One of the charges made every where against the leaders of the aggressive party by their opponents was that in their ministry and in their meetings they promoted a “spirit of wild fanaticism.” Those who voted to expel B. T. Roberts and Joseph McCreery frequently said in justification of their course, “If these men did not deserve to be expelled for circulating the pamphlet, they did for promoting enthusiasm and fanaticism.” The Bergen camp meeting was considered the “hot bed” of this “fanaticism and wild fire.” The sound of the things being done in the Genesee conference went abroad and as a result many came to the camp meetings and other meetings to see who these people were who were so much spoken against and what terrible things they were doing Rev. William Reddy, for many years a presiding elder in the Oneida conference, attended the Bergen camp meeting in June, 1858. He wrote of it: “God was there. I believed, I felt He was there * * * * I heard old Methodists say, ‘This is as it used to be forty years ago.’ * * * * The doctrine of sanctification after the John Wesley standard, the definite way of seeking the blessing, the spontaneous confessions of having obtained it, on the part of intelligent, mature persons, the duty of exemplifying it by self-denial and universal obedience • * * * were all earnestly taught and enforced, and many were the witnesses.” B. I. Ives, D. D., of the same conference wrote of this meeting:

“Two things connected with this camp meeting particularly impressed me. The first was the number of intelligent business and influential men, that were there with their families, tented upon the ground, and who stayed all through the meeting laboring for God and the salvation of souls. The second thing I noticed was the spirit of prayer and labor for the conversion of sinners and the sanctification of believers that was manifested from the very commencement to the close of the meeting. * * * * I saw nothing like ‘wild fire’ or mere ‘animal excitement’ during the entire meeting. The motto was ‘order and power.’ And all the people of God seemed to be baptized with the real, old-fashioned ‘Jerusalem fire.’ And I pray God that we may have more of this in all our churches.”

At another camp meeting held on the same ground the next year several preachers from adjoining conferences were present. One of these, Rev. J. F. Crawford, of the Oneida conference, in his account of the meeting spoke as follows: “It is evident that these persons live near to God at home and bring the real fire with them. * * * * This was one of the strongest meetings we ever attended. We had heard so much about this people that when we went on the ground for a little while we were on the come and see bench, but we soon found that these persons had nothing but what a few of our people have in the Oneida conference. * * * * They are as intelligent a class of people as you will find in any congregation in the State of New York. They are clear in their views of holiness, according to our standard authors, and according to Scripture. We want to be identified with the principles and doctrines held by this much persecuted people. If there is any shame connected with them as long as they stand where they now do, we want to bear our part.”

Other testimonies of like character might be quoted but these are sufficient to show that unprejudiced observers recognized in the teaching of these men the fundamental doctrines of Methodism and the so-called “wild-fire” to be the fervor which had aforetime characterized Methodist meetings.

While these things were thus transpiring in the East events of a similar nature were occurring in the State of Illinois. “During the winter of 1859-1860, considerable excitement existed in northern Illinois, mostly among members of the Methodist Episcopal church, in regard to the administration of the church toward some who had especially advocated the doctrine and experience of entire sanctification. A few years previous, Rev. J. W. Redfield, * * * at the invitation of Rev. David Sherman, of the Rock River conference, came to St. Charles, Illinois, to assist him in a revival meeting. Though this meeting was held in the month of June, quite a number were converted. The greater good accomplished was in bringing some thirty or forty of the membership into the experience of perfect love. The character and success of the meeting * * * led to Mr. Redfield being invited to labor in adjoining towns. Elgin, Marengo, Woodstock and several other places were visited by him. The revivals at Marengo and Woodstock were marvels of grace. At the latter place, lawyers, doctors, the sheriff, and many others were brought to Christ. Some of them be-came ministers of the gospel.

“About this time Rev. Seymour Coleman, of the Troy conference, was drawn to , Aurora, in the same county, to visit a son residing there. A vacancy occurring at that time in the pulpit of the First Church Mr. Coleman was requested to fill it until conference. Almost immediately the Spirit was poured out upon the people, and many in a short time entered into the experience of perfect love. He visited many camp meetings during the summer at which he preached with great power and success.

