Swartzentrover.com | Zahniser - The Earnest Christian

By Conference appointment, Mr. Roberts was returned to Albion for his second year and William Kendall was returned to Chili, which was a definite demotion. Mr. Roberts, however, was not content to let things pass as they had transpired and so wrote to Bishop T. A. Morris. The initial draft of the epistle written by Mr. Roberts in reply to Bishop Morris, and dated November 15, 1856, was found among the personal letters and papers of the Roberts family, and has never before been published. * He addressed the Bishop as "Dear Father." He referred to a previous request pertaining to the retransfer of Loren Stiles to the Genesee Conference with its denial, and admitted that no doubt as in all his official duties, so also in this, he had been actuated by a sincere desire to promote the glory of God and the welfare of the church. He did not write to complain of this decision but did say that present appearance indicated that it would not be "promotive of either the peace of this Conference or the prosperity of the district."[1]

In answer to the opinion expressed by the Bishop that matters had been satisfactorily adjusted, he pointed out the fact that two distinct parties existed, with one or the other of which every preacher was in sympathy. He believed that personal animosities did not form the basis for the division, but asserted that the preachers had "brotherly love." Though secrecy no doubt did accentuate the issue, he believed that the real difficulties were so deep that only the Holy Spirit could bring them together. After outlining the differences as being essentially between a changing concept and benevolent form of religion which was theirs, and his own belief in the religion of the fathers, he stated, "What we call religion they call fanaticism; what they denominate Christianity, we consider formalism." He noted that differences in method necessarily follow the varying views of religion. The majority group advocated stock churches, entertainment features with instrumental music and professional singers, while the group he represented believed in "free churches, congregational singing, and spirituality, simplicity and fervency in worship." He spoke also of differences with reference to nonconformity to the world, and varying methods of raising money. Signs in the general church indicated that these differences were more widespread than in their own Genesee Conference, and to substantiate the assertion he mentioned particularly the change of rule in the 1852 General Conference with reference to the building of plain churches and free seats, and the modification of the rule respecting dress in the 1856 General Conference. These gradual changes, which did not excite too much attention, were to him "none the less alarming." The "fundamental" differences which existed could not be cured by Conference resolutions and "committees of pacification and adjustment." He added, "Nothing short of the Almighty power of the Holy Spirit can ever bring us together. He alone can give us that unanimity of views without which unanimity of action cannot long prevail." This letter. although quite extended, gives a view of the conception of the conference difficulties held by Mr. Roberts, which view he continued to hold to the end.

2. Comments of Redfield on the Late Annual Conference

In 1856, Mr. Roberts had not arrived at the conclusions of his evangelistic friend. In December, 1856, Redfield wrote to Mr. and Mrs. Kendall and commented upon the incidents of the 1856 Annual Conference. He confessed that his heart almost sank when he heard that "the tried and true" were being driven from the field (Stiles and Kingsley), and weakening the little band who stood "for the right." He asked, "Shall the enemy yet triumph?"[2] He then asserted, "I am more and more confirmed in the opinion I expressed long ago that an amputation alone will save vital piety."[3] He then called upon them to take a common sense view of the facts. In contending for the right, some would weary of the conflict and for the sake of peace would leave the field. Every instance of that kind would, he said, give fresh courage to the opponents of spiritual religion. Others would become dispirited and would call for a cessation of the fight, and when the little band had been reduced small enough. they would be surrounded and made an easy prey. He concluded, "To be in a minority is to be rebellious, while to be in the majority is to be loyal."[4] No doubt these remarks of Redfield, though not sent to Mr. Roberts, would eventually reach him through his friend Kendall. However, Mr. Roberts appeared to have been a loyal Methodist. So far as can be determined, he was then unready to accept the verdict of his friend, Dr. Redfield.

3. Opposition

Mr. Roberts said in later years that if any man had his heart filled with "Gospel light, love and power," and then, realizing the moral deficiency in the church, would labor directly to bring it up to a higher standard of piety, he would soon find a decided lack of sympathy, and a tide of opposition in the church; and while he might labor wisely and carry the conviction of the church with him, he would find "all the depravity" of the church arrayed against him, since human depravity is always opposed to holiness.[5] He believed that to be faithful to God and to point out the faults of the church was not an evidence of being her enemy.[6]

Accusations against the "Nazarites" became more frequent. One of these articles was published in the Medina Tribune of September 11, 1856, in connection with the late Annual Conference and was signed by one "Junius." In this article the Nazarites were accused of "mistaking a desire to do something grand, for a call to a great undertaking; and a wish to be known to fame, for a prophetic intimation of some splendid achievement," thus directly accusing their leaders of ambition.[7] They were further said to 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;"[8] and of "repeating nonsensical and clap-trap phrases, which they have mistakenly selected as the watchwords of the reformatory movement."[9] Perhaps the strongest assertions against them centered in the fact of their preaching against pride. The above writer, "Junius," said they made religion "a system of outward symbols. of material ceremonies and corporal manifestations, of animal influence and nervous sensations,"[10] closing with the charge that they considered plainness in dress of greater moment than uprightness of character. He asserted that an ornamental ribbon or flower upon a lady's bonnet was, in their eyes, an enormity greater than the sin of lying; and that wearing a ring or bracelet they thought was more dangerous and damning than covetousness or slander; and generally they preached with more powerful vehemence against superfluity of outward apparel, than against the breach of the Ten Commandments. With them "a broad-brimmed, bell-crowned hat is equivalent to 'the helmet of salvation,' and a shad-bellied coat to the robe of righteousness."[11] About the same time, the Buffalo Advocate published an article, informing the public, that "the leaders were a class of misguided men, mere visionists, who have already received too much consideration from the conference."[12] He stated that the party was far from being as large as was generally thought, that there might be half-a-dozen who were openly identified with it, and obligated members, but beyond these he doubted whether the other members of the conference would like to be classified with these extremists in church matters and service.[13]

4. New School Methodism

The attacks against these adherents to what they believed to be "old time Methodism" were mainly of the above character, centering more directly in their practices rather than in their doctrine or belief. Mr. Roberts, on the other hand, thought the real difficulty lay deeper, as he had written to Bishop Morris. Hence, when he saw an article entitled "Old and New School Methodism" published in the Buffalo Advocate of May 21st, 1857, which followed others entitled, "Creed Tests of Orthodox Piety" in the April 16th issue of the same paper, and "Christianity a Religion of Beneficence Rather Than of Devotion" in the May 14, 1857 issue of the above mentioned periodical, he was stirred to answer in an article which appeared in the columns of The Northern Independent, of which he was at that time an associate editor. "Old and New School Methodism" in the May 21, 1857 issue of the Buffalo Advocate furnished him with the title. This last article was a direct attack against the alleged fanaticism of the "Nazarite" movement in terms of Mr. Wesley's attitude toward fanatics of his day. Mr. Roberts seemed not to consider this accusation of sufficient importance to answer. He rather went to doctrinal differences which he discovered in the above articles. This article of April 16th had inveighed against making creed the test of piety and had asserted that in so doing the progress of religious knowledge and evolution of Christian truth would be stayed, for creeds admitted no change. The writer of the same article, "Creed Tests of Orthodox Piety" also said that "Catechisms, Creed-books, and Standard Writers in divinity, are thus made to take the place of the Bible and what these teach is more frequently quoted and more implicitly relied upon, than the words of the Sacred Text."[14] And so, he continued, the teachings of Paul were eclipsed by the theories of Calvin, and the writings of John Wesley were held in higher veneration than the inspired words of St. John. Let none suppose, he asserted, that all the sublime and comprehensive truths of Christianity can be compressed into any little seven by nine Creed that man ever made, or ever can make. There might be somewhat of truth in every system of denominational theology but there would be somewhat of error too, since it would certainly not embrace the whole sum of inspired truth. The author closed with the appeal, "May God hasten the time when the principles of love shall take the place of doctrinal formulas, and when the doing good to man shall become the accredited test of 'Orthodox Piety.'"[15]

The author of "Christianity a Religion of Beneficence Rather Than of Devotion" had laid down the proposition that "the characteristic idea of this system (of Christianity) is Benevolence; and its practical realization is achieved in beneficence."[16] Religion consecrated the principle of charity, and instructed its votaries to regard good works as the holiest sacrifice, and the most acceptable which they could bring to the Almighty. It charged those who made devotion central to their thinking, of making sounding professions of holiness and of putting on sanctimonious airs. The worship of God was, indeed, a high and holy duty, which no Christian could intermit without falling into condemnation and a snare; but it should be used as a means, and not pursued as an end. He should pray in order that he might be empowered to follow the example of Christ, who devoted his life to relieving the wants and woes of men and in going about doing good.[17]

Mr. Roberts, feeling that the Nazarite group was being misrepresented to the public, decided the time had come to set the people straight "on what they believed, taught and practiced." That he endeavored to do in an article entitled "New School Methodism," published in The Northern Independent over his "well-known signature."[18] Probably the whole of such a highly controversial article should be presented here, but since it has already appeared in published form a number of times, any interested reader is referred to the History of the Free Methodist Church.[19] "New School Methodism" not only charged a defection in the church from that of the fathers of Methodism in doctrine, but also alleged a departure in terms of method, a failure to promote revivals deep and thorough and a substitution of stock churches for free, and the innovation of parties of pleasure, oyster suppers, fairs, grab bags, festivals and lotteries. Mr. Roberts concluded:

