The Earnest Christian
By C. H. Zahniser
Chapter 6
A NEW CHURCH COMES INTO BEING
In the beginning of the troubles in the Genesee Conference, it seems evident that there was no plan to form a different organization, either in the mind of Mr. Roberts or of the lay group who felt called to defend him and the other expelled ministers, for they had declared that they had not, and never had, "the slightest intention of leaving the church."[1] At a later time, there was no less desire expressed by the laymen who met in conventions, to remain true to the principles of the church. They said, "Our attachment to Methodism was never stronger than it is at present, and our sympathy and our means shall be given to the men who toil and suffer to promote it."[2] However, they were by that time identifying Methodism, not with the majority, but with the minority group, headed by Mr. Roberts. Their resolution further read, "We cannot abandon, at the bidding of the majority, the doctrines of Methodism, and the men who defend them.[3] The action of the Third Laymen's Convention went still further toward separation in appointing an Executive Council on each district to superintend all camp meetings, General Quarterly Meetings, and such other general meetings as they might think proper, and to take general oversight of the work in the interim of the Lay Conventions. Mr. Roberts and Mr. McCreery, as they continued their preaching during the time they had an exhorter's license, declared they had no thought of forming a new church. Mr. Roberts stated, "Neither of us had any thought of forming a new church; we had great love for Methodism and unfaltering confidence in the integrity of the body as a whole. We did not doubt that the General Conference would make matters right"[4] That there was an attachment to Methodism on the part of some of those people seems to be evident by their subsequent attitudes. The Rev. Joseph McCreery, Mr. Roberts affirmed, never really became reconciled to the new church after its organization, and took his position against its formation in the beginning. Although he finally joined the new organization, he never seemed to be committed to it or to give it his full support. C. D. Burlingham, who was expelled in 1858 with three others, was finally restored to the Genesee Conference, and although he continued to preach for fifteen years, Mr. Roberts thought he ''seemed a crushed, broken hearted men."[5] Mr. Wells, expelled at the same session, joined the Presbyterian Church. Numbers of the sympathizers remained with the Methodist church, among whom were Mr. Hosmer, editor of the Northern Independent, the man who was termed by Mr. Roberts the "John Knox of his day," and the Rev. Fay Purdy, the lawyer evangelist who held the camp meeting so near the Conference sessions in 1859. Two of the six expelled ministers never joined the new church organization, and of the four who did, one was never fully reconciled. With these facts in mind, one may safely conclude that there was no real desire, on the part of some at least, for a new organization. In the beginning, the aim appeared to be to purge away what they felt to be elements of worldliness and departures from original Methodism. 1. Roberts' Review of His Case When the General Conference met, the Civil War was imminent, and the great question of the day was that of slavery. It is possible that this problem of such momentous implications to the Methodist Episcopal Church overshadowed the Genesee Conference difficulties and the appeals that came as a result of them, with a resultant lack of the consideration that might have been given in a normal period. Mr. Roberts reported that the Genesee Conference matters were passed over with as little attention as possible. Petitions came in from some fifteen hundred members, asking that the judicial action of that Conference might be thoroughly investigated. Mr. Roberts said the Genesee delegates professed great willingness at first to have their official actions thoroughly investigated. A committee of one from each Conference was then appointed for that purpose. Just as they were getting ready to enter upon their duties, a determined effort was made, so Mr. Roberts affirmed, by the Genesee Conference delegates, and their friends, to get the Committee discharged. Mr. Roberts felt this effort to block investigation of his case must look suspicious to any impartial person, but it nevertheless succeeded, and the Committee was dismissed. Of the six appeal cases, two only were entertained. The appeal of Mr. Roberts from a sentence of censure was heard by a Committee that proved to be equally divided. C. D. Burlingham's case was sent back to the Genesee Conference for a new trial, although Mr. Roberts thought there was nothing to try as all the facts were admitted.[6] 2. Committees to Handle the Case A special committee had been first appointed to try the case through the efforts of friends of Mr. Roberts. Because of the opposition of certain members of the Genesee Conference, this committee was dismissed and the whole matter was referred to the Committee on Itineracy, which already had so many matters to consider that little time could be given to any one problem. Also it was late in the session when these matters were referred. When the first appeal of Mr. Roberts was heard, and the vote was tied in committee, there was evidence of divided sentiment on his case. Inasmuch as the vote was tied, the Bishop decided that a failure to acquit was a conviction, and therefore the sentence of the Genesee Conference must stand affirmed. Mr. Roberts said that the Judge in civil courts instructs the jury to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt, but in his case, the Bishop was not so generous.[7] When the second appeal of Roberts came up, Mr. Roberts, knowing the opposition of some who sat on the Committee, began to challenge the members of the committee, exercising the right of challenging for a cause. Two who were challenged were set aside. Mr. Roberts was not then permitted to challenge further, though he assigned as the cause that some of the jury had already committed themselves against him, and published articles hostile to him in the papers. His objections were over-ruled.[8] Mr. Roberts added, "I have been credibly informed that it was the evident unfairness of the committee towards me in the outset that made one Bishop vacate the chair, because he did not wish to be a party to the wrong."[9] Mr. Hosmer, editor of the Northern Independent, related that Dr. Curry and Mr. Hatfield, counsel for Mr. Roberts, presented "unanswerable arguments why the case should be heard upon its merits, but the eloquence was exerted in vain."[10] The appeal from the sentence of expulsion was refused. Mr. Roberts asked a question which was very perplexing to him, "Why the same committee should hear my appeal from the sentence of reproof, and a few days later refuse to entertain my appeal from the sentence of expulsion, remains among the unsolved mysteries."[11] It is no doubt true from the standpoint of the written constitution of Methodist law that they did, as Mr. Roberts affirmed, "violate . . . . the plainly expressed written constitution of the Church."