The Earnest Christian
By C. H. Zahniser
Chapter 5
TWO YEARS OF INDEPENDENT MINISTRY
1. Joined Methodist Church on Probation After the expulsion of Mr. Roberts from the Conference and Church, he was left to a choice of awaiting his appeal to the General Conference, almost two years away, or of continuing his preaching activities. The personal appeal of Mrs. Lane to wait quietly was averse to his judgment. Believing that as a minister of Jesus Christ he should not remain in idleness, he decided to take such a course as would give some validity to his ministry. Years later he stated his predicament thus:
The Rev. Amos Hard wrote to Roberts that Bishop Janes had answered a question he had propounded to him at the Genesee Annual Conference of 1858, "Would it affect his appeal if an expelled member should join our church on probation?"[2] Bishop Janes replied, "I do not think it would."[3] The Rev. William Reddy, a presiding elder in the Oneida Conference advised Mr. Roberts not to join the church on probation, but did advise him to
He thought Roberts should not exercise the functions of a minister, such as performing marriages or baptizing, for that implied church authority and order, but that he should keep himself from appearing to set himself in array against the authority and order of the M. E. Church, while he claimed the constitutional rights of an expelled member. But because others advised an opposite course with reference to church membership, and because he thought this course would indicate his loyalty to the church and at the same time shield him from censure as he continued to preach, and because he accepted Bishop Baker's construction of the law which allowed an expelled member to be received on trial if the society became convinced of the innocence of the expelled member, Mr. Roberts had his name entered at Pekin as a probationer. He said, "The society at Pekin, which I served last, were convinced of my innocence, and unanimously received me on trial . . . . "[5] Mr. McCreery was received on probation, also unanimously, by the society at Spencerport. Then another action, later contested, followed. Each of these men received from the societies which they had respectively joined, a license to exhort. Mrs. Roberts did not agree with her husband's course in joining the church again on probation. She stated in her diary, "Mr. Roberts is away. He joined the church on probation which seemed like child's play to me. I doubt whether the Lord was pleased with it."[6] 2. Course of Roberts Determined by Church Law Bishop Baker, who was considered an authority on church law, wrote in part as follows to the Rev. C. D. Burlingham:
The question of church membership for Mr. Roberts was settled by the decision of Bishop Baker, and in accordance with it, Mr. Roberts published in the Northern Independent of March, 1859 the following statement:
A letter written to his father previous to the time that he joined the church on probation, indicates that Roberts was weighing the matter of procedure. He told his father that he had received the letter from the Rev. William Reddy advising him not to join on probation, acknowledged that Reddy was a leading man in the church, enjoying a high degree of confidence with the bishops, and was regarded as a safe counselor. He then added
Whatever judgment may be formed of the wisdom of his course, it would appear he wanted to do the thing that would reinstate him in the Church and Conference. Going back to the predicament of facing a future with no home, among the several alternatives that came to them, Mrs. Lane offered them her home in Mt. Holly, New Jersey. Writing to his father concerning their plight, Mr. Roberts said, "One evidence I have that this has come upon us because we have tried to walk in the narrow way ourselves, and to get others to do the same, is that He puts it into the hearts of His people to be so very kind to us."[10] He went on to say they were overwhelmed with kindness. A "Brother Bascom," a merchant in Allegheny, and his wife wrote them urging them to go there, and offering to give them the best house in the village to live in, not as a gift but rent-free. He also mentioned an "affectionate letter" from Mrs. Lane, offering their home and furniture, but the people in Pekin "will not listen to our going away."[11] He mentioned that the Chesbroughs wanted them to take part of their house for the winter at least, but they decided to store their belongings for the present at the Chesbrough home and then wait until they felt they knew the will of the Lord for them.[12] Mrs. Roberts wrote to her father-in-law on November 13th that they were "indeed pilgrims and sojourners;"[13] that they had placed their goods in Chesbrough's barn, and that their little family was scattered among the people. They had not yet decided she said, where the Lord would have them pitch their tent. "If we knew where to go," she mourned, "we have no furniture, and as yet nothing to buy any with."[14] It will be remembered that in those days, the parsonages were furnished, and when the Roberts did occasionally buy some furniture to complement what was already in the house, it was sold before they moved to the following circuit. Then, they decided to live for a time in part of the Chesbrough home. She confided some of her own reactions to her father-in-law thus:
She mentioned the fact that Mr. Roberts had joined the church on probation and had been given an exhorter's license. She recorded that when her husband had been in Buffalo that week, he had met some of the preachers in the book store, told them what he had done and said that if they wanted to hold a protracted meeting on their charge he was ready to go and hold one.[16] On October 22nd, Mrs. Roberts had written in her diary, "These words have been ringing in my ears, 'care of all the churches.' I do not know what it meant, but I am sure it meant something."[17] From this Journal entry, and the letter written to her father-in-law, it would appear that Mrs. Roberts had a sense of "divine guidance" which, so far as can be learned, was not at that time shared by her husband. While the Roberts were preparing to move into the rooms offered by Mr. Chesbrough, endeavoring to lay a carpet, one of the sons of Mr. Chesbrough was badly injured by a horse and brought to the house unconscious. The physician instructed them that he must have absolute quiet. The carpet was never laid. They prayed and felt that possibly the Lord would not have them remain there. Soon thereafter, Father Chesbrough told them he thought they should go to Buffalo.[18] They had been feeling the same way but they had not been willing to admit it easily, since Buffalo was the center of much of their opposition, and was also the place where the most severe attacks against them had been published in the Buffalo Advocate. 2. Active Service in Interim of Decision Even while they were pondering a move to Buffalo, a request came to Mr. Roberts inviting him to Brockport, to go and stay two or three, or four weeks and as much longer as he could. If he could go before they moved, to go on right away, but if he would rather wait until after they had moved, so he would not feel in a hurry to close the meeting, that would be all right.[19] During the period when they were trying to come to a decision with reference to their future home, Mr. Roberts engaged in active service. The month of October alone found him at Perry's stone schoolhouse, Yates, Albion, Benton's Corners, Bear Ridge, Brockport and Clarkson. In December he preached at sixteen points, doing most of the traveling on his own horse.[20] Mrs. Roberts in her diary of November 20 added this bit of information:
Two days later, she recorded in her diary:
When Buffalo appeared before her mind's eye, Mrs. Roberts cried, "How could we live there; we've nothing to live on?"[23] The answer came, "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof."[24] Finally, arrangements were made, and once again they were back in the city where Mr. Roberts had waged an unsuccessful warfare against stock churches. During this interim period, when the decision with reference to their home was pending with the Roberts family, the first of the laymen's conventions, which were to become increasingly frequent in different parts of the country, was called. It appears that many had been excited over the expulsions of the late Conference, and Official Boards and Quarterly Conferences in some places passed resolutions, as well as some local papers, both religious and secular, protesting the action.[25] 1. Convention Suggested by Isaac Chesbrough Finally Mr. Isaac Chesbrough, father of S. K. J. Chesbrough, in whose home the Roberts had been invited to stay, suggested the holding of a convention of representative laymen within the bounds of the Genesee Conference. This man, located at the scene of the last labors of Mr. Roberts in the M. E. Church, was a man of fifty years standing. B. T. Roberts, C. D. Burlingham and S. K. J. Chesbrough discussed in the home of Isaac Chesbrough the advisability of calling that convention.[26] The proposal for a Laymen's Convention met with favor by a goodly number, and "a call for a convention was made, signed by over one hundred of the leading men of twenty-two circuits and stations. In answer to the call, one hundred and ninety-five leading men, from forty-seven circuits and stations, met at Albion, December 1st, 1858,"[27] in Kingsland Hall. The laymen proceeded to organize, choosing Hon. Abner J. Wood as President, electing seven vice-presidents, and three secretaries. Among the vice-presidents was Isaac Chesbrough, and one of the three secretaries was his son, S. K. J. Chesbrough. The latter was also chairman of a committee of seven on resolutions, among whom one finds the name of George W. Estes. who had reprinted "New School Methodism" with an account of the trial of Roberts, for which Roberts had been expelled. The first session of the Convention was taken up mainly with addresses, and a love-feast followed in the evening. Mrs. Roberts entered in her diary for that day, "The Laymen's Convention met. A love-feast in the evening; glorious time; God was in our midst."