For some time, acting as an association and pledged to secrecy, the “Regency” had been seeking to secure a majority sufficient to control the action of the annual conference. Believing that they now had this they resolved to resort to extreme measures to stamp out the work these men were doing. Seizing upon the article on New School Methodism as a pretext they, at the next ensuing session of the conference, cited Mr. Roberts to answer to a charge of “Immoral and Unchristian Conduct” based upon garbled extracts and unfair deductions from his article.

The following brief synopsis of the specifications in the charge against Mr. Roberts and of his defense will show, the contrast between what they charged him with saying and what he did say.

Their accusations were:
 

1. That he said the Regency “was an associated body.”

2. That he said the opponents of the holiness movement were “opposed to what is fundamental in Christianity—to the very nature of Christianity itself.”

3. That he charged them with “laxness of religious sentiment.”

4. That he charged them with “sneering at Christianity in a manner not unworthy of Paine and that falls below the dignity of Voltaire.”

5. That he said they were “heterodox on the subject of holiness.”

6. That they were “attempting to substitute the lodge for the class-meeting and love-feast.”

Three other specifications were included but as these were, as Mr. Roberts showed in his defense, verbatim quotations from their own speakers and writers they are omitted.

In his defense Mr. Roberts showed:
 

1. That lie had said that the Regency “acted as an associate body” in their opposition to the holiness revival and leaders.

2. That he had said that the difference between the two parties related to what was “fundamental in Christianity,” but that men may differ as to the fundamentals of Christianity without opposing them.

3. That he had said of them that in their utterances against “Creeds” they “affect as great a degree of liberalism as do Theodore Parker and Mr. Newman.”

4. That he had said of language which they used with reference to the holiness leaders and what they conceived to be their views, “The following sneer is not unworthy of Paine himself,” etc.

5. That he had said, “When they speak of holiness they mean by it the same as do evangelical ministers of other denominations, and not what was taught by Wesley, Fletcher and others.”

6. That he had said that if “certain views of religion prevailed” the legitimate result would be that “the lodge must supersede the class and the love-feast.”

When the case was called in conference Mr. Roberts arose and said: “I have no intention to misrepresent any one. I do not think I have. I honestly think the men referred to hold just the opinions I say they do. But if they do not I shall be glad to be corrected. If they will say that they do not I will take their word for it, make my humble confession, and, as far as possible, repair the wrong I have done them. I will publish in the Northern Independent, and in all the church papers they desire me to from Maine to California, that I have misrepresented them.” No one answered that he had been misrepresented or offered to accept an apology or retraction. Had every specification in the bill been true, under a just administration a charge of “immoral conduct” would  not have been entertained, and a charge of “un-christian conduct” only if an intention to injure or misrepresent had been shown, which was disclaimed by the accused and the prosecution did not seek to establish it. Though Mr. Roberts showed that only three of the specifications gave the words that he used in his article, and proved the truth of those by showing that he only quoted from articles written by members of the other party and from their repeated utterances in public, the conference voted all the specifications sustained, except one which was withdrawn. That is, they voted him guilty of “immoral and un-christian conduct” for saying what he did not say and for quoting correctly what they had said. He was sentenced to be reproved by the chair. Immediately afterward he was appointed to the charge of a circuit. He accepted the reproof and appealed to the ensuing session of the General Conference.

Far and wide, in the official publications and by ministers and officials of the church, the report was circulated that B. T. Roberts had been found guilty of “immoral conduct.” Mr. Roberts writing of this says, “Before I reached my appointment a prominent preacher of the opposite party had taken pains to inform them that their preacher had ‘been convicted at the conference of ‘immoral and unchristian conduct.’ This was also ‘ published, without explanation, in the Buffalo Advocate. Of course the people were hardly willing to receive us. We doubt if any itinerant ever had a colder reception.”

He however went his way about his work and “soon a revival of religion broke out which swept on with increasing power throughout the year. [1]

It is well known what inference is drawn when the report goes abroad that a minister has been convicted of “immoral conduct.” This report concerning Mr. Roberts, circulated as it was, could not fail to produce the usual impression upon the minds of those to whom it came. We here draw no inferences from the studied silence as to the nature of the charges while thus heralding the fact of the so-called conviction, but simply state the historical fact, leaving each to form his own opinion as to the motives of those who pursued this course. There were not wanting men who felt that great injustice was being done not only to Mr. Roberts, but to the cause of vital religion as well and that something ought to be done to counteract these injurious reports. Whether it would have been better for the cause to have endured all in silence attempting no explanation or vindication, we of this day cannot assuredly say. The following quotation tells what was done. Mr. Roberts says; “George W. Estes was at this time a prominent member of the Methodist Episcopal church, on the Clarkson circuit. He was a man of intelligence and influence in the community in which he resided. With many Others Mr. Estes felt that a great wrong had been done by the conference, and by the vague, insinuating reports published of the offense for which I had been convicted.

