The incidents heretofore related concerning the early developments of Free Methodism occurred in Western New York and Northern Illinois. Similar conditions, however, existed in other places, though somewhat less aggravated in their manifestation. In the central and eastern portions of New York State, as also in Eastern Pennsylvania, many were becoming thoroughly tired and sick of worldly-conformed Methodism, and were deeply desirous for something to occur which would afford them relief from their bondage to formalism and spiritual death and open to them a congenial Church home in which they could enjoy freedom and participate in spiritual worship. Hearing of the organization of the Free Methodist Church, and hoping to find it conformed to the original type of Methodism instead of partaking the “New School” characteristics, they corresponded with General Superintendent Roberts, and others prominent in the new movement, extending to them the Macedonian cry for help. Letters were received from strangers in distant regions like the following from the East to Mr. Roberts:
 

     I see in your March number of the Earnest Christian an account of Brother Asa Abell’s Joining the Free Methodist Church. His convictions of leaving the M. E. Church and Joining the Free Methodist Church are the convictions of my heart, and doubtless those of a great many; and when, oh! when can we have the opportunity of breathing free air? His opportunity came. 0 Lord, give us an open door, is our prayer. I know of many that never will be satisfied until they are free. This panting to be free is like unto the soul panting for full salvation, and cannot any more be satisfied without having its freedom. For a good reason Jesus has made them free, and they must be free, indeed. Many in these far off regions would be glad to get into your meetings and enjoy freedom with you in worshiping God in spirit and in truth. We are like other bondmen down South, in one sense of the case: they have an idea of the land of freedom, they long to be free, but cannot tell when or how they shall obtain it. So in regard to many out here. We hear of your freedom and of your joys and of your people, but as yet we have no opportunity of tasting of freedom. But our trust is in God. We do believe the time will come when God’s free ones will be known all over the land. God hasten the time.

     Superintendent Roberts, William Cooley and Zenas Osborne appear to have pioneered the way for the introduction of Free Methodism into the region now embraced within the Susquehanna Conference. During 1860-1861 Mr. Roberts “held many meetings in New York, Binghamton, Union, Syracuse, Utica, Rome, Rose and Clyde, besides being present at grove-meetings and camp-meetings elsewhere in that part of the State that lay east of the bounds of the Genesee Conference. One who knew him well writes of these services, that “his preaching, his praying, his manner of conducting meetings, was very acceptable, and made a deep and lasting impression upon his hearers. This was especially true at Binghamton. [1]

     The first Free Methodist society in this region was organized by Mr. Roberts in a stone schoolhouse near Rose Valley, Wayne County, New York, December 2, 1860. It was composed of the following members: Josephus Collins, John Glen, Mr. and Mrs. William Glen, Mr. and Mrs. Harrison Holcomb, Mr. and Mrs. John Barrett, Leonard Mitchell, Sarah Mitchell, Mr. and Mrs. Wilham Sherman, Margaret Nusbickel, Elizabeth Finch, John Weeks. On February 12, 1861, he organized a second society at the home of Aaron Winget, in the town of Huron, same County, of which the following were the members: Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Winget, Benjamin Winget, Lovilla Winget, Mr. and Mrs. John B. Stacy, Hervey Perkins, Sophia Perkins. Among those who composed these two societies three later became itinerant preachers in the Free Methodist Church—John B. Stacy, and John Glen, both of whom witnessed a good confession and finished their course triumphantly some years ago, and Benjamin Win-get, who for about twenty years has been the honored, faithful and efficient Missionary Secretary of the denomination.

     From these points the work gradually spread abroad in various directions under the faithful labors of such men as William Cooley, Zenas Osborne and others, until finally those engaged in developing the field, believing the interests of the work could be better conserved and promoted thereby, began to urge upon Superintendent Roberts the importance of organizing the work into a Convention (or Conference), similar to the Eastern and Western Conventions already organized.

