-
ular pursuits by so many of our ministers. This evil,
during the past two years, has been largely on the
increase. It is needless to spend time to show the
error of a practice so obviously contrary to both the
spirit and letter of our commission, and of our min-
isterial vows. We claim to have obeyed the voice of
the Master, “Go ye into all the world and preach the
Gospel to every creature,” at the altars of the church.
GHENESHE CONFERENCE RELIGION. 109

In the presence of God and man we have solemnly
pledged to be men of one work, and how can we,
conscientiously, engage in occupations that must
divide our interest, energies, time and affections.
This practice is alarmingly shaking the confidence
of the people in us, as ministers of the Lord Jesus.
They say we are as greedy of gain, as covetous of
large possessions, as easily swept into wild specula-
tions as any other classof men. This loss of confi-
dence in the ministry is not confined to those alone
who engage in secular pursuits, but extends measura-
bly to the whole body. Thus the innocent. suffer
with the guilty, and our hold upon the people is lost.”

The chronology of the above is worthy of note,
and we have marked it by putting the words in capi-
tals. It is now almost ten years since that Confer-
ence arrested the character of one of its ablest and
most useful ministers, and finally expelled him for
slander—which slander consisted in writing an article
for this paper, on “New School Methodism.” “The
article reflected pretty severely on some usages cur-
rent in that and other Conferences, but was not one
whit more.scathing than this report on the “State of
the Church.” Its’ allegations indeed were not as
broad, nor were its developments as alarming. A
keen observer, however, at that time saw the evil in
its incipiency—saw a ministry shorn of its strength,
secularized, unsuccessful, and the church dying out—
saw exactly what this official document declares
began to exist ten years ago. The brave man whose
eyes, anointed of God, saw this deplorable condition
of the Genesee Conference, should have been re-
warded by something better than expulsion, for he
110 WHY ANOTHER SEC.

meant well, spoke well, and is now fully endorsed by
the Conference itself. We saw the injustice done,
saw it at the time it was done, and gave notice of.
the fact; but our words were then, as they probably
will be now, unheeded, and the Conference went on
its way trying men for “Contumacy ” and expelling
such large numbers of their very best ministers
and laymen, that absolute ecclesiastical annihilation
stares them in the fave. This result will surprise
none. It is but the inevitable consequence of a
wrong course. Had the leaders of that once pros-
perous section of the Church listened to good coun-
sel, they would not be uttering their De profundis,
but their Mune dimittis, and each valiant soldier of
the cross, looking back over a well contested field
could say, “I have fought a good fight.”

Ten years of spiritual barrenness, the seculariza-
tion of the ministry to such an extent that the peo-
ple have lost confidence in them, and many other
evidences of decline should satisfy the Conference
that it has done wrong—that its administration has
cast down those whom God has not cast down. By
way of helping them out of their trouble, we suggest
that the Conference at once reconsider its action in
the case of all who have been expelled on mere tech-
nical grounds, and thus restore those on whose
account God has sent leanness into all their bord-
ers.”

The Conference as a body went on a few
years longer. Many of the leading preachers
had lost the confidence of the people to that
degree that they took transfers to other Con-
GENESEE CONFERENCE RELIGION. 111

ferences. New men were introduced to supply
the work. But all was of no avail. They
could not get up even a show of prosperity.
They were united with other Conferences for a
time—their name changed—and after a general
change of preachers, were again restored as a
Conference, with the old name. But with all
this management, and with the help of such
lodges as could be drawn into the support of a
religious sect, there has been a steady decline.
In their minutes for 1858 they reported :
Members and probationers, 18, 656
In 1878, on the same territory, 12,744
showing as the result of the labors for twenty
years of over one hundred preachers in a ter-
ritory in which the people are prepossessed in
favor of Methodism, a decrease of nine hun-
dred and twelve members.
Of the state of religion in general, at that
time the Rev. Jesse T., now Bishop Peck wrote:
“What a mass of backsliders there are now in

the church, for the very reason that they have been
satisfied without going on to perfection.” ‘

Of the light given by the baptism of the
Holy Ghost, he said :

“Tt trembles to see that the outward splendor of
the church, once deemed the reliable evidences of
success, are but the attire of a harlot, both revealing
and inviting illicit intercourse with a godless world.”
112 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

Do you find anything as severe as that in
«* New School Methodism ?”’

From all that we learn, we judge that the
state of religion generally has not, under this
new dispensation, greatly improved. We
quote the following, which is going the round
of the papers, credited to Dr. Newman:

“The morality of the church is radically defective.
The church is rich, and she is extravagant. The
pleasures of the world are more to her than the joys
of piety. Her love of gain is a by-word. She
stretches out her arms to grasp the islands of the sea,
while the fires of devotion burn dimly on her altars.
Many a church member, who often says, ‘Lord,
Lord,’ would let a piece of property for a saloon
where husband and father spend their time and
money in drink; or for a gambling place, where
young men are ruined; because he ‘can command
thereby a higher rent.”

Is not reform in the church still needed ?

We have thus given our readers the article
which the dominant party in the Genesee
Conference selected as the worst which we had
written against them. From their own pub-
lished accounts we have shown that the state
of religion among them was even worse than
we had represented.
CHAPTER VI.
THE PROSCRIBED RELIGION.

In showing the kind of religion promoted
by the men proscribed. by the Genesee Confer-
ence, we shall give a specimen of the accounts
published about it by their opposers. We
shall then, in order to prove the falsity of these
representations, give the reports made by dis-
interested witnesses, of some of the most
objectionable of the meetings held under the
auspices of the men accused of promoting ‘‘a
spirit of wild fanaticism.”’

For the articles published at that time by
the proscribed, responsible names were given.
We endeavored to write the truth, and were
willing to meet it. Those who wrote against
us generally did so over fictitious signatures.
For the editorials which appeared in the Buf-
Falo Advocate, and in the Northern Christian
Advocate, the editors of course assumed the
responsibility. Numerous false and vindictive
attacks were made by unknown parties. They
did their best to kill reputations, but like
assassins, ‘‘ concealed the hand that struck the
blow.”

We quote from one of the most respectable
114 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

of these writings. It was first published in
the Vedina Tribune, Sept. 11, 1856, a year
before ** New School Methodism’? was written.
It is evident that its author was a member of
the Conference :

ce NAZARITE REFORMERS AND REFORMATION.

Spurious reformers are as plenty as blackberries,
and ax contemptible as plenty. Incapable of com-
prehending the moral condition and wants of society
around them, and also of understanding ‘the modes
or processes by which reformation is to be effected,
they believe, or affect to believe, that they are the
chosen instruments of some greatly needed social
regeneration—whose necessity or possibility, none,
beside themselves, are able to discover. Mistaking
a desire to do something grand, for a call to a great
undertaking; and the wish to be known to fame, for
a prophetic intimation of some splendid achievement
—they go forth before the world, putting on strange
and uncouth airs, which they expect everybody will
regard as proof of the ‘ divine fury’ with which they
are possessed; and repeating nonsensical and clap-trap
phrases, which they have mistakingly selected as the
watchwords of a reformatory movement. The ti-
diculous figure they cut excites the laughter and jeers
of all—save those who are as addled and silly as
themselves. By such, however, they are frequently
mistaken for real prophets; and the gaining of a few
proselytes always confirms both in their lunacy.

We, of the Genesee Conference, have such a batch
of false prophets—such pseudo reformers among us.
And such a group of regenerators as the Nazarites com-

 
‘

THE PROSCRIBED RELIGION. 115

pose, we can not believe wasever before brought to-
gether by the force of a common belief in a divine call to
a great work. Whence, or why the idea ever struck
them that they were the chosen ministers of a new
reformation, will probably never be rescued from the
dimness and uncertainty of speculation. They pro-
bably felt the motion of something within them—it
may have been wind in the stomach—and mistook it
for the intimations of a heaven-derived commission,
summoning them to the rescue of expiring Method-
ism, and the inauguration of a new era of spiritual
life in the history of the Wesleyan movement.

Take a look at this knot of men in the light of
correctors of spiritual abuses and corruption—and it
is under this title that they present themselves in
their confederated Nazarite capacity, to the Method-
ist public. They pretend that many wicked and
corrupt practices have grown up in the church—and
above all in the ministry, and claim, that they have
come forward as the champions of primitive and
gospel purity, simplicity and holiness. In taking up-
on themselves this character and office, they not only
accuse their ministerial brethren of having ‘ departed
from the faith,’ but also, assume that they themselves
are pre-eminent for moral cleanliness and Christian
purity. The modesty of these pretensions can not
fail to excite the admiration of all. But the truth of
these pretensions is what we are more particularly
interested in. Ave these men so much better—morally
and religiously—than their compeers, as they would
have the world believe? What fruits of transcen-
dant godliness do they exhibit? Their professions
indeed are loud and pretentious, but what of their
116: WHY ANOTHER SECT.

works? Does holiness display itself in spiritual
pride, in arrogant boastings of goodness, in canting
and crabbed long-facedness, in gross and filthy vitu-
perations? In that case the palm of excellence must
indeed be yielded to them. Upon what meat, pray,
do these Nazarites feed that they have grown good so
fast ?

To them, religion still appears to be a system of
outward forms and symbols, of material ceremonies,
and corporal manifestations, of animal influence and
nervous sensations. With them, a long face and
sanctimonious airs answer for inward purity and
goodness of heart. In their creed, a high-sounding
profession takes precedence of a holy life, and getting
happy in a religious meeting is laid down as an indu-
bitable proof of the divine favor. Boisterous shouting
and screaming,...... while engaged in devo-
tional exercises, they call serving God. An observ-
ance of certain prudential, disciplinary requirements,
they esteem a more important duty than the practice
of the precepts contained in the golden rule. They
consider plainness in dress of greater moment than
uprightness of character. An ornamental ribbon or
flower upon a lady’s bonnet is—in their eyes,—an
enormity greater than the sin of lying: and the
wearing a ring or bracelet they think is more dan-
gerous and damning than covetousness or slander ;
and generally, they preach with more powerful vehe-
mence against superfluity of outward apparel, than
against the breach of the Ten Commandments. With
them, a broad-brimmed, bell-crowned hat is equiva-
lent to “the helmet of salvation,” and a shad-bellied
coat to the robe of righteousness.
THE PROSCRIBED RELIGION. 117

But what means do these reformers employ to ac-
complish their ends? Do they go forth to the people
with words of trath and soberness, striving to make
men better by pressing, with fervént eloquence and
earnest, rational appeals, the declaration of God’s
word upon the heart and conscience of the hearers ?
No; their harangues to the people consist of factious
addresses, cant phrases, and rant; of protestations of
their own spotlessness, and both open and concealed
imputations upon the Christian and ministerial cee
acter of their brethren. Justus.’

Among the older members of the Conference
understood to belong to the class to which this
article refers, were such men as Asa Abell,
Benajah Williams, John P. Kent, Samuel C.
Church, and Amos Hard. Among the younger,
such men as William C. Kendall, Loren Stiles,
and I. C. Kingsley,—men who, in point of
talent, education, and general information—to
say nothing of piety—would not suffer in
comparison with those who publicly treated
them with such contempt. As the reader
compares the tone and spirit of this article
‘with ‘‘New School Methodism,” let him bear
in mind that this is one of the more respectable
of its class. There were others too low and
scurrilous to be republished.

To prove the state of religion among them,
we have given their own testimony.

To show the character of the religion thus
118 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

denounced, we call attention to the following
testimony of ministers in good, and some of
them in high standing in other Conferences of
the M. E. Church.

We give first a report published.in the
Northern Christian Advocate, written by the
Rev. William Reddy, who, for many years,
was a presiding elder in the Oneida Conference.
The Bergen Camp Meeting was considered by
our opposers the most objectionable of all our
meetings. Some of them called it the ‘“hot-
bed of fanaticism.’’? The meeting here referred
to, was held the spring before we were expelled.

“THE BERGEN CAMP-MEETING,

“There were one hundred and four tents on the
ground, in a delightful woods owned by the Associa-
tion, and which may be very much improved with a lit-
tle outlay. God was there. I believed, I felt he was
there; and many were the living witnesses of his pow-
er to save, not only to forgive, but also to cleanse
from all unrighteousness. I heard old Meo
from Boston and from Connecticut say,with streammg
eyes and bounding hearts, “This is as it used to be
forty years ago.” I regretted much that I did not see
Brothers Stiles and Abell, who had left the ground to
attend the examinations at Lima, the former to deliver
an address before one of the societies, and the other
as a trustee. I confess that I felt my heart strongly
united with these “ fellow-citizens of the saints, and
of the household of God.” The doctrine of sanctifi-
cation after the John Wesley standard, the definite
BERGEN CAMP MEETING. 119

way of seeking the blessing, the spontaneous confes-
sions of having obtained it, on the part of intelligent
and mature persons, the duty of exemplifying it by
self-denial and universal obedience, the keeping the
rules of the Discipline, “not for wrath, but con-
science’ sake,” the patient and loving endurance of
opposition and persecution for Christ’s sake, if need
be, were all earnestly taught and enforced, and many
were the witnesses. And some of “the priests [min-
isters] were obedient to the faith,” i. e.; ey were
wonderfully blest and baptized.

I learned that quite a large number were convert-
ed. Ileft Brother Ives preaching, while Brother
Gorham of the Wyoming Conference, was to exhort
after him.

AUBURN, JUNE 25, 1858.° Wa. Reppy.

The following account of the same meeting
is from the pen of Rev. B. I. Ives, D. D., of
-the Oneida Conference :
“BERGEN CAMP MEETING.

The meeting was by far the largest that I have
ever attended, and is said to have been the largest
and best that has ever been held in Western New
York. There were a hundred and four cloth tents,
and many of them were very large, and ali of them
appeared to be well filled. The congregations were
large and very attentive all through the meeting. On
the Sabbath there must have ‘been at least, five
thousand people present, and yet, so far as I could
discover or learn, the best of order prevailed, and
all appeared anxious to hear the ‘ words of salvation.’

There were two things connected with this camp-

‘
120 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

meeting with which I was particularly impressed.
The first was the number of intelligent business and
influential men, that were there with their families,
tented upon the ground, and who staid all through
the meeting, laboring for God and the salvation of
souls. This is as it should be.

The second thing that I noticed particularly, was
the spirit of prayer and labor for the conversion of
sinners, and the sanctification of believers, that was
manifested from the very commencement to the close
of the meeting. I saw nothing like mere visiting or
idling away precious time, which I am sorry to say
we sometimes see at camp-meetings. But here all
appeared to feel as though they had come for one
object—the glory of God and the salvation of souls,
So much was this the case that when strangers came
upon the ground, they were led to say, as several
brethren in the ministry and others did to me, ‘God
is here. There is power here; there appears to be
a stream of holy fire and power encircling this camp-
ground.’ And soit was. There appeared to rest
upon ali, as they came within the circle of tents, a
holy impression that God was there in awful power,
to awaken, convert, purify, and save souls. This was
realized and felt, not only in the public congregation,
and under the preaching of the word, but in the class
and prayer-meetings, that were held in the different
tents. Such was the power of conviction that rested
upon many of the unconverted, that in several in-—
stances they came unasked into prayer-meetings, and,
weeping, requested the people of God to pray for
them. And I can but believe that this would be the
case all over our land, if the Church of God were
BERGEN CAMP MEETING. ° 121

baptized with holiness and power. Who does not
feel like singing,
‘O, thatit now from heaven might fall!

There were over thirty different ministers present,
to say nothing of the large band of local preachers
who: were on hand, ‘full of faith and the Holy
Ghost,’ and who had a ‘mind to work.’ There were
several preachers at the camp-meeting from other
Conferences, such as Bros. Parker, Gulick, Wood,
Wheeler, Brown, Tinkham, of East Genesee, Wm.
Reddy, of Oneida, and B. W. Gorham, of Wyoming.

Rev. 8. C. Church and Asa Abell, (both ex-presi-
ding elders, I believe) had charge of the meeting,
and they both appeared very much at home in that
kind of business. The preachers all appeared to vie
with each other in trying the most effectually to
preach Christ to the people, and of course the bless-
ing and power of God attended their efforts. And-
not in a single instance were sinners invited to come
to the altar and seek the Lord, but what there were
“more or less that came, and generally a large number.

I left the ground the night before the meeting
closed, so that I do. not know the probable number
that were converted or reclaimed, but there must have
been a large number; and no doubt hundreds will
praise God in eternity, that they attended the Bergen
camp-meeing,

I must not stop until I speak of the Love-Feast
that was held at eight o’clock on Wednesday morn-
ing, which was indeed a ‘feast of fat things,’ and
a time of salvation, power, and glory. I was partic-
ularly interested in hearing some of the old veterans
of the cross relate their experience, some of which
122 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

were the richest I have ever heard; and to see their
countenances beam with joy, and lighted with glory,
as they would say, ‘This makes me think of my con-
version. This remimds me of the early days of
Methodism in this country. This is such a camp-meet-’
ing as we used to have thirty, or forty, or fifty years
ago.’

I saw nothing that appeared ‘like wild-fire, or mere
‘animal excitement,’ during the entire meeting. The
motto was: ‘order and power.’ And all the people
of God seemed to be baptized with the real, old-fash-
ioned ‘Jerusalem fire.’ And I pray God that we
may have more of this in all our Churches. Praise
God for camp-meetings, and let all the people say,
Amen. B, I. Ivzs.

Avsurn, June 28, 1858.

The next meeting of which we give an ac-
count was held on the same ground the next
year, the spring following the first expulsions.
The writer of this was also a member of the
Oneida Conference.

“BERGEN CAMP-MEETING.

We arrived on the ground on Friday morning, (the
second day of the meeting) and it seemed that the
meeting was farther advanced in interest and power,
than some meetings we have attended were, during
their last days. It is evident that these persons live
nearer to God at home and bring the real fire with
them. At ten o’clock Bro. Wm. Cooley, preached
from Ps. xxiv, 3,4—a very good sermon. At two
Pp. M., Brother Herrick preached from Matt. xvi. 15.
BERGEN CAMP MUETING. 123

At seven o’clock Brother Thomas preached from John
iii, 9. It was a gospel sermon.
Saturday morning, June 23.

B. T. Roberts preached at ten o’clock. What was
remarkable in this sermon, the speaker did not as
much as refer to his troubles, but the sweetest and most
heavenly spirit seemed to reign through the whole
discourse. If he continues to maintain the spirit he
now possesses, his foes must all fall powerless at his
feet.

Dr. Redfield preached at two p. m. from Matt. v,
16. He showed that the human mind was not capa-
ble of concocting ascheme of religion that would meet
the demands of our fallen nature. He then argued
that sensible men could not be prevailed upon, to em-
brace a system of religion that did not work in them,
and regulate their inward life, as well as the outward
man. ‘“ Let your light shine,” first ; by giving glory
to God with your voice. Second, by walking in the
highway of holiness.

At four o’clock the Laymen’s Convention met.

We did not see anything in their proceedings, but
what we could endorse. These laymen ‘are men of in-
telligence, power and prudence. May God give the
church more such all over this land. In the evening
A. L. Backus, preached from Rom. v. 1, subject Jus-
tification by faith, Sunday morning the writer
talked a little from Matt. xxi, 22. Subject, Prevail-
ing Prayer. The Lord helped. At ten o’clock Dr.
Redfield preached from Jer. ix, 8. ‘They are not
valiant for the truth.’ After this, there were prayer
circles formed all over the ground, and the power of
God was greatly manifested among the people. Per-
124 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

fect order reigned, though there were probably
12,000 people on the ground. God’s order evidently
obtained.

At two o’clock, Rev. B. I. Ives preached from 2
Cor. iv, 4. The glorious Gospel of Christ. Sunday
evening, Bro. A. B. Gregg, of the Oneida Confer-
ence preached from Jer. vi, 16. At seven o’clock,
Bro. C. D. Brooks, of the Indian Mission preached
on the Gospel Feast. The Lord evidently reigned
over the great congregation during this day. Not-
withstanding the great mass of people present, perfect
order prevailed during the whole day.

Monday morning, Bro. Purdy took for his text
Matt. vii, 24-27. Ile said there were two kinds of
people in the world. First, those who hear the words
of Christ, believe and do them. Second, those who
hear, believe and do not. At two o’clock, Bro. John
W. Reddy preached from Phil. iv, 6-7. He preached
an excellent sermon. Sister Purdy then spoke of her
illness; said she realized more than ever, that the
rules of the M. E. Church were barely strict enough
to get us to heaven. In the evening, Bro. Watts
preached from ‘ Now is the accepted time.’ It was a
good sermon.

Tuesday morning, at ten o’clock, Bro. Selby of
the East Genesee Conference preached from Lev.
KES Ls

Wednesday, Bro. Wm. Reddy preached on the
baptism of the Holy Ghost.—Matt. iii, 11-12.

This meeting was one of the strongest we ever
attended. We had heard so much about this people,
that when we went on the ground, for a little while we
were on the come and see bench, but we soon found
LAYMEN’S CAMP MEETING. 125

that these persons had nothing but what a few of our
people have in the Oneida Conference. They are a
people full of faith, and when they pray, they look
for immediate results. They are as intelligent a
class of people as you will find in any congregation
in the State of New York. They are clear in their ~
views of holiness, according to our standard authors,
and according to Scripture. We want to be identi-
fied with the principles and doctrines held by this
much persecuted people. If there is any shame con-
nected with them as long as they stand where they
now do, we want to bear our part.

MieseeroN. July 15. J. F. Crawrorp.

The Black Creek camp-meeting of which
the following accounts were published, was
held the same year :

“LAYMEN’S CAMP MEETING.

Ihave lately attended a Layman’s camp-meeting,
which was held near Belfast, Allegany Co., N. Y.,
ably conducted by Rev. C. D. Burlingham. I sat
under the preaching of Rev. B. T. Roberts and Rey.
J. McCreery, who are charged with fanaticism and
enthusiasm. They are in earnest to have the Church
gain heaven, and seek full salvation from all sin.
These men are blessed of God. I arrived on the
camp-ground Sunday evening. The stars shone
brightly on the smiling earth; the voice of prayer
rang with music from the leafy temple; a flood of
celestial light came down from heaven; the spirit of
praise inspired each Christian with the fullness of
divine melody; a solemn awe pervaded the hearts of
the people; a voice from heaven spake to the impeni-
126 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

tent, and rent the vale of sin. Scores were reclaimed
and converted to God. Great and powerful manifes-
tations were made. These men of God were con-
formed in their instructions to the wisdom of God,
which flowed down upon them like a golden stream
of light from heaven. They were animated by
inspiring love, while thousands of the assembly were
inspired with confidence in the preaching of Eidad
and Medad. Swelling raptures burst forth and filled
the leafy edifice with songs of universallove. ‘Shall
they prevail in the combat of evil elements?’ Ih
spite of all opposition, and the secret combinations
of men, ‘ They shall prevail.’ Jesus says, ‘ Fear not,
I am with you.’ Tra A. WEavER,
PuHILLIPSVILLE, July 25, 1859. A Wesleyan.”

The following is by a local preacher from
the city of New York:

“OLD FASHIONED METHODISM.

The above is the most proper name I know of to
give to the preaching, and exhortations and exercises
I heard and saw at a camp-meeting which commenced
on the sixth and closed on the thirteenth of this
month, near Black Creek, in Western New York,
and also at a meeting in Bergen, N. Y., which com-
menced on the twenty-third of last month. I
attended both meetings, and heard the blessing: of
entire sanctification preached and enforced as it used
to be by Wilbur Fisk, B. C. Eastman, A. D. Mer-
rill, Asa Kent and others of the old time. Perfect
order was observed, and the wicked, as they came on
the ground with their large cudgels, seemed to be
awed into reverence by the power of the Spirit
MAMMOTH CAMP MEETING. 127

which prevailed. Many found the Saviour, some of
whom told us they came to make fun, hat God
answered prayer, and convicted and converted them;
and many heeded the warm invitations of God’s ser-
vants, and sought and found full redemption in the
blood of the Lamb. Oh! that the religion of west-
ern New York may spread over these lands.
J. PALMER.

The following account of another layman’s
camp-meeting, was written by a preacher from,
we believe, the Philadelphia Conference.

“ MAMMOTH CAMP-MEETING.

Sept. 2nd. 1858. We arrived at Gasport about one
o’clock, and took private conveyance to the great,
mammoth camp-meeting, about two miles from the
depot. This meeting had commenced the day pre-
vious, and was in Niagara County, about twenty-five
miles from Niagara Falls. Some sixty or seventy
tents were pitched on the ground, which has a fine
elevation, and is finely shaded with beautiful sugar
maple and highland oak,

Ihad the pleasure of introductions to numerous
brethren, and spent some profitable moments with
Bros. Roberts, McCreery and Jenkins, and also Bro.
Johnson of the Wesleyan connection.

The preaching of the brethren was eminently ex-
perimental and practical. Prayer, praise and shout-
ings were heard from every part of the ground. On
Sabbath it was supposed that ten thousand persons
were on the ground. I saw no rowdyism during the
meeting. I was surprised to learn that camp-meet-
ings were a new thing in that immediate neighbor-
128 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

hood. On Sabbath morning, after Brother Roberts
had concluded his sermon, Miss Hardy, a member of
our church, and a graduate of Genesee College, arose
and delivered an affecting exhortation, before the
vast auditory. I am glad to see this feature of Meth-
odism revived among us. When Methodism was
young and vigorous, we had female class-leaders and
exhorters. Brother Ives preached in the afternoon,
and notwithstanding the strong wind, his splendid,
camp-meeting voice arrested the attention of thou-
sands. On Monday morning we left for Niagara
Falls, and the meeting was to continue till Wednes-
day. I have not heard the final result 3 but no doubt
it was glorious. J. D. Lone.”

While the Conference was in session at
Brockport, in October 1859, Fay H. Purdy
held a Camp-Meeting in a meadow a short dis-
tance north of the village. The following ac-
count of the meeting was given in the Brock-
port paper.

“ CAMP-MEETING.

The services of the camp-meeting continue of the
most interesting character. The spacious pavilion
is crowded with attentive thousands, listening with
eagerness to the heart-stirring appeals made by the
ambassadors of Christ. The altar is crowded with
weeping penitents at nearly every service. The
number of converts we haye been unable to ascer-
tain, but we presume the conditions of Mr. Purdy’s
pledge will be more than met,—that if one hundred
souls were converted, he should feel it his duty to
appoint a similar meeting at the Conference next
BROCKPORT CAMP MEETING. 129

year. Mr. Thurston continues to labor with the
ability, fervor and success, that have marked all his.
efforts while he has been at this meeting. He seems
more free and powerful and honored of God since
that noble stand he took in reference to the Bishop’s
interference with his labors here. The Bishop per-
emptorily ordered him to leave the meeting, and not
participate in these services. This prelatical assump-
tion of power was met with the manly independence
that it richly merited. Rev. Mr. Whitney, of the Troy
Conference, made, at different times, some of the
most solemn, moving appeals to the hearts and, con-
sciences of men, that we have ever listened to. He
is in feeble health, and looks like one sent from the
grave to warn the living to prepare for judgment.
The services on Sabbath morning commenced with a
love-feast, which reminded the aged of the Methodist
love-feasts of by-gone years. At half past ten, Rev.
Wm. Hosmer, Editor of the Northern Independent,.
preached to a congregation of from six to eight
thousand people, a most eloquent and impressive dis-
course from the text, ‘ Blessed are they that do hunger
and thirst after righteousness.’ Every sentence was a.
proverb. He is a noble specimen of a Christian man,
original, sincere, fearless, and full of faith in God.
At the close of the service, Mr. Purdy said ‘he was.
about to make an announcement that no one but
himself was cognizant of. He said he never shrunk
from responsibility, when God spoke to him. He
felt that his duty was clear, and he now offered the
platform to B. T. Roberts, an expelled member of
the Genesee Conference, to proclaim salvation to the
peoplein the afternoon. He hoped no one would
1380 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

come who believed him to be a bad man.’ At two
Pp. M., the spacious tent was crowded to its utmost
capacity, and Mr. Roberts preached an evangelical
discourse from ‘Son of man, I have made thee a
watchman.’ ‘

In the evening the Rev. Mr. Thurston again
preached an overwhelming sermon from “‘ Ye must
be born again.” The tent was crowded, and a deep
solemnity pervaded the entire mass of human beings.
Some forty, we should judge came forward as seek-
ers of salvation. Mr. Purdy, who has no equal in the
management of such meetings, remarked at the close,
that the law of order had prevailed with but slight
exceptions—who the exceptions were he would not
now say, but would say that they were not common
sinners. The congregation was dismissed, and re-
tired quietly from the ground, carrying impressions
that will not soon be forgotten. At 10 A. M., Dr.*
Palmer, of New York City, preached with unction
and power. In the afternoon, Rev. Mr. , of the
East Genesee Conference, preached a powerful sermon
from “Be not weary in well doing.” He was fol-
lowed by exhortations by Rev. Mr. Wells and the
Rev. L. Stiles of the Genesee Conterence. A prayer
meeting followed—the altar was filled with penitents
—the praying continued till a late hour, and a large
number professedly passed from death unto life.

On Tuesday, Rev. Mr. Foster, of the Oneida Confer-
ence, preached an able sermon full of power. The
sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was administered to
between four and five hundred. The scene was
affecting to all who beheld it. The concluding ser-

 

 

*Not the well-known physician, but 9 local preacher.
DEDICATION AT ALBION. 131

vices on Wednesday morning were most solemn and
impressive. After a love feast such as we have never
been in before, the multitude of believers marched
around the area embraced within the circle of tents
and took the parting hand, never all to meet again
till they meet at the judgment seat.”

We next give an account of the DEDICATION
of the Free Methodist Church at Albion.

A correspondent of the Buffalo Advocate
wrote :

“The services of the dedication were conducted
by Rev. Asa Abell, one of the fathers of the Genesee
Conference, who-made the opening prayer; the
reading: of the Scriptures by Rev. Mr. Requa, of the
Wisconsin Conference, a sermon from the celebrated
Dr. Bowen of the Oneida Conference, after which the
dedicatory prayer was made by Mr. Ives, who particu-
larly thanked God for stirring up the people to build a
free house of worship, and implored his special
blessing upon the various portions of the house,
including its fixtures, then and there consecrated to
him.”

The Buffalo Morning Hapress published
the following account of these services :

“We rejoice in every provision that is made for
preaching the Gospel to the masses. The tendency
of the exclusive system upon which most of the
churches in the cities and large towns in Western
New York are conducted, is to alienate the masses
from religious worship. In a church where a few
have their pews which they occupy, as a right, the
182 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

many will not feel like intruding, nor will they consent
to advertise their poverty, from Sabbath to Sabbath, by
occupying seats reserved for the poor. Hence, we
are glad to chronicle the success which has crowned
the efforts to build a Free Church in Albion. The
Rev. L. Stiles, who, with others, were expelled by
the Genesee Conference, at its last session, for doing
his duty as a Christian minister, was invited by the
great majority of the church at Albion, which he had
served with great acceptability for the two previous
years, to continue his labors among them, as a
minister of Jesus Christ, and he accepted the invita-
tion. Rather than have any disturbance, they gave
up the church property, to which they were legally
entitled, and proceeded at once to purchase a lot,
and erect a house of worship. This house was
yesterday dedicated to the worship of God by the
Rev. E. Bowen, D. D., of the Oneida Conference, of
the M. E. Church. Hs sermon, on holiness, founded
upon | Cor. vi, 2: “For ye are bought with a price,”
etc., was most able, impressive, and made a profound
impression upon the vast congregation in attendance.
In the evening, the Rev. B. I. Ives delivered one of
his powerful appeals from the words: “ We will go
with you: for we have heard that God is with you.” |
The thrilling shouts of the people showed that the
truth fell upon ears capable of appreciating it. The
house was crowded to its utmost; some 1300 being
present, and many left, unable to get in. The house
thus dedicated, is a substantial structure, 101 feet by
55. The audience room—the largest in the place—
pleasant and commodious, will seat about one thou-
sand persons. A basement, the whole size of the
\

QUARTERLY MEETING AT ALBION. 138

building, entirely above ground, affords pleasant and
convenient rooms for class and prayer meetings, and
Sabbath-school. The lecture room in the basement
will hold six hundred persons. The house is plainly
and neatly furnished, and lighted with gas. The
cost of the whole has been in round numbers about
$10,000. The whole has been paid or provided for.
_ About $4,500 were raised yesterday and last evening.
For this result, credit is due to Rev. B. L Ives,
through whose indefatigable exertion, the whole
amount called for was secured. Mr. Stiles has
collected a large and intelligent congregation, a
devoted, pious, working church, and with their
present facilities for doing good, the best results
may be anticipated. The meeting was continued
over the Sabbath, the Rev. B. I. Ives preaching
with more than his usual power. The sacrament
was administered to some four hundred or more com-
municants, and the season was one long to be
remembered. In the evening, the altar was filled
with penitents.”

The following is an account of the first Gen-
eral Quarterly Meeting held in the Free Meth-
odist Church at Albion. It was written by
Rev. George Fox, who was at that time a
member of the Wisconsin Conference of the M.
E. Church ; but. who afterwards united with
the Free Methodists, and after laboring among
them a few years with great zeal and success,
died in holy triumph. :

“The exercises of the General Quarterly Meeting,
from beginning to end, were attended with the divine
134 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

presence and glory. The scene of the Sabbath, nu
human tongue or pen can describe; and the effort we
here attempt, is but a feeble one. Let the imagina-
tion of the reader be brought up to its highest point;
and then but a faint idea, can be formed of the
glorious scene.

