PX AX DUDA
RAN
_ Ms
NX ‘
_
OO
.
WY.
.
YH
as
-
A
Ze
. Se
\ _ ~~ \
\ \
\
‘
2S
.
\\
\\ \
-
AS
\< — \
A
S
\ WN XX .
\ \ \
\ \ \ \\ \
Oo’!
A
\ \ AX
_
NX
Cornell Aniversity Library
er a
A doers Ve ie. |
Cornell University Library
BX8381.E13 H62
“iii
029 471
olin
BX
838
E13
Hs
Peis TO RY
OF THE LATE
HAST GENESEE CONFERENCE
OF THE
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
BY
F. G. HIBBARD, D.D.
I take it, universal history—the history of what man has accomplished in this world—
is at bottom the history of great men who have worked there.— Carlysle.
Let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us;
And establish thou the work of our hands upon us;
Yea, the work of our hands establish thou it.—Moses.
NEW YORK:
PHILLIPS & HUNT, 805 BROADWAY.
1887.
& Vv
LH EBs
By Ras SG
PREPAC E,
Tur demand for a history of the late East Genesee
Conference is so patent to those who know the facts,
and so fully explained in this work, especially in Part
VI, Chapters I and II, as not to require statement
here. As to the method of obtaining material, we were
shut up largely to the testimonies of living men. Let
the men who have worked here, and had, under God,
with their progenitors, made East Genesee Conference
what it was, speak and tell “how fields were won.”
We claim that the legitimate idea of that instrumental-
ity which it has pleased God to ordain for the growth
and establishment of his kingdom upon the earth is
thus, and only thus, adequately given. The unwritten,
and apparently unhistoric, history is often the true his-
tory. We have, therefore, endeavored to enlist, by re-
peated public notices and private correspondence, every
member of our honored Conference. We have also
aimed to represent, by the same methods, every pastoral
charge, though a perfect success could hardly be ex-
pected.
We trust, however, that the otherwise “ missing link”
in the historical Methodism of Western New York will
4 Preface.
be largely found in the chapters of this work. We
trust, also, that the spotless name of our East Genesee
Conference will be fully vindicated as meriting the
confidence, fellowship, and praise of the Churches for
her loyalty, her vigorous growth, her active zeal, her
fearlessness in the right, and her soundness of faith. In
her honored individuality let her name descend to other
generations who shall do her justice and call her blessed.
Curron Sprines, N.Y., | F. G. H.
Oct, 20, 1886.
CONTENTS.
PART I.
1791—1848,
CHAPTER I.
GERMINAL History.
Asbury and Boehm—Otsego Circuit—Tioga—Seneca Circuit—Valentine
Cook and Thornton Fleming—First outlines of the subsequent Genesee
Conference in 1803—Holland Purchase Mission opened in 1807—Plan of
a circuit—The original Genesee Conference and its offshoots......Page 9
_ CHAPTER II.
Origin of East Genesee Conference—Relative strength of the Old Gen-
esee Conference—Necessity of division—Dr. Dennis’s statement—Bound-
aries of East Genesee Conference—Hearty hand-shake in anticipation
ACE OF CIVISION 6. ccsisécininte ete ledreeee Sardeeae al becawed a nenae 20
CHAPTER III.
First session of East Genesee Conference—Its status and outlook—Con-
ference Roll—Itinerancy unattractive to a worldly mind—Statistical items
—Genesee Wesleyan Seminary—Northern Christian Advocate........ 24
PART II.
_ 1848-1851.
CHAPTER I.
Plan of Appointments for 1848—Presiding elders’ districts—Church
growth—Contributions of pastors—Sanctification—Ultra and ascetic
Phety....ccceseceneccees efaceecha saa iatsie sateen ee) Si MING aussi d olaneonca es , 83
CHAPTER II.
~ Contributions of pastors ....... cee cece eens Gene eee iat eae tates sine 63
6 Contents.
CHAPTER III.