In short, the Old School Methodists (among whom he classed himself) 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.[20]

Without doubt he greatly aggravated the opposing party by relating at the beginning of his article that during the recent session of the Annual Conference, the Regency group had held several secret meetings, in which they concerted a plan to carry out their measures and to spread their doctrines.[21] He further antagonized Mr. Robie, editor of the Buffalo Advocate, who had published denunciations of the "Nazarites" by reminding him that the word "Christian" had appropriately been dropped from the name of his paper. Said Mr. Roberts:

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 "The Advocate," that is, the only Advocate of the tenets it defends.[22]

Air. Roberts, in his article, charged the opposing group with liberalism as great in degree as that of Theodore Parker and Mr. Newman and blaming it on the sects whose watchword is a creed in a manner not unworthy of Alexander Campbell himself. He directly countered the idea that benevolence was central to Christianity and argued that to adore the divine character was the most imperative obligation resting upon human beings, that he who worships God rightly would, as a necessary consequence, possess all social and moral virtues; that the Gospel did not leave its votaries to choose, if they pleased, the degrading rites of heathenism, or the superstitious abominations of Popery; but prescribed 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;"[23] and that there was no necessity for antagonism, as infidels and Universalists were wont to affirm, between spiritual worship and the forms of worship instituted by Christ.

The following statement was characterized by Roberts "as not unworthy of Thomas Paine himself":

It (Christianity) in no wise gives countenance to the supposition, that the Great Jehovah is so affected with the infirmity of vanity, as to receive with peculiarly grateful emotions the attentions and offerings which poor human creatures may pay directly to Him in worship.[24]

Mr. Roberts criticized that article for making benevolence the root rather than the fruit of the Christian system, and of making love to man central rather than love to God, and for substituting good works for repentance and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. That writer said the object of Christianity was not so much to direct men in the cultivation of pious emotions, as to enable them to cherish holy affections; not so much to teach men how to worship God as to mould them into the divine image, and thus cause them to act like God.[25] Mr. Roberts, with his training as a lawyer, had seized characteristically upon the weak points of the opponent's argument. The similarity in parts of "New School Methodism" to the letter written to Bishop Morris indicated that the article grew out of the thinking which dictated the contents of that letter, plus the development which was incidental to the reply to these specific articles.

This brochure served the purpose of further dividing the sentiment of the Genesee Conference and of bringing to a head the issues which already had been brought before the Conference in the previous two annual sessions. Dr. F. G. Hibbard, then editor of the Northern Christian Advocate, to whom Mr. Roberts first sent his article for publication, returned the article with the comment that it would involve him (Hibbard) in hopeless controversity, and then added that he did not speak this against the article considered by itself, but of the controversy which the article would occasion. "Your article," he said, "appears to me to be written in as mild and candid a tone as such facts can be stated in."[26] lie assured Mr. Roberts, as a "dear Brother" that in the doctrine of holiness, in the life and power of religion, in the integrity and spirit of Methodism he had a deep and lively interest. He labored to promote them, but he could not feel justified in taking sides in the question that now unhappily divided the Genesee Conference.[27] Mr. Hibbard's position as an editor is easily understandable yet Mr. Roberts asserted that after it was clear that he was in the minority, Dr. Hibbard wrote against him with a great zeal, and as he thought, with unfairness, seemingly without regard to his position as an editor.[28]

With the express action of the Conference in 1855, instructing its members not to carry on this program of "stigmatizing" its members, it is not surprising that the author of "New School Methodism" had action brought against him. From Mr. Roberts' viewpoint, he was defending the truth; from the standpoint of the Conference majority, he was furthering the divisive spirit which they had been ineffectually trying to suppress.

5. A Doctrinal Issue

That the issue of doctrine was clearly before them is evident from a letter which the Reverend William Kendall wrote to a "Brother Phelps" shortly before the Leroy Conference of 1857, dated August 21st. He stated that he had been at two camp meetings, on the Niagara District and at Wyoming. At the former, he said the doctrine that we are entirely sanctified at conversion was boldly proclaimed. The Rev. William Cooley had requested that Mr. Kendall exhort in his place, and set the matter right. Mr. Kendall spoke forty-five minutes in trying to do so, "while Regency preachers" he said "prayed God to have mercy on me.[29] At the Wyoming Camp Meeting, he preached on the same subject. The Rev. Asa Abell arose, as soon as Mr. Kendall had finished, and backed what he had said. The presiding elder and two preachers, Kendall recorded, then exhorted against him, after which Bro. Gorham, editor of The Guide to Holiness stood by him, for which the presiding elder took him off into the woods as soon as the service closed. Mr. Kendall continued, "Some of the preachers rear against me like the 'bulls of Bashan.' I know not but that they will gore me, tear the ground, or something at the Conference."[30] Kendall went to Conference, not expecting his return to Chili, nor knowing just what would befall him, nor did he trouble himself at all. "Naught can harm us while we abide in Christ,"[31] he said.

The two men, Roberts and Kendall, had taken their position against those in the majority, and therefore in authority; Roberts by having brought to public attention the actions of the Regency ministers in their private sessions at the last Conference, and Kendall by publicly taking the stand at refutation in open conflict with a presiding elder. That the question was doctrinal is evident, but that there was more than doctrine involved is inferred from the statement of F. G. Hibbard, editor of the Northern Christian Advocate. That the church was divided on the question of demonstration and worldliness is certain, but that they were united in its condemnation is hardly supported. In April of that same year, in the Buffalo Advocate, which later berated the "Nazarites," is found this paragraph, showing that the Methodist Church did not condemn all physical demonstration:

'I believe in religion, but I do not believe in making such an ado about it. And this noisy religion, this loud praying and preaching, and shouting, I detest.' You do? But are you sure that this noisy religion is not of God? You have no right to disapprove what God approves. If you do, how can he look with approbation upon you? He cannot. It becomes you, therefore, to be exceedingly careful that you do not find yourself fighting against God in this matter.[32]

This was printed just previous to the Conference where the difficulties came to a climax in the accusations against Mr. Roberts. Neither can the judgment of Mr. Robie, editor of the Buffalo Advocate, be sustained that the party which was termed Nazarites were so few that they might be listed as small as the number six when we face the fact that fifteen hundred people signed a petition for the retransfer of Stiles and Kingsley from the Cincinnati Conference to the Genesee Conference. The petition was granted, and the two men were returned to Genesee Conference once more.

6. Roberts Saw Persecution as a Protective Measure

Roberts interpreted the rising ire of the Regency group, following the return of the two former presiding elders, as the desperation of men who had been charged at the previous Conference with attempt to defraud a certain Enoch Pease of one thousand dollars, and of a ruse to cheat a Mr. White of five hundred dollars. Roberts had made complaint of the latter, but the matter had been laid on the table. Mr. Stiles had informed the Conference that he had letters written by men of good standing in the community, two of them members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, calling in question the business integrity and honesty of a member of the Conference, and asked for a Committee to be appointed, but Roberts said the Conference refused the request for a Committee, or even to hear the letters.[33] Roberts conclusion was that

they saw that something must be done to cripple our influence, or they were still in danger of being called to account for their misdeeds.[34]

7. The Leroy Conference

In 1857 the Genesee Conference convened at Leroy, New York, and once again the Regency ministers met in private session, so Mr. Roberts affirmed, and this was confirmed subsequently by testimony in the course of the trial which ensued. Certain members of the Conference, according to Mr. Roberts' account, rented a hall, and without ever being suspected, held secret meetings at night. At that time the presiding elders all stood with the majority group, and by letting the young and the unacceptable preachers understand that their appointments depended upon which party in the Conference they identified themselves with, they succeeded, he stated, in getting a majority of the Conference into the meetings. Then they voted, Roberts asserted, in this secret meeting which was composed of the very men who were to sit upon the jury, and whose votes were relied upon in advance to secure conviction, to bring charges against him and W. C. Kendall.[35]

Thomas Carlton, Head of the Methodist Book Concern, testified at the ensuing trial:

I attended some of the select meetings at Leroy; not all. I should think there might have been sixty at one of the meetings, at another about forty; they ranged from thirty to sixty.[36]

Rev. F. D. Parsons testified: "I was chairman of these meetings held at Leroy. There was a person who kept brief minutes of the meetings."[37] To B. T. Roberts were handed the original minutes of one of their meetings which he read before the Annual Conference during his trial:

Leroy, September 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 Canton be added to the committee on Brother Kendal's case. Passed.[38][39][40]

In the light of the testimony, there evidently was concerted action by the majority of the ministers of the Genesee Conference against both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Kendall, and though phrased in the language of justice, in the light of subsequent events, was ostensibly for the purpose of arresting their characters. The charges against Mr. Roberts were based on his article which has been reviewed, entitled "New School Methodism." The several points are listed and signed by Reuben C. Foote, dated September 1, 1857, and preceded by the words, "I hereby charge Rev. B. T. Roberts with unchristian and immoral conduct."[41] The nine charges brought against him, based on the above mentioned article, center in Mr. Roberts' reference to the action of about thirty of their number as an associate body, whose teachings were very different from the fathers of Methodism; that this difference was so vital as to involve nothing less than the nature of Christianity itself; that their liberalism was as great in degree as that of Theodore Parker and Mr. Newman; that a certain statement, which Mr. Roberts said was broadened in the charge, was a sneer not unworthy of Thomas Paine and fell below the dignity of Voltaire; that they were unorthodox on the subject of holiness according to Wesley and Fletcher; that they acknowledged that their doctrines were not those of the church and that they were attempting to correct its standard authors; that they were substituting the lodge for the class meeting and love feast, and the social party for the prayer meeting; that their revivals were superficial, and that all professions of deep religious experience were treated with distrust.

