Until about the year 1850 there seemed to be no general disposition manifest in the Methodist Episcopal church to depart from her original simplicity and power. Her ministers almost universally labored earnestly and fervently to promote a spiritual type of religion. The membership generally were noted for their spirituality and separation from the world in spirit and practice. About that time Methodism entered upon what Dr. Stevens, the editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal, called its “transition state” A change began to be apparent. Two things, perhaps, more than all others, worked together to turn the tide toward worldliness and formality. The United States census revealed the fact that the church was the largest numerically in the country and owned the greatest amount of church property. This intelligence was no doubt pleasing to a people who had long been accustomed to hear themselves spoken of as the “filth and off-scouring of all things” religiously and whose denominational existence had been one long battle against opposition, misrepresentation and persecution. This fact was taken up by editors of denominational periodicals and by speakers at general gatherings and heralded through out the church, begetting in ministry and laity a spirit of self-satisfaction and self-congratulation The praises of Methodism were sung rather than the praises of God as aforetime. What Methodism had accomplished was often the theme rather than what God had done. About this time the country was being stirred by the anti-slavery agitation. On this great moral question the leaders of the church assumed an attitude of compromise. The Abolition movement characterized as “modern Abolitionism” was officially denounced. The rank and file generally, as is the rule, followed the leaders. The decline in spiritual power and drift toward the world were rapid. The effort was no longer in the direction of promoting deep spirituality and thorough revivals of religion, but rather to so tone Methodism down as to render it attractive to the worldly-minded. In order that this might be done those doctrines and usages which had been the peculiar heritage of Methodism and had characterized the movement and made it a mighty agency for good in the hands of God must be set aside and others more palatable to the carnal mind substituted. The result of this was that in a few years the distinctive doctrines of Methodism ceased largely to be preached from Methodist pulpits, and the distinguishing practical features of Methodism which had always rendered them outwardly a peculiar people were no longer insisted upon.

In the midst of this general defection there were here and there among both ministry and laity those who did not take kindly to the new order of things. They believed that Methodism had been raised up to spread scriptural holiness over the land; they believed that only as she held to her peculiar doctrines and usages and insisted upon them could she fulfil her mission; they believed that for her to fail to do this was to be false to God and humanity. Feeling thus and being animated by such convictions they could not sit quietly by and see the spread of the defection. Like some of olden time they felt constrained to “cry aloud and spare not,” to “lift up their voice like a trumpet” and show Methodism her sins. Naturally these whether ministers or laymen, soon came to be looked upon as “troublers in Israel” by those who were advocates of the worldly policy which was beginning to control in the church.

Another disturbing element began about this time to make its appearance in the church. Methodist preachers began to ally themselves with secret societies. The excitement and opposition to secret societies occasioned by the abduction and murder of William Morgan by Free Masons in 1826, was still fresh in the minds of many of the older members of the church and they did not enjoy contemplating the thought that their spiritual guides were becoming members of the Masonic order and kindred associations. Many of the preachers *ere opposed to all secret societies on the ground that their influence was inimical to spirituality and tended to create cliques and parties in the church, thus interfering with its peace and harmony. Thus, on doctrinal, experimental and practical bases the lines were drawn between the two parties, one advocating a liberal, worldly policy, opening the door for the encroachment of the world upon the church, the other insisting upon standing by the “landmarks” of Methodism keeping the church separate from the world and contending for the life and power of godliness as exemplified among Methodists from the time of Wesley.

Out of the conditions just noted grew the circumstances resulting in the organization of the Free Methodist church. It was not without a determined effort to prevent it on the part of the lovers of primitive Method ism, that the new order of things prevailed in the church. Many noble men of God, like the prophets of old, called upon the people to “ask for the old paths” and return to them, but a younger generation who knew not the “former glory” was coming into control and the voice of the veterans was drowned by the cry of “progression” and “respectability.” Here and there companies of ministers and laymen labored together heartily to bring about a return to the “old paths,” in some places for a time with encouraging signs of success, only to find at last that the prevailing tendency worldward was too strong for them.

About the close of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth decade of the nineteenth century the lines were closely drawn between the two types of Methodism in the Genesee conference in western New York. Apparently the secret society question was the spark that started the flame But this was only an incident. The real issue was between worldliness and formality on the one hand and a vital, Spirit-baptized type of religion on the other The usual influences were at work in the conference in favor of the modernized type of Methodism, when in the providence of God such men as Asa Abell, Eleazar Thomas, Isaac C. Kingsley, C. P. Burlingham and others were brought into prominence in the work of the conference. They all enjoyed the experience of entire sanctification. The four mentioned above were presiding elders. In their work on the districts they preached the doctrine of holiness as taught by Wesley and urged preachers and people to seek the experience. Many among both ministers and laymen recognized the “joyful sound,” and entered into the experience, and heartily seconded the efforts of these men in their work. Around the standard of holiness rallied B. T. Roberts, W. C. Kendall, J. McCreery, L. Stiles, Jr., W. Cooley, A. Hard and others, all men of ability and standing in the conference. Wherever one of these men went as pastor in charge of a district revivals followed and the church was built up. Spiritual and numerical declension followed under the ministry of the “progressives.” The result was that the “Nazarite” preachers, as they were called in contempt by the other class, began to be in demand in the conference. The worldly-minded ones became alarmed. Their “loaves and fishes” were in danger. They began a systematic effort to bring the aggressive preachers and their work into disrepute. The cry of “extravagance,” “wild fire,” and “fanaticism” was raised. Such titles as “spurious reformers,” “false prophets” and others less elegant and euphonious were applied to the leaders. Their preaching was characterized as “clap-trap,” “arrogant boasting,” “cant,” “harangues” and “ranting.” These measures however all failed of the end they were intended to serve. The work went on with increasing power. Revival meetings and camp meetings attended by much of God’s presence and by the conversion of sinners and the sanctification of believers followed the work of the holiness preachers.

A strong party spirit developed in the conference. It could not be expected to be otherwise. In pulpit and in press strong language was used on both sides. The “Regency” as the opponents of the aggressive movement were now called, from time to time, in language neither classical nor respectful (the examples quoted above being some of the milder terms which they used) had expressed themselves concerning the leaders of the holiness movement, their teachings and their work. Some of the latter thought that the time had come to set themselves right before the people and to clearly set forth the differences between them and their opponents. The official organs of the church being closed against them, B. T. Roberts, one of the recognized leaders, wrote and published in the Northern Independent, a paper then published in Auburn, New York, an article entitled “New School Methodism,” in which he defined the views of the other party as expressed in their public utterances and showed wherein and why he and the party he represented disagreed with them. The article was fair, candid and courteous, but it dealt directly and fearlessly with the questions at issue in the conference, showing plainly wherein the “New School Methodists,” as he called them in his article, were out of harmony with the true teachings and spirit of Methodism. This article, harmless as it appears to us to-day, furnished the pretext for the beginning of the proscriptions, prosecutions and expulsions which led to the formation of the Free Methodist church.