[28] The second session of the Laymen's Convention the next day set before the entire group the call which had brought them together, in which they charged "a disposition among certain members of the Genesee Conference, to put down, under the name of fanaticism, and other approbrious epithets, what we consider the life and power of our holy Christianity."[29] They protested the expulsion of Roberts and McCreery, for no other reason, as they conceived it, than that they were active and zealous ministers of Christ, and were in favor with the people, and were contending earnestly for those peculiarities in Methodism which have hitherto been essential for their success as a denomination.[30] The "Call" also specified that Isaac C. Kingsley and Loren Stiles, Jr., at the Medina Conference, and C. D. Burlingham at the last Conference, had all been removed from the Cabinet by the machinations of the Regency group. They also charged that many of the laymen had been removed from official relation for no other reason than that they approved the principles advocated by the minority faction.[31] When the Committee on Resolutions brought in their report, it contained a very decided statement of their conviction of the innocence of the expelled. They regarded the expulsion of Roberts and McCreery as "an act of wicked persecution, calling for the strongest condemnation,"[32] and declared it was a clear violation of "that freedom of speech and of the press, which is guaranteed to all by our free institutions."[33] They also took the position "that the charge brought against Brothers Roberts and McCreery, and the class of preachers denominated 'Nazarites,' of promoting fanaticism, is utterly false and groundless."[34] They furthermore charged the dominant party of keeping out of the Conference young men on probation in the Conference who were not willing to become their tools.[35] However, the crux of the opposition was not so much in the above declaration, but rather in the position expressed in the report adopted by the Convention:
Their theoretic support, from authorities on Methodistic Church law, for exercising this monetary check upon the preachers, argued by them there, and by Mr. Roberts later in his book, Why Another Sect, did not lessen the impact of this revolutionary action. S. K. J. Chesbrough's report with reference to the framing and formulation of those resolutions is editorially told. He remembered having sat up one night until three o'clock the next morning discussing them, not knowing what the results would be. lie said, "It was not done in a moment; it was not done in the heat of passion, but there was solemn thought and prayer and understanding."[37] These words came from the man who was secretary of the Laymen's Convention, and as such, read the resolutions. Probably the encouragement given to Roberts and McCreery by this lay movement, expressing the utmost confidence in them and ranking them as among the "most pure and able ministers of the New Testament,"[38] strengthened them in the pursuit of what seemed to their opposing brethren as an independent ministry. Moreover, giving official sanction of the Laymen's Convention to these two men by recommending that they "travel at large" and "labor as opportunity presents, for the promoting of the work of God and the salvation of souls"[39] gave weight to their ministry among the laity of the Conference which they could not have otherwise had. Repercussions from the above Convention came through the editorial pages of the Northern Christian Advocate, as is evidenced from an article Mr. Roberts published in the Northern. Independent. Mr. Roberts argued that in support of the mode of redress adopted by the Laymen's Convention, as they endeavored to show from their quotations on church law, they had "Church authority" on their side. He asked if the editor of the Northern Christian Advocate wished to be understood as opposing their Church polity? Dr. Stevens, for whose wisdom he had such profound respect, had said the people ought to have a check upon the whole machinery. And this check, Dr. Stevens affirmed they had, in their "power" of withholding "pecuniary supplies."[40] And now, Roberts continued, because the people had used that power, that editor had read them out of the Church, and had stated that "they belong to a Convention and not to the M. E. Church!"[41] Then Mr. Roberts pressed the point, made by the editor of the Northern Christian Advocate that those laymen were no longer Methodists but members of a Convention, on the basis of the affiliation of the ministers with secret societies, by asking what seemed to him a pertinent question:
This assertion of the Advocate above "that they belong to a Convention and not to the M. E. Church". had been countered by the men in their Committee on Resolutions, made before the accusation had come out in the Advocate:
Their assertion that "the farcical cry of disunion and secession is the artful production of designing men" was in part confirmed in future years, Mr. Roberts asserted, by the fact that most of these same men remained with the Methodist Episcopal Church.[44] Mr. Robie, editor of the Buffalo Advocate, classed the Convention as subversive, and charged that their action would lead "either to dismemberment, or to the destruction of government."[45] He wrote strongly against "the terror of starvation which was held over the head of each ecclesiastical juror who voted to their displeasure," and then asked:
In the second place, Mr. Robie objected to their "determined policy of action, adverse to the judgment of their highest tribunal."[47] He likewise charged that these men were "tried and expelled for libel, fully proved"[48] although, he averred, this fact was kept out of sight. He denied what the Convention asserted that in reality these men were tried for promoting fanaticism. He stated rather "it was not for fanaticism that they were tried . . . . They were tried and expelled for libel, fully proved, and hence the charge was for unchristian and immoral conduct, for it was both, if we have any regard to the standards of Civil or Ecclesiastical Courts."[49] This fact, Mr. Robie said, had been steadily concealed from the public eye in all their organs, and a false issue had been presented. He claimed that both Roberts and McCreery had circulated at wholesale, documents in which it was charged that the majority of the Genesee Conference considered bankruptcies and adulteries as venal (that is trivial) offences, and that they voted into the Conference a man who had performed what they called a lascivious act; that a brother in the Conference had been "efficient in pleading men to hell for the crime of preaching and writing the truth." These are specimens, he cited, of the items which were the just ground of grievances, and for which trial and expulsion took place, and yet the Albion Convention, made up of professedly holy men, commencing with a love feast, unanimously said all these clearly proved, did not constitute an offense deserving of censure.[50] Mr. Robie also reacted against the Laymen's Convention for sending Roberts and McCreery for work at large. He wrote:
Then he proceeded to an item of defense from the charges made against the Methodist Church by saying
He further inveighed against those men for branding the working majority of the Conference as corrupt men united together by unholy ties and affinities, and banded together to crush out all who may rise to oppose their wicked machinations In order to convince the world that the Genesee Conference was indeed a band of corrupt inquisitors, he thought something else would have to be proved and shown, beside the bare fact that two thirds of its members took legal and constitutional measures "to rid themselves of two of their number who were plainly guilty of libel."[53] Then Mr. Robie went to the heart of the problem when he charged that they who had been expelled, and their sympathizers, falsely assumed and asserted that the majority of the Genesee Conference were opposed to the life and power of religion; for they said they were expelled because they preached holiness, and were in favor of spiritual Christianity. He asked if that were not a remarkable state of things, and not to be credited without indubitable proof, that a Conference of Methodist preachers would he opposed to the life and power of religion and actually cut off those of its members most earnest and successful in promoting the work of holiness because they are thus earnest and successful. He claimed their ministers were old-fashioned and were successful, and he could not believe that in their old age, the conservative period of life, they had contracted a hatred of "Old-fashioned Methodism." "It is astounding and especially is our wonder further excited to learn," continued Mr. Robie,
The recommendation of the Laymen's Convention for Roberts and McCreery to travel at large in religious work was accompanied by a promise of one thousand dollars for Roberts and six hundred dollars for McCreery.[55] Mr. Roberts recounted that in accordance with the recommendation of that convention, he and Mr. McCreery went throughout the Conference holding meetings and laboring as providence opened the way.[56] Mr. Roberts said that they were careful to state that they claimed no authority from the M. E. Church to hold meetings, that they did so at the call of Christ, and on their own responsibility as men and as Christians. This disclaim of having church authority Mr. Roberts announced publicly, and also acknowledged the fact of his official severance, as has been previously noted, in the Northern Independent.[57] (a) Result of Actions of Laymen's Convention. There were certain to be serious consequences within the body politic of the church when the virus of party feeling was so plainly evident. What did result was the expulsion of members of the Methodist Church in considerable numbers. Probably that particular step on the part of the Conference was instrumental in creating more sympathy for the minority group than any other one action as indicated by the fifteen hundred members who petitioned the General Conference for redress of grievances. Besides, it created a lay group who were not only voluntarily committed, as were those in the Lay Convention, to the support of Roberts and McCreery, but also threw them into the same camp of outsiders, which no doubt aided in precipitating the new organization. Mr. Roberts asserted, "To have attended the Albion Convention was held to be a crime sufficient for expulsion . . . . To expel members and read them out as withdrawn without their consent became the order of the day." Dr. Elias Bowen, in his work published in 1871 stated that many had already been expelled from the church, ostensibly for something else, but really for their neglect or refusal to support "a Christless, persecuting ministry." Of late, however, he said the "guise" had been thrown off, and members had been expelled "for the avowed reason that they declined to support the preachers who had been placed over them by the Conference."