Contributions of pastors........ aianGs ei Sie) aver tedvereraiecs Faia alee aiate 85
CHAPTER Iv.
Contributions of pastors—-Gift of. exhortation.......... se eeee eee 104
PART III.
1851—1856.
CHAPTER I.
General Church items—Attitude on slavery—Church growth—Contri-
butions of pastors. ........ cece eee cece cern ne tee rent eneeeeeeees 122
CHAPTER II.
_ Contributions of pastors........ Siciprelenseresieeqmre ea whos eee 150
CHAPTER III.
Contributions of pastors...... Seeds Siew s SRE G olee es Vistas eine sales 165
PART IV.
1856—1864.
CHAPTER I.
Contributions Of pastors........ ccc eee eee eee eect ere cees 185
CHAPTER II.
Contributions of pastors..........-.2008 Aa Steeda Mahala MERA Sees 221
PART V.
1866—1872.
CHAPTER I.
Contributions of pastors............ sinters" asians Sse ahaha ¢ slate widens 000 246
CHAPTER II.
Contributions of pastors—Lay delegates—Genesee College and Syra-
cuse University—General Conference ii 55 cece: aware eadis seaeus Ns 0 B74
Contents. q
CHAPTER III.
Contributions of pastors—Lay delegation—Genesce College and Syra-
cuse University—-General Conference delegates for twenty-eight years—
Final résumé and results—Back to Old Genesee forever............ 293
PART VI.
1872—1876.
CHAPTER I.
The relation of the temporal economy of the Church to the spiritual
—Delicacy of changing Annual Conference boundaries conceded by the
Bishops—General Conference Journals establish by precedent the right of
an Annual Conference to give or withhold consent to a proposition for
changing its boundaries, and it is not competent for bishops or the General
Conference to change boundaries without the consent of the Conference
or Conferences concerned—The dissolution and extinction of the East
Genesee Conference—Its destruction needless—How it affected churches
—Efforts toward reconstruction, Mount Morris Convention—Doings of
the Convention—Conference reunion at Rochester, August, 1875—Final
preparations for General Conference in 1876..... ese ciseleled co aisaiele ee 319
CHAPTER II.
The case brought before General Conference in 1876—New and im-
portant legislation touching the changing of Annual Conference bound-
aries—The case of East Genesee Conference referred to Committee on
Boundaries—Action of committee, substantially restoring the East Gen-
esee Conference—Action of committee mutilated by sub-committee—Great
dissatisfaction with its mutilated form—Proposition to consolidate with
the Western New York Conference, and change the title back to Genesee
Conference—The consolidation effected, and the title of Genesee Con-
ference resumed
Nore.—The reader will find in the Index a complete guide to names
of persons and places, which will assist him adequately in consecutive
reading.
HISTORY
OF THE LATE ~
EAST GENESEE CONFERENCE
OF THE
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
PART TI.
1791-1848.
CHAPTER I.
GERMINAL HISTORY,
Aut history is the organic development of a germ. Its
embryonic stage is as legitimately a part of history as its
maturer stage. Organic life has its first stage in spermatic
life, from which it receives its form and type of existence.
The East Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church covered the ground and embraced the territory upon
and within which the Genesee Conference achieved its first
victories and received its form and title The heroic age
displayed itself upon the soil of the former, under the banner
and name of the latter.
It was in 1809 that Bishop Asbury, with his traveling
companion, Rev. Henry Buehm, was passing through Western
New York on horseback, when, not far from Auburn, the
bishop turned to his companion, and said: “‘ Henry, things do
not go right here. There must be a Genesee Conference,’
intimating,” says Father Boehm, “that it would be better if
that part of the Church were placed upon its own responsibility
and resources, both temporal and spiritual.” * For eighteen
* Letter of Henry Belin to the editor in 1859.
10 History of the Late East Genesce Conference.
years prior to the organization of this Conference there had
been regular supplies of Methodist preachers sent into Western
New York, among all the infant settlements. After the Rev-
olutionary War, the settlement of this then Indian country and
wilderness had been undertaken with great energy, awakening
a wide sensation, both in this country and in Europe, and the
enterprise marks an epoch in our national history.