     Accordingly, on April 10, 1862, Mr. Roberts organized what was then known as the Susquehanna Convention (now the Susquehanna Conference) of the Free Methodist Church, with a membership of six ministers. Like the Eastern and Western Conventions at their organization, this was an out-of-doors deliberative body, holding its sittings upon a rail-pile in an apple orchard. The following list of appointments was made:

     Union circuit, James Guion; Madison and Otsego, J. Olney; Rose, W. Cooley; Hudson River Mission, A. B. Burdick; Susquehanna, T. F. Johnson; White Haven, to be supplied.

     The organization of this small Conference later became a source of much unpleasantness within the infant denomination, which apparently came near effecting a division. The circumstances which led to the unpleasantness were as follows:

     The Book of Discipline which had been adopted at the organization of the denomination made no specific provision for the organization of new Conferences in the intervals of the General Conferences. It did, however, specifically state that the General Superintendent was to travel through the connection at large, and labor for the advancement and upbuilding of the work. Regarding it as his right and duty according to this Disciplinary requirement, Mr. Roberts, in response to the call from those directly interested, organized the Susquehanna Convention. There appears to have been some previous dissatisfaction on the part of a few who had regarded the organization at Pekin as premature, as also with others who evidently felt a measure of disappointment with the action of that Convention regarding the General Superintendency. A respectable minority were opposed to any General Superintendency, preferring the election of a President each year, as is the case with the Wesleyan Church of England, and with the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America. Moreover, this was the year that had been designated for the first General Convention to hold its session, and it may have been that some were anxious to accomplish what they had failed to accomplish at the Pekin Convention—the defeat of the General Superintendency—and that they regarded the formation of the Susquehanna Convention as rendering their success in that direction less probable than it otherwise would be.

     Being aware that this feeling existed to some extent regarding the Superintendency, Mr. Roberts had studiously refrained from any reference in the Earnest Christian to his advancement to that office, as also from everything that could reasonably be construed as regarding himself in any sense superior to the humblest of his brethren. He published accounts of the Conventions, without the slightest reference to himself as presiding over them, lest he should give offense to any that might be sensitive over the decision of the Pekin Convention.

     His having organized the Susquehanna Convention was destined, however, to make him considerable trouble in the near future, and to give him an appreciating sense of the fact that advancement to office, even in ecclesiastical bodies, is no security for an easy passport through life. The question as to whether he had a legal right under the Discipline to organize an Annual Convention or not, was one about which equally good men might differ. But when some assumed that he had transcended his authority as overseer of the denominational interests, and began to talk about the exercise of “one man power” invidiously, though their number was small, it grieved him to the quick. It was a serious disappointment to him to lose in any degree the confidence and sympathy of brethren whom he loved, and with whom he had suffered in the fiery trials which came to him in the Methodist Episcopal Church. He did not allow this to deter him, however, from what he conceived to be his duty as an administrative officer in the Church, nor to chill or sour his spirit toward those who differed from him, nor to damp his zeal toward the work of God. He pressed on in his work with all possible earnestness, and with a holy cheerfulness prosecuted the manifold duties of his calling as the Church’s chief administrative officer, as editor of the Earnest Christian, and as a preacher of the gospel, with his heart on fire with zeal for the conversion of sinners and for the sanctification of believers. He found the work prospering wherever he went within the newly organized denomination, and saw numerous new charges raised up and added to those already existing, while the preachers and members were greatly strengthened everywhere under his ministry as the result of his simple, pointed and earnest proclamation of the truth.

     At the fall Conventions of 1862 delegates were elected to the ensuing General Convention, to be held in St. Charles, Illinois, beginning October 8. Hence the Susquehanna Convention, which was organized in April, held its second session in September, and regularly elected delegates to the General Convention. In a brief report of this gathering in the Earnest Christian Mr. Roberts said, “There are nine preachers belonging to the Convention— all of whom we believe are wholly devoted to God and His work, enjoying the clear witness of entire sanctification. We trust that through their labors a great impetus will be given to the cause of holiness in all the region where they travel.”

