The Free Methodist Church came into existence as a result of spiritual declension in the parent body—the Methodist Episcopal Church. Unlike other branches of Methodism its rise was not due either to discontent with an episcopal form of government, to any alleged discrimination against laymen in the Conferences, to any system of caste based on nationality, color, of social condition, or to anything then conceived of as fundamentally wrong with the general polity of the Church.

     That there were abuses of Methodist polity, growing out of the Church’s spiritual decline, was generally recognized, but even these abuses were never regarded by the founders of the Free Methodist Church as sufficient grounds for secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church, nor as justifying a warfare against her polity and usages.

     John Alfred Faulkner, D. D., of Drew Theological Seminary, in his "Story of the Churches," a series of 12 mo. volumes on the history of the leading religious denominations, says:

     "The only Church that has sprung out of Methodist ground by reason of dissatisfaction with the worldliness of the Church and with its abandonment of the heroic ideals of the elder time, is the Free Methodist Church, which was organized in Pekin, New York, in 1860. It was the outgrowth of a profound agitation in Western New York in the fifth and sixth decades of the nineteenth century, and was occasioned by the alleged lapse of the Church from its primitive testimony, (1) as to slavery, (2) as to holiness, (3) as to non-conformity with the world, and (4) as to evangelical conception of doctrine."[1]

     The foregoing is a correct statement of the case, with one exception. In naming the items regarding which the Methodist Episcopal Church was conceived of as having departed from its primitive testimony, "(1)" and "(2)" should be transposed. It was the "lapse of the Church from its primitive testimony" concerning holiness, first of all, that occasioned the "profound agitation" of which Dr. Faulkner writes. The agitation as to its testimony regarding slavery, non-conformity to the world, and evangelical conception of doctrine, grew out of the agitation regarding the Church’s attitude on the subject of holiness, or entire sanctification, and was altogether subordinate thereto.

     It should be particularly noted that the Free Methodist Church did not originate in a secession from the parent body. This is another respect in which it differs from all other bodies of American Methodism. Others seceded, on various grounds, and for various reasons; but those who were instrumental in forming the Free Methodist Church were loyal to the parent Church to the very last, as the sequel will show, and sought in good faith and by most earnest effort to conserve and promote its purity and integrity. Not until they were (as they believed, unjustly and unlawfully) excluded from its pale, and even denied the right of appeal to the General Conference, guaranteed them by the Discipline of the Church, did they entertain the idea of forming a separate branch of Methodism. The following paragraphs, from the Introduction to the Discipline adopted at the time the Free Methodist Church was organized, and which, during more than half a century, have never been refuted, corroborate the foregoing statement:

     "The Free Methodist Church had its origin in necessity, and not in choice. It did not grow out of a secession, nor out of an unsuccessful attempt to bring about a reform in the government of the Church. Those concerned in its formation never expected a separation from the Methodist Episcopal Church, until they were unjustly excluded from its pale. They sought redress at the proper tribunal. It was not granted. Even a candid hearing was denied them. Thus thrown out, and the possibility of a restoration being cut off, and believing that God still called them to labor for the salvation of souls, they had no alternative but to form a new organization. In doctrine, discipline, and spirit they were Methodists, and hence they could not offer themselves to any other denomination.

     "The issue on which they were thrust out was between dead formalism, and the life and power of godliness, and so they could not feel at home with those branches of the Methodist family into whose formation other questions mainly entered."

     The Free Methodist Church is not a schismatic organization, although it came into existence as a result of schism in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Its originators did not produce the schism, however, which led to its formation. The parent body must be held responsible for that. We believe, with the late Rev. A. A. Hodge, D. D., that, "If the Church be an external society, then all deviation from that society is of the nature of schism; but if the Church be, in its essence, a great spiritual body, constituted by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost through all the ages and nations, uniting all in Christ, and if its external organization is only accidental and temporary, and subject to change and variation (which is the Protestant doctrine), then deviation from organization, unless touched with the spirit of schism, is not detrimental to the Church." We still further believe, with the same celebrated writer, that "under this dispensation God has left us free to form organizations. He has left us free to experience Christianity under all the conditions in which He has placed us; and the Christian religion which we receive takes various colors and tones from the nationality, from the tribe, and from the race. Undoubtedly, there is such a thing as schism. Schism is a great sin. But if the Church is a spiritual body, the sin is against spiritual Unity."[2]

