Matters were now approaching a crisis. The dominant party seemed seized by a sort of universal impulse to carry their opposition to the work of God to a degree seldom known in all the history of Protestantism, and which appeared to have in it all the essential elements of ancient Jesuitical persecution.

     “Conscious of their strength and flushed with their victory, the preachers used every means to bring the members who opposed the oppressive acts of the Conference into subjection. We have never read, in any period of the Church’s history, of the employment by the preachers, of more arbitrary and tyrannical measures than those adopted by the dominant party in Genesee Conference to subjugate those members who would not bow implicitly to their authority. Had such tyranny been exercised by the priests of the Roman Catholic Church, there would have been an outcry raised which would have been heard all over the land and across the Atlantic.” [1]

     Professedly they directed their energies to the suppression of extravagance, enthusiasm, and fanaticism; while in reality they were pursuing every one who dared to affiliate or show sympathy with those they believed to have been unjustly expelled from the Conference with attacks more bitter and relentless, if possible, than those by which Roberts and McCreery had been cast out. War was now inaugurated against all who would not bow to the “Regency” faction, but especially against the laymen. The most summary proceedings were instituted against them, in which the preacher in charge would frequently appear as prosecutor, witness, judge, and practically as jury, the jury being a servile body of his own selection. Where it was found impracticable to secure enough such pliant tools to serve his purpose, he had no hesitancy in importing them from some distant charge. Disciplinary provisions for safeguarding the rights of members were ruthlessly overridden, the Jesuitical theory that “The end justifies the means” being the rule of almost universal application. The “Nazarites” must be exterminated, and any measure adapted to the accomplishment of that end appeared legitimate, irrespective of its ethical character.

     “I will not do your dirty work for you,” was the indignant reply of a local preacher on one of the circuits, when asked by the pastor to sit on a jury to expel Claudius Brainerd, an ordained local preacher of piety, ability and irreproachable character. Upon his refusal to accept the position, a man was imported from Buffalo, seventy miles distant, to fill the place.

     The special objects of persecuting wrath were those laymen who had attended and participated in the Albion Convention. To have taken this liberty was to have been guilty of a crime meriting the extreme penalty of the Church. Twenty-five or even fifty years of faithful membership in the Church; the most invaluable services rendered in both material and spiritual things; the most ardent piety and the most unsullied reputation for purity of character and holy living, counted for nothing against the flaming wrath of the incensed “majority” in case of any member who had dared to befriend those whom the Conference bad excommunicated and anathematized. The more loyal and helpful such a one had been, and the more influential the position he occupied, the more likely he was summarily to be sent to the ecclesiastical guillotine.

     It is a matter of historic record that one of the preachers, the Rev. Rufus Cooley, had his character arrested for praying with Mr. Roberts after his expulsion. Mr. and Mrs. Cooley and Mr. and Mrs. Roberts met at the home of Mrs. Cooley’s mother. After their adjournment from the tea table, they had a season of prayer, in which both Mr. Cooley and Mr. Roberts prayed. For this offense Mr. Cooley was called upon to answer to a complaint lodged against him at the next session of the Genesee Conference.

     One of the first among the laymen on whom the “Regency” sword of vengeance fell was Claudius Brainerd, of North Chili, N. Y. For a number of years he had been a faithful, acceptable, and useful traveling preacher. But his health failed, and he found it necessary because of this to locate. He continued to preach, however, as his state of health would permit, and his services were both acceptable and needed. He was a man of extensive acquaintance, and wherever known was respected as a man of deep spirituality, unbending integrity, and genuine piety—a Christian man of the New Testament pattern. But he had been active in the Albion Convention, and so his head must go. “To make the matter sure, the Rev. J. B. Lankton, preacher in charge, summoned a committee of local preachers from a distance—men who could be depended upon to execute the will of the ‘Regency;’” and before that committee he was tried and expelled, on February 14, 1859, for attending the Laymen’s Convention at Albion. The bill of charges contained three charges and nineteen specifications, all based upon his relation to that Convention.