     The General Convention was one of much disharmony, due chiefly to the delegates from the Eastern (or Genesee) Convention opposing the admission of the delegates from the Susquehanna Convention, on the ground that the Susquehanna Convention had been irregularly and illegally organized, and therefore had no proper standing, and was not competent to elect delegates to the General Convention. The purpose of the Genesee delegates was to refuse the Susquehanna delegates admission, and the feeling was so intense over the matter for a time, and the contention was so sharp, that serious results were threatened. In the Biography of B. T. Roberts his version of the case is given, from his own handwriting, as follows:
 

     The delegates appointed by the several Annual Conventions of the Free Methodist Church met at St. Charles on the 8th of October, 1862. We were called together at two o’clock. One of the delegates from the Illinois Convention, B. Hackney, was absent on a jury, and could not be present at the General Convention until the next day. It was proposed on that account to organize temporarily, and defer a permanent organization until all the delegates could be present. Rev. L. Stiles opposed an adjournment. He said that the mere matter of organizing was not of sufficient importance to occasion any delay. We should organize, he urged, and be ready for business when all the delegates are present. Other of the Genesee delegates said their time was precious, they were anxious to get through as soon as they could. An attempt was made at organizing. When the credentials of the delegates from the Susquehanna Convention were read, Rev. A. Abell said that at the proper time he would object to their admission. An issue being raised, an adjournment was made until ten o’clock the next day, that all the delegates might be present. In the evening, O. P. Rogers, the reserve delegate of the Western Convention, arrived.

     In the five o’clock morning prayer-meeting, all the delegates, except the Genesee, being present, it was thought best, to accommodate them, to call the service at half-past eight. A preacher was accordingly dispatched to them by seven o’clock, informing them of the change of time. Word was brought back that they said: “We have adjourned to meet at ten, and we will not meet till then. One man has not the power to call this Convention together.” At ten we met. The Genesee delegates wished to have the delegates from one of the Conventions admitted by virtue of their credentials, and regarded as the nucleus, and then they vote in the rest. The President decided that all who came with proper credentials were prima facie members, and should be so regarded for the purpose of organizing. After we were organized, if any one held a sent improperly he could be deprived of it by the General Convention. Every organized body must be a judge of the qualifications of its own members. In this view of the case the Western delegates concurred. They urged that if there was any good reason for excluding the Susquehanna delegates, once organize and they would then exclude them. They pressed this point. They said repeatedly and emphatically: “Come ia with us and organize, and then if the Susquehanna Convention is not a legal Convention, or if there is any personal reason why the Susquehanna delegates should not have a seat, we will help you put them out.” But the Genesee delegates refused to organize, though on the vote for secretary two of them put in ballots. After the secretary was elected and the General Convention organized, Rev. L. Stiles whispered to G. W. Holmes, a lay delegate from the Genesee Convention, and Mr. Holmes moved, “That the Susquehanna delegates be admitted.” The President decided “That the delegates have already been admitted by virtue of their credentials,” and that the proper form of the motion would be to move, “That they are not entitled to seats as delegates.” They refused to make the motion in that form. They talked the matter over at length. They said the only thing that divided us was the formation of the Susquehanna Convention. When the president remarked that that was not the main difficulty, that there were other things that lay back of the Susquehanna Convention that were the real cause of the difficulty, Mr. Stiles resented the remark, and asked, with a good deal of spirit, “if their veracity was called in question.” He said that the only thing that divided us was the Susquehanna Convention. Mr. Hartshorn also said the same thing. The Western delegates urged that they should take their seats, and then make a motion to exclude the Susquehanna delegates, and if there was any good reason for excluding them, they, the Western delegates, would help them out.

