In his “History of the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church” the Rev. F. W. Conable says:

     “Nazaritism assumed that the great body of the Conference and a large portion of the membership of the Church had backslidden from the essential spirit of Methodism; that upon the part of such within the territory described the Discipline of the Church had become a dead letter; that on the subject of ‘Scriptural holiness,’ understood in the Wesleyan sense, many had become heterodox, and many more were grievously derelict; and that general worldliness, extravagance, and vanity had spoiled and made desolate the once fair heritage of Zion.” [1]

     In his “Cyclopedia of Methodism” Bishop Simpson has expressed himself to the same effect, though in fewer words, as follows:

     “In their writings and speeches they complained of the decline of spirituality in the Church, charging the Church with tolerating, for the sake of gain, the worldly practices of its members, and its departure both in doctrine and discipline from the teachings of the fathers.” [2]

     In both of the foregoing extracts it is clearly assumed that the claims made by those who were contending for genuine Methodism were unfounded. The issue at this point is a most vital one. If the claims of those men who were finally proscribed and expelled from the Church regarding the religion of the dominant party were unfounded, then the action of the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in their arraignment and expulsion was in some measure justifiable, and the Free Methodist Church has no justification for its existence. On the other hand, if the assumptions and allegations respecting Methodism’s departure from her original standards of faith and practice can be established, then the aforesaid action of the Genesee Conference is wholly unjustifiable, and partakes the character of a persecution so malignant and persistent as fully to justify those whom it proscribed and excommunicated in their final organization of a separate branch of Methodism.

     In this and the following chapter we shall endeavor to give the reader a correct idea of the two types of religion and of the two kinds of Methodism which existed in the Genesee Conference at the time referred to, and between which the conflict was hotly waged. It is believed that by comparison and contrast the unbiased reader will be led to render a verdict to the effect that Methodism had sadly deteriorated in Western New York, fully justifying the claims and allegations of the so-called “Nazarite” brethren, who earnestly contended for a return to Methodist simplicity and purity; and likewise that the religion of the proscribed brethren, instead of being, as the Regency affirmed, “fanaticism,” “enthusiasm,” “extravagance,” “wildfire,” et cetera, was simply what Dr. Chalmers declared the Methodism of his day to be— “Christianity in earnest.”

     In presenting the character of the dominant religion we shall first insert an article on “New School Methodism,” published by the Rev. B. T. Roberts, then pastor at Albion, New York, as embodying the views of the reformers regarding the Church’s departure from her original standards; and then we shall present certain published statements of those representing the dominant party in the Conference to show that conditions were decidedly worse than they were represented as being in “New School Methodism.”

     A few years previous, in the providence of God, Asa Abell, Eleazer Thomas, I. C. Kingsley, and C. D. Burlingham, men who believed in, taught, and personally enjoyed the experience of holiness or perfect love, were placed in the Presiding Eldership, and many others of like faith and experience were closely associated with them in the prosecution of their work. In their district work these Presiding Elders put the subject of holiness as taught by the fathers of Methodism to the front, and urged not only the necessity of regeneration upon the unsaved, but also the privilege and duty of being sanctified wholly upon believers. Nor was this done in a merely formal and perfunctory manner, but with heaven-born zeal, and “in demonstration of the Spirit and in power.” Multitudes were converted, and scores of both preachers and laymen “received the word with joy,” sought and obtained the sanctifying baptism with the Spirit, and “began to speak with other tongues [though in the same language], as the Spirit gave them utterance.”

     Around the standard of holiness as uplifted by these godly men quickly rallied such ministers as B. T. Roberts, William C. Kendall, Joseph McCreery, Loren Stiles, Jr., William Cooley, Amos Hard, and others “whose names are in the Book of Life,” all of whom were men of marked ability and of unchallenged standing among their Conference brethren. Wherever these men went, revivals broke out, in which large numbers were converted, many were sanctified wholly, the Church was quickened and built up, and Methodism became characterized by the power of earlier days.

     At the same time, under the ministry of those who represented the modernized type of Methodism, spirituality steadily declined, worldliness as steadily and rapidly increased, and the primitive glory of Methodism as constantly waned.