Mr. Roberts arose in the Conference session and stated that he had no intention of misrepresenting any one. He said he thought that the men referred to held just the opinions he said they did, but if they did not, he would be glad to be corrected. If they would say they were not properly represented, he would take their word for it, make his humble confession, and, as far as possible, repair the wrong that he had done.[42] He offered to publish in The Northern Independent, where his article had appeared, and in all the church papers they desired him to, from Maine to California, that he had misrepresented them. But, Mr. Roberts recorded that no one said they had been misrepresented.

Mr. Roberts, in his defense, endeavored to show that they had not set down the exact language of his specifications, and that in all the important specifications they had perverted his meaning. Mr. Roberts, being a law trained man, might have made more of this point than was warranted. He had charged them, as has been previously noted, with being heterodox in doctrine and wrong in practice. The Regency had enough votes to declare him guilty of "unchristian and immoral conduct" for this writing which, more than any other one factor, indicated the animus of those who framed the charge. Every charge and specification against Mr. Roberts was for libel, based upon statements in his article, but the conviction was for "unchristian and immoral conduct," even though there was not brought against him a single charge for the latter. This very statement indicated the strength of feeling against him, and the strong prejudice which alienated those men from the spirit of justice.

The vote to sustain the conviction on the grounds of unchristian and immoral conduct for writing and publishing those strictures on "New School Methodism" was fifty-two to forty-three, a majority of nine. Several members of the Conference were absent and several did not vote. With reference to this trial on one specification, and conviction for another, the Rev. C. D. Burlingham remarked, "Why not try them for promoting disorder and fanaticism?"[43] His answer was his personal conviction, "Because the failure of such an effort to convict would have been the certain result."[44] Mr. Roberts was sentenced to be reproved by the chair. He received the reproof and appealed to the General Conference. When summoned late in the evening for this ecclesiastical censure, he had already retired for the night, but he arose and obeyed the behest, thus proving clearly, declared Fuller, one of his chief opponents, "that he was a fanatic," for "none but a fanatic would rise from his bed to receive a reproof."[45] The Rev. C. D. Burlingham, in a review of the trial commented that instead of being expelled, as should have been done if the charges that had been sustained by a party vote were true, Mr. Roberts was simply reproved by the chair and was sent out again as a fellow laborer in the Gospel, being thus endorsed by his accusers.[46]

B. APPOINTMENT TO PEKIN

At the Leroy Conference, following his reproof, Mr. Roberts was demoted from a larger appointment of the Genesee Conference to Pekin, a country charge. Mr. Kendall was sent to West Falls, one of the poor circuits in the Conference. There was insufficient time to prosecute the charges against Kendall, but he was told that his case would come up at the next session of the Conference.

1. Kendal’s Reactions to Conference

Shortly after Conference, Kendall wrote to Roberts telling him the state of things on his new charge and declaring that the starvation system was in full effect in his case, but stating that he expected to have a good year if he had any year. He contemplated opening meetings in Buffalo, since he was only ten miles distant, supposing that God might have placed him within easy access of it so that He might pour out "a vial of wrath or mercy on the seat of the beast."[47] He expressed a fear that Roberts might be discouraged over the state of things, but in spite of the fact that the Regency had pressed him hard, it was not Mr. Roberts they were after, but the "blessed Jesus." He further maintained that he had never realized the corrupt state of the Conference until they had voted on Roberts' case. "Such a combination to crush a brother," he wrote, "I did not suppose could be with us."[48] After referring to Mr. Roberts' statement on the Conference floor, "Some of us will die hard,"[49] he exhorted him, "Don't be discouraged. brother; we have not suffered much yet. As you said to me on the night of your sentence and execution, 'It is an honor to be denounced by those men.' "[50] Kendall told Roberts that a Mr. Colton, evidently a layman, said on the Monday following Conference that he thought Kendall and Roberts should go throughout the Conference holding meetings. Kendall said lie had almost been persuaded to locate himself so that he would be free to go everywhere preaching Jesus, and then offered this suggestion, "We must circulate, as much as possible, among the people. God will give us this land yet."[51]

2. The Slavery Issue

Before passing to a consideration of the events at Pekin, it is only fair to the minds of all concerned to interject another cause for the strong feeling evidenced in the opposing factions of the Genesee Conference. In the matter of slavery, the members of the Methodist Church were divided in opinion by the controversy. Mr. Roberts, even before his school days at Middletown, had been actively antislavery. Following his graduation, although the exact date is not known, he had for a short time identified himself with the Know-Nothing Party which was formed about 1852 and finally culminated in the formation of the Republican Party. It was given its name because it was a secret, oath-bound fraternity, regarding whose purposes and cognomen its members always answered when questioned, "I don't know." "Americans must rule America!" was its rallying cry. It evidenced relentless hostility to the increasing power of the Roman Catholic Church, and demanded the extension of the qualification for naturalization to a residence of twenty-one years.[52] It was a strong antislavery party. The platform of free and liberal educational institutions for all sects and classes, with the Bible, God's Holy Word, as a universal textbook, was doubtless attractive to Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts had withdrawn from the party before the rise of the conference difficulties, and by that time, the party itself was rapidly disintegrating.

In a defense published in the columns of The Northern Independent, Mr. Roberts referred to the secret meetings of the Regency at the Medina Conference in 1856, and then declared that Mr. Hibbard, editor of the Northern Christian Advocate, had charged "one of the foremost leaders" of the Nazarites with having belonged to the Know-Nothing Party, while "at the same time he appeared before the public as a champion against secret societies."[53] Mr. Roberts averred that he had but little to say about secret societies as such; but he did protest against their being used to control the affairs of the church. As to the charge of having been a "Know-Nothing" he plead guilty, with the following as his explanation. At the time he joined the party, he supposed it embodied his political principles. While in it, he said he did battle to the best of his ability for human freedom. When he felt that he was losing spiritual power, he withdrew from the whole concern altogether. When leaving, he said he did not even take a card that would admit him to any council he might choose to enter, but left for good; and publicly made his confession. The gentlemen with whom he had been associated in the party gave him a regular dismission, which was accompanied by a letter from his principal officer, expressing their confidence in his integrity, and their admiration for his straightforward course while among them. He asked the question if, while the Regency were endeavoring to compass his ruin, it were gentlemanly in Mr. Hibbard to bring up a closed matter in order to excite prejudice against him. He asked, "Would Mr. Hibbard imitate our frankness, and tell us about his relation to the East Genesee Conference division of the Sacred Shield?"[54]

Both the question of secrecy and slavery were joined in that particular ecclesiastical skirmish, but underlying the whole seemed to be the slavery issue, with The Northern Independent as its organ. In 1859, Mr. Roberts wrote concerning the Conference of 1857 that in that year it had been his misfortune to come within two votes of being elected secretary of the Annual Conference. His position on the slavery question was well known to be antagonistic to that of the leader of the Regency, a candidate for Episcopal honors. The destruction of his influence, so Roberts thought, became necessary to that man's success. The presiding elder and Book Room influence had been put into requisition, he said, secret meetings were held and a heavy blow was resolved upon, namely, arresting his character and that of Mr. Kendall. That slavery was one large issue is not only admitted by Mr. Roberts but asserted by the editor of the Northern Independent. Mr. Hosmer, the editor, stated that it was well known that Mr. McCreery's plan of a Nazarite Union had been abandoned in the fall of 1855 and that no organization had ever been effected. Repeatedly the men concerned, who are stigmatized as Nazarites, had repudiated the existence of any such thing whatsoever; yet, Hosmer said, "pertinaciously as ever do the 'Nobles' continue to bark." . . . . [55] The same preachers whom McCreery consulted about the advisability of such a Band preached boldly against slavery as well as all other sins. "There's the rub," declared Mr. Hosmer. "If we had not had a strong pro-slavery party here, we never should have heard this interminable uproar about 'Nazarites.’[56] Something must be done to check the influence of earnest men, and this was thought to be as effectual a mode as any."[57] This statement was made by a man who was a Methodist minister, and who never had any connection with the formation of either Nazarite Bands or a new church. He remained a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Because the Northern Christian Advocate and the Buffalo Advocate refused the right of publication to any of the minority group, Mr. Hosmer did open the columns of his paper for the publications of the minority group out of what he considered journalistic fairness, and the right of defense.