[12] However, if the Conference body felt inclined to accept the interpretation of Bishop Simpson in his law decisions in the Genesee Conference, which they did in approving them, then they probably felt that Mr. Roberts had invalidated his appeal by the course he pursued, and that he had virtually withdrawn from the organization through a movement of Bands and independent churches which the Methodist Episcopal Church considered a secession. Mr. Roberts felt that all his endeavors had been to promote Methodism, that his appeals should be heard, and that even if his course subsequent to appeal had been out of order, that as a proper tribunal of law, they should have heard him with reference to the specific charges brought against him then. However, the course of events that had developed, especially with reference to separate organizations, Mr. Roberts himself taking an active part in the congregational bands or churches, could not do otherwise than have a strong influence on the minds of the Conference with reference to his eligibility for appeal. 3. Slavery Influence in the Decision One more consideration, the slavery issue, must be noted. The Northern Independent, strongly antislavery, charges that the South went solid with Dr. Hibbard and the "Regency." The editor asserted that the "border states" and the Regency were one in all the great questions that came before the General Conference, but that more specifically they all knew that Black River Conference had unanimously ordered a complaint to be made against the Philadelphia Conference, for allowing their leaders, stewards, and local traveling preachers to hold slaves in violation of Discipline. If the precedent of setting a special committee upon the track of an Annual Conference, with time and power to investigate fully, was instigated, then another committee might have been after the Philadelphia or Baltimore Conference the next week, and some unpleasant facts might have been brought to light. Hence all the border states and their friends voted to disband the committee.[13] In another article in the Northern Independent, Mr. Hosmer charged that the Genesee Conference delegates voted with the "border states" delegates against a change of constitution on the question of slavery, and then when Genesee Conference matters came up, "the border pro-slavery delegates voted solid with the representatives of the majority of the Genesee Conference."[14] The unexplained change of sentiment in four years prompted Mr. Hosmer to ask, "We would like to know by what arguments they [Genesee delegates] were converted [to slavery], and when it was done."[15] The Genesee Conference had heretofore been considered one of the strongest anti-slavery Conferences in the connection.[16] Mr. Roberts agreed with the judgment of Mr. Hosmer. He referred to the fact that when these issues came up, the two groups "talked and voted lovingly together."[17] Then using a striking Scriptural figure Mr. Roberts affirmed
Whether or not this judgment was correct cannot be certainly decided, but considering the strong antislavery sentiments of the Genesee Conference previous to that time, it would appear that there was some degree of plausibility in the construction placed upon the affinity which there developed between Genesee Conference and border state delegates. 4. Injudicious Action of McCreery All of the men associated with Mr. Roberts were not judicious in their proceedings. Joseph McCreery, who, Mr. Roberts said, truly loved the mother church, did present a couple of petitions to the General Conference which none but Mr. McCreery, with his flare for vivid language, would have done. One of these humbly petitioned
The other petitioned the Reverend body to "abrogate the Conventicle Act consisting of five Pusyite Resolutions passed at the last session of the Genesee Conference."[20] It is not surprising that the Rev. George Peck moved that these appeals be returned to their author. These are mentioned as a possible source of irritation in regard to the appeals that came before the General Conference. It is very probable that these petitions of McCreery were a source of embarrassment to Mr. Roberts, who placed his own appeals seriously and managed them on a high and dignified level. This brings up the consideration of a question that needs to be faced. Was the whole "Nazarite" movement fanatical? Did the movement have in it elements of fanaticism? The answer to the first question would have been answered in that day in both the negative and affirmative, according, to the person answering. Very strong statements in the negative, made by Dr. Elias Bowen and the Rev. Asa Abell, are hard to challenge in the light of their long experience with Methodism. Both of them claimed after long years of service in the Methodist Church, that this which was falsely termed "Nazaritism" was true Methodism.[21] The First Lay Convention stated that "the charge brought against Brothers Roberts and McCreery, and the class of preachers denominated 'Nazarites,' of promoting fanaticism is utterly false and groundless."[22] Dr. Bowen described some acts of physical demonstration and added, "but not so much as I used to see at Methodist camp meetings forty years ago."[23] One must also be cognizant of the many articles, written especially in the Buffalo Advocate, which charged the "Nazarites" with a species of rank fanaticism. Writing of the Bergen Camp Meeting, which was a center of attack, Mr. Robie described what he considered to be a scene of general confusion, and added that it "rivalled in ludicrousness anything we ever saw in a circus in the days of our boyhood."[24] Mr. Roberts in writing of the same meeting said that the best of order generally prevailed. Almost the only instances of wilful departure from becoming decorum that had come to his knowledge, had been, he was sorry to say, among those Methodist ministers, whose object in attending seemed to be to obtain material which would "enable wild imagination by misrepresentation, exaggeration, and false coloring to so mould over and paint, as to throw contempt upon the whole proceedings."[25] 2. Answers to Questions Proposed (a) First Question. The first question proposed, "Was this movement fanatical?" would have to be answered in the light of the evidence adduced. One of the strongest statements of the Methodistic character of "Nazaritism" is contained in a document signed by seventeen men who were associated with the movement, including B. T. Roberts, and which closed with the assertion
Of those who signed this denial, five had been presiding elders, and four of them delegates to the General Conference, showing that they were recognized leaders in their Conference. Only three of those seventeen ever became members of the Free Methodist Church; one joined the Presbyterian Church, one the United Brethren, and the rest remained with the Methodist Episcopal Church. In process of time, some of them became bitter enemies of the new church. "Yet," Roberts asserted, "we never heard that any of them ever made any statement, inconsistent with what they here say."[27] (b) Some Fanaticism Cited. If the second question proposed were answered, "Were there elements of fanaticism in the movement?" the answer would be in the affirmative. Mr. Roberts was well aware of that fact. He stated that
(c) Sermon of Chesbrough Acknowledged Fanaticism. In a sermon preached by S. K. J. Chesbrough, taken in shorthand and published in the Free Methodist in 1900, is found a clear admission of elements of fanticism. Said Mr. Chesbrough:
A formal action against such elements was taken, however, at the first Eastern Convention held at Rushford, New York. A resolution was introduced by Loren Stiles and passed, which asserted that as individual members of that convention, they did not believe that miraculous gifts in the commonly received theological sense of the term, were for us as Christians at the present day, to be obtained or exercised; nor did they believe that the gifts of healing, of working miracles, of prophecy, of discerning of spirits, of divers kinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues, as miraculous gifts or powers, were any of them "attainable by any of the children of God at the present day."[30] (d) Women in Public Work. Probably one of the causes of difference, and sometimes of distraction, was the place which Mr. Roberts gave to women in public work. Sentiment was greatly divided on that subject among the leaders. Loren Stiles especially was strongly opposed to the same. In the diary of Mrs. Roberts, we find an entry which is but typical and could be multiplied:
That was a day of contention for the rights of women. In June, 1852, a Women's Rights Convention was held in West Chester, Pa., in which the claims which have been wholly recognized today are found.[32] It was to be expected that it would be difficult for women to find their place in public worship, when they were allowed rights by some, and were checked by others. This whole issue became a cause of confusion, and lead some to question the leadership of the Spirit in their lives, including Mrs. Roberts, who was at that time continually in bondage as to whether she should speak or refrain from speaking in the public services. It became her particular "cross" and no doubt the cross of many another timid woman. Some of the new church leaders did not fully agree with Mr. Roberts on that issue. 3. Conclusion Concerning Fanaticism in the Movement Elements of fanaticism were difficult to eliminate entirely in the early beginnings of the new movement, since such extravagances have often been an accompaniment of revival movements. Bishop Simpson asserted that "the excitement connected with these meetings passed into extravagance, which was sanctioned by their leading men as being evidences of the influence of the Holy Spirit."[33] That these tendencies were controlled under the direction of the new leadership is discovered in Bishop Simpson's further statement: "As the denomination has progressed, and has extended its boundaries, though their services are still characterized by much fervor, there is less of these manifestations."[34] It is interesting to note that Dr. Stephen Olin, a prominent Methodist minister of that day, spoke of the similar changes through which Methodism had gone:
Many of the extragances of the earlier movement deepened with the group who refused, as Mr. Roberts expressed it, to be either instructed or controlled. This group did not go along with the new movement but continued to call themselves "Nazarites." Some of them retained their membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church and some of them did not, but Mr. Roberts said that all arrayed themselves against the Free Methodist Church and had always been its unrelenting opponents.[36] Following the rejection of the appeal of Mr. Roberts at the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1860, he said, "We were, for a while, at a loss what to do. There was no denomination that agreed with us on the issues on which we were thrust out."[37] Mrs. Roberts, however, thought the turn of events in accordance with the best interests of her husband and the Gospel he represented. She recorded in her diary:
The refusal of the General Conference to entertain Mr. Roberts' appeal from expulsion was the action which brought the new movement to crystallization. Within a few weeks following the General Conference, a Convention was held, pursuant to a call issued in the Northern Independent, which met the latter part of June in the Methodist Episcopal Church of Sweden, near which a camp meeting was then in progress. About one hundred were present, and by a vote of between fifty and sixty, they declared that they were in sympathy with the doctrines and usages of the Methodist Episcopal Church, but recommended that when brethren did not enjoy them, that they should go out to organize bands and societies under the name of Free Methodist. They also resolved by about the same vote that J. W. Redfield, B. T. Roberts, J. McCreery, Jr., J. A. Wells, W. Cooley, S. C. Springer, M. Osborne Doyle, and others, be a committee to draft a code of rules for the regulation and government of said societies, to be adopted at a future delegated convention for which provision was made. B. T. Roberts was constituted a traveling missionary with discretionary powers, and also appointed a delegate to the Laymen's Convention to be held at St. Charles, Illinois. The greater number in the Convention declared themselves to be in favor of separate ecclesiastical relations, and to that end, several characteristics of church polity were suggested which deviated somewhat from the Methodist polity which had been theirs. There was evidently quite a difference of opinion among them, and it is probable that the lack of harmony existed over the question of the organization of an independent movement, as is evident in the vote.[39] It was not long before the course of events hurried Mr. Roberts into a further decision which more fully prepared him for the coming organization. When the General Conference had rejected his second appeal from expulsion, he had said, "I appeal to God and the people."[40] The people of the West were the first to call for his official services. Mr. Roberts went to the Western Convention in company with six others from Bergen by way of the New York Central, Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railroad to Chicago. They found the camp meeting located thirty-five miles west of Chicago.[41] Mr. Hart described the camp as being a large circle of tents, in one of the finest groves for camp meeting purposes he had ever seen. Dr. Redfield, the evangelist, was in charge at the camp. The meeting was well under way when Mr. Hart reached the ground, and he stated that there did not seem any disposition to control the emotions of the group. That there was much of divine power, he asserted, no one could question, but that there was also a good deal of the rankest fanaticism present no one could deny. Dr. Redfield did no more than to say good naturedly, "If the devil tells any of you to stand on your head, don't do it."[42] It was there at the St. Charles Camp that for the first time E. P. Hart met Mr. Roberts. He gave his impression of Mr. Roberts in the following words:
The Convention was called on July first, on grounds quite similar to the complaints in the East; namely, that old and reliable members had been expelled or read out of the Methodist Church. They met on a rail pile near the home of the man who owned the grove. After devotional exercises, Mr. Roberts was chosen president. They then ordered a camp meeting on the same ground the next year, and another the following September. A resolution was passed to the effect that they had strong attachment to the doctrines, usages, spirit and discipline of Methodism, but that they had witnessed with grief a departure of many of the ministers from the God-honored usages of Methodism; that they felt bound to adhere to them and to labor to promote the life and power of godliness; that they recommended for those in sympathy with the doctrine of holiness to labor on in the mother church, but in case this could not be done, they recommended the formation of Free Methodist Churches as contemplated in the convention held in the Genesee Conference in New York.[44] They then proceeded to organize and man the work, and, in order to take care of increasing appointments during the year, elected a committee of five. Dr. Redfield was made the Superintendent of the Western work, and B. T. Roberts was unanimously elected General Superintendent. Eighteen men, whom Mr. Roberts described as, in the main, young men of promise, went out under the auspices of that Convention. The work was described as then in a formative state, each man who was sent out to preach being under obligation to raise up his own circuit. Most of these ministers were appointed to places where members of the Methodist Episcopal Church had either been read out, or expelled, or were in disfavor with the M. E. Church.[45] After Mr. Roberts had assisted in the camp meeting which just closed in St. Charles, he then went on to hold meetings at Clintonville, Kishwaukee, Franklinville, Marengo, Bonus, Woodstock and Queen Anne, where he said he found large and attentive congregations. He believed after that trip that God had begun a glorious work in northern Illinois. Some of the men who took part in that Convention became strong leaders in the work in future years. E. P. Hart became the second General Superintendent of the church; J. G. Terrill, C. E. Harroun, and Joseph Travis filled places of great influence and usefulness in the new church. Dr. Redfield did not live long enough to enter largely into the work. In September, 1860, following the formal organization of the Free Methodist Church in the East at Pekin, a Convention was held on a campground at Aurora, Illinois, the new discipline was adopted, and the western men went out to organize Free Methodist Churches. The Eastern Convention which had met at Sweden, New York, following the General Conference of 1860, provided for and ordered a second Convention, which was called to meet August 23, 1860, at Pekin, Niagara County, New York, the place where Mr. Roberts had last served as a Methodist pastor, and near the home of Isaac and S. K. J. Chesbrough. A formal call was issued in the August number of The Earnest Christian for a camp meeting to convene at Pekin, twenty miles north of Buffalo, about forty rods from the depot, to commence on Thursday, the sixteenth of August. It was then announced that the convention would be held at Pekin, for the purpose of adopting a discipline for the Free Methodist Church, and that this would commence at the close of the camp meeting, August 23rd. All societies and bands that found it necessary, in order to promote the prosperity and permanency of the work of holiness, to organize a Free Methodist Church on the basis specified, were asked to send one delegate each, and an additional delegate for every forty members. The specified basis was listed under three heads as,
Following the camp meeting which was variously described as of great spiritual value, or of great fanaticism, according to the persons reporting, the Convention met at the scheduled hour. S. K. J. Chesbrough, the secretary of the Laymen's Conventions, who had been actively supporting the expelled ministers and the cause they espoused, was not in sympathy with the organization of a new church, and so refused to attend the Convention which was to meet so near his home. Instead he sat that day at his kitchen door where he could see some of what was transpiring. Just previous to the time when the Convention was scheduled to begin, he saw about a dozen men meet under an apple tree in back of his home, some standing, but most were sitting. He heard one of them make a motion that they proceed with the organization of a church. After that, they arose and went over into the grove about a quarter of a mile away to conduct the regular session of the Convention that had been called. Thus it was determined by the leading men before the Convention met that the new church would be formed.[47] After devotions were conducted, the Rev. A. A. Phelps was elected secretary of the Convention. He later recorded that fifteen preachers and forty-five laymen gathered on the camp site, a spot newly dedicated to God by the salvation of souls, and organized, electing Isaac M. Chesbrough as chairman. Mr. Roberts, in his account of the Convention, estimated about eighty laymen were present.[48] Quite a discussion took place as to the propriety of organizing at that time. Joseph McCreery, Alanson Reddy, W. Cooley, and Mr. Farnsworth were among the ministers who were opposed to organization. Dr. Redfield stepped into the discussion at a critical moment, and said, "Brethren, when fruit is ripe, it had better be picked, lest on falling it bruise. In the west we are in favor of an organization. If in the East you are not ready, wait until you are."[49] Mr. Roberts arose and answered as follows: "We are ready, and the West and the East should move in the matter simultaneously."[50] This evidently brought the matter to a vote, and when the vote was counted, all but seven, five preachers and two laymen, stood up in favor of effecting an organization immediately.[51] The first item of business after the organization of the new church was completed was the election of B. T. Roberts as General Superintendent. Mr. Roberts had argued for a Standing Committee that would have general oversight of the infant church,[52] but the delegates to the Convention felt otherwise. In his diary for August 23. 1860, Mr. Roberts wrote:
The position granted to Mr. Roberts as leader was not unchallenged. Other men of ability and devotion had their friends who became their champions, who were not unwilling to advocate their claims for consideration.[54] The choice, however, proved to be a happy one for the new organization, for Mr. Roberts was young, then only thirty-seven years of age, full of vigor, and he had many years of service ahead of him. There was evidently little discussion about a name for the new church; at least no record of such has been found. Several Free Methodist Churches were in existence, one in Buffalo called the Buffalo Free Methodist Episcopal Church; others were found in Clintonville, Illinois; St. Louis, Missouri; Albion, New York; and perhaps Rochester and Syracuse. The term Free Methodist Church had been used for several years, and it was only natural that this name should be accepted. However, Mr. Roberts wrote in after years that he, probably not wishing to involve the Methodist name. had favored the name "Free Church Connection."