     Under these conditions the “Nazarite preachers,” as those who contended for “the old paths” of Methodism were contemptuously called by their opponents, began to be in demand in the Conference to an extent which alarmed the “progressives” lest it should eclipse their glory and interfere with their prospects for position and income. Hence a systematic effort was inaugurated for bringing the more aggressive preachers and their labors into disrepute. They were branded as “fanatics,” “enthusiasts,” “false prophets,” “spurious reformers,” and with even more offensive epithets than these. Their preaching was characterized as “cant,” “rant,” “clap-trap,” “arrogant boasting,” “haranguing the people,” and such other terms as would tend to bring odium upon it. Against their work were raised the old-time cries of “irregularity,” “extravagance,” “fanaticism,” “wildfire,” and so forth. From pulpit and press they were assailed and misrepresented with great bitterness, and in language of which the foregoing is the least offensive.

     In fact, strong language was employed on both sides; but the use of terms offensive to refinement and decency is chargeable exclusively to the “Regency” party, as the opponents of the reform movement were called, as will be seen in a subsequent chapter. But the movement had acquired too much momentum and secured too large a following to be suppressed by such measures; and “so mightily grew the word of the Lord and prevailed.”

     Then followed those secret meetings whereby the “Buffalo Regency” sought and obtained control of the Conference, with the consequences which have already been related.

     The time had now come when to the leaders in the work of revival and reform it seemed wise to set themselves right before the general public, so far as practicable, with regard to the chief differences between them and their opponents. The official periodicals of the Church being closed against them, so far as these issues were concerned, they had recourse to the columns of the Northern Independent, a paper published at Auburn, New York, whose able and fearless editor, the Rev. William Hosmer, allowed them free scope in defense of their cause. Accordingly in 1857, Mr. Roberts wrote and published ‘a paper entitled, “New School Methodism,” which was a very able presentation of the case. In his clear and incisive style, he set forth the departures of the Methodist Episcopal Church from her primitive standards, fortifying himself in each principal allegation made by ample quotations from men high in the councils of the Church.

     He also defined the position of the other party in terms which they never attempted to deny, and showed wherein the brethren whom he represented disagreed with them. This paper, as will be seen from the following reprint, was a dignified, straightforward and dispassionate presentation of the case, without one discourteous utterance or offensive epithet contained therein. Following is the text of Mr. Roberts’s paper:
 

NEW SCHOOL METHODISM

     The best seed, sown, from year to year, on poor soil, gradually degenerates. The acorn, from the stately oak, planted upon the arid plain, becomes a stunted shrub. Ever since the fall, the human heart has proved a soil unfavorable to the growth of truth.

     Noxious weeds flourish everywhere spontaneously, while the useful grains require diligent cultivation.

     Correct principles implanted in the mind need constant attention, or monstrous errors will overtop them and root them out. Every old nation tells the tale of her own degeneracy, and points to the golden age when truth and justice reigned among men.

     Religious truth is not exempt from this liability to corruption. “God win take care of His own cause,” is a maxim often quoted by the cowardly and the compromising, as an apology for their base defection. When His servants are faithful to the trusts reposed in them, it is gloriously true; when they waver, His cause suffers. The Churches planted by the Apostles, and watered by the blood of martyrs, now outvie heathenism itself in their corruptions. No other parts of the world are so inaccessible to Gospel truth as those countries where the Romish and Greek Churches hold dominion.

     As a denomination, we are just as liable to fall by corrupting Influences as any were that have flourished before us. We enjoy no Immunity from danger. Already there is springing up among us a class of preachers whose teaching is very different from that of the fathers of Methodism. They may be found here and there throughout our Zion; but in the Genesee Conference they act as an associate body. They number about thirty. During the last session of this Conference, they held several secret meetings, in which they concerted a plan to carry their measures and spread their doctrines. They have openly made the issue in the Conference. It is divided. Two distinct parties exist. With one or the other every preacher is in sympathy. This difference is fundamental. It does not relate to things indifferent, but to those of the most vital importance. It involves nothing less than the nature itself of Christianity.