3. Reception at Pekin

With the unhappy affairs of the Conference just behind him, and a new circuit just before him, it can only be imagined with what misgivings Roberts moved his family to the little country village, Pekin, New York. When the account of his trial and reproof under the charge of "immoral conduct" was published without explanation in the Buffalo Advocate, the people were, of course, hardly willing to receive Mr. Roberts. Some felt quite alarmed, as they might well have done, when they heard that a preacher had been sent to them who had been convicted before the Conference of immorality and crime. Roberts doubted if any itinerant ever had a colder reception.[58] Even Father Isaac Chesbrough, whom Roberts delineated as "one of the noblest of men, and staunchest and most loyal of Methodists," at first thought he would not even go to hear him preach. "What have we done," lie exclaimed, "that a man convicted of immoral conduct should be sent to us as our preacher?" When the first Sabbath morning of Roberts' pastorate came, Mr. Chesbrough, who always attended church, concluded to go, saying, "It can do no hurt to hear him once, anyway." His son later reported, "Returning from church, he rode in silence over a mile and then said, 'Well, Sam, I know nothing about the man, but I do know that what we have heard today 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.' "[59] However, the sentiment soon changed when they learned that their pastor's conviction had been on the basis of the articles in The Northern Independent, and the people gave the Roberts a hearty welcome. Mr. Chesbrough's son afterwards said of Mrs. Roberts that he was impressed by her neat and plain attire, as well as by the meek and quiet spirit she manifested. He compared her in dress and appearance to his mother; each bore the stamp, he thought, of a "true Baltimore Methodist."[60]

Mrs. Roberts was not so well impressed with Pekin. She recorded that it was a very small, ill-looking town, but even so, the home looked very pleasant. Mr. Roberts spoke better of it than she. He wrote to his father that they had a good parsonage, a good new church, and strong membership. It was composed mostly of substantial farmers. The people received them cordially, and he was trusting for a good year.[61] The harrowing experiences of the late Conference did not long affect his spirit, probably due to the fact that he felt so strongly that he was justified in his course. He told his father in the letter just quoted that he had not felt better following a Conference for three years than he had done since the last session, that he had tried to do his duty faithfully, and the Lord blessed him in it, and blessed him since.[62]

4. Other Events at Pekin

The judgment of Mr. Roberts with reference to the spirituality of his church was expressed to his wife, "These people do not understand what is meant by giving up the world and being thoroughly saved."[63] Since a Quarterly Meeting was drawing near, the pastor and wife agreed to invite in some of the Brockport and Syracuse Methodists who would be a witness and example of what religion would and could do. The burden of entertainment fell on the lady of the parsonage and her husband. "Bed ticks" were made out of a whole pieces of cotton cloth and were filled with straw. These were laid on the floor of the largest room of the parsonage and in a short time sleeping places for the men were thus provided. A powerful revival of religion broke out, Roberts wrote, which, notwithstanding the marked indifference of the presiding elder and the open opposition of two or three of the official members, "swept on with increasing power" throughout the year. One of the stewards, becoming dissatisfied because the young converts were laying aside their "jewelry and finery," began having prayer meetings in his house across the street from the church at the same time the revivals were in progress. Mr. Roberts said that he did nothing to oppose the meetings and they soon ceased. Many of the ladies, members of the church, "under Methodist vows to plainness of dress," went to church with "their silk gowns so distended with crinoline that their dresses would reach across the aisle; and the high, poke bonnets, then in vogue, were veritable flower gardens, the enormous spaces were so filled with artificial flowers." Under the revival preaching which included plainness of attire, the seekers ceased to come.[64]

George Washington Carl and his wife were two of the converts that year. There were twenty-five or thirty conversions in the meeting. Through the influence of Mr. Carl, a meeting was scheduled at the Stone Schoolhouse, and thirty or forty were converted in that meeting. Mr. Carl said, "We remember one special night, when Brother Roberts preached but could not stay for the altar service, about six were converted. It was a glorious time. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists were all blessed together and shouted the praises of God."[65] Many Lutherans claimed conversion in that meeting. It was the haying season and they came from miles around riding on their hayracks. When the schoolhouse was filled, they would drive up to the open window and listen.[66]

Another meeting was held, called the district camp meeting, just three miles from Pekin, and although the presiding elder never mentioned the meeting to Roberts, Mr. Roberts attended and had one of the largest tents on the ground. For three days, Mr. Roberts said, there was given no opportunity for testimony, but finally, "the tide of salvation began to run."[67] In the interval of meetings at the stand, Mr. Roberts would invite to his tent those who were in need of prayer, and he witnessed that many were there converted and sanctified of God.[68]

5. Death of Kendall

An event of deep significance to Roberts was the sickness and death of one of his most devoted friends since college days. On January 28, 1858, they heard that William Kendall was ill and not expected to live, and on February 2nd they heard that he was gone. Mrs. Roberts recorded in her diary, "What a blow!"[69] Probably no one was nearer in spirit to Roberts than Kendall. They had worked together and were closely joined in what they both believed to be a battle for truth. At the previous Annual Conference, two bills of charges had been brought against Kendall, but there had been insufficient time to try him. He was sent to one of the smallest circuits of the Conference. The people had been told by their presiding elder prior to Conference, that he "doubted whether there was a man in the Conference small enough for them."[70] When he was appointed to West Falls, his presiding elder informed him that if he pleased the people, 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.[71] Roberts asserted that he was a man capable of filling with credit any Christian pulpit. Mr. Roberts was chosen to preach the funeral sermon, but it is told of that service, that so great were his feelings he was not able to preach much. The text he chose was, "Who are these that are arrayed in white robes? "[72] The congregation was deeply moved; some wept; some shouted.[73] Mrs. Kendall shouted severaltimes![74] Mrs. Roberts said, "It seemed like triumph rather than death . . . . It did seem . . . . as if it were the verge of heaven."[75] They sang, "On Jordan's stormy banks I stand," and "Heaven, Sweet Heaven."

6. Decision of S. K. J. Chesbrough

That the Pekin church members were divided in sentiment with reference to the preaching and procedure of Mr. Roberts is evident from an incident told by S. K. J. Chesbrough, who at that meeting identified himself with Mr. Roberts and the Nazarites. Preaching at Humbolt Park Church, Chicago, in later life, Mr. Chesbrough related:

It is just as vivid to me as though it happened but yesterday, yet it is nearly forty years ago, over forty, when Brother Roberts was in the old church. There was a church of one hundred twenty-five members, I think. There were thirty that knelt around the altar seeking for purity and for pardon and nearly every member of that church was sitting bolt upright in the seat; none bowed, at least but very few. I remember when he said, 'Who are willing to come into this altar and take his position beside me to press this work on? Let them come in here and labor and pray with souls.' When I arose from my seat, half way down the church, I felt every friend was gone. But by the grace of God I deliberately walked down the aisle, and took my place by Brother Roberts. Two others came with me. There we were, three out of that church. That hour sealed the matter with me.[76]

This procedure, as can be readily seen, forced a line of demarcation upon the people, and created a sense of the division which was already rending the Conference. Doubtless, many did not wish to become embroiled in the difficulties by identifying themselves with either faction and so chose to remain in their seats, although by so doing, according to the question put by Roberts, they were arraying themselves against him.

The opposition in his own church had evidently increased. Mrs. Lane wrote to Mrs. Roberts, "Oh, how troubled and sad (I am) to learn that you are still passing through the 'furnace fires!' "[77] Those fires were growing hotter and were soon to be felt anew officially. Mr. Roberts continued his revival efforts, though it seems evident he was being strongly opposed. He wrote to his father about the numerous conversions, and told of the remarkable increase in attendance at the class meetings, "where six to twelve attended when we came, some forty or fifty were present."[78] He said he was trying "to put the plough in deep," and commented that he felt the Lord was helping him and he had no fears for the results.[79] Ten days later, he wrote again to his father that they were having meetings every night, with from ten to twenty forward each night for prayer. He told his father he had calls to go to Attica, Lancaster, Yates, Caryville, to the Congregational Church at Leroy and other places, but he was trying hard to plant Methodism on his charge.[80]

7. Visits of Stiles and Redfield

Two close friends of Mr. Roberts visited him that year. One was the visit of Mr. Loren Stiles, who was the young presiding elder who had been transferred to the Cincinnati Conference and later returned to the Genesee through the large petition circulated among the people. He had been a close friend of B. T. Roberts since his days in Lima in 1845, when both were students in the Seminary. Mr. Stiles was a graduate of the Methodist Theological Seminary at Concord, New Hampshire. His discourses were esteemed by many as spiritual and edifying, and it seemed that he had by that time established for himself a reputation as a pulpit orator. It is probable that the death of their mutual friend, Kendall. drew them more closely together.

