We have already seen the important part the Laymen’s Conventions played in those providential steps which prepared the way for the formation of the Free Methodist Church. The Laymen also were largely instrumental in its final organization. The Rev. A. A. Phelps, who was present and participated in the proceedings, has given the following brief account:

     “In accordance with the provisions of the last Laymen’s Convention, a Delegated Convention was called at Pekin, Niagara County, N. Y., August 23rd, 1860, to confer as to the best mode of extending the work which God had so graciously begun among them. The Convention was called to order, and opened with devotional exercises. Isaac M. Chesbrough, of Pekin, was elected Chairman, and Rev. A. A. Phelps, Secretary. The body, duly organized, was composed of sixty members—fifteen preachers, and forty-five laymen. [B. T. Roberts, in an editorial account of the Convention in the Earnest Christian, gives the number as “eighty laymen and fifteen preachers”— W. T. H.] Most of the business was transacted on the camp-ground—a spot newly consecrated by the outpouring of God’s Spirit and the salvation of precious souls. The deliberations of the Convention resulted in the organization of the Free Methodist Church, and the adoption of their first Discipline. [1]

     The call for this Convention read as follows:
 

     A Convention will be held at Pekin, for the purpose of adopting a Discipline for the Free Methodist Church, to commence at the close of the camp-meeting, August 23rd. All Societies and Bands that find it necessary, in order to promote the prosperity and permanency of the work of holiness, to organize a Free Methodist Church on the following basis, are invited to send delegates:

1. Doctrines and usages of primitive Methodism, such as the witness of the Spirit, entire sanctification as a state of grace distinct from justification, attainable instantly by faith; free seats, congregational singing, without instrumental music in all cases; plainness of dress.

2. An equal representation of ministers and laymen in all the councils of the Church.

3. No slaveholding and no connection with secret, oath-bound societies.

     Each Society or Band will be entitled to send one delegate at least, and an additional one for every forty members.

     There were grave doubts in the minds of some who participated in this Convention as to the expediency of proceeding to organize a new Church at that time. The matter was freely discussed, however, after which a considerable majority voted in favor of proceeding with the work of organization. The Rev. S. K. J. Chesbrough, who had hitherto taken a prominent part in the Laymen’s Conventions, has expressed his attitude at that time in the following statement:

     “At the time of the Convention I was not clear in my own mind that the time had come for us to organize, and, therefore, I refused to be a delegate to that Convention. I took no part whatever in the proceedings. In fact, I was not present at the Convention on the camp-ground. All I remember of it is this: Before the Convention was called, B. T. Roberts and several others—I can not remember distinctly who they were, but they were the principal preachers and laymen who were active in the matter— came together under an apple tree right back of our kitchen. I sat in the kitchen door looking at them. They were nearly all seated on the grass under the tree, and it was voted that they proceed to organize the Church. They then arose and went over into the grove, where the Convention was held and the child was born and named. This will account for my want of recollection in the matter. It was but a little while afterward that I felt the wisdom of the brethren was better than mine, and I joined the organization in a few weeks. [2]

     Elsewhere Mr. Chesbrough says: “I well remember the Sunday after the organization, when my wife and eighteen others answered the questions in the Discipline, which Brother Roberts had written on a piece of paper, and formed the first Free Methodist class ever formed under the Discipline.”

     A further account of the differences of opinion existing between brethren at this Convention regarding the expediency of proceeding to organize at that time, and as to the result as well, has been given by the Rev. M. N. Downing, who was present, but who finished his earthly course in 1913. Mr. Downing says:
 

     I was a delegate to the Convention at which the Discipline was decided upon at Pekin, N. 31. At this Convention Rev. Joseph McCreery, W. Cooley, Alanson Reddy, and, I think, a Rev. Mr. Farnsworth, and several laymen opposed the immediate organization of a new denomination, on the ground, as they believed, that It would be premature; but it would come [later] in a greater swarm from the M. E. Church. They would in the meantime substitute Bands.

     Dr. Redfleld was present to represent the West. He arose and said, “Brethren, when fruit is ripe, it had better be picked, lest on falling it bruise. In the West we are ready for an organization. If in the East you are not ready, wait until you are.” Mr. Roberts arose and remarked: “We are ready, and the West and the East should move in the matter simultaneously.” The majority prevailed, and the organization was effected, taking the name, The Free Methodist Church.