     The following papers were offered and adopted on the 10th and 11th of October:

     “The Free Methodist Church as a body, as well as this General Convention, is organized on the basis of the Discipline adopted at Pekin, August 23rd, 1860, and printed at Buffalo in 1860, under the title of ‘The Doctrines and Discipline of the Free Methodist Church.’ This Discipline is the outward, visible bond of union among us as a people.

     “The delegates from the Genesee Convention are dissatisfied with the admission of the delegates from the Susquehanna Convention and refuse in consequence to participate in our action, and have expressed an intention to leave and go home.

     “Therefore, we propose that inasmuch as we have come together on the basis of the Discipline that we act together on the same basis, make such changes as can be agreed upon by all, and where all cannot agree upon any change, then no change shall be effected.

     “Adopted October 11th, 1862.”

     “Whereas, the delegates from the Genesee Annual Convention handed in the book of records of said Convention certifying to their election as members of this body; and whereas a part of them subsequently voted for secretary, and after we organized made a motion and speeches; and whereas they subsequently declared that they were not members of this body, and have accordingly absented themselves, and continued to absent themselves; and whereas they have withdrawn their book of records; therefore,

     “Resolved, that we, the General Convention of the Free Methodist Church, consider them as withdrawn from this body, and that we proceed to the discharge of the duties assigned us by the Church, whose representatives we are.” [2]

     After having continued in session from October 8th to October 16th, at St. Charles, Illinois, the General Convention adjourned to meet at Buffalo, New York, on the 4th of November following. At the adjourned session, inasmuch as some of the Genesee delegates who were in attendance at St. Charles were absent, the reserve delegates were allowed to take their places. The Rev. Levi Wood was thus seated in the place of Loren Stiles, Jr., and Titus Roberts in place of George W. Holmes.

     The Rev. Moses N. Downing was at the time pastor of the Free Methodist Church in Buffalo, and from his pen the following account of this adjourned session of the General Convention appears in the Life of B. T. Roberts:
 

     A number of delegates of the Genesee delegation declined to take their seats unless the General Convention would organize without the Susquehanna delegation, inasmuch as they believed the latter delegation was illegal, maintaining that the Superintendent had no right to organize the Susquehanna Convention, stipulating, however, that if the General Convention would thus organize without the Susquehanna delegation they would consent that the legality of the organization of the Susquehanna Conference should be passed upon by the General Convention. Benjamin Hackney, delegate from the West, a man of prominence who had been a member of Congress, arose and said that much as he loved the Free Methodist Church, he would see it split in two in its infancy before he would compromise on a principle of righteousness. He maintained that the delegates from the Susquehanna Convention were legally elected, and that in the absence of any specific law governing the organization of Annual Conventions, the General Superintendent had the right to organize the Susquehanna Convention, and that the Susquehanna delegates on presenting their credentials should be admitted. Thereupon, Rev. Loren Stiles and Asa Abell, ministerial delegates, and the lay delegates withdrew, the reserve delegates taking their places. [3]

     The foregoing action caused decidedly intense feeling, which was destined to manifest itself in very positive form at a period some time subsequent to the adjournment of the General Convention.
 

[This body met under the designation of General Convention, but before its final adjournment it wisely changed its name to that of General Conference. Following the example of the General Convention the Annual Conventions also soon changed their names to Annual Conferences, and they will be thus designated henceforth in this volume.—Author].

     The sequel to the story of the trouble occasioned by the organization of the Susquehanna Conference is thus told in the Life of B. T. Roberts, by his son, B. H. Roberts, A. M., and chiefly in his father’s own words:
 

     The Genesee Annual Convention, that was held at Albion, the 18th and 22nd of September, was a somewhat stormy time; the principal occasion being with reference to the admission of some to the Convention. Because of the dissatisfaction, emanating largely from the Susquehanna matter, confined, however, to a small minority, an attempt was made to call a second session of the Genesee Convention, to meet at Perry, 4th of November. This call was issued by Rev. Loren Stiles, Asa Abell, G. W. Holmes and H. Harts-horn. The evidence in hand as to its existence is the copy of the following letter, addressed to these brethren, which reads as follows:

     “TO THE MINISTERS AND MEMBERS OF THE FREE METHODIST CHURCH, CONVENED AT PERRY, NOVEMBER 4TH, 1862, AT THE CALL OF REV. L. STILES, JR., AND REV. A. ABELL, G. W. HOLMES AND H. HARTSHORN.