Dr. Redfield also visited the Roberts home that year. His name had been identified with the "Nazarite" group, as one of its foremost leaders and promoters. It is most probable that Dr. Redfield, during this visit, discussed his attitudes as to the necessity of separation from the mother church. His visit came at the time of a general quarterly meeting held at Pekin, the first meeting of its kind he had ever attended. These general quarterly meetings had been originated by Mr. Stiles during the period of his presiding eldership. Here is found the first reference to band work. Mr. Terrill recorded: "He found that the work had been kept alive in some places, by the organization of bands, made up of those who enjoyed perfect love and were contending earnestly for real Methodism."[81] The band work was to be stimulated by the events of succeeding days until, like the class meetings of John Wesley, they finally formed the nucleus for a new organization. He was convinced that one of two things would result from the state of affairs he found; either they would win a sufficient number of people to their beliefs that opposition to them would cease, or they would be finally excluded from the church.[82]

Dr. Redfield had been working extensively in Illinois, where conditions were heading up much as they were in the Genesee Conference. Right after his visit to the Roberts home, he had written to Mrs. Kendall, "I am accused of 'splitting churches.' I confess that is my object, to split them off from the world."[83] He added that many good people, and some of the preachers in Illinois were very much prejudiced against the Nazarites. A "Brother Woodward," formerly from the Genesee Conference said he could not believe that all was right among the "pilgrims" when such men as Fillmore, and Church, and De Puy, and Bowman represented them as they do.[84] Mr. Bowman was to become one of the main witnesses against Mr. Roberts in his second trial.

As the 1858 Conference drew near, S. K. J. Chesbrough, one of the members of the Pekin circuit who had taken his position with Mr. Roberts, wrote a report of the year at Pekin. He referred to the fact that Mr. Roberts had been branded with immorality before he had appeared at Pekin, and that the Advocate had at frequent intervals since published articles against him, but he believed that the shafts hurled at Mr. Roberts fell "far below him." He answered the accusation that his pastor had been moved from the Niagara Street Church in Buffalo because of unfitness by stating that this accusation would do well enough among those who had not all the facts from Mr. Thomas, the presiding elder during the pastorate of Mr. Roberts at Buffalo. Mr. Chesbrough presented as the ultimate criterion whether the church had prospered under the ministry of Mr. Roberts, and answered it by saying that God had honored his labors. Fifty or sixty had professed conversion, over forty had joined on probation. A goodly number had professed the experience of entire sanctification. He declared that without an exception every aged member in the church had publicly endorsed the preaching and the work that had been going on as a return of Wesleyan Methodism with its uncompromising and earnest spirit. He stated that when Mr. Roberts had first come among them, their Sunday noon class had numbered about fifteen; at the close of the year they were having an average of seventy-five to eighty. They were holding a meeting each night at some point on the charge, and their prayer and class meetings had been better sustained through "haying and harvesting" and had been more interesting than for years past. Their Sunday School was at an all time high. Scores in the church, he thought, thanked God for the presence of Mr. Roberts among them.[85]

C. REPUBLICATION OF "NEW SCHOOL METHODISM"

1. Views on the Publication

The event of greatest significance during that year was the republication of the article on "New School Methodism" in pamphlet form by George W. Estes, a prominent lay member of the Methodist Episcopal Church on the Clarkson circuit. Mr. Roberts estimated that he was a man of intelligence and of influence in the community in which he resided. He had been a worker in the revival meetings Mr. Roberts had held at Brockport. Mr. Estes felt that the Conference had done wrong by publishing what he termed the vague, insinuating reports of the offense for which Mr. Roberts was convicted, and had printed an account of the trial in connection with the pamphlet on "New School Methodism."

The crux of the whole question of the justice of the proceedings of the 1858 session of the Genesee Conference hinged on the truthfulness of the following assertion of Mr. Roberts:

Mr. Estes, without my knowledge even, published over his own name, and at his own expense, in pamphlet form, my article on 'New School Methodism' and a short account of my trial.[86]

The words of Mr. Estes appended to the article of Mr. Roberts were of great consequence to the future disposition of the case of Mr. Roberts. Mr. Estes denounced the element of secrecy in connection with the trial; accused the opposition of sacrificing annually a human victim at the several annual Conferences past; declared that they had reproved and condemned Roberts for "unchristian and immoral conduct" for writing an article while at the same time the Conference had re-admitted a brother from around Buffalo for "the service performed of kissing a young lady in the vestibule" while the trial was in progress;[87] that they were wreaking their vengeance upon The Northern Independent for its antislavery position by putting out one acknowledged above all others in the Conference as "the people's man";[88] declared that since they had appealed to the Bishop in numbers and yet had received nothing but a stereotyped reply, that he was resolved not to pay another cent to any of the preachers associated with the so-called Regency faction, even to the withholding of his money from the superannuate fund, which was by them controlled.[89]

Mr. Roberts stated that he never saw this article until sometime after it was published, and he was in no wise responsible for its publication, but that Mr. Estes, a man of means, and an exhorter in the M. E. Church, was responsible, and like a man, had assumed the full responsibility. When, at the last Quarterly Conference preceding the Annual Conference, the question of the renewal of Mr. Estes' license came up, the presiding elder had asked Mr. Estes if he were the author of the pamphlet. He replied that he was. Without a word of objection, said Mr. Roberts, the presiding elder had renewed the license as an exhorter, and soon after went to Conference and cast his vote to expel Mr. Roberts from the Conference and Church, on the charge of publishing that very pamphlet.[90]

2. Conference Difficulties Increase

The republication of that pamphlet became the main problem of the Conference, and was a precursor of serious consequences to Roberts. Mrs. Roberts recorded in her diary, July, 1858, "In the love feast the Lord let me see the second time that there were some severe trials ahead, and it was connected with my husband. 1 thought he was going to die."[91] Later while spending two days at the Hamburg Camp Meeting, under what she felt was an unusual sense of the divine afflatus, she wrote, "Again I saw the trial ahead and it seemed as though my dear husband was going to die."[92] On August 29th, she wrote of taking tea at "Sister Cushing's" and of going to "Brother Rose's" to meeting where they had a good service, but it seemed like a farewell meeting. Mrs. Roberts could not refrain from tears. They sang at the close, "That will be joyful to meet to part no more."[93] October 1st, Mrs. Roberts recorded was fast day to pray for Conference, but few were out. "I never saw such a time when God seemed so near. All led in prayer twice. What power we had in praying for my dear companion! We all felt God would go with him and the Red Sea would be divided."[94]

On October 3rd, Mr. Roberts presided at his own church, arose and gave out the hymn, "Jesus, my Strength and Righteousness." So great was his emotional strain he could hardly speak. He and his wife scarcely understood what all this meant.[95] Mr. Roberts left the next day for Conference, and a meeting was held that day in Pekin. Mrs. Roberts prayed that the dross might be consumed, and that she was willing to be placed in the furnace that the "gold without the dross" might be given her. She said in a talk to the people that they would find fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, to all intents and purposes if they would forsake all.[96]

On October 8th, Mrs. Roberts left for the Conference at Perry, New York. One of the first pieces of information from the Conference from Mr. Roberts was that they had refused to receive into membership two ministers, Warner and Foster; the first because of inviting people to seek holiness, and the second for stating at one time that he was glad that there was no presiding elder present to steady the ark.[97] On October 9th, Mr. Roberts read the Scripture, "Thou therefore endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ."[98] Mrs. Roberts awoke that morning saying, "Soldiers of Christ, arise and put your armour on."[99]

On October 11th, a bill of charges was handed to Mr. Roberts, containing the charges of contumacy and republishing and circulating "the Estes Pamphlet." Mrs. Roberts confessed, "When they first took up Mr. Roberts' case it seemed as if I could not stand it."[100] This was no doubt due to the fact that they refused his request for a trial committee, the fact they would not accept B. I. Ives of the Oneida Conference as his counsel, nor would they permit him to be transferred to another Conference to be tried by "impartial" men. At that stage, Mrs. Roberts began to look into the future and wonder what would be the results if he should be expelled, for it then seemed probable that he would.[101]

Mr. Roberts arose in his own defense in all of these matters. On the change of venue which he requested, he quoted to them the provision of civil law that a venue could be changed to another county when the defendant conceived that he could not have a fair trial in the county where the venue was laid. He showed them that not one man of the majority would be permitted to sit in a civil court if twenty-five cents only were at issue. He quoted Hobart's Report to the effect that a man to sit in judgment upon his own cause was contrary to natural equity, and should be void for "jura naturae sunt immutabilia; they are leges legum. Natural rights are immutable. They are the laws of laws."[102] Mr. Roberts felt that where things dearer than his own life, his professional reputation and standing were at stake, that an impartial trial was necessary. When he was refused a change of venue, he requested a committee small enough that each one sitting on the committee would feel a sense of personal responsibility for the decision. He felt that if tried before the entire Conference, it would be easy for one to hide behind another in avoiding responsibility for the decision. He believed that it would be easier for the Conference to do in the name of a body what the men would scorn to do in their own name. He noted that the larger the assembly the higher the passions would rise, and quoted a saying of Socrates that if everyone in Athens were a philosopher, an Athenian assembly would be little better than a mob.[103] Once again, in this request, Mr. Roberts was denied what he considered to be necessary to a fair and impartial trial.

