The battle over the issue of “Scriptural holiness” was now becoming more and more closely drawn. The “Regency” faction was desperate in the extreme. Matters were well-nigh equally intense on the part of the reform party. Both were coming to feel that the case was one o. life or death, and so girded themselves for intense warfare. What had already occurred was only light skirmishing; what was to follow was warfare that tried men’s souls.

     When it was found, at the next session of the Conference, that, in accordance with a petition signed by fifteen hundred members of the Church within the Conference bounds, the Rev. L. Stiles, Jr., and the Rev. I. C. Kingsley had been re-transferred to the Genesee Conference, the desperation of the “Regency” element was kindled to the utmost intensity. They saw clearly that heroic measures must be inaugurated, lest they should be brought to account for their misdoings. Accordingly they hired a hail, without even being suspected by the so-called “Nazarites,” and held secret meetings at night to plan their method for the continuation of the warfare.

     The method adopted was characteristic of the men who planned it, and suited to the end they sought to accomplish. As we have already seen, they now had a majority of the Presiding Elders subject to their control. The next step was to let the young preachers, and those who were unacceptable, understand that the character of their appointments depended upon which of the two parties in the Conference—the “Regency” party or the so-called “Nazarites” they henceforth identified themselves with. By so doing they were soon enabled to draw enough men from these classes into their secret meetings to make a majority of the Conference. THEN THIS MINISTERIAL CONCLAVE, COMPOSED OF MEN WHO WERE TO CONSTITUTE THE JURY, AND WHOSE PREVIOUS SECRET VOTES COULD BE COUNTED ON IN ADVANCE TO SECURE A CONVICTION, VOTED TO PRESENT A BILL OF CHARGES AGAINST B. T. ROBERTS AND W. C. KENDALL!

     Mr. Roberts had just published his article on “New School Methodism,” and the charges formulated against him were based upon the contents of that article. The general charge preferred was that of “Unchristian and immoral conduct.” The entire bill of charges will be given presently. But first it is proper to state what Mr. Roberts offered to do in order to obviate the necessity of a trial in his case. On presentation of the bill before the Conference, he arose and said:
 

     I have no intention to misrepresent any one. I do not think I have. I honestly think that 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 they do not, I will take their word for it, make my humble confession, and, as far as possible, repair the wrong that I have done. 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.

     What fairer proposition could he have made? What more could he have been expected to do? What but a predetermination that the man must be sacrificed on the altar of expediency could have induced the majority in an Annual Conference to have rejected so fair and noble a proposition? Not one among them was willing to say that he had been misrepresented in anything Mr. Roberts had written; and yet, as we shall soon see, he was tried and convicted of “unchristian and immoral conduct” for alleged misrepresentations of these brethren in what he had published in “New School Methodism.” Why this strange inconsistency? The only solution of the question would seem to be that the “Regency” had been at such great pains to secure their majority for the crushing out of “Nazaritism,” that the leaders felt they must now use it, both as a matter of self-justification, and as a damaging blow, if not a death-blow, to the alleged fanaticism of the “Nazarites.” One of their number had boastfully declared, and now they must try to make good the boast, “Nazaritism must be crushed out, and we have got the tools to do it with!’

     The Conference proceeded with the trial. The following account of the proceedings was published by Mr. Roberts in 1879, in “Why Another Sect ?“ and during all the intervening years has remained unchallenged, which is conclusive evidence of its correctness:

     There was little to do, as I admitted that I wrote the article. In my defense I showed:
 

1. That it is an undisputed principle of common law, that In all actions for libel, the precise language complained of as libelous, must be set forth In the Indictment.

     “An indictment for libel must set forth the very words; it is not sufficient to aver that the defendant published a certain libel, the substance of which is as follows.”—Brightley’s Digest, Vol. II, page 1631.

     “In an action for libel, the law requires the very words of the libel to be set out, in order that the Court may judge whether they constitute a good ground of action.”—Sergent & Rowlin’s Reports, Vol. X, page 174.

2. That if you make a man responsible for the construction which his enemies put upon his words, you might condemn any man that ever wrote. Nay, you could on that principle condemn the Savior Himself. He said: “All that came before me were thieves and robbers.” Noah, Job and Daniel came before Him. Therefore He slandered Noah, Job and Daniel, by calling them thieves and robbers. In fact our Savior was condemned for the construction which His enemies put upon His words.