     Referring to his expulsion in the Northern Independent of February 15th, 1859, Mr. Brainerd said:
 

     Yesterday, I was expelled from the M. E. Church, for attending the Laymen’s Convention. No other charge was preferred. For all harsh words or unchristian expressions, just retraction was made. My expulsion was for the expression of my honest sentiments. Had I given up my judgment to an Annual Conference, I could have retained my standing in the Church. But then I should not have been a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, nor even a Christian. I would die a martyr’s death for my own judgment, rather than yield my judgment to an Annual Conference. My soul sweetly rests in Christ. A consciousness of right, and the approval of my Judge, sustain me. I shall unite on trial, the first opportunity, with the M. E. Church. It is time the laity were awake to their own rights in the Church.

     Mr. Brainerd appealed his case to the Annual Conference. But that body, contrary to an express provision of the Methodist Episcopal Discipline, refused to entertain the appeal. The provisions of the Discipline were set aside as of no force whatever, except in so far as they could be used for the punishment of “Nazarites.”

     After his expulsion Mr. Brainerd united with the Methodist Episcopal Church again as he said he would. The Rev. S. McGerald, a converted Roman Catholic, as pastor at Henrietta in the East Genesee Conference, received him. When it was known that Mr. McGerald had received Mr. Brainerd into the Church, the former was waited upon by a committee and threatened with a bill of charges at the forthcoming Conference. He assured Mr. Brainerd, however, that he would stand by him. But Mr. Brainerd said, “No; I would not have the trouble get into the East Genesee Conference ;“ and then authorized Mr. McGerald to drop his name from the Record. In this way Mr. McGerald was preserved from an attempt to expel him from the Church.

     Some years later, and after he had become a Free Methodist, Mr. Brainerd was invited to fill the appointment of the Methodist Episcopal pastor at Churchville, New York. It was nearly the last time he preached. His family were afraid that going without his dinner after preaching would be too much for him. But the very man who preferred charges against him was present, and invited him to dine with him. He told of this on getting home; and his daughter, with some surprise, asked, “Did you go to Mr. Grunendike’s?” and he replied, “If he could ask me, I certainly could go; and we had a good time.”

     He was truly a good man. A Roman Catholic neighbor once said of him, “He is such a good man that I want to get him into the Catholic Church.” His face was so radiant, even in death, that Daniel Steele, a relative, said of him, “As he entered heaven, the glory shone through the gates and rested on his face.”

     The Rev. William D. Buck was a personal friend of Mr. Brainerd, and yet voted against him. When asked why he did so, he answered, “Because Bishop Simpson told me to!’ “Happy for the world if this were the only time when Bishops and clerics had forgotten justice and truth,” says Prof. B. H. Roberts, in commenting on the event in the biography of his father.

     Efforts were made to conceal the fact that Mr. Brainerd was really expelled for his part in the Albion Convention, because of there having been three charges against him. William Hosmer, faithful and fearless Editor of the Northern Independent, and the one man among the editors concerned with Genesee Conference matters who was fully awake to the enormity of the wrongs that were being perpetrated by that body, and who had the honesty and courage to expose them to public reprobation, editorially wrote concerning this case as follows:
 

     Three charges were, to all intents and purposes, one charge, and but one, unless the specifications relied on to support them had their origin in circumstances apart from the Albion Convention.

     The crime of attending that Convention might have been prosecuted under forty different heads, and by a thousand different specifications, and yet all would have been substantially one and the same charge. In order to show that there was in reality more charges than one, it should have been made to appear that crimes unconnected with said Convention, and of a wholly different character, were alleged against the party accused. For prudential reasons, it is not uncommon in criminal prosecutions of this kind to disguise the real offense under formidable allegations which no one expects to prove or ever supposed to be true. In such a case, though the charges are not proved, they help blacken the character and cover the nakedness of the attempt If sham charges are made, some will believe them, and in the meantime the accused can be convicted with better grace on the less flagrant points In the indictment. What the facts In this case are can only be known from the specifications themselves, and the entire history connected with the trial. The matter is In Itself of very great moment, because It clearly involves the right of the laity to assemble for the redress of grievances. If attendance on such meetings is to be construed Into a crime; or, if words spoken there are to be prosecuted under the grave head of “contumacy,” “slander,” “sowing discord,” etc., then whatever may happen, our laymen must be silent on pain of expulsion. Such a condition of things would be nothing better than now falls to the lot of the deluded votaries of the Catholic Church. Can the brethren concerned in this apparently unfortunate piece of administration show that Brother Brainerd was not expelled for words spoken, or deeds done, at the Albion Convention? Had this case stood alone, we should not have noticed it, as occasional errors are to be met with in the best administrations; but there is good reason to suppose that it connects with a principle which is to have a wide application.