     In showing the doctrines of the New School Methodists, we shall quote from The Advocate of the sect, published at Buffalo. This is the organ of the party. It is sustained by them. They act as its agents. Where their influence prevails, it is circulated to the exclusion of other religious papers. Its former title was “The Buffalo Christian Advocate.” But since its open avowal of the new doctrines, it has significantly dropped from its caption, the expressive word “Christian.” This omission is full of meaning. It is, however, highly proper, as we shall see when we examine its new theory of religion. We commend the editor for this instance of honesty. It is now simply “The Advocate;” that is, the only Advocate of the tenets it defends.

     The New School Methodists affect as great a degree of liberalism as do Theodore Parker and Mr. Newman. They profess “charity” for everybody except their brethren of the Old School. In an article on “Creeds,” published in The Advocate of April 16th, under the signature of W. the Rev, writer, a prominent New School minister, lays it on to “the sects whose watchword is a creed,” in a manner not unworthy of Alexander Campbell himself. He says, “No matter how holy and blameless a man’s life may be, if he has the temerity to question any tenet of ‘orthodoxy,’ he is at once. in due ecclesiastical form, consigned to the Devil—as a heretic and infidel. Thus are the fetters of a spiritual despotism thrown around the human reason. * * * * And so it has come to pass, that in the estimation of multitudes—the teachings of Paul are eclipsed by the theories of Calvin, and the writings of John Wesley are held in higher veneration than the inspired words of St. John.” Is not this a modest charge?

     But their theory of religion is more fully set forth In the leading editorial of The Advocate for May 14th, under the title —“Christianity a Religion of Beneficence Rather than of Devotion.” Though it appears as editorial, we have good reason to believe that it was written by a leading New School member of the Genesee Conference. It has not been disavowed by that party. Though it has been before the public for months, no one has expressed a dissent from its positions. It is fair to suppose that it represents the views of the leaders of this new movement.

     It says, “Christianity is not, characteristically, a system of devotion. It has none of those features which must distinguish a religion grounded on the idea that to adore the Divine character Is the most imperative obligation resting upon human beings. It enjoins the observance of but very few sacred rites; nor does it prescribe any particular mode for paying homage to the Deity. It eschews all exterior forms, and teaches that they who worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”

     The Old School Methodists hold, that “to adore the Divine character” is the most imperative obligation resting upon human beings—that Christianity has all of those features that must distinguish a religion grounded on this idea. That he who worships God rightly, will, as a necessary consequence, possess all social and moral virtues; that the Gospel does not leave its votaries to choose, if they please, the degrading rites of heathenism, or the superstitious abominations of Popery; but prescribes prayer and praise and the observance of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, “as particular modes for paying homage to the Deity ;“ that there is no necessity for antagonism, as Infidels and Universalists are wont to affirm, between spiritual worship and the forms of worship instituted by Christ.

     The following sneer is not unworthy of Thomas Paine himself. It falls below the dignity of Voltaire. “Christianity in nowise gives countenance to the supposition that the Great Jehovah is so affected with the infirmity of vanity, as to receive with peculiarly grateful emotions, the attention and offerings which poor, human creatures may pay directly to Him in worship.”

     The above may be sufficient to show what Christianity Is not, in the opinion of these New School divines. Let us now see what It is. “The characteristic Idea of this system is benevolence; and its practical realization is achieved in beneficence. It consecrates the principle of charity, and instructs its votaries to regard good works as the holiest sacrifice, and the most acceptable which they can bring to the Almighty. * * * *

     “Whatever graces be necessary to constitute the inner Christian life, the chief and principal one of these is love to man. * * * The great condition upon which one becomes a participant of the Gospel salvation, is—some practical exhibition of self-abnegation, of self-sacrifice for the good of others. Go sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, were the only terms of salvation which Christ proposed to the young man, who, otherwise, was not far from the kingdom of heaven.”

     The Old School Methodists hold that benevolence is only one of the fruits of true religion, but by no means the thing itself. In their view, “The principal grace of the inner Christian life” is LOVE TO GOD; and the most acceptable sacrifice we can render HIM, is a broken and contrite heart. They teach that the great condition upon which one becomes “a participant of the Gospel salvation” is FAITH IN CHRIST—preceded by repentance. They read in the Gospel that the young man referred to was commanded by Christ to “come, take up the cross and follow me.” The giving of his goods to the poor was only preparatory to this. -

     The New School Methodists hold that justification and entire sanctification, or holiness, are the same—that when a sinner is pardoned, he is at the same time made holy—that all the spiritual change he may henceforth expect is simply a growth in grace. When they speak of “holiness,” they mean by it the same as do evangelical ministers of those denominations which do not receive the doctrines taught by Wesley and Fletcher on this subject.