3. I showed that in all the important specifications they not only had not given my words; but they had perverted my meaning. I claim the ability to say what I mean. That the contrast between their charges and my words may be the more easily seen, we give both in parallel columns:

     I explained to them so clearly that the dullest could not fail to see,

1. That men may “act as an associate body,” who do not “exist as an associate body.” It was true that they had a regularly organized “associate body,” but I did not know it, or even suspect It, and so I did not say it.

2. That men might have a difference about what is “fundamental,”—about “the nature itself of Christianity,” without any of them being “opposed to what is fundamental,” or to the nature of Christianity. In point of fact, the Calvinists and the Armenians —the Unitarians and Trinitarians do so differ.

3. That there is a wide difference between “liberalism,” “possessing charity,” and “looseness of religious sentiment.”

4. That saying “the following sneer is not unworthy of Thomas Paine,” is by no means equivalent to saying, “They sneer at Christianity in a manner not unworthy of Thomas Paine.”

5. That in saying they mean by “holiness” the same as “evangelical ministers” of the other Protestant Churches generally do, is by no means charging them with being “heterodox on the subject of holiness.”

6. That the article from which I quote fully sustains all I say upon the point involved in the sixth specification.

7. That in showing that if certain views of religion prevailed, “the Lodge must supersede the class and the love-feasts,” I did not charge them with attempting to do it, but that this would be the logical result of the teachings that I was reviewing.

8. That in calling their revivals “splendid revivals,” I simply quoted from an editorial of their own organ.

9. That in saying they “treat with distrust all professions of deep, religious experience,” I simply told what was notoriously true. I heard one of these preachers say, “When I hear a man profess holiness, I feel for my pocketbook.” Another said, - “If I should find Jesse T. Peck’s book on “The Central Idea of Christianity,” in my house, I would take it with the tongs and throw it into the fire.”

     Yet with the matter thus plainly before them, a majority of the Conference voted these specifications, (except the 4th, which was withdrawn) sustained. In doing that, every man of them voted as true what he knew to be false. We can not come to any other possible conclusion. They were not ignorant men who did not know what they were about. They were not acting hastily over a matter they did not understand. The case was fairly laid before them. They deliberately voted that I wrote what they knew I did not write.

     I was sentenced to be reproved by the chair. I received the reproof and appealed to the General Conference.

     When the appointments were read, near the end of the session, Mr. Roberts was read off for Pekin, Niagara County, New York. This was about the only part of the Conference territory in which he was a total stranger. So far as he knew he had never seen any one belonging to the Pekin circuit. With faith and courage he proceeded to his new field, but before he reached it a prominent preacher of the “Regency” faction had preceded him, and had informed the members that the preacher sent them had been convicted at the Conference of “unchristian and immoral conduct.” This report was also published in the Buffalo Advocate, and that without a word of explanation, thus leaving people to imagine the grounds upon which his conviction had been secured. They had no means of knowing whether he had been convicted of fraud, drunkenness, licentiousness, or some other crime; and this course was evidently pursued with the intention of embarrassing him on his new field of labor as much as possible, if not with a view to blocking his way to being received on the circuit.

     What circuit would willingly receive a preacher whom none of its members had ever seen, and whose coming was preceded by the unqualified statement from a prominent minister of the Conference to the effect that the new appointee had just been convicted of “unchristian and immoral conduct”? It is not to be wondered at, that, in recording the event, Mr. Roberts should have said, “We doubt if any itinerant ever had a colder reception. Even Father Chesbrough, one of the noblest of men, and one of the most loyal of Methodists, at first thought he would not go to hear me preach. ‘What have we done,’ he exclaimed, ‘that a man convicted of immoral conduct should be sent as our preacher?’”

     Nevertheless, when the first Sabbath morning of Mr. Roberts’s pastorate came round, Mr. Chesbrough concluded not to deviate from his uniform and life-long custom of attending Church service, saying, “It can do no harm to hear him once, anyway.” So with his family he attended the service. His son often related afterward how, on their way home, the venerable man rode in silence over a mile, and then said: “Well, Sam, I know nothing about the man, but I do know that what we have heard to-day is Methodism as I used to hear it in the old Baltimore Conference, and as I have not heard it in Western New York.”