“Mr. Estes without my knowledge even, published over his own name and at his own expense, in pamphlet form, my article on ‘New School Methodism,’ and a short account of the trial.”

Mr. Estes’ comments in this pamphlet on the methods pursued by the opposite party to secure the conviction of Mr. Roberts were scathing. His denunciation of the administration in the conference and of the officials from the bishops down was extremely severe. Whether it were wise under the circumstances to say some of the things published in the pamphlet or not we of the present generation cannot correctly judge. We were not in the midst of the conflict and cannot see and feel as those who were. They felt that gross injustice had been done and, being men of strong character and convictions, expressed themselves concerning it in no uncertain language, which they no doubt felt the issue demanded.

When the Genesee conference convened at Perry, New York, in October, 1858, a charge of “Unchristian and Immoral Conduct” was again preferred against B. T. Roberts based upon the claim that he had published and circulated or assisted in publishing and circulating the above mentioned pamphlet. Regarding its publication Mr. Roberts says: “I never saw this article until some time after it was published, and was in no wise responsible for its publication. But Mr. Estes, a man of means, an exhorter in the Methodist Episcopal church, was responsible, and, like a man, he assumed the responsibility. At the last quarterly conference of the year, the question of the renewal of his license came up. The presiding elder asked George W. Estes if he was the author of that pamphlet. He replied that he was. Without a word of objection the presiding elder renewed his license as an exhorter, and soon after went to conference, and voted to expel me from the conference and the church, on the charge. of publishing this very pamphlet.”

At the trial Mr. Estes assumed the entire responsibility for writing and publishing the pamphlet, testifying that Mr. Roberts, so far as he knew, had no knowledge that its publication was intended, and that he had not assisted in its circulation. One witness for the prosecution testified that once on a train Mr. Roberts gave him some of the pamphlets with a request to circulate them. But he could not tell where Mr. Roberts got on the train, whether they were traveling east or west, or state definitely what was said about the pamphlets. He said, “My recollection is not very distinct.” Persons intimate with Mr. - Roberts testified that he did not circulate the pamphlets, some on the circuit of which he had been pastor during the year never having seen any of them until on the hay to conference. In the face of this the charges were sustained and Mr. Roberts was voted guilty and - expelled from the conference and the church.

Admitting that the pamphlet was as slanderous as the prosecution charged, or more so, the unaccountable thing in this whole matter is that, while the man who declared that he had no part whatever in its publication and circulation, and whose declaration was supported by unimpeachable and positive testimony, was found guilty of “unchristian and immoral conduct” and expelled from the conference and the church, the man who openly and on all occasions assumed the entire responsibility for its authorship and publication was never called to account in any way.

Speaking of his personal relations with the preachers of the conference and of his personal standing at this time Mr. Roberts says: “Personally, I had no reason to suppose that I was unpopular. I was on good terms socially with all the preachers. My appointments had always been all that I could have desired. Twice during my last trial they gave me such tokens of respect as I have never heard of being paid by a court to a man while they were trying him for a criminal offense. Once during the progress of my trial, they adjourned it over for a day to hold a funeral service in honor of Rev. William C. Kendall, who had died during the year. By a unanimous vote of the conference * * * * I was appointed to preach the funeral sermon to the conference, which I did with two bishops sitting by my side. At another time during the trial, the anniversary of the American Bible Society was held, and by another unanimous vote, appointed to - preside at this public meeting.” From all this it is clear that the opposition in the conference was not against a few men but against the cause which they represented - By striking them they hoped to cripple the movement in the conference in favor of a return to the teachings and practices of primitive Methodism. They selected B. T. Roberts as the first one against whom to move because they regarded him as a leader—probably the leader—in the movement.

At the same conference Joseph McCreery was expelled from the conference and the church on substantially the same charges as Mr. Roberts. After his expulsion Mr. Roberts appealed to the General Conference and went out at the close of the conference, like one of old, “not knowing whither he went.”