At nine o’clock, the hour for Love-Feast to com-
mence, there were together not less than a thousand,
plainly dressed, and methodistical appearing persons,
anxious to catch the first accent of testimony that
might be given, in favor of him who gave his life for
all, The testimonies given in that Love-Feast, were
not the jingling of old rusty coppers of past expe-
rience, but the ring of the gold of present communion
with God.

Oh! how my faith in the divinity of our holy re-
ligion was increased, as I heard many of my old class-
mates, and many that had been converted since I left
that country, testify that the blood of Christ, was -all
powerful to cleanse from all sin. I may be considered
“wild, or simple as a child,” but I did get blessed in
love-feast, AND IT HAS FEASTED ME ALL THE WAY TO
WISCONSIN.

Brother Ives preached at ten and one-half. The
sermon was a masterly effort; his thoughts were
brilliant, his manner pleasing, and his language elo-
quent. It was taken down by a reporter, for one of
the Albion dailies, but I think he failed to report the
glory part of it.

I do not understand why it should be a crime in
some countries to serve God, get happy, and shout
God’s praises.

The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was adminis-
REV. G. H. FON, 135

tered to four hundred and forty persons, while the
bright glory of Him, whose death we there celebrated
was present, to encourage, sustain and happify.

Brother Ives preached in the evening, and at the
close of the sermon, invited such as were sinners and
felt their need of a Saviour, to the altar. Fourteen
weeping penitents came forward, and in answer to
prayer, God came down, and honored the new
Church by clearly converting to himself precious
souls.

Let me say in conclusion, much has been said in
the west in regard to the Genesee Conference
“Nazarites.’ Now, Brother Hosmer, I have seen for
myself, and f can exclaim as one did after being
permitted to look upon Solomon’s glory and splendor
‘that half was never told me.’ JI have met tried
friends of former years, heard them relate, with
tearful eyes, their trials; I have worshiped with
them, and I find my sympathies moved in behalf of
the oppressed ones within the bounds of the Genesee
Conference. When that Sister told me that her
husband’s dying request was that Rev. B. T. Roberts
should preach his funeral sermon, and because of
complying with that request, his funeral could not
be attended in the church, although he had paid his
money to erect it, and to support the cause of Meth-
odism in that place; and when I heard devoted Chris-
tian brethren (acquaintances of other years) tell of
being read out of the church without being tried,
and without their consent, J could but say, ‘God de-
liver us from such ecclesiastical usurpation.’

G.:-H. Fox”.

Asa Abell said in the Worthern Independent,

‘
136 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

March 10, 1859, in reference to the charge of
fanaticism :

“J have been a member of the M. E. Church for
over forty-three years, and an unworthy preacher of
the Gospel for nearly or quite forty years, and
whether I do or not, I am sure I ought to know what
is that form of Christianity called Methodism; and
although the pressure which some have felt upon
them from the strange and unhappy circumstances
existing among us for several years past, has, as I
have thought, unfavorably modified, in a few in-
stances, (but so far as I recollect, in a comparatively
slight degree,) the spirit manifested by some, yet am
I constrained to declare that to my apprehension,
there is nothing among us where I am acquainted,
which justifies the charge of a new cype of Method-
ism. I regard the charge as false and unkind, unless
beyond the limit of my acquaintance, sentiments are
held and acted on, very different from any I know of.
I desire, while God lends me breath, to do what—
with my feeble powers I can do—to preserve unde-
generate and in full force and virtue the true Wesley-
an views of Christian doctrine, experience and prac-
tice, and help propagate the same as extensively as
may be among mankind.

I know of no ecclesiasticat political designs. If
any persons have such designs they have not seen fit
to entrust them to me. I have often been associated
with those who I suppose are meant in the charges,
to have such designs, and I cannot call to mind any
expression looking in that direction. I think the
one grand design of these. earnest people, preachers
and others, is to spread vital religion among man-
DR. ELLIOTT. 137

kind—that is a real, not a diluted and powerless
Christianity.”

Men of God from a distance, seeing so much
published in the papers against us, came to
suspect that the cry of ‘-fanaticism’’ was only
a new form of the old opposition to vital god-
liness, and many came among us to see and
hear for themselves. Thus the venerable Dr.
ELLiotr, author of ‘ Elliott on Romanism,”’
though an entire stranger, came on purpose to
see us and attend our meetings. He spent
several days with us, in our family, and gave the
work his most hearty, public endorsement ; and
helped it on by preaching and exhorting in the
demonstration of the Spirit.

Thus we have given the testimony of disin-
terested men respecting what Bishop Simpson
calls a “‘spirit of wild fanaticism.’”’ These
men were intelligent ; most of them ministers,
and some of them ministers of high standing
in the M. E. Church. Which are to be be-
lieved—these men—eye and ear-witnesses of
what they wrote; or Bishop Simpson’s trans-
lation into respectable language of the false
accusations of our bitterest enemies /
CHAPTER VII.

CHURCH TRIALS.

The old method of settling religious disputes
was, for the stronger party to burn the weaker
at the stake, or throw him to the wild beasts.
Persecution was one among the practices of
heathenism which Constantine brought with
him into the Christian church.

Through the influence of Christianity, the
spirit of persecution has been restrained to
such manifestations, as slanderous reports, so-
cial ostracism, and expulsion from the church.
But the spirit is the same in all ages.

The first of the partisan trials in the Gene-
see Conference that took place, was that of the
Rev. Joseph McCreery. He was aman of great
originality, remarkable talents, and at that
time deeply devoted to God. He was quiet in
his manner in the pulpit, but we have seen,
under his preaching, large congregations stirred
to the highest pitch of excitement. He had a
way of his own, of saying things, so that the
people both understood and remembered them.
Under his labors occured extensive and thorough
revivals of religion. His father was a Metho-
dist preacher ; Dr. Samuel Luckey was his un-
REV. JOSEPH McCREERY. 139

cle, and he prided himself on his Methodist
lineage. We never knew a more devoted
adherent of the M. E. Church. His course re-
minds us of an Irish girl, whom her Catholic
mother had driven from home, because she had
been among the Methodists, and become con-
verted.

The girl had found a place as servant in a
pious family by which we were entertained,
during a session of Conference. The mother
came to the house one morning, and poured
upon the poor girl such a torrent of abusive
eloquence, as we never heard equaled. Be-
coming intolerable, the gentleman of the house
gently put her out. She then went to the gate,
and hurled back anathemas and excecrations,
until, overcome by her rage, she fell in a swoon.
The daughter rushed out, bathed her temples,
wept over her, and became almost frantic with
grief. As we endeavored to console her, she
said, with a depth of feeling seldom witnessed,
“She is my mother, let her do what she will.”

So Joseph McCreery said of the M. E. Church.
When turned out on the most trivial accusa-
tion, he joined again on probation. When he
was dropped, because of the clamor raised by
his enemies ; and the Free Methodist Church
was organized by those with whom he had
labored to promote Methodism, he refused
140 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

for five years to join, and when at last he did.
unite, such were his yearnings for the old
church, that he left the Conference in about
two years, and went away to the frontier.

In 1854-5, he was stationed on the Lyndon-
ville circuit. The church was very much run.
down in spirituality, and he went to work in
earnest for its recovery. He read and explain-
ed to the society the General Rules. He said he
did not wish to take advantage of the ignorance
of any one, as some might not have known
what they were doing when they joined the.M.
E. Churth. He would therefore give those
who did not wish to be governed by these rules,
an opportunity to quietly withdraw. None
left, but all pledged themselves to keep the
rules. He broke up the choir—or as he ex-
pressed it—‘‘ Drove out the doves who were
billing and cooing in the gallery,’’ and intro-
duced congregational singing. He preached.
with fervor; so great was the interest, that
even when the snow-banks were higher than
the fences, the people came for miles to at-
tend the meetings. A great revival took place.

Dr. Chamberlain, a superannuated preacher,
had his residence on a farm in this circuit.
He was a strong man, of a metaphysical turn
of mind, cold temperament, and’ undemonstra-
tive in his manners. He was an advocate of the
REV. JOSEPH McCREERY. 141

‘‘gradual’’ theory of holiness. Encouraged by
large appropriations from the superannuated
fund, he suffered himself to be made promi-
-nent by the dominant party in Genesee Confer-
ence, in their. open attacks upon those they
called ‘‘ Nazarites.”” His zeal was also quick-
ened by the fact, that his wife, a noble woman,
of strong mind, and deep, uniform piety, openly,
‘avowedly, and very decidedly, identified
herself with those who were proscribed, as
‘“Nazarites,”’ and afterwards éxpelled.

During the year that the Rev. Mr. McCreery
was on the circuit in which Dr. Chamberlain
resided, the doctor wrote down a long list of
the odd, characteristic expressions, which Mr
McCreery had uttered in the pulpit.

As a specimen of Mr. McCreery’s sayings, we
give the following. In describing church festi-
vals then in vogue, he said: ‘“‘A whiskered and
blanketed black-leg will come along, and pay
his quarter for the privilege of fishing a rag-
baby from a grab bag.”’

In stating the opposition he met with in try-
ing to bring the church back to its former
simplicity and spirituality, he said: ‘‘ Some of
the younger boys have taken my mother, the
Methodist. Church, in her old age, painted her
face and curled her hair, hooped her, and floun-
ced her, and jeweled her, and fixed her up, until
142 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

we could hardly tell her from a woman of the
world. Now when I have taken the old lady,
and washed her face, and straightened out her
hair, and dressed her up in modest apparel,
so that she looks like herself again, they make
a great hue and cry, and call it abusing
mother.”

Dr. Chamberlain read to the following Con-
ference, the sayings to which he objected, and
arrested the character of the Rev. Joseph Mc-
Creery. The latter read to the Conference, the
‘‘Nazarite Documents,’’ and his character was
passed, subject to an examination before his
presiding elder, of any charges which might be
preferred against him. The Rev. Loren Stiles
was his presiding elder, and when the charges
were presented, he ordered the trial to be held
at Lyndonville, where the alleged offences were
committed, and where the witnesses lived,
though it was outside of his district. At the
opening of the trial, the prosecution objected
to the ruling of the chairman, and refusing
. to go on, the trial was abruptly brought to a
close.

At the next Conference, at Medina, charges
were brought against Loren Stiles for his ad-
ministration in this case.

They were prosecuted by Thomas Carlton,
and James M. Fuller. At the request of broth-
SERIOUS COMPLAINTS. 143

er Stiles, we acted as his counsel, and Mr.
Stiles was acquitted.

The so-called ‘‘regency,” up to this time
had control of only two, out of the five presid-
ing elderships,and as they had only about thirty
preachers in their secret meetings, they could
not control enough votes to secure his convic-
tion. They however, as we have stated, by
threats made to the Bishop, succeeded in get-
ting both Mr. Stiles, and Mr. Kingsley, removed
from the presiding eldership, and men of their
own appointed in there places. At their own
request, Bros. Stiles and Kingsley were trans
ferred to the Cincinnati Conference. The
charges against Rev. J. McCreery were with-
drawn, and resolutions reflecting upon him,
adopted in place of a conviction.

, Complaints of a serious character were made

against three of the prominent preachers of.
the so-called regency party of the Genesee
Conference of the M. E. Church.

One of these complaints was as follows:
~ Enoch Pease, an old. Methodist of Niagara
County, had lent these preachers about one
thousand dollars. They gave him for security,
what they said was a first mortgage, duly re-
corded, upon a piece of real estate which they
claimed to own, at Lima, N. Y. He let the
mortgage run till it was due. The parties

éc
144 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

meanwhile, had failed. On the suit for fore-
closure, it was shown that they had bought
this property of Dr. T. They paid down only
anominal sum, and gave back a mortgage for
the purchase money. At the time of the pur-
chase, Mrs. T. was away from home. The
deed and mortgage were both left with the
lawyer who drew them up, until Mrs. T. could
sign the deed, and then both deed and mort-
gage were to be recorded together. While
these papers thus laid in escrow, this mortgage
was executed to Enoch Pease. He never got
his money. These men might not have known
which mortgage would hold—but they did
know that they had given to one or the other
of the parties with whom they were dealing,
a worthless security. As soon as the com-
plaints were brought before the Conference,
one of the leading men of their party, I think
it was T. Carlton, moved to lay the whole mat-
ter on the table. It was seconded and carried,
and there it still lies.

With the guilt of the parties we have noth-
ing to do; but we do hold that the Conference
which refused to investigate such complaints,
made by such a man as Enoch Pease,—in such
a manner—for we took his affidavit of the
facts in the case, WAS GUILTY OF COVERING UP
FRAUD !
COVERING FRAUD. 145

Another case is as follows: The same firm,
consisting of these three prominent preachers,
again wished to borrow money. One of them
took a note which the three had signed, to Gen-
eseo to borrow five hundred dollars, of a brother
White, a Methodist man,-who kept a private
bank there. Being strangers to him, he took
the note to his pastor, the Rev. Jonathan
Watts, of the East Genesee Conference, and
asked his advice. Mr. Watts told him that
he supposed the men whose names were on the
note were honest, they were Methodist preach-
ers in good standing, and ought to be, but he
knew nothing of their financial responsibility.
“But,”’ said he, ‘‘the father-in-law of one of
them,—Dr. B., I know to be a man of means;
if he indorses their note, it will be safe.’ Mr.
White took the note back to this preacher,
and told him if he would get Dr. B.to indorse it,
he would himself endorse it and go to another
bank and get the money for them, as he had no
money on hand, and would like to accommo-
date them. The preacher returned the next
day with the note endorsed with the name of
the Doctor. Mr. White endorsed it, and got
them the money on it. The note when due
was protested, and Brother White looked to
his endorser, Dr. B., for the pay ; but instead,
of him, the Doctor’s son, who was financially
146 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

irresponsible, at their request had signed the
note! The note and costs amounted to six
hundred dollars, and not a cent was ever paid
to Brother White. Soon after, he failed in
business, and was reduced to want. He re-
quested Mr. Watts to see one of these preach-
ers, and ask him, as he was getting a good
salary, as pastor of one of the leading church-
es, to pay his proportion or a part of it, to
relieve his pressing necessities. This, he
utterly refused to do. Rev. Mr. Watts sent
Brother White money at the time, to keep
him and his family from starvation.

We made complaint of this fraudulent trans-
action, to the Conference, backed up by the
statement of Rev. J. Watts, in substance as
here given. The complaint was promptly laid
upon the table.

Why did not the victims of such dishonesty
prosecute these preachers in a criminal court ?
Enoch Pease was an old man, wealthy, and
did not want the trouble of a prosecution, as
he knew he could not get back his money. He
was a devoted Methodist, and did not want the
church disgraced.

Mr. White got the preacher he negotiated
the note with him indicted, and the preacher
fled the state. He joined a Conference west,
and was, the last we knew of him, a regular
COVERING FRAUD. 147

preacher in good standing, in the M. E.
Church.

At this same session, the Rev. L. Stiles
stated to the Conference that he had letters,
written by men of good standing in the com-
munity, two of them members of the Metho-
dist Episcopal Church, calling in question the
business integrity and honesty of a member of
the Conference. He asked that a committee
might be appointed, to whom these letters
might be referred for such action as the com-
mittee might deem proper. But the Confer-
ence refused to appoint the committee, or even
to hear the letters !

The so-called regency party now became
desperate in their measures. The question
between the two parties had, to some of the
leaders of one of these parties, become a ques-
tion of life and death.

Their desperation increased when they found
at the next Conference, that the Rev. Messrs.
Stiles and Kingsley, in accordance with peti-
‘tions signed by over fifteen hundred of the
members, had been re-transferred to the Con-
ference.

" They saw that something must be done to
cripple our influence, or they were still in dan-
ger of being called to account for their mis-
deeds. They hired a hall, and without ever
148 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

being suspected, held secret meetings at night.
They had now control of the presiding elders,
and by letting the young, and the unaccepta-
ble preachers understand that their appoint-
ments depended upvn which party in the
Conference they identified themselves with,
they succeeded in getting a majority of the
Conference into these secret meetings. Then
they voted, IN THIS SECRET CONCLAVE, com-
posed of the men who were to sit upon the
jury, and whose votes were relied upon in ad-
vance to secure conviction, to bring charges
against B. T. Roberts and W. C. Kendall!

My article on ‘‘New School Methodism,”’
had just been published, and the charges
against me were based on that.

I arose in Conference, and said: ‘‘I have no
intention to misrepresent any one. I do not
think I have. I honestly think that the men
referred to, hold just the opinions I say they
do. Butif they do not, I shall be glad to be
corrected. If they will say they do not, I
will take their word for it, make my humble
confession, and, as far as possible, repair the
wrong that I have done. I will publish in the
Northern Independent, and in all the church
papers they desire me to, from Maine to Cali-
fornia, that I have misrepresented them.”’

But no one said that I had misrepresented
LAW OF LIBEL. 149

them. They had been at great pains to get
their majority, and now they must use it. As
one of the preachers said, ‘‘ Wazaritism must
be crushed out, and we have got the tools to do
at with I’

» They went on with the trial. There was little
to do, as admitted that I wrote the article.
In my defense I showed :

1. That it is an undisputed principle of
common law, that in all actions for libel, the
precise language complained of as libelous,
must be set forth in the indictment.

“ An indictment for libel must set forth the very
words; it is not sufficient to aver that the defendant
published a certain libel, the substance of which is
' as follows.” —Brightley’s Digest, Vol. II, page 1681.

“Tn an action for libel, the law requires the very
words of the libel to be set out, in order that the
court may judge whether they constitute a good
ground of action.— Sergent & Rowlin’s Reports, Vol.
X, page 174.

2. That if you make a man responsible for
the construction which his enemies put upon
his words, you might condemn any man that
ever wrote. Nay, you could on that prin-
ciple, condemn the Saviour himself. He said
that ‘‘ All that came before me were thieves
and robbérs.”? Noah, Job and Daniel came
before him. Therefore he slandered Noah,
150

WHY ANOTHER SECT.

Job and Daniel, by calling them fhieves and

robbers.

In fact our Saviour was condemned

for the construction which his enemies put

upon his words.

3. I showed that in all the important speci-
fications they not only had not given my
words ; but they had perverted my meaning.

I claim the ability to say what I mean.

That.

the contrast between their charges and.my
words may be the more easily seen, we give
both in parallel columns:

CHARGES AGAINST REY. 5. 1.
ROBERTS.

I hereby charge Rev. B. T. Rob-
erts with unchristian and immoral
conduct.

ist. In publishing in the ‘* North-
ern Indepencent”’ that there exists
in the Genesee Conference an asso-
ciate body numbering about thirty,
whose teaching is very different
from that of the fathers of Method-
ism.

2d. In publishing as above that
said members of Genesee Confer-
ence are opposed to what is funda-
mental in Christianity—to the na-
ture itself of Christianity.

3d. In classing them in the above-
mentioned publication with Theo-
dore Parker and Mr. Newman as
regards laxness of religious senti-
ment.

4th. In charging them, as above,
with sneering at Christianity in a
manner not unworthy of Thomas
Paine, and that falls below that of
Voltaire.

WHAT HE DID SAY.

1st. Already there is springing
up among us a class of preachers
whose teaching is very different
from that of the fathers of Method-
ism. They may be found here and
there throughout our Zion; but in
the Genesee Conference they act as
an associate body. They number
about thirty. "

2d. This difference is fundamen-
tal. It does not relate to things
indifferent, but to those of the
most vital importance. It involves
nothing less than the nature of
Christianity itself.

3d. The New School Methodists
affect as great a degre of liberalism
as do Theodore Parker and Mr.
Newman,

4th. The following sneer is not
unworthy of Thomas Paine himself,
It falls below the dignity of Vol-
taire.

.
.

.

CHURCH TRIALS.

5th. In charging them, as above,
with being heterodox on the sub-
ject of holiness,

6th. In asserting that they ac-
knowledge that their doctrines are
not the doctrines of the church;
and that they have undertaken to
correct the teachings of her stand-
ard authors.

‘th. In charging them as above,
with attempting to abolish the
means of grace—substituting the
lodge for the class-meeting and
love-feast, and the social party for
the prayer-meeting.

8th, In representing as above, the

151

5th. The New School Methodists
hold that justification and entire
sanctification, or ‘‘ holiness,’’ are
the same—that when a sinner is
pardoned, he is at the same time
made holy—that all the spiritual
change he may henceforth expect is
simply a growth in grace. When
they speak of ‘holiness,’ they
mean by it the same as do evangel-
ical ministers of those deuomina-
tions which do not receive the doc-
trines taught by Wesley and
Fletcher on this subject.

6th. The New School ministers
have the frankness to acknowledge
that their doctrines are not the doc-
trines of the church. They have
undertaken to correct the teachings
of her standard anthors. In the
same editorial of ‘‘ The Advocate,”
from which we have quoted so
largely, we read : ‘‘ So in the exer-
cises and means of grace instituted
by the church, it is clearly apparent
that respect is had, rather to the
excitation of religious sensibilities
and the culture of emotional piety,
than the development of genial and
humane dispositions, and the for-
mation of habits of active, vigorous
goodness.”*

7th. The means of grace in the
use of which an Asbury, an Olin, a
Hedding, and a host of worthies
departed and living, were nurtured
to spiritual manhood, must be abol-
ished ; and others adapted to the
‘development of genial anu humane
dispositions,” established in their
place. The lodge must supercede
the class and the love-feast ; and
the old fashioned prayer-meeting
must give way to the social party.

8th. The leaders of the new Di--
152 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

revivals among them as superficial,
and characterizing them as ‘* splen-
did revivals.”

9th. In saying, as above, that
they treat with distrust all profess-
ions of deep religious experience.

REUBEN C. FOOTE.

vinity movement are not remark-
able for promoting revivals ; and
those which do occasionally occur
among them may generally be char-
acterized as the editor of ‘‘ The
Advocate” designated one which
fell under his notice as ‘‘ splendid
revivals.” Preachers of the old
stamp urge upon all who would
gain heaven, the necessity of self-
denial — non-conformity to the
world; purity of heart, and holiness
of life; while the others ridicule
singularity, encourage by their si-
lence, and 1n some cases by their
own example, and that of their
wives and daughters, ‘‘ the puttiug
on of gold and costly apparel,”’ and
9th, treat with distrust all profes-

LeRoy, Sept. ist, 1857. sions of deep religious experience.

I explained to them so clearly that the dull-
est could not fail to see,

1, That men may “‘ act as an associate body,”’
who do not ‘exist as an associate body.” It
was true that they had a regularly organized
‘associate body,’’ but I did not know it, or
even suspect it, and so I did not say it.

2. That men might have a difference about
what is ‘‘fundamental,’’—about ‘‘ the nature
itself of Christianity,’ without any of them
being ‘‘opposed to what is fundamental,’’ or
to the nature of Christianity. In point of
fact, the Calvinists and the Arminians—the
Unitarians and Trinitarians do so differ.

3. That there is a wide difference between
EXPLANATIONS. 153

‘liberalism,’ ‘‘possessing- charity,” and
‘‘ looseness of religious sentiment.”’

4. That saying “‘the following sneer is not
unworthy of Thomas Paine,”’ is by no means
equivalent to saying, ‘‘ They sneer at Christi-
anity in a manner not unworthy of Thomas
Paine.”’

5. That in saying they mean by “ holiness”’
the same as ‘‘evangelical ministers’’ of the
other Protestant churches generally do, is by
no means charging them with being ‘‘ hetero-
dox on the subject of holiness.”’

6. That the article from which I quote, fully
sustains all I say upon the point involved in
the sixth specification.

7. That in showing that if certain views of
religion prevailed, ‘“‘the lodge must supercede
the class and the love-feasts,’’ I did not charge
them with attempting to do it, but that this
would be the logical result of the teachings
that I was reviewing.

8. That in calling their revivals ‘“‘ splendid
revivals,’ I simply quoted from an editorial
of their own organ.

9. That in saying they ‘treat with distrust
all professions of deep, religious experience,”’
Isimply told what was notoriously true. I
heard one of these preachers say, ‘‘ When I
hear a man profess holiness, I feel for my
154 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

pocket-book.’’ Another said, “If I should
find Jesse T. Peck’s book on ‘“‘The Central
Idea of Christianity,’ in my house, I would
take it with the tongs and throw it into the
fire.’’’

Yet with the matter thus plainly before
them, a majority of the Conference voted these
specifications, (except the 4th, which was with-
drawn) sustained. In doing that, every man
of them voted as true what he knew to be
Jalse. We can not come to any other
possible conclusion. They were not igno-
rant men who did not know what they
were about. They were not acting hastily
over a matter they did not understand.
The case was fairly laid before them. They
deliberately voted that I wrote what they
knew I did not write.

I was sentenced to be reproved by the chair.
I received the reproof and appealed to the
General Conference.

When the appcintments were read out I was
sent to Pekin, Niagara County. It was
about the only part of the Conference in
which I was a total stranger. To my know!-
edge I had never seen a single person belong-
ing to my new charge.

Before I reached my appointment a prom-
inent preacher of the opposite party had taken
PEKIN CIRCUIT. 155

.

pains to inform them that their preacher had
been convicted at the Conference of ‘‘ immoral
and unchristian conduct.’ This was also pub-
lished without explanation, in the Buffalo
Advocate. Of course the people were hardly
willing to receive us. We doubt if any itiner-
ant ever had a colder reception. Even Father
Chesbrough, one of the noblest of men, and
staunchest and most loyal of Methodists, -at
first thought he would not even go to hear me
preach. ‘‘What have we done,”’ he exclaimed,
‘‘that a man convicted of immoral conduct
should be sent as our preacher?’ When the
first Sabbath morning that we preached there
came, as he always attended church, he con-
cluded to go,. saying, ‘It can do no hurt to
hear him once, any way.’’ Returning from
church, his son said he rode in silence over a
mile and then said, ‘‘ Well, Sam, I know noth-
ing about the man, but I do know that what
we have heard to-day is Methodism as I used
to hear it in the old Baltimore Conference, and.
as I have not heard it preached in western
New York.”’

Soon, a powerful revival of religion broke
out, which, notwithstanding the marked in-
difference of the presiding elder and the open
opposition of two or three of the official mem-
bers, swept on with increasing power through-
156 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

out the year. One of the stewards, dissatisfied
because the young people were getting con-
verted so thoroughly as to lay aside their
jewelry and their finery, while we were hold-
ing revival meetings in the church, started
prayer-meetings in his house across the street.
We paid no attention to them and they soon
died a natural death.

Though the district camp-meeting was held
but three miles from us, the presiding elder
never mentioned the subject to us. But we
attended, and, much to his dismay, had one
of the largest tents on the ground. For three
days he did not once open the way for testi-
mony in any public meetings before the stand,
doubtless for fear that some of the Pekin pil-
grims would tell what God had done for their
souls. At last a sister, free in Jesus, broke
through, and the tide of salvation began to
run. In the intervals of meetings at the stand
we kept them going in our tent, and many
were there converted and many sanctified to
God. Of the work on the circuit this year, a
beloved brother wrote for the Worthern Inde-
pendent as follows :

“Tt can not be denied that we received to our
church as our pastor, a man whom The Advocate
informed us was tried and found guilty of ‘immoral-
ity;? and judging from the articles which have
PEKIN CIRCUIT. 157

appeared from time to time in that paper. it would
seem that his opposers think ‘if we let him alone, all
men will believe on him;’ and the only way to destroy
his usefulness is to pursue him with ‘slanders’ and
“persecutions.” A recent article in The Advocate,
which descends to language unbecoming one Chris-
tian speaking of another, is hardly worth noticing, as
the shafts hurled at Brother Roberts fall far below
him. The statement, however, that he was not returned
to Niagara Street Church on account of his unfitness,
will do well enough among those who have never
heard from Brother Thomas all the facts in the case,
which, thank God, there are many who understand
as fully as the editor of The Advocate, and who dare
to tell the whole truth when called upon.

In view, then, of all these things, the grand ques-
tion to be answered is this:. Has the church pros-
pered under his labors, and has God honored his
labors by bestowing his blessing upon them? We
feel glad to say thatthe church, has prospered, through
the blessing of God, during the year. Andall the
honor and glory we lay at the feet of Jesus, for with-
out him his children can do nothing.

Though we have not been favored during the year
with the ‘able, impressive and appropriate prayers,’
that some of the other churches have been, we feel
thankful that we have had ‘the effectual, fervent
prayers of the righteous man, which availeth much.’
Notwithstanding the many reports which have circu-
lated to the contrary, God has been at work among
the people. Between fifty and sixty have professed
conversion; about forty of whom have joined on
probation. The preaching has been plain, simple
158 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

and pointed, and in accordance with the doctrines
and discipline of the Church. The consequence has
been, very many of the members of the Church
have been seen at the altar of prayer, some for justi-
fication, some for sanctification. Quite a number
have publicly professed to have received the blessing
of sanctification. Without an exception, every aged
member in our Church has rejoiced to see the return
of the days of Wesleyan Methodism, with its un-
compromising and earnest spirit.

When Brother R. came among us, our Sunday
noon class numbered about fifteen; now the average at-
tendance is, and has been for some time, from seventy-
five to eighty. Our prayer-meetings and week evening
class meetings, and they occur every night in the
week at various points on the charge, have been bet-
ter sustained through ‘haying and harvesting,’ and
have been more interesting than for years past. The
Sunday School has also reached a point in attendance
and interest never before attained in its history.
There are scores in the Church to-day, who feel to
thank God for having sent him among us.

S. K. J, Curssrouen.

Soutu PEKIn, Sept. 24, 1858.”
CHAPTER VIII.
TWO EXPULSIONS.

Bishop Simpson says in his article on ‘‘ The
Free Methodists,’’ ‘“‘In 1858, two of the lead-
ers were expelled from the Conference.”’

Of one of the two men referred to, this is
a mistake. Joseph McCreery, though promi-
nent in the holiness movement in the Genesee
Conference of the M. EH. Church, was never
a leader in the Free Methodist Church. He
was opposed to the organization. With re-
gard to the penalty, the statement is only half
true. The men referred to were expelled, not
only ‘from the Conference,” but also ‘from
the Church.”’? Why did not Bishop Simpson
tell the whole truth ? Was he unwilling to have
it appear that the laws of the M. E. Church,
as then administered, were like the laws of
Draco, and punished the slightest offense, or
even no offense, with death? Or, worse still,
like the edicts of Nero, which fonnared men
for being Christians ?

What heinous offense had been committed,
that the highest penalty known to ecclesiasti-
cal law was thus inflicted ?

At the close of the Le Roy Conference, the
160 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

victorious party published far and wide that
Brother Roberts had been convicted of ‘‘im-
moral conduct.’ They left it in this vague
manner, intending to convey the impression
that he had done something very bad.

George W. Estes was at that time a promi-
nen¢ member of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, on the Clarkson circuit. He was a
man of intelligence, and of influence in the
community in which he resided. He had been
an efficient worker in the revival meetings
whieh we held at Brockport, and was alive
in religion. With many others, Mr. Estes felt
that a great wrong had been done by the Con-
ference, and by the vague, insinuating reports
published of the offense for which B. T. Rob
erts had been convicted.

Mr. Estes, without my knowledge even, pub-
lished over his own name, and at his own
expense, in pamphlet form, my article on
‘¢New School Methodism,’’ and a short ac-
count of my trial. We give Mr. Estes article
entire, omitting the charges on which we were
tried by the Le Roy Conference, and which
may be found in this book, beginning on the
150th page. .

“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.
The foregoing *article in the Northern Independent

 

* Referring to ‘‘ New School Methodism,” page 85.
THH ESTES PAMPHLET. 161

was made the subject of general consultations in pri-
vate caucuses of the Buffalo Regency, held in a room
over Bryant & Clark’s book store, at Le Roy, on
Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings of the first
week of the Conference; the result of which was the
Bill of Charges given below. The manner of com-
mitting the feebler of the preachers to the condem-
nation of Brother Roberts in advance, was on this
wise, as related by one present. One of the chiefs
of the Regency, acting as chairman, asked: ‘ What
shall be done in the case of Brother Roberts? All
in favor of his prosecution raise your hands!’ The
‘immortal thirty’ raised their hands, and a few pre-
siding elderlings. The chairman then delivered a
flaming exhortation to unanimity—that they must be
united enough to carry the matter through, or it
would not do to undertake it. After sundry exhor-
tations, the vote was taken again, and a few more
voted. After another season of fervent exhortation,
a third vote was taken, in which all, save one, con-
curred; and the trial and condemnation were deter-
mined upon. Beautiful work this for godly, Methodist
preachers, deriving their support from honest, relig-
ious societies among us! We put their Bill of
Charges, with all its ingenious distortion of facts, on
record here before the people as follows: (See page
150.)