[55] The Rev. C. D. Brooks, a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, wrote to Mr. Stiles shortly after his expulsion in 1859, that he thought a good name for the independent congregational church Mr. Stiles organized would be the "Free Methodist Church." He then appended his reasons, as embodying the following principles: free from slavery and secret societies, free seats in all churches, free from the outward ornaments of pride, and free in Christ. Not long after, he learned that Mr. Stiles had endorsed the name and principles, and further, that one year later, the same name and principles were embodied in the new Discipline of the Church adopted at Pekin. He further stated that one chapter of the new Discipline was in his own handwriting, although he was still a member of the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church.[56] Mr. Roberts claimed that in considering the provisions of the Discipline presented by the committee appointed for that purpose, every new feature was scanned most critically. The laymen entered so fully into this discussion that Mr. Roberts was convinced that any church that excluded laymen from their councils was a great loser. After a careful consideration, item by item, and adoption with "singular unanimity,"[57] Mr. Roberts commented, "It was as surprising as delightful to notice the similarity of views entertained by men who think for themselves, coming from different parts of the country."[58] An article on entire sanctification, taken from Wesley's writings, was adopted. Mr. Loren Stiles desired to have a paragraph on gradual sanctification entered as well as the instantaneous view, but Dr. Redfield contended, "Brethren, I would not make a threat, but unless we go straight on the question of holiness in the Discipline we had better halt where we are."[59] He believed that the gradualistic theory was the cause of the trouble which precipitated the new organization, and hence strongly stated, "We are John Wesleyan Methodists. We must not dodge that point."[60] Also an article on future rewards and punishments, drawn from the Bible, was inserted, due to the practice of some ministers in the region affiliating with Universalists, supplying their pulpits, and going without rebuke to their communion. With reference to polity, the following provisions were made:
Several searching questions were entered, to be asked of those intending to join the organization. It was imperative for every person who joined the church to be able to answer affirmatively that he had the witness of the Spirit that he was a child of God. Mr. Roberts stated that so far as his knowledge went, the new church was the only one to propound the further question for those wishing to join in full connection, "Have you that perfect love which casteth out fear? If not, will you diligently seek until you obtain it?" The first question was inserted because Mr. Roberts thought, as well as others of the Convention, that they should include all the saved and none but the saved,[62] and also to keep out an influx of those who might not be spiritually ready to become substantial members of the new organization.[63] One who had been prominent in the Pekin Convention wrote shortly afterward, "We saw that we were liable to be flooded by the mass of disaffected and discontented religious people, in and out of the church, who were ready to join anything that would be radically opposed to the existing order of things. Hence the question on receiving members."[64] They also wished to avoid the declension which they believed to have occurred in Methodism, which declension had been proclaimed in the columns of The Advocate just prior to the days of the Conference conflicts. "There is no occasion of blinking the fact," printed that organ, "that a new element, or rather, the old worldly element, is creeping insidiously into the communion of the body of Christ."[65] A comment on the origin of these questions on membership came out when an attempt to change one of them in the General Conference of 1894 was voted down. The editor of the General Conference Daily recorded that Mr. Roberts once told him that these questions had come to him one day while he was praying during the Convention at Pekin.[66] The second question was urged to maintain the emphasis on the experience of holiness which they believed had suffered decline among them. According to William Warren Sweet, "In the two decades previous to the Civil War Wesley's doctrine of Christian perfection was largely neglected and had become little more than a creedal matter among the main Methodist bodies."[67] The introduction of these two questions, especially the first, emphasized the statement of Mr. Roberts, in October, 1862, when he said, "We have no desire to get up simply a large church; but we do hope that our societies will be composed, exclusively, of those who are in earnest to gain heaven, and who are determined . . . . to live up to the requirements of the Bible."[68] The inclusion of free seats for the purpose of reaching the masses was not to be interpreted to mean that they would lower the requirements of membership in order to reach the masses. Dr. Elton Trueblood has stated that what we want is a group so devoted and so rightly organized that it can work as effectively for redemptive ends in our time as the first Christians worked in the first century. The way to begin, he stated, is to take seriously Hitler's principle of limitation of membership.[69] A prominent sociologist of our day affirms that a band of a hundred, or of fifty, or even of ten living Christians, strong in mutual affections and confidence, and entire in their devotedness to Christ and the salvation of souls, would, he was confident, wield an amount of religious influence immeasurably greater than is usually exerted by our largest and most flourishing churches. Mr. Roberts would, without any doubt, subscribe to the sentiment expressed by Richard Pyke, when he asserted in his book which followed the second centenary anniversary of Methodism, "We must be a holy people before we can be a powerful church. The desire to add to our numbers may be only a secular passion after all."[70] (a) The Withdrawal of Those Who Were Opposed to Organization. Immediately following the organization of the Free Methodist Church, those who looked with disfavor upon it, headed by the dissenting ministers, withdrew to form the "Nazarite Band." The Rev. and Mrs. W. Cooley, and the Rev. Joseph McCreery went with them for a time. Later, Mr. Cooley. finding himself out of harmony with the actions of the Nazarite Band members at a camp meeting at East Selby, New York, reversed his decision and joined the new church. Mr. McCreery eventually joined also. The Nazarite movement set itself up in direct opposition to the Free Methodist Church, often endeavoring to hold meetings at the same time. Both conciliation and radical treatment failed in many instances, since some of the leaders of the Nazarite movement manifested marvelous self-possession and equanimity of spirit. Fanaticism in its wildest forms was reported among them, and as the weaknesses of Nazaritism became apparent, some joined the new church and others drifted away from the Bands. The main leader was Manson Reddy, formerly a local preacher of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and one of the five who voted against the organization of the Free Methodist Church, to which he never belonged. It was reported that he would pass himself off as such when it was to his advantage in entertainment during his later travels. One type of interference which Mr. Reddy gave the new church is indicated in the diary of Mrs. Roberts.
