Those ministers and laymen within the Genesee conference who remained loyal to the “heroic ideals of the elder time” and contended earnestly for “the old paths” of Christianity as illustrated by primitive Methodism, were not only committed to the Wesleyan view of holiness, or entire sanctification, and to the maintenance of the original plainness, simplicity and spirituality of Methodism, but they were all Abolitionists of the most pronounced type, and were also unitedly opposed to secret societies.

     At the General Conference of 1856, the Rev. F. G. Hibbard had been elected editor of the Northern Christian Advocate over the former editor, the Rev. William Hosmer, by the pro-slavery men, who appear to have been in the majority, although Hosmer was the choice of those Conferences which chiefly patronized that publication. This was regarded by the anti-slavery men as an unwarranted usurpation on the part of the pro-slavery delegates, and as too much of an outrage to win their tame submission. Accordingly they started a new publication known as the Northern Independent, and elected Hosmer as its editor.

     This paper soon obtained a wide circulation and exerted a powerful influence. Its editor was a broad-minded, whole-souled, but uncompromising man of God, who made his influence widely felt on all those lines of truth which center in and radiate from Scriptural holiness. He ranked among the foremost of reformers. It has been said of him, “In intellect and courage, Hosmer was the John Knox of his day. His anti-slaveryism was not of that sentimental kind which opposed slavery at the South and defended tyranny at home. With true nobility of soul he hated injustice and oppression everywhere, and condemned it just as strongly when found in the North as in the South, in his own Church as in the world. He not only opened his columns for those whom the dominant party of the Genesee Conference proscribed, but spoke out editorially in vigorous condemnation of the oppressive acts of the majority of the Conference.”

     It was becoming more and more evident that matters were verging toward a crisis in the Genesee Conference. Since the early forties a conflict had been on in which holiness was the principal issue, but involving other questions, particularly slavery and secret societies. The line of battle became more definitely drawn at the Conference session held in Buffalo in 1848. At one of the sittings the Rev. Eleazer Thomas, D. D., presented each preacher in his seat with a copy of a well-written pamphlet, of which the Rev. C. D. Burlingham was the author, exposing the infidel character of Freemasonry and Odd-Fellowship. With the vision of a seer the author had pointed out the evil consequences that would ensue from the union of Methodist preachers with such societies. The following is an extract:
 

     It is believed that the direct tendency of Odd-Fellowism is the formation of parties in the Conference, in the Church, and in Civil Society; parties injurious to the cause of God and dangerous to the State. As all the operations and movements of the order are arranged in secret conclave, all persons, except the initiated, are supposed to be ignorant of its nightly transactions. It must be well known, that a small party, acting in perfect concert and in secret, bound together by strong partisan feeling, and under the influence of an obligation imposed upon its members, deemed by them as sacred, perhaps as an oath, is able to control, in almost any given case, a multitude of unsuspecting men, who are not under the iInfluence of such affinities. And may we not justly fear, when a score or two of the members of our Conference, embracing the various intellectual grades in the ministry, shall combine under such influences as above named, that a favoritism (If nothing more) will be practiced, on account of attachment to the Order, which will create envyings and jealousies in the Ministry, and very much Injure all the interests in the Church?”

     The introduction of this pamphlet among the preachers created a furore of excitement in the Conference. Those who were Masons and Odd-Fellows insisted that Brethren Burlingham and Thomas had accused them of being infidels. One of them, Thomas Carlton, openly declared, and with much emphasis, that, if “compelled to leave either, he would leave the Church before he would the Lodge.” “The conservatives were greatly alarmed. They begged the offended brethren not to rend the Church in pieces. The secret society men were [finally] appeased by a compromise resolution, which, as they construed it, conceded all they wished.” The purport of that resolution was to the effect that neither party should do anything in the future calculated to perpetuate the agitation. The secret society men construed this to mean that their membership in the Lodge should not be interfered with, nor their efforts to induce as many others to join as possible, and that, in face of such a course on their part, the others must do or say nothing that would tend to continue the agitation. The opponents of secret societies construed it as meaning that those who were members of secret Lodges must detach themselves therefrom as quickly as possible, and that others must not join.