For several years past there has been: the annual
sacrifice of a human victim at the Conference. It
has been a custom. The religious rites and ceremo-
nies attending this annual lustration assume a legal
complexion. ‘The victim is immolated according to
law. E. Thomas, J. McCreery, I. C. Kingsley, L.
162 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

Stiles and B. T. Roberts constitute the ‘noble band
of martyrs’ thus far. Who is selected for the next
annual victim 1s not yet known. The midnight con-
clave of the ‘immortal thirty’ has not yet made its
selection. No man is safe who dares even whisper a
word against this secret Inquisition in our midst.—
Common crime can command its indulgences—bank-
ruptcies and adulteries are venal offences—but oppo-
sition to its schemes and policies is a ‘mortal sin "—a
crime ‘without benefit of clergy.’ The same fifty
men who voted Brother Roberts guilty of ‘unchris-
tian and immoral conduct’ for writing the above
article, voted to readmit a Brother from the regions
round about Buffalo, for the service performed of
kissing a young lady in the vestibule of the Confer-
ence room during the progress of Brother Roberts’
trial. ‘Nero fiddled while the martyrs burned.’
Brother Roberts’ trial—if it deserves the name of
trial—was marked by gross iniquity of proceedings.
There are no regular Church canons in the M. E.
Church to govern the specific manner of conducting
trials. All is indefinite. A glorious incertitude and
independence of all legal regulations prevail. The
presidential discretion must of necessity have large
latitude and range, either high or low, as prejudice
or policy may incline. Thus, when a witness was
asked if he knew of a private meeting of about
thirty preachers at Medina during Conference; he
answered ‘Yes.’ When asked for what purpose they
met, he answered for ‘consultation.’ Here the prose-
cution perceiving that all this secret caucusing at the
Medina Conference to lock out the prayer meetings,
arrange the appointments, oust out presiding elders,
THE ESTES PAMPHLET. 163

ete., etc., were likely to be brought out, objected to
all the questions in the case which were not exactly
covered by the verbal terms of the specifications
which they themselves had artfully framed. And
their objections were sustained by the Bishop. Every
question as to the meetings of the ‘immortal thirty’
—their doings and teachings—were objected to and
ruled out as irrelevant to the specifications.

Having been charged for affirming the existence of
an associate body of about thirty preachers in the
Conference for purposes indicated in his article, he
was denied to elicit the facts in justification, which
he could have proved by thirty witnesses. This right,
which any civil or military court would have allowed
him, was denied. Of course, where witnesses refuse
to testify, and the judge refuses to compel them to
do so, there was no use wasting time in defense.
Brother Roberts refused to continue the defense.

Also a’ commission to take testimony was sent to
Buffalo. But when they arrived they found an emis-
sary from the Conference had been sent on before
them to take charge of the Advocate ottice, who
tefused to sell or lend, or suffer to be transcribed,
any of the copy of the papers or articles bearing on
the case, and who put everybody ‘on the square’ to
refuse testimony. Having no power to compel wit-
nesses to testify, the Committee returned with such
testimony only, as, honest men voluntarily offered;
which will be hereafter published.

A venerable Doctor of Divinity read the ‘ auto-da-
fe’ sermon, (prepared for the victim of the previous
year) wherein he consigned, in true inquisitorial
style, Brother Roberts, body and soul, to hell. This
164 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

was done in his most masterly manner, evincing no
embarrassing amount of idiosyncracy or other men-
tal cause for superannuation. This venerable D. D.,
though nominally superannuated, and an annual claim-
ant of high rate upon the Conference funds, is never-
theless quite efficient in embarrassing effective preach-
ers in their work, by concocting ‘bills of information’
and ‘bills of charges;’ and pleading them to hell for the
crime of preaching and writing the truth. Whether
his plea will enhance the amount of the superannua-
ted collections for the coming year remains to be
seen.

It was moved that the vote in Brother Robert’s
case should be taken by the yeas and nays;
but the same spirit of concealment and dread
of light, fostered by secret society associations, pre-
vailed here also. Like some in the olden time, they
“feared the people,” and voted down the motion.
The vote to sustain the charge of “unchristian and
immoral conduct,” for writing and publishing these
strictures on New School Methodism, was fifty-two to
forty-three ; being a majority of nine. Several mem-
bers of Conference were absent, and several dodged
through fear of the presiding elder influence upon
their appointments. ©

The following preachers, as near as can be ascer-
tained, voted to sustain the charge : I.Chamberlayne,
G. Lanning, E. C. Sanborn, H. May, D. Nichols, M.
Seager, R. C. Foote, G. Fillmore, A. D. Wilbor,
P. Woodworth, R. L. Waite, H. Butlin, 8. M. Hop-
kins, E. E. Chambers, G. W. Terry, J. Latham, H.
W. Annis, Z. Hurd, T. Carlton, J. M. Fuller, W. H.
Depuy, D. F. Parsons, 8. Hunt, J. B. Lanckton, J.
THE ESTES PAMPHLET. 165

McEwen, H. R. Smith, 8S. C. Smith, G. Smith, L.
Packard, C. 8. Baker, W. 5S. Tuttle, J. McClelland,
J. G. Miller, J. N. Simpkin, 8. Y. Hammond, A. P.
Ripley, H. M. Ripley, M. W. Ripley, E. L. Newman,
A. Plumley, B. F. McNeil, R. S. Moran, E. M. Buck,
J. J. Roberts, 8. Parker, F. W. Conable, J. B. Went- *
worth, 8. H. Baker, J. Timmerman, K. D. Nettleton,
G. Delamater, W. C. Willing.

Another significant fact was apparent in the case ;
the power of the presiding eldership. Quite a number
of preachers would not vote at all. Too honest to
aid the conspiracy, and’ too cowardly to face the
“loaves and fishes” argument presented by the pre-
siding elder influence, they sat still and saw the
condemnation of the innocent, when they might
have prevented it.

The influence of the Book Concern ‘had its effect
upon the case. It has become a maxim in politics
“that the debtor votes the creditor’s ticket.” So
some indebted to the Concern discreetly refrained
from voting at all; while two preachers, having re-
fused to attend the private caucuses of the conspira-
tors, and to pledge themselves in advance to vote for
the condemnation of Brother Roberts, were scandal-
ized with a public report of delinquency, in open
Conference, by the Book Agent.

But it was the influence of the slavery question
which was paramount in the case. The episcopacy
is understood to be conservative on that subject, and
“to refer to it judiciously in all the chief appoint-
ments.” Hence the Buffalo regency in these days
(notwithstanding high professions lately to the con-
trary, on the eve of election of delegates to the late
166 WHY ANOTHER SECT. -

General Conterence) is also eminently conservative
on that subject; and must needs commend itself to
the central episcopal sympathy by great zeal against
the Northern Independent. Its associate editor in
this Conference must be black-washed in revenge for
the temerity of the people in subscribing for the
paper. They could not wreak their vengeance on
the people, except by proscribing one acknowledged,
above all others in the Conference, to be the PEOPLE’s
MAN. :

The infamous Brockport Resolutions against the
Nazarites, were tacitly endorsed by the Conference
in its refusal to entertain the question of official
administration involved in their passage. This is
their reward for their spaniel loyalty to the Northern
Advocate, and every other thing that wears the label
of “law and order,” affixed by a pro-slavery adminis-
tration. It is stated that two or three Nazarites
voted with the Regency against the publication of
the slavery report in the Independent. Surely it
must be true of them, as reported, that they court
persecutions and rejoice in being killed off at every
Conference, Their strong hold upon the popular
mind can not long survive their further blinking the
slavery issue. We shall see.

So, brethren in the membership of the Genesee
Conference, you see we have a clique among us called
the Buffalo Regency—conspiring and acting in secret
conclave to kidnap or drive away, or proscribe and
destroy, by sham trials, and starvation appointments,
every one who has boldness to question their suprem-
acy in the Conference. By threats of insubordination,
and farcical outcries of strife and division, they
THE ESTES PAMPHLET. 167

frighten the episcopacy to give them the presiding-
eldership power, with its patronage of appointments,
and having that, of course they command the Con-
ference vote, so far as they dare for fear of the people.
We are fast losing our best men. The fearless cham-
pions of true Methodism are being cloven down, one
after another, in our sight ; and we sit loyally still,
and weep and pray, and pay our money, yet another
and another year, hoping the thing will come to an
end.

A thousand of us asked the Bishop to rid us of
this incubus, which is crushing us into the earth.
“We will do the best we can,” is the stereotyped
reply to our loyal entreaties. How many more vic-
tims must be immolated, how many societies must be
desolated, while the episcopacy is making up its mind
to grapple with this monster power, which is writh-
ing its slimy folds around the church of God, and
crushing out its life? The episcopacy, which alone
has the power, having failed to redress our griev-
ances and rid us of this unmethodistic and foreign
dynasty, there is no remedy but an appeal to personal
rights. The remedy of every member is within his
own reach. For one, I shall apply that remedy. For
me, while looking on those preachers standing to be
counted, (no wonder they objected to the yeas and
nays) in the vote to condemn Brother Roberts, at
LeRoy, I made up my mind that not one of them—
preacher, presiding elder or superannuated—should
ever receive a cent of my money, on any pretense or
by any combination whatsoever. I shall punctually
attend church at my own meeting house—prayer
meetings, class-meetings, ‘love-feasts, and all the
168 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

means of grace; but if one of those men come there
to preach—I can’t help that—that is not my
business. But I shall neither run a step, nor pay a
cent. And if, as has been told, all the domestic
missionary appropriations in this Conference are
varied from year to year—made and withheld to suit
the pockets of Regency men appointed to them
—this, as long as it continues, will absolve me from
obligations to that cause. The same of the superan-
nuated fund, so long as it is controlled by that dy-
nasty. Iagreed to support the M. E. Church asa
church of the living God; not as the mere adjunct of
a secular or political clique. Gxo. W. Esrzs.”

I never saw this article until some time after
it was published, and was in no wise responsi-
ble for its publication. But Mr. Estes—a man
of means, an exhorter in the M. E. Church,
was responsible, and like a man, he assumed
the responsibility. At the last quarterly
conference in the year, the question of the
renewal of his license came up. The presiding
elder asked George W. Estes if he was the
author of that pamphlet? He replied that he
was. Without a word of objection, the pre-
‘siding elder renewed his license as an ex-
horter, and soon after went to Conference, and
voted to expel me from the Conference and the
Church, on the charge of publishing this very
pamphlet. The following charge was pre-
ferred against me:
CHARGES. 169

CuareEs.—I hereby charge Benjamin T. Roberts with unchristian and
immoral conduct.

SPECIFICATIONS,

First, Contumacy: In disregarding the admonition of this Conference,
in its decision upon his case at its last session.

Second, In re-publishing, or assisting in the re-publishing and cireula-
tion of a document, entitled ‘‘ New School Methodism,” the original pub-
lication of which had been pronounced by this Conferenee ‘‘ unchristian
and immoral conduct.”

Third, In publishing, or assisting in the publication and circulation of a,
document, printed in Brockport, and signed, ‘‘ George W. Estes,” and ap-
pended to the one entitled ‘‘ New School Methodism,” and containing
among other libcls upon this Conference generally, and upon some of its
members particularly, the following, to wit :

1. * For several years past there has been the annual sacrifice of a human
victim at the Conference.”

2, ‘* No man is safe who dare even whisper a word against this secret in-
quisition in our midst.”

3. ‘Common crime can command its indulgences ; bankruptcies and
adulterics are venial offences ; but opposition to its schemes and policies
is amortal sin—a crime without benefit of clergy.”

4, That “ the same fifty men who voted Bro. Roberts guilty of unchris-
tian and immoral conduct, voted to re-admit a brother for the service per-
formed of kissing a young lady.”

5. That ‘“‘ Bro. Roberts trial was marked by gross iniquity of proceed-
ings.”

6. That ‘* on the trial, a right which any civil or military court would
have allowed him, was denied.”

7. That ‘* a venerable doctor of Divinity read the “ Autodafe ’’ sermon,
wherein he consigned in true Inquisitorial style Bro. Roberts body and
soul to hell.”

8. That ‘‘ this venerable ‘D. D.’ is quite efficient in embarrassing effec-
tive precchers in their work and pleading them to he!l for the crime of
preaching and writing the truth.

9. That ‘‘ there is a clique among us called the Buffalo Régency, con-
spiring and acting in secret conclave, to kidnap, or drive away, or proscribe
and destroy, by sham trials and starvation appointments ; every one who
has the boldness to question their supremacy in the Conference.”

10. That ‘‘ the fearless cham) ions of Methodism are being cloven down
one after another in our sight.”

‘11. That ‘the aforesaid members of this Conference are a ‘monster
power,’ which is writhing its slimy folds around the Church of God and
crushing out its life.” Signed, DAVID NICHOLS.

Perry, Oct. 11th, 1858.

Rev. Thomas Carlton and Rev. James M.
Fuller acted as counsel against me.
170 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

From the threats which had been made, I
was satisfied they would seek occasion against
me. As a specimen of these threats, I give
the following from Rev. 8. C. Church, an old
presiding elder, and one of those noble-minded
masons who felt indignant that masonry should
be used to control the affairs of a Conference
of ministers. Brother Church wrote :

“During the last session of our Conference, at
LeRcy, I was conversing with Rev. H. Ryan Smith,
about the remark made by Rev. B. T. Roberts on the
floor of the Conference, to the effect that the Com-
mittee on Education was packed.

Smith said, “One more such statement will blot
Roberts out.” ’

In the same conversation, he said, “ You had better
take yourself out of the way, or you will be crushed.”
CaRyYVILLE, Oct. 20,1857. SamuxEt C. Cuurcu.

To meet the coming storm, I requested Rev.
B. I. Ives, of the Oneida Conference, to act as
my counsel ; and he was present for that pur-
pose. But the Bishop positively refused to
allow it.

As a majority of the Conference claimed to
be slandered,in their individual character, and
as I knew by this time that they had virtually
voted, in their secret meetings, to condemn
me, I asked that the trial might be had before
another Conference. I quoted to them the
wise provision of the civil law:
CHANGE OF VENUE REFUSED. 171

“The venue may be changed to another county
when the defendant conceives that he cannot have
a fair and impartial trial in the county where the
venue is laid.”

I showed them that not one man of the
majority would be permitted, under similar
circumstances, to sit on a jury in a civil court,
if twenty-five cents only were at issue. I
‘quoted :

“Tf the law says a man shall be a judge in his own
‘cause, such law being contrary to natural equity,
shall be void, for jura naturae sunt immutabilia;
they are leges legum. Natural rights are immutable.
They are the laws of laws.”—Hobari’s Report, page
87, Day vs. Savage.

I felt that, in a case where my reputation
and my standing as a Christian minister—
things dearer than life—were at stake, I was
entitled to a fair trial.

— This request was also refused.

As a last resort to obtain anything like a fair
trial, I urged that a committee might be ap-
pointed to try the case, as provided for in the
Discipline. I told them I would prefer to have
it tried by a committee so small that its mem-
bers would feel a personal responsibility for
their action, even if the committee were com-
posed of those who were most strongly
committed against me, than to have it go be-
172 WHY ANOTEER SECT.

fore the whole Conference, where they could
hide behind one another.

This request was also refused.

All this,we know, sounds more like the pro-
ceedings of the English ‘‘ High Commission”
in the days of James the Second, and Charles
the First, than like the doings of a Conference of
Christian ministers, presided over by a godly
Bishop, in the nineteenth century. Macaulay
says of those commissioners, who covered
themselves with infamy,and sent many a godly
minister to beggary or to prison: ‘‘ Tney were
themselves at once prosecutors and judges.”’

But the facts that we here relate have never
been called in question.

Under these circumstances, the trial pro-
ceeded. My friend, Loren Stiles, assisted me
most heartily, and made an eloquent plea in
my defense.

The prosecution did not make the slightest
effort to prove that the Estes pamphlet was
slanderous, or that its statements were untrue.
To dothis was a task from which they shrunk.
It was easier to take it for granted. So at the
outset it was assumed that the pamphlet, the
avowed author of which was still an official
member of the M. E. Church, was so wicked
in its character, that to aid in its circulation
was a mortal offense.
TESTIMONY. - 173

The prosecution secured the attendance of
the printer who issued the Estes pamphlet,
though he had to go about seventy miles across.
the country to get to and from the Conference.
But when they found he would tell the truth
in the matter—that B. T. Roberts had noth-
ing to do with publishing the document in
question—they did not call upon him to
testify.

All the testimony that was given to prove
the charge and the three principal specifica-
tions, was by Rev. John Bowman—and this
testimony was impeached. It was also, in the
essential point of assisting in the publication
of the pamphlet, contradicted by Geo. W. Estes.
John Bowman testified as follows : .

“T have seen this document entitled, ‘New School
Methodism,’ and ‘To whom it may concern,’ signed
“Geo. W. Estes,’ before. I first saw it on the cars
between Medina and Lockport. Brother Roberts
presented it to me; several were presented in a
package ; there were, I think, three dozen. Brother
Roberts desired me to leave a portion of them at
Medina, conditionally. He requested me to circulate
them ; he desired me to leave a portion of them with
Brother Codd, or Brother Williams of Medina, pro-
vided I fell in company with them. I put a question
to him whether they were to be distributed gratui-
tously or sold. He said he would like to get enough
to defray the expense of printing, but circulate them
any how; he desired me not to make it known that
174 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

he had any agency in the matter of circulating the
document, if I could consistently keep it to myself.
I do not know where Brother Roberts got on the
ears. My impression is, we were traveling east. I
do not know as anything more was said about the pay-
ment of printing them; my recollection is not very
distinct; he mentioned he had been at some consid-
erable expense.”

On the contrary, I proved from George W.
Estes, that I had nothing whatever to do with
its publication.

Mr. Estes testified as follows:

“ Brother Roberts had nothing to do with publish-
ing, or assisting in publishing the document under
consideration, to my knowledge, and I presume to
know. He had nothing to do with the writing of
the part that bears my name; I do not know that he
had any knowledge that its publication was intended;
he never gave his consent that the part entitled
“ New School Methodism,” should be republished by
me, or any one else, to my knowledge; he was never
responsible for the publication, either in whole or in
part ; he never contributed anything to the payment
of its publication, to my knowledge; I intended that
so far as sold, it should go to defray the expenses of
publication ; I never sold him any.”

Cross-examination :

“T never forwarded, or caused to be forwarded,
any of them to Brother Roberts; I never gave him
any personally ; I do not know of any one giving or
forwarding him any. I never gave orders to any
TESTIMONY. 1%

‘one to forward Brother Roberts any, to my knowl-
edge.” ;

In regard to circulation I offered the follow-
ing testimony:

Rev. Russell Wilcox called :

“Tam a local deacon of the M. E. Church in
Pekin. I am intimately acquainted with Brother
Roberts, the pastor of the church in Pekin. I do
not know that he has ever circulated this pamphlet
anywhere ; I first saw it after I left home, on my
‘way to this Conference.”

Rev. J. P. Kent called :

“T did ask the defendant for one of these pamph-
lets; I wished to see one of them, and I asked
Brother Roberts if he could let me have one; he
‘said he did not circulate them, but he had no objec-
tion to my seeing the one he had. This was a few
weeks ago, at the Holley or Albion grove meeting ;
perhaps it was about the first of August.”

This is all the testimony that was offered to
prove the specifications—the testimony of one
man, and this testimony was impeached by sev-
eral members of the Conference.—Even John
Bowman says his recollection was not very
distinct. No wonder. But George Estes was
very clear in his recollection, and very distinct
in his statements.

The fact is, I had nothing to do with the
publishing of the pamphlet and took but lit-
tle interest in it. I was busy with other work.
176 WHY ANOTHER SEUT.

We ask in the name of candor, ought this
testimony—thus contradicted, to have con-
victed any man’ Did any honorable Court
ever give a verdict of condemnation on so
slight an apology for a shadow of evidence’
Many of the Conference appeared to care
nothing for the testimony. Some were out
gathering chestnuts, and having a good time
generally, while testimony was being taken,
but came back in time to vote the charge and
specifications sustained !

Desiring to have light thrown on many of
the points raised in the Estes pamphlet, I
examined a large number of witnesses on
these points. Thus we proved that they held
secret meetings ; and other matters, to some
of which we have already referred, were
brought to light.

The pleadings were finished at an early
hour in the evening. Such was the impression
made that the leaders of the opposition did
not dare to take the vote that evening. They
feared that they could not secure a conviction ;
so they adjourned—held their secret meeting—
and worked their courage up to the point
where they could come into Conference the
next morning and vote the specifications, and
the charge sustained. They then voted ex-
pulsion from the Conference and the church!
“OUTLINE HISTORY.” 177

As a sort of justification, some have alleged
that I was expelled because I tried to prove
the allegations made by Estes, true. But that
only shows the injustice of the majority of the
Conference in a still stronger light. What!
Condemn aman fora crime of which he was not
even accused! Speaking of the trial of Rev.
B. T. Roberts in 1857 and 1858, the Rev. C. D.
Burlingham says:

“It is a notorious fact that those verdicts are not
based on testimony proving criminal acts or words.
Several who voted with, and others who sympathize
with the ‘majority,’ have said, ‘ Well, if the charges
were not sustained by sufficient proof, the Confer-
ence served them right, for they are great agitators
and promoters of disorder and fanaticism.’

There you have it. Men tried for one thing and
condemned for another! What iniquitous jurispru-
dence will not such a principle cover?

Why not try them for promoting disorder and
fanaticism? Because the failure of such an effort to
convict would have been the certain result.”* '

In looking back upon the action of the Con-
ference, I can account for it only on the theory
that, the leaders of the so called Regency
party did not feel safe as long as we remained
in the Conference.

Personally, I had no reason to suppose that
I was unpopular. I was on good terms

 

** Outline History,’ page 40, Sec. 21.
178 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

socially with all the preachers. My appoint-
ments had always been all that I could have
desired. Twice during my last trial they gave
me such tokens of respect as I have never
heard of being paid by a court to a man, while
they were trying him for a criminal offense.
Once during the progress of my trial, they
.adjourned it over a day to hold a funeral ser-
vice in honor of Rev. William C. Kendall,
who had died during the year. By a unani-
mous vote of the Conference, which spontane-
ously saw the fitness of the selection, I was
appointed to preach the funeral sermon to. the
Conference, which I did, with two Bishops
sitting by my side.

At another time during the trial, the anni-
versary of the American Bible Society was
held, and by another unanimous vote, I was
appointed to preside at this public meeting !
Was this in imitation of the old idolaters
who first crowned with garlands the victims
they were about to sacrifice ; or, was it rather
the natural homage which men often instinc-
tively pay to those whom they know to he
right, even while they persecute them ¢

Against Rev. Joseph McCreery charges and
specifications were preferred essentially the
same as those against Rev. B. T. Roberts.
They were signed by H. Ryan Smith.
TRIAL OF J. McCREERY. 179

We copy the following from Mr. McCreery’s
account of his trial:

“ Died Abner as a fool dieth.”"—2 Sam. iii, 33.

Rev. J. G. Miller was appointed to assist in con-
ducting the prosecution.

The defendant declined any counsel. He had not
been summoned to his read trial which had been go-
ing on in secret for several nights past in the Odd
Fellows Hall, in Perry, and did not think it worth
while to trouble any one to act as counsel in a judicial
farce.

The prosecutor said they had concluded not to
traverse the items of the Bill of Charges ; which
had occupied so much time in the preceding trial.
‘We will limit the case to the two main points of the
Publication and the Circulation.’

The defendant replied they might omit the whole,
if they chose—or any part they pleased. He was
not at all particular about the matter. It would
save time to forego the trial and vote the verdict at.
once. I appeal to the General Conference. The
Bishop remarked that the notice of appeal was pre-
mature,

Revs. C. P. Clark and W. Scism testified that
defendant had circulated the Estes pamphlet. The
prosecution here introduced as testimony, a card
about three inches by two; of rather dingy appear-
ance, and seriously nibbled at one corner; and
marked on one side with certain ominous and cab-
alistic letters and figures. * *

The card was grabbed up by 8. M. Hopkins,as stated
in his testimony, and carefully kept unto the day of
doom. The defendant had traveled the Parma cir-
180 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

cuit, one of the best and most Methodistic in the
Conference, for the two years previous, and Hop-
kins had been sent on by the Buffalo Regency, to
watch Brother Abel, and pick up something that
might be used in this conspiracy against the defend-
ant. For this service, his masters voted him siaty
dollars out of the Conference funds; under the pre-
tense that this faithful discharge of duty had lessened
his receipts to that amount. On canvassing the
Conference, it was found impossible to get a majority
committed against Brother Abel; and there was also
lack of adequate ‘help in the gate’ to warrant the
undertaking. Carlton, who was at the bottom of
all this trickery, (all the while as sober and solemn as
a saint) did not think it policy to attack him seriously.
The character of Bro. A. was merely arrested, slurred
a little, and allowed to pass. So this card was the
only available crumb of Hopkins’ scratching and
picking. After being duly testified to, as herein
followeth, it was marked ‘R’ with commendable
gravity, and solemnly filed among the documents of
this persecution.

Rev. J. B. Wentworth called.—Are you acquaint-
ed with detendant’s hand-writing? I am. I have
received letters from him. It is my opinion that this
ecard is in his hand-writing. Iam quite sure it is.

Rev. J. M. Fuller called.—Are you acquainted
with defendant’s hand-writing ? Ans.—I am, sir. I
have no doubt this card is in his hand-writing. I
can’t say when or where I first saw this card ; it was
a few weeks since.

Rey. 8. M. Hopkins called.—Did you ever see this
eard before ? Ans.—Yes. I saw it first in the pulpit of
TRIAL OF J. McCREERY. 181

the M. HE. Church, in Parma Centre, about the mid-
dle of last November. There was a four day’s
meeting there, called by some a general quarterly
meeting. Defendant was there. I saw the Estes
pamphlet at that meeting; there was an abun-
dance of them. I saw, as near as J could judge an
hundred or an hundred and fifty copies. I bought
some from a carriage in which Sister McCreery rode,
and also Sister Fuller, who had been living with
them. I did not see the defendant come to the meet-
ing; but on inguiry, I judged it to be his carriage.

Cross-questioned.—I first saw the card lying on the
kneeling stool in the pulpit. I considered it an im-
portant document. I thought it might shed light on
the fountain whence these fly-sheets came. I am
not positive whose buggy the fly-sheets were in. I
bought eight copies from the arm-full that was
brought from the buggy by Sister Fuller; to whom I
paid the money. I do not recollect the exact price I
paid. Brother Estes was at the meeting. I donot
know whether they were sold on his account or not.
Sister Fuller seemed to do the business; whether the
money went to Brother Estes or somebody else, I
cannot say. I bought a dollars worth. Part of
them I found in the house of Brother Dunn. I paid
all the money to Sister Fuller. I do not know that
she was living at Brother Duels at the time; she
was at the defendant’s house during Conference. I
soon found these pamphlets in almost every Metho-
dist family on the circuit.

Ques.—Did you send a copy to any Methodist by
mail ?

This question was objected to by the prosecutor, :
182 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

who remarked that Brother Hopkins was not on
trial for circulating the document. Though a hun-
dred were engaged in a crime, it would not excuse
any individual participant.

The defendant wished to show that every body
had circulated the pamphlet. No one ever dreamed
of crime or contumacy in doing so. Both Regency
and Nazarite preachers, men, women and children,
did it with all the freedom they would an almanac or
Fox’s Book of Martyrs. The charge of contumacy
for doing what every body else did, was a ridiculous
farce. Seven hours ago, at the adding of his mas-
ters, this witness stood up and voted Brother Roberts
expelled from the church, on the charge of circula-
ting this pamphlet; and has pledged himself in
secret conclave to do me the same service a few
hours hence. Now, I wish to say by implication,
that the criminality in the case is an after thought;
a fiction fabricated for the occasion. Other iG
nesses have volunteered to tell what they did with
their packages. I wish to know what the witness
did with his dollar’s worth.

The witness stated that he had had a bill of
charges served on him, exactly like that against the
defendant; in fact it was the identical bill with de-
fendant’s name erased, and his own inserted in its
place.

The Bishop decided that the witness could not be
required to answer so as to criminate himself.

Ans.—I think I did the church no harm in what I
did with the copies I bought ; I had the best interests
of the church in view.

The testimony of Brother Estes was substantially
TRIAL OF J. McCREERY. 183

the same that he gave in Brother Roberts’ trial, to
wit: That he alone was the responsible author and
publisher of the pamphlet bearing his name. He did
not forward a copy to defendant for proof reading.
He had no recollection of ordering the printer to do
so. He presumed he ordered it to be sent some-
where, to some body. As the Conference had seen
fit to assume that the publication was a crime, he
should not put them on the track of any more vic-
tims by saying to whom he ordered it sent. Several
laymen saw it before it was published. Some advised
the publication, and some dissuaded from it. He
had been threatened with a civil prosecution for the
publication. He was ready for it any day. He alone
was responsible ; and he was ready and able to prove
all he had published, in a civil court, whenever he
sbould be called upon. Everbody had circulated it.

Testimony for the defense :

Rev. 8. Hunt called.—Have you seen in the Buf: .
falo Christian Advocate, a notice of the proceedings
of the last Conference in the case of Brother Rob-
erts ? :

Ans.—I think I read a reference to it. (Here
Bishop Baker hastily left the chair, and Bishop Janes
took it.) Ques.—Did that paper give the charge
and specifications of the trial? This question was
objected to as irrelevant, by the prosecutor, who
said, ‘ Weare not trying newspapers here.’

Defendant : ‘ But we are doing the next thing to it
—we are trying a pamphlet. Now I wish to show
that newspaper falsehood is justification for pamph-
let truth as an antidote. The trial of Brother Rob-
erts had become a notorious newspaper fact. The
184 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

Buffalo Advocate had published ex parte reports,
white-washing one side, and black-balling the other.
And when it was asked, as it was concerning one
guilty of something like the same crime, eighteen
hundred years ago, ‘Why, what harm hath he done?
the only response of this organ of the Genesee Con-
ference Sadducees was: wnehristian and, immoral
conduct! On this text, furnished by a judicial trick-
ery of the lowest grade, the changes were rung ;
while the thing he did was carefully kept out of sight.
Truth demanded the re-publication of “ New School
Methodism,” that people might know what sort of
writing it was that was so criminal. And a justifia-
ble curiosity demanded a faithful expose of the
several Carltonian modes of reasoning employed by
the masters of this judicial ceremony, to bring the
Conference to this strange verdict of ‘ Jmmorality,’
in the case. The defendant claims it his right to
show this in justification of the facts charged in the
indictment.’

The objection was sustained by the Bishop.
Whereupon all further defense was silently declined.

Thus the defensive testimony amounts in all, to
two questions and one answer.

The prosecutor made a grandiloquent plea.

The defendant answered not a word.

The defendant was voted guilty of the specifica-
tions, and of the charge.

And he was expelled from the, Conference and
from the Church, by the usual number of votes—50.
SYNOPSIS OF THE VOTE.

Regular Regency men, : ‘ : 33
Presiding elderlings, . ‘ , . 15
TRIAL OF J, McCREERY. 185

Serious ninnies, affrighted with the bug-bear of

Nazaritism, ‘ 3 : 2
Total vote for axpuldign, : 3 . 50
Members who voted against expulsion,,. : 17
Members of Conference who did not vote at all, 53
Total who did not vote for expulsion . 70
‘Total number of members, : 120

It will be noticed that a remarkably ieee number
of the preachers did not vote. Carlton had managed
to have it carefully whispered around, so loud that
all could hear it, that the Bishop was going to make
the appointments of the preachers according to their
standing up for the church; 1; e. the regency fac-
tion ;—in this eventful crisis. All the presiding elders
were fast friends of the church:—i. e. the tools of
Carlton, Robie & Co.,—except one; and he was re-
moved at this Conference, and expelled at the next.
The skillful rattling of the loaves and fishes in the
market baskets labelled P. E. did the thing. It
worked both ways; gaining both votes, and blanks,
or no votes,

This accounts for a large number who would not
vote wickedly, and dare not vote righteously. The
appointing power is omnipotent ;—and he who has
the faculty of fawning, or bullying, or deceiving it
into his service, can do or be anything he pleases.

Each of us gave notice of an appeal to the
General Conference.

But what should we do in the mean while?
We were both twenty years younger than we
are now, full of life, and energy, and anxious
to save our own souls and as many others as

é
186 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

we could. Neither of us had any thought of
forming a new church—we had great love for
Methodism, and unfaltering confidence in the
integrity of the body asa whole. We did not
doubt but that the General Conference would
make matters right. But we did not like to
stand idly waiting two long years. We took
advice of men of age and experience, in whom
we had confidence.

As I left the Conference Bishop Janes shook
hands with me cordially and said, ‘“‘ Do not
be discouraged, Brother Roberts—there is a
bright future before you yet.”

Rev. Amos Hard in a letter still before us
wrote :

“ At the session of the Genesee Conference held at
Perry, October 1858,.while the character of several
brethren was under arrest, I had with Bishop Janes
substantially the following comversation:

‘Would the joining of another church by an ex-
pelled member invalidate his appeal ?”

He replied: ‘I would prefer not to answer that
question to-night, as I do not call to mind the action
of the General Conference in the case of John C.
Green.’

I then asked, ‘Would it affect his appeal if ar
expelled member should join our church on proba-
tion ?

He replied: ‘I do not think it would.’

(Signed,) Amos Harp.”

The Rev. William Reddy was then among
LETTER FROM REV. WM. REDDY. 187

the prominent ministers of the M. E. Church.
He was a successful presiding elder—highly
esteemed for his piety and sound judgment.
He had been several times a member of the
General Conference. He wrote as follows:

“ Genoa, Oct. 29, 1858.
Dear Brorurr Roserts:

Let me freely speak to you. The General Con-
ference will not be under such an inflammation as
was the Genesee Conference, and I think they will
judge righteous judgment. At all events, J am glad
you exercise your rights and have appealed; and I
am glad you appealed from last year’s sentence,
because this year’s is founded on the last.

But now as to your course until General Confer-
ence : I think ¥ would do one of two things—either
join on trial at, say Pekin, where you labored last
year; or not join at all until after General Conference.
It occurred to me since reading your letter, that you
had better not join or attempt to join even on pro-
bation; but as to relation, remain where you are
until the appeal is decided.