[58][59][60][61][62][63][ 64][ 65][ 66][ 67] So much feeling was stirred over the issue of expulsion of lay members that the Olean Advertiser, a secular paper, carried an article in protest of the action of expelling James H. Brooks, one of the substantial members of the Methodist Episcopal Church of that city.[68] There is not space to list the various instances of these expulsions throughout the area, but only to make mention that expulsions were not infrequent. (b) Reactions of Hosmer, Editor of Northern Independent. Mr. Hosmer discussed in his paper the matter of expulsions as of "very great moment, because it clearly involved the right of the laity to assemble for the redress of grievances."[69] He continued that if attendance on such meetings was to be construed into a crime, or, if words spoken there were to be prosecuted under the grave head of "contumacy," "slander," "sowing discord," etc.; then whatever might happen, the church laymen must be silent on pain of expulsion. Such a condition of things would be nothing better, he opined, than now falls to the lot of "the deluded votaries of the Catholic Church."[70] He concluded with a statement of his belief that these "ecclesiastical decapitations" were "the worst kind of murder," and that slavery would demand in other Conferences a repetition of the scenes enacted in the Genesee Conference.[71] (c) Expulsions in the "West." Mr. Roberts referred at some length to the development of the same conditions in the state of Illinois, then called the "West."[72] Mr. Edward Payson Hart, who many years afterward became bishop of the new church, gave a homely account of the development of similar difficulties in the state of Illinois in the early days, and in it recounted the case of Father Bishop, whose daughter he married. On the Franklinville charge, according to Mr. Hart, the presiding elder "warned the people against the use of dogmatic terms, such as sanctification and the like."[73] Father Bishop petitioned for a change of preachers, and declared that they would not pay Methodist preachers for fighting Methodist doctrine. When the Conference returned both preachers, senior and junior, the Bishops opened their home for a Monday night holiness meeting. Later a place called "The Brick School House"[74], was used for services and the Bishops attended there. During a revival service, Father Bishop and family attended there for a few Sabbaths instead of their own church. Mr. Hart said, "They were soon cited to trial for not attending public worship and class at Franklinville church where they belonged."[75] When the day for the trial arrived, these people who had come from Methodist stock a century old, appeared, and with them a church filled with those who had come to attend the trial. The pastor of the church decided to hold a private trial in the parsonage across the street, to which Father Bishop objected and quoted Baker on the discipline, "A trial should be private only at the request of the accused,"[76] but the pastor and committee retired to the parsonage to proceed with the trial. As each member of the family was expelled, "the preacher would come into the church and announce the fact."[77] Following their expulsion from the church, Father Bishop drew up articles of association, and this family and many of their sympathizers formed themselves into an "Earnest Christian Band."[78] Thus it may be seen that members were being expelled in the state of Illinois as well as in the state of New York. This work had begun there, said Mr. Roberts as early as 1855 and continued until a new organization came into existence.[79] So greatly did the laymen of the Genesee Conference feel, as they expressed it, "the iron heel of oppression heavily laid" upon them,[80] that they issued a "call" for a June meeting, and consequently met at North Bergen on the Genesee Camp Ground, Thursday, June 20, 1859. Mr. Hibbard, editor of the Northern Christian Advocate, published an article ridiculing the statement of oppression in the call and advised, "Let them cut themselves forthwith loose from the oppression that crushes them. Now is the time to make the clean strike of the whole matter, and may heaven favor the exodus!"[81] Then he stated as his serious opinion that the Church had tolerated this element long enough and had permitted it to develop itself while harboring it in the midst. Preachers and members who were not in sympathy with the order of the Church, he maintained, had no right to its privileges, and should not have.[82] This session did not seem to take too much definite action, but adjourned to meet November 1 and 2 at Albion. No doubt there was still hope of redress that might come at the next Conference session that was not far off. The meeting at that time was held in connection with the Bergen Camp Meeting. The morning of the meeting, B. T. Roberts preached. J. F. Crawford, a visiting minister from the Oneida Conference wrote and published a report of the Bergen Camp Meeting. About the sermon preached by Mr. Roberts he commented:
The Rev. Crawford continued:
3. The Status of Lay Movements For Mr. Roberts to be associated with the lay movements was doubtless additional weight against him. Abel Stevens recorded:
To be associated with such a movement one was generally termed an agitator or a destructionist. Professor G. R. Crooks tells an interesting incident in his Life of Bishop Matthew Simpson, which Mr. Crooks himself witnessed:
However, the Bishops in the General Conference of 1860 recommended lay delegation in one form, "that form being a separate house."[87] Even so, when the vote was taken, both laymen and ministers voted two to one against it. Hence, we see that the general feeling was against lay representation in the church, and how much more against a group led by two expelled ministers who were, they thought, opposed to the regularly organized church as represented by their Annual Conference. The Genesee Annual Conference convened at Brockport in October, 1859, with Bishop Matthew Simpson in the chair. The report found in the Advocate of October 13 stated that the Conference was determined to rid itself of the fictional element of Nazaritism. The editor doubted not that the societies generally throughout the work would be glad to learn that fact, and would rejoice that they were no longer to suffer "the disgrace arising from one of the worst scandals which ever pestered a denominations of Christians."[88] For years past, he continued, the Conference had borne with its abettors, advising and even entreating them to be loyal to church order, and to cease their "disgraceful proceedings."[89] But, he opined, "crazy men will not be orderly;"[90] and since they were bent on their own destruction, the Conference had wisely concluded to let them have their own ways, and cut them off from all connection with the church . . . . Others undoubtedly would be expelled; "having coveted martyrdom, they will have it."[91] One of the aggravations to the body of that Conference was the fact that a large tent for evangelistic services was pitched by the Rev. Fay Purdy, lawyer evangelist, in a meadow a short distance north of the village. Mr. Roberts himself reported that in the outskirts of the village, in plain sight, and almost within hearing of the church, Fay H. Purdy, a well-known evangelist of the M. E. Church, had begun a tent meeting which was to continue throughout the time of the Conference session. A large pavilion, capable of holding three thousand people, had been erected. Around this were grouped several rows of family and society tents. To this meeting were gathered, he asserted, "a large number of intelligent, devoted, earnest Christians, who were stigmatized by the dominant party as Nazarites."[92] The second day of the Conference, five resolutions were passed against fraternizing with the expelled preachers, and against "holding in an irregular way, or in countenancing, or taking part in, the services of camp meetings, or other meetings thus irregularly held."[93] The last resolution stated that any preacher violating the resolutions would be "held to answer to this Conference for the same."[94] It is said that Bishop Simpson gave to these "test resolutions" his "emphatic endorsement" and support. The Rev. D. W. Thurston, presiding elder on Cortland District, Oneida Conference, was called before the Bishop with committee and admonished, but "the admonition was not heeded."[95] Bishop Simpson also ordered several other preachers who had come from other Conferences to assist in the meeting to take no further part in it. One must recognize the aggravation to the Annual Conference that these meetings constituted in the light of past proceedings. The Rev. William Hosmer, editor of the Northern Independent whose paper was then out of favor preached on Sabbath morning. With reference to the preaching of Mr. Roberts, the Brockport paper carried the following statement in connection with an article entitled. "Camp Meeting":