     According to the Old School Methodists, merely justified persons, while they do not outwardly commit sin, are conscious of sin still remaining in the heart, such as pride, self-will, and unbelief. They continually feel a heart bent to backsliding; a natural tendency to evil; a proneness to depart from God, and cleave to the things of earth. Those that are sanctified wholly are saved from all inward sin—from evil thoughts, and evil tempers. No wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul. All the thoughts, words and actions are governed by pure love.

     The New School ministers have the frankness to acknowledge that their doctrines are not the doctrines of the Church. They have undertaken to correct the teachings of her standard authors. In the same editorial of The Advocate, from which we have quoted so largely, we read: “So in the exercises and means of grace instituted by the Church, it is clearly apparent that respect is had, rather to the excitation of the religious sensibilities, and the culture of emotional piety, than the development of genial and humane dispositions, and the formation of habits of active, vigorous goodness.”

     Here the evils complained of are charged upon “the exercises and means of grace, instituted by the Church.” They do not result from a perversion of the means of grace, but are the effects intended to be produced In their institution. It IS THE CHURCH, then, that is wrong—and so far wrong that she does not even aim at the development of proper Christian character. “The means of grace,” in the use of which an Asbury, an Olin, a Red-ding, and a host of worthies departed and living, were nurtured to spiritual manhood, must be abolished; and others, adapted to the “development of genial and humane dispositions,” established in their place. The Lodge must supersede the class-meeting and the love-feast; and the old-fashioned prayer-meeting must give way to the social party! Those who founded or adopted “the exercises and means of grace instituted by the Church”—Paul and Peter, the Martyrs and Reformers, Luther and Wesley, Calvin and Edwards—all have failed to comprehend the true idea of Christianity—for these all held that the sinner was justified by faith in Christ, and not by “some practical exhibition of self-abnegation.” The honor of distinctly apprehending and clearly stating the true genius of Christianity was reserved for a few divines of the nineteenth century!
 

USAGES—RESULTS

     Differing thus in their views of religion, the Old and New School Methodists necessarily differ in their measures for its promotion. The latter build stock Churches, and furnish them with pews to accommodate a select congregation; and with organs, melodeons, violins, and professional singers, to execute difficult pieces of music for a fashionable audience. The former favor free Churches, congregational singing, and spirituality, simplicity and fervency in worship. They endeavor to promote revivals, deep and thorough; such as were common under the labors of the Fathers; such as have made Methodism the leading denomination of the land. The leaders of the New Divinity movement are not remarkable for promoting revivals; and those which do, occasionally, occur among them, may generally be characterized as the editor of “The Advocate” designated, one which fell under his notice, as “splendid revivals.” Preachers of the old stamp urge upon all who would gain heaven the necessity of self-denial—nonconformity to the world, purity of heart and holiness of life; while the others ridicule singularity, encourage by their silence, and in some cases by their own example, and that of their wives and daughters, “the putting on of gold and costly apparel,” and treat with distrust all professions of deep Christian experience. When these desire to raise money for the benefit of the Church, they have recourse to the selling of pews to the highest bidder; to parties of pleasure, oyster suppers, fairs, grab-bags, festivals and lotteries; the others f or this purpose, appeal to the love the people bear to Christ. In short, the Old School Methodists rely for the spread of the Gospel upon the agency of the Holy Ghost, and the purity of the Church. The New School Methodists appear to depend upon the patronage of the worldly, the favor of the proud and aspiring; and the various artifices of worldly policy.

     If this diversity of opinion and of practice among the ministers of our denomination was confined to one Conference, it would be comparatively unimportant. But unmistakable indications show that prosperity is producing upon us, as a denomination, the same intoxicating effect that it too often does upon individuals and societies. The change, by the General Conference of 1852, in the rule of Discipline, requiring that all our houses of worship should be built plain, and with free seats; and that of the last General Conference in the section respecting dress, show that there are already too many among us who would take down the barriers that have hitherto separated us from the world. The fact that the removal is gradual, so as not to excite too much attention and commotion, renders it none the less alarming.