Then, as to labor, you feel, and others believe, that
God has called and commissioned you to preach the
unsearchable riches of Christ. The Genesee Con-
ference has said you should not preach under their
authority; but you have not lost your Christian
character, nor has their act worked the forfeiture of
your commission from God. I would then go on and
preach and labor for souls, and promote the work of
the Lord, under the avowed declaration that you do
it, not'as by the authority of the M. KE. Church, but
188 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

by virtue of your divine call. Then, whoever invites
your labor or comes to hear you, they alone are respon-
sible. You violate then no church relation, because
you have none. You violate no church order, for
you are not now under church authority. You are
simply God’s messenger. I would not exercise the
functions of a sinister, for that implies church
authority and order, and that you have not. I would
not officiate at meetings nor administer the sacra-
ments, as @ minister. But I would preach because
God calls—I would receive the sacrament of the
supper, if invited and permitted, because Christ com-
mands. I would forego the other points for the sake
of your appeal, and to show that you are not so very
contumacious. This very course, I doubt not, will
increase sympathy for you, and inerease your injflu-
ence, and if you are restored, will put you on higher
ground than ever. Meantime I would avoid reference
as far as possible to your opposers and oppressors, as
though you were fighting them. ‘Contend for the
faith once delivered to the saints.’ ‘Let them that
- suffer according to the will of God commit. the keep-
ing of their souls unto him in well-doing, as unto a
faithful Creator.’

I do not see why you may not, in that way, pro-
mote the work of real holiness, and the salvation of
sinners. Go where you are invited, and where the
door opens, not in the name of the M. E. Church,
but simply as a man of God to preach the Gospel.
Who shall forbid your doing this ?

But keep yourself from appearing to set yourself
in array against the authority and order of the M.
E. Church, while you claim the constitutional rights
JOINING TH# CHURCH. 189

of an expelled member. I believe God will bring
you out like gold, tried in the fire.

Dear Brother, excuse my liberty. These are but
suggestions coming spontaneously from a brother’s
anxious heart. I praise God that he keeps you.

Yours faithfully,
WiuiamM Reppy.”

On the whole we thought, and our friends
thought that we had better join on probation ;
this would show our loyalty to the church.
It was hardly possible for us to hold meetings
without sometimes worshiping with some of
the salvation preachers in the Conference.
Our holding a relation to the church would, it
was thought, shield them from censure.

We could not, in conscience make confes-
sion for what we had been expelled—for we
felt we had done no wrong. So we adopted
Bishop Baker’s construction of the discipline.

“When a member or preacher has been expelled,
according to due form of discipline, he can not after-
ward enjoy the privileges of society and sacrament,
in our church, without contrition, confession, and
satisfactory reformation; but if, however, the society
become convinced of the innocence of the expelled
member, he may again be received on trial, without
confession.”

The society at Pekin, which I served last,
were convinced of my innocence, and unani-
mously received me on trial.
190 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

Joseph McCreery was received, also unani-
mously, on probation by the society at Spen-
cerport.

We received, each of us, from the society
which we had respectively joined, license to
exhort; and we went out, holding meetings
as providence opened the way. There was a
deep, religious interest wherever we went, and
many, we trust, were converted, and many
believers sanctified wholly, and the people
generally awakened to a sense of their eternal
interests.
CHAPTER IX.
LAYMEN’S CONVENTION.

These violent expulsions naturally created
intense excitement all over the Conference.
Articles upon the subject appeared in many of
the papers, religious and secular, nearly all,
except those written in the interest of the ma-
jority, condemning the action of the Confer-
ence. Quarterly conferences and official
boards passed resolutions expressing their sense
of the great wrong which had been committed.

At length, Isaac M. Chesbrough, of Pekin,
Niagara County, N.Y., suggested the holding
of a convention of representative brethren
from those societies within the bounds of the
Genesee Conference which were opposed to its
oppressive action.

He was an old Methodist of fifty years
standing, a man of great intelligence, sound
judgment, unbending integrity and large ex-
perience in the world. He was always ready
to succor the distressed, to encourage the de-
sponding, and to stand by the oppressed. He
saw quickly through mere. pretensions, ab-
horred hypocrisy and shams, and was not
afraid to act up to his convictions. His pro-
192 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

posal met with general favor. <A call for
a convention was made, signed by over one hun-
dred of the leading men of twenty-two circuits
and stations.

In answer to the call, one hundred and ninety
five leading men, from forty-seven circuits and
stations, met at Albion, December 1st, 1858, for
the purpose of holding a convention. A lay-
man’s love feast was held inthe M. E. Church
the first evening, which was a service of great
interest. The Convention was held in Kings-
land Hall.

Hon. ABNER I. Woop was chosen President;
I. M. Chesbrough, G. W. Holmes, 8. C.
Springer, G. C. Sheldon, J. H. Brooks, George
Bascom and C.. Sanford, Vice-Presidents ; S.
K. J. Chesbrough, W. H. Doyle and J. A.
Latta were chosen Secretaries.

A committee on resolutions was appointed,
composed of 8. K. J. Chesbrough, W. H.
Doyle, G. W. Estes, 8. 8. Rice, John Billings,
A. Ames and J. Handly. They brought in a
report setting forth in plain terms the grievan-
ces of which they complained, which, after be-
ing ably discussed, was unanimously adopted.

In speaking of the expulsions, they said :

“ We look upon the expulsion of brothers Roberts

and McCreery as an act of wicked persecution, call-
ing for the strongest condemnation. It was also a
LAYMEN’S CONVENTION. 193

palpable violation of that freedom of speech and of
the press which is guaranteed to all by our free insti-
tutions.”

In reference to the article written by Rev. B.
T. Roberts, which was made the basis of the

Conference action, they say :

“The candor and good spirit of his article is ap*
parent. We have ourselves heard different preach-
ers in sympathy with the ‘Regency party” set forth,
views similar to those ascribed to them in “ New
School Methodism.”

Respecting the ‘fanaticism’? which these
men and others were charged with promoting,
they said :

“So trifling was the accusation against these breth-
ren, that in all the efforts that have been made to
vindicate those voting for their condemnation, no
one has attempted to show that the testimony justi-
fied the decision. Their only defence is, ‘If these
men did not deserve to be expelled for circulating
the pamphlet, they did for promoting enthusiasm and
fanaticism.’ If so, why were they not tried for it?
Where is the justice of trying men for one thing, and
condemning them for another ?

In reference to this charge of ‘ fanaticism and en-
thusiasm,’ we feel prepared tospeak. Our means of in-
formation are far more reliable than the means of those
preachers who bring the accusation. We have at-
tended the “camp meetings and General Quarterly
meetings,” against which a special outcry has been
made as the “hot-beds of enthusiasm.” We have
listened to the preaching of these brethren who are
194 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

charged with promoting these disorders—have heard
some of them by the year. We know what Metho-
dism is; some of us were converted, and joined the
church under the labors of her honored pioneers, We
speak advisedly then, when we say that the charge
brought against brothers Roberts and McCreery, and
the class of preachers denominated “ Nazarites,” of
promoting fanaticism,” is wtterly false and groundless.
They are simply trying to have us in earnest to gain
heaven, Instead of attacking the church, they are
its defenders. They preach the doctrines of the
Methodist Church, as we used to hear them preached
years ago; and through their instrumentality many
have been made to rejoice in the enjoyment of a pREs-
EN AND FULL SALVATION. We cannot say this of
their opposers. The Regency affirm that they
preach the doctrines of holinesss. We have yet to
learn of the first person who has of late years expe-
rienced this blessing through their instrumentality.
On the contrary, we believe some of them have put
down the standard of justification far below what
Methodism and Scripture will warrant. Whether,
therefore, we consider the ostensible, or the real cause
of the expulsion of brothers Roberts and McCreery,
the act calls for and receives our hearty and earnest
condemnation.”

Of the impossibility of bringing accused
“‘ Regency’ preachers to justice, they said:

““Nor can we pass by as undeserving of notice, the
course pursued by the ‘Regency party,’ whenever
complaints of a serious character have been brought
against any of their number.
CHECK ON MINISTERS. 195

Reports that some of them have been guilty of
‘crimes expressly forbidden in the word of God,’
and involving a high degree of moral turpitude have
been current. Complaints have been made, and
though the proof of their guilt was deemed ample,
yet they have been summarily dismissed, and in such
a way as to discourage all efforts to bring to justice
before the Conference, any of the ‘ Regency’ preach-
ers, no matter how wicked and immoral he may be.”

From standard works written in defense of
the Methodist polity, they show that, while
in that church the laity had no voice in mak-
ing and administering the laws, yet they
were understood to have had an effectual rem-
edy against clerical oppression, in their power
to withhold support from unworthy preachers.

“One patent remedy is within our reach, the
power to withhold our supplies. We are satisfied
that no matter how strongly we may condemn the
course of the Regency faction, they will not amend,
so long as they are sustained.—Besides we can not
in conscience give our money to put down the work
of the Lord. Therefore, we wish it distinctly under-
stood that we can not pay one farthing to preacher
or presiding elder, who voted for the expulsion of
Brothers Roberts and McCreery: only upon ‘ contri-
tion, confession, and satisfactory reformation.’

It may be thought hy some that such action on our
part is revolutionary. ' But from the following ex-
tracts, it will appear that we are only exercising our
undisputed rights, in a constitutional way.
196 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

We are giving unquestionable proofs of our loy-
alty to the Church, by thus endeavoring to correct one
of the most oppressive and tyraunical abuses of
power that was ever heard of.

We trust that none will think of leaving the

‘church—but let us all stand by and apply the proper,
legitimate remedy for the shameless outrages that
have been perpetrated under the forms of justice.

We quote from an Essay on Church Polity, by

Rev. Abel Stevens, LL. D. This book has been
adopted by the General Conference as a text book in
the course of study for young preachers. Hence, it
is of the highest authority. Dr. Stevens says,
‘Church Polity, page 162.—‘ What check have the
neople on this machinery? It is clear that as the
preachers appoint the Bishops, and the Bishops dis-
tribute the preachers, the people should check the
whole plan by a counterbalance upon the whole min-
isterial body. This is provided in the most decisive
form that it could possibly assume, namely, the pow-
er of pecuniary supplies. No stipulated contract for
support exists in the Methodist economy. The disci-
pline allows a certain support, but does not enforce
it; and no Methodist preacher can prosecute a civil
suit for his salary. The General Conference disclaims
all right to tax the property of our members.
_ A Methodist Church has no necessity, in order to
control or remove the preacher, to prosecute him by
a tedious and expensive process at law, but simply
to signify that after a given date UIs SUPPLIES CEASE.
He cannot live on air; he must submit or depart.

This would be a sufficient guaranty, certainly; and
this check applies not merely to a specific prerogative
CHECK ON MINISTERS. 197

of the ministry, but to the whole ministerial system.
The lamented Dr. Emory thus states:

“We have said the Methodist Episcopal Church
possesses effective and substantial security against
\any encroachments of tyranny on the part of ber
(pastors. For the sober truth is, that there is not a
lbody of ministers in the world more perfectly depend-
tnt on those whom they serve than the Methodist
Itinerant Ministry.—Our system places us, in fact,
not only from year to year, or from quarter to
quarter, but from week to week within the reach of
such a controlling check, on the part of the people,
as is possessed, we verily believe, by no other denomi-
nation whatever.’

‘Dr. Bond in his Economy of Methodism page 35,
Says ; oa f

The General Conference have never considered
themselves authorized to levy taxes upon the laity,
or to make any pecuniary contribution a condition of
membership in the church. Our preachers are totally
dependent upon the voluntary contributions of the
laity : and we thereby have over them a positive and
absolute control; for whenever their flocks shall
withdraw their support, the preachers will be under
the necessity of abandoning their present pastoral
relation, and of betaking themselves to some secular
occupation. The travelling preacher who depends
for bread, both for himself and family, upon the good
will of the lay brethren, can have no temptation to
any unwarrantable or odious exercise of authority
over them.’

In ‘ Ecclesiastical Polity, by Rev. A. N. Fillmore,’
page 166 we have the following:—‘ Methodist preach-
198 WHY AMOTHER SECT.

ers have no means of enforcing the payment of a cent
for their support, for although the discipline provides
for a certain allowance, it furnishes no means to
obtain it ; and there is no article even to expose a
member to censure for neglecting or refusing to
contribute for the support of the Gospel.’

Thus the right to withhold supplies, upon good and
sufficient reasons, is conceded and urged by standard
authors of our church. That such a reason now
exists, must be apparent to every one that is not en-
tirely blinded to the claims of justice and humanity.”

In describing the origin of the Convention
they say:

“This Convention originated among ourselves.
The first suggestion was made by one of our number.
Neither the brethren expelled, nor any of the mem-.
bers of the Conference had anything to do whatever
with calling this Convention. We mention this fact,
because the insinuation is frequently made, that the
people can do nothing except at the instigation of the
preachers. We are not papists, requiring to be in-
structed by the priesthood at every turn what action
we shall take, or what papers and books we
shall read.”

The following were the resolutions of gener-
al importance adopted.

“ Resolved, That we have the utmost confidence in
Brothers B. T. Roberts and Joseph McCreery, not-
withstanding their expulsion from the Conference,
ranking them, as we do, among the most pure and able
ministers of the New Testament.

Resolved, That we adhere to the doctrines and
‘RESOLUTIONS. 199

usages of the fathers of Methodism. Our attachment
to the M. E. Church is earnest and hearty, but we do
not acknowledge the oppressive policy of the secret
fraternity in the Conference, known as the Buffalo
Regency, as the action of the church; and we cannot
and will not submit to the same. We hold it as a
gross mal-administration under the assumed sanction
of judicial forms.

Resolved, That the laity are of some use to the
church, and that their views and opinions ought to
command some little respect rather than that cool
contempt with which their wishes have been treated
by some of the officials of the Conference, for several
years past.

Resolved, That the farcical cry of disunion and
secession is the artful production of designing men,
to frighten the feeble and timid into their plans of
operation and proscription. We wish to have it dis-
tinctly understood that we have not, and never had
the slightest intention of leaving the church of our
choice, and that we heartily approve of the course of
Brothers Roberts and McCreery in re-joining the
church at their first opportunity, and we hope that
the oppressive and unmethodistic administration indi-
cated in the pastoral address as the current policy
of the majority of the Conference, will not drive any
of our brethren from the church. Methodists have
a better right in the Methodist Episcopal Church
than any body else, and by God’s grace, in it we
intend to remain.

Resolved, That it is a matter of no small grievance
and of detriment to the Church of God that these
preachers in their local, pastoral administration, have
200 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

deliberately set themselves to exclude from official
position in the church, leaders, stewards and trustees,
members of deep and undoubted Christian experi-
ence, because of their adhesion to spiritual, religious
Methodism, and to supply their places with persons
of slight and superficial religious experience, because
of their adhesion to a worldly-policy Methodism.

Resolved, That we will not aid in the support of
any member of the Genesee Conference who assisted,
either by his vote or his influence, in the expulsion of
Brothers Roberts and McCreery from the Conference
and the church, until they are fully reinstated to
their former position, and that we do recommend all
those who believe that these brethren have been
unjustly expelled from the Conference and the
church, to take the same course.

Resolved, That we recommend Brother B. T.
Roberts and Rev. J. McCreery to travel at large,
and labor as opportunity presents for the promoting
of the work of God and the salvation of souls.”

These earnest, dignified utterances of this
large, respectable body of Christian men, pro-
duced a profound impression upon the com-
munity.

The Orleans American, of Albion, in an
editorial of Dec. 9, 1858, besides giving an
account of the officers, and of the business
done, said :

“On Thursday morning the Convention proceeded
to business. The discussions were carried on with
animation, in a good spirit, and with marked ability.
The action of the Convention was harmonious to a
LAYMEN'’S CONVENTION. 201

degree that we had not anticipated. It was composed
of able men who had set themselves to work in earn-
est to correct what they believed to be a great evil
in the administration of church affairs. Whether
the course adopted will produce the desired result,
remains to be seen. The number in attendance was
much larger than we anticipated, all portions of the
Conference being represented. W. G. Colegrove
came from Smethport, McKean Co., Pa.; G. C. Shel-
don from Allegany, and James Brooks from Olean.
There was a large sprinkling of gray heads in the
Convention. Prominent among the old men was IL
M. Chesbrough, of Pekin, who first suggested the
holding of a convention, a noble looking old gentle-
man, formerly from Baltimore, Mr. Jeffres of Cov-
ington,also won golden opinions by the pertinency
and ability of his remarks.”

In accordance. with the recommendation of
this convention, Brother McCreery and myself
went throughout the Conference, in the name
of Christ, holding meetings, and laboring for
the salvation of souls. But we were careful to
state that we claimed no authority from the
M. E. Church to hold meetings—that we did
as we were doing, at the call of Christ, on our
own responsibility as men and as Christians.
‘We not only announced this in the public con-
gregations, but in the March following our
expulsion, I published the following in the
Northern Independent :

“Tt seems to be a question among the doctors,
202 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

whether I belong to the church or not. I did the
best I could to stay in; and when I was thrust out
without my fault, I tried to get back, and really
thought I had accomplished it, but the president of a
recent church trial,which trials, by the by, are becom-
ing quite numerous in Genesee Conference, decided
that I was not a member,even ‘ on probation.’ As this
was a ‘judicial decision,’ an ‘act of administration,’
of course it settles the question. But in or out, I
trust I may still be permitted to entertain ‘a desire
to flee from the wrath to come.’ Our excellent dis-
cipline specifies as among the fruits of this desire,
‘instructing, reproving, and exhorting all we have
any intercourse with.’ This, then, is what I am do-
ing. The Lord has opened a wide door, into which
I have entered. I disclaim all authority from man,
but simply ‘instruct, reprove and exhort,’ because I
believe he has called me to it, and he blesses me in
it. Everywhere we go, large and attentive congre-
gations listen to the word with apparently deep in-
terest.” :

But it is not too much to say that the dom-
inant party were greatly excited. The Buffalo
Advocate and the Northern Advocate seemed
to vie with each other in pouring upon us, and
upon all who gave us aid and comfort, asteady
tirade of abuse. Dr. Hibbard treated us with
great consideration until a clear majority was
obtained against us. Then he went to every
length to vindicate every act of the majority,
and to create public sentiment against those
whom they had proscribed.
EDITOR OF N. C. ADVOUATE. - 203

The statements which he published in his
paper about the proscribed party of the
Genesee Conference were so incorrect, that
Rev. W. Hosmer, who aimed to tell the
truth, wherever it might hit? and who could
not bear duplicity, gave him, in an editorial
of January 29, 1859, this reminder: ‘‘ We
hope he will remember that even an official
editor is under some obligations to speak the
truth.”

By means of these organs, and such other
papers, as, through secret society influence
they could control, our opposers kept flowing
an incessant stream of exaggeration, and mis-
representation.

A prominent member of the East Genesee
Conference said of them in the MWorthern In-
dependent :

“Tf the Advocate and the clique whose servile and
mercenary organ it is, will only keep from praising
us, we shall consider ourselves most fortunate.
Their abuse is the highest eulogy. Their commenda-
tion would be insufferable. With any marks of their
approbation upon us, we should, as Cain did when
he was branded, go out from the presence of the
Lord, crying, ‘My punishment is greater than I can
bear.’ ”

The editor of the Northern Independent,
who could not be awed into silence, spoke
-of the Conference action with his wonted
204 WHY ANOTHER SEC7.

courage and sound sense. In one of his edi-
torials, he said:

“THE ADVOCATE’S COURSE,

The editor of the M. C. Advocate is driving furi-
ously at the “Nazarites.” As if the unfortunate
brethren designated by this slang term, had not been
sufficiently persecuted, he pitches into them with
characteristic bravery and acumen.

He affects to believe that such a thing as a
Nazarite society once existed; other people, howev-
er, know better, and his historical developments pass
for nothing. By the way, the editor writes on this
subject with little discrimination. He seems to
forget that among the most unbearable of things, is
the triumph of official arrogance over fallen virtue.
He should know that the man at whom his shafts are
principally aimed, is his equal in every way, and his
superior in learning, in talents, and in all the higher
elements of ministerial character. We say these
things the more freely, because we have never been
a defender of the Nazarites. We have deemed it
our duty to let them defend themselves—a work
which they are well able to do. Our columns shall
always be open to the persecuted. Two papers—the
N. C. Advocate, and the Buffalo Advocate, ere fully
occupied in the noble work of extirpating these
brethren, and to shut our columns against them in
this extremity, would be a depth of meanness to
which we care not to descend. We have not
attacked the Regency, as the dominant party of the
Conference is termed. One act of the Genesee
Conference we have condemned, because it seemed
EDITOR OF NW. C. ADVOCATE. 205

to us both unwise, and unjust, in a very high degree.
Others may approve of the expulsion of Brothers
Roberts and McCreery if they please, as this is a
free country, but we shall have our own opinion of
that matter, together with its cognate difficulties.
In dissenting from a majority of the Conference, we
occupy no partisan relation—it is an independent
judgment of a particular occurrence. All oppression,
whether at the North or the South, whether of black
men, or white men, is alike wicked, and deserves our
cordial detestation. We claim that men should
have a fair trial, and that an arbitrary, high-handed
way of disposing of them, is only a fresh display of
the same rampant spirit of oppression that has kept
the African trodden down for ages. But the most
singular thing in all this, is the remarkable prowess
of Brother Hibbard. Whenever the ecclesiastical
guillotine cuts off a man’s head, he immediately
squares himself, like a knight errant, and assaults the
dead carcass. He is terrible—against such a foe,
Luther and Knox could not equal him.”

Rev. Hiram Matteson, D. D., wrote :

* Who does not remember that just before the last
General Conference Brother Hibbard had several
long articles in the Christian Advocate, in advocacy
of the very doctrines that he now calls ‘ Nazaritism.’ ”

Rev. C. D. Burlingham said :

The Advocate is doing its best to maintain its cur-
rent reputation. For misrepresentation and abuse
the Northern Christian Advocate is fully entitled to
the palm. Zeal, intense zeal is usually a prominent
trait in the character of a young convert.”
CHAPTER X.
WAR AGAINST THE MEMBERS.

Arbitrary power demands abject submis-
sion. Conscious of their strength and flushed
with their victory, the preachers used every
means to bring the members who op-
posed the oppressive acts of the Conference,
into subjection. We have never read, in any
period of the church’s history, of the employ-
ment by the preachers, of more arbitrary and
tyrannical measures than those adopted by the
preachers of the dominant party in the Gen-
esee Conference to subjugate those members
who would not bow implicitly to their author-
ity. Had such tyranny been exercised by the
priests of the Roman Catholic church, there
would have been an outcry raised which would
have been heard all over the land and across
the Atlantic.

To expel members and read them out with-
drawn without their consent became the order
of the day. The preacher was often prosecu-
tor, witness, judge, and if not jury, it was a
servile body of his own creation. He select-
ed the committee who tried the case. Where
enough men sufficiently pliant to do his bid-
REV. CLAUDIUS BRAINARD. 207

ding could not be found in the society, he im-
ported them from a distance.

‘“‘T will not do your dirty work for you,”’ in-
dignantly said a local preacher of the circuit,
when asked to sit on a jury to expel Claudius
Brainard. So one was brought seventy miles,
from Buffalo, for the purpose.

To have attended the Albion Convention was
held to be a crime sufficient for expulsion. No
matter how long a man had been a member of
the M. E. Church, or how important his servi-
ces, or how great his sacrifices had been in its
behalf ; no matter how spotless his reputation
or godly his life, if he dared to befriend those
whom the majority of the Conference had an-
athematized, he was liable to have the heaviest
anathemas poured upon his head.

One preacher was arrested for praying with
us. By chance, Rev. Rufus Cooley and
his wife, and myself and Mrs. Roberts met at
the house of Mrs. Cooley’s mother. After tea
we had a season of prayer. Mr. Cooley prayed
and I prayed. For this offence the character
of the Rev. Rufus Cooley was arrested at the
next session of the Genesee Conference !

On the 14th of February, 1859, the Rev.
Claudius Brainard, of North Chili, was tried
and expelled for attending the Laymen’s Con-
vention at Albion. There were three charges
208 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

and nineteen specifications preferred against
him, all taken from the proceedings of the
Laymen’s Convention.

For a number of years Claudius Brainard
was an acceptable and useful, travelling preach-
er. His health failing him, he was obliged to
locate. He continued, however, to preach, as
his health permitted, and his services were
needed. His acquaintance was extensive, and
wherever known he was regarded as a deeply
devoted Christian, and a man of unbending in-
tegrity and sincere piety. To make the matter
sure, the Rev. J. B. Lankton, preacher in
charge, summoned a committee of local preach-
ers from a distance—men who could be de-
pended on to execute the will of the ‘‘“Regency.”’

Of his expulsion, Mr. Brainard said in the
Independent, of February 15th, 1859:

“Yesterday, I was expelled from the M. E.
Church, for attending the Laymen’s Convention.
No other charge was preferred. For all harsh words
or unchristian expressions, just retraction was made.
My expulsion was for the expression of my honest
sentiments. Had I given up my judgment to an
Annual Conference, I could have retained my stand-
ing in the church. But then I should not have been
a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, nor even a
Christian. I would die a martyr’s death for my own
judgment, rather than yield my judgment to an
Annual Conference. My soul sweetly rests in Christ.
TRIAL OF REV. C. BRAINARD., 209
A consciousness of right, and the approval of my
Judge, sustain me. I shall unite on trial, the first
opportunity, with the M. E. Church. It is time the
laity were awake to their own rights in the church.”

Mr. Brainard appealed to the Annual Con-

‘ference, but they refused to entertain the ap-
peal. This was contrary to an explicit rule of
discipline, but they paid no attention to the
discipline, only as far as they could use it to
punish those who would not submit to their
dictation.

When the Rev. Wm. D. Buck, a personal
friend of Mr. Brainard, was asked why he vo-
ted against entertaining his appeal, he frankly
replied, ‘‘ Because Bishop Simpson told me to.”’

William Hosmer was the only editor that
was awake to the enormities that were being
perpetrated, or that had the honesty or the
courage to hold them up to public reproba-
tion. In reply to some who endeavored to
conceal the fact that Mr. Brainard was ex-
pelled for attending the Albion Convention,
because there were three charges against him,
Mr. Hosmer said :

“Three charges were, to all intents and purposes,
one charge, and but one, unless the specifications
relied on to support them had their origin in circum-
stances apart from the Albion Convention.—The

erime of attending that Convention might have been
prosecuted under forty different heads, and by a
210 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

thousand different specifications, and yet all would
have been substantially one and the same charge. In
order to show that there was in reality more charges
than one, it should have been made to appear that
crimes unconnected with said Convention, and of
a wholly different character, were alleged against
the party accused. For prudential reasons, it is not
uncommon in criminal prosecutions of this kind to
disguise the real offense under formidable allegations
which no one expects to prove or ever supposed to
be true. In such a case, though the charges are not
proved, they help blacken the character and cover
the nakedness of the attempt. If sham charges aie
made, some will believe them, and in the mean time
the accused can be convicted with better grace on
the less flagrant points in the indictment. What the
facts in this case are canonly be known from the
specifications themselves, and the entire history con-
nected with the trial. The matter is in itself of
very great moment, because it clearly involves the
right of the laity to assemble for the redress of
grievances. If attendance on such meetings is to
be construed into a crime, or, if words spoken there
are to be prosecuted under the grave head of ‘con-
tumacy,’ ‘slander,’ ‘sowing discord,’ etc.; then what-
ever may happen, our laymen must be silent on
pain of expulsion. Such a condition of things
would be nothing better than now falls to the lot of
the deluded votaries of the Catholic Church. Can
the brethren concerned in this apparently unfortu-
nate piece of administration, show that Brother
Brainard was not expelled for words spoken, or deeds
done, at the Albion Convention? Had this case
THOMAS HANNAH. 211

stood alone, we should not have noticed it, as occa-

sional errors are to be met with in the best adminis-
trations, but there is good reason to suppose that it
connects with a principle which is to have a wide
application.—When ecclesiastical persecution as-
sumes a judicial form, it is one of the most tremen-
dous scourges ever let loose upon society. The
fires of Smithfield were kindled by misguided church
judicatories, and every Romish auto-da-fe has the
same origin. Believing not only that these ecclesias-
tical decapitations are the worst kind of murder, but
that slavery will demand in other Conferences a
repetition of the scenes enacted in the Genesce Con-
ference, we shall both apprise the public of what
is going on and strip the proceedings of their
assumed sanctity.”

On the same circuit Mr. Thomas Hannah
and Alexander Patten were also expelled for
the same cause. They were well-to-do far-
mers, men of solid judgment and sound piety.
Mr. Hannah had recently paid three hundred
dollars for a church on the circuit, and given
his note for three hundred more. This they
collected, though they had unceremoniously
excluded him from the house for which it was
intended to pay.

Mr. John Prue, Mrs. Sarah Prue, Mr. and
Mrs. Hutchins, Mrs. Elizabeth Porter, Mrs.
H. Loder, Fanny Smith and Mrs. N. 8. Brain-
ard, were read out as ‘‘ withdrawn’? without
their consent. Mr. Prue, and others, had
212 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

just paid liberally towards building the
churches.

On the adjoining circuit Mr. Hart Smith, an
upright, conscientious Christian, for years a

.member of the church, was expelled by Rev.
Sumner Smith, with the help of a committee
taken from Chili, the members in Churchville
refusing to act in the case.

On the 13th of April, 1859, Mr. Thomas B.
Catton, of Perry, was tried by his pastor,
Rev. W. 8. Tuttle. There were four charges
and twenty-three specifications presented
against him. The pastor assumed in the out-
set that he should be expelled, and cited him:

“To answer to said charges and specifications, and
show cause why you should not be expelled from the
M. E. Church.”

In other courts, the prosecution must show
cause why the accused should be punished,
but in this court it was taken for granted that
one accused of being a ‘‘ Nazarite’’ deserved
the highest penalty of the law, and he must
show cause why it should not be inflicted.

As in the case of Rev. Mr. Lankton, the Rev.
W. 8. Tuttle claimed to be one against whom
the action of the Albion Convention was
directed—that is to be a party in the case—
and yet he acted as Judge, selected his own
jury, and in reality conducted the prosecution.
TRIAL OF T. B. CATTON. 213

Mr. Catton wrote us of his trial at the time:

“You can get only a very faint idea of the pro-
ceedings, from the minutes. Brother Hibbard said in
speaking of your trial, that, ‘all the forms of law
were exhausted ;’ we think in my case that all the
forms of law were outraged. When a Methodist
minister can take such a stand, asthe Rev. W. S. Tuttle
took in this trial, and can find devotees to carry out
his desires, it is high time for the laity to be aroused.
There can be no safety, when a man claiming to be
slandered, can, on the trial of the one accused of
slandering him, sit as judge, and appoint the jury,
and repudiate the laws of evidence, which have been
established for ages. Who ever heard outside of the
Genesee Conference, of a member of the M. E. Church
being tried, and receiving a penalty, because he
could not in conscience, pay the minister appointed ?
Yet Mr. Tuttle stated that he had written to Bishop
Baker, and had his sanction for commencing an action
under this new rule. I am now satisfied that the
worst construction, that can be put upon the language
used by the Albion Convention—if it was not true
then, is certainly true now.”

In this trial, several reliable witnesses testi-
fied that to their knowledge so-called ‘‘Regen-
cy’ preachers were absent from the Conference:
aday atatime while the evidence was being
given in the case of Rev. B. T. Roberts.

E. Sears, Thomas Jeffres and J. Grisewood
testified that at different times they heard dif-
ferent preachers who voted for the expulsion
214 + WHY ANOTHER SECT.

of B. T. Roberts say, that they did not vote
for his expulsion because of the evidence ad-
duced. The only reason any of them assigned
was, because he undertook a defense of the
Estes pamphlet. They heard seven different
preachers at various times make this statement.

Mr. Catton made so vigorous a defense, and
public sympathy was so much stirred up in
his favor that, strange to say, he was not at
that time expelled. He was censured. Af-
terwards he had another trial for ‘‘ contu-
macy,” and was finally disposed of with seven-
teen others who, without their consent, were
read out as withdrawn.

Mr. Jonathan Handly, of Perry, one of the
solid, quiet, substantial members of the church
for over thirty years, against whose moral
and Christian character his bitterest enemies
could bring no accusation, was tried for at-
tending the Laymen’s Convention and expelled!

We copy the following from the Olean Ad-
vertiser, in relation to another who was ex-
pelled for attending the Albion Convention :

“James H. Brooks Esq., a resident of Olean these
thirty odd years, a man of unblemished private char-
acter, 2 member of the Methodist Episcopal Church
ever since he was fifteen years old, a Christian of
acknowledged worth and usefulness, and a citizen
against whom the breath of calumny has never breathed
JAMES H. BROOKS. 215

until now, has been expelled from the church. This
fact being announced, the inquiry is natural and per-
tinent—* Why ?” This is just what we would like to
know.

James H. Brooks has grown upin our midst from
boyhood ; his private worth is as familiar to our
citizens, as a “thrice told tale.” Generosity, integ-
rity, honesty, and living piety, are eminent character-
istics of the man. For the last twenty-eight years,
he has been a member of the M. E. Church, and has
contributed liberally for the advancement of Method-
ism, and the promulgation of the Gospel. The min-
isters and brethren of the church, have ever found a
place at his board, and a welcome at his fire-side. It
was indeed a truthful exclamation of the accused after
his conviction, and was not contradicted by his ac-
cusers, “my old mother sitting there, has given more
meals to Methodists, than all the rest of this church
together.”

The trial and expulsion of such a man, naturally:
produces in the public mind, a supposition that he
has been guilty of some heinous offence, either
against good morals or the peace of society, and that
the proceedings were necessary to purify the church,
and to warn the world against an unchristian
example. ~

We however learn, and are gratified in being able
to say that such is not the case, that he has neither
adopted a spurious faith, nor has been guilty of
any heresies, condemned by the doctrines of his
church, nor has he indulged in any impropriety of
conduct, that would warrant under any ordinary
circumstances, his expulsion from the church.
\

216 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

In every human mind there is an innate sense of jus-
tice which is offended and aroused at acts of oppres-
sion and palpable wrongs. We confess we partake
of the general feeling pervading this community, that
a grievous wrong has been done Mr. Brooks.