     The minority withdrew, and were after that known as the Nazarite faction of the salvation movement, though the name Nazarite was well known among us before that crisis came. [The author understands that those who withdrew chose to accept the name, “Nazarite Bands”.] The Nazarite faction went to seed completely at a camp-meeting in East Shelby, N. Y. Rev. W. Cooley and wife were at this meeting, and seeing the fanaticism in some of its wildest features coming in, fled to the Free Methodist Church for refuge, and were useful workers therein. Afterwards Brother McCreery joined on probation; but never seemed to be fully in sympathy with the Church.

     Brother L. Stiles desired a clause inserted in the Discipline favoring a gradualistic as well as the instantaneous view of entire sanctification. Dr. Redfield arose and remarked substantially as follows: “Brethren, I would not make a threat, but unless we go straight on the question of holiness in the Discipline, we had better halt where we are. The gradualistic theory is what has made so much mischief. We are John Wesleyan Methodists. We must not dodge that point.” This view prevailed.

     The organization of the Free Methodist Church having been effected, the Convention proceeded to elect the Rev. B. T. Roberts as General Superintendent of the same. The following from his private journal is of interest, because of certain light which it throws on the proceedings in addition to the statements in the foregoing quotations:
 

     August 23rd, 1860.—Convention at Pekin to form a Free Methodist Church. There were present delegates from Genesee Conference: one, Daniel Lloyd, from St. Louis, and Dr. Redfield, from the West. Rev. J. McCreery was very much opposed to forming a close organization of a Church. He said that many of the sheep in the Methodist fold had been so starved by the Regency preachers that they were unable to jump the fence, and he wished to remain in a position where he could salt them through the rails. Brother William Cooley was also opposed to organizing a formal Church; but a majority of the delegates thought that the interests of the cause of God required an organization. The vote stood forty-five for organizing and seven against it. I felt, for the following reasons, that it was best to organize a Church:

     1st. We had been—six preachers of us—wickedly expelled from the M. B. Church, and two other preachers had been located In the same way. Many pious members had been expelled and read out for sympathizing with us. The General Conference, though petitioned by fifteen hundred members, refused to grant us any redress, or even to investigate our grievances.

     A. W., who was expelled for licentious conduct with several young ladies, was restored by the same General Conference, though his character for fourteen years at least has been regarded as bad. In nearly every place in which he has preached within that time similar reports of licentious conduct have followed him.

     Mr. -------- , of New York East Conference, who admitted that the husband of one of his members—coming home unexpectedly— found him hid away under the bed, and the brother’s wife was in the room, was also restored. But the General Conference would not hear our appeals.

     A memorial stating our grievances was presented to them, but was not, as far as we can ascertain, even read. This memorial was signed by Rev. Asa Abell, John P. Kent, and other members of Genesee Conference.

     2nd. The M. E. Church has gone so far from its original position, and has become so involved In formalism, secret-society influence and pro-slaveryism that there is no hope of its recovery.

     3rd. There is no existing Church that makes the salvation of souls its prominent and main work. We had to form a new Church or live outside of any and have no place to put those that God converts through our instrumentality.

     The form of Discipline which I had prepared under, as I believe, the influence of God’s Spirit, was adopted with but slight alterations. I proposed to have a Standing Committee who should have the general oversight of all the interests of the Church. But the Convention judged best to have a General Superintendent. To my surprise the choice fell on me. Lord, give me heavenly wisdom to guide me! It was a heavy cross to accept the appointment, but I did not dare to decline, because of the conviction that God called me to this labor and reproach and responsibility. Yet, oh, to what calumny it will subject me! Lord, I will take the cross and the shame. Let me have Thy presence and help, O God of power. [3]

     Had Mr. Roberts’s proposition for a Standing Committee to supervise the affairs of the Church at large prevailed, doubtless the history of the Free Methodist Church would have been very different from what it has been, in various particulars. He appears to have been thoroughly convinced at last that the decision of the Convention was wisely made.

     From the foregoing chapter it appears that, for a year or two prior to the General Conference, those members who were “read out” or expelled from the Methodist Episcopal Church because of their sympathy with the proscribed ministers, had been forming themselves into either Bands or independent Churches. Bands were formed in numerous places, and Churches had been organized at Albion, New York, St. Charles, Illinois, St. Louis, Missouri, and possibly at two or three other places. These persecuted ones, excluded from the Church they so dearly loved, were passing through a transition state, as to Church membership, though TO what they did not know. They went forth cheerfully “without the camp, bearing His {Christ’s] reproach ;“ and, having no surety of an abiding Church home, they became fond of referring to themselves as “Pilgrims,” a name quite common among them, even in their denominational capacity, to this day. The organization of these small societies seems to have been providentially ordered, as well for their own preservation in unity, as for the better advantages it gave them to labor effectively for the salvation of others, and for the general promotion of the work of God.