     Every lover of the Church must feel a deep anxiety to know what is to be the result of this new order of things. If we may judge by its effects in the Genesee Conference, since it has held sway there, it will prove disastrous to us as a denomination. It so happened, either by accident or by management, at the division of the Genesee Conference eight years ago, that most of the unmanageable veterans, who could neither be induced to depart from the Heaven-honored usages of Methodism, by the specious cry of “progress” nor to wink at such departures, by the mild expostulations of Eli, “Why do ye thus, my sons !“ had their destination upon the east side of Genesee River. The first year after the division, the East Genesee Conference had twenty superannuated preachers; the Genesee Conference but five. “Men of progress” in the prime of life, went west of the river, and took possession of the Conference. For the most part, they have borne sway there ever since. Of late, the young men of the Conference, uniting with the fathers, and thus united, comprising a majority of the Conference, have endeavored to stop this “progress” away from the old paths of Methodism. But the “progressives” make up in management what they lack in numbers. Having free access at all times to the ears of the Episcopacy, they have succeeded, for the most part, in controlling the appointments to the districts and most Important stations. If, by reason of his obvious fitness, any impracticable adherent of primitive Methodism has been appointed to a district or first-class station, he has usually been pursued, with untiring diligence, and hunted from his position before his constitutional term expired.

     In the bounds of the Genesee Conference, the people generally are prepossessed in favor of Methodism. During the past eight years there have been no external causes operating there against our prosperity that do not operate at all times and in all places. Within this period, the nominal increase of the Church in that Conference has been but seven hundred and eighty. The East Genesee Conference has had an increase, within the same time, of about two thousand five hundred. In order to have simply kept pace with the population, there should have been within the bounds of the Genesee Conference, one thousand six hundred and forty-three more members than there are at present. That is, in eight years, under the reign of new divinity, the Church has suffered, within the bounds of this one Conference, a relative loss of fifteen per cent in members.

     The Seminary at Lima, at the time of the division, second to none in the land, has, by the same kind of management, been brought to the brink of financial ruin.

     We have thus endeavored to give a fair and impartial representation of New School Methodism. Its prevalence in one Conference has already, as we have seen, involved it in division and disaster. Let it generally prevail, and the glory will depart from Methodism. She has a special mission to accomplish. This is, not to gather into her fold the proud and fashionable, the devotees of pleasure and ambition, but, “to spread Scriptural holiness over these lands.” Her doctrines, and her usages, her hymns, her history and her spirit, her noble achievements in the past, and her bright prospects for the future, all forbid that she should adopt an accommodating, compromising policy, pandering to the vices of the times. Let her go on, as she has done, insisting that the great, cardinal truths of the Gospel shall receive a living embodiment in the hearts and lives of her members, and Methodism will continue to be the favored of Heaven, and the joy of earth. But let her come down from her position, and receive to her communion all those lovers of pleasure, and lovers of the world, who are willing to pay for the privilege, and it needs no prophet’s vision to foresee that Methodism will become a dead and corrupting body, endeavoring in vain to supply, by the erection of splendid Churches, and the Imposing performance of powerless ceremonies, the manifested glory of the Divine presence, which once shone so brightly in all her sanctuaries.

     “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”—Jer. 6: 16.

     The publication of this clear and comprehensive statement of the points at issue gave universal offense to the “Regency” party, and therefore furnished the pretext for the commencement of still more oppressive and unrighteous measures, even for that whole series of “proscriptions, prosecutions, and expulsions which led to the formation of the Free Methodist Church.” Mr. Roberts was the first victim of expulsion. He was tried on a charge - of “Immoral and Unchristian Conduct” for the writing and publication of the foregoing article. This being the case it is only fair to conclude that the article in question was considered as the most striking specimen of fanatical raving and of libelous speech or publication that could be produced. Otherwise Mr. Roberts would not have been the first and only victim tried on such a charge and with such specifications.