So intolerable did the oppressive acts of the
dominant preachers become that the laymen’s
Convention, to which the Rev. Mr. Crawford
alludes in his account of the Bergen Camp-
meeting, was called. In the call, the Hon.
Abner I. Wood, President, and the secreta-
ries, Rev. 8. K. J. Chesbrough, and W. H.
Doyle, say to the members of the late ‘‘Albion
Convention :”’

“Dear Bretaren: At our session at Albion, we
were authorized to call a meeting again in June. We
feel that the difficulties among us demand such a
meeting. Eyer since our action at Albion, we have
been misrepresented, and our characters slandered.
No stone has been left unturned, either by flattery or
threatenings, to intimidate many from the positions
then taken. How many have been led thus to with-
draw from us, we know not; noris it our concern.
If any one feels duty thus calls him to retract, let
him thus decide, and walk no more with us. We
feel satisfied that not only a vast majority of those
that attended still adhere to those resolutions, but
many more who did not adhere, are now convinced
that we have the right on our side, and today are
in sympathy with us. Important interests are at
stake ; we feel the iron heel of oppression heavily
HARNEST PROTEST. 217

laid upon us as laymen. We feel unwilling to become
the slaves of any power. Many of our beloved breth-
ren, who acted with us there, have been tried for
attending that Convention—some have been expelled.
Let us meet together,and show to them that the cause
is one, and when they suffer, we suffer with them. If
our action there is to be the “war-note,” and the
moving cause of our decapitation or removal from
office, wherever possible, the time has come, yea,
fully come, for us to stand firm and reiterate that our
sentiments and our resolutions are still unchanged,
and that we intend to maintain the position then tak-
en, let the cost be what it may to us; the fear of
expulsion or removal from office should never drive a
Methodist from doing his duty.

We need also to reaffirm our undiminished confi-
dence in our beloved Brothers Roberts and McCreery,
and our condemnation of the unjust expulsion of
these brethren from the Conference. Let us, to a
man, stand by them, they are worthy of our sym-
pathy and our ‘ material aid.”

We cordially and earnestly invite all our brethren
who are in sympathy with us, and who are willing to
act, to meet us in Convention at North Bergen, on
the Genesee Camp Ground, Thursday, June 20, 1859,
at 4 Pp. a, to take such action as may there be deemed
advisable.
CHAPTER XI.
MORE PREACHERS EXPELLED.

The next session of the Genesee Conference
was held at Brockport, in October, 1859. The
efforts made to kill the influence of those whom
they selected at the last Conference to make ex-
amples of, had most signally failed. These ex-
pelled preachers had never been more cordially
received by the people than during the year.

The Buffalo Advocate and the Northern Ad-
vocate teemed with inflammatory appeals to
their adherents to crush out what they called
the ‘‘Nazaritism’’ yet remaining in the Con-
ference. The dominant party of the Confer-
ence came together prepared to adopt any
measures which their leaders proposed, to fin-
. ish the work of extermination which they had
commenced. Their ill-feeling was intensified
at the sight which they witnessed when they
came together.

In the outskirts of the village, in plain sight,
and almost within hearing of the church, Fay
H. Purdy, a well known evangelist of the M.
E. Church, had commenced a tent meeting
which was to continue during the session of
Conference. * <A large pavilion, capable of

 

*For account of this meeting see pages 128-131.
POWERS OF A CONFERENCE. 219

holding three thousand people, was spread.

Around this were several rows of family and

society tents. To this meeting were gathered

a large number of intelligent, devoted, earnest

Christians, who were stigmatized by the domi-
‘nant party as ‘“‘Nazarites.”’

It was evident at the opening of the Confer-
ence that extreme measures would be adopted.
This expectation was not disappointed ; yet,
the audacity of the majority in trampling upon
human and divine law, exceeded the anticipa-
tions of those who had the highest opinion of
their capacity for wrong-doing.

According to the constitution of the M. E.
Church, an Annual Conference has no legisla-
tive powers. It may execute such of the laws
of the Church as may fall within its province,
but it can make no laws. Nor can it give to
any enactments of its own the force of laws
by affixing to them a penalty. Its powers are
executive and judicial.

Yet this Conference, the second day of its
session, passed five ‘‘resolutions’’—the first
four of which were aimed against fraternizing
with the expelled preachers, and against

* “holding in anirregular way, or in counten-
ancing, by taking part in, the services of camp
meetings, or other meetings thus irregularly
held.
220 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

The last resolution provided, *‘ That if any”
member of the Conference be found guilty of
disregarding the opinions and principles ex-
pressed in the above resolutions, he shall be
held to answer to this Conference for the
same.’’*

These resolutions were made a test in the ex-
amination of character. Those preachers
who would agree to be governed by these reso-
lutions were passed ; those who would not,
were put on trial unless they would locate.

It is said that Bishop Simpson, who presided
at this session, gave to these ‘‘test resolutions”
his emphatic endorsement and support.

In accordance with the spirit of these reso-
lutions, Bishop Simpson ordered several
preachers who had come from other Conferen-
ces to assist Mr. Purdy in his meeting, to take
no further part in it. Some obeyed, but Rev.
D. W. Thurston, the presiding elder on Cort-
land district, Oneida Conference, continued to
labor in the meetings. Bishop Simpson called
him before a committee and admonished him,
but the admonition was not heeded.

Under the operation of these resolutions,
Rev. J. W. Reddy and H. H. Farnsworth *
were located. Revs. Loren Stiles, jr., John

“A. Wells, William Cooley and Charles D.

*Fo1 thes¢ resolutions see page 245

 
TRIAL OF REV. L. STILES. 221

Burlingham, not being wilting to submit to
this tyrannical assumption of authority, were
expelled from the Conference and the Church.

The charges against Rev. L. Stiles, Jr., were
as follows:

I hereby charge Rev. L. Stiles, Jr.,

1. With falsehood.

In testifying in the case of B. T. Roberts, at the
session of our Conference held at Perry, Oct. 6th,
1858, that he did not receive or read the proof sheet
of a document printed at Brockport, signed Geo. W.
Estes, and entitled “ New School Methodism,” and
“To whom it may Concern ;” and, in the case of J.

~McCreery, Jr., occurring at the same Conference,

testifying that he did receive a paper purporting to
be the proof sheet of such document—with an ac-
companying note explanatory of its nature, and did
read it, or a portion of it.

2. With contumacy.

1st. In receiving into his pulpit, and treating as a
minister, an expelled member from this Conference.

2nd. In going into the bounds of F. W. Conable’s
charge, and there holding meetings and organizing a
class, contrary to the admonition of his presiding
elder.

J. B. Wentwortu.

The first charge was made simply to try to

-blacken his character.. But there was no show
of proof to sustain it; and the majority were
so far restrained that they voted this charge
not sustained. God would not let even them
222 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

affix this stain upon His servant. Of the first
specification under the second charge there
was no proof whatever. It was shown that
once during the year Rev. B. T. Roberts was
at a general quarterly meeting at the M. E.
Church at Albion, of which Brother Stiles was
pastor. One evening, after Rev. B. I. Ives
preached, B. T. Roberts, by his invita-
tion, exhorted. Butin defence of this, it was
shown that he had at that time drawn up in due
form, a regular exhorter’s license! Mr. Rob-
erts was treated simply as an exhorter and
nothing more! He was not called upon to
perform and did not perform one of the func-
tions of ‘‘a minister !”’

This second specification was admitted to be
nominally true. Holley, N. Y., is a large
village between Brockport and Albion. There
had been no Methodist society and no Metho-
dist preaching there for a number of years.
When I was stationed at Brockport, I occa-
sionally preached by invitation at Holley. I
went to Albion from Brockport, and still now
and then preached in Holley-——sometimes
in the Academy, and sometimes in the Presby-
terian church. After Mr. Stiles went to Albion
he kept up these occasional appointments at
Holley. The interest increasing, and souls
getting converted, Mr. Stiles formed a class,
GOING WHERY WANTED. 223

‘which, we may add—has grown into a pros-
perous church, which has built one of the
finest edifices in the place. No objection was
made, until after the work, of expulsion was
begun, and ‘‘occasion’’ was sought against
Mr. Stiles. Mr. Conable had no appointment
at Holley, and never had. His nearest ap-
pointment was about three miles away. Mr.
Stiles’ appointment to preach was generally
on a different day and hour from his. Mr.
Conable had a small number of members—two
or three—living at Holey. But they did not
have him make an appointment at their place.

It was not claimed that these members at
Holley did not contribute, as usual, to Mr.
Conable’s support. So that Mr. Stiles, in go-
ing to Holley to preach, interfered in no way,
either with his appointments or his salary.

It was not attempted to be shown that
Mr. Stiles had violated any provision of the
discipline. On the contrary, he read from
the discipline—from the rules for a preachers’
conduct: ‘‘ You have nothing to do but to
save souls: therefore spend and be spent in
this work; and go glways not only to those
that want you, but to those that want you
most.’ This was precisely what he had done
—nothing more—and nothing less.

On such a charge, thus sustained, the major-
224 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

ity voted to expel from the Genesee Conference
AND THE M. E. Cuurcu, Loren Stiles, Jr.,—
one of the most devoted, eloquent, gifted, no-
ble-hearted men then in the ministry of that
denomination.

Of all the Methodist papers, official or inde-
pendent, there was but one that spoke out in
condemnation of this violent, illegal action.
Yet a few years later, when Rev. S. Tyng, Jr.
was mildly censured by the authorities of the
Protestant Episcopal Church, for preaching in
the parish of another clergyman without his
consent, the Methodist papers, with much
warmth and zeal,condemned such an encroach-
ment upon personal liberty! Yet there was
this difference: Mr. Tyng’s Church had a
plain law, forbidding the act: the Methodist
Church had no law forbidding its ministers to
do as Mr. Stiles had done. Mr. Tyng preached
in the immediate neighborhood of an Episco-
pal church. There was not a Methodist
church or preaching place within three miles
of the place where Mr. Stiles preached! Mr.
Tyng preached at the regular hours for ser-
vice. Mr. Stiles preached generally on a
week-day evening, when it did not interfere
with any preacher—anywhere.

Will the Methodist editors explain why it
was wrong for the Episcopal Church to cen-
REV. C. D. BURLINGHAM. 225

sure Mr. Tyng—and right for the Methodist
Episcopal Church to expel Mr. Stiles from the
ministry and the church, for the same act—
when all the points of difference were in favor
of Mr. Stiles ?

CASE OF REV. ©. D. BURLINGHAM.

We extract the following from: “A statement by
C. D. Burlingham to the Genesee Conference, re-
sponding to a charge and specifications, preferred
against him by the Rev. D. F. Parsons.

Brockport, Oct. 15, 1859.
Charge, ‘Contumacy.”

Ist specification: ‘In receiving an expelled mem-

ber of the Genesee Conference, into the church on
‘trial without confession or satisfactory reformation.’

I received Benjamin T. Roberts on trial, in Pekin,
Nov. 7, 1858, in a general society meeting, pursuant
to a unanimous vote,, without his confessing the
alleged crime, for which he had been expelled.

My reasons for so doing are:

1. I believe that there are exceptional cases, in the
application of the rule of discipline referred to, be-
cause if the strict letter of the rule must always con-
trol in the cases of applicants for admission on trial,
then it follows that an innocent person, who has been
wrongfully expelled, can never be re-admitted into
the church. Ifthe “reformation,” or moral state of
the applicant is satisfactory to the administrator and
the society, or if they believe him to be innocent, and
he meets all the conditions of membership, his ad-
mission, I judge is in harmony with the rule.

I understand Bishop Baker to confirm this view :
226 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

see Guide Book, page 159, paragraph 9. “When a
member or preacher has been expelled, according to
our form of discipline, he can not afterward enjoy the
privileges of society and of the sacraments in our
church, without contrition and satisfactory reforma-
tion ; but if however, the society becomes convinced
of the innocence of the expelled member, he may
again be received on trial without confession ;” the
principle in the conclusion, covering of course both
cases, “ member or preacher,” in the premises.

2. I believe that such admission into the church
could not remove the ground of his appeal to the
General Conference, because that body, I judged,
could act in the case, only on those points submitted
in the appeal; he being responsible for his subsequent
acts to his Conference, shonld the General Conference
reverse the decision by which he was expelled.

3. The next day after the expulsion, the appeal
having been notified, the question of his admission
into the church was discussed informally, by Bishops
Janes and Baker, and the presiding elders. The
point was not, can he be received by confessing the
alleged crime, for of course that would remove the
ground of his appeal; but the question was, can he
be received on trial, and not injuricusly affect his
appeal. Not one of those seven officers of the church
took the position, that there was anything in the
Methodistic law to prevent his being received. No
one of them, who spake on the subject, was clear in
his mind, he said, as to the effect of such an act on his
appeal. Those aged and experienced presiding elders
—for some of them were swch,—with the two Bishops
were in doubt on the question, showing at least, that
REV. C. D. BURLINGHAM. 227

such a question had not, then, been definitely settled,
in the administrative rules of the church, as inti-
mated by our president a few days since.

Subsequently, Bishop Janes, as Brother Roberts
informed me, when I first met him in Pekin, said to
him, that he had not lost confidence in him, and that
he could join the church again or words to that im-
port, leaving that distinct impression on his mind.

T put this and that together, and connecting both
with advice from some eminent ministers, within and
without our Conference bounds, and after receiving
all the light then accessible to me, I received him on
trial A few weeks after, as per letter of Bishop
Baker to me several months later, the Episcopal
Board met at Chicago, and settled, as I understand,
the principle of administrative law, that is to govern
in such cases. This decision having been published,
at least editorially, and announced by Bishop Simp-
son, a few days since, we all now understand it;
though some of the younger members of this body
have assumed, in their speeches, that they had under-
stood it, even before they were admitted into full
connection in the Conference, because they had read
the book of discipline. But I confess that I was in
doubt on the question, a year ago; and, having occa-
sion to act in this case, with such light as dawned
upon me, I did what I thought was right and proper.

4, A fourth point in this argument is a case, per-.
fectly analogous, in reference to the principle of
receiving a person on trial ‘without confession,’ etc.,
of more than ordinary notoriety, that transpir ed
within our Conference bounds. A prominent mem-
ber was expelled. He appealed. The quarterly
228 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

conference, for some informality, sent the case back
for a new trial. He was expelled the second time.
Under the instruction and advice of the deeply ex-
perienced presiding elder of the district—a man of
profound erudition—this expelled person was re-
ceived on trial, without confession, in a charge a few
miles distant; and then took a letter and joined a
new charge, nearer his home, without either changing
his residence, or confessing the crime for which he
had been expelled. This administration may have
been correct—I do not know, because I do not know
the whole case; but, if correct, it is so on the ground
of my first reason herewith presented; and if cor-
rect, then it covers in a moral point of view my act
of receiving ‘ without confession,’ etc. Of course, a
wrong administration in that case will not justify a
wrong onein anothercase. But when wiser men than
I am are allowed thus to practice, without being
treated as contumacious, surely I ought to have the
benefit of such clemency.

5. After I had learned from an authentic souree—
Bishop Baker—what was the Episcopal decision
that would apply to this case, and might remove the
ground of his appeal; after consultation with
Brother Roberts, who has expressed from time to
time a desire and purpose to prosecute his appeal,
and with some eminent ministers who have the con-
-fidence of the church, and who may act as his counsel
in the case, J have obeyed the implied advice of the
Bishop, and granted the request of Brother Roberts,
by discontinuing his probationary membership in
the same manner he had been received. The conclu-
sion then, from these five points, each and all, is
REV. C. D. BURLINGHAMN. 229

summed up in few words: There is not—can not be
—a shadow of contumacy, either in principle, motive,
oract. I assert most solemnly, the purity of my
intention and motive; and the character of the act
is to be judged in the light of the points I have:
made, especially the first and third. The first cover-
ing fully the reception ‘ without confession,’ etc.; and
the third covering the reception while the appeal is
pending. The fourth point is an illustrative prece-
dent, the benefit of which I am entitled to receive.
The fifth point, in connection with all the others,
furnishes evidence of not a perverse, but a teachable
spirit,—not resistance to and contempt of, but sub-
mission and obedience to the rules, and decisions,
and authorities of the church.

Second Specification.—‘ On giving said expelled
member license to exhort, at the tirne of such recep-
tiou on trial.’

On the recommendation, nearly unanimous, by the
same general society meeting that voted for his re-
ception on trial, and on the same occasion, I gave
him a license to. exhort.

As the discipline recognizes exhorters as members
of quarterly conferences; and probationers cannot be
members of a quarterly conference; I stated in the cer-
tificate I gave him,that he was a probationary member;
assuming thereby that a person, suitable in other re-
spects to officiate in the capacity of an exhorter,
might do so, before he, as a member of the church,
could perform official acts, as a member of quarterly
conference.

My reasons, then, for giving him such a license,
are:
230 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

1. That he might, in a regular and orderly way,
exhort the people religiously.

2. I believed that he was really a probationary
member in good standing, legally; and the Bishop’s
opinion, given five or six days ago, confirms this
view ; and, therefore, in that respect, there was no
impediment in the way.

3. And thouvh the discipline makes no provision
for investing probationers with official powers, except
it be an implied one, perhaps, indicated by the words,
‘member of society,’ as required in the church re-
lations of a local preacher, (discipline, page 42); and
the words, “ member of the class,” in that of an ex-
horter, (discipline, page 66) ; a distinction in words,
in the two cases, implying, perhaps, we say, that full
membership is required in the former case, but not in
the latter. Yet the law of usage,—possibly founded
on this distinction that I have noted—allows and
sanctions, in some cases, such administration as mine
in the case before us: Rev. Bishop H. B. Bascom,
D. D., was authorized to exhort, while on trial.

A leading member of the Oneida Conference, eight
or ten years a presiding elder, says he has known
many similar cases, several under his own adminis-
tration. And some of the older members of this
Conference say they have known numerous instances
of the same, from the period of their connection with
the church down through its administrative history
to the present time. I have known several such in-
stances,

On these grounds, and not contumaciously, I gave
B. T. Roberts license to exhort, in the form and man-
ner I have stated. The idea of setting up my own
REV. C. D:. BURLINGHAM. 231

private judgment in this case, and my personal con-
victions in opposition and resistance to the solemn
decisions of the Conference, when sitting as a court,
has never found its way into my thoughts or heart,to
be cherished for a moment. My private opinions in
this whole case are solely my own property, under
God; but my official and administrative acts in the
case have been performed in view of my responsibil-
. ities to the Conference as a judicial body, to the
Bishop, and tothe whole church.

If my administration was incorrect under the first
or second specification, or both, it is certainly not an
error of the heart ; and surely, I ought not to be re-
garded as contumacious because I am not wiser: I
know I intended to do, and I thought I did, for the
reasons stated, just what ought to be done, in view
of all my responsibilities,

Third Specification.—‘In attending and assisting
in a so-called ‘General Quarterly Meeting,’ held in
Ransomville, some time in February last, within the
bounds of the East Porter charge, and at the same
time of the regular quarterly meeting of said charge.’

‘On this specification; I say I attended such a meet-
ing at Ransomvile, and the following facts will show
that I did not do it contumaciously against the Confer-
ence, nor contemptuously against the presiding offi-
cer of the district, as implied in the specification ;

1. In the light of the statement presented, I re-
garded Brother Roberts as authorized, at that time,
to hold religious meetings where there was an open-
ing, with the consent of the people and authorities
of the locality ; and, therefore, under such circum-
stances, I did not regard it as improper to be associa-
232 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

ted with him and others in religious worship.

2. The Wesleyans had invited this meeting to
their church; our people, as I understand, having
neither church nor preaching appointment in the lo-
cality.

3. I never knew or dreamed, until this bill was pre-
sented me, that Ransomville was in East Porter
charge, having understood that it was in vacant ter-
ritory, between Wilson and Porter, and about the
same distance from Pekin, my charge, as from either
of those places.

4. The small pox was prevailing, to some extent,
in our place, and our meetings were suspended ; and,
under such circumstances our brethren deemed it
proper to meet with other brethren in some locality
where they would violate no church order, and be
likely to do some good in the name of the Lord; and
I was with them a part of the time to do a little
work and to see what such people were doing, as
then and now, I can say, I know but little about such
«meetings from personal observation.

5. This meeting happened to occur on the day of
the quarterly meeting of the Porter charge. I had
nothing to do in getting up the meeting or fixing the
time, but I have good reason to believe the appoint-
ment was made in ignorance that the other meeting
was to be at the same time. Whenit became known
that the Porter meeting would be at that time, it was
too late to change the time of the other ; but, as I
understood from brethren with whom I conversed,
knowing nothing of the localities myself then, that
the circuit meeting would probably be held in con-
nection with Youngstown, or at some point six or
REV. C. D. BURLINGHAM. 233

eight miles from Ransomville. I judged the one
would not interfere with the other; and, therefore, I
attended said meeting. It was a source of regret to
me that the two meetings were to occur at the same
time, for the reason that, possibly, the Porter meet-
ing might be in the eastern part of the circuit, in the
more immediate vicinity of Ransomville, and it
might be thought that this meeting was designed to
interfere with that, which was not the case. Of
course, there is no occasion for me to stop and try to
show that there is here no contumacy in spirit or act.
Tam not the man to interfere with the pastoral and
gospel work of other men, in their respective char-
ges. I generally have more than I can do nearer
home ; neither can I knowingly and intentionally en-
courage others to do what I would not do myself.
Brethren, I have endeavored to notice and meet
every point in the Bill; and though I admit some
little partiality for my client, I must say, in all can-
dor, there is not, there cannot be, in your convictions
in the case, the shadow of any evidence to sustain
the charge ; that though all the specifications are
nearly literally true, there is not in the case the
slightest degree of contuwmacy.”

To the mind of every candid person, this
must be a complete defence. But the majority
of the Conference paid no attention to it, and
as they had the votes to do it with, they voted
him guilty, and inflicted upon him the highest
possible penalty in their power—expulsion
from the Conference and the M. E. Church.
This was the limit of their ability.
234 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

CASE OF REV. WILLIAM COOLEY.

“<J hereby charge Rev. Wm. Cooley with contu-
macy.

First Specification —In receiving into his pulpit
and treating as a minister an expelled member from
this Conference.

Second Specification —In violating the wishes
and requests of his brethren, as expressed by resolu-
tions passed by them at this session of our Confer-
ence against affiliating with expelled members from
this Conference. J. B. Wenrworru.

Brockport, Oct. 14, 1859.’

On the first specification, the defense said, “I
admit that B. T. Roberts once addressed the people
at Kendall village, and J. McCreery did once at
West Kendall, from the pulpit. We had a four
day’s meeting at Kendall; Brother Roberts came to
the meeting, but not by my request, and exhorted
once. I invited him to take part in the exercises,
and to exhort.

Brother McCreery came to a two day’s meeting at
West Kendall. I did not invite him tocome. He
went into the pulpit and addressed the people, as he
said, on his own authority.

Rev. A. D. Wilbor called.—I am Brother Cooley’s
presiding elder. I had a conversation with him
about receiving expelled ministers. I inquired if he
had thus associated with them. He admitted what
he has here admitted, in substance; I admonished
him. This conversation was since the commencement
of the present session of this Conference.

Testimony on the second specificdtion—The de-
fendant here admitted that he had preached at
REV, WM. COOLEY. 235

Purdy’s camp-meeting, but had not taken part in any
irregular meeting, as he knew of. He preached, before
the resolutions of Conference were passed.

Rev. R. E. Thomas called—Were you present at
the *Nazarite camp-meeting down here? I was.
Did Brother Cooley take part in it? He sat on the
platform; he knelt and prayed.

Rev. C. Strong called.—I was present at Purdy’s
camp-meeting a few times, as a spectator. Saw the
defendant there two or three times. He appeared to
be taking part in the exercises during the time of
prayer-meeting or when a great deal of noise was
being made, ‘in what I should call the general halloo-
_ ing and clapping concert.

I did not see B. T. Roberts there at the time of
the sacrament, but at other times. I saw J. McCreery
on the stand. Isaw him come forward to the com-
mounion. A man I have heard called oo seemed
to supervise this meeting.

Rev. K. D. Nettleton called.—I was ee a part
of the time during the sacrament and tent-meeting.

I was a spectator. Saw McCreery partake of the
sacrament with the ministers. A man administered
the sacrament, at the first invitation, whom Mr. Purdy
called a presiding elder of the Oneida Conference
by the name of Thurston. Saw defendant and
McCreery go forward to the sacrament. Saw defen-
dant take part in. the exercises, and also expelled
ministers.

Rev. B. F. McNeal called.—I was present at the
sacrament on Tuesday evening of this week, as a
spectator. Defendant and J. McCreery were there;

 

*Referring to Fay H. Purdy’s Tent Meeting.
236 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

I saw defendant, and MeCreery, and a large number
of ministers go forward to the sacrament, and imme-
diately took my departure. A man they called
Thurston presided at the sacrament.

Cross-examined.— There were from twenty to
thirty ministers present at the sacrament.

Rev. A. D. Wilbor called.—The tent-meeting was
not held by my consent, but against my wishes.

Cross-examined.—I have given no public expres-
sion to that effect. I did express my disapprobation
at the preachers’ meeting at Le Roy. The defend-
ant was not there. I think the notice of the tent-
meeting was published in the Worthern Christiun
Advocate. I supposed the meeting to be held within
the bounds of the Brockport charge.

Rev. E. M. Buck called.— Was Purdy’s meeting in
the bounds of your charge? Yes. I objected to this
mecting to Purdy. I saw the notice of it.

Cross-examined.—I have no personal knowledge
that defendant knew of my objections to Purdy’s
meetings.

Rebutting Testimony.

Rev. A. D. Wilbor called.—I did not inform de-
fendant previous to the commencement of this session
of the Conference, that his course was objectionable.

Cross-examined.—I admonished him the second or
third day of Conference; it was before his character
was arrested.

Rev. A. L. Backus called.—I received Joseph
McCreery into the church on probation, the second
Sabbath after the adjournment of the last Confer-
ence. I dropped him the first Sabbath after the
Bergen camp-meeting.
~

REV. WM. COOLEY. 227

Cross-examined.—I did not license him to exhort
or preach, or any thing of that kind.”

Direct testimony resumed :

“T did not give public notice that I had dropped
him. I did report him dropped by name.”

Rev. C. D. Burlingham’s testimony, taken in
Brother Stiles’ trial and admitted in this trial: ‘I
gave B. T. Roberts license to exhort, having first re-
ceived him into the church as a probationer, which
was the second Sabbath after the last Conference.’ ”

Soon after his expulsion, the Rev. Wm.

. Cooley wrote respecting his trial, the following

notes :

“1. The second specification was added after the
trial was commenced, and altered twice; and at the
suggestion of Bishop Simpson was most of it with-
drawn, to prevent Brother Purdy’s testimony, which
would have made his meeting a regular one, because
he had Rev. E. M. Buck’s consent to hold the meet-
ing when he did.

2. Brother Roberts exhorted at Kendall in the
forepart of the Conference year, and the presiding
elder, Rev. A. D. Wilbor, was four times on my cir-
cuit to hold quarterly meetings during the year, and
had opportunities to admonish me of my great error
in allowing Brother Roberts to exhort the people to
serve God, and never passed a word with me as to
this being an irregularity or wrong until the second
or third day of this session of Conference. It’ cer-
tainly looks as though the design was not to check
irregularities, but to find some occasion against me.

3. When my trial was nearly through, leading Re-
238 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

gency ministers came to me, and said if I would
locate, I might go out with clean papers, as a local
preacher, to preach the Gospel. But I felt I had
lived in all good conscience, and had done nothing to
forfeit my Conference relations, and could not take
any such responsibilities on myself.

4. Great efforts were made by the dominant party
in the Conference to get me to subscribe to the
“Five Puseyite resolutions,” passed by the Confer-
ence, with the understanding that if I could do this,
my character should pass; but I could not ignore my
manhood, and obligations to God to obey him rather
than man, so much as to bow down to that idol, set
up by men. So I was expelled, first from Conference,
and then from the church; but God has been with
me every hour since, saving and keeping my soul in
glorious freedom, and I am enabled to say, “ But
none of these things move me, neither count I my
life dear unto myselt,so that I might finish my course
with joy, and the ministry which I have received of
the Lord Jesus to testify the Gospel of the grace ot
God.”

“APPEAL OF REV. JOHN A, WELLS.

To the members of the M. E. Church and all persons
who respect the rights of humanity and religion.

Dear Brethren:—Allow me to present to you a
candid statement of the facts in reference to my
expulsion from the M. E. Church.

The Journal of the Genesee Conference for Oct.
13, 1859 contains the following record:

‘Resolved. That John A. Wells be expelled from
the Genesee Conference and from the M. E. Church.’
REV. JOHN A. WELLS. 239

The charges which furnished the occasion for the
above action are as follows:
‘I hereby charge Rev. J. A. Wells with—

Ist. Contumacy—in recognizing as a minister, by
admitting to his pulpit, and holding religious meet-
ings in connection with B. 'T. Roberts, an expelled
member from this Conference.

2d. Disobedience to the order of the church, in
going into the bounds of other brethren’s charges,
and holding religious meetings.’

(Signed,) 8S. M. Horxiys.

-Dated, Brocxrort, Oct. 1, 1859.

It would be tame, indeed, for me to say that I am
dissatisfied with the above action of Conference.:
A blow has been struck at the vitals of Christian
liberty. I do not feel that I am guilty of contumacy,
or disobedience to the order of the church; neither
if I were guilty to the extent of the specifications
could I believe that the severest penalty known in
ecclesiastical discipline ought to be inflicted on me.
Inow make my appeal to you, and hope to be re-
ceived and treated in accordance with the verdict
which your candor and religion shall render.

I admitted on my trial, that I had permitted B. T.
Roberts to speak in my pulpit; and that I had attend-
ed and took part in religious meetings conducted by
him. Also, that I had preached in a few instances
within the bounds of other brethren’s charges. There
was nothing material proved in addition to this.

I showed in my defense,
1st. That B. T. Roberts, since his expulsion had
been admitted to the M. E. Church on trial, and
240 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

licensed to exhort, and as such I had received him.
Bishop Simpson had decided that an error or irregu-
larity on the part of an administrator of discipline
does not invalidate the title to membership of a per-
son received into the church. So that Brother
Roberts was legally and properly a member of the
M. E. Church on trial. Whether his license to ex-
hort given him by Rev. C. D. Burlingham, he being
recommended to do so by the unanimous vote of the
society at Pekin, was valid or not, according to the
letter of the law, it was at least a good reason in fa-
vor of my allowing him to speak. I could not forbid a
man to speak in my pulpit who came with such recom-
mendations. If there is contumacy in this, it must
consist in a.refusal of absolute subjection to the will
of the Buffalo Regency, and not in resistance to the
reasonable authority of the church.

I showed in my defense,

2, That not one of the preachers on whose charges
I had preached, had ever by word or by letter, inti-
mated to me that they were displeased with my
preaching within the bounds of their charges ; and
also, that my presiding elder had never admonished
me never to do so. If I was expelled for that, it
certainly was a crime that none of the men who
claim to be injured thought enough of to speak to
me about it, though months elapsed between its com-
mission and the Conference,

I contend that Iam expelled from the Church for
no crime whatever; either against the word of God,
or the Methodist discipline. In these things for which
I was expelled, I have not violated my obligations to
REV. JOHN A, WELLS, 241

God, nor transcended my rights as a Methodist
preacher.

Tam not blamable in receiving Brother Roberts
asI did. I received him and treated him as an ex-
horter. It was not proved that I did more than this.
His relation to the church, and the license which he
held, fully entitled him, according to the discipline.
and usages of Methodism, to all the respect which I
paid him. But I had higher reasons than these for
doing as I did. I had for many years regarded
Brother Roberts as a devoted servant of God, emi-
nent for his usefulness. I really believed that his ex-
pulsion from the Church was only the result of hatred
aroused by his faithful denunciation of sin, and that
he was, in the sight of heaven, as much a servant of
God and a minister of the Gospel after his expulsion,
as before it. I could not do less than receive him.
To have forbidden him to speak in my pulpit, would
have been a sin against God that I would not bear in
the judgment, for all worlds.

2. I have not sinned in preaching within the terri-
tories claimed by other preachers. Simply preaching
the Gospel is all that I did. I was not charged with
doing more. So that the solution of the question,
Has one preacher any right to preach on another’s
territory ? will make me guilty or innocent. The
commission which God gave me is, “Go into all the
world.” I was ordained an elder in the church of
God. Now if there is anything in our Church order,
limiting -my right to preach to one small charge,
and shutting me off from any particular place, let it
be shown. In joining the itinerant ranks of Metho-
dism, we do so far surrender our right of choosing
242 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

our field of labor as to allow the president of the
Conference to appoint where we shall preach. But
we do not so surrender our rights that he, or any
other power on earth can appoint where we can not
preach. To make such a surrender would be treason
against God. The_ discipline provides penalties for
the preacher who refuses to go to his work, but it is
nowhere made a crime to preach the Gospel off from
his charge.

Ihave foreborne to speak for others who are my
companions in the same tribulation, partly because I
left the seat of the Conference before the adjourn-
ment, and do not know how far the work of decapita-
tion had proceeded, and partly because I prefer that
they should speak fur themselves. The charges
against eight preachers were nearly the same as
those on which I was condemned, viz: contumacy
and disobedience to the order of the church.