“Dearly Beloved Brethren:

     “I should have been glad to have met with you, and should have made arrangement to do so, had I known in time that you had been called together. I was in the same village with the brethren who called you together at the time when, I suppose, they decided to do so. They said nothing to me about their intentions; nor did I learn that they had issued a call until one week ago last Saturday. I learned the fact incidentally. My engagements are such— the General Convention having adjourned to meet at Buffalo the same day—that, very much to my regret, I cannot meet with you. From what I have heard, I gather that the object of those who have called you together is to procure a condemnation of my official action. If such is the case, it appears to me that I should have been consulted in reference to the time. ‘Doth our law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doeth ?‘—John 7: 51. Does Christian candor require any less than that you should suspend, not only any formal decision bearing upon my official acts, but even the formation of your own private opinion, until you bear what explanations I have to make? Could common candor, to say nothing of brotherly love, ask you to form and express your judgments upon matters affecting deeply the interests of our infant Church upon one-sided representations? I am aware of the successful efforts that have been made among you to excite prejudice against me; but you owe it to yourselves, as well as to the cause of God, to lay aside all prejudice as far as possible, and to defer all action in the premises until I can have a fair and full hearing. “Precipitous measures will sensibly injure the cause of God, whereas no possible harm can come by your waiting until the regular session of our Convention, acquainting yourselves in the meantime, as far as possible, with all the facts of the case. ‘He that believeth shall not make haste.’ I have endeavored to perform all my official duties as Superintendent of the Free Methodist Church with fidelity and love, in meekness and humility. I have studiously avoided everything that could excite envy or jealousy in any one. I have never published myself in any of the periodicals as occupying an official position, and have been careful not to injure the feelings or reputation of any among you in organizing the late General Convention, I took the only course that, as it seems to me with my limited knowledge of parliamentary usages, it was proper for me to take. The Discipline (Chap, 2, sec. 2, par. 1, p. 34) prescribes how the General Convention shall be composed. Persons coming with credentials duly certified are, as it appears to me, entitled to a seat until an organization can be affected. Then, if any one holds a seat to which he is not entitled, the General Convention can deprive hint of the seat improperly held. I so decided. In this decision I am sustained by the highest authority on parliamentary usages. The Constitution of the United States says: ‘Each shall be the judges of the election returns, and qualification of its own members (Art. 1, see. 5, par. 1).’ The president does not say who shall have a seat in the Senate; nor the Senate who shall sit in the House. The representatives from New York do not, in their local capacity, say whether the representatives from Illinois shall be admitted or not, but all who hold certificates of election are enrolled, and the house is organized, and then after the organization is effected, if any one hold a seat improperly, he Is excluded. I am charged with ‘an usurpation of power, such as was never exercised by any Bishop, or by any number of Bishops, in the history of Methodism,’ whereas the real ground of complaint is my refusal to usurp the power belonging to the General Convention alone, and on my own prerogative exclude from their seats persons whose credentials as delegates from an Annual Convention had been presented and read. This power, I believe, belongs to the General Convention alone; but because I did not usurp this power I am held up in an odious light, and charged with unprecedented usurpation. After we were organized, Brother Stiles whispered to Brother Holmes, and the latter made a motion: ‘That the delegates from the Susquehanna Convention be admitted.’ The motion I decided to be out of order in this form, as they had already been admitted by virtue of their credentials. I stated that a motion to the effect that the delegates from the Susquehanna Convention are not entitled to seats would be In order. But no one would make it. The Genesee delegates argued the case at length, but failing to carry their points they left. Before they left, however, I presented to them in open Convention the following proposition: ‘The Free Methodist Church as a body, as well as the General Convention, is organized on the basis of the Discipline adopted at Pekin, August 23rd, 1860, and printed at Buffalo, in 1860, under the title of “The Doctrines and Discipline of the Free Methodist Church.” This Discipline is the outward visible bond of union among us as a people. The delegates from the Genesee Convention are dissatisfied with the admission of the delegates from the Susquehanna Convention, and refuse in consequence to participate in our action, and have expressed their intention to leave and go home. Therefore, we propose that, inasmuch as we have come together on the basis of the Discipline, we act together on the same basis, make such changes as can be agreed upon by all, and where all cannot agree upon any change, then no change shall be effected.’ The Genesee delegates took no notice whatever of this proposition. If they had desired the preservation of the Free Methodist Church, essentially as organized, would they not have accepted this proposal? Any small, needful changes would, no doubt, have been acquiesced in unanimously by men of piety and love of peace. But under this proposition an attempt to revolutionize the Church could not have succeeded.