     Referring to the writing and publication of the foregoing article some years later, in “Why Another Sect?” Mr. Roberts said:
 

     We had previously been styled “New School Methodists,” in an article published in the Buffalo Advocate, the organ of the dominant party. We showed that the appellation properly belonged to our opponents. Though differing with them, we wished to treat them fairly. So we took this course. For fear that we might misrepresent their views, we stated them as we found them expressed by one of their leading preachers in an editorial of the Buffalo Advocate, and copied into the New York Christian Advocate and Journal. It set forth, as we believed then, and as we believe still, the doctrinal views from which we differed. This article, from which we quoted fairly, was indorsed by leading men of the dominant party. We never heard of its being disapproved by any of that party. The fact that there was a great division in the Conference had become notorious. Our opponents had, from time to time, in the Buffalo Advocate and other papers, in neither truthful nor respectful language, set forth their version of matters. We thought the time had come for us to set ourselves right before the public. This we endeavored to do in the following [foregoing] article, which was published over our well-known signature In the Northern Independent of which I was at the time a corresponding editor.

     The article on “New School Methodism” represented Mr. Roberts’s views of the state of religion in the Genesee Conference at the time it was written. He stated the case plainly and strongly, but in courteous and dignified terms, and with no traces of bitterness, or of offensive personalities. Men must have been unduly sensitive who could have regarded anything said therein as personally offensive and libelous; and yet it was on this ground that the writer of that article was regarded as deserving of being arraigned and tried by his Conference.

     Various persons in responsible positions in the Methodist Episcopal Church expressed themselves regarding the article at the time in decidedly favorable language, as the following letters and extracts from letters will show.

     Dr. F. G. Hibbard, who, at that time, was editor of the Northern Christian Advocate, and to whom Mr. Roberts at first sent the article for publication, though declining for prudential reasons to publish it, wrote its author as follows:
 

DEAR BROTHER ROBERTS:

     I return your communication as you requested, not feeling it prudent to publish. I presume you can not see things as I do from my standpoint. Your communication would involve me in hopeless controversy, which would make me much trouble and perplexity, with no hope, as I view it, of doing substantial good to the Church, or cause of Christ. I do not speak this against your article considered by itself, but of the controversy which your article would occasion. Your article appears to me to be written in as mild and candid a tone as such facts can be stated in. Be assured, my dear brother, that in the doctrine of holiness, in the life and power of religion, in the integrity and spirit of Methodism, I have a deep and lively interest. I labor to promote these. But I could not feel justified in taking sides in the question that now unhappily divides the Genesee Conference. May the Lord bless you and all His ministers, and give peace and purity to the Churches.                      Ever yours in Christ,
 

AUBURN, Aug. 10, 1857

F. G. HIBBARD.

     Later, when it had become clear that Mr. Roberts was in the minority, Dr. Hibbard wrote against him, though with much more zeal than fairness. But in the foregoing letter he certainly writes favorably regarding the merits of the article in question. How otherwise can we interpret the words: “I do not speak this against your article considered by itself, but of the controversy which your article would occasion. Your article appears to me to be written in as mild and candid a tone as such facts can be stated in.”

     On September 1, 1857, a Presiding Elder of the Oneida Conference, referring to the article on “New School Methodism,” in a personal letter to Mr. Roberts, said:

     “I am gratified with your exposure of the ‘New Divinity’ that is cursing the Church. It is creeping into our Conference and doing immense mischief. Keep the Monster in the light.”

     Another minister of prominence in the same Conference also wrote him, saying:

     “If you had belonged to our Conference, we would have given you a vote of thanks for writing that article.”

     Thus Mr. Roberts’s article on “New School Methodism” received the endorsement of distinguished and fair. minded men, who were every way capable of judging as to whether its statements were true to facts or otherwise, and whose loyalty to Methodism would have prevented them from indorsing it, had they considered it as in any. wise misrepresenting the type of religion the dominant party was endeavoring to promote. The fact is, that the article, which proved to be so offensive to a majority in the Genesee Conference as to sustain a charge of “Immoral and Unchristian Conduct” based upon its statements, was a much more mild and sober statement of the situation than might have been made without the least sacrifice of truth or indulgence of extravagance.

[1] Page 629
[2] Art. on "Free Methodists."