The Conference, on the second day of its session,
adopted a series of resolutions which amounted to an
ex post facto law, according to which every preach-
er’s character was to pass. Every preacher who was
supposed during the year past to have violated the
code contained in the resolutions, had his character
arrested. No man could pass until he had testified
his penitence for having violatcd them, (before they
existed) and promised tc observe them in future.

To what extent this persecution will be carried,the
future alone can reveal. The majority of the Con-
ference are evidently determined, by raising -the mad
dog ery of “ Nazaritism,” to diive out of the church
all who have religion enough not to endorse their
measures. What others may do I cannot tell, but as
NORTHERN INDEPENDENT. 243

for myself, I am yet firmly attached in heart to the
M. E. Church. I believe her doctrines and love her
discipline. Ihave avpealed to the General Confer-
ence. I shall get back into the Church again if I can.
Brxrast, Ocr. 20, 1859. J. A. WELLS.

Of these expulsions, the editor of the Worth-
ern Independent spoke in brave, just terms
of condemnation in an editorial of Oct. 20, 1859 :

“THE GENESEE CONFERENCE,

Last week we referred to the trials going on in
this Conference, and expressed an opinion that they
were pernicious. It is now our painful duty to
record the result of these most infatuated proceed-
ings. Up to the time of this writing, four of the
best members of the Conference have been expelled,
both from the Conference and the church. We have
known ecclesiastical blunders before, but never one
so great as this. We do not care to repeat what we
have already said of these trials, nor do we wish to
enter into the controversy further than to note what
we think to be a very dangerous perversion of Con-
ference authority.

Every man of common sense knows that contu-
macy is not necessarily a crime ; and hence if the
defendant had been guilty of all that was charged
upon him, there was no occasion for his expulsion.
Contumacy is often a virtue. It may be a minister’s
duty to comply with the rules imposed by a majority,
or it may not; all will depend on the character of
the rules—if right, he may keep them; if not right,
he is bound to disregard them, or peril his soul.
When Conference action is just and wise, it becomes
244 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

ovligatory ; but when it is unjust and foolish, the
obligation ceases. Else an Annual Conference, be-
coming perverse, might decree that all its members
should abstain from praying, and the decree would
be binding. As such a conclusion is absurd, we are
ovliged to reject the premises on which it rests, and
hold that Conferences have power only so far as they
keep to the right. So much for the merits of the
case, even if contumacy had been among the things
forbidden by the church. But the fact is, we have
not, and never had any rule making contumacy a
sin. Itis not an offence, either named, or contem-
plated by our discipline. It is a crime unheard of
in the annals of Methodism—a miserable aping of
the most questionable and dangerous perogatives
ever exercised by secular authority.

That a preacher may be expelled for ‘improper
tempers, words, or actions,’ is true, and if the charge
had been made for either or all of these things, it would
at least have been right in form, and might have
been tried on its merits, But a trial for contumacy
is quite another thing, and altogether beyond the
record. In making these trials rest upon this basis,
che Conference has, in fact, established a new law,
and given sovereign power to every straggling res-
olution that may chance to be passed. Not to obey a
perverse resolution, would be very far from evincing
‘improper tempers, words or actions,’ but it would
certainly be ‘contumacy.’ Hence the unpardonable
liberty taken in departing from the words of the
discipline, and manufacturing this new test of char-
acter.

This style of administration assumes an importance
NORTHERN INDEPENDENT. 245

far beyond the individual instances of decapitation
which have already occurred. Acting on the same
principle, the Genesee Conference, or any other Con-
ference, has only to pass a resolution that no member
shall take the Northern Independent, or act as agent
for it, and the work is done—thenceforth, whoever
gets a subscriber or receives the paper into his house,
is guilty of contumacy, and destined to be expelled.
Thus this unfounded assumption seizes upon the
press, sweeps away every vestige of personal liberty,
and makes the minority of the Conference the veriest
slaves. It is true, the Conference has not yet given
the principle on which it is acting this particular
application, but how soon it may, none can tell. At.
this session, the members have been forbidden to
attend all meetings not regularly appointed, as will
be seen from the third and fifth resolutions of the
following series :

‘Resolved, Ist. That the safety and prosperity of
a Church can only be maintained by a solemn defer-
ence to its councils and discipline, as legitimately
determined and executed.

2d. That we consider the admission of expelled
ministers, whether traveling or local, to our pulpits,
and associating with them and assisting them as min-
isters, until they have, by due process, as described
in the discipline, been restored to the fellowship of
the church, as subversive of the integrity and gov-
ernment of the church, directly tending to the produc-
tion of discord and division and every evil work.

3d. That we disapprove and condemn the practice
of certain members of this Conference, in holding in
an irregular way, or in countenancing by taking part
246 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

in the services, of camp-meetings, or other meetings
thus irregularly held.

4th. That in the judgment of this Conference, it
is highly improper for one preacher to go into
another preacher’s charge and appoint meetings, or
attend those that may be appointed by others in
opposition to the wishes of the preacher in charge,
or the presiding elder.

5th. That if any member of this Conference be
found guilty of disregarding the opinions and prin-
ciples expressed in the above resolutions, he shall be
held to answer to this Conference for the same.”

Referring to the resolutions, he says:

“These resolutions are well enough, considered as
merely declarative or advisory, but regarded as the
ultimate law of the church, they are a grievous out-
rage on the rights of every member of an Annual
Conference. Annual Conferences may advise, and
may execute laws already made, but they are not law
making bodies, and consequently cannot pass a reso-
lution having the force of law. But if a man be ex-
pelled for non-conformity to arule made by an Annual
Conference, then is an Annual Conference, in the very
highest sense, a law making body. An Annual Con-
ference may expel a preacher for violating the disci-
pline, but not for violating one of its own rules.
Were it not for this necessary restriction, each An-
nual Conference could make laws ad libitum, and the
law making power of the General Conference would
be a nullity. Surely, in view of the above resolu-
tions, every Methodist ‘preacher may ask, Have we
an organic law? Or, are we at the mercy of a bare
majority, however obtained and however disposed ?
NORTHERN INDEPENDENT. 247

If a simple Conference resolution is law, we are with-
out a constitution, and in that respect worse off than
a temperance society, or any other voluntary associa-
tion whatever. It will be conceded by all, that an
Annual Conference has no more right to make laws
than a quarterly: conference, and what would be
thought if a quarterly conference should pass a
series of resolutions, to be kept by all its members,
under pain of expulsion? Such a thing is unpreceden-
ted, and yet would be quite as legal as the penalties
threatened in the foregoing resolutions.

Are we then, says an objector, to endure the evils
complained of in the foregoing resolutions? Not
necessarily. There are other and milder remedies
than expulsion. But even if the General Conference
itself should make a rule prohibiting the things for-
bidden by these Genesee Conference resolutions, we
should doubt the utility of the measure. Some things
are better for being let alone. Not many ages’since,
the civil law undertook to regulate religious opinion ;
but after much blood had been shed to no purpose, it
was found that toleration was better than legislation.
So also in the operations of Methodism, it may per-
haps be found that forbearance is a better cure than
law.

It may be asin, and a sufficient cause for expulsion,
to treat an expelled minister as though he were yet a
minister, but our Church has nowhere affirmed the
fact. All the discipline says on the subject is, that
after an appeal has been had—mark that—a “ person
so expelled shall have no privilege of society or sac-
rament in our Church, without confession, coutrition,
and satisfactory reformation.” Here is the sum total
248 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

of the penalty to be inflicted, but none of it is fairly
due until the appeal has been heard, for until then
the trial is not ended—the case has not yet reached
the highest court. In civil law, the execution of the
sentence awaits the action of the appellate court.
We do not hang a man because the jury finds him
guilty, but wait till the final hearing of the case be-
fore the highest tribunal. Following this analogy,
a minister expelled by an Annual Conference, is at
most barely suspended, and though not eligible to an
appointment, may, nevertheless, not be wholly ex-
cluded from the courtesies due to ministerial charac-
ter. It was this view of the case, joined with a full
conviction of the injustice of the sentence, and modi-
fied also by the fact of the actual readmission of the
the expelled persons into the church, which induced
treatment of which complaint is here made. What
relates to invading other charges is too trivial for
notice.

These cases of expulsion will, no doubt, go up to
the ensuing General Conference, where they are quite
certain to be reversed, if they can be fairly heard.
Some have intimated that the expelled brethren must
be very cautious, and do all honor to the act of their
expulsion, by remaining silent until their appeal is
acted upon. Weare glad that even in this respect
there will be no little breadth to the question. If,
after their expulsion, they labor on—not as Metho-
dists, but as men—and do ,what good they can, it
ought not to be imputed to them as a crime, nor in
anywise prejudice their appeal. They still have what
God and nature gave them—the right to speak and
to act as men and as Christians ; Methodism takes
NORTHERN INDEPENDENT. 249

away only what it gave. The gift of life, the divine
commission, and the assurance of pardon, are all
from a higher source—a source over which Confer-
ences have no control. "a

We are convinced that a principle is involved in
the administration of that Conference which, if un-
checked, must be fatal to Methodism. Our Annual
Conferences would be converted into so many petty
tyrannies, alike injurious to men and offensive to
God. Majorities would become simply machines for
the extirpation of progressive sentiment.

Since the above was written, we have received the
following from Brother Roberts : ‘A resolution was
passed on Saturday against any of the members of
Conference acting as agent for the MNorthern Inde-
pendent.” Now, we all know what such a resolution
means in the Genesee Conference.—Every preacher
who dare act as agent for us, will be expelled for con-
tumacy. Thus the war has commenced openly. It
will now be known whether Methodists are slaves or
freemen.

We give the resolution relating to the Znde-
pendent, with the comments of one of the cor-
responding editors : 1

“¢ Resolved, That we disapprove of any member of
this Conference acting as agent for the Northern In-
dependent, or of writing for its columns, or in any
way giving 1t encouragement and support.’

The above is of ‘striking significance,’ from the
fact that the ‘regency ’ has recently put on General
Conference authority, and has become a law making
body. Every man who disobeys this resolution, does.
250 WHY ANOTHER SEUT.

so at the peril of his ministerial office, and his mem-
bership in the M. E. Church. It would be as clear a
case of ‘contumacy’ as any for which the brethren
were expelled, to whom we have referred. The “ re-
gency,” be it remembered, are legislators, jurors,
judges and executioners, and wo be to any member
of the Genesee Conference who shall be found in any
way giving it (the Independent) encouragement and
support.’

Dr. Hibbard is in raptures over the ‘ extraordinary
proceedings of Genesee Conference,’ and especially
over the passage of the resolution against the Jnde-
pendent. ‘That was manfully said,’ he exclaims, ‘it
ought to inspire all its sister Conferences,’ etc. It will
inspire with supreme disgust, all sister Conferences
who are not steeped to the lips in pro-slaveryism
and popery.”

Mr. Stiles, having attended the Methodist
Theological Seminary at Concord, and having
been about a good deal, one year stationed at
Cincinnati—had a more correct idea than the
other expelled preachers, of the justice to be
looked for at the General Conference. He
said it was of no use to take an appeal, and
he should not waste the time and endure the
strain of prosecuting an appeal; for he had
no hope whatever that the General Conference
would do justice in the matter.

He returned to Albion at the urgent call of
the people. Members of the church and congre-
gation, who ‘‘loved righteousness and hated
REV. L. STILES. 251

iniquity,” rallied around him. They were so
largely in the majority that, according ‘to
equity and according to the laws of the State,
they were entitled to the church property;
but they chose rather to give no cause of com-
plaint, and ‘‘took joyfully the spoiling of
their goods.” His friends gave up the church
property. With great expedition the people
put up a large edifice for him at Albion, where
he lived and labored, and died in the warm
affections of the’ community.

He assisted in forming the discipline of the
Free Methodist Church, and gave his hearty
efforts to secure the election of its first Gen-
eral Superintendent.

He was of too sensitive a nature to endure
the strain to which the indignities he suffered
at the hands of the Genesee Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church had subjected
him.

He was taken down with the typhoid fever,
and the disease assumed from the first a malig-
nant character. He was greatly blessed in his
soul when he was taken sick, and to this he °
often referred, even during the spells of de-
lirium. One evening, as we were watching
with him, he thought he was in the hands of a
secret society committee, and cried out,
‘‘Brother Roberts, I want you should go out
252 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

and tell the committee that Iam ready to die in
two hours, or one hour, or even this minute.
The Lord has greatly blessed me and I shall
go straight to glory.’’ The day before he died,
he said to the physician, “Artis RicHT.’’ He
grew gradually weaker, and, without a strug-
gle, on the 7th of May, 1863 his pure spirit
passed away to the realms of bliss.

His funeral was attended by an immense
congregation—the large church being filled,
and hundreds standing outside, unable to gain
admission.

The Rev. William Hosmer, his fellow hero
in the battle against all sin and wrong,
preached an eloquent, impressive sermon from
the text, ‘‘ He endured as seeing Him who is
invisible.—Heb. xi, 27.

The concluding part of his sermon was as
follows :

“ We have no words adequate to this occasion. He
who lies before us, stricken down 1n his prime, was a
living illustration of greatness produced by the pres-
ence of God. He did and dared, as none do or dare
who are not conscious of Divine aid. Eminent as he
was, in intellectual ability, and surpassingly eloquent
in his pulpit ministrations, he never forgot himself
for a moment, nor appeared other than the most
humble of men. Anxious only to do good, absorbed
with the duties of his high commission, and admon-
ished by the feebleness of his system, that his period
SHRMON BY REV. W. HOSMER. 253

of labor might be short, he gave the world an exam-
ple of self-abnegation and tireless industry worthy
of an apostle. When the Genesee Conference with-
drew its sanction from his ministry he felt no lack;
God was still with him and he asked no more.

Besides, the pressure which was upon him—the

‘woe is upon me if I preach not the Gospel’—was
much too great to admit of interruption from slight
causes. THis call was from above, and he well knew
that men could not revoke it. Following the apos-
tolic example, he preferred to obey God rather than
man. With others of his fellow laborers who had
been similarly maltreated, he entered at once upon
new church relations of such a character as promised
to help and not hinder his efforts for the salvation of
men. Here he soon found that the things which had
happened to him, ‘had fallen out rather unto the
furtherance of the Gospel.’ The Chief Shepherd and
Bishop of souls, instead of granting a discharge
from service, had done for him what had previously
been done for Luther and Wesley, namely, enlarged
his pastorate by removing the trammels of ecclesias-
tical authority.

How well, how successfully, how self-consumincly
he labored in the extended field thus providentially
opened, you all know. You know also that amid
the severe trials to which he was subjected, his re-
putation was stainless—not even the breath of malice
itself could soil a character so essentially pure. Mys-
terious indeed that we come to-day to lay in the
grave one so well prepared to live, one so rich in
gifts, so useful, we had almost said indispensable—to
the church and to his family. But the ways of God
254 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

are not the ways of man; and what we know not
now, we shall know hereafter. We must not com-
plain that his sun went down at noon—rather let us
glory that it sunk in the full splendor of meridian
brightness. That life which has afforded an oppor-
tunity to do and to suffer so much, can not be re-
garded as short, nor can that death which simply
opens the gate of heaven, be considered as prema-
ture.”

Charles D. Burlingham, at the time of his
expulsion, had been an effective preacher of
the Genesee Conference nineteen years. For
four years he had filled with acceptability the

office of presiding elder. He was a preacher —

of more than ordinary ability, original in his
style, clear in his reasonings, and happy in the
use of illustrations. He had labored beyond
his physical ability, and was left broken in
constitution, with a large, dependent family,
and no means for their support.

He was restored to the Conference by means
which showed the injustice of the M. E.
Church almost as forcibly as his expulsion.
He continued to preach for fifteen years, yet
never regained his former vigor and strength ;
but seemed a crushed, broken-hearted man.
He died in 1874.

William Cooley had been seventeen years a
diligent, faithful and acceptable preacher. He
isa quiet, peaceable, unoffending, upright man.

ca

BE
THE LAYMEN’S CONVENTION. 255

He isa clear, Scriptural, searching preacher,
and generally has had good revivals on the
charges on which he has labored.

He is now preaching in the Free Methodist
Church in Iowa.

Rev. J. A. Wells had been seven years a
successful preacher in the Genesee Conference.
He was a good, able preacher, studious in his
habits, entirely given up to the work of God, a
man of honest intention and unbending integ-
rity. He is now, we believe, pastor of the
Presbyterian church at Springville.

THE LayMEN’s ConveENTIoN held its second
annual session in the Baptist church, at
Albion, Nov. ist and 2d, 1859. Hon. Abner
I. Wood was chosen President ; George W.
Holmes, John Billings, Jonathan Handly, Ed-
ward P. Cox and 8. ©. Springer, Vice-presi-
dents; and 8. K. J. Chesbrough, Stephen 8.
Rice, Wm. Hart and Thomas Sully, Secreta-
ries.

The Convention said :

“When we met last year in Convention,we trusted
that the preachers, whose course was the cause of our
assembling, would be led to repentance and reformi::-
tion. But our hopes have been blasted. The Scrip-
ture is still true, which saith, that ‘evil men and se-
ducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and be-
ing deceived.’ :

That we have the right to take into consideration
256 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

the public acts of a public body to which we are in-
timately related, cannot be denied. That such con-
sideration has become our duty we are well satisfied.
Our Lord has given us the test, ‘By their fruits ye
shall know them.’ What has been the fruits for the
past year of the party in Conference, known as the
‘Buffalo Regency?” Have they been such as we
should expect from men of God? We are pained to
be obliged to bear testimony to the fact that some
occupying the placeof Methodist ministers have used
their influence, and bent their energies to put down
under the name of ‘ fanaticism,’ what we feel confi-
dent is the work of the Holy Spirit.

The course pursued by some of our preachers, in
expelling from the church, members in good stand-
ing, and high repute for their Christian character, be-
cause they attended our Convention in December
last,we look upon as cruel and oppressive, and it calls
for our most decided disapproval. What does the
right of private judgment amount to, if we can not
exercise it without bringing down on our heads these
ecclesiastical anathemas? To our brethren who have
been so used, we extend our cordial sympathy, and
we assure them that our confidence in them has not
diminished on account of their names being cast out
as evil for the Son of man’s sake. The action of the
majority, in expelling from the Conference and the
church, four able and devoted ministers, and locating
two others, upon the most frivolous pretexts, is so
at variance with the principles of justice and our holy
Christianity, as to cause minor offences to be agera-
vated, when they would otherwise be overlooked.
The charge against each was the convenient one of
LAYMEN'S CONVENTION. 257

‘contumacy.’ The specifications were in substance,
the receiving as ministers those who were expelled at.
the previous session of the Conference, and for
preaching in the bounds of other men’s charges.
Where in the Bible, or in the discipline, is ‘ contuma-
cy,’ spoken of asacrime? It is a charge generally
resorted to for the purpose of oppression. Let what-
ever the dominant power in the church may be
pleased to call ‘ contumacy’ be treated as a crime, re-
ligious liberty is at an end. There is not an honest
man in the Conference but may be expelled for ‘ con-
tumacy,’ whenever, by any means, a majority can be
obtained against him. There is not a member of the
M. E. Church, who acts from his own convictions of
right, but may be excommunicated for “ contumacy,”
whenever his preacher is disposed to do so. Let some
mandate be issued that cannot in conscience be obey-
ed, and the guilt of contumacy is incurred. The
Regency party not only expelled devoted servants of
God for contumacy, but did it under the most aggra-
vated circumstances. An Annual Conference poss-
esses no power to make laws. A resolution with a
penalty affixed for its violation, is to all intents and
purposes a law. The Regency passed resolutions at
the last session of the Conference, and then tried and
expelled men for violating them months before they
had an existence! That any honest man can enter-
. tain any respect for such judicial action is utterly im-
possible. Thespecifications were in keeping with the
charge. The first was for recognizing as ministers,
the expelled members of the Conference. The charge
was not for recognizing them as Methodist ministers;
for the expelled brethren did not claim to have au-
258 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

thority from the church. They acted simply by vir-

. tue of their commission from God. If a man believes
he is called of God to preach, and God owns and
blesses his labors, has he not the right thus to warn
sinners to flee the wrath to come? At the second
Conference held by Wesley, it was asked, ‘ Is not the
will of our governors a law? The answer was em-
phatic—‘ no—not of any governors, temporal or spir-
itual. Therefore if any Bishop wills that I should
not preach the Gospel, his will is no law tome. But
what if he produced a law against your preaching ?
I am to obey God rather than man.’ This is the lan-
guage of the founder of Methodism. How it
rebukes the arrogant, popish assumptions of some of
the pretended followers of Wesley.

The second specification was for preaching in other
men’s charges without their consent.

Where is there anything wrong in this ?—What
precept of the Bible, what rule of the discipline is
violated? Does it not evidence the faithful minister
of Jesus, burning with love for souls, rather than the
criminal deserving the highest censure of the church?
Methodist ministers are bound by their obligations to
serve the charges to which they are appointed by the
Conference: but they do not promise that they will not
preach fany where else. On the contrary, the com-
mission from Christ reads, ‘Go ye into all the world
and preach the Gospel to every creature.’ The dis-
cipline says, ‘You have nothing to do but to save
souls; therefore, spend and be spent in this work;
and go always, not only to those who want you, but to
those who wunt you most. Observe, it is not your
business only to preach so many times, and to take
\

LAYMEN'’S CONVENTION. 259

care of this or that society, but to save as many as
you can; to bring as many sinners as you can to
repentance, and with all your power to build them
up in that holiness, without which they cannot see
the Lord.’ On this ground, were these men of God,
as we esteem them, Revs. Loren Stiles, Jr., John A.
Wells, Wm. Cooley, and Charles D. Burlingham
excommunicated by the Regency party of the Gene-
see Conference at its last session. Fidelity to God
will not allow us to quietly acquiesce in such deci-
sions. It is urged that we must respect the action of
the church. But what is the church? Our 13th
article of religion says, ‘The visible church of God
is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure
word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly
administered.” Zhe ministers then are not ‘the
church.’ If ministers wish to have their acts respect-
ed, they must, like other men, perform respectable
actions.

These repeated acts of expulsions, wrong as they
are in themselves, deserve the stronger condemnation~
from the fact, scarcely attempted to be disguised,
that rum ossect is to prevent the work of holiness
from spreading among us—to put down the life and
power of godliness in our churches, and to inaugu-
rate in tis stead the peaceable reign of a cold and
heartless formalism.—in short, to do away with what
has always been a distinctive feature of Methodism.
If the work which the men who were expelled both
this year and last, have labored, and not without suc-
cess to promote, be ‘ fanaticism,’ then has Methodism
from the beginning been ‘fanaticism.’ Our attach-
ment to Methodism was never stronger than it is at
260 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

present, and our sympathy and our means shall be
given to the men who toil and suffer to promote it.
We can not abandon, at the bidding of a majority,
the doctrines of Methodism, and the men who defend
them.

The course of the Regency in shielding members
of their faction, create the suspicion that a stronger
motive than any referred to lies at the foundation of
their remarkable action,—the principle of self preser-
vation. It may be that the guilty, to prevent expos-
ure, deem it necessary to expel the innocent. Their
refusal to entertain charges; and their prompt acquittal
of one of their leaders, though clearly proved guilty
of a crime sufficient to exclude him from heaven,
look strongly in that direction. The recent public
exposure in another Conference of one of the found-
ers of the Regency party, who took a transfer, to
escape from well founded suspicion, shows how a
minister may pursue, unconvicted, a career of guilt
for years, when ‘ shielded’ by secret society influen-
ces, and willing to be the servile tool of the majority.
—For the evils complained of we see no other rem-
edy within our reach, than the one we adopted last
year:—WITHHOLD supplies. To show that such a
remedy is ‘constitutional’ and ‘loyal,’ we have only
to refer to the ‘proceedings’ of the Convention of
last year and to the authorities therein qnoted.”

The Convention unanimously passed _res-
olutions expressing the utmost confidence in
the preachers who had been expelled, assuring
them of the sympathy of the people, and
encouraging them to ‘‘continue to labor for
LAYMEN'’S CONVENTION. 261

the promotion of the work of God and the sal-
vation of souls, and added:

“That, in order to keep our people who are
being oppressed by the misrule of the dominant
faction in the Genesee Conference from being scat-
tered, and finally lost to our church, we recommend
our brethren in the ministry to gather our people into
Bands, and to encourage them to union of action and
effort in the work of the Lord.”

A committee was also appointed to prepare
a memorial to the General Conference asking
for a correction of the abuses complained of
in the action of the Genesee Conference.

A few weeks after this LAYMEN’S CONVEN-
TION was held, a letter was circulated among
the so-called ‘‘Regency’’ preachers, encou-
raging them in their policy. To the copy
that has been furnished us,no name is append-
ed; but the author of the original is under-
stood to be no less a personage than a Bishop.
We do not assume to know, but we give a copy
of the letter, and the reader can form his own
judgment in the case. To us it certainly reads
as if written by one who felt that he had a
right to speak with authority.

“ January 3, 1860.
Drax Broruer :
A happy New Yearto you. * * My advice is
decided that you should remove every leader, who
262 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

takes part in the Albion Convention, or any of a
similar character. Do not be deterred by threats of
difficulty, or of leaving the church. Better have no
members than disorderly ones. The world is wide.
Sinners are numerous. We will go with the Gospel
to them, and God will give us fruit. I repeat then,
by all means, stand firmly by the action of the
church. Remove every leader who arrays himself
against it, no matter what may be his énfluence, or
how great his usefulness, or how it may affect your
congregation, or how it will result in the end.

As to private members, I would do nothing while
they do not engage in opposition meetings. But if
they get up and sustain meetings for expelled preach-
ers, or resist church action, J would cite them to
trial, after proper admonition.

Let me again assure you, that the safety of the
church is in straight forward action.”

Yours truly,
CHAPTER XII.
EXPULSION BY THE WHOLESALE.

At the Brockport Conference the most vig-
orous measures to exterminate ‘‘ Nazaritism ”’
from the Conference, were adopted.

Thomas Carlton especially distinguished him-
self for the violence of his denunciations.
“«These Nazarites,’’ he exclaimed, “are like
Canada thistles, you cut one down and ten
will spring up in its place.’ But we will let
Rev. C. D. Burlingham describe his speech : |

“ One* of their leading champions, whose efficiency
in originating and perpetuating the Conference diffi-
culties is unsurpassed, and from whose official posi-
tion, decency if not dignity might be expected, while
making. a speech, in the ‘height of his argument,’
exclaimed with a perfect yell, that he ‘had rather
meet a thousand devils than three Nazarites’—that is
to say, in the estimation of this minister of Jesus,
and General Conference official, one Nazarite is worse
than three hundred and thirty-three and one third
devils! But this was said in defence of the church!
‘Will not such zeal in her behalf be duly appreciated,
and coveted honors be conferred accordingly? All
such eloquence was met by the minority, as it should
have been, by silent contempt.

 

*Outline History, page 52.
264 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

The chair very seldom saw proper to rebuke this
kind of declamation.”

Inspired by such exhortations, and by the ex-
ample of the Conference,and by the official letter,
(published at the close of the last chapter), the
Regency preachers went to their appointments
determined to root out from the societies the
uncompromising adherents of old-fashioned
Methodism. We can give but a faint idea of
their operations.

On Kendall circuit was a number of Metho-
dist families of more than ordinary intelli-
gence. They had a clear idea of the doctrines
and usages of Methodism. The doctrine of
holiness had been taught and enforced, and
many professed to enjoy the blessing, and hon-
ored their profession by their lives. A preacher
was sent from the Brockport Conference to this
circuit to bring them to subjection. He had
many difficulties to encounter, but he faced
them with a perseverance worthy of a better
cause. Nearly all the officials and the leading
members were opposed to the party to which
he had gone over, and were in sympathy with
the preachers who had been unjustly. expelled.

His first move was to get control of the
quarterly conference. This is easily done in
the M. E. Church in which the quarterly con
ference is substantially the creation of the
MODE OF EXPULSION. 265

preacher, who appoints all the leaders, nomin-
ates the stewards, and licenses the exhorters,
by whom it is mainly composed. He put in
new leaders, and, in order to get more leaders
than there were other members of the quarter-
ly conference, he appointed two leaders to
one class. When the quarterly conference
came together, he moved that the board of
stewards be declared vacant. By the aid of
his leaders he easily carried it. He then put
in his own followers as stewards.

Then the preacher moved that several lead-
ing members who were known to stand op-
posed to the crushing-out policy ofthe Confer-
ence be declared withdrawn. This was also car-
ried. In vain did these members protest that
they did not withdraw, and did not intend to.
The preacher read them out ‘ withdrawn.”
Henceforth they were denied the privileges ‘of
members in the Methodist Episcopal Church!
This was an improvement on the farce of going
through the form of a trial. What need of
witnesses when the verdict is made up before-
hand without the slightest regard to testimony /
Why calla jury for the sole purpose of pro-
nouncing guilty whoever the judge arraigns ?!
So, even the forms of justice were dispensed
with, and by the most bare-faced despotism
many were turned out of churches of which
266 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

they had been the pioneers ; and from houses
of worship which their own money had built.

At East Otto, Rev. A. L. Chapin, expelled
from the church, Dewey Tefft, Niles Tefft, E. S.
Woodruff and Otis Bacon, an exhorter. Mr.
Chapin was one of the most violent adherents
of the ‘‘Regency party.’? His admission to
the Conference had been opposed by the sal-
vation preachers on the ground that, though
he had ability, he lacked religion. His zeal,
fired by gratitude and revenge, knew no
bounds. He called together the official mem-
bers of the circuit. He made a flaming ad-
dress—told them that the discipline knows no
members who would not pay ; and with their
aid he made out an assessment of what each
one should pay, or meet the penalty of exclu-
sion from the church. He assured them very
emphatically, that if any one divulged the
doings of that meeting, it would be consid-
ered just cause for expulsion.

He appointed a time when he would meet
the class in the Tefft neighborhood. They
came together at the time appointed. ;

They had a plain talk all around. The
Teffts were men of means, intelligence and
courage. They had come to the country when
it was a wilderness—had been familiar with
wild beasts, and were not to be frightened by
TRIALS AT HAST OTTO. 267

the ravings of a preacher into acting contrary
to their convictions. The whole class refused
to support the preacher, except upon his
“contrition, confession and proper amend-
ment.”’

Mr. Chapin called another official meeting.
In it, the first thing he did was to demand who
had published the doings of their last official
meeting. Mr Bacon said he did not know who
had published the proceedings, but he himself
had told one man what was done.

Mr. Chapin, greatly enraged, shook his fist
in his face, and said with great force, repeat-
edly, ‘‘ Who ever heard the like?” Mr. Bacon
replied, ‘‘I did not know as an official meeting
was a secret association, but if it is, the
sooner you remove me from it the better it
will be for you.”

In the official meeting, it was decided to
bring: the refractory members to trial.

The work of expulsion was begun soon
after. To the charges which had been usually |
made against the so called ‘‘ Nazarites’’ last
year, was added that of ‘‘ taking and circula-
ting the Worthern Independent”. In Mr. Ba-
con’s case was added a specification of words
used in debate in the official meeting—and of
preaching in a remote neighborhood when the
preacher forbade him. Mr. Chapin wished to
268 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

punish the people of that neighborhood for
‘“contumacy,’”’ by cutting them off from all
religious privileges. But Mr. Bacon would
not assist him in his work of proscription.

During the trial of Dewey Tefft, Mr. Chapin was
so arrogant and overbearing that the manhood of one
who came to the trial as one of his adherents, revolted.
Rising to his feet greatly excited, in thundering tones,
Mr. Scott demanded, addressing Mr. Chapin :

“ Who are you ?”

“The grandson of Ethan Allen?” replied Chapin,
rising to his feet.

“ How mightily the race has degenerated,” replied
Scott. “ You may bea smart man, but you are not
smart enough to be judge, jury, prosecutor, and all,
in one case. Now take your proper place and keep it.
I want to see fair play.”

For a time the wildest excitement prevailed.

The result of these trials, like all the rest of this
class, being pre-determined, all who were tried were,
as a matter of course, turned out of the church.

Mr. Chapin in pronouncing sentence took care to
add that they were not expelled for any breach of
the rules of morality or religion—but for a “ violation
of our rules.”

At Asbury Church, near LeRoy, Rev. 8. M. Hop-
kins carried on the work of expulsion.

Against Mr. Cyrus Sperry, one of the most substan-
tial, upright of men, was prosecuted a long list of
charges and specifications, covering over two pages
of foolscap, taken from the proceedings of the Lay-
men’s Convention. He was expelled. Martin See-
SHORT MODE OF EXPULSION. 269

kins, Hiram Huested, and Sylvester Near—all reliable
men and Christians, were expelled on similar char-
ges. Mr. Seekins was at work in his harvest field
when he was summoned before the church tribunal to
answer charges which were then first presented to

im. He asked a delay of one hour. This was re-
fused. The next year Rev. J. B. Lankton went to
this circuit, and finished up the work. Mrs. Olive
Sperry was expelled on a charge of “Contempt and
disobedience to the order and discipline of the M.
E. Church, by attending, and being interested in
‘favor of a seditious meeting, on the 9th of August
Jast at the meeting house, and voting for some or all
‘of the resolutions there passed, which were violently
rebellious against the discipline and government of
the M. E. Church.” The resolutions were to the
effect that they would, exercise their right as Metho-
dists, of withholding support from those who, as they
believed, had showed themselves unworthy of sup-
port.

Mr. Lankton expelled some fourteen or fifteen on
substantially the same charges.