At the same camp meeting, some of the members of the Nazarite Band attended, and seemed to have separate meetings. Mrs. Roberts recorded that the Nazarites had a meeting back of the "Wales tent." Several got up into a wagon and talked some. It was Mrs. Roberts' opinion that there was little of the Spirit in their talk. Joe Miller preached against organization, and a "Brother Tinkham" said primitive power could not come into any organization of earth.[72] (b) Organization of the First Class. At the same camp meeting where the church was organized on Thursday, August 23, 1860, on the Sunday following, B. T. Roberts formed the first class under the newly adopted Discipline. Nineteen persons answered the questions, and were taken into full relationship. This followed the regular Sunday morning service, and the questions of the new Discipline were written on a piece of paper from which Mr. Roberts read them. The original record book has been lost, and it has been possible to secure only fifteen of the original nineteen names that were that day recorded. Included in that number were Ann E. Chesbrough, Annette Groves, Adaline Rose, Jane E. Cushing, Jarvis Pike, George Rose, Ursula Mitchell, Cornelia Castle, George W. Carl, Joshua Carl, Elizabeth Carl, Lewis E. Chase, Lucina Chase, Jesse W. Murdock and Elsie S. Murdock.[73] (c) Consolidation of the Work and Its Immediate Extension. Moses N. Downing, a minister of the new church, in portraying those early days, said he well remembered the danger of fatality in launching the ship, but through the wisdom given to Dr. Redfield and B. T. Roberts "the little craft safely moved from its blocking and out into the water, sailed down to Port Rushford where, in October following, a full managing crew was put in charge of affairs, and the craft put to sea."[74] He referred to the first Eastern Convention (later called Conference) of the Free Methodist Church which was held in Rushford, Allegany Co., N. Y. It was composed of fourteen preachers and fourteen lay delegates. The district chairmen were authorized to employ ten other preachers; and even then all the places that called for preachers could not be supplied. The question of a weekly paper was discussed and a committee appointed to raise sufficient funds to buy type, press and other fixtures. Mr. Roberts was afraid that a paper at that time would foster a Controversial spirit by printing all the varying views of the different people at that crucial juncture. Mr. Roberts had consistently refused to publish anything of a controversial nature in The Earnest Christian, doubtless realizing fully the effect of the controversial articles printed in the press during the difficult times of the Genesee Conference in the Methodist Church. That he wished to avoid. He expressed as his opinion that what they needed was a general, deep and thorough revival of religion. He looked "upon the worst of encouragement to start a weekly paper at this time, as providential."[75] The appointments were made by five laymen and five preachers, and embraced two districts, the Genesee and the Allegany. Mr. Roberts was evidently made chairman of the Genesee District, though his name does not appear in his own published account, and A. F. Curry was made chairman of the Allegany District. Ten circuits were listed on the Genesee District and nine on the Allegany. Four places were left to be supplied.[76] At that Convention, a resolution of the Rev. Loren Stiles against miraculous gifts was passed. Mr. Roberts asserted that he knew of no one who made any such pretensions interpreted in the theological sense of the term, and thought the best way to meet their critics was with silence.[77] In an article written on the subject, he endeavored to distinguish between miracle in the theological and philosophical sense, ruling out the former on the ground that they were proof or evidence of some particular doctrine, or in attestation of the authority of some particular person. He approved miracles in the philosophical sense, and cited the readers to an article by Dr. Elias Bowen which he would publish in the next issue of The Earnest Christian, which he thought was worth the subscription price of the magazine. In that article, Dr. Bowen, still a minister in the Methodist Episcopal Church, took the position that the gifts in general were bequeathed to the church as a perpetual inheritance, and miracle working power to the end of time.[78] These gifts, Dr. Bowen continued, were the fruit of a state of grace and not its condition, and that they were far less valuable than the ordinary gifts we possess. They were not to be sought and no one should boast in them, but if in the power of one of them, they should, like Christ, be content with demonstrating it.[79] That Mr. Stiles and Mr. Roberts were somewhat at variance on that point is evident. Sometime before the Rushford Convention where the resolution against miraculous gifts was passed, Mrs. Roberts wrote in her diary:
Probably Mr. Stiles would have said that the comments of Mr. Roberts took away the force of the resolution. However, Mr. Roberts knew that many good people who were members of the organization were of a varying opinion. To have taken a hard or rigid position at that stage of the history of the infant church would no doubt have been detrimental from the standpoint of ingathering. The Rushford Camp Meeting immediately preceded the Convention which has just been discussed. A report on that meeting mentioned not only a good band of "earnest Christians" but also the fact that they had purchased the old Methodist Church. Immediately following that meeting, Mr. Roberts went to a camp meeting held at Aurora, Illinois, where he said he found a good attendance at the services. He reported that the men gave up their tobacco and women their jewelry when they got converted. That meeting was followed by another at Mount Pleasant, Ogle County, but forty miles from the Mississippi. The Bonus Grove Camp Meeting kindled a fire on that beautiful prairie, he believed, that would not soon be extinguished.[81] On October 19. 1860, the Second Free Methodist Church at Buffalo, located on Pearl Street, was dedicated. To secure that building was a great sacrifice to Mr. Roberts, inasmuch as it meant giving up his own home as a down payment. Both house and lot, valued at fifteen hundred dollars, were turned in on the three thousand five hundred dollars which he had to pay for a former theatre building. The deed for that property is still preserved among his papers. This left him homeless. He said he would give the whole of this cheerfully if needed.[82] Mr. Roberts wrote of the purchase of the building in an article in The Earnest Christian and mentioned that five hundred dollars had been subscribed at the Bergen Camp, and that one woman had given a gold watch chain, and another a gold watch.[83] Concerning their own sacrifice, Mrs. Roberts testified that before that time they were often in close circumstances, at times finding it difficult even to buy a postage stamp, but ever after that experience they were given more and never knew the stringency of finances that sometimes arose in the earlier days.[84] Mr. Roberts was glad that he had done what he did, and said he believed that the old theatre, now a church, would be the birthplace of hundreds if not thousands of souls. Above all, he rejoiced:
A prayer by Dr. Redfield and a message by Mr. Stiles climaxed the simple services that dedicated the plain, unpretentious brick building which would seat five or six hundred people. Mr. Roberts wrote of the new church in Buffalo in 1861 that scarcely a week had elapsed that some souls had not been saved,[86] and that during the preceding three months, over thirty had been received on probation. At that time, they had about seventy members and a congregation as large as could be crowded into the church, many having to leave for lack of standing room.[87] At one service, they had representatives of five different nations kneeling at the altar for prayer. There was still a debt of eighteen hundred dollars at that date, but Mr. Roberts was already planning to open another church when this one was paid off.[88] Some months after Mr. Roberts sold his home to buy the first Free Methodist Church in Buffalo, a Mr. Day asked him to call. To the surprise of Mr. Roberts, Mr. Day presented him with a deed for a lot much more valuable than the one he had sold. The gift was an acknowledgment of gratitude for counsel which had brought peace and happiness to Mr. Day in his old age. Through the aid of friends, Mr. Roberts was able to build a new house upon that lot. The property became much more valuable than the one he had given. Later, when he sold that house, he gave one thousand dollars of the sale price to help the St. Louis Church, in recognition of what others had done to help him in a time of need.[89] In October Mr. Roberts wrote his wife that the work at Pekin was going very well. Some had been converted since camp meeting. He mentioned that a Mr. J . . . . had just written S. K. J. Chesbrough stating that the new church had its foundation in "resentment, pride and ambition." He judged Alanson Reddy was very bitter against them.[90] He thought the work at Buffalo had not suffered unduly by his absence. Then he petitioned his wife, "Pray for me. I am looking up. I hail from the upper regions."[91] Although Mr. S. K. J. Chesbrough had been one of the most active of the laymen of the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in trying to adjust the difficulties that had arisen, and although he had been a staunch supporter of Mr. Roberts, yet he was not in harmony with the organization of a new church, and did not attend the Convention when it was organized. His wife had joined the first class three days following the organization of the church, but Mr. Chesbrough had remained aloof. Less than three months later, Mr. Roberts received from him a letter which began thus:
He then quoted a chorus often sung, "Nay, but I yield, I yield," and expressed himself further, "I have concluded after deep, powerful and prolonged struggling to look square at the cross long enough for the Lord to tell me what he wants."[93] He continued that he could no longer deny that the cross lay in the Free Methodist Church. He then offered himself part time for the work of the church, and said that if in the future it was felt that he had gifts and graces he would give himself wholly to the task.[94] Mr. Chesbrough became a leader in that region for years, and finally was elected to take charge of the publishing interests of the church. All the situations Mr. Roberts faced did not produce encouragement, however. He was still bearing heavily the debt incurred in the purchase of the church in Buffalo. Financial pressures were not the best antidote to his spirits just before Christmas. He wrote, "But these are critical times. Everything tends to discourage. But my trust is in Jesus."[95] He felt there was a great work to be done, and he was going about it as he had never done before. In the month of November, 1860, Mr. Roberts noted in The Earnest Christian that the demand for the new Discipline of the Free Methodist Church had been so great that he had been unable to fill the orders, they had come in so fast. He had published all he supposed would be needed for two years to come, but one half were already sold. The heaviest cross he ever took up, he declared, was in the publication of that Discipline, but he had no doubt that it would prove a great blessing to those who would adopt it and live up to it.[96] A letter came to him about that time which was copied in full in The Earnest Christian, in which the writer said that inasmuch as he believed that the Free Methodists were by that time well organized into a body, he desired to be better informed concerning them. He had long prayed for a revival of old-fashioned Methodism, and held himself in readiness to identify himself with such a people, whether rich or poor, few or many, and requested a Discipline as soon as it was ready.[97] (d) Conclusion. At the end of the year 1860 the infant church was in its initial stages. In certain instances, especially in Buffalo, and a few places in the middle west, great crowds attended the services. However, in the main, the road over which it had trodden had not been easy. Mr. J. G. Terrill, who was conversant with those early days, commented that just as the outstanding incidents quoted in the history of early Methodism were not common to the movement, the same was true of Free Methodism. He said some scenes of remarkable power did take place, but they were the exceptions rather than the rule. The Free Methodist Church did not have a phenomenal growth. The affirmations of the church on the great moral questions of the day were too strict for that. Mr. Terrill said that the greatest obstacle of the new organization had been its own blunders.[98] The future career of Mr. Roberts was to be identified with the new church he had organized, and over which he had been given general supervision. Dr. Elias Bowen of the Methodist Episcopal Church heartily congratulated him on being thrust out into the field, and thought that it was in the order of providence that he should improve the occasion to proclaim earnest Christianity to the people. He was persuaded that officialism would never do it, but it would take a live man and a pure press to lead the van. He then asked the question, "Who knoweth whether thou art come to the throne of obloquy and martyrdom for such a time as this?"[99] The course of Mr. Roberts was to lead him through more than thirty years of the history of the church, so that to a very great extent, a full account of his later life is the history of the movement. |