     Those who formed independent Churches took to themselves various names, but into several of these the words Free Methodist Church entered. As to who originated this name we have been unable to ascertain. The reader will recall, however, that the little society which Mr. Roberts found in Buffalo, N. Y., after his expulsion, worshiping in a building on Thirteenth street, the use of which was granted them by a Congregational brother, was then known as the Free Methodist Episcopal Church. It was a Church in which the seats were all free, and which stood for freedom in several other respects. Presumably the name Free Methodist Church is an adaptation from that of the Buffalo Free Methodist Episcopal Church, the word Episcopal being omitted, because of the Democratic rather than the Episcopal form of government having been adopted. Mr. Stiles had also organized a Congregational Free Methodist Church at Albion, New York, a year or two before the new denomination was formed. Two hundred members of the Methodist Episcopal Church followed him into the new organization.

     As finally characterizing the new denomination the name, Free Methodist Church, is significant. In the first place, the term Church indicates that this people from the beginning believed in Church organization, and were no mere anti-sect society, reform organization, or holiness association. They were organized as a permanent branch of the Church militant, and proposed, so far as possible, to honor both the name Church and that for which it stands.

     Then the name Methodist was assumed because they claimed to be Methodists—of the original type—in doctrine, usages, experience and practice. They were and are John Wesley Methodists.

     Finally, as to the prefix Free, it signified freedom from ‘(Episcopal domination, from which they had suffered in the Church which cast them out; freedom from Lodge rule or interference, which had wrought so disastrously in the troubles which led to their expulsion; freedom from those discriminations in favor of the wealthy and aristocratic in the house of God, which are engendered .by. the renting or sale of pews; the freedom of the Spirit in personal experience, accompanied by freedom on the part of all, in the public worship of God, to give such outward expression to deep religious emotion as the Holy Spirit may inspire or prompt.

     A little over a year after Mr. Stiles organized his Church at Albion, New York, the Rev. C. D. Brooks withdrew from the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and one hundred sixty of his members with him. Later they united with the Free Methodist Church. This was the largest number that ever joined the Free Methodist Church at one time except when Mr. Stiles and his newly organized Church united in a body.

     Since next to the foregoing paragraph was written the following letter has been received from Mr. Brooks, which throws additional light on the origin of the name Free Methodist Church:
 

GENEVA, N. Y., May 19, 1913.

DEAR BROTHER:

     I have been thinking lately that I ought to write you, and mention a matter of fact about the organization of the Free Methodist Church. As I suppose you purpose to bring out a history of our Church, you may wish to give the item of which I now write you.

     I am now nearly eighty-eight years of age, and the only mister still living of the old Genesee Conference of the M. E. Church, who passed through those unrighteous trials that prepared the way for the organization of the Church that is still doing faithful work and seeing many souls clearly saved every year.

     Now for the item, the name given, etc. The second year of expulsions, at Brockport, in 1859, Rev. Loren Stiles was the first one of the four that was excluded. In fact one hour after the Masonic party of the Conference voted him out of the Conference and membership of the Church, that noble man, of precious memory proclaimed publicly, with great emphasis, “I’ll take my appeal to God and the people.” He soon left and went back to Albion, where he had been pastor two years. I then fore-saw that he would probably organize a new Church; and after thinking the matter over for a day or two, I wrote him, in case he organized a new Church, a good name for It would be
 

THE FREE METHODIST CHURCH

     And I further suggested that I hoped the position of the new Church would embody the following principles, viz.:

Free from slavery,
Free from secret societies,
Free seats In all Churches.
Free from the outward ornaments of pride, and
Free in Christ.

     I soon learned that Brother Stiles at once organized a new Church in Albion, and nearly 200 people joined it, and that the name and principles were indorsed, as I had given them.

     And, further, when nearly a year later, in 1860, at Pekin, N. 1., the general Church was organized, August 23, the same name and principles were embodied in the Discipline of the Church; and one chapter of the Discipline, as adopted at Pekin, was in my handwriting, though I was still a member of the Genesee Conference of the M. E. Church.

     Perhaps you had never previously known that your humble servant had such a share In shaping things in those strenuous times.