3. The Trial Proper

The trial was held before the entire Conference assembly. Mr. Roberts thought two pieces of evidence only appeared to be of striking importance; first, that pertaining to Rev. John Bowman, and second, the testimony of George Estes. Bowman testified that Roberts had given him a packet of the papers written by Estes, and thus supported the assertion that Roberts had circulated the same. Mr. Terrill referred to an alleged confession of Dr. Bowman subsequent to this that his position had been wrong.[104] The second witness testified that he alone had been responsible for the publication of the article and the account of the first trial, and that he had not asked the permission of Mr. Roberts with reference to the same. The exact testimony of all the men who took part in the trial is available in Wilson T. Hogue's History of the Free Methodist Church, taken essentially from B. T. Roberts' book Why Another Sect, and from the Defence of Rev. B. T. Roberts, A. M. before the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church by S. K. J. Chesbrough, a small book of sixty-nine pages. Little of its detailed testimony can be given. The Rev. Thomas Carlton and the Rev. James M. Fuller, prominent ministers of the Conference, acted as prosecuting counsel, while Loren Stiles, Roberts' close friend for many years, spoke in his defense. In the last mentioned work, we have the plea of Mr. Stiles, and the closing plea of Mr. Roberts in full. Mr. Roberts' plea is phrased in the characteristic manner of a law trained man. Roberts showed that the trial of the present Conference grew out of the trial of the past year. He reviewed the whole set of circumstances, referred to their reproof and conviction the previous year, and called attention to what he judged the rather unusual fact that these same men who voted him guilty of immoral conduct, voted to pass his character, and sent him forth once more to preach the Gospel.[105] He then pressed his conclusion:

I must believe, then, that they voted me guilty when they did not believe this to be the case; or, it is their deliberate judgment expressed in the most solemn manner, that immorality does not unfit a man for being a Minister of Jesus Christ.[106]

After reviewing the character of "New School Methodism," he proceeded to argue that there was not only an utter absence of proof that he published or assisted in publishing the document so offensive to them, but the proof he asserted was positive, that he had nothing to do with it whatsoever.[107] Then Roberts came to what he considered the crucial point, asserting that the only foundation that remained on which to rest the heavy charges of "immoral and unchristian conduct" was the alleged circulation of this document. Even if the proof of circulation were ever so conclusive, this would constitute no reason, he argued, why he should be put on trial for immoral conduct, as though some great crime had been committed. Had time permitted, he asserted that he could have shown that there were but few preachers in the Conference who had not circulated it more or less. After citing a particular case in point, he asked concerning that man, "Is he immoral? Is every one immoral that has circulated that pamphlet?"[108]

Mr. Roberts then elaborated the thought that although George Estes had made some sharp statements in the part of the pamphlet which gave an account of the trial, that they were not as severe as many charges that Wesley had made in his day. Then he came to the further conclusion that even if, instead of having had nothing to do whatsoever with the publication of the offending document, he had actually written it, no just ground would have existed for this "partizan trial."[109] This conclusion was preceded by a very strong accusation in which Mr. Roberts declared that the spirit that dictated the prosecution of last year and this, would have much more befitted a "narrow-minded monk of the middle ages" than a Protestant minister in the latter half of the nineteenth century.[110]

Mr. Roberts endeavored to narrow down the evidence to show that there was only one real witness against him, Mr. Bowman, to prove that he had actually circulated the pamphlet. and that the testimony of Mr. Bowman as a reliable witness had been impeached. Coming to the close of his defense he stated:

The counsel has dwelt long and earnestly upon the aggravated nature of the offence charged. If the accusation had been for the most atrocious crime, it could not have been urged with greater vehemence and zeal. Libel is an offence that may or may not involve moral delinquency. Some of the best men in our church have been convicted of libel, not before a partizan tribunal, but by a civil court, and mulcted in damages. The venerated Bishops Emory and Waugh, and Dr. Bangs, were brought in, by an impartial jury, guilty of libeling a business man, and yet they suffered no loss of confidence on that account. But here the most strenuous exertions are put forth to make out that in the long catalogue of crime, there is none of quite so deep a dye, as the handing, to a supposed friend, a package of pamphlets, which contain some animadversions upon a party of men, which they are pleased to consider libelous.[111]

Many who heard his closing appeal were probably not unmoved at his statement of church loyalty:

Finally, brethren, allow me to say that I do not affect indifference as to the results of this investigation. I have an ardent attachment to the Church of my choice. I love her doctrines, her usages, and her aggressive spirit. If I have erred at all, it has been occasioned by loving the Church too much, rather than too little. Any departure from the landmarks of Methodism has awakened jealous solicitude and called forth whatever influence I possessed, to persuade people to 'ask for the old paths, that they might walk therein.' It has been my offence not to have labored altogether in vain. We have been favored by the Great Head of the Church, with revivals, deep and powerful, such as have given to our beloved Zion her present position among the Churches of the land.

It would be our delight to continue to toil in the same blessed work, with what little ability and energy the Lord has been pleased to endow us with. This, above all others, is the service that I delight in, and to which I feel that God has specially called and commissioned me from on high. I do not feel that my work is done, nor my commission from the Lord revoked. I love the Methodist Episcopal Church; no one has ever heard me say aught against her; and I should esteem it my highest privilege to be permitted to put forth mightier efforts than I have ever done, to build up her walls and enlarge her borders.

We are hastening to a great impartial tribunal, before which all actions must pass in review, and all secrets be revealed. There the deliberations of this hour, and the motives by which we are governed, will be disclosed before an assembled universe. Remember it is written: 'With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you again.'[112]

Of the last day at the trial, Mrs. Roberts recorded in her diary that Mr. Fuller, the prosecuting attorney, made his speech, and while he was talking, Mrs. Brainard opened her Bible to the fifty-second Psalm and read, and that it seemed very appropriate. In the afternoon, Loren Stiles made his summing up in the defense, and in the evening, her husband made his plea. She felt that God was with him, and that there was conviction of his innocence all through the house. They did not dare to reply and take the vote that night, Mrs. Roberts thought, but adjournment was called for at the close of Mr. Roberts' plea and all retired early.[113] Mr. Roberts was of the same opinion 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 the Conference the next morning and vote the specifications, and the charge sustained.[114]

Mrs. Roberts recorded the proceedings of the next morning, stating that Mr. Fuller made another speech before the vote was taken. Then he moved Mr. Roberts' expulsion from the Church and Conference, which was carried by a vote of 54 to 34, although this vote did not include all the members of the Conference.[115] Mrs. Roberts said she had to pray every moment, while she felt that honor rested upon her husband, and that confusion and shame rested upon some men on that Conference floor from that hour. As soon as the vote was taken, the preachers and friends who were sympathetic left the house, some in silence, some in tears. Mrs. Roberts said she had no tears to shed, though she had some strange feelings. She recorded: "It seemed as if we were turned out on a great common where the fences were all down and I had a lost feeling until Jesus told me He would be a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night."[116] They went to a "Brother Handley's" and had a season of prayer after dinner. They stayed at "Brother Stanton's" that night, and as she went to rest, she admitted, "My feelings overcame me. I wept before the Lord."[117]

The next day, the Rev. Joseph McCreery, who had formulated the documents for a proposed Nazarite Union, was tried and expelled with a much shorter trial than Mr. Roberts' had been. At the beginning of the Conference session, one of the preachers began by reading the twelfth chapter of Hebrews till he came to the sixteenth verse, and, as Mrs. Roberts recorded in her diary, "then shut the book evidently greatly confused. There was much uneasiness among the preachers while he was reading."[118] That day, the pastoral address, which was based on the background of the Conference difficulties, was read, and fitted into the proceedings of the day. Mr. Stiles published three months later a full page article in The Northern Independent, endeavoring to expose what he considered the injustice of it.[119]

4. Reactions to the Trial and Expulsion

The Rev. C. D. Burlingham wrote up a history of Mr. Roberts' trial and expulsion and circulated it. It gives his insight into the reactions of the Conference. Mr. Burlingham stated that it was a notorious fact that these verdicts were not based on testimony proving criminal acts or words. Several who voted with, and others who sympathized with the majority, had said that even if the charges were not sustained by sufficient proof, still the Conference had served these men right, for they were great agitators and promoters of disorder and fanaticism. "There you have it," said Mr. Burlingham. "Men tried for one thing and condemned for another!" He ejaculated, "What iniquitous jurisprudence will not such a principle cover?" Then followed another question, "Why not try them for promoting disorder and fanaticism?" to which he replied, "Because the failure of such an effort to convict would have been the certain result."[120]

The expulsions did not seem to end the argument. The editor of the Buffalo Advocate, Mr. John Robie, published an article in his paper which stated that some ten years before the Conference had seen fit to put into leading positions in the Conference a group of men who had been occupying the best positions and circuits, and under their care the work had prospered both spiritually and financially. Mr. Robie said that their successful work inflamed the jealousy of a few men in the Conference, of whom Mr. Roberts and Mr. McCreery were among the chief, and that these men had resolved to overthrow the men of whom they had been so long jealous, and to occupy their positions. Accordingly, to accomplish their purposes they had begun to slander these leading men who were in official position, especially among the young men who were entering the Conference. They had, the author charged, perfected a secret organization to overthrow these men, and had furthermore written and circulated letters containing the basest libels against many of the best members of the Conference, and had proposed plans by which they could be deposed. It was asserted that they had also bribed two presiding officers who formerly had no affinity with them, and so had obtained an influence in the Cabinet. In order to carry forward their aims the better, they professed and preached "entire holiness" and under its guise countenanced practices which were a disgrace to a civilized community. Mr. Hosmer, editor of The Northern Independent, who never identified himself with the minority group except to print their side of the story when access to the columns of the regular church papers was denied them, reviewed the above article from Robie's paper, and then declared that the history was overdone, and that the dose was too big for even the readers of the Advocate to swallow. He said the people knew too well the true history of the parties to believe that Abell, Hard, Roberts, McCreery, Stiles, etc., were "incarnate devils," and Carlton, Robie, Fuller, Wentworth and Company were "angels of light." He expressed the opinion that if anything half as slanderous as that article had been proved against the expelled ministers, their expulsion would have been richly merited.[121]

