3. Declension Leading to Free Methodism

HE many conversions and careful organization made Methodism in England and America numerically powerful and influential. Many leading citizens were counted in the membership. The reproach of the Cross, which had been so great in former days, passed away. It was honorable to be a Methodist.

     Fine churches were planned. These were costly. People of means must be in the membership to pay for such buildings. The enforcement of discipline upon those who were necessary to meet financial obligations proved difficult. Then second- and third-generation Methodists had come into the church because their families were thus associated. They had no such convictions as their fathers.

     Probably the drift toward worldliness was nowhere more rapid than in the Genesee Conference in western New York.

     In that region in the 1850’s there grew up a division in the ministry and to some extent among the laity. There developed two distinct groups, taking contrary positions on moral and religious questions. Group number one was made up of the liberals. These, because they were pretty largely in control in the conference and because the leaders held Buffalo churches, were called “The Buffalo Regency.” Those of group number two were called “Nazarites.”

     One of the reasons for the distinct alignment which soon developed was the fact that the “Regency” was controlled by secret society ministers—men who were members of the Masons or the Odd Fellows or both. Being together in the lodge and under the lodge oaths, it was natural that they should be a party in the conference. The murder of Morgan by the Masons in 1826 had almost ruined the Masonic lodge in America so far as membership was concerned. Nine-tenths of the membership had been lost. The tumult and horror of that crime remained in the minds of many Methodist ministers and laymen who did not like to fellowship men who were bound with the oaths which had led to that murder. Then the idea of secret organizations, whether good or bad, dominating a Methodist conference was most painful to non-secret-society ministers.

     Slavery was a live subject. The “Nazarites” were accused of being abolitionists, and were probably largely so. The “Regency” men tended to compromise on the slavery issue. Later, on slavery, the Methodist Church strengthened its position.

     The method of the support of the gospel was irritating. As supplementary to direct giving, the more liberal party was willing to have church fairs and bazaars to raise the needed funds. The “Nazarites” were opposed to all such indirect means.

     The liberal party was lax in the enforcement of church discipline as to amusements, dress, associations. The “Nazarites” lamented this laxity and insisted upon “separation from the world” as the Methodist Discipline required.

     The charge was made that too often at the musical instrument some person presided whose chief qualification for this place in worship was not a religious experience but musical talent or perhaps a connection with an influential family. And it was pointed out that some members of the choir danced most or all of Saturday night before their participation in the Sunday services.

     But more important than the above differences, which may be largely classed as matters of reform, were the more fundamental things of evangelism and personal religion. The “Regency” men were not promoting revivals, and some of them were opposed to such meetings. And many failed to insist upon conversion, and most had no use or place for the doctrine and experience of entire sanctification as taught by John Wesley. The second group insisted upon revivals, and preached the two distinct experiences in grace.

     The great issue then had to do with vital religion. The other issues were incidental. When holiness was not preached, when conversion was no longer a requirement for church membership, and when there were no spiritual revivals worldliness and compromise of every kind were natural results.

     Among those who insisted upon the old standards and the old faith were Asa Abell, Eleazer Thomas, Isaac C. Kingsley, C. D. Burlingham. These all were at some time district elders, and all preached holiness. Among others contending for the same things were Benjamin Titus Roberts, John P. Kent, William C. Kendall, Loren Stiles, Joseph McCreery. Mr. Roberts, though not as great a preacher as some of the others, was a man of college training, of spotless integrity, a very clear writer, and a natural leader. Those who contended for primitive Methodism found it easy to look to him.

     In 1857 there was published in the Northern Independent an article by B. T. Roberts titled “New School Methodism,” in which he set forth the differences between the contending parties in the Genesee Conference (for text of this article see Hogue’s History of the Free Methodist Church, Vol. I, p. 96). The secret society group was much incensed at this writing and determined to bring punishment upon its author. Accordingly, at the following annual conference a charge of “unchristian and immoral conduct” was placed against Mr. Roberts. However, the specification had to do entirely with the article above-cited. The conference, now under the control of the “Regency” men, voted the charges sustained and sentenced him to be reproved by the chair. This done, the man so charged and so sentenced was appointed to a charge for the following year.

     Of the events during the next few months Mr. Roberts wrote, “George W. Estes was at that 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 offence 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.”