     “The ‘usurpation of power’ complained of may refer to the organization of the Susquehanna Convention. But was this any usurpation? The first to be settled is this: ‘Had the Superintendent, prior to the meeting of the first General Convention, the right to organize any Annual Convention? The Discipline does not in express words make it the duty of the Superintendent to organize Conventions. Nor does it say he shall not. Nor does it make it the duty of any one else to organize Annual Conventions. In the M. B. Church Annual Conferences are made by the General Conference. But this usage could not obtain in our case, for we had no General Convention, nor could we have any until Annual Conventions were formed, as the General Convention Is composed of delegates elected by the Annual Conventions. The General Convention could not organize Annual Conventions in the first instance. Who, then, should do it? The Discipline does not say in express terms, but it makes it the duty of the Superintendent to preside over the Annual Conventions. It is a maxim In the interpretation of law, that a requirement to do anything carries with It the right to do everything that is essential to the doing of the thing required. This is common sense and common law. A command to a general to lead an army across a river implies the right to bridge over if there is no other way of crossing.

     “The Discipline says (Chap. 3, sec. 1, par. 2, p. 46) that it shall be the duty of the Superintendent to preside at the Annual Conventions. But how can he preside over an Annual Convention until it Is organized? It seems plain, then, that in the absence of any other provision for organizing an Annual Convention, the Superintendent has an unquestionable right to do it. Nor can this with any fairness be said to be setting a dangerous precedent, for the first General Convention could, and undoubtedly would, make provisions for organizing Annual Conventions in the future. The Superintendent organized the Genesee Convention in the same way. Some brethren presented credentials as delegates from Free Methodist Societies, or from persons who desired to be organized into Free Methodist Societies. By virtue of their credentials they were organized as members. They then by vote admitted the preachers. The Western Convention and the Susquehanna Convention were organized In the same way. In no case did the Superintendent say what preachers should, and who should not, belong to an Annual Convention; nor, as we judge, has one Annual Convention the right to say what preachers shall belong to another Annual Convention. Some have assumed that when the Discipline was formed, it was contemplated by those adopting it to have only two Annual Conventions until after the General Convention. But this is mere assumption without the shadow of proof. Nothing of the kind is In the Discipline. Nothing of the kind was said in the Pekin Convention. The Discipline plainly implies that there might be more than two. It says (Chap. 2, sec. 2, p. 34): ‘Each Annual Convention.’ Had only two been meant it would have read ‘both’ Annual Conventions. The small number of delegates of which the General Convention would be composed, on the supposition that there are to be but two Annual Conventions, plainly shows that in the judgment of those who formed and adopted the Discipline, there would be more than two Annual Conventions prior to the first General Convention.