     Your fellow-laborer of many battles during the fifty years past, still after souls,

C. D. Brooks.

     No sooner was the infant organization born and christened than the scattered remnants of Methodism—scattered by the hand of ecclesiastical tyranny and despotism —began to turn toward the new church as a place of refuge from oppression, and as an organization specially committed to the work for which John Wesley said the early Methodist societies were raised up—”to spread Scriptural holiness over these lands.” One after another the Bands, Societies, and Churches which had been organized here and there as a temporary expedient, united with the new denomination by the adoption of its Discipline, no longer to be mere fragmentary and isolated groups, but societies of a regularly constituted Christian Church, united in one body, laboring together for the advancement of the kingdom of God under one and the same ecclesiastical organization.

     The Discipline adopted was based largely on the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church. All but four of its “Articles of Religion” were adopted. Articles xiv., xix., xxi. and xxiii. were appropriately omitted, and two others were added—one on “Entire Sanctification,” and the other on “Future Rewards and Punishments.”
 

     As the M. E. Church borrowed her “Articles of Religion,” in the main, from the Church of England, which had so lately broken away from Romanism, says Dr. Bowen, It is not strange that she should have guarded against the errors of Popery, in imitation of the mother-creed, by retaining the “Articles” on “Purgatory,” “Works of Supererogation,” the “Marriage of Ministers,” and the like; but who is not surprised that she should have omitted to introduce the doctrine of “entire sanctification,” and of “future rewards and punishments,” which she has always at least until lately, deemed fundamental? These doctrines, so clearly taught in the standards of the Old Church, and made to enter into the confession of her ministers—the former especially—upon their admission into full connection, the Free Methodist Church has most appropriately incorporated into her creed—her life and teaching eminently corresponding thereto. [4]

     The Free Methodist Church also at its organization adopted the “General Rules” of the parent denomination unmodified, except that, where the Rule on slavery in the Methodist Episcopal Discipline was absurdly ambiguous, the Rule on the subject in the Free Methodist Discipline distinctly forbade “The buying, selling, or holding of a human being as a slave.” This it should be remembered was adopted while American slavery was still in existence. “The ‘Rule,’ as adopted by the Free Church, is too full and explicit in language to be evaded in any way; and is, in fine, as it was intended to be, the very synonym of anti-slaveryism in all its moods and tenses.”

     At an early period following its organization, the Free Methodist Church also modified the rule against “softness and needless self-indulgence” by the addition of a clause making it apply especially to “the use of tobacco for the gratification of a depraved appetite ;“ and at a still later period it was again further modified so as to make it forbid “the growth, sale or manufacture” of the commodity.

     Another feature of the Discipline of the new Church which differentiated it from that of the parent Church was that of the conditions of membership. Persons have always been received on probation in the Methodist Episcopal Church on profession of “a desire to flee from the wrath to come.” As a result vast multitudes have thus entered the probationary relation who, if they ever had such a desire, failed to manifest it for any length of time by keeping the General Rules and pressing on until thoroughly converted; but at the expiration of their probationary period they have been recommended for membership in full connection, and accordingly received. In this way the Church has become largely filled with unconverted members—with those who are as much in love with worldliness and sin as they ever were, who ignore the restraints of ecclesiastical rules, and propose to have their fill of pleasure at the card-table, in the ball-room, at the theater, or wherever else they please, and in any and all kinds of worldly-conformity that is to their liking.

     Warned by this, the Free Methodist Church from the beginning has received persons on probation only upon their giving affirmative answers to the following questions: 1. “Have you the assurance of sins forgiven?” 2. “Do you consent to be governed by our General Rules ?“

     The object has been to keep unconverted persons from becoming members of the Church. Unless the bars are kept up at this point, there is every likelihood that sooner or later some of the Churches, if not the Church at large, will fall entirely under the control of unsaved men, and be conducted merely as clubs or social centers, with little or no regard to spiritual things. Who of us have not seen the practical out-working of this principle repeatedly in those bodies which receive probationers on a mere profession of “desire to flee from the wrath to come”?