Under the operation of the above resolutions, which Mr. Roberts declared to be unconstitutional inasmuch as an Annual Conference was not a lawmaking body, the Reverends J. W. Reddy and H. H. Farnsworth were located. "The Reverends . . . . John A. Wells, William Cooley and Charles D. Burlingham, not being willing to submit to this tyrannical assumption of authority, were expelled from the Conference and the Church."[97] Against Loren Stiles, Jr. two charges of falsehood were presented but the Conference would not sustain them. The charge of "contumacy" against him was sustained, and the majority of the Conference voted to expel the man whom Roberts described as "one of the most devoted, eloquent, gifted, noble-hearted men then in the ministry of that denomination."[98] C. D. Burlingham was expelled for having received B. T. Roberts on trial into the church without any confession or satisfactory reformation, and for "giving said expelled member license to exhort, at the time of such reception on trial."[99] Mr. Burlingham was expelled, although he showed that at the time he dealt with Mr. Roberts, the question of law on the latter point of administration was not fully settled. He had also "granted the request of Brother Roberts, by discontinuing his probationary membership in the same manner he had been received" when he had learned from an authentic source of the episcopal decision of Bishop Baker that applied to the case.[100] In the charge against the Rev. William Cooley, which involved his association at the Conference with expelled members in connection with attendance at Purdy's meeting, he stated that the second specification was added after the trial was commenced, and altered twice. At the suggestions of Bishop Simpson, most of it had been withdrawn, to prevent Fay Purdy's testimony, which would have made that meeting a regular one, because he had received the consent of the Rev. E. M. Buck, the preacher in charge, to hold the meeting when he did. With reference to the expulsion of the Rev. John A. Wells on the first specification of the charges against him, namely, for recognizing "as a minister, by admitting to his pulpit, and holding religious meetings in connection with B. T. Roberts, an expelled member from this Conference,"[101] Mr. Wells replied:
Of the action of that Conference, William Hosmer published in the Northern Independent of October 20, 1859, the following estimate of its actions:
Mr. Hosmer went on to affirm that "in the operations of Methodism, it may perhaps be found that forbearance is a better cure than law."[104] That affirmation he made on the basis of his contention that an Annual Conference had no power to "pass a resolution having the force of law,"[105] and added that it might be a sin and a sufficient cause for expulsion to treat an expelled minister as though he were yet a minister, but that the Methodist Church had nowhere affirmed the fact. All the Discipline said on the subject was that after an appeal has been had, a "person so expelled shall have no privilege of society or sacrament in our Church, without confession, contrition, and satisfactory reformation."[106] At the same Conference, Mr. Hosmer was virtually placed in the class of the contumacious by a resolution passed by the Conference against any members of the Conference acting as agent for the Northern Independent. Because Mr. Hosmer published a strong antislavery paper, his comment was: "Every preacher who dare act as agent for us, will be expelled for contumacy. Thus the war has commenced openly. It will now be known whether Methodists are slaves or freemen."[107] 4. Simpson's Opinion and Opinion of Simpson The Buffalo Advocate printed a speech delivered by Bishop Simpson in which he is reported to have said that he had been a Methodist from his youth up and had lived to witness several secessions, but he never had heard such doctrines professed by Methodist preachers as had been openly declared on that Conference floor. He had heard brethren declare their right to admit to their pulpits, and associate in labor with them, men who stood expelled from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and had heard brethren appeal to their right of private judgment in justification of the same, and also their right to preach when and where they would and to enter within another man's field of labor and work without the consent of the pastor. In all his knowledge of Methodism, he had never heard such doctrines avowed till then. A Methodist Conference, he explained, was like a co-partnership, each member agreeing and pledging himself to work under the direction, and for the common weal of the company. Every member of that body had solemnly promised, before God and his brethren, when he was admitted into the Conference, that he would not be governed by his own will, but act in all things like a son in the Gospel. As such, it was their duty to employ their time in the manner in which the Conference directed; in preaching; in visiting from house to house; in reading, meditation and prayer. Above all, if men labored with them in the Lord's vineyard, it was needful that they did that part of the work which was advised at those times and places which the Conference judged most' for God's glory. They had solemnly promised they would keep those rules for conscience sake. He said that after such vow and covenant to surrender their private judgment and will to that of their seniors in the Gospel, a promise made without mental reservation, and freely, he was astonished to hear brethren assert a right of private judgment in regard to the order and manner of their ministerial services, against the judgment and direction of the church. He had no doubt that the brethren intended right, but they were misguided. He had said this as their pastor, their chief pastor, to warn Brethren, especially young brethren, that they were treading on the verge of a precipice that was crumbling under their feet. By their course, they were bringing ruin upon the souls around them. He begged them to pause where they were. "We have all of work enough to do and if the circuits are not large enough to fill your hearts, and hands, and time, let us know, and we will make them larger," he concluded.[108] The editor of the Northern Independent passed his judgment upon that speech by commenting upon the facility with which Bishop Simpson lent his influence to the "bloodthirsty operations of the Regency party"[109] at the late session of the Genesee Conference and asserted that it filled every candid observer with surprise. He said he had heard an able lawyer, who attended all through the trials, and who had no bias in favor of either party, deliberately state that he had never before, in all his experience, seen "such partiality manifested by the presiding officer of a judicial tribunal."[110] After this charge, he excused the presiding officer on the ground that the Bishop asserted that he had papers in his possession which indicated a secession was in progress and that the name of the new church was to be "Associate Methodists." Mr. Hosmer commented "that the good Bishop believed this to be the case . . . . that he had such documents in his possession, we have no doubt. But that he was the dupe of designing men, we also believe without a doubt."[111] 1. Convention in Albion, November, 1859 Soon after Conference, the adjourned session of the second lay convention convened at Albion, New York, November first and second, 1859. Mrs. Roberts recorded in her diary her concern as well as hope for her husband. Probably by then he had begun to realize the situation in which he found himself. Instead of retraction on the part of the Conference, there had come greater rigidity of attitude and further expulsions. Mrs. Roberts recorded in her diary:
When the Convention met in the Baptist Church of Albion, November first and second, they elected Hon. Abner I. Wood as President, and the two secretaries were S. K. J. Chesbrough and William Hart. The Convention felt called to bear testimony to the fact that some occupying the place of Methodist ministers had used their influence, and bent their energies to put down under the name of "fanaticism" what they felt confident was the work of the Holy Spirit.[113] They also extended "cordial sympathy" to those who had been so used, and charged that when "contumacy" was made a crime, that religious liberty was at an end. They quoted the answer of Wesley in reply to the question, "Is not the will of our Governors a law?" to sustain their position: "Therefore if any Bishop wills that I should not preach the Gospel, his will is no law to me. But what if he produced a law against your preaching? I am to obey God rather than men."[114] They affirmed that the church, in their estimation, was not a group of ministers who had been engaged in unjust persecutions, but rather, as the thirteenth article of religion affirmed, "a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments duly administered."[115] They declared that the purpose of "these persecutions" was "to prevent the work of holiness from spreading among us, to put down the life and power of godliness in our churches, and to inaugurate in its stead the peaceable reign of a cold and heartless formalism."[116] Besides passing resolutions expressing confidence in those ministers recently expelled, they took a step in the direction of independency. They made the following resolution:
With the oppressive attitude taken in the late Conference, characterized not only by expulsions but denunciation, straightforward action could but be expected as a result of the strong position taken at this lay convention. Thomas Carlton was reported to have said at the late Conference session, "These Nazarites are like Canada thistles, you cut one down and ten will spring up in its place."[118] The Rev. C. D. Burlingham alleged that Canton exclaimed that he "had rather meet a thousand devils than three Nazarites."[119] Shortly after the Convention there was a letter circulated which Mr. Roberts claimed was evidently written by one of the bishops, because of the authoritative tone in which advice was given to "remove every leader who took part in the Albion Convention, or any of a similar character."[120] The writer followed that statement by the affirmation that they had "better have no members than disorderly ones."[121] He reinforced the whole by exhorting them by all means to stand firmly by the action of the church. "Remove every leader who arrays himself against it, no matter what may be his influence, or how great his usefulness, or how it may affect your congregation, or how it will result in the end."[122] As to private members, the writer would have them do nothing while they did not engage in opposition meetings. But if they got up and sustained meetings for expelled preachers, or resisted church action, he would have them cited for trial, after proper admonition.[123] This letter was circulated among the Regency preachers and by some chance, a copy came into Mr. Roberts' hands. Concerning it, Mr. Roberts said, "To the copy that has been furnished us, no name is appended; but the author of the original is understood to he no less a personage than a Bishop. We do not assume to know . . . . To us it certainly reads as if written by one who felt that he had a right to speak with authority."[124] The Second Lay Convention, under the excitation of the strong position of the late Conference session, not only specified Band work, but also encouraged those expelled to continue to labor for the promotion of the work of God and the salvation of souls, and also assured them that while the expelled thus devoted themselves to the work of the ministry, they would cheerfully use their means and influence for their support."[125] They also memorialized the General Conference to set aside the action of the Genesee Conference in the alleged cases of "contumacy," and to restore the six expelled ministers to their former Conference and Church relation. The above action which not only confirmed the positions taken by the first Albion Convention, but strengthened them, made it possible for Roberts and his companions to travel and hold meetings as they had formerly done. Mrs. Roberts reflected in her diary:
A report given by Mr. Roberts of his activities for the year is appended, and is explained by the fact that he was then a man just thirty-six years of age, full of the vigor which characterizes the prime of manhood. He said that the Lord had enabled him during the year past, to travel some six thousand miles, and participate in, as nearly as he could judge, some four hundred religious services. In over half that number it was his privilege, he said, to preach the Gospel of the grace of God. He spoke of the large congregations that assembled even on week nights, to hear the plain, searching truths of God's Word applied to their consciences. From two to four thousand persons had attended common grove meetings held in the busiest season of the year.[127] In February of 1860, the third Laymen's Convention met at Olean in the Presbyterian Church, evidently with the thought of preparing for the coming General Conference. To this end, appeals were phrased by a Committee on Resolutions, detailing their course of action and asking for redress. Among the resolutions is found one on slavery to the effect that there should be placed "a chapter in the Discipline of the M. E. Church that will exclude all persons from the M. E. Church or her communion, who shall be guilty of holding, buying or selling, or in any way using a human being as a slave."[128] 2. Address on Slavery by Roberts The Minutes of that Convention refer to extended comments made on the Conference floor by B. T. Roberts on the subject of slavery, testifying that his opinions on slavery were not changed. He had always been an antislavery man, and the first speech he ever made was an antislavery speech. He was opposed to slavery in the church so strongly that he believed it had "no more right there than the devil had."[129] He repudiated the report that had spread that he had received a letter from a presiding elder, telling him that he had better drop the hobby of holiness and take up the slavery issue. He also asserted that the Genesee Conference, in former days, had been thoroughly antislavery, but it seemed, by the returns of the last Conference, that there had been a change of sentiment. He predicted that if the church would take hold of the slavery problem in the right way and in the right spirit, that slavery would soon be extirpated from the land. He expressed his resolve to labor for such a result as long as he lived.[130] The Convention cited with pleasure the appearance of The Earnest Christian recently begun by Mr. Roberts and pledged themselves to use their "exertions to extend its circulation."[131] The Olean Advertiser published an extended account of that third Laymen's Convention, containing a statement that "the Convention was large, every charge or congregation in the Conference being represented."[132] That Convention of laymen went still farther down the road to independence by passing a resolution, sponsored by S. K. J. Chesbrough that they look with lively interest on the denominational position of The Free Methodist Church of Albion, under the pastoral care of Rev. Loren Stiles, Jr.; that they rejoice in her prosperity; and that they hail her as a "welcome co-laborer in the vineyard of our common Master, and as a worthy member in the sisterhood of Evangelical Churches."[133] Another definite step toward an organizational setup was also offered by Mr. Chesbrough, to the effect that since the cause of God demanded the holding of camp meetings, General Quarterly Meetings, and other general gatherings, that a committee composed of certain laymen and local preachers, together with the traveling preachers appointed by the Convention, be constituted an executive council in each district to appoint and superintend all camp meetings, General Quarterly Meetings, and such other general gatherings as they judged proper; and in the interim of the sessions of that Convention, to take the general oversight of the work within the bounds of their respective districts.[134] Thus, that third Convention, scheduled to be held in the Methodist Church at Olean, but restrained by court injunction of one of the members of that church, concluded its sessions in the Presbyterian Church which had been offered to them by their trustees when it was learned that the Methodist Church was not available. The men of that Convention had voluntarily ordered a virtual withdrawal from the Methodist Episcopal Church by their organizational actions, which included appointments of ministers. 4. Report of Convention by Roberts Roberts noted that the session of the Convention was of great interest, and that considerable excitement had prevailed in the community in consequence of the steps that had been taken to prevent the Convention from being held in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Because the proceedings had been so widely publicized in the weekly papers, he deemed it best to give only a general outline. Among the items mentioned was the large attendance, and the emphatic and harmonious actions of the Convention. He thought all who witnessed the proceedings had been favorably impressed. He mentioned that the Rev. Loren Stiles had preached "an able and spiritual sermon"[135] to a large number of communicants, and went on to say, "It was a solemn occasion. Most of the members of the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches present came together at the common board of our common Lord."[136] After mentioning the two main petitions for redress of grievances and the memorial against slavery, he concluded, "The delegates went home from the Convention to labor with renewed zeal and increased faith for the salvation of souls."[137] Following the actions of the Third Laymen's Convention, renewed measures were taken against those who were active in it. To detail materials found in the course of these trials would be irrelevant and lengthy. One case, however, recorded by Mr. Roberts is related. It was reported that during the trial of Dewey Teft, Mr. Chapping (the minister) was so "arrogant and overbearing" that the manhood of a Mr. Scott who went to the trial as one of Mr. Chapin's adherents, revolted. "Rising to his feet greatly excited, in thundering tones, Mr. Scott demanded, addressing Mr. Chapin: 'Who are you?' 'The grandson of Ethan Allen!' replied Chapin rising to his feet." To which Mr. Scott replied:
Mr. Roberts commented, "For a time the wildest excitement prevailed."[138] 1. Albion Congregational Free Methodist Church Although an extended account of the independent churches which were founded cannot be given, yet Mr. Roberts was so integrally a part of the movement that some mention must be made concerning them to give a picture of the events of those troublous times. Probably the leading independent church in the area was the Albion Congregational Free Methodist Church which was formed under the ministry of the Rev. Loren Stiles. Mr. Stiles was pastor of the Albion Methodist Episcopal Church when expelled from the Conference and Church in 1859. He was a graduate of the Methodist Theological Seminary at Concord, had served one year as presiding elder in the Genesee Conference, and had won for himself considerable recognition as a pulpit orator. Years after, a presiding elder of many years standing, when speaking of the expulsion of Stiles and Roberts, is reported to have said:
Mr. Stiles, when presiding elder, was the originator of the General Quarterly Meetings which had been a factor in bringing together those who believed in "old line Methodism." Sensing the disposition of the Conference at the time of his expulsion, Mr. Stiles believed it was of no use to make an appeal to the General Conference, and so "at the urgent call of the people" he returned to Albion where his friends were "so largely in the majority that, according to equity and according to the laws of the State, they were entitled to the church property."[140] In order to avoid any cause for complaint, however, they put up a large edifice for him "where he lived and labored, and died in the warm affections of the community."[141] Mr. Roberts recounted that they purchased a lot, raised a subscription, and proceeded at once to erect a new house for worship. They built a large, plain and commodious edifice. The audience room was fifty-five by eighty, with an airy and pleasant basement. Until the new church was completed, meetings were held in Academy Hall, which was being crowded to its utmost capacity.[142] The significance of that church centered in the fact that Stiles brought to an early consummation the work which both Kendall and Roberts had helped to bring to its present status. At a Quarterly Meeting held there in 1860, three hundred and forty communicants were present at the communion service.[143] According to the Buffalo Morning Express, four hundred took communion at the dedication service.[144] Dr. Bowen and the Rev. Mr. Ives delivered sermons, forty-five hundred dollars were raised at the dedication service, which covered the balance of the cost of ten thousand dollars. The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church met in Buffalo May first in 1860 and the same month, on May 23rd, the dedication of the Albion Congregational Free Methodist Church took place. The diary of Mrs. Roberts noted the fact that she was present at the dedicatory service. She then recorded an action of the General Conference following, and referred to its close.[145] The dedication of this free church must have been known to the delegates at the General Conference, since it so vitally concerned the appeal cases which were before them. From the standpoint of developing strength in the ranks of "old line Methodism" for an independent movement, the Albion Church was a distinct advance, but from the viewpoint of the Methodist Church, it augured no good. Mr. Robie, one of the most severe critics of the new movement, wrote that if such an enterprise, starting "amid the worst features of Church disruption and scandal" but successfully completed, and consecrated by a Doctor of Divinity in the regular work of the ministry, did not manifest "the most daring radicalism, even recklessness of Church order and authority," he thought he should fail to find it anywhere else. "Strange and startling events are occurring in these days of the Church," he asserted.[146] With reference to the St. Louis Church, Mr. Roberts was more actively a participant. He received a call to that church shortly after they were settled in their Buffalo home following his expulsion. He wrote to the Chesbroughs that he was confident the Lord wanted this work to spread all over the country and the world. He confessed, "It is a cross for me to be separated from my family even for a few weeks, yet when the Lord calls I must obey."[147] He did not plan to be gone more than three or, four weeks. Replying on March 18, 1859, Mr. S. K. J. Chesbrough heartily disapproved of having Mr. Roberts leave them. He said he wished he could look upon his going as the call of the Lord, but he could not see how it was the duty of Brother Roberts to go three thousand miles away and join affinity with strangers in church difficulties. If the laymen of the Genesee Conference were looked to for support, they needed their preachers to stand by them. He thought God had just as much a call for Roberts in New York as St. Louis, and certainly Buffalo needed help. He suggested that he was not the only one who disapproved heartily of it. He felt their people were too afraid to meet the Regency on the battlefield, and unless they did, God would raise up another band that would. They needed "some policy, not worldly policy,"[148] for while they were answering their opponents, they ought to be building up the walls. He then came back to his main theme, "I am sorry then that just at this standpoint, one of our 'Standard Bearers' has gone to a distant field, and if God blesses him there one week why not six months."[149] Mrs. Lane wrote and expressed a fear that Mr. Roberts' "antislavery principles might bring him into trouble from another quarter,"[150] should he take the trip to St. Louis. However, Mr. Roberts, as one may judge by this time, had a mind of his own and decided to look into the matters pertaining to the St. Louis difficulties which had arisen over the ministry of Dr. John Wesley Redfield in that city. Mr. Roberts reported he had spent several weeks in St. Louis in the spring of 1859. The previous winter, under the labors of Dr. Redfield, he said, "a deep and thorough revival of God's work" had taken place. Opposition from some in the church to those who aligned themselves with Mr. Redfield developed, and they thought it best to go together and form a new M. E. Church. They were encouraged, it was reported, by the presiding elder of the district, to expect that they would be regularly organized and cared for.[151] He afterwards felt it unwise to do anything for them, probably in the light of developments in the East. They organized as a "Free Methodist Church" and adopted the old Methodist Discipline as far as it was applicable to their circumstance, making non-slave-holding one of the conditions of membership. Their former church associates predicted they would go down as soon as Dr. Redfield left them, but instead Mr. Roberts said their membership had increased from ninety to one hundred and eighty-eight. Their Sabbath School was prosperous, ranging in attendance from one hundred and fifty to one hundred and seventy-five. Their place of worship, capable of holding four or five hundred persons had become too small. They had rented a large church, and also they used the St. Louis theater for religious meetings.[152] Dr. Redfield had written to Mrs. Kendall that the new church would not be received by the Methodist Church North and that they could not join the South Church because of their antislavery principles. They had then organized congregationally until they could open up negotiations with the East. He stated he had written to Mr. Roberts to go out and take charge. He knew other places where matters were somewhat as they were at St. Louis. The original Methodist Church there had written for Bishop Janes to come and help solve the difficulties. He had been expected on the day Redfield wrote, but it was too late then, for the new church had voted two days before to make no further attempt at reconciliation. Dr. Redfield added, "I have for years seen that we must come to this; but never once supposed that it would be done in my day. But we are forced into it."[153] Concerning his own visit at St. Louis, Mr. Roberts wrote to his wife that the people there "seem highly gratified with my visit," and that they were anxious to have them come and settle there as their pastor. Roberts liked it there very much, and said that if it were in the will of the Lord, he thought he should very much prefer living there than in Buffalo.[154] It is evident from a letter of Mrs. Kendall to Mrs. Roberts written in May, 1860, that Mrs. Roberts had expressed to her friend a hope that the Methodist Church would yet take them in. In reply, Mrs. Kendall expressed her sentiment that only a separate church would do.[155] Mrs. Kendall was the widow of the deceased Rev. William Kendall, the close friend of Roberts who had died at West Falls. To Mrs. Roberts she wrote:
Suffice it to say that a publication notice was placed in the Northern Christian Advocate in January 25, 1860, stating that the new St. Louis church entitled "Sixth Street Methodist Church" was entirely independent.[157] Other societies were organized under the direction of Dr. Redfield following that. Dr. Redfield said he well knew that they must then "show their hand," if they meant the Methodist Church to see the need of permitting Methodists to enjoy Methodism. So he wrote instructions to organize under the Discipline as they had done in St. Louis. This organizational work was being carried forward in the East also, and Redfield thought that it might lead the General Conference which was to meet in May, 1860, to correct "the abuses" from which they had suffered, reinstate the members and ministers who had been excluded, and give them guarantee that the preaching of living Methodism would be sustained.[158] Mr. Terrill stated that this advice was accepted, and three societies were organized; and awaited the action of the General Conference in May.[159] Independent services were held quite early at Syracuse also, where a prominent layman by the name of Charles Hicks was class leader. Mr. Hicks had been for about forty years Deputy Clerk and County Clerk of Onandago County. He had also been admitted to the practice of law in the Court of Common Pleas, and at the last city election before his death, he had been elected to the office of Justice of the Peace for the city at large.[160] Mrs. Roberts evidently joined the Syracuse Church after leaving Pekin, and it was Mr. Hicks who sent her a letter from the Syracuse society, dated December 6, 1860, in which he not only certified to her acceptability as a member, but also added, "I hereby certify to her gifts and graces as a preacher of the Gospel."[161] Mr. Hicks was a close friend of Dr. Redfield and was in correspondence with him. When publications of independent services were placed in the Syracuse paper, it was under Mr. Hick's hand. He was classed as a warm supporter of B. T. Roberts in his early struggles.[162] The above mentioned letter from Mr. Hicks came from "The First Free Methodist Church of Syracuse," which was an outgrowth of an independent church formed under the name of Third Methodist Episcopal Church of Syracuse. Charles T. Hicks, after writing the church letter, appended the following:
He was evidently in favor of some things too, especially the experience of holiness which he claimed to have obtained under Dr. Redfield and the Rev. Fay H. Purdy. He was the leading figure of the independent movement at Syracuse, and joined The Free Methodist Church when it was first organized. At Syracuse, it was mainly a lay movement growing out of the influence of two Methodist evangelists, especially Dr. John Wesley Redfield. Syracuse was also included in the itinerary of Mr. Roberts during those years. One of the unpublished letters of the period relates to an incident in connection with the formation of a "Band" in the city of Rochester as Mr. Roberts returned from a trip to Syracuse where Mrs. Roberts had been engaged in labors. He wrote her:
In The Free Methodist of July 25,1950, was published a list of the names of those who subscribed to help build the Clintonville Free Methodist Church, later called the South Elgin Free Methodist Church. The list, containing nineteen names, was dated April 19, 1860, and evidently establishes its claim as the second Free Methodist Church built, although the Albion Church was first organized as the Congregational Free Methodist Church. There seems to be little doubt that this was one of the three churches to which J. G. Terrill referred which was organized awaiting the decision of the General Conference in May. 1. Churches Outgrowth of Bands These organizations of independent churches were no doubt the product of the formation of "bands" which had begun to spring up early, with the ostensible purpose of purifying the church, and to serve the felt need of a center of spiritual interest for those who believed in "old line Methodism." Mr. Roberts claimed some authority from the Methodist Discipline:
A letter, written very early, from Emeline Smith of Brockport, indicated that as a little praying band, they waited to see what Mr. Roberts would do. She said that the impression had been with numbers, if not all, of their little praying band, that there would be a door opened for them; and in her own mind the conviction had been clear that some of their ministers would be expelled from conference (next), and that in some way, their interests would be affected by that. "And now here we are," concluded Mrs. Smith, "and we wait to know what the Lord will have us do."[166] She added a note on the edge of the letter, "Our little band meets next Wednesday evening to confer as to our course here. I wish if you had time that you would let us know your minds."[167] Attention has been directed to the action of the second Laymen's Convention held in Albion, November, 1859, which recommended the ministry to gather the people into Bands, and "to encourage them to union of action and effort in the work of the Lord."[168] Probably the action of the First Laymen's Convention previously mentioned in sending forth Mr. Roberts and Mr. McCreery to preach resulted in the formation of bands. What they did in the interim was no doubt reflected in the action of the Second Laymen's Convention. Mr. Roberts followed the action of that convention on bands with a commendation and an appeal. He characterized the recommendation for the formation of praying bands as one of the most important measures adopted at that Convention. He said the design was to induce those in sympathy with earnest Christianity to put forth "direct, systematic and persevering efforts for the salvation of souls."[169] He instructed that where there were three or more believers in Christ, of one heart and one mind, who felt the worth of souls, that they form a Band, adopting the directions to the Band Societies found in all Methodist Disciplines published prior to 1852. They should then choose a leader, who should give direction to the meetings, and should select some locality where a revival of religion was specially needed. More specifically still, he instructed them to
These bands were not formed in the East only. Mr. Roberts commented, "One brother writes us from Illinois, 'I take pleasure in informing you that there are pilgrim bands springing up in every direction in this country.’ "[171] 3. No Clear Distinction Between Bands and Societies The distinction between bands and societies did not seem to be clear, at least in the mind of Mrs. Roberts. Mrs. Roberts recorded in her diary: "Mr. Roberts preached and formed a Free Methodist Society (at Syracuse). God owned it, blessed Mr. Roberts and the rest. Only five united tonight. Others will come."[172] The story of Mrs. Babcock taking the lead in forming a Band in Rochester has been related. Mrs. Roberts recorded in her diary further actions of the same woman, on February 25th:
In this instance, the word Free is with the capital F. What discipline Mr. Roberts used is not known, but probably, it was the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church since there was at that time no formal organization of a new church. That opinion is confirmed by the statement at the time of the organization of the church that they adopted "the old Methodist discipline as far as applicable to their circumstances."[174] In 1897, the Rev. James Mathews referred to the spirit of those who composed the Bands. Speaking of Frank Smith of Brockport, he said:
One of the early works of the life of Mr. Roberts was the editing of a magazine which he began to publish late in the year 1859. Mr. Roberts said of it that he started The Earnest Christian with the sole object of doing good. His aim was to hold up and maintain "without compromise"[176] the Bible standard of salvation. He intended to give no countenance to sin in any of its popular forms. He admitted that the prospect of a magazine being sustained on that basis was not very flattering. He issued a circular and sent it to those who he thought might be favorable to the enterprise, and requested them to form an association and assume the responsibility of the proposed publication. He received no favorable responses. But one person that he knew of was willing to assume any such risk. He felt "called of God to take it personally and did so cheerfully."[177] He had means of his own to carry it through one year at least. He commenced without patronage and without a single subscriber.[178] In his first issue, he declared the object and scope of the magazine, specifying that it would promote experimental religion, a conversion experience that would make people willingly part with their sins, the doctrine of Christian Holiness as taught by Wesley and Fletcher. He stated he would also advocate the claims of the neglected poor, the class to which Christ and the Apostles belonged, and the class for whose special benefit the Gospel was designed. Apropos to this would be the necessity of plain churches with the seats free.[179] He declared it his purpose in short to publish a revival journal that would be free from controversy and which would avoid all offensive personalities.[180] Mr. Roberts' first main article was on "Free Churches" and his first editorial was on the subject of holiness. The names of his associates appeared in those issues, though not confined to them, in the early issues. Loren Stiles, Dr. Redfield, the late William Kendall, as well as William Cooley and J. A. Wells, S. K. J. Chesbrough and others were contributors. A review of revivals was given in smaller print in the back of the magazine. These accounts followed the general pattern of current revivals both under the labors of Mr. Roberts and that of others. The closing page of the February issue of The Earnest Christian contained a number of commendatory excerpts from the columns of certain papers, both religious and secular. The Buffalo Corn. Advertiser wrote of its being "handsomely printed."[181] The Northern Independent commented it "makes a fine appearance and is well filled."[182] The Buffalo Morning Express opined that it promises much in the ability of its management," the articles being "upon live topics and subjects of great importance."[183] Individuals commented with more specific reference to content and reaction to the same. A. A. Phelps said, "I like your matter exceedingly."[184] D. W. Thurston commented, "I have read your magazine with intense pleasure."[185] Dr. Elias Bowen thought that the "first number augurs well for the enterprise."[186] S. S. Rice believed it was "destined to be a favorite with those who are in favor of Christianity in Earnest."[187] C. D. Burlingham thought of the first two numbers that they were eminently practical and energetic, meeting the demand of the times. Mr. Roberts referred to the comments of the secular papers as having laid him under obligation in this respect. "Especially do we feel grateful to the editors of the Morning Express," he wrote, "who have spoken to us in terms too complimentary for us to copy." Near the close of the first year of publication, an enthusiast indeed wrote, "We pronounce it unequivocally the best religious periodical in the nation."[188] This was from the pen of a lady, said Mr. Roberts, "one whose writings upon religious experience we used to read with pleasure and profit in other periodicals."[189] As has been previously noted, the third Laymen's Convention gave its approbation to the new magazine. The subscription list grew rapidly and by 1886, there were ~x thousand subscribers listed for that year. Later, Mr. Roberts called for helpers to complete the list for ten thousand subscribers. No doubt the money which came from these sources greatly contributed to the support of Mr. Roberts, and to the more extended influence of the movement he was sponsoring. Attention is called to it here as a precursor of the new organization, though when it was first published, as late as in the April number of the year 1861, it was declared to be "neither sectarian nor denominational."[190] However, it served the purpose of unifying sentiment, of correcting abuses, of declaring the purpose of the new movement, and most of all, of enlisting new friends. It directly contributed to denominational ends, although it went beyond denominational bounds, and spread even to the army of the Civil War, where "Earnest Christian Bands" were formed. |
|
 |
 |
|
[1] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect. pp. 185.186. [2] Ibid.. p. 186. [3] Ibid.. p. 186. [4] Ibid., pp. 187,188. [5]. Ibid., p.189. [6] Journal of Mrs. Roberts. November 7.1858. Quoted, Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit.. p.68. [7] Osman C. Baker. letter Written to C. D. Burlingham, February 16, 1889. Found among personal papers of B. T. Roberts. [8] B. T. Roberts, Northern Independent, (March, 1859). Quoted, B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect. pp. 201, 202. [9] Letter from B. T. Roberts to his father, Pekin to Gowanda, November 2, 1858. Quoted. B. H. Roberts, op. cit., pp. 181, 182. [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid. [12] Ibid. [13] Letter from Mrs. Roberts to Mr. Titus Roberts, Gowanda, November 13, 1858. Quoted. B. H. Roberts, op. cit., p.184. [14] Ibid. [15] Ibid. Quoted by B. H. Roberts. op. cit.. p.185. [16] Ibid. Quoted by B. H. Roberts. op. cit.. p.186. [17] Diary of Mrs. B. T. Roberts, October 22,1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter. op. cit., p.67. [18] B H. Roberts, Benjamin Titus Roberts, p.186. [19] Letter from Emeline Smith, Brockport to B. T. Roberts, January 3,1859. Found among the personal letters of the Roberts family. [20] B. H. Roberts. op. cit., p.187. [21] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, November 20, 1856. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter. op. cit.. p.70. [22] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, November 22, 1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit., p.70. [23] Ibid. [24] Ibid. Quotation taken from first clause of Psalm 24:1. [25] B. T. Roberts, Why, Another Sect, p.191. [26] The Free Methodist. (August 9.1910). p.8. [27] B. T. Roberts. Why Another Sect, p.192. [28] Diary of Mrs. Roberts, December 1,1858. Quoted by Adella P. Carpenter, op. cit., p. 71. [29] The "Call" to First Laymen's Convention. Quoted by B. H. Roberts, op. cit.. p. 167.. [30] Ibid. [31] Ibid. Quoted by Wilson T. Hogue, History of The Free Methodist Church, I. p. 195. [32] Report of Resolutions adopted at First Laymen's Convention. Quoted by Elias, Bowen, History, of the Origin of The Free Methodist Church, (Rochester. New York. 1871), p. 162 [33] Ibid. Quoted by Elias Bowen, op. cit.. p.163. [34] Ibid. Quoted by Elias, Bowen. op. cit., p.165. [35] The "Call" to the First Laymen's Convention. Quoted by Elias Bowen, op. cit., p. 157. [36] Report of Resolutions adopted at First Laymen's Convention. Quoted by Elias Bowen. op. cit., pp. 166, 167. [37] S. K. J. Chesbrough. The Free Methodist, (August 9, 1910). 8. [38] Report of Resolutions adopted at First Laymen's Convention. Quoted by Elias Bowen. op. cit., p.170. [39] Report of Resolutions, adopted at First Laymen's Convention. Quoted by Bowen, op. cit., p.171. [40] Abel Stevens. Church Polity, p. 162. Quoted in the Resolutions of First Laymen's Convention, and cited by Elias Bowen, op. cit., p.167. [41] B. T. Roberts. Northern Independent, Vol. III, p.87. [42] Ibid. [43] Report on Resolutions. adopted at First Laymen's Convention. Quoted by Elias Bowen. op. cit., pp. 170,171. [44] B. T. Roberts, Why, Another Sect, p.28. [45] John Robie, Buffalo Advocate (February 3.1859). 1. [46] John Robie, Buffalo Advocate, (February 3, 1859), 1. [47] Ibid. [48] Ibid. [49] Ibid. [50] Ibid. [51] Ibid. [52] Ibid. [53] Ibid. [54] Ibid. [55] Report on Resolutions, adopted at First Laymen's Convention. Quoted by Elias Bowen. op. cit., p. 171. [56] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.201. [57] Ibid., pp. 201.202. [58] Zenas Osborne, Born of the Spirit. (Saratoga Springs, New York: John Johnson and Company. 1888), pp. 111.112. [59] Elias, Bowen, History of the Origin of the Free Methodist Church. (Rochester. New York. 1871), pp. 107, 108. 132. 151-155. [60] "Call" of Laymen's Convention, Albion, New York, December 1 and 2, 1858. [61] J. G. Terrill, Life of Rev. John W. Redfield, M. D., p.201. [62] Statement in Resolutions of Laymen's Convention. Olean, New York, February 1 and 2, 1860. Quoted by J. G. Terrill. op. cit., pp. 434, 435.447-448. [63] Edward P. Hart, Reminiscences of Early Free Methodism, (Chicago, 1903), pp. 2127. [64] Wilson T. Hogue, History of The Free Methodist Church. (Chicago. Free Methodist Publishing House. 1915), pp. 137, 138; 208-218; 253-264; 282-285. [65] B. T. Roberts. Why Another Sect, pp. 206-217; 263-278. [66] "Religious Persecution," Niagara City, Herald, (October 8. 1859). Quoted by Elias Bowen,. op. cit., op. 140-145. [67] "Methodist Church Difficulties. Solemn Mockery of a Trial-Ecclesiastical Guillotine on the Neck of Seymour J. Noble." The Olean Advertiser. (April 26, 1860). Quoted by Elias Bowen. op. cit.. pp. 145-151. [68] Olean Advertiser, Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, pp. 214-216. Cited also by Elias Bowen, op. cit., pp. 202-203. [69] William Hosmer. Northern Independent. Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.210. [70] Ibid. Quoted by B. T. Roberts. Why Another Sect, p.210. [71] Ibid. Quoted by B. T. Roberts. Why Another Sect, p.211. [72] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, pp. 274-278. [73] E. P. Hart, Reminiscences of Early Free Methodism. (Chicago: Free Methodist Publishing House, 1903), p.23. [74] Ibid., p.24. [75] Ibid. [76] Ibid., p.25. [77] Ibid. [78] Ibid. p.26 [79] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, pp. 274-277. [80] The "Call" of Second Laymen's Convention. Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, pp. 216-217. [81] F. G. Hibbard. Northern Christian Advocate, (June 9, 1859). 2. [82] Ibid. [83] J. F. Crawford, Marathon, New York. July 15. 1859. Quoted by Wilson T. Hogue, History of The Free Methodist Church of North America, (Chicago: The Free Methodist Publishing House, 1915). I, pp. 128, 129. [84] Ibid. [85] G. R. Crooks, Life of Bishop Matthew, Simpson. pp. 410, 411. Quoted by Abel Stevens, Supplemental History of American Methodism, (New York: Eaton and Mains. 1899). p.49. [86] Ibid. [87] Abel Stevens, Supplemental History of American Methodism, p. 52. [88] John Robie, Buffalo Advocate, (October 13, 1859), p.2. [89] Ibid. [90] Ibid. [91] Ibid. [92] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, pp. 218,219. [93] Ibid., p.219. [94] Ibid.. p.220. [95] Ibid. [96] Brockport Newspaper. (October, 1859). Quoted by B. T. Roberts. Why Another Sect, pp. 129.130. [97] B. T. Roberts. Why Another Sect, pp. 220.221. [98] Ibid., pp. 223,224. [99] Ibid. Bill of Charges against C. D. Burlingham. Quoted by B. T. Roberts Why, Another Sect, pp. 225. 229. [100] Ibid. Quoted by B. T. Roberts. Why Another Sect, p.228. [101] Ibid., p.239. [102] Ibid.. p.241. [103] William Hosmer. Northern Independent, (October 20. 1859). Quoted by B. T. Roberts. Why Another Sect, p.243. [104] Ibid., p.247. [105] Ibid.. p.246. [106] Ibid., p.247. [107] Ibid., p.249. [108] Bishop Matthew Simpson Buffalo Advocate, (November 10,1859), p.2. [109] Rev. William Hosmer, Northern Independent, (November 17, 1859). p. 58. [110] Ibid. [111] Ibid. [112] Ellen L. Roberts, Personal Diary of 1859. Found among personal possessions of Roberts. [113] Resolutions adopted at Second Laymen's Convention. Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.256. [114] Ibid., p.258. [115] Ibid.. p.259. [116] Ibid. [117] Resolution of Laymen's Convention. Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p. 261. [118] C. D. Burlingham, Outline History, p.52. Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect. p. 263 [119] Ibid. Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.263. [120] Letter quoted by B. T. Roberts. Why Another Sect, pp. 261, 262. [121] Ibid. [122] Ibid. [123] Ibid. [124] Ibid., p.261. [125] William T. Hogue, op. cit., Vol. I, p.252. [126] Ellen L. Roberts, Diary of 1859. Found among the personal letters and papers of the Roberts family. [127] B. T. Roberts. The Earnest Christian, (January. 1860). 32. [128] Wilson T. Hogue. op. cit., I, p.289. [129] B. T Roberts, Speech before Laymen's Convention. November, 1859. Quoted by Wilson T. Hogue, op. cit., pp. 289, 290. [130] Wilson T. Hogue. op. cit., pp. 289, 290. [131] Ibid., p. 290. [132] Ibid.. Vol. I. p.288. [133] Ibid. I, p.293. [134] Ibid., I, pp. 292, 293. [135] B. T. Roberts. Report of Third Laymen's Convention. Found among personal papers of Roberts. [136] Ibid. [137] Ibid. [138] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.268. Also, personal letter from Dewey Teft. written from East Otto, Cattaraugus, March 16, 1867. Quoted by Elias Bowen, op. cit., pp. 153, 154. [139] Quoted by B. H. Roberts, op. cit., p.215. [140] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, pp. 250, 251. [141] Ibid., p.251. [142] B. T. Roberts. The Earnest Christian, (January, 1860), p.12. [143] The Free. Methodist, (March 20, 1900), p.4. [144] Buffalo Morning Express, quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, pp. 132. 133. [145] Ellen L. Roberts, Personal Diary of 1880. Found among possessions of the Roberts family. [146] John Robie. Buffalo Advocate, (May 24, 1800). p.2. [147] Letter from B. T. Roberts to the Chesbroughs at Pekin. March. 1859. [148] Letter from S. K. J. Chesbrough to Mrs. Roberts. March 18,1859. Found among the personal letters of Roberts family. [149] Ibid. [150] Mrs. Lydia B. Lane to Mrs. Roberts, March 24,1859. Found among the personal letters of the Roberts family. [151] B. T. Roberts. The Earnest Christian, (January. 1889), p.32. [152] Ibid. [153] Letter from J. W. Redfield to Mrs. Kendall. Quoted by J. O. Terrill, The Life of Rev. John W. Redfield. M. D., p.376. [154] Letter from B. T. Roberts, St. Louis. to his wife, Buffalo, April 12, 1856. Found among personal letters of Roberts family. [155] Letter from Mrs. Kendall, St. Louis. to Mrs. Roberts, May 19. 1860. Found among personal letters of Robert: family. [156] Ibid. [157] Northern Christian Advocate. (January 25, 1860). [158] J. G. Terrill, The Life of Rev. John W. Redfield, M. D., pp. 421, 422. [159] Ibid., p. 422. [160] Wilson T. Hogue. Ph.D.. op. cit.. I, p.376. [161] Charles Hicks, letter to Mrs. Roberts, December 6, 1860. Found among personal letters of the Roberts family. [162] Wilson T. Hogue. Ph.D., op. cit., I, p.377. [163] Letter from Charles, T. Hicks, to Mrs. Roberts, December 6, 1860. Found among personal letters of the Roberts, family. [164] B. T. Roberts,. to his, wife. Syracuse, January 30, 1860. Found among personal letters, of Roberts,. [165] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.287. [166] Letter from Emeline Smith, Brockport, to Mrs. Roberts, Pekin, October 25, 1858. Among personal letters of Roberts. [167] Ibid. [168] Resolution of Second Laymen's Convention. Quoted by B. T. Roberts,. Why Another Sect, p.261. [169] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (March, 1860), 97. [170] Ibid. [171] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (February, 1860), 63. [172] Diary of Ellen L. Roberts, entry for February 8. 1860. [173] Diary of Ellen L. Roberts. entry for February 25, 1860. Found among personal possessions of the Roberts family. [174] Elias Bowen, History of the Origin of The Free Methodist Church. (Rochester, New York, 1871), p.236. [175] James Mathews. The Earnest Christian, (February, 1897). 64. [176] B. T. Roberts. The Earnest Christian, (August. 1864). [177] Ibid. [178] Ibid. [179] B. T. Roberts. The Earnest Christian (January. 1860), 1. [180] Ibid. [181] The Earnest Christian, (February. 1860). 88. [182] Ibid. [183] Ibid. [184] Ibid. [185] Ibid. [186] Ibid. [187] Ibid. [188] The Earnest Christian, (November, 1860), 366. [189] Ibid. [190] The Earnest Christian, (April 1861). 131. |
|
-
Site Navigation
Home
What's New
Bible
Photos
Hiking
E-Books
Genealogy
Profile
Free Plug-ins You May Need
Get Java.png)
Get Flash
Get 7-Zip
Get Acrobat Reader
Get TheWORD