With the advancing tide of immigration the Methodist
preachers kept pace. In 1791 Otsego Circuit appears on the
Minutes, and in the following year that of Tioga (N. Y.).
The former was connected with Dutchess Circuit, Freeborn
Garrettson, presiding elder, and was thus supplied from the
New York Conference. The Tioga Circuit, with Wyoming,
Newburg, Staten Island, Elizabethtown, ete., was supplied
from the Philadelphia Conference. The Tioga Circuit, at this
time, extended westward through Newtown (Elmira), to the
region of Seneca Lake, and as far as white settlements had
been effected. In 1793 the Seneca Lake Circuit first appears
on the Minntes. The district this year embraced four circuits,
namely, Northumberland (Pa.), Tioga, Wyoming, and Seneca
Lake, with Valentine Cook, presiding elder. The forming of
Seneca Circuit was a bold, hazardous measure ; but the leaders
were undaunted. The settlements calling for help were not
less than fifty miles in the wilderness beyond the farthest
western limit of the extreme western circuit. Tioga Circuit
was the frontier battle-ground at that time, and its center was
not less than one hundred miles distant. Here and there only
rude huts had been thrown up for the temporary abode of the
settlers, while their scanty means were generally exhausted in
the purchase of their lands, the expenses of moving, and the
outlays for the first year. ILow could they support the Gospel
in addition? And what inducement could they offer to men to
traverse Indian paths through solitary wilds, often rendered
perilons, for long and weary days, to reach their remote settle-
mments# Yet love, the love of Christ, triumphs over all, and
ITistory of the Late East Genesee Conference. 11
well did early Methodists know the power of this divine
affection.
The entire section of Western New York, of which we are
now speaking, was included at that time in the Philadelphia
Conference, and in the Wyoming District. The Conference
that year (1793) sat in the city of Philadelphia. Resolute and
earnest, Brother Ezra Cole, of Benton Center, Yates County,
N. Y., went in person to the seat of the Annual Conference,
at Philadelphia, three hundred and fifty miles distant, to inter-
cede that some man of God might be sent to these scattered
and lost sheep. A new field now opened itself before the
Conference, and they at once saw it was time to advance their
lines another stage in the wilderness, and run out the bounds
of a new circuit. Tioga Cirenit, as we said, had hitherto been
their westernmost battle-ground, and its reliance for support
may be judged of, when we say that its membership, all told,
was reported at seventy-one. Iow could they divide this feeble
and scattered band with a view to forming a new pastoral
charge, whose western wing might extend over the new and
remoter settlements? The project appears strange enough to
us in these times, and would be condemned as rash by our
modern notions of economy and ministerial support. Yet the
demands of the work knew no compromise. 1829
Samuel W. Wooster...........0. 1829
George Wilkinson.............4. 1829
Aiiad. Buck wa yoae sg eaeusass oe 1829
I, J.B. MeKanney's< sos cava ox were 1829
Wiiliam D. Jewett.............0. 1830
is. Was NEVINS sievern Saad esd eee 1830
Satiiiel PUrber, oa ccaceieetee e ear 1830
Hdward Uotehkiss........... +. 1830
Freeborn G. Hibbard............ 1830
Asahel N. Fillwore...........-.. 1830
James Durham,............ 00005 1830
Wilintt): Hosier .cc 6 as cae cateens 1831
Solomon Judd... ........... 00008 1831
Na han Fellows..............008 1831
Chandler Wheeler.............005 1831
Jot Shaweceeds cncase seine s 1831
Calvin 8S, Couts.......... 0.0008, 1831
Johu Robinson............. 000s 1832
Josepi) Chapman.............006 18.32
beuezer Latimer.............05 1833
Henry Wishers s.¢2:4 0x vececaas« 1833
History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
Time of
Names. Admission.