     Mr. Roberts gave himself to the work of the circuit with his characteristic ability and energy, not allowing himself to be cast down or in any wise discouraged by the evil that had befallen him at and following the Conference session. Notwithstanding the indifference of the Presiding Elder, and the open opposition of a few members of the Official Board, a mighty revival soon broke out, which continued with increasing power and fruitfulness throughout the year. The work reached the young people, especially, and went so thorough among them that many of them, in their earnest seeking after God, forsook the world, gave up their jewelry and finery, and gladly took the narrow way. Dissatisfied because of this, one of the stewards started prayer meetings in his house across the street, probably as a counter-attraction. Mr. Roberts paid no attention to this, however, and they soon came to naught, while the work of God went on unhindered.

     At the district camp-meeting of that year Mr. Roberts had one of the largest tents on the ground, and many of those who had been saved in his meetings were also present with him and his devoted wife. The meeting was held but three miles from the home of the Presiding Elder, and yet, for some reason, he had never mentioned the subject to Mr. Roberts. During the first three days of the meeting no opportunity was given for public testimony, evidently lest some of those who had been saved in the Pekin revival should tell what God had done for their souls under the labors of Mr. Roberts. Finally one woman, who was free in Christ, broke through the conventionality, and testified with the blessing of God upon her, from which time the tide of salvation began to rise. During the intervals between the meetings at the stand they were kept going in the Pekin tent, where many were converted and many were fully sanctified.

     The following report of the work on the Pekin circuit that year was published in the Northern Independent:
 

     It can not be denied that we received to our Church as our pastor, a man whom The Advocate informed us was tried and found guilty of “immorality ;“ and judging from the articles which have appeared from time to time in that paper, it would seem that his opposers think “if we let him alone, all men will believe on him ;“ and the only way to destroy his usefulness is to pursue him with “slanders” and “persecutions.”

     A recent article in The Advocate, which descends to language unbecoming one Christian speaking of another, is hardly worth noticing, ns the shafts hurled at Brother Roberts fall far below him. The statement, however, that he was not returned to Niagara Street Church on account of his unfitness, will do well enough among those who have never heard from Brother Thomas [Eleazer Thomas, P. D.] all the facts in the case, which, thank God, there are many who understand as fully as the editor of The Advocate, and who dare to tell the whole truth when called upon.

     In view, then, of all these things, the grand question to be answered is this: Has the Church prospered under his labors, and has God honored his labors by bestowing His blessing upon them? We feel glad to say that the Church has prospered through the blessing of God, during the year. And all the honor and glory we lay at the feet of Jesus, for without Him His children can do nothing.

     Though we have not been favored during the year with the “able, impressive and appropriate prayers,” that some of the other Churches have been, we feel thankful that we have had “the effectual, fervent prayer[s] of the righteous man, which avail much.” Notwithstanding the many reports which have circulated to the contrary, God has been at work among the people. Between fifty and sixty have professed conversion, about forty of whom have joined on probation. The preaching has been plain, simple and pointed, and in accordance with the doctrines and Discipline of the Church. The consequence has been, very many of the members of the Church have been seen at the altar of prayer, some for justification, some for sanctification. Quite a number have publicly professed to have received the blessing of sanctification. Without an exception, every aged member in our Church has rejoiced to see the return of the days of Wesleyan Methodism, with its uncompromising and earnest spirit.

     When Brother H. came among us, our Sunday noon class numbered about fifteen; now the average attendance is, and has been for some time, from seventy-five to eighty. Our prayer-meetings and week evening class-meetings, and they occur every night in the week at various points on the charge, have been better sustained through “haying and harvesting,” and have been more interesting than for years past. The Sunday-school has also reached a point in attendance and interest never before attained In its history. There are scores in the Church to-day, who feel to thank God for having sent him among us.

S. K. J. CHESBROUGH.

SOUTH PEKIN, Sept. 24, 1858.

     The writer of the foregoing was a son of “Father Chesbrough,” referred to in a previous paragraph. Later, with his excellent wife, lie became a member of the Free Methodist Church, which he served with great efficiency in the ministry for a number of years, and, still later, as Agent of the Free Methodist Publishing House for nearly twenty years. As editor of the Free Methodist the author was in close touch with him for nearly nine years of his twenty in the Publishing House, and often heard him relate in substance the events which are narrated in this chapter. They were fully corroborated by his testimony.