     So far were the founders of the Free Methodist Church from being schismatics that they were generally acknowledged to be devout and spiritual men, who contended with much earnestness and power for "the unity of the Spirit ;" and, in their devotion to even the organic unity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, they endured severe persecution to the last from their less spiritual brethren rather than voluntarily to withdraw themselves from the organization. They remained within the pale of the Church until placed outside by excommunication. Therefore, whichever of the foregoing views regarding the nature of the Church one may entertain, it must be acknowledged that they were not schismatic in any proper sense of the word. They lived in closest fellowship with all that was spiritual in the Methodism of their time, and were so devoted to its integrity as an external society that they chose to suffer misrepresentation, defamation, malignity, and cruel abuse, rather than break from its organic unity.

     Moreover, when finally expelled, some of them again united with the Church on probation, while all save one appealed to the General Conference, in hope that the verdict of expulsion would be set aside, thereby admitting of their continuance within its pale. Not until the Supreme Court of the Church refused to entertain their appeals did it become manifest that their enforced separation from their ecclesiastical mother must be final.

     The Free Methodist Church is an organization designed to conserve and promote that type of Christianity which primitive Methodism so admirably illustrated. Dr. Chalmers defined the Methodism of his time as "Christianity in earnest." This was its essential character. This also is the essential character of the Free Methodist Church. The most essential thing in all true Methodism is its principle of intense spirituality, of uncompromising righteousness, of experimental and practical holiness, of wholehearted and unswerving devotion to the advancement of the kingdom of God among men. As a principle, or a system of truth and righteousness, Methodism is as old as Christianity itself; as an ecclesiastical polity it dates from the early part of the eighteenth century, when, under John Wesley, the United Societies of Methodism were founded. &s to its chief essentials Methodism, when true to the original type, is one and the same everywhere. Its polity may change, but its principles never, unless by such deviation from type as leaves it no longer Methodism in any true and proper sense.

     "It does not follow, however, that because Methodism is always the same," wrote Rev. Elias Bowen, D. D., in 1864, at that time a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, "that, therefore, it is always known by the same name, or is always found with the same denomination of people. Adaptation is an essential element of the system; and from the wonderful facility with which it accommodates itself to time, place, and circumstance, it finds no difficulty in taking on a new name, or passing from one association of people to another, whenever there is occasion for it, or tile offer of more eligible means for the accomplishment of its legitimate ends requires such a change.

     "As the mountain turtle casts off its old shell, upon occasion, and takes on a new covering more suitable to the purposes of its being; and as the rushing stream, when too much obstructed in its course, leaves the old channel for a new one, where it can pursue its ocean-bound course with more freedom; so Methodism, tied up and embarrassed in its soul-saving operations by an unscrupulous and almost universal conformity to the world in the old Church, has been compelled, in order to fulfil its appropriate mission of ‘spreading Scriptural holiness over the land,’ to leave its accustomed pulpits and altars, so terribly desecrated latterly by worldliness and Churchism, and carry on its work through the newly organized medium of the Free Methodist Church."[3]

     Finally, the Free Methodist Church claims to have been providentially raised up, as Wesley said of the Methodists of his day, "to reform the nation, particularly the Church; and to spread Scriptural holiness over the land." "Holiness unto the Lord" has been their watchword and the inspiration of the movement from the beginning. In the Prefatory Address to their Book of Discipline,[4] on the "Origin and Character" of the movement, they expressed themselves regarding the character of Free Methodism in the following paragraphs:

[1] Volume on “The Methodists,” p. 175.
[2] “Popular Lectures on Theological Themes,” pp. 211-213.
[3] Preface to • “History of Origin of the Free Methodist Church,” pp. lx. and x.
[4] Ed. 1866