On the Tonawanda and Ridgeville circuit, Rev. B.
F. McNeal adopted the policy which had proved so
successful in other places. He removed John Corliss
and Anthony Ames, who had been class leaders for
years, from their office. At the next quarterly con-
ference, the presiding elder, Rev. P. Woodworth, de-
cided that Tristram Corliss, superintendent of the
sabbath school at Pendleton, was not a member of
the official board, because Tonawanda was the first
society. They then created a board of stewards com-
posed of those who would vote as the preacher dicta-
270 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

ted. On the following Sunday, the Rev. Mr. Mc-
Neal without their consent, and without any notice
that he intended to do it, read out as withdrawn,
Anthony Ames and John Corliss, leaders ; Tristram
Corliss, Sabbath school superintendent ; W.R.Hecox,
J. Hunt and Henry Kayner, stewards,and their wives;
M. Folger and wife, and Mrs. Henry Pickard.

On the Belfast circuit, Rev. J. W. Reddy, who had
been forced to locate at the Brockport Conference,
was tried and expelled on a charge of evil speaking,
in saying that the Genesee Conference had expelled
four of its holiest members for nothing, and also for
disobedience to the order and discipline of the church,
in holding separate religious meetings at the same
time of the regular meetings in the church.

When Brother Reddy was labored with on the
charges, he said that if he said these men were ex-
pelled by Conference for “nothing,” he did not mean
to say so; that the meaning he wished to convey was,
that they were expelled for no crime, but for stand-
ing up for the truth and for earnest Christianity.

On the 12th of March, the charges were stated to
Brother Reddy, with the specifications, verbally ;
and he was cited to trial in the same way, at the
quarterly conference to be held the ensuing Saturday.
He then asked fora written copy of the charges and
specifications, that he might be able to prepare his
defence. This was denied him by the preacher in
charge, who said.that he could and would bring him
to trial, without any written charges. After the re-
ligious services of the quarterly meeting on Saturday,
a copy of the charges was handed to Brother Reddy,
and the Conference immediately met, (not in the
SHORT MODE OF EXPULSION. 271

church, a8 usual, but in the parlor of the parsonage,
which was barely sufficient to admit the oficial mem-
bers, to the exclusion of the private members, with
one exception,) and within half an hour proceeded to
the trial. Before this, however, that the proceed-
ings might be harmonious, four  class-leaders,
and one steward, who were supposed to have some
sympathy with the accused, were removed.

Brother Reddy was arraigned, and pleading not
‘guilty, asked for an adjournment of the case, in or-
der that he might have time to secure counsel, and
prepare his defence. This request was refused. The
form of trial was then gone through with, ‘the ac-
cused found guilty, condemned, and expelled.

There were still left in the Genesee Confer-
ence some who would not acknowledge the
authority of the test resolutions. They were
left without being called on to avow their de-
cision, in the hope that the fate of others would
frighten them into submission. The desired
effect was not produced inall. In the winter
of 1860—after it was demonstrated that the
General Conference would afford no relief—
Rev. Asa Abell and Rev. C. D. Brooks and
Rev. A. F. Curry, withdrew from the Genesee
Conference and from the M. E. Church.

At tne Conference held at Albion, in 1861,
complaints were made against Rev. Amos
Hard for affiliating with those who had been
expelled and those who had withdrawn. His
272 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

health was not sufficient to enable him to take
the responsibility of a circuit, but he was able
to preach once on the Sabbath; and he felt
deeply for the salvation of souls and was anx-
ious to do all he could to induce and help his
fellow-men to prepare for heaven. He preached
holiness—non-conformity to the world, and
hence was not invited by the members of his
Conference to preach but three times during the
year. So he obeyed the discipline, and went
to those who wanted him. When arraigned
before the Conference, his friend, Rev. H.
Hornsby, modestly ventured afew words in his
behalf. The case of Mr. Hard was left with a
committee to be investigated during the year ;
and attention was directed to his friend who
was so ‘“‘contumacious’’ as to interpose in his
' defense. .

‘*You are in the same boat with this man!”
exclaimed Rev. J. B. Wentworth, ‘‘and we
will attend to you, and though your character
has been passed it shall be reconsidered.

A committee consisting of A. P. Ripley, J.
B. Wentworth and A. L. Backus, was, on his
motion, appointed to investigate the case of
Rev. H. Hornsby.

The committee in his case reported that at different

times during the year he had attended irregular meet-
ings, and officiated with expelled members of the M.
CASH OF REV. H HORNSBY. 273.

E. Church, and closed with the following resolution,
viz.:

“That he make open and frank confession of his
faults in the matters above enumerated, and that he
promise to conform in his conduct and administration
in the future, to the resolutions adopted at the
Brockport Conference.”

The Conference accepted the report and adopted
the resolution. This report was presented in the fore-
noon, and he was called upon to answer to the reso-
lutions. “He told the Conference that he opposed the
passage of the resolutions at Brockport, and refused
to submit to them at that time, and was of the same
mind now. Conference adjourned at noon, and in the
afternoon session, his case had the floor. C. D. Bur-
lingham and §. C. Church tried to get the matter dis-
missed, but no! Dr. Chamberlayne, T. Carlton and
J. B. Wentworth said no! It was submission, ab-
ject submission, such as no man would give, much
less a Christian minister. He told them from the be-
ginning he should not promise to be governed by the
resolutions, as he would not bend. <A. D. Wilbor
came to him and said, “ Now, Bro. H., you seem de.
termined to make the Conference come to your terms,
why not say yes, and it will be all right.”

It was after five in the afternoon when his case was
sent to the committee for trial. At seven Pp. mM. that
evening, T. Carlton was appointed prosecutor. Mr.
Hornsby asked for the charges, if he was to be tried.
Thomes Carlton replied, “They will be furnished in
time.” Mr. Hornsby went at the appointed time.
Carlton came at 7:20, and gave him the Bill of Char-
ges. “Contumacy. In violating a series of reso-
274 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

lutions.” Fourth specification was “refusing to con-
fess to hissin in contemning the advice of the Con-
ference in his case.” He asked to lovate. “No,” says
K. D. Nettleton, “if Mr. Hornsby should locate, he
would be loose, and cause us more trouble than he
has already. I think we had better go on with the
case.” Te asked to be permitted to withdraw. The
request was granted. The Conference did not know
what the charges were upon which he was to be
tried. It might infer what they would be, but they
were never read in Conference. Neither did he have
any time to prepare for trial. Common decency was
trampled upon. Some of them seemed in a hurry to
get him out. Some said, “He is a Nazarite all over,
and may as well go now as any time.”

In Illinois the work began in a similar man-

ner.

In the fall of 1855, Rev. D. H. Sherman was ap-
pointed to St. Charles. He found the church in a
low state. During the winter, he held several servi-
ces, with some success. At length the work came to
a dead stand. In his extremity he wrote to Dr.
Redfield, with whom he was acquainted, who was
then laboring in Rochester, N. Y. Brother Red-
field declined coming, unless he was invited
by the official board. The board passed a res-
olution inviting him to come. He came in April
and labored until the first of June. Much good was
done. Many were converted and sanctified. Some
awful cases of iniquity were brought to light
by his faithful dealing, such as theft, drunkenness
and adultery. The following two years, Rev. Charles
French was pastor. He invited Brother Redfield to
AT 8ST. CHARLES, ILLS. 275

assist him several times, but such was the unwilling.
ness of a few prominent members to come to the
light, and help along the work, that the Doctor
thought nothing could be done, and declined. Broth-
er French was followed by Rev. 8. G. Havermale.
Such seemed to be the spirit of the man, that the
Doctor’s friends thought the two could work well
together. A petition, signed by a large majority of
the church, was sent to the official board,asking that
Brother Redfield be invited to come and hold a meet-
ing. It was granted by a fair majority. But such
was the opposition of the minority, that the matter
was left with the pastor. He decided not to invite
him, and informed Brother Redfield so by a line
through the post office. In the fall of 1859, Rev. D.
C. Howard was appointed to the charge. There
seemed to be such a desire to hear Brother Redfield
‘preach, as he was about to leave for the South, not
only by a large*majority of the church, but by the
people outside, that Elisha Foot and J. M. Laughlin
called on the pastor and requested him to invite the
Doctor to preach. This the pastor refused. The
Baptist people were at this time without preaching,
and one of the Doctor’s friends suggested to them to
invite him to fill their pulpit the following Sunday.
This was done and the Doctor preached to a crowded
house. Arrangements were made for him to preach
the following Sunday, During the week, some influ-
ences led the Baptist people to withdraw their invita-’
tion, and the Universalists offered their church. As
it was now too late to withdraw the Doctor’s appoint-
ment, that offer was accepted, and the Doctor
preached in their church. On Monday Mr. Howard
276 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

appointed a committee to wait on the leading mem-
bers of his church who went to hear the Doctor
preach. This committee informed them that it was
necessary to confess that they had done wrong, and
to pledge themselves to do so no more. If they
would not do this they could have their choice of two
things: First, take letters in good standing from
the church. Second, be expelled.

The persons labored with did not feel that they
‘had done wrong, and did not wish to remove from the
church. That day Mr. Howard went, it was sup-
posed, to Evanston to counsel with Bishop Simp-
son. On his return, he reported that the Bish-
op’s opinion was that the official board was compe-
tent to declare those withdrawn who had been to
hear Doctor Redfield preach. Consequently fourteen
were declared withdrawn by the official board Wed-
nesday evening—one of whom was not a member of
the church, and never had been, as the list of mem-
bership would have shown. This was Sister Monroe,
now dead. Five of the remaining thirteen were
mere members of the board of trustees of nine.

Doctor Redfield preached on Monday and Tuesday
evenings, with great power, and several were convert-
ted. When he saw the trouble that was to ensue, he
ceased, and the following week started for the South.

On Thursday evening these “ withdrawn ” persons
were in their usual places at the church prayer meet-
ing, but were not allowed by the pastor to take part
in the exercises. At the close of the meeting they
were read out of the church. About fifty more asked
for letters, but were offered letters of withdrawal
which they refused. Hoping that time would make
AT ST. CHARLES, ILL. 277

all things right, these persons the following week
rented a small hall asa temporary place of meeting.
J. G. Terrill, a local preacher from Elgin, visited
them at this juncture, and was invited to preach for
them. He consented. A revival broke out, in which
many of the hardest in the community were convert-
ed. It was found necessary to have some kind of an
organization for the care of these, and a band was
formed by adopting the general rules of the M. E.
Church, with the exception of the one on slavery.
In the meantime, the old society elected five trustees
in the place of the ones declared withdrawn, and that
in violation of the statutes of the State, which make
no provision for vacancies in that manner. Besides,
these persons so declared withdrawn, were the old,
tried members of the church, men who had been the
principal means of building up the church property.

April 27th, 1860, these brethren were convinced
against their hopes that there was no redress for
their grievances, and organized themselves into an in-
dependent church, with the name of Free Methodist.
At this time they numbered 112 members. The five
trustees declared “withdrawn” by the official board
of the old church, were elected trustees of the new.

‘ They were Elisha Foote, John M. Sangle, Ira D. Ty-
ler, Warren Tyler and Ephraim Collar.

A friend, stilla member of the old society, took the
-question to the Conference(the Rock River)in the fall.
The Conference approved of the act of Mr. Howard,
but declared against any such thing being done in
the future.

Near Marengo, Ill, the entire Bishop family, con-
.sisting of five persons, were expelled for “ neglecting
278 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

the public worship of God at the Franklinville
church, where they belonged.” They went to Ma-
rengo to hear Dr. Redfield, and labored in revival
meetings at school houses in the region around. If
their neglect had been from worldly motives, no
notice would have been taken of it; but as they gave
their money and influence—not to fight holiness—
but to promote it, they were expelled from the
church.
CHAPTER XIII.
* THE APPEALS.

In the Methodist Episcopal Church, the
General Conference is the Court of Appeals,
in the case of ministers.

Of the General Conference held in 1860,
large expectations were entertained. It was
not doubted by the people at large but that
justice would be done in the séveral appeals
that: had been made for their decision. At first,
everything looked favorable. Fifteen hundred
members had petitioned them to give to the
Genesee Conference difficulties a fair, full, and
impartial investigation,and to apply such rem-
edies as in their wisdom they might judge right
and proper. When these petitions were pre-
sented, the delegates from the Genesee Confer-
‘ence professed to desire a rigid examination
into all their acts.

‘“We have done right,”’ said Rev. James M.
Fuller, ‘‘and are not afraid to have our con-
duct looked into. We want the troubles
probed to the bottom.’’ At the close of his
speech he moved that the petitions be referred
to a special committee of nine, to be appointed
by the chair!
280 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

As it was apparent that the object of this
motion was to prevent an impartial scrutiny
into Genesee Conference affairs, after an ani-
mated discussion it was voted down, and the
matter was referred to a special committee, to
be composed of one from each Conference, each
delegation to select its own member. The
committee was appointed, and the petitions
and memorials were referred to it. All felt
that the committee was an able and impartial
one, and confidence was strong that justice
would be done at last.

A few days after this committee was ap-
pointed, the Rev. William Reddy offered a
resolution authorizing this committee to inves-
tigate fully the nature and origin of the Gen-
esee Conference difficulties, giving them access
to all the official papers, with power to avail
themselves of any reliable information, at
their discretion.

This resolution was stoutly opposed by the
delegates from the Genesee Conference. James
M. Fuller denied the power of the General
Conference to overhaul the papers of the Gen-
esee Conference, or to appoint special commit-
tees to pry into their proceedings. His Con-
‘ference ‘‘ would not submit, unless compelled
to it, to any star-chamber investigations !”’
His tone was exactly the opposite of that which
BUFFALO GENERAL CONFERENCE. 281

he had assumed a few days before, when he
doubtless expected to get a committee of a
different complexion. He moved that the spe-
cial committee be discharged! He said that in
politics he was a state’s rights man, and in re-
ligious matters, he was a Conference rights
man.

Rev. Henry Slicer of the Baltimore Confer-
ence, supported Mr. Fuller’s motion, in a vio-
lent speech,of the plantation style. He talked
about ‘‘star-chamber’’ proceedings, and main-
tained the right of Genesee Conference to be
let alone. F. G. Hibbard, W. H. Goodwin,
W. Cooper of the Philadelphia Conference,
and G. Hildt, of East Baltimore, spoke in the
same strain.

- Dr. Peck moved the previous question.
Debate was cut off, and the committee dis-
charged !

It was evident to the dullest, that in the in-
terval since this special committee was ap-
pointed, powerful influences had been secretly
at work among the delegates, in favor of the
controlling party in the Genesee Conference.
Suspicions of corrupt combinations were
aroused in the minds of many. The memorials
and petitions which had been referred to this
special committee, were referred to the com-
mittee on Itinerancy—a committee which had
282 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

all the routine business to do that it could well
attend to; and it is doubtful if the chief me-
morial was even read. Nothing that could be
called an investigation was had,and the matter
was given the go-by,as was doubtless intended.

The action of the General Conference in an
appeal case that came before it, from one of
the Ohio Conferences, weakened still further,
confidence in its integrity, as a body. A mem-
ber of that Conference had been expelled, the
daily papers said, for licentious conduct with
nine young ladies of his congregation. When
a knowledge of his guilt came before the pub-
lic, he left that part of the state, and went
into business. His presiding elder wrote to
him to come back and stand a trial. He did
so. Both were high Masons. This presiding
elder was elected a delegate, we believe. ‘Such
was the reputation of this expelled preacher
for his profligate manners, that though he had
formerly been stationed in Buffalo, it was said
that not a Methodist family was willing to re-
ceive him. His appeal was heard, and he was
promptly restored !

Meeting Brother Purdy soon after this decis-
ion was announced, we said to him, ‘‘There is
hope for us. A W. has been restored.’’

‘“O!” said he, in his peculiar way, ‘“‘ That
won’t help your cases any. A: W. has been
COURT OF APPEAINS. 283

loyal! He has not even had family prayer or
asked a blessing since he was turned out. He
has been loyal! ”’

We endeavored to have our appeals come be-
fore the Conference as a body. We knew that
in the selection of a committee, our opponents
would have every advantage. They knew how
the members in general stood affected in rela-
tion to the issues that were between us. We
did not.

A Court of Appeals was organized. It con-
sisted of one delegate from each Conference,
selected by the respective delegations. The
right of challenge for cause was awarded to
both parties. At least two-thirds of the whole
must hear each case, a majority of whom
should decide it. Their decision in all matters
coming before them was to have the same force
as the decision of the General Conference, as a
body.

Before this tribunal our appeal cases were
presented.

My first case, in which I appealed from the
decision of the Genesee Conference, reproving
me for saying, in my article entitled ‘‘ New
School Methodism,’ what I do not say, was
entertained. After hearing the documents read
and the case presented, the committee were
equally divided on the question of affirming the
284 WHY ANOTHER SEC?

decision of the General Conference! They
stood evenly balanced in judgment whether a
Methodist minister should, or should not, be
held responsible for the perversion which his
enemies might put upon his language! In civil
courts the Judge instructs the jury to give the
prisoner the benefit of a doubt. In this religious
court the Bishop decided that a failure to ac-
quit was a conviction, and therefore the sen-
tence of the Genesee Conference must stand
affirmed !

When the next appeal case came up, I began
' to exercise my right of challenging for cause,
members of the committee. Two were set aside.
Iwas not then allowed to challenge any farther,
though T assigned as the cause, that those ob-
jected to had published hostile articles against
me in the papers. My objections were over.
ruled. I have been credibly informed that it
was the evident unfairness of the committee
towards me in the outset that made one Bishop
vacate the chair, because he did not wish to be
a party tothe wrong. <A Bishop of strong pro-
slavery proclivities took his place.

Our opposers evidently felt that so great was
the lack of evidence to sustain the charges on
which they expelled us, that even this commit-
teecould not be depended upon to sustain their
verdict. Notwithstanding all their professions
BINAL APPEAL. ; 235

of a desire to have the action of the Genesee
Conference reviewed by the General Confer-
ence, they directed all their energies to prevent
the appeals from being entertained. They had
already secured the discharge of the special
committee appointed to investigate Genesee
Conference affairs. If now they could shut out
the appeals, their action would stand unex-
amined and unrebuked by the highest authori-
ty in the church. or every one that doeth
evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the
light, lest his deeds should be reproved—John
iii., 20.

The efforts at suppression were successful.

The majority voted not to entertain my ap-
peal from the verdict of the Genesee Confer-
ence, sentencing me to expulsion from the
church. Why the same committee should
hear my appeal from the sentence of reproof,
and, afew days later refuse to entertain my
appeal from the sentence of expulsion, remains
among the unsolved mysteries.

As their final decision was announced, I
said, ‘‘ I APPEAL To GoD AND THE PEOPLE.”’

As the appeal cases came up one after
another, the committee voted not to entertain
them, with the single exception of the appeal
of Mr. Burlingham.

Bishop Simpson, who took a lively interest
286 WHY ANOTHER SECT..

in these proceedings, assigns as the reason for
this action, ‘‘ As they had declined to recog-
nize the authority of the church, and had
‘continued to exercise their ministry and to
organize societies, the General Conference de-
clined to entertain the appeal.”

These statements are Nov TRUE. We had
not declined to recognize the authority of the
church. Our bringing our appeals was a rec-
ognition of its authority. So was also the
act of joining on probation. I do not knowa
single particular in which we failed of a pro-
per recognition of church authority.

We did not ‘‘ continue to exercise our min-.
istry.” We did not perform:a single function
peculiar to the minister of the Gospel. We
married none—we baptized none—we did not
administer or help administer the sacrament
of the Lord’s supper. We did no more than
the discipline of the M. E. Church says is
expected of all who have ‘‘a desire to flee
from the wrath to come, and to be saved from
their sins,”’—manifested that desire, as it says
we should, by ‘‘doing good’’ to the souls of
men, ‘‘ by instructing, reproving, or exhorting
all we have any intercourse with.” That was
all we did. Was the Bishop unwilling that
we should, when out of the church, make an
honest effort to save our souls /
A FREE-SEATED CHURCH. 287

In ore sense, we did not organize societies—
in another we did. In the sense of a local
church, connected witli, other local churches
we did not organize any. But we did organize
‘‘praying bands’’ after the model furnished in
‘the old discipline, and similar to the ‘ holiness
bands’’ now becoming somewhat common in
the M. E. Church.

At Buffalo, when we went there, there was a,
Free Methodist Episcopal Church in which the
seats were neither rented nor sold. It was located
on 13th street ; and was owned by Mr. Jesse
Ketchum, a Congregationalist, who freely
gave the use of it to the Methodists. It wasa
mission—feeble in numbers and influence. Mr.
Edward P. Cox, who was put in charge of the
building by Mr. Ketchum, invited us to hold
a meeting there one week day evening when
there was no appointment. We consented.
The presiding elder, and other preachers told
Mr. Cox that if he permitted us to speak
there, they would take away the preacher and
the missionary appropriation. Mr. Cox was
an Englishman, and was not to be driven in
that way. He said ‘‘they could do as they liked;
-the house would be open for Mr. Roberts at
the time.” They wereas good as their word.
As common humanity would dictate, I looked
after these deserted ones, held meetings in the
238 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

church, and many were saved. A free-seated
church was needed in Buffalo, and had we
been restored, the society would doubtless
have been taken back with us.

Mr. Stiles had formed a church at Albion,
but as he took no appeal he had a perfect right
to do it.

But even if Bishop Simpson’s statements were

_true, they would not constitute a valid reason
why our appeals should not be heard upon
their merits. We were only claiming the rights
that were solemnly promised us by the M. E.
Church in its book of discipline when we
united withit. In the very constitution of the
church is an article which says of the General
Conference :

THEY SHALL NOT DO AWAY THE PRIVILEGES
of our ministers or preachers of trial by a
committee and of an appeal.

This prohibition is general. It does not say
they shall not do it in some particular way, but
they shall not do it at all. It does not say they
shall not do it under some pretexts—but they
shall not do it under any pretext whatever.
They shall not do it by hostile enactments, or
by precedents, or by arbitrary refusals to hear
appeals. a

The only condition contained in the disci-
pline was in these words—‘‘ Provided, never-
CONSTITUTION VIOLATED. 289

theless, that in all the above mentioned cases
of trial and conviction, an appeal to the ensu-
ing General Conference shail be allowed if the
condemned person signifies his intention to ap-
peal, at the time of his condemnation, or at
any time thereafter when he is informed
thereof.’’ There is only one condition here ex-
pressed. No one claimed that this condi-
tion had not been met. If there is any mean-
ing in language then, a General Conference ad-
ministering these laws had no right to refuse to
allow an appeal. In doing. it, they violated,
in the interest of wrong, the plainly expressed
written constitution of the church.

This law did not give a General Conference
original jurisdiction over preachers. They had
no right to try us, but our appeal cases. The
question for them to decide was: Were those
men fairly tried according to the discipline ?

"Did the law and the facts justify the verdict of
the Genesee Conference in these several cases ?

If we had violated the laws of the church
after our expulsion, then the Genesee Confer-
ence could, if we were restored, try us for such
violation.

Nor should our appeals have been injured
by our joining the church again on probation.
A few years previous to these difficulties, the
Chautauqua Presbytery deposed a minister.
-290 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

He joined the Methodists; after awhile was
licensed, and preached among them several
years. The Presbytery afterwards becoming
satisfied of his innocence, restored him to his
ministerial standing, though he was at the
time an accredited minister of another denomi-
nation. They told him they wished, as far as
they could, to repair the wrong they had done
him, and he was at liberty to remain in which
ever church he chose. He went back to the
Presbyterians.

Concerning these appeal cases, the Rev.
William Hosmer wrote :

The General Conference assumes powers which
do not belong to it, when they make the right to have
an appeal heard depend upon anything the appellant
has done since the decision from which he appeals.

In doing this, they must first try the appellant upon
his general conduct since his trial from the decision
of which he appeals, in order to determine whether
his appeal shall be entertained or not! But the Dis-
cipline does not give the General Conference original
jurisdiction over any of the ministers except the Bish-
ops. They have no moreright than Judge Lynch has,
to try a preacher unless his case comes before them
on an appeal, and then they must be confined to the
testimony taken in the lower court.

If the conduct of an expelled preacher pending his
appeal, has not been correct, let him, if unjustly de-
posed, be restored, and then he is responsible to his
Conference for his actions while suspended. The
. APPEALS SHOULD BE HEARD. 291

General Conference is authorized to try appeal cases,
but not preachers, For them to undertake to do that,
is an unwarrantable and odious assumption of power.

What does the right of appeal amount to, if the se-
curity of its exercise depends upon the prejudice or
caprice of a majority of a committee !

The appeal of Mr. Roberts should have been
heard, becarise the majority was committed against
him BEFORE ANY COMPLAINT WAS MADE OR CHARGE
PREFERRED.

There is nothing guarded with greater jealousy by
‘the common law, than the impartiality of juries. <A
person put on tight before its tribunals, may challenge
all day “for cause.” Let it be shown that the jury
had, by any acts, committed themselves before the
‘tial, and the verdict would be set aside.

The necessity of an impartial jury is as great in ec-
clesiastical as in criminal trials—when character, as
when life is at stake. The credit of religion, as well
as the security of the individual, demands no less. A
verdict obtained by connivance, or by partisan ex-
-citement, is none the more to be respected because it
was rendered under religious forms, by men profess-
ing godliness.

It is well known that at the time of these trials,
the Genesee Conference was divided into two parties ;
—that this partisan feeling, which had existed for
years, was wrought up to the greatest intensity—that
at the Conference which instituted the first of these
trials, the party opposed to the appellant for the first
time became a majority, several of the opposite party
having been transferred to other Conferences—and
that it was by this accidental, excited and thorough-
292 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

ly partisan majority that Mr. Roberts was tried.
This being the case, and the trial resulting as it did,
if there ever was an instance where the corrective
agency of an appellate court was needed, that case
was the one under consideration.

If there is any analogy between an ecclesiastical
court and a civil court, then the necessity was even
greater than we have stated, and so far from not en-
tertaining the appeal, the court should have annulled
the previous trial, and sent the case back for a new
investigation, if a trial was judged to be necessary.
But, admitting the validity of the action of the court
below, we see not how it was possible for this appel-
late court to refuse to entertain the appeal. The
hearing of cases is not optional with such a court—
an appeal always lies if the party appealing gives due
notice of his intention, and is on hand to prosecute
his claims. Not to entertain an appeal is, therefore,
a palpable dereliction from duty; and, in this in-
stance, it was equivalent to saying that, so far as these
expelled brethren were concerned, there should be no
appellate court in the M. E. Church—thus practically
annihilating one of the most important branches of
our judiciary, and rendering it forever impossible to
correct the errors of the court below. Well might
the appellant stand aghast at such treatment, and
make his appeal to God and the people. The judi-
cial infatuation which has rendered it necessary to
transfer this and other like cases, from an earthly to
a heavenly tribunal, we deplore, but cannot help.
The deed is done, and, with all its appalling conse-
quences, the record must go up to God. We have
the satisfaction of knowing that we have not been
NEW TRIAL ORDERED. 293

awed by authority, nor terrified by threats, into si-
lence in the presence of such wrongs. The senseless;
shameless cry of “Nazaritism,” we fling back with the
hearty contempt which it merits. Those who indulge
in this low style of abuse, should remember that there
- people in the world who are not afraid of slang,
and who will not desert the innocent because malice,
for the accomplishment of its own purposes, heaps
upon them disparaging epithets. To defend the in-
jured should be regarded as a virtue, not as a crime ;
and whatever the meaning or the madness of perse-
cution may inflict, we had far rather share it with the
oppressed, than betray them to the clutches of a re-
lentless tyranny.”

The action of the General Conference, in the
case of Rev. C. D. Burlingham, was a still
greater insult to justice and to common sense.
His case was sent back for a new trial when
there was nothing to try ! But we prefer to give
the comments of the Worthern Independent on
the case :

“That the Court of Appeals, constituted by the
last General Conference, did not do its work so as to
secure either divine or human respect, is a conclusion
forced upon us by every view we have been able to
take of the subject. Gladly would we pass by these

judicial proceedings without further notice, if it were
allowable, but they are of too serious a character, and
will be found too far reaching in their consequences,
to admit of silent acquiescence. Ecclesiastical courts
are not famous for liberality and justice, but we be-
lieve the courts of Methodism have not generally
294 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

sunk to the level indicated by the trial of these ap-
peals.

First in order, was the case of Rev. C. D. Burling-
ham. He was expelled from the Genesee Conference,
and from the M. E.Church, for doing three things :

Ist. Admitting B. T. Roberts into the church on
trial.

2d. Licensing him to exhort.

3d. Officiating with expelled preachers at a general
quarterly meeting held in a Wesleyan church, at the
same time that his presiding elder was holding a reg-
ular quarterly meeting in the same charge, about
three miles distant. Mr. Burlingham admitted the
facts alleged, but pleaded other facts in justification.

These were the only offences with which Mr. Bur-
lingham was charged.

After his expulsion, he waited silently for the Gen-
eral Conference. He did not. preach, nor lecture, nor
exhort—did not attend meetings held by expelled
preachers—but did penance up to the session of the
General Conference. He should have been restored
on the ground of having expiated his guilt, if, he
were guilty of any ordinary offence, if on no other.
When his appeal came up, Mr. Fuller, who has been
chief prosecutor in all these trials, challenged several
of the committee who had manifested a desire to
have Genesee Conference matters fairly investigated.
Though the General Conference, in constituting the
committee, or Court of Appeals, had given to parties
the right to challenge for cause, yet Mr. Fuller, af-
ter the first instance, was not required to give cause,
but challenged as many as he chose, and they were set
REMARKABLE DECISION. 295

aside. He simply said of the challenged, that “he
considered them prejudiced.”

Mr. Olin, of the Oneida Conference, managed the
case for Mr. Burlingham with consummate tact, and

. great ability. His plea was a masterly effort, and
carried conviction to the minds,we believe, of all who
heard it, except the committee. They sent the case
back to the Genesee Conference for a new trial. This
we regard as a remarkable decision. Neither party
asked for it. We never heard before of a case being
remanded for a new trial, unless there was some al-
leged informality in the court below, or defect in the
record, or unless one or the other of the parties
claimed to have new testimony which could not be
introduced into the first trial. But nothing of the
kind was intimated in this case. There can be no
new testimony, for Mr. Burlingham admitted all the
facts with which he was charged.

Do these facts, mentioned above, constitute a crime,
for which an able minister, of spotless reputation, who
has served the church for over twenty years, devo-
ting the vigor of his manhood’s prime, in self sacrific-
ing efforts to promote her interests, should be
expelled? Then let the General Conference say so,
that all who henceforth enter the Methodist ministry,
may understand that they are expected to lay their
manhood in the dust, part with the right of private
judgment, and yield aservile,unquestioning obedience
to all the behests of their ecclesiastical superiors.

Was Mr. Burlingham, through party malignity,
treated unjustly ? Was he wrongfully deposed from
the ministry, and excluded from the church? Then
the General Conference should have restored him.
296 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

This was due to him ; it was due to outraged justice
—it was due to the M. E. Church, whose discipline,
confessedly more susceptible of abuse than that of
any other church in this country, has been used for
the purpose of inflicting ecclesiastical oppression
without a parallel, in the nineteenth century.

But the General Conference, through its committee,
or Court of Appeals, after gravely listening to the
testimony and pleadings, sent the case back fora
new trial, without a motion to that effect, from either
party. What, we ask, is there to try? There can
be no issue on the facts—these are admitted.

But Mr. Burlingham contends that these facts do
not constitute a crime for which he should be de-
posed from the ministry, and excluded from the
Church. :

The Genesee Conference has said that they do.
Here is the issue—who shall decide? The discipline
vests the power in the General Conference—the body
to try appeals. The case was properly brought before
them, and they have sent it back, for the Genesee
Conference to decide over again. What an absurd
decision! What an insult to Mr. Burlingham, and
to common sense! Suppose the views of law and
justice entertained by the Genesee Conference remain
unchanged, and the same sentence be again pro-
nounced against Mr. Burlingham, and he again ap-
peals. After waiting four years for another General
Conference, if he still survive, there will not only be
the same reason for sending the case back for a new
trial as now, but the additional one of precedent.
Thus, this mockery of justice may continue ad infin-
item.
CORRUPT COMBINATION. 207

This looks more like the tiger playing with the vic-
tim he intends to devour, than like a body of Chris-
tian ministers, bound by every consideration that can
influence to right action, to ‘judge righteous judg-
ment.’

Another fact is worthy of especial notice. Though
the decision in the case was not asked for in court by
either party, yet it is precisely what partisans of the
regency party of the Genesee Conference have been
endeavoring for months to persuade Mr. Burlingham
to consent to. These efforts were continued up to
the morning of the day on which the appeal was
heard. Yet neither in their pleadings, nor at any
time while the appeal was being heard, did the coun-
sel for the Conference signify their wish that the case
might be remanded for a new trial. At whose sug-
gestion was it done? When was the suggestion
made? Was there any collusion in the matter? It
is impossible for us to answer these questions. View
it in whatever light you may, the whole case has a
dark and suspicious aspect.

Perhaps some clue to an explanation of the strange
proceedings in relation to the Genesee Conference
appeal cases, may be found in the action had upon the
slavery question. ;

-The Genesee Conference has heretofore been one of*
the strongest anti-slavery Conferences in the connec-
tion. The proscribed party have, from the first, been
uncompromising in their hostility to slavery in the

_ Church and in the state.