The Rev. Elias Bowen was a minister of the Oneida Conference, in high standing among all his ministerial brethren. For twenty-four years he filled the office of presiding elder, seven times was delegate from his Conference to the General Conference of the M. E. Church, and was the author of the three hundred and seventeen page book on Slavery in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Dr. Bowen took up his pen in defense of Mr. Roberts and his associates before he was personally acquainted with some of them. He stated years later that he believed himself better qualified to judge with reference to the validity of the accusation of fanaticism and enthusiasm than those who brought the accusation. He attended the camp meetings and General Quarterly Meetings against which a special outcry had been made as "hot beds of fanaticism," and had sat under the preaching of some of the men year after year. He said he knew what Methodism was, since some of the men among whom he was numbered had been converted and joined the church under the labors of her honored pioneers. We speak advisedly," he commented, "when we say that the charge brought against Roberts and McCreery, and the class of preachers denominated 'Nazarites,' of promoting fanaticism, is utterly false and groundless. They were simply trying to get others in earnest to gain heaven. They were not attacking the church but were its defenders."[122] Dr. Bowen declared that they preached the doctrines of the Methodist Church which he had heard preached years before. He said the Regency ministers professed to preach the doctrine of holiness, but they had yet to hear of the first person who had, in recent years, experienced this blessing through their instrumentality. It was his opinion that they had lowered the standard of justification below what the Scriptures and Methodism warranted.[123]

There seems to be little doubt that Mr. Roberts and his associates believed that they were taking their position for the truth, that their opponents in the Conference were of a liberal stamp, and that they themselves were suffering the inevitable persecution that comes to those who stand for the truth.

5. Attitudes of the Conference Majority

On the other hand, there were accusations of various kinds which were brought against this group in the minority. The editor of the Advocate published a statement to the effect that it was one of the merest shams which had ever been perpetrated on any people to represent and to seek to convince others that the Genesee Conference, just out of spite to spiritual religion, Christian holiness, old-fashioned Methodism, or any such like truth or feeling, pursued, persecuted and expelled from its body two of its members. Had they done so, from any such cause or motive, they would have deserved the reprobation of enlightened people either in the church or out of it. But the case was otherwise in all respects. The Conference had been slandered time and again by the two leaders of "the notorious party," and one of them had been publicly reproved by the Bishop for his misdemeanor, but still had persisted in his accustomed course of defamation and scandal until the Conference could bear with his impunity no longer, and therefore expelled him, as they did, also, his most intimate associate in guilt. He was surprised that even a few among the membership were so easily led to place a false construction on the doings of the Conference, and attribute to it motives which never had existence either in thought or feeling.[124]

It is interesting to read and evaluate a statement of the account in Conable's History, remembering that Conable was one of the "Regency" men and as such, opposed to the Nazarites. His history of the Genesee Conference was given official status by a vote of the Conference. Mr. Conable recounted that Nazaritism assumed that the great body of the Conference and a large portion of the membership of the church had backslidden from the spirit of essential Methodism; that the Discipline of the church had become a dead letter; that on the subject of "Scriptural holiness," understood in the Wesleyan sense, many had become heterodox, and many more were grievously derelict; and that general worldliness, extravagance and vanity had spoiled and made desolate the once fair heritage of Zion. They seemed to make no allowance whatever he said for any change in the modes of thinking, customs, or circumstances of society within the last fifty years, and to quite overlook the difference between what was essential and what was merely incidental to Methodism and Christian experience. They seemed to regard every change as necessarily an evil. They proposed to bring Methodism back to those accidental as well as essential peculiarities which marked its earliest years. In relation to the rules of discipline requiring attendance on class, requiring family prayer, quarterly fasts, and singing by the congregation, and in relation to the custom of free seats in their houses of worship, attendance from abroad upon love feasts, camp meetings, and simplicity and spirituality generally In Worship, Nazaritism represented the Genesee ministers and members generally as so far fallen away that extraordinary measures must speedily be instituted in order to secure the restoration of such observances and customs or all would be lost. The leading men of the Conference in high positions, and the majority of the body, the Nazarites thought must be reformed, and the membership of the church generally. At that point, the historian betrayed something of feeling when he said, " . . . . these were the men, of all others, to comprehend the situation, and with supernatural courage and 'audacious hope' to undertake the mighty work. Were not these the true sons of John Wesley?"[125] Conable commented further that as the views and representations of Nazaritism became known they were regarded by the body of the ministry and the better part of the membership as in some particulars extreme and also slanderous. The policy instituted in order to accomplish the "great reform," even conceding the representations to be truthful, were looked upon as extra-disciplinary and unwarrantable. He admitted that the ministers were not as entirely devoted to their work as they ought to be; that many of them were more or less delinquent in duty and wanting in spirituality and living in conformity to the world, that there was occasion for solicitude in the state of the church and the tendencies of the times, and a pressing need of urging the people in the way of Methodistic holy living. He concluded:

But was there really less rational piety in the Church than ever before? And were the backslidings of young converts and of old professors more grievous than ever in our history? Men of God, self-sacrificing, long tried, and honored watchmen upon the wails of our Zion, whose names are too deeply inwritten in our memories and hearts to require specification, where were ye then?[126]

Mr. Conable further stated that although there were two extreme groups, those whose specialty was "entire holiness" and who emphasized plainness in dress, and those who were living in the very tip of fashion, loaded with superfluous ornaments and who were very far from holiness, yet there was a third class who were eminent for intelligent piety who made up the strength of the church. He accused this Nazarite organization of choosing a former Mason for their first president, and of making a chivalrous attack on such articles of dress as were not common in the church half a century ago. He said that they were also guilty of physical manifestations of a violent character, so that scenes often occurred which were a disgrace to a civilized community, to say nothing of the refinements of a pure religion.[127]

Mr. Conable continued his account with a direct accusation against them as policy men, manipulating for place. He said the leaders of the minority faction took advantage of the deep interest felt by many on the subject of holiness, and the opposition of some to secret societies, and the antislavery agitation, somewhat sectional as to the Conference territory . . . . These men, he asserted, were endeavoring to gain for themselves, and for some who were just coming into the Conference, the special favor of the people and the positions which those who were in the Conference long before them had so fairly earned, and were still occupying efficiently and successfully. "And surely it was stupendous nonsense to suppose that these factitious characters were superior examples of Methodistic piety, purity, and philanthropy."[128] The tide of feeling evidently ran so high that doubtful aspersions in writing are found of which Mr. Conable's is an example. It is necessary to an impartial conclusion that the viewpoint of each group be considered and the salient facts from each be weighed.

6. Conclusion

When word of Mr. Roberts' expulsion reached Mrs. Lane, whose husband had been for so many years in charge of Methodist publications, she wrote to the Roberts a letter which might form the basis for further study and evaluation. She first encouraged the Roberts by saying, "Grace, almighty grace will sustain you, but grace will not prevent you from feeling as you have never before felt."[129] Other words of encouragement followed, but the part of her epistle which seemed particularly pertinent continues:

It is dreadful to me to harbor the thought that the Church is corrupt, and then the question comes up, what has Mr. Roberts done, that he should he so injured. I love the Church and feel we all owe much to the Church, and I have asked the question mentally, would the Bishops and all the Church turn against Mr. Roberts and suffer his usefulness to be hindered, and himself and family thrown upon the world without support, when he has tried to do good, and to build up the waste places of Zion. If the 'fly sheet' (New School Methodism) was the trouble, was it not before the world nearly two years since, and if Mr. Roberts was unfit to be in the Church, why was the matter left for so long a time? and why was he chosen to preach Bro. Kendal’s funeral sermon (at Conference, on the eve of his expulsion), and that unanimously, if he was unfit even for Church membership?[130]

She concluded by exhorting the Roberts to "cleave to the Church though it has smitten you." She continued, "Mr. Roberts must come back, and stand on Zion's walls, and there do battle for God and souls."[131] She urged him not to think of an independent organization because it would do harm. She exhorted him to wait quietly and see the salvation of God. In Mrs. Lane's advice to "quietly wait" she was probably thinking of the appeal which Mr. Roberts had made to the General Conference which was less than two years away. Mrs. Lane felt keenly the struggle between loyalty to the organization, hardly supposing that the Church with its bishops could go wrong, and yet wondering from what she knew of the problem why such an action would be taken.

This is the initial quandary to which the human mind comes in weighing the evidence presented by both sides of the controversy. If one reads the Northern Independent, it was an "inquisition;" if one reads the Northern Christian Advocate, it was a matter of necessary church administration. Final conclusions will have to grow out of a consideration of all the factors involved in this seeming impasse.