The action of the conference in thus expelling Mr. Roberts and Mr. McCreery produced a profound impression and aroused deep feeling. Many began to ask themselves whereunto this thing was destined to grow. Those who believed in and were seeking to adhere to the “landmarks of Methodism” felt that the time had come for them to take concerted action. At the suggestion of Isaac M. Chesbrough, of Pekin, Niagara county, New York, a call was issued for a layman’s convention. This call, written by S. K. J. Chesbrough, when circulated for signatures was signed by over one hundred laymen, representing twenty-two of the charges in the conference. Pursuant to this call the convention met at Albion, Orleans county, New York, Wednesday, December 1, 1858, at seven o’clock in the evening in the Methodist Episcopal church, and began with a love-feast. At 8:30 the convention adjourned to Kings-land Hall for the purpose of organizing.

Abner I. Wood was elected president; I. M. Chesbrough, G. W. Holmes, S. C. Springer, G. C. Sheldon, J. H. Brooks, George Bascom and C. Sanford, vice-presidents; S. K. J. Chesbrough, W. H. Doyle and J. A. Latta, secretaries.

One hundred and ninety-five laymen representing forty-seven different charges in the conference enrolled as members of the convention, each declaring himself fully in harmony with its objects as set forth in the call.

A committee on resolutions was elected consisting of S. K. J. Chesbrough, W. H. Doyle, G. W. Estes, S. S. Rice, John Billings, A. A. Ames and J. Handley.

After sitting nearly all night and a part of the next day this committee brought in a report which, after being fully and freely discussed, was unanimously adopted. The report is too long to transcribe here. It declared their “adherence to the doctrines and usages of the fathers of Methodism ;“ their “earnest and hearty attachment to the Methodist Episcopal church ;“ dealt at length with conditions and events in the conference; characterized the “expulsion of Brothers Roberts and McCreery as an act of wicked persecution calling for the strongest condemnation ;“ declared their “utmost confidence in these brethren notwithstanding their expulsion ;“ recommended that they “travel at large and labor for the promotion of the work of God ;“ and pledged $1,600 for their support.

The men who composed this convention were not novices - either in temporal matters or in the affairs of the church. There were among them physicians, merchants, contractors, farmers—men who had succeeded in the various callings which they had chosen. They were men of position and influence in the church, local preachers, exhorters, Sabbath-school superintendents, class leaders, stewards, enjoying the respect and confidence of the people in the communities where they lived. Many of them had grown gray in the communion of the church and in her service. They violated no law of God, or church, or state in meeting together and expressing themselves concerning what they believed to be a great wrong. But, between the time of the assembling of this convention and the next session of the annual conference, many of them were expelled from the church for no other crime than for attending it and participating in its deliberations.

Mr. Roberts speaking of his own course and that of Mr. McCreery after their expulsion says: “Each of us gave notice of an appeal to the General Conference. But what should we do in the meantime? We were both * * * * full of life and energy and anxious to save our own souls and as many others as we could. 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 but that the General Conference would make matters right. But we did not like to stand idly waiting two years. [2]

They both felt the call of God upon them. Each had given up all else to devote his life to this work. They were not conscious of having done anything to cause them to for. felt their commission. The “Layman’s Convention” had recommended that they travel and “labor for the promotion of the work of God.” After consultation with judicious brethren they decided to labor in accordance with this recommendation, taking care to let it be known that they did not claim to do this by the authority of the church. To quote again from Mr. Roberts:

“In accordance with this recommendation, Brother McCreery and myself went through out the conference, holding meetings and laboring for the salvation of souls. But we were careful to state that we claimed no authority from the Methodist Episcopal church to hold meetings—that we did as we were doing at the call of Christ, on our own responsibility as men and Christians. We not only announced this in public congregations, but * * * * I published the following in the Northern Independent. * * * ‘This then is what I am doing. The Lord has opened a wide door into which I have entered. I disclaim all authority from man, but simply “instruct, reprove and exhort,” because I believe He has called me to it, and He blessed me in it.” They did not administer baptism or the Lord’s Supper, or solemnize marriage. They did only what every man is free to do, labor as they had opportunity to bring men to Christ.. Yet it was because of this that it was afterward said of them that they “declined to recognize the authority of the church.”

[1] Why Another Sect, pp. 154, 155.
[2] Why Another Sect, pp. 185, 186.