     When ecclesiastical persecution assumes a judicial form, it is one of the most tremendous scourges ever let loose upon society. The fires of Smithfield were kindled by misguided Church judicatories, and every Romish auto-da-fé has the same origin. Believing not only that these ecclesiastical decapitations are the worst kind of murder, but that slavery will demand in other Conferences a repetition of the scenes enacted In the Genesee Conference, we shall both apprise the public of what is going on and strip the proceedings of their assumed sanctity.

     Two other laymen on the same circuit, Thomas Hannah and Alexander Patten, were next among the victims, both being expelled on charges similar to those brought against Mr. Brainerd. They were prosperous farmers, and both men of sound judgment and sterling piety. There was nothing against them, except that they took part in the Laymen’s Convention. Mr. Hannah had recently given $300.00 for a Church on the circuit, and had given his note for $300.00 more. This latter amount was collected, although he had been most unjustly excluded from worshiping in the house for which the amount was subscribed. Consistency, whither wert thou fled?

     Following these expulsions a more summary method of dealing with such cases was adopted, namely, that of simply reading the undesirable parties out of the Church as having “withdrawn.” Mr. John Prue, Mrs. Sarah Prue, Mrs. Elizabeth Porter, Mrs. H. Loder, Fanny Smith and Mrs. N. S. Brainerd were thus disposed of at a single stroke, and without their consent. This method, though in direct contravention of the Methodist Discipline, was afterward worked effectively on many charges as an easy wholesale method of disposing of embarrassing cases.

     At Churchville, N. Y., Mr. Hart Smith, a conscientious and devoted Christian, was expelled by the Rev. Sumner Smith, aided by a committee from Chili, an adjoining circuit, the members at Churchville refusing to act in the case.

     On April 13th, 1859, Mr. Thomas B. Catton, a stanch, God-fearing Englishman, possessed of more than ordinary intelligence, was brought to trial by the Rev. W. S. Tuttle, pastor of the Perry society. The indictment against him contained four charges, and twenty-three specifications. The pastor assumed from the start that he was to be expelled, and so cited him to appear at the time and place specified, “to answer to the charges and specifications, and show cause why you should not be expelled from the M. E. Church.” (Italics are the author’s.)

     Can the reader imagine such a thing in civil Court as a citizen under arrest cited to appear and show cause why he should not be punished? Is it not common law in all civilized lands that “the prosecution must show cause why the accused should be punished”? And does not the foregoing citation on the face of it show such a reversal of this law as to make it appear that one accused of being a “Nazarite,” or of being a sympathizer with “Nazarites,” deserves the extreme of Church penalties, and must show cause why such penalty should not be inflicted? Moreover, to aggravate this case still more, the Rev. Mr. Tuttle, like the Rev. Mr. Lankton, claimed to be one of those against whom the Laymen’s Convention directed its action—that is, he virtually claimed to be a party in the case—and yet “he acted as judge, selected the jury, and in reality conducted his own case. [2]

     Writing to the Rev. B. T. Roberts an account of his trial soon after it occurred, Mr. Catton said:
 

     You can get only a very faint idea of the proceedings, from the minutes. Brother Hubbard said in speaking of your trial, that “all the forms of law were exhausted ;“ we think in my case that all the forms of law were outraged. When a Methodist minister can take such a stand as the Rev. W. S. Tuttle took in this trial, and can find devotees to carry out his desires, it is high time for the laity to be aroused. There can be no safety when a man claiming to be slandered, can, on the trial of the one accused of slandering him, sit as judge, and appoint the jury, and repudiate the laws of evidence, which have been established for ages. Who ever heard. outside of the Genesee Conference, of a member of the M. E. Church being tried and receiving a penalty because he could not in conscience pay the minister appointed? Yet Mr. Tuttle stated that he had written to Bishop Baker, and had his sanction for commencing an action under this new rule. I am now satisfied that the worst construction that can be put upon the language used by the Albion Convention—if it was not true then, is certainly true now.