[*] See Appendix. (Go to The Appendix)

[1] Letter from B. T. Roberts to Bishop T. A. Morris, written from Albion, New York, November 15, 1856. Found among the personal letters of the Roberts family.

[2] Letter from Dr. J. W. Redfield, Jefferson, Wisconsin. to William Kendall and wife, December 20, 1856. Recorded in J. G. Terrill's Life of Rev. John W. Redfield. M. D. (Chicago, Illinois: Free Methodist Publishing House, 1899), pp. 313.314.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] B. T. Roberts, Holiness Teachings. compiled from editorial writings, by B. H. Roberts (North chili, New York Earnest Christian Publishing House, 1893). pp. 199, 200.

[6] Ibid.. p.197.

[7] Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, (Rochester, New York'. The Earnest Christian Publishing House. 1879). pp. 114, 115, 116. 1l7. Copied from the Medina Tribune, (September 11, 1856).

[8] Ibid., p.114.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] John Robie, Buffalo Advocate, (September 11, 1856), p.2.

[13] Ibid.

[14] "Creed Tests of Orthodox Piety," Buffalo Christian Advocate, (April 16, 1857), p.2 (No signature).

[15] Ibid.

[16] "Christianity a Religion of Beneficence Rather Than of Devotion." Buffalo Christian Advocate, (May 14, 1857), p.2 (No signature).

[17] Ibid.

[18] B. T. Roberts, "New School Methodism," Northern Independent. Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why, Another Sect. pp. 85-96.

[19] B. T. Roberts. "New School Methodism." Quoted by Wilson T. Rogue, History of the Free Methodist Church, (Chicago: Free Methodist Publishing House, 1915). I, 98102.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] "Christianity a Religion of Beneficence Rather than of Devotion," Buffalo Christian Advocate, (May 14, 1857), p. 2.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Letter from H. G. Hibbard. Quoted by B. '3'. Roberts In Why, Another' Sect. Rochester, New York: The Earnest Christian Publishing House, 1879), p.97.

[27] Ibid.

[28] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, (Rochester. New York: The Earnest Christian Publishing House, 1879). p.98.

[29] Letter from w. C. Kendall, The Earnest Christian, (July, 1867), pp. 7, 8.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Buffalo Advocate, (April 18, 1857).

[33] B T. Roberts, Why Another Sect. (Rochester, New York.' The Earnest Christian Publishing House, 1879), p.147.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid., p.148.

[36] Ibid., p.66; also Elias Bowen. D. D., History of the Origin of the Free Methodist Church, (Rochester, New York. 1871). p.52.

[37] B. T. Roberts, Why Another, Sect, p.67.

[38] Ibid., p.68

[39] S. K. 3. Chesbrough, "Defense of Rev. B. T. Roberts, A.M.. before the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church," (From notes and testimony taken at trial). (Buffalo: Clapp, Matthews and Co.'s Steam Printing House. 1858), p.15.

[40] Bliss Bowen, D. D., History' of the Origin of the Free Methodist Church. p.52.

[41] Ibid., p.148.

[42] Elias Bowen, D. D., History of the Origin of the Free Methodist Church, (Rochester. New York; 1871), p.299.

[43] C. D. Burlingham. Outline History, p.40. Quoted by B. H. Roberts. Why Another Sect, p.177.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Statement of James Fuller. Quoted by B. H. Roberts, op. cit., p.138.

[46] Ibid., p.138.

[47] Letter from Kendall to Roberts. Quoted by J. G. Terrill, Life of John Wesley Redfield, M. D.. (Chicago: Free Methodist Publishing House, 1899). p.324.

[48] Ibid., p.325.

[49] Ibid., p. 325.

[50] Ibid., p.325.

[51] Ibid., p.328.

[52] "The Know-Nothing Party." Americana Encyclopedia, Vol. 18, 1941 edition.

[53] B. T. Roberts. Northern Independent, Vol. 13, (January 20, 1859), pp. 94, 95.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Northern Independent, Vol. III, (June 20, 1859), p.2.

[56] Ibid.

[57] Ibid.

[58] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, (Rochester, New York: The Earnest Christian Publishing House, 1879), p. 155.

[59] Ibid.

[60] S. K. J. Chesbrough. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter. Ellen Lois Roberts, Life and Writings, (Chicago: Woman's Missionary Society, Free Methodist Church, 1926), p. 51.

[61] Letter from B. T. Roberts to his father, October 1.1857. Quoted by B. H. Roberts, Benjamin Titus Roberts, p.142.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Statement of B. T. Robert,, to his, wife. Quoted by B. H. Roberts, Benjamin Titus Roberts, p.143.

[64] B. H. Roberts, op. cit., pp. 143, 144.

[65] G. W. Carl, The Free Methodist, (August 9, 1910), pp. 504,505.

[66] B. H. Roberts, op. cit., p.144.

[67] B. T. Roberts. Why Another Sect, (Rochester, New York: The Earnest Christian Publishing House, 1879), p.156.

[68] Ibid.

[69] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, February 2, 1851. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit., p.56.

[70] B. T. Roberts. Why Another Sect. (Rochester, New York: The Earnest Christian Publishing House, 1879). p.76.

[71] Ibid., p.76; also "William C. Kendall, A.M.," The Earnest Christian, (December, 1861), 374.

[72] Rev. 7:13.

[73] Diary of Mrs. Roberts. February 10, 1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit.. p.56.

[74] Ibid. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit., p.57.

[75] Ibid. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit., p.57.

[76] 5. K. J. Chesbrough, The Free Methodist, (February 20, 1900), p.2. Speech reported by Hannah Jacobson, stenographer.

[77] Letter from Mrs. George Lane to Mrs. Roberts. April 21,1687. Found among personal letters of the Roberts family.

[78] Letter from B. T. Roberts to his father, March 1,1858. Quoted by B. H. Roberts, op. cit.. pp. 145, 146.

[79] Ibid.. Quoted by B. H. Roberts, op. cit., p.146.

[80] Ibid.

[81] J. G. Terrill, Life of John W. Redfield, M. D., (Chicago: Free Methodist Publishing House, 1899), p.343.

[82] Ibid.

[83] Letter from Dr. Redfield to Mrs. Kendall, August 25, 1858. Quoted by J. G. Terrill, op. cit., p.344.

[84] Ibid.

[85] S. K. J. Chesbrough, "Pekin, Genesee Conference," Northern Independent, vol. III. (October 14, 1858), 9.

[86] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect. p.100.

[87] Estes Pamphlet. Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.182.

[88] Ibid. Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.186.

[89] Ibid. Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.168.

[90] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.168.

[91] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, July, 1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit., p.62.

[92] Ibid.

[93] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, August 29.1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit., p. 62.

[94] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, October 1, 1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit., p.83.

[95] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, October 3.1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit., p.83.

[96] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, October 4, 1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit., p.63.

[97] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, October 8, 1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter. op. cit., p.63.

[98] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, October 9, 1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit., p.64. Scripture verse: II Tim. 2:3.

[99] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, October 9.1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter. op. cit., p.64.

[100] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, October 11, 1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter. op. cit.. p. 64.

[101] Ibid.

[102] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.171. (Quoted from Hobart's Report, page 87. Day vs. Savage.)

[103] Personal Papers by Roberts, found among the letters and papers of the Roberts family.

[104] J. G. Terrill, The Life of Rev. John W. Redfield, M. D., (Chicago: Free Methodist Publishing House, 1899), p.344, (footnote).

[105] S. K. J. Chesbrough, Defence of Rev. B. T. Roberts, A. M. before the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, p.44.

[106] Ibid., p.45.

[107] Ibid., p.40.

[108] Ibid.

[109] Ibid., p.51.

[110] Ibid.

[111] Ibid.

[112] S. K. J. Chesbrough. Defence of Rev. B. T. Roberts, A. M., before the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. (Notes and Testimony taken at the trial). (Buffalo: Clapp. Matthews and Co.'s Steam Printing House, 1858), pp. 54, 55.

[113] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, October 20.1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit., p.66.

[114] B. T. Roberts. Why Another Sect, p.176.

[115] Official Minutes of the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, (1858), p.189.

[116] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, October 21, 1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit., p.86.

[117] Ibid.

[118] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, October 22,1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit.. p.67.

[119] Loren Stiles. Northern Independent, Vol. III, (February 3. 1859), 1.

[120] C. D. Burlingham, Outline History, p. 40, sec. 21. (Quoted In Why Another Sect, p.177).

[121] John Robie, Buffalo Advocate. Reviewed and Quoted by William Hoamer. Northern Independent, Vol. III, (November 18. 1858), 58. To be found at Garrett Biblical Institute. Evanston. Illinois.

[122] Elias Bowen, D. D., Origin of the Free Methodist Church, p.185.

[123] Ibid.

[124] John Roble, "Nazarites," Buffalo Advocate, (January 15, 1859), p.2.

[125] F. W. Conable, op. cit., p. 637.

[126] Ibid.

[127] Ibid.

[128] Ibid.

[129] Letter from Mrs. George Lane, Wilkes Barre to Mr. and Mrs. Roberts, October 28, 1858. Among personal letters of the Roberts family.

[130] Ibid.

[131] Ibid.