“In 1858 and 1859 the work began to be antagonized by the same spirit and sentiment that Phoebe Palmer and others had been obliged to meet in the East, and under the leadership of one who had been prominent in the opposition there. Some of the ministers who had been led into the experience now began to counsel with their fears, and ceased to preach and testify of the great salvation. Some of the laymen, finding they were not to be allowed to testify to the experience longer, that the doctrine was to be denounced from the pulpit, and in the class and prayer rooms, began to turn to the country schoolhouses where they might find freedom to worship God. * * * Their labors were blessed in some instances in the conversion of scores of souls. Some of these workers were expelled for holding these meetings, and others were ‘read out’ of the church as ‘withdrawn.’ In one instance a whole family was expelled, when the entire winter had been spent by them in a continuous revival, resulting in the conversion of more than forty persons. In another instance thirteen were ‘read out’ as ‘withdrawn’ for going two Sundays in succession to hear Mr. Redfield preach in other than their own church. Some forty or fifty others then withdrew and took a position with the thirteen. They fitted up a place of worship, called a boy local preacher to serve them [that boy became Rev. J. G. Terrill of precious memory], and, though this was in December, by the following March they numbered one hundred and twelve, about one-half of whom had been converted from the world. [1]

Becoming convinced against their fondest hopes that there was no redress for their grievances they, on April 27, 1860, organized  themselves as an independent church taking  the name “Free” Methodist. The Free Methodist church was not organized until the following August. The trustees elected were those declared “withdrawn” by the official board of the old church, viz., Elisha Foote, John M. Sangle, Ira D. Tyler, Warren Tyler and Ephraim Collar. At a sacramental meeting held at St. Charles in March attended by representatives from different points it had been decided to hold a - layman’s camp meeting in June. The committee appointed selected grounds on the farm of J M. Laughlin near St. Charles. Thus began the “St. Charles camp meeting,” which became to the western work what the “Bergen camp meeting” was to the eastern. Many drove fifty and sixty miles to attend this first meeting and a company of pilgrims from western New York made the long journey to meet these their companions in the tribulation and patience of Jesus. Names soon to become historic in Free Methodism are recorded. In charge of the meeting J. W. Redfield. Ministers, B. T. Roberts, C. E. Harroun, Sr., J. G. Terrill, Joseph Travis, E. P. Hart, George H. Fox, and others. Laymen, J. M. Laughlin, W D. Bishop, M. Bishop, I. H. Fairchild, Hon. Benjamin Hackney and others. A layman’s convention was held during this meeting. In the resolutions adopted they - declared their adherence to Methodist doctrine, usage and spirit, their grief at the departures from these in the church, their determination to continue to hold to these and seek to - promote them, in the church if they could, but if not then by the organization of “Free” Methodist churches.

Having thus briefly sketched conditions prevailing in Illinois we return to consider the trend of events in western New York.

If the “Regency” party hoped by the expulsion of B. T. Roberts to check the progress of the work which he represented they were disappointed. The work swept on with increasing power. The Bergen camp meeting was. more largely attended than in previous years and its influence was farther reaching than ever before. As the spirit of persecution developed the “pilgrims” seemed to be drawn closer together. The year was a busy one for both parties, the one plan-fling and laboring to advance and extend the work and the other working just as diligently to cripple and hinder it.

When the annual conference assembled at Brockport, New York, in October, 1859, the Regency thoroughly aroused by the events of the year were prepared for desperate measures. Two ministers, J. W. Reddy and H. H. Farnsworth, who were in sympathy with the proscribed religion, were located. Charges of “Contumacy” were preferred against Loren Stiles, Jr., John A. Wells, William Cooley and Charles D. Burlingham, and they were expelled from the conference and the church. The charge in each case was fraternizing with or in some way recognizing one or both of the expelled preachers or allowing them to speak in their pulpits or take some part in public meetings. To give a slight semblance of actual corn-plaint some of them were charged with holding services within the bounds of other charges than their own during the year. One man, Rufus Cooley, had his character arrested for praying with B. T. Roberts in a private house, but fortunately was not prosecuted for this crime. The expelled ministers, except Mr. Stiles, appealed to the General Conference.