     Thus the issue was joined, and a breach was begun which could never be healed. Already the prophetic words of the foregoing extract from Burlingham’s pamphlet were having their fulfillment, and that with more dire consequences than their writer had imagined, as the sequel shows. The secret society men applied themselves with diligence to the recruiting of their forces, from both the ranks of the ministry and of the laity. “They used every inducement to persuade the young preachers to join, giving them to understand that their position in the conference would depend upon the party with which they affiliated. As fast as they could, they took the Church into the Lodge and the Lodge into the Church. In a few years the power of the Lodge was exercised to control the affairs of the Church.” [1]

     The following instance is one among many that might be cited in proof of the foregoing statement. The Rev. J. B. Alverson, a venerable, respected and influential member of the Conference, endeavored to dissuade Thomas Canton from becoming candidate for Agent of the Book Concern, on the ground that he could not be elected. Carl-ton replied: “I can command sufficient secret society influence in the General Conference to secure my election.” The sequel showed that he knew his reckoning. He was not only elected, but re-elected, “and—became a wealthy man!”

     For a few years matters went on without open collision in the Conference, although the fire was smoldering out of sight. Secret society preachers and those opposed to secrecy labored in their respective ways without seriously crossing each other’s views, the former class catering generally to public opinion and seeking popularity along lines of compromise, and the latter seeking to promote pure and undefiled religion by the uncompromising proclamation of most radical truth “in demonstration of the Spirit and in power.” The people generally began to perceive the difference between these two classes. They saw that the charges served by the more radical brethren usually had gracious revivals and were built up both in spirituality and in numerical strength, while those served by the more liberal ministers had few if any gracious visitations from on high, and were not built up spiritually, even if occasionally there was numerical increase. Hence those preachers whose ministry brought spiritual results came to be in such demand that the charges which they had filled would, with much reluctance, accept the appointment of a secret society man, while those which had been filled by secret society men would most gladly welcome a change, in the hope of obtaining more spiritual and efficient pastors.

     A few words respecting those who, at this time, were chiefly enlisted in the work of endeavoring to restore Methodism in the Genesee Conference to its primitive purity and power seem here to be in place. We quote from Roberts’s “Why Another Sect ?“ inasmuch as its author was associated with those men, knew them intimately, as also the facts connected with the history of those eventful days, and could write with a degree of intelligence regarding them denied to one who is compelled to write more than half a century after the events in question occurred:
 

     Those opposed to this union of the Church and the world went out to promote, as best they could, the life and power of religion. They endeavored to enforce the Discipline,—and they preached plainly and clearly the doctrine of holiness.

     Prominent among these were Asa Abell, Eleazer Thomas, and William C. Kendall. Asa Abell made a distinct profession of the blessing of entire sanctification at the Byron Camp Meeting, in 1851. He preached it on his district, and secured at different times the services of Fay H. Purdy, then in his early prime, a lawyer, who had received a mighty baptism of the Spirit, and whose efforts for the awakening of formal Churches met with remarkable success. Deep and powerful revivals broke out in Parma, Kendall, and other places, and the district generally was In a prosperous, spiritual condition.

     Rev. Eleazer Thomas kept the Cattaraugus district, to which he was appointed, in a flame of revival. He said that, like Asbury, he felt divinely commissioned to preach holiness in every sermon. At a camp-meeting which he held in Collins, Erie Co., N. Y., at which Dr. and Mrs. Palmer were present, we received the blessing of holiness: and from that time our troubles in the Conference commenced. Brother Thomas introduced at each of his Quarterly Conferences and secured the passage of resolutions against choir singing and instrumental music In worship. His camp-meetings were seasons of great power. The lines were as closely drawn, and the truth as plainly preached as now among the Free Methodists.

     Rev. William C. Kendall had extensive and powerful revivals on his charges; and, under his labors, many came out in the enjoyment and the profession of the blessing of holiness. Other preachers—especially on the districts named, entered heartily into the work of soul-saving, and there was a steady increase, both in the number of members and their spirituality, on many of the charges.