     At the following annual conference, held in Perry, New York, in October, 1858, the charge of “unchristian and immoral conduct” against Mr. Roberts was renewed. The specification was the publication of “New School Methodism” in pamphlet form. Mr. Roberts denied the charge, declaring that he had never ordered the republication nor paid for it. Mr. Estes testified that he had arranged for republication and paid for the same, taking the entire responsibility. Nevertheless, B. T. Roberts was expelled from the conference on this charge and specification.

     However, at that same annual conference Mr. Roberts was by unanimous vote appointed to preach before the conference the funeral sermon of Rev. W. C. Kendall, who had died during the year, and he was appointed to preside over the public meeting of the American Bible Society, which things Mr. Roberts believed proved that the movement was not against him personally but against the cause for which he was contending. At the same conference Joseph McCreery was expelled. These ministers appealed to the General Conference for a rehearing of their cases.

     The expulsion of these men brought much indignation, especially among the Methodist laymen of the conference. S. K. J. Chesbrough wrote a call for a convention of laymen, to be held at Albion, New York, December 1, 1858. This was signed by over one hundred Methodist laymen from twenty-two different charges. At the convention were 195 laymen representing fortyseven charges. Many of these were persons of high standing in the church. After sitting all night and part of the day the convention unanimously passed a lengthy resolution in which they declared their allegiance to the “doctrines and usages of the fathers of Methodism” and described the “expulsion of Brothers Roberts and McCreery as an act of wicked persecution, calling for the strongest condemnation.” They also recommended that these brethren travel at large and labor for the promotion of the work. And they pledged $1,600 for their support.

     The following two years were stormy ones. Other preachers were expelled for allowing Mr. Roberts to preach in their churches. Laymen declared by resolution their unwillingness to support those men who had participated in the expulsion of their ministers. As punishment for participation in the convention and for their sympathy for the expelled ministers many of these laymen were “read out” of their churches—churches which were dear as life to them and which they had supported with their money, influence and most ardent prayers. They were on the whole conscientious people who were taking these positions for conscience’ sake. The hope of many was that the tide of worldliness would be stayed and these men who had contended for spiritual religion saved to the church. Instead of this, these laymen were driven out after their preachers.

     The ensuing General Conference refused to listen to the appeal made to it by B. T. Roberts and others, giving as a reason that they had preached in Methodist churches after their expulsion. These men who hoped to be reinstated in the church they loved believed that secret society influence in the General Conference prevented the hearing of their cases there.

     The dealings of the Genesee Conference with these ministers and laymen form a dark chapter in the history of the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Church. However, at the 1910 session of that conference, at Rochester, New York, a full acknowledgment was made of the wrong done Rev. B. T. Roberts fifty years before, and the credentials unjustly taken from him were restored to his son, Rev. Benson H. Roberts, at a public meeting appointed for that ceremony. Few organizations ever take the pains to right a wrong as that conference did. The act was tardy, but it was well done.

     At that time there was some newspaper talk that the Free Methodist Church would again become a part of the parent body. However, this was never contemplated by any informed person. The fundamental differences which had caused the disturbance fifty years before remained in 1910 and remain to this day.

     During the middle and later fifties those who were contending for the faith of their fathers became increasingly aware of the two open paths, one of which each must choose. They might “be good” according to the standards of the “Regency,” and consent to the secret society control and the general drift of the church away from original Methodism and toward the world. If they would do so they might expect pleasant livings and favors according to their several abilities. Or they might contend for the Methodism of their fathers, take the persecution, the poorer appointments and livings and perhaps be driven from the church. Some of their brethren chose the former course—the ease, good salaries, popularity. But B. T. Roberts and his associates denied themselves, took up their cross, and followed their Lord, not knowing whither they went. The laymen who withdrew or accepted expulsion with them, while not paying quite so great a price usually as did the preachers, still were called to pay enough. Together they went out with no churches, no parsonages, no material prospects.

     These were heroes of whom the world was not worthy. It would be too bad if we, with such spiritual ancestry, should prove to be weaklings. It is too bad if after these paid so much to preserve the faith passed to them from early Methodism we should count too great the small sacrifices which we are called upon to make for its further preservation, propagation, and transfer to posterity. Those who feel that they cannot afford to follow these men will do well to remember the unidentified proverb, “A religion that costs nothing is good for nothing.”