The Layman’s Convention met again in the Baptist church, at Albion, New York, November 1, 1859, and sat during that and the following day. The resolutions adopted reaffirmed the positions of the year before, denouncing as “cruel and oppressive” the expulsion during the year of lay members for attending the convention of the previous year. Referring to the expulsion of ministers and laymen they said: “These repeated acts of expulsion, wrong as they are in themselves, deserve the stronger condemnation from the fact, scarcely attempted to be disguised, that the object is to prevent the work of holiness from spreading among us, to put down the life and power of godliness in our churches, and to inaugurate in its stead the peaceable reign of a cold and heartless formalism—in short, to do away with what has always been a distinctive feature of Methodism. If the work which the men who were expelled within the last two years, have labored, and- with such success, to promote has Methodism from the beginning been ‘fanaticism.’ 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. We cannot abandon, at the bidding of a majority, the doctrines of Methodism, and the men who defend them.” [2]

It is apparent that these men believed that they were contending for the perpetuation of original Methodism. They do not speak like men animated by simple enthusiasm or passion. The entire tone of their deliverances is calm, deliberate, statesmanlike. There is also to be noted in their utterances a note of sadness, as of those who realize that their task is an unpleasant one but a sense of duty holds them to its performance.

Of the six ministers expelled five had appealed to the General Conference. The discipline of the church declared, “They (the General Conference) shall not do away the privileges of our ministers or preachers of trial by  committee and of an appeal.” The language is mandatory, “they shall not.” In the conference where these men were tried party spirit was at fever heat. Mr. Roberts was first denied the assistance of counsel unassociated with the difficulties He then asked for a change of venue because of the strong party spirit in the conference. This was also denied. He then asked for - trial by a committee. This was also denied him. Seeing how his requests to have his constitutional rights were refused, the others did not ask for them. A majority the men who sat in the conference and voted on the cases claimed to have been injured by these men, that is, they were plaintiffs in the case. They had already prejudged the case and declared that these men were worthy of the extreme penalty of ecclesiastical law. A case conducted in such a manner in civil court coming up for review would be immediately reversed. It now remained to be seen what the General Conference would do. Many believed that in this body each case would be calmly and impartially investigated and decided on its merits. The General Conference convened at Buffalo, New York, in May, 1860. At first it looked as though justice would be done. A memorial and petition signed by fifteen hundred members praying for an investigation of the Genesee conference difficulties was referred to a strong and - impartial committee. A few days later this committee was discharged and the memorial referred to a committee already overburdened with work. The matter ended there. When the appeal cases came up a court, or committee, of appeals was organized. With two exceptions,, the appeal of Mr. Roberts from the decision in his first trial (which decision they sustained), and the appeal of Mr. Burlingham, they refused to entertain the appeals. The reason given was that the appellants since their expulsion had refused to recognize the authority of the church Why then hear Mr. Roberts’ first appeal? If this had been true in the broadest sense the General Conference had no jurisdiction. Under Methodist polity a General Conference has no authority to try a preacher or to render any decision upon his acts except as the matter is involved in an appeal. But here a court - of appeals brought a charge against certain men, ad judged them guilty and pronounced the penalty and that too without giving them any opportunity to be - heard in their defense. The Discipline plainly stated, “They shall not do away the privileges of our ministers * * * of an appeal.” There was only one legal course open to the General Conference which was to hear the appeals and decide them on their merits. This it refused to do. The case of Mr. Burlingham was heard and sent back for a new trial. As Mr. Burlingham admitted all that was charged against him and appealed on the ground that his acts did not constitute a violation of the Discipline of the church, it is difficult to see the justice of the decision.

But one thing remained for the others to do, as Mr. Roberts said, they could only “appeal to God and the people.” This they did and the appeal has not been in vain.

[1] History of St. Charles Camp Meeting, by J. G. Terrill
[2] Why Another Sect, pp. 259, 260.