     Meanwhile, the secret society men and their adherents were busy, seeking to build up the Church in external splendor. They read fine sermons—sometimes without being particular as to the source where they were obtained.

     “Was not that an eloquent sermon which our preacher delivered yesterday?” said one of the stewards to John A. Latta, one Monday morning.

     “Perhaps you enjoyed it so much you would like to hear it again,” replied Mr. Latta. He then took down a book and read him the identical sermon, word for word.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *

     Tinder a specious pretext, Hey. Eleazer Thomas, the acknowledged leader of the salvation party, was sent to California, and, as is well known, was afterwards killed by the Modocs. The venerable Dr. Samuel Luckey was appointed to the Genesee district. Though great efforts had been made to stigmatize the work as fanatical, this veteran preacher recognized it at once as the work of God; and with all his great ability helped it on. The Bergen Camp Meetings had become famous for their remarkable manifestations of saving power. The religious interest did not decline under his administration. He encouraged what was called the fanaticism of the district, and was not reappointed Presiding Elder.

     He was succeeded by the Hey. Loren Stiles. Mr. Stiles was a young man, a graduate of the Methodist Theological Seminary at Concord, N. H. He had already become celebrated in Western New York as a pulpit orator. Amiable in his disposition, pleasing in his manners, and a thorough gentleman in all his bearing, it was taken for granted that he would instinctively recoil from what was branded as the “coarse fanaticism” prevalent in the district. It was supposed that he would win the hearts of the people, and gradually turn them, without friction, back to the respectable quiet of spiritual death. But never were men more grievously disappointed. His prejudices were based solely upon the reports which he had heard and read. Thoroughly sincere, he recognized as soon as he came on the district the marks of the work of God. He saw that many had a spiritual power which he as yet had never received. He sought it at once; and he who was sent to put down the work of holiness, helped it on with all the influence he possessed. His quarterly meetings were thronged, and many of the people consecrated themselves wholly to God.

     On the Niagara District a similar disappointment was experienced. The Rev. Isaac C. Kingsley, the Presiding Elder, was a graduate of an Ohio college. He had been brought up a Presbyterian, and still retained many of his Presbyterian ways. He sometimes read his sermons, and was rather stiff in his manners, and precise in his way of doing things. He was intellectually a strong man, examined things for himself, and when he came to a conclusion had the honesty and the courage to avow it, though he might differ from others. After a careful survey of the work he decided that what was branded as “fanaticism” was only the vital godliness which he had expected to find when he joined the Methodist Church. So, instead of opposing it, he gave it his cordial support

     The Rev. Charles D. Burlingham was pushing on the work of God on the Olean District with a hearty zeal and abundant success. The interest on the subject of holiness was kept up, and the quarterly meetings were lively and interesting.

     The secret society men, stirred up by this state of things, began to publish unfavorable criticisms upon those prominent in the holiness movement, and to throw out insinuations against them. Their accredited organ was the Buffalo Advocate.

     One of the first direct attacks made by the Buffalo Advocate was in an editorial reflecting upon Ex-Bishop Hamline. It was as follows:

     “An article is going the rounds of the papers which states that Bishop Hamline has donated $25,000 to a Western College. We don’t believe a word of it. Re who was once Bishop, is, if we are correctly informed, as snug and keen in the management of his finances as any other property-famed man. He may have given something nevertheless.”—The Advocate, April 12th, 1855.

     After several efforts from the friends of the Bishop to have the above corrected, the editor finally admitted he stood corrected, that the Bishop had given the above sum, and added the sneer:

     “Noble man! he shall have all our praise, if it will do him any good.”

     Other articles reflecting still more severely upon the Bishop were published from time to time in The Advocate. Why all this?

     “Bishop Hamline was eminent for the advocacy of the doctrine of holiness.”

     The foregoing extract, which can be attested by men of unimpeachable character who are still living (1915), throws much light on the real nature of the issue over which the conflict raged, as also on the characters of those who were the chief participants therein.

[1] “Why Another Sect?” p. 52.