     During the progress of this trial certain developments occurred which threw some light upon the trial of Mr. Roberts by his annual Conference. Several witnesses of good repute testified that they personally knew of so. called “Regency” preachers being absent from the Conference sittings a day at a time while the Roberts trial was in progress. Also “E. Sears, Thomas Jeffres and J. Grisewood testified that, at different times, they heard different preachers who voted for the expulsion of B. T. Roberts say that they did not vote for his expulsion because of the evidence adduced. The only reason any of them assigned was, because he undertook the defense of the Estes pamphlet. They heard seven different preach. ers at various times make this statement.” [3]

     Mr. Catton put up such a vigorous defense in his trial, and public sympathy on his behalf was so strong, that for the time being the prosecution was unable to accomplish its purpose to expel him. This was a notable event, and seemed like the scoring of such a point in his favor as might put in check the spirit of persecution which had instigated his trial. It was not as it seemed, however. Though not expelled, he was censured; and later he was again brought to trial for “contumacy,” a charge which was the stock-in-trade with the “Regency” faction, even as “inflexible obstinacy” was the stock-in-trade accusation against those who yielded up their lives to martyrdom in olden time under Roman Catholic persecution. His case was finally disposed of in connection with the cases of seventeen others who were “read out” of membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church, without their consent, and contrary to the canons of the Church.

     This short and easy method was also pursued in the case of Mr. George W. Holmes, a man of remarkable intelligence, refinement, candor and piety on the Kendall charge. In his quarterly report to the society, at a love-feast, the pastor announced, “George Holmes, withdrawn.” “Not so,” replied Mr. Holmes with clear and manly voice from his place in the congregation. “I never withdrew.” He was out, however, though by illegal process, and, like others who were similarly deprived of their Church membership, he knew it would be in vain to invoke the higher authorities of the Church for redress, inasmuch as this method of disposing of members who would not servilely bow to the will of the “Regency” was known to be operated with the approval of those higher authorities.

     Mr. Jonathan Handly, of Perry, N. Y., a quiet and unobtrusive character, but a man of deep piety and of genuine worth, who had been a Methodist for over thirty years, was likewise a victim of the prevailing persecution, and was expelled for attending the Laymen’s Convention.

     The case of James H. Brooks, Esq., of Olean, N. Y., who was expelled on the same grounds, excited so much interest that the Olean Advertiser commented on it as follows:
 

     James H. Brooks, Esq., a resident of Olean these thirty odd years, a man of unblemished private character, a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church ever since he was fifteen years old, a Christian of acknowledged worth and usefulness, and a citizen against whom the breath of calumny has never breathed until now, has been expelled from the Church. This fact being announced, the inquiry is natural and pertinent—”Why?” This is just what we would like to know.

     James H. Brooks has grown up in our midst from boyhood; his private worth is as familiar to our citizens as a “thrice told tale.” Generosity, integrity, honesty, and living piety, are eminent characteristics of the man. For the last twenty-eight years he has been a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and has contributed liberally for the advancement of Methodism, and the promulgation of the Gospel. The ministers and brethren of the Church have ever found a place at his board, and a welcome at his fireside. It was indeed a truthful exclamation of the accused after his conviction, and was not contradicted by his accusers, “My old mother sitting there, has given more meals to Methodists, than all the rest of this Church together.”

     The trial and expulsion of such a man naturally produces in the public mind a supposition that he has been guilty of some heinous offense, either against good morals or the peace of society, and that the proceedings were necessary to purify the Church, and to warn the world against an unchristian example.

     We, however, learn, and are gratified in being able to say that such is not the case, that he has neither adopted a spurious faith, nor has been guilty of any heresies condemned by the doctrines of his Church, nor has he indulged in any impropriety of conduct, that would warrant under any ordinary circumstances, his expulsion from the Church.

     In every human mind there is an innate sense of justice which is offended and aroused at acts of oppression and palpable wrongs. We confess we partake of the general feeling pervading this community, that a grievous wrong has been done Mr. Brooks.