|
 |
 |
|
[1] Resolution passed by Laymen's Convention, December 2, 1858. Quoted by Elias Bowen, History of the Origin of the Free Methodist Church. (Rochester, New York, 1871), p.170. [2] Resolution of Second Laymen's Convention, November 1, 2, 1859. Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, pp. 259, 260. [3] Ibid., p.260. [4] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.188. [5] Ibid., p.254. [6] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (July, 1860), 226, 227. [7] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p 284. [8] Ibid., p.284. [9] Ibid. [10] William Hosmer. Northern Independent, (June 28, 1860). 186. [11] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.265. [12] Ibid., p.269. [13] William Hosmer, Northern Independent, (May 24.1660), 167. [14] William Hosmer, Northern Independent. Quoted by B. T. Roberts,. Why Another Sect. p.298. [15] Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.298. [16] Ibid., p.297. [17] Ibid., p.301. [18] Ibid., pp. 300, 301. [19] Joseph McCreery, Buffalo Advocate, (May 17, 1860). [20] Ibid. [21] Asa Abell, Northern Independent, (March 10, 1859). Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.136. Elias Bowen, D D History of the Origin of the Free Methodist Church, (Rochester. New York, 1871), p.165. [22] Committee on Resolutions, First Laymen’s Convention, December, 1858. Quoted by B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p. 194 [23] Elias Bowen, D. D., The Earnest Christian, (October, 1866), 129 [24] John Robie, The Advocate of Buffalo, (July 12, 1860), 2 [25] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (August, 1860), 255. [26] Article "Genesee Conference Matters," The Northern Independent. Quoted by B. 'I'. Roberts, Why Another Sect, pp. 23-25. [27] B. 'I'. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.26. [28] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (May, 1884), p. 161. [29] S. K. J. Chesbrough. The Free Methodist, (February 20, 1900), p.2. Reported by Miss Hannah Jacobson, stenographer. [30] Resolution passed by First Eastern Convention of Free Methodist Church. Quoted by B. T. Roberts. The Earnest Christian, (December. 1860), p.393. [31] Ellen L. Roberts. Diary, June, 1859. Found among personal possessions of the Roberts family. [32] Buffalo Christian Advocate, (June 24.1852), p. 3. [33] Matthew Simpson, Cyclopedia of Methodism, (Fifth Revised Edition 1876), p. 180. [34] Ibid. [35] Stephen Olin, The Works of Stephen Olin, Vol. 1. Sermons and Sketches (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1854). p.276. [36] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.63. [37] B. T. Robert The Earnest Christian, (May. 1884). p.161. [38] Ellen L. Roberts, Diary of May, 1859. Found among personal letters of the Roberts family. [39] Wm. S. Tuttle, The Advocate, (June 28, 1860). [40] B. T. Roberts, Why Another Sect, p.285. [41] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian. (August. 1810), 255, 251. [42] E. P. Hart, Reminiscences of Early Free Methodism, (Chicago). Free Methodist Publishing House, 1903), p.45. [43] Ibid., pp. 44, 45. [44] Quoted by Joseph Goodwin Terrill, The Life of Rev. John W. Redfield, M.D., p.450. [45] Ibid., p.451. [46] B. T. Roberts. The Earnest Christian, (August, 1860), 280. [47] S. K. J. Chesbrough, The Free Methodist, (August 9,1910), 8. [48] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (September, 1860), 291. [49] Wilson T. Hogue, op. cit., I,321. [50] Ibid. [51] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (September. 1860), 291. [52] B. T. Roberts. Diary of 1860. Quoted by Wilson T. Hogue, op. cit., I.328. [53] Ibid.. [54] B. H. Roberts, The Free Methodist, (August 9.1910). 501. [55] Letter from B. T. Roberts, to wife. from Jacksonville to North Chili, October 14, 1881. Among personal letters of Roberts family. [56] C D. Brooks, Letter to Bishop Hogue. Quoted by Wilson T. Hogue, op. cit., I, 326. [57] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (September. 1860), 291. [58] Ibid. [59] John W. Redfield. Quoted by Wilson T. Hogue, op. cit., I, 322. [60] Ibid. [61] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (September, 1860), I, 291. [62] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (June, 1883), 167. [63] The Free Methodist, (October 15, 1890). 3. [64] Ibid. [65] John E. Robie, The Advocate, (May 7, 1857), VIII, 383. [66] General Conference Daily, (October 18,1894), 135. [67] Wm. Warren Sweet, Methodism in American History, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), p.341. [68] The Doctrines and Discipline of the Free Methodist Church, (Published by B. T. Roberts, 1875), p.16. [69] Elton Trueblood. The Predicament of Modern Man, (New York: Harper and Bros., 1944). p.101 [70] Richard Pike, John Wesley Came This Way, (London: The Epworth Press, 1938), p.153. [71] Personal Diary of Mrs. B. T. Roberts, July 9.1861. Found among personal belongings of the Roberts family. [72] Ibid. [73] The Free Methodist, (August 9. 1910), 499. [74] Moses N. Downing. The Free Methodist, (August 9, 1910), 4. [75] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (December, 1860), 192, 393. [76] Ibid., p.393. [77] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (December. 1860). 393. [78] Dr. Ella, Bowen, The Earnest Christian, (January, 1861), 5-8. [79] Dr. Ella, Bowen, The Earnest Christian, (February. 1861). 39. [80] Diary of Mrs. B. T. Roberts, September 3.1861. Found among personal letters of the Roberts family. [81] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (October. 1860), 320.322. [82] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (August, 1860), II, 259. [83] Ibid. [84]Adella P. Carpenter, Ellen Lois Roberts, Life and Writings, (Chicago: Woman's Missionary Society, Free Methodist Church, 1926), p.73. [85] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (November, 1860), 363. [86] Ibid., (August, 1881), 255. [87] Ibid., (November, 1861), 355. [88] Ibid. [89] B. H. Roberts, op. cit., 553, 554. [90] Letter from B. T. Roberts. Buffalo, to his wife, Chicago, October 1, 1860. Found among letters of the Roberts family. [91] Ibid. [92] S. K. J. Chesbrough, Letter to B. T. Roberts, November 7, 1860. Found among the personal letters of the Roberts family. [93] Ibid. [94] Ibid. [95] Letter from B. T. Roberts, Utica, to his wife, Buffalo, December 21, 1860. Found among personal letters of B. T. Roberts. [96] B. T. Roberts, The Earnest Christian, (November, 1860), 366 [97] The Earnest Christian. (November, 1860). 365. [98] J. G. Terrill. The Free Methodist, (December 19, 1894), 2. [99] Letter from Dr. Elias Bowen. Quoted in The Earnest Christian, (August, 1860), 256. |
|
-
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