The Genesee delegates to the late General Confer-
ence were once regarded as anti-slavery ; what. they
are now their votes will show. We asserted last

v
298 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

fall, that the Conference had become pro-slavery,
and gave as proof the fact, that while it condemned
this paper, it refused to take any action against sla-
very. The truth of our inference was denied by
some, but the recent course of their delegates has
made our words good. When the important question
was decided in the General Conference upona change
of constitution, so as to prohibit slave-holding in the
church, the delegates of the Genesee Conference vo-
ted against a change, and their vote turned the scale.
And when the Genesee Conference matters came up,
the border pro-slavery delegates voted solid with the
representatives of the majority of the Genesee Con-
Jerence. This may be all fair. It may be that men
who, four years ago took the stump to keep slavery
out of the territories, have suddenly become con-
vineed that it should be nestled and fostered in the
bosom of the church! We should like to know by
what arruments they were converted, and when it
was done! Was this a part of a scheme to keep
slaveholders inthe church? Did the border delegates
understand that if they voted as desired by the Gene-
see delegates, they would reciprocate the favor, and as-
sist them in their extremity? Or did this strange
coincidence come about by chance ?

How came the General Conference to take
such action? It seems incredible that so large
and respectable a body could be guilty of so
great injustice. We answer:

1. The charge of doing any specified wrong
is not met by claiming or conceding general re-

*
EYPLANATIONS. 299

spectability for the body which did it. The
Congress which passed the Fugitive Slave Law
was a highly respectable body. President Fill-
more, who signed it, was a highly respectable
man. Yet that law made every free man at
the North liable to become a slave-hunter or a
law-breaker.

2. This General Conference had in it a large
number of Masons and Oddfellows. When it
is known before hand that the Secret Society
question is to be made an issue, it is an easy
thing for those belonging to these societies in
the various Conferences of the M. E. Church
to send an unusually large proportion of. their
friends to a General Conference.

3. In the discipline of the M. E. Church are
important rules which the preachers not only
openly disregard, but teach the people to dis-
regard. On dress, their rule forbids ‘‘ the put-
ting on of gold and costly apparel;’’—in prac-
tice they generally put on both,—often beyond
their means,—and many preachers defend the
practice. In church building, the rule re-
quired them to be plain and cheap;—the prac-
tice was to build as expensively as credit,—and
means not unfrequently obtained by pew-
selling and church gambling, would permit.
The result of ‘holding the truth in unright- -
eousness’”’ is the demoralization of the con-
300 WHY ANOTHER SECY.

science. The law of present expediency comes
to be the rule of conduct. Policy takes the
‘place of conscience.

4. The General Conference at Buffalo was
held just before the breaking out of the civil
war. The Nation and the Church were greatly
agitated on the Slavery question. With many,

it was the great question before the General -

Conference of 1860. The Genesee Conference
had for years been classed as a radical aboli-
tionist Conference. The Baltimore Conference
was considered on the point of religious expe-
rience, committed to old-fashioned Methodism,
but was at the same time the champion of the

slave-holders in the M. E. Church. At the

General Conference at Buffalo, the delegates
from Baltimore and the delegates from Gene-
see, when these issues came up, talked and vo-
ted lovingly together. Herod and Pilate be-
came friends. Baltimore helped Genesee to
dispose of the ‘‘Nazarites;’’ and Genesee helped
Baltimore to substitute for the rule against slave-
holding, some good,but powerlessadvice. We
do not say there Was any bargain to this effect
—we have no proof of it—but we do not be-
lieve that at that late day the Genesee dele-
gates were really converted to pro-slavery doc-
trines. Nor do we believe that the border del-
egates were converted to the religious theories
AN ILLUSTRATION. 301

of the Genesee delegates. They still invite
Fay H. Purdy, who was called the ring-leader
of ‘‘the sect called Nazarites,’’ to labor in that
section.

The appeal cases were referred to a
committee. Thomas Carlton had visited the
Conferences as book agent, and was acquainted
with the delegates generally. That he could
exercise an influence in the selection of the
Committee of Appeals is easily seen. That
he would not scruple to do it is evident from
the, case mentioned by Dr. Bowen, in which
Thomas Carlton bore a prominent part, as
counsel for a so-called Regency preacher, ac-
cused by one of the members of the church of
gross, intentional dishonesty. Before the trial
commenced, Mr. Carlton had the parties agree
to abide by the decision of the arbitrators.
Each party was to choose two, and the four
were to choose the fifth. Mr. Carlton selected
two preachers ; the other party, two highly re-,
spectable laymen. They could not agree upon
the fifth. At length Mr. Carlton suddenly re-
membered that he had seen on the hotel regis-
ter, (it was at Niagara Falls), the name of a.
preacher from New York. He would help
them out. All agreed upon him. The case
was heard and the preachers gave a most un-
righteous verdict against the laymen.. This
302 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

Sith man was afterwards found out to be
Thomas Carlton’s brother-in-law, whom he
had brought there on purpose.

Of the truth of what is here affirmed there
can be no question. Yet, in that case there
was nothing like the inducement to unfairness
that there was in the cases appealed from the
decision of the Genesee Conference.

As touching the effect of the action of this
General Conference held at Buffalo on the sla-
very question, we quote from the American
Wesleyan, of March 27th, 1861:

“ OFFICIAL EXPOSITION OF LAW.

Tk the Baltimore Conference, recently in session, the
following questions were sroposed to Bishop Scott,
and gewered by him. We are glad that after
so much evasion as has filled up the history of the M.
E. Church upon the anti-slavery attitude of this body,
we are at last in possession of an official decision, too
plain to be misunderstood. Here are the points—
look at them! A slaveholder can be admitted a
member of the church, ordained, and hold slaves for
gain, and there is no discipline in the church by which
to arraign him, or object to him. Can gs be
more abborrently plain than this ?

The following questions were presented to thie chair,
and promptly answered :

1. Is there anything in. the discipline which, in
your judgment, would be a bar to the ordination of a
local preacher holding slaves? Answer—No.

2. Anything in the discipline which, in your judg-
_ REVIEW. 303

ment, would operate against the admission of a slave-
holder into the church ? Answer—No.

3. Anything in the discipline that would justify an
administrator in arraigning a slaveholder? Answer
—No. 3

4, Is there any process authorized in the discipline
by which a member can be brought to trial who holds
slaves for gain? Answer—I know of no such process.
CHAPTER XIV.
REVIEWS.

In this chapter we will notice some points in
Bishop Simpson’s article on ‘‘The Free Meth-
odists,’”? which we have not referred to in the
preceding pages; and also the article on
‘‘Nazaritism,” in Mr. Conable’s ‘History of
the Genesee Conference of the M. E. Church.

In Bishop Simpson’s article, the statements as we
have numbered them, from 1 to 11, and also num-
bers 13 and 15, we think have been, in the preceding
pages, clearly shown to be untrue.*

The Bishop says that the Free Methodists do not
admit any members, even on probation, “ without a

. confession of saving faith in Christ,” and adds, (12)

“The reason alleged by them is, that much of the
defection in other churches is due to the fact that
multitudes who have joined the church as inquirers,
have failed to pursue a strictly spiritual life.”

Where do the Free Methodists assign any such rea-
son for such action? They do not in their discipline.
‘They never have in any Conference action. I never
heard any individual among them assign any such
reason. The reason they give is, that there is no war-
rant in the New Testament for admitting a person
into the church, even on probation, except on profes-

‘sion of saving faith in Christ.

 

*See Chapters II and III.
REVIEW. 305

Again we quote from the same author:

14“ Tn its early history some of its leaders encour-
aged a spirit of wild fanaticism, claiming the power
of healing by the laying on of hands.”

Here are two untrue statements. The first, of en-
couraging “ wild fanaticism,” we have met in the pre-
ceding pages.*¥ We have shown that such men as
Drs. Reddy and Ives considered what the Bishop
calls “wild fanaticism,” as the proper manifestations
of spiritual life.

As to “some of its leaders claiming the power of
healing,” this is also a mistake. None of them ever
made any such claim. We acknowledge, with be-
coming gratitude and humility, that in answer to
prayer there have been among us some remarkable
cases of healing—but nothing more than has taken
place among true Christians in all ages.

The most prominent person who has ever been
among us, that we are aware of, who.“ claimed the
power of healing by the laying on of hands,” or any
thing like it, was then, and is still, we suppose, a mem-
ber of the Methodist Episcopal Church! He was
never a Free Methodist—much less a leader!

We notice a few statement of the Bishop, which,
though in a sense true, are misleading : °

(a) “ Became dissatisfied with the workings of its
government.”

We never had any special dissatisfaction with the
“ government” of the M. E, Church. We learned by
experience that it was capable of great abuse. We
were dissatisfied with the administration—first of the
Genesee Conference, and then of the General Confer-

*See Chapter vi, page 113.

 
306 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

ence, in expelling the innocent and screening the
guilty.

(6) “ They professed themselves to be moved by the
Holy Spirit”.

No more so than Methodist preachers generally.

(c) “In Church polity the name of Bishop was
abandoned, and a general superintendency substi-
tuted.”

Not merely the name, but the ordination and the
life tenure were abandoned. The General Superin-
tendents are simply officers of the General Confer-
ence elected every four years.

(d) “The conference organizations were retained
as in the M. EK. Church, and laymen in numbers equal
to the ministers were admitted to each of these
bodies.”

In the Free Methodist Church the lay delegates
are not admitted to the Conferences—they, with the
preachers, compose the Conferences. The lay dele-
gates are elected directly by the members, and not in-
directly by the preacher, through a quarterly confer-
ence, which, in part, is of his own creation. We are
not afraid to trust our people.

(e) “The name of presiding elder was changed to
that of district chairman.”

But the district chairman may have a circuit the
same as other preachers. Presiding elders do not.

(7) “They also require their members to be exceed-
ingly plain in their dress.”

No more so than the discipline of the M. E. Church
requires its members.

We next call attention to the “History of the
Genesee Annual Conference;” By Rev. F.W. Conable.

Perhaps we should say nothing of this book,
REVIEW. 307

because of the little notice that has been taken of it
by the public. But as it has been indorsed by the
Genesee Conference, and ordered to be placed in its
archives for reference, it becomes possessed of an
importance as a historical record, which, in itself it
does not possess, Of its literary pretensions we will
not speak.

It is in its article on “‘ Nazaritism ” that we are more
particularly interested. It is proper to say, in general
terms, that its statements, both original and bor-
rowed, under the head of “ Nazaritism,” are wholly
incorrect. We will notice in detail, a few of its
false statements :

“Nazaritism in fact, if not in name, originated
with a few ministers of the Genesee Conference—J.

H. Wallace, B. T. Roberts, J. McCreery, Jr. and
others.” (Page 628.)

This is incorrect both in form and fact. We
have shown conclusively that there never was a
“‘Nazarite Society,” or any thing corresponding to it,
among the ministers of the Genesee Conference.
That by “Nazaritism ” he means what in other Con-
ferences is called “holiness,” is evident from his
associating the name of John H. Wallace with it.
John H. Wallace had no relation with those expelled
from the Genesee Conference, under the cry of their
being “ Nazarites,” only, as before their day, he was
a specially able advocate of the doctrine of holiness.
Mr. Conable shows that he removed to Michigan be-
fore the difficulties in the Genesee Conference began.
He also bears witness to his great ability and useful-
ness. But John H. Wallace fell, as other good men have
fallen. So, to bring reproach upon the Free Metho-
308 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

dist Church, Mr. Conable tries to associate John H.
Wallace with its origin. John H. Wallace had no
more relation to it than other men had who preached
holiness before it was thought of. This, Mr. Conable
well knows.

Mr. Conable, says :

“That Roberts and McCreery and two presiding
elders, were led on from motives of envy, jealousy
and unchristian ambition in the endeavor to secure for
themselves the ‘chief patronage’ of the Conference.”

Does this man claim divine attributes that he is able
to read men’s motives ?

This is not only false, but malignant, and foolish.
Did not the two presiding elders already occupy the
highest position in the Conference? They were
placed there without any effort or desire of their own.

As to my humble self, no man can truthfully say
that I ever, in any way, sought position in the M. E.
Church. I never asked, directly or indirectly, for any
appointment. Mr. Conable never even heard that I
did, I will venture to say. The whole statement is
utterly baseless! If I had then felt any ambition in
that direction, it could have been easily gratified.
After the leaders of the holiness movement were sent
off—Rev. E. Thomas to California, and Messrs.
Stiles and Kingsley to Ohio, I was offered, if I would
leave the persecuted, holiness people, better appoint-
ments than the Genesee Conference had to give.
Though Mr. Conable seems ignorant of it, there is
such a thing as standing by the right from no other
motive than a desire to do right, and obey God. In
speaking of the Estes pamphlet, Mr. Conable says :

“The printer refused to testify as to the author-
REVIEW. 309

ship, and we have no law to oblige attendance at an
ecclesiastical court.” (Page 646.)

Mr. Conable, and all of his indorsers who were at
the Perry Conference, know that this is not true. The
most unscrupulous, unless rendered desperate, seldom
venture upon a falsehood so glaring. The printer of
the Estes pamphlet was present at my trial! One of the
preachers opposed to me, took him there and back, —
about seventy miles across the country in a carriage.
They did not call upon him to testify.

Mr. H. N. Beach, editor of the Brockport Repub-
lic, the gentleman referred to, in a note to us, says :

“Rev. E. M. Buck got me to go to Perry in the
case, at the time of the Conference; but I was not
called to testify, because, I suppose, my evidence was
not what was wanted.”

Thus Mr. Conable crowds two known, great false-
hoods into one short sentence. Ist. The printer did
attend the court. 2d. He did not refuse to testify !
And such statements are voted into the archives of
the Genesee Conference as history, by men who know
that there is not one word of truth in them !

In speaking of my trial, Mr. Conable says :

“ The chief effort of Mr. Roberts in his protracted
defense, was to convince the public—not that he had
not written and circulated such allegations as were

, charged against him, but that the allegations were
really true.”—Page 647.

For this assertion Mr. Conable has no apology.
He and his indorsers well know it is false. That I
did not write the Estes pamphlet, I proved to the
Conference in the most conclusive way that a man
can prove he did not write any document,—by the
310 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

testimony of the real, avowed author, that he himself
wrote it.

George Estes testified to the Conference : “ Brother
Roberts uap NoTuinG to do with the writing of the

part that bears my name.”

Again, Mr. Conable says that the defendant had
been :

“According to his own public admission, granted
every possible appliance for his aid, and defense,
consistent with the discipline of the church.”—Page
648.

This man seems utterly incapable of telling the
truth about these matters! He knows that nearly
two whole sessions were employed in my trying to
obtain, and my opposers trying to prevent me from
obtaining, either a change of venue, or a trial by a
committee! He knows that I was refused the aid of
the counsel I asked for !

In my closing plea, J thanked Bishop Janes for the
able and impartial manner in which he had presided,
and for the kind spirit he had manifested ; but that
does not warrant the above assertion. Yet it is all
he has to make it out of.

Again, Mr. Conable says :

“The charges and specifications were voted sus-
tained, by not far from two to one.”—Page 648.

The minutes and Conference roll for that year show
that there were one hundred and sixteen preachers
in full connection in the Conference, at that time. Of
these, fifty-four voted against me, and thirty-four for
me, leaving a clear majority who did not vote to sus-
tain the charges.

Some were terrified to that degree they did not
REVIEW, 311

dare to vote for me—and they had too much con-
science left to vote against me.

Mr. Conable says :

“Strange and fraudulent methods were employed
to deprive presiding elders and regular pastors of
their support.”—Page 650.

What he means by this accusation, I cannot imag-
ine. Many refused to pay “presiding elders and
regular pastors,” who had participated in the wicked
acts of the majority. But in this there was nothing
“strange or fraudulent.” The “strange” part was
that any honest man would help support any of them.

Mr. Conable, in apologizing for those he calls
“loyal preachers,” says :

“ A few of them in their zeal in opposition to Naz-
aritism, and in order to the preservation of church
order, overstepped the lines of administrative pro-
priety a little, if not more, for which they suffered
arrest and correction at the Conference.” page 655.

The “arrest and correction” part is a piece of news,
and we strongly suspect, a fabrication.

Again he says:

“ One or more preachers in charge had illegally de-
clared several members, Nazarites, withdrawn. This
being reported to Conference by the parties deeming
themselves injured, made some work.”—Page 655.

What work? The members were kept out, and
the preachers were passed all right.

Mr. Conable says :

‘Charges, in some instances of a gross character,
were preferred against one or more of the Presiding
Elders and some other preachers at Conference, which
could not be sustained!” (Page 655.)

Why could not these charges of “a gross charac-

ter” be sustained ? It was not for want of proof,
312 WHY ANOTHER SECY.

abundant, clear, conclusive, and of the highest order.
It was for want of a disposition to do right, on the
part of the majority. So they would not entertain
most of these charges, or even hear a statement of
the several cases, but promptly voted to lay the whole
matter on the table. For the nature of some of these
grave charges see pages 143-146 of this book.

Mr. Conable says :

“ Roberts and Stiles united their fortunes in the se-
cession movement, leading to the organization of

“The Free Methodist Church.” (Page 660.)

What! drive men out of a church, after their most
earnest efforts to stay in, and then call it a “secession
movement!” Does this man take it for granted that
his readers have not common sense ?

Again he says, same page:

“Which should be the greatest was a question, but
the career of Stiles was short, as, early after building
their church at Albion, and effecting a permanent
church organization, he was called away by death.
Roberts became “General Superintendent” of the
Free Church, as such, of course, claiming ordaining
authority.”

There never was any question “which should be
the greatest.” None more gratefully and cordially
than B. T. Roberts acknowledged the correctness of
the popular verdict, that Loren Stiles was one of the
greatest preachers in Western New York.

Mr. Stiles nominated Rev. B. T. Roberts tor
General Superintendent of the Free Methodist church,
the first time he was elected to that office, and the
vote for it was quite unanimous. The Superintendent
did not “claim ordaining authority,” whatever that
REVIEW. 313

may mean. The discipline made it his duty to ordain
those elected by an Annual Conference.

Conable says: “As to J. A. Wells, he lost confi-
dence in B. T. Roberts.”—Page 660. Where did
Mr. Conable get this information? A man may join
another denomination for other reasons than a loss of
confidence. Mr. Wells, in a letter before us, says he,
* did not lose confidence in B. T. Roberts.”

'

Of the Bergen Camp Ground, Mr. Conable says:

“The Bergen Camp Ground charter was changed
by application to the legislature, and the clause which
gave the Methodist Episcopal Church any control or
supervision over the grounds, or meetings held there,
was stricken out. This arrangement, however, to
secure the Camp Ground to Nazarite uses, did not
hold very long, as in due time, under the sanction of
the Conference, measures were instituted which were
successful in securing the same, according to the
forms of law, to the Genesee Camp Ground Associa-
tion, for the ownership and use of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, in harmony with disciplinary pro-
visions and church usage.’

We will show what these “ successful measures ”
were, and in so doing will give a brief history of this
Camp Ground.

1. I made a bargain for the ground—twenty-five
acres, intending to use it for a camp ground, if we
could raise the money to pay for it. Meeting with
encouragement, B. T. Roberts and Loren Stiles took
a contract for the land, May 8th, 1856. On the 11th
of July, 1856, it was deeded, by absolute conveyan-
ce, to Asa Abel, Benjamin T. Roberts, and Asa Allis.

2. The following winter I drew up the charter of
“The Genesee Camp Ground Association,” went to
314 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

Albany, and got it passed by the legislature. To
this Association, we deeded the ground in trust.

3. After’ they began to expel the camp-meeting
people, we got the charter amended.

4. The so called Regency party, held a camp-meet-
ing on that ground after they had turned us out of
the church. The trustees, all of whom but one be.
came Free Methodists, made no opposition, but hoped
it would do them good. But they assumed judicial
powers and declared that those trustees who were not
members of the M. E, Church were not legal trustees.
‘Yet the law made no such qualifications for trustees.
After declaring a vacancy they went on to elect them-
selves to the vacancy.

5. Having thus gained possession, they threatened
us with a law suit if we went on the ground to hold
any more meetings. We appointed no meetings for
a few years, hoping to fairly settle the matter. We
made them the following offers:

(1). We would hold the ground and let them hold
camp meetings there whenever they wished, free of
charge.

(2). Or they might hold the ground, and let us
hold meetings when we wished.

(3). Or we would sell the ground and divide the
proceeds among the two churches, in the proportion
we had paid. Those who became Free Methodists
had paid about two-thirds of the price of the ground.

All these offers they rejected.

6. To keep possession, they held sham camp-meet-
ings for the election of trustees. At one time they
had but one“tent,—a canvass thrown over a pole.
REVIEW. 315

Preachers, from the stand, preached to an audience
seated in the stand.

7. We appointed a camp-meeting to be held there
in June, 1867, They got out an injunction. We
heard of it, and went to another ground with the
meeting. The third day of the meeting, the Sheriff
served the writ of injunction upon ‘“ B. T. Roberts, and
all associated with him.” The Sheriff was doubtless
instructed to delay serving the writ in order to break
-up the meeting. The injunction was tried and we
beat them. They then set men to work cutting wood
on the camp-ground, to sell, to pay the costs.

8. The deed conveyed the land to the trustees, in
trust, that they “shall not cut down or destroy, or
cause, or permit or allow to be cut down or destroyed,
the woods or trees, or any part thereof upon said
piece or lot of land, except as may be necessary for
the fencing of said lot, or the better fitting of it, for
the purposes “of holding camp-meetings.” We
‘therefore got out an injunction restraining them from
cutting down the timber.

9. On the trial, the so-called Regency trustees,
among whom were three Conference preachers, swore
that ‘all the trees and timber cut upon said camp-
ground referred to” in the complaint, “were either
lying upon the ground, or dead, unsound, and more or
less decayed.” ‘‘ That said trees were old,” “that no
sound trees have been cut upon said ground ;” “that
the cutting and removal of said trees” “have not
only benefited and improved it for the purposes of
said Association, but was mdispensable for the safety
of those who might attend religious meetings upon
said ground.”
316 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

‘We could only swear to the stumps and-wood. We
found eighty-seven green, sound, stumps—the wood
was also sound and green. They beat us of course.

It is scarcely necessary to add, after thus “ improv-
ing” the ground, they ceased to hold camp-meetings
there, and very soon after sold the ground. /

One of the best lawyers in the state said, after
thoroughly examining the case, “ They have no right
to that land, either in law, or in equity.” But we
have neither time nor taste for litigation, even were it:
an easy matter to obtain justice in our courts, against
a power as great as that of the M. E. Church, aided
by such secret society influence as it could control.
CHAPTER XV.
CONCLUSION.

| The intelligent reader of the preceding pa-
ges can hardly fail to see:

1. That the Genesee Conference of the M. E.
Church, stands convicted :

(1.) Of wickedly expelling several of its
ministers from the Conference and the church
without any adequate cause.

(2.) Of allowing preachers to expel worthy
members from the church when they had vio-
lated no law of the church.

(3.) Of permitting its preachers to pronounce
members in good standing in the church with-
drawn, against their most solemn protest.

(4.) Of covering up iniquity, by refusing to
entertain complaints, of dishonesty and fraud,
‘made by responsible parties against several of
its preachers.

2. That the Methodist Episcopal Church,
as an ecclesiastical organization, for all these
unchristian and wicked acts of the Genesee
Conference, has assumed the responsibility be-
fore God and man, by the action of its General
Conference, its highest Court of Appeals.

(1.) In refusing to entertain appeals, from the
318 WHY ANOTHER SECT.

injustice of the Genesee Conference, properly
brought before it, which the constitution of the
church requires it to hear and properly decide.

(2.) By not deciding upon its merits the case
of Rev. C. D. Burlingham, who appealed to it
for redress from an unjust and oppressive sen-
tence, but iniquitously sending it back fora
new trial when there was nothing to try.
Whether this evasion of a clear and important
duty was owing to a lack of courage to express
their honest opinion of the sentence of expulsion
from the Conference and the church, for the acts
charged and admitted, or to a desire to shield
the Genesee Conference from censure for wrong
doing, it is equally deserving of reprobation.

(3.) By not investigating the troubles of the
Genesee Conference over which they had juris-
diction, and giving such redress of the griev-
ances complained of as justice demanded and
they were able to render.

3. That historians of the M. E. Church
seek to perpetuate the wrong, by giving accounts
of these matters which every one acquainted
with the facts knows to be untrue; and
paying no attention to testimony of the highest
order, when it conflicts with their unfounded
statements.

4. We have no hostility towards the M. E.
Church, its ministry, or its members. Welove
\ CONCLUSION. 319

all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity,
and we love no one the less because he belongs
to the M. E. Church. Many in that church
who love the truth, will be glad to learn the
real facts in the case, as they have -heard only
misrepresentations. These misrepresentations
repeated by parties in whom they have been
accustomed to place confidence, they have in-
nocently received as true. We have endeavored
to state everything fairly, without exaggeration,
and are certain we have done it without malice.
We have the kindest feelings towards all.
APPENDIX.

 

At a Convention held at Pekin, in August, 1860,
the Free Methodist Discipline was adopted, and B.T.
Roberts elected General Superintendent.

The Genesee Conference of the Free Methodist
Church was organized at Rushford, Allegany County,
N. Y., under the Discipline, in October, 1860.

Five preachers were received into full connection,
all of whom had been preachers in the M. E, Church.

Seven preachers were received on probation.

The total number of members reported we do not
find recorded.

The Western Conference of the Free Methodist
Church was organized under the Discipline, at
Wayne, DuPage County, Ills., June. 14, 1861.

Three preachers were received into full connection,
one of whom had been recently pastor of a Congre-
gational church, and one, years before, had been a
traveling preacher in the M. E. Church.

Twenty preachers were admitted on probation.

The total number of members reported was 511.

The first General Conference was held in October,
1862.

We give statistics for that year, and for each sub-
sequent four years:

1862 1866 1870 1874 1878
Members, 2,498 4,889 6,556 7,466 10,682
Preachers, 35 85 128 137 313

Value of Church property, $358,290
APPENDIX. 821

Of the preachers now belonging to the Free Meth-
odist Conferences, only nineteen, we believe, ever be-
longed to any Conference in the M. E. Church. So:
there does not seem to be any propriety in calling
this mgvement a secession.

They have twelve Annual Conferences, extending
from New York to Kansas.

They have founded two schools, of the rank of
academies, which are in successful operation—one at.
North Chili, Monroe Co., N. Y., the other at Spring
Arbor, Jackson Co., Mich.

There is, under the patronage of the denomination,
a monthly magazine, Toe Earnest CuristTian, de-
voted to experimental and practical piety. It was.
started in 1860 by its present editor and publisher,
Rev. B. T, Roberts: also a weekly paper, The Free
Methodist, published by Messrs. Baker & Arnold, at.
Sycamore, Ills.: They also publish two Sabbath-school
papers, The Pearl and The Lily.

As far as we can judge, the denomination is, on the
whole, in a flourishing condition.
“THE EARNEST CHRISTIAN” PUBLICATIONS.

Why Another Sect

CONTAINING A

Review of Articles by Bishop Simpson

AND OTHERS ON THE

FREE METHODIST CHURCH.

*

By REV. B. T. ROBERTS, A. M.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

I.—Bishop Simpson on the Free Methodist Church.
II.—Nazarite Organization.
III.—Facts in the Case.
av —Secret Meetings.
eee on of the Majority.
VI.—The Proscribed Religion.
ViI—Church Trials.
VIII.—Two Expulsions.
IX.—Laymen’s Convention.
X.—War Against the Members.
XI.--More Preachers Expelled,
XI1.—Expulsion by Wholesale.
XIII.—The Appeals. ‘
XIV.—Reviews.
XV.—Conclusion.
Appendix.

This book gives an authentic account of the origin
of the Free Methodist Church, giving facts never
before collected or published. It covers new ground,
and is the only full account of the events which led to
the formation of the Free Methodist Church.

The author writes from personal knowledge of the
events, and, as the first General Superintendent of the
Free Methodist Church, his statements must have
weight, and the book become at once authority.

JUST ISSUED. PRICE, $1.15.
12mo, 321 pp. Bound in Cloth.
“THE EARNEST CHRISTIAN” PUBLICATIONS.

 

Fishers of Men

OR,
PRACTICAL HINTS TO THOSE WHO WOULD
WIN SOULS.

By REV. B. T. ROBERTS, A.M., 4
Editor of ‘‘The Earnest Christian and Golden Rule.”

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

What is Success ?—Success a Duty—How to Succed—
Call to Preach—Religious Experience—Baptism of the
Spirt—The Standard—Preaching—How to Preach—
Love—Faith — Feeling — Prayer—Personal Effort—Co-
operation—Study—Discipline.
Price, $1.25 (post paid),. 12mo., pp. 289, bound in cloth.

———_+-»-o—___.

\WHAT IS SAID ABOUT IT.

“T have been stirred up by it. It has convicted, in-
structed and encouraged me.”—REv. M. N. DownInea.

‘“The book is very readable, and its reading doubtless
will benefit any one who is engaged in the Lord’s
work.”—Banner of Holiness. ;

“This book is no ordinary production. The ideas
and teachings of Mr. Roberts are clear, forcible and
just.".—Rev. J. P. Buancnarp, D. D., Editor of The
Christian Cynosure.

‘We believe that we speak consistently when we say,
that this is the best production of its kind the country
has furnished ; and feel confident that, when once in-
troduced, the Christian world will value it’ highly.”—
The Free Methodist.

‘‘T have read ‘Fishers of Men’ with greater interest
than I can express. Itis full of the Gospel, and must
be a help to those who would win souls.”—Dr. CULLIs,
of Boston, Editor of Times of Refreshing.

“The book merits earnest praise for purity of pur-
psse and effectiveness in style, and the volume should
find a place in every library.”—Rochester Union and
Advertiser.
“THE EARNEST: CHRISTIAN” PUBLICATIONS.

 

“The title of this work very accurately designates
the character of the book. The book is intended
mainly for ministers, and from the examination we
have been able to give it, we are led to regard it as a
useful and profitable work to have. Ministers will find
some most valuable suggestions on almost every page.”
--The Church Advocate.

‘‘T have read ‘Fishers of Men,’ carefully and _ critic-
ally. Itisin every particular an excellent work, and
will doubtless be the means of accomplishing great
good., It is valuable, not only for reading, but for study
and for reference. None of the subjects mentioned are
passed over slightly, but all are well treated.”—REv.
R. W. HawXxIns. \

“The book is one to be commended, read and
circulated, because it presents to ministers the high,
Scriptural ideal of their work, and urges, by all holy
-consideration, and with wise directions, to the faithful
performance thereof. It cannot fail:to be helpful to
those who would win souls, and accomplish the high
aim of their ministry..—The Hvangelical Messenger.

“The work is well planned. It is teeming with argu-
ment, advice, and illustration, and comes down. with
every day advice to every day men. It does not shoot
into vacuity, and make a great noise over some things
that have been done or may be fone by a remarkable

enius: The question seems only to be, how can the
shermen along our shores be aided in catching men,
pu saving them to eternal glory ?”"—American Wes-
eyan.

‘* We have no hesitation in saying that his book may
be read with profit by everybody, regardless of creed.”
—Buffalo Express.

“This is a thoroughly religious and instructive work.
We commend it to all workers in the Lord’s vineyard.”
—Christian Standard and Home Journal.

..“T have read, admired, and been greatly profited by
this very valuable work. I think of no production
better calculated to promote the grand object of soul-
saving, at which it aims. It makes no random shots.
Every page is replete with Gospel truth, so clearly illus-
trated as to engrave its instructive lessons upon the
reader’s heart. Not a chapter that is not worth the
price of the volume. Ministers of all denominations,
as well as laborers in the Lord’s great harvest, may
profitably buy, read, and study this collection of Gospel
gems, as a grand help in winning souls to Christ.”—
Rev. E. OWEN, author of “Struck by Lightning,”
“Things New and Old,” ete.
“THE HARNEST CHRISTIAN” PUBLICATIONS.

THE EARNEST CHRISTIAN

AND GOLDEN RULE.
REV. B. T. ROBERTS, A. M., Eprror.

MONTHLY MAGAZINE, devoted to Experimental and Practical
Piety. It opposes sin in all forms, and advocates Free Churches,
Spirituality, Simplicity, Plainness, Entire Consecration to God—in short,

TRUE HOLINESS OF HEART AND LIFE.

It is not sectarian in its character. Each number contains 32 pages
octavo. Itis printed in a neat style, and makes a valuable book bound. |
The 39th volame commences in January, 1880. Terms $1.25 a year in
advance. Five copies sent to one address for one dollar each. .
Any one sendiog us four subscribers, with the money, will be
entitied to one number free,
Send money order on Rochester P. O., or ina registered letter.

ANNIHILATIONISM.

By REV. THOS. 8. LaDUE,

 

 

 

 

ey is a neat pamphlet of seventy-two Pages, and should be carefull
studied by every one as affording a complete refutation to the material-
ism of the day. Send on eur Srders.

Price by mail, by the dozen, $1.50 ; single copy, 20 cents.

 

BEiternal Punishment
OR,
HELL AND DAMNATION.

The Theories of Annihilation, Purgatory and Universalism disproved, and
the Orthodox Doctrines demonstrated.

By Rev. G. H. Humeurzy,
Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Birmingham, Pittsburgh, Pa.

This book should be carefully studied by all. Its statements are
clear—its arguments conclusive. Price, 50 cents, 132 pages.

 

(es Any of the Earnest Curist1an pubdlica-
tions will be sent post-paid on receipt of price. Send
money in Registered Letter, or P.O. Money Order
on Rochester, N. Y.

Address all orders,

B. T. ROBERTS, Rochester, N. Y.
ES

ens rea
oii ee

aes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i)
Loe

-
aa i