     It may be asked, however, “Did not Mr. Wesley receive persons on probation on this condition ?“ We answer, Yes, into his “United Societies,” but not into the Church. The “societies” of early Methodism did not compose a Church, in the technical sense, but were “societies” within the national Church, designed to help such as were desirous of escaping the wrath of God in finding peace and assurance, and then to build them up in that “holiness without which no man shall see the Lord.” Mr. Wesley did not recognize the Methodism of his time as a Church, but simply as a union of “societies” within the Church of England, in which he himself was a regularly ordained priest, and from which he never separated. Nor did the Methodist “societies” separate from the Church of England until some time after Mr. Wesley’s death. It should also be borne in mind that those who continued in these societies under Mr. Wesley’s superintendency were expected and required to keep the General Rules as an evidence of their desire to “flee from the wrath to come.” Under this régime they either experienced genuine conversion, or soon ceased from their relation to the Methodist “societies.”

     Members were to be received into full connection in the Free Methodist Church only upon giving affirmative answers to the following questions, and upon consent of at least three-fourths of all the members present at a society meeting:
 

1. Have you the witness of the Spirit that you are a child of God?

2. Have you that perfect love which casteth out fear? If not, will you diligently seek until you obtain it?

3. Is it your purpose to devote yourself the remainder of your life wholly to the service of God, doing good to your fellow men, and working out your own salvation with fear and trembling?

4. Will you forever lay aside all superfluous ornaments, and adorn yourself in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and so-briety, not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array, but, which becometh those professing godliness, with good works?

5. Will you abstain from connection with all secret societies, keeping yourself free to follow the will of the Lord in all things?

6. Do you subscribe to our articles of religion, our General Rules, and our Discipline, and are you willing to be governed by the same?

7. Have you Christian fellowship and love for the members of this society, and will you assist them, as God shall give you ability, in carrying on the work of the Lord?

     It will be seen from the foregoing that candidates for full membership in the Free Methodist Church must publicly declare that they have the witness of the Spirit to the fact of sonship in the family of God; that they have experienced perfect love, or entire sanctification, or will diligently seek until they do experience it; that they will conform to the apostolic advice regarding dress; and that they will abstain from connection with all secret societies; four things not substantially covered by the conditions of membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church.

     It was venturing much for the infant Church to erect such a standard of membership, and such a course would never have been dictated by worldly policy. Those who were instrumental in starting the new movement were led to the adoption of such measures by the things they had seen and experienced under the more liberal policy of the mother Church. They had learned much by the things they had suffered. The wisdom of their measures was problematical at the time, and multitudes there are who question the saneness of such a policy to-day. For fifty-five years, however, the Free Methodist Church has maintained this standard in the face of fearful odds, and though her growth has been slow, it has been constant, and her influence for good has extended in manifold ways far beyond her own pale, having been largely felt by practically all ecclesiastical bodies in the country.

     The following editorial resumé of the doings of the Convention at which the Free Methodist Church was organized, and which appeared in the Earnest Christian of September, 1860, shows that the adoption of a Discipline was not inconsiderately done, and also furnishes some of the reasons that determined the brethren in favor of some of the new provisions adopted:
 

     About eighty laymen and fifteen preachers met in Convention, at Pekin, Niagara County, N. Y., on the 23rd of August, to take Into consideration the adoption of a Discipline for the “Free Methodist Church.” Quite a discussion took place as to the propriety of effecting, at present, a formal organization. When the vote was taken, all but seven—five preachers and two laymen— stood up in favor of organizing immediately.

     In considering the provisions of the Discipline presented by the committee, every new feature was scanned most closely and critically. The deep interest and close scrutiny of the intelligent laymen who were present as delegates must have convinced anyone that that Church is a great loser which excludes them from her counsels. After a careful examination, item by item, the Discipline as agreed upon was adopted with singular unanimity. It was as surprising as delightful to notice the similarity of views entertained by men who think for themselves coming from different parts of the country.

     The doctrines agreed upon are those entertained by Methodists generally throughout the world. An article on sanctification, taken from Wesley’s writings, was adopted. As a difference in views upon this subject Is one cause of the difficulties that have occurred in the Genesee Conference, it was thought best to have a definite expression of our belief.

     The countenance given of late by Methodist ministers In this region to Universalists, by affiliating with them, supplying their pulpits, and going without rebuke to their communion, rendered It necessary, in the judgment of the Convention, to have an article, drawn from the Bible, on future rewards and punishments.

     The Annual and Quadrennial Conventions are to be composed of an equal number of laymen and ministers. The Episcopacy and Presiding Eldership are abolished. Class-leaders and stewards are chosen by the members, and the sacred right of every accused person to an impartial trial and appeal is carefully guarded.

     Several searching questions relating to personal experience, and the purpose to lead a life devoted to God, must be proposed to every individual offering to join the Church; and, upon an affirmative response, he is to be admitted with the consent of three-fourths of the members present at a society meeting.