     “The Susquehanna Convention was formed in good faith for the purpose of spreading the work of God, and for good and sufficient reasons, as I believe I can satisfy any unprejudiced mind. But suppose there had been any irregularity in forming this Convention, is it not fully justified by the fact that we are in a formation state? Many irregularities have been tolerated among us, and justified on this ground. The Church at Albion was formed without asking of those received as members the questions required by the Discipline (Chap. 1, sec. 3, p. 32). The delegates to the General Convention elected by the Genesee Annual Convention were elected contrary to the express provisions of the Discipline. The Discipline (Chap. 2, sec. 2, par. 1; p. 341) requires that the ministerial delegates should be elected by the ministers in full connection. But probationers and supplies were allowed to vote. The Discipline says that the ministers should elect their delegates and laymen theirs. But all voted together. If the plea that we are in a formation state may cover in the administration at Albion, and in the action of the Genesee Convention irregularities, that were not necessary, and that are in conflict with express provisions of the Discipline, shall the benefit of that plea be denied to me when I organized Annual Conventions in the only mode in which under the circumstances they could be organized? Will you justify others in violating plain provisions of the Discipline when there is no necessity for it, and then in order to procure my condemnation, have recourse to the usages of another Church which has long been in existence? Where is the justice, the charity, of such a course? Can men of God act thus inconsistently and uncharitably?

     “I have only touched upon a few leading points bearing on this matter. I have written in great haste, surrounded with company and crowded with cares; but I trust I have said enough to lead you to pause in your verdict until you have heard the matter presented on both sides.

     “May the Lord bless you and lead you aright, and send peace and prosperity in our midst.

“Yours affectionately in Jesus,

“B. T. ROBERTS.”

     This clear and courteous presentation of the case had weight. The matter of a Convention was dropped. Surely the infant Church had no quiet birth, nor gentle cradling; foes without and dissentions within must alike be met, and in a Christlike spirit, exemplifying the grace that was preached.

     This disturbing Susquehanna matter was not, however, allowed to drop just yet. One more trial must be had before this question was settled. The Genesee Convention in 1863 met at Parma, N. 1. Because the Discipline had been amended at the General Convention In the year preceding, in which the delegates from Susquehanna had a seat, a minority headed by John W. Reddy, objected to having the~ Superintendent preside over its sittings. But how to organize legally they did not know, for he was present It was a curious sight, doubtless, to see him sitting quietly by and submitting In meekness to have his position canvassed publicly. Finally John W. Reddy ventured the astounding request: “Would he not permit the Convention to do its work without him in the chair?” A gentle, but firm, “No, sir,” made it manifest that meekness and strength are not incompatible. To appease the minority he consented to a compromise, as he knew how to do when there was no principle at stake. He soothed their ruffled feelings by consenting to use the Discipline as originally adopted, not as amended by the General Convention, of which the obnoxious Susquehanna delegates were a part. This action, I believe, ended this incident. [4]

     One more reference to the case is on record, however; and that is in the printed minutes of the Genesee Conference of 1864. The Conference record says:
 

     The following document was presented and adopted:

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS AND SUSQUEHANNA ANNUAL CONFERENCES:

     Dear Brethren: At our last session the points of difference between us were candidly considered. We were willing to accord to you the most perfect honesty, and claimed the same for ourselves. Acting on this basis, we unanimously agreed to concede half the ground, and requested you to make an equal concession and meet us at the middle point. We felt that this would be mutually just and generous. But as you refused to accept our proposition, we still desire to be “of one heart and one mind.” Therefore, maintaining the same view of our case as before, we agree to give up the whole ground of controversy, and to adopt the new edition of the Discipline.

Adopted, 35 to 2.

[1] Biography of B. T. Roberts, p. 273.
[2] Pages 276-280.
[3] Pages 277, 278.
[4] Pages 284-291.