     So cruel and relentless were the measures resorted to by the Church for the purpose of either subjugating the “Nazarites,” particularly the laymen, or exterminating their so-called fanaticism, that the oppression became unbearable, and finally resulted in the calling of another Laymen’s Convention. This is the Convention to which the Rev. Mr. Crawford refers in his published account of the Bergen camp-meeting. [4] The call was issued by Hon. Abner I. Wood, president, and the Rev. S. K. J. Chesbrough and Mr. W. H. Doyle, secretaries, and was particularly addressed to the members of the Laymen’s Convention held at Albion, N. Y. The following is a copy:
 

     DEAR BRETHREN: At our session at Albion we were authorized to call a meeting again in June. We feel that the difficulties among us demand such a meeting. Ever since our action at Albion, we have been misrepresented, and our characters slandered. No stone has been left unturned, either by flattery or threatenings, to intimidate many from the positions then taken. How many have been led thus to withdraw from us, we know not; nor is it our concern. If any one feels duty thus calls him to retract, let him thus decide, and walk no more with us. We feel satisfied that not only a vast majority of those that attended still adhere to those resolutions, but many more who did not adhere, are now convinced that we have the right on our side, and to-day are in sympathy with us. Important interests are at stake; we feel the iron heel of oppression heavily laid upon us as laymen. We feel unwilling to become the slaves of any power. Many of our beloved brethren, who acted with us there, have been tried for attending that Convention—some have been expelled. Let us meet together, and show to them that the cause is one, and when they suffer, we suffer with them. If our action there is to be the “war-note,” and the moving cause of our decapitation or removal from office, wherever possible, the time has come, yea, fully come, for us to stand firm and reiterate that our sentiments and our resolutions are still unchanged, and that we intend to maintain the position then taken, let the cost be what it may to us; the fear of expulsion or removal from office should never drive a Methodist from doing his duty.

     We need also to reaffirm our undiminished confidence in our beloved Brothers Roberts and McCreery, and our condemnation of the unjust expulsion of these brethren from the Conference. Let us, to a man, stand by them; they are worthy of our sympathy and our “material aid.”

     We cordially and earnestly Invite all our brethren who are In sympathy with us, and who are willing to act, to meet us in Convention at North Bergen, on the Genesee Camp Ground, Thursday, June 20, 1859, at 4 p. m., to take such action as may there be deemed advisable.

     This Convention, being held in connection with the camp-meeting, appears to have done but little, except to deliberate and determine on the holding of a second Annual Convention, which was called to meet at Albion, November 1 and 2, 1859.

     Reference has been made several times in the foregoing part of this chapter to the practice of reading members out of the Church without even the form of a trial. The answers of one of the Bishops to certain questions submitted to him are supposed to have been responsible for the adoption of this summary and undisciplinary method of dealing with the so-called “Nazarites.”

     At any rate a paper was left among the effects of the late Rev. Henry Hornsby, inscribed over his signature on the reverse side, as follows: “Questions answered by Bishop Morris, S. Parker preacher in charge at Lockport, Gen. Conf. The reading out of members in the M. E. Church was based on these answers. This paper given me by Schuyler Parker.” That paper is before the author as he writes, and its contents are as follows:
 

     proposed to Bishop Morris by S. Parker and answered by him— Date of letter, “May 21, 1859.”

Ques. 1.—Can members of our Church go by themselves in any number and organize for the purpose of holding public religious services, independent of our Church and its authorities? Ans.— No.

Ques. 2.—Does not such an act without anything further upon their part, constitute a separation from our Church? Ans.—Yes, virtually so.

Ques. 3.—Does it make any difference what name or obligations they have taken, so long as they are unknown in our Discipline and the object is to hold religious meetings independent of the preacher in charge of the Church where their names are recorded? Ans.—No.

Ques. 4.—Has a preacher on one charge a right to receive members who have been expelled on another charge, when he knows such to be the fact, without their making confession, etc.? Ails.— No.

A true copy.

     The Bishop said I could report them withdrawn, if the official brethren so advised, in preference to bringing them to trial and expelling them.

     The last item in this paper appears to have been the authority under which the “Regency” men acted in pursuing the “reading-out” method. But no Bishop could ever have so advised without having been guilty of maladministration.  

[1] “Why Another Sect?” p. 206.
[2] “Why Another sect?” p. 212.
[3] “Why Another Sect?” pp. 213, 214.
[4] See pages 128, 129.