     It is not the intention to try to get up a secession. On the contrary, as much as in us lies, we shall live peaceably with all men. The wicked expulsion of several ministers for no other crime than simply trying to carry out their ordination vows, and the cruel refusal of the General Conference to grant us the hearing of our appeals, guaranteed to us in the most solemn manner by the Constitution and Laws of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the violent ejection from the Church of many of its pious and devoted members, whose only offense was that of sympathizing with us, as we are trying to endure “the affliction of the Gospel,” have rendered it necessary to provide a humble shelter for ourselves and for such poor, wayfaring pilgrims as may wish to journey with us to heaven.

     We are very firm in the conviction that it is the will of the Lord that we should establish free Churches—the seats to be forever free—where the Gospel can be preached to the poor. We have this consolation, and it is a great one, that if our effort is not for the glory of God, and does not receive His approval, It cannot succeed. And If it is not for His glory, we most devoutly pray that it may fail in its very incipiency. We would rather be covered with any amount of dishonor than have the cause of God suffer. We have no men of commanding ability and influence to help on the enterprise—no wealth, no sympathy from powerful ecclesiastical, or political, or secret societies; but all these against us—so that if we succeed, it must be by the blessings of heaven upon our feeble endeavors. We can not avail ourselves of any popular excitement in favor of a reform in Church government— or against slavery; but we are engaged in the work, always unpopular, and especially so in this age, of trying to persuade our fellow men to tread the path of self-denial—the narrow way that leadeth unto life.

     That the founders of the Free Methodist Church were devotedly attached to Methodism is evident from the fact that the Articles of Faith adopted by them were all borrowed from those of the Methodist Episcopal Church, except two,—that on Entire Sanctification, which is a reproduction of the words of Wesley, and reiterated in the chief doctrinal works of the Methodist Church, and that on Future Rewards and Punishments, which also is in full accord with the teaching of Methodism’s doctrinal standards—as also from the fact that they adopted most of the usages of early Methodism, and so much of the polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church as could be utilized consistently with their purpose to conserve more fully the rights of laymen in their ecclesiastical proceedings. The life tenure of the Bishopric was discarded, but an elective Superintendency, limited to four years, unless extended by reelection, was substituted therefor. The Presiding Eldership was not retained, but a District Chairmanship, which included the same idea of district supervision, though with less authority attaching to it, was adopted in its stead. The term District Chairman was changed to District Elder by the General Conference of 1894. The power of the ministry in the General Conference, and also in the Annual Conferences, was abridged by the adoption of lay delegation, thus anticipating by nearly fifty years the action of the Methodist Episcopal Church in regard to the admission of laymen to its General Conference. The Free Methodist Church from the beginning admitted lay delegates to the Annual Conferences, as well as to the General Conference, and that in proportion of one lay delegate to each regularly stationed preacher or supply. In respect to their admission to the Annual Conference the mother Church has not yet followed the example set by her offspring, though the call for it is in the air, and may yet materialize.

     In the Free Methodist Church, as in the parent body, there is a General Conference, which meets quadrennially; there are also Annual Conferences, Quarterly Conferences and Official Boards; and the various Church officials are in the main called by the same names. For the ministry the two ordinations—as Deacons and as Elders—are retained. Also the Free Methodist Church retained the Methodist system of local preachers, exhorters, class-meetings and class-leaders. Its methods in its Judicial Proceedings are much the same as those of the Methodist Church, except that it is somewhat more simple, and that the effort has been made to guard more sacredly and securely the rights of individual members. In regard to Temporal Economy, Educational matters, Ritual, and other things of less importance, the new Church has been largely modeled after the pattern of that from which she sprang. These differences have characterized it from the beginning, however: free seats in all its Churches; simplicity and inexpensiveness in the erection of Churches; no kind of entertainments allowed for the purpose of raising funds for religious purposes; neither instrumental music nor choir singing permitted in public worship.

     It will readily be seen, therefore, that the founders of the Free Methodist Church were much more anxious to build up a Church of earnest, humble, self-denying and devoted souls than to bid for the patronage of the rich, or to secure the following of the multitudes who, while professing godliness, fall under the apostolic classification— “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.”

[1] Bowen’s “Origin of the Free Methodist Church.”
[2] Life of B. T. Roberts, pp. 230, 231.
[3] Life of Roberts, pp. 233-235.
[4] Bowen’s “Origin of the Free Methodist Church.”