O. FB; Comfort say ces sac ca caonces 1833
Delos Hutchins...............0. 1834
Joseph T. Arnold.............0. 1834
Horatio N. Seaver.............. 1834
Moses Crow....... eee cence eee 1835
Ransley Harrington.............. 1835
William H. Goodwin............ 1835
JOM. DENNIS... ceciesieavieteagues 1835
John, Ge Guach esscc scree cases eed wes 1835
Wesley Cochran. scccccseeee cass 1835
Hiram Sanford..............005- 1835
Ref. Hancock: .cencssaasver gens 1836
Elbridge G,. Townsend........... 1836
‘Alpha Wright...... SQaaeares ones 1836
Carlos Gould... .ccce cece eee. . 1836
Daniel D. Buck.............06.5 1837
David Nutteits cn sicewieeneaeands 1837
Theodore McElhenny............ 1837
John Mandeville..............06 1838
Joseph K. Tinkham.............1838
Philo POW Ors sisi viene eee ires oes tee ose 1838
Porter McKinstry.............2. 1838
Joseph R. Tuttle ............02. 1838
Alexander Farrell.......4 444% «90 1838
Charles &. Davis.............04. 1838
David Feriiss svsscceee cu ose adissiane 1839
Orrin Trowbridge. ............6. 1839
Israel H. Kellogg. ..........0-005 1839
Isaiah, MeMaltatiss «ccs wax ceenncs 1839
S. Wy Alde@tincccscssca cess wes 1839
Samuel Nicole. ..<.sisnexe seas 1839
Daniel S. Chase............00085 1339
Thomas B. Hudson.............. 1840
Enoch H. Cranmer............65 1840
John N. Brown
Charles B. Wright
Thomas Stacey
Joseph Ashworth
Luther Northway
Richard L. Stilwell
Albert Plumley
Henry Hickole...565 66s: saece deans 1843
Austin EK. Chubbuck
Samuel B. Rooney
John Raines, Jr
Alexander C. Huntley
Curtis Graham
Abraham D. Edgar
James L. Edson
25
Time of
Admission.
Horace Harris............. 000s 1843
J. 1.8. Grandin
Nathan N. Beers
Richard M. Beach
William W. Mandeville
William Bradley
Albert G. Laroan
Ebenezer Colson
Lewis L. Rogers
The total number on the Conference Roll is one hundred
and sixteen, of which twenty-five were on the retired list,
leaving ninety-one effective men, on whom devolved the entire
responsibility and labor in the public pastorate and ministerial
field. Over half this number had been, as seen in the dates of
the foregoing table, only ten years old and under, in the minis-
try; but there were age and experience enough in the senior
half to give wisdom and stability in council, while the younger
half gave energy in execution.
They were men well schooled
in Christian experience, life, and labor, and in Methodistic
forms and discipline, and many of them were noted as earnest
and successful revivalists. Acting under a divine call to preach
the Gospel, they were not afraid to “ open their mouth boldly
to make known the mystery of the Gospel.”
3
26 History of the Late Hast Genesee Conference.
There was little at that time to attract a worldly mind to
the ministry of the Gospel, especially in the Methodist sphere.
The plan of ministerial support was the same as in the olden
times, brought down, with little variation, from the most prim-
itive Wesleyan economy and rigidity. The Discipline of the
time we are now considering, 1848, says: “ The annual allow-
ance of the married traveling preachers shall be two hundred
dollars, and their traveling expenses. The annual allowance
of the unmarried traveling preachers shall be one hundred dol-
lars, and their traveling expenses.” The Discipline further
says: “Each child of a traveling preacher shall be allowed six-
teen dollars annually, to the age of seven years, and twenty-
four dollars annually from the age of seven to fourteen years,”
etc. In addition it is further enacted: “It shall be the duty
of a committee appointed by the Quarterly Conference to make
an estimate of the amount necessary to furnish fuel and table
expenses for the family or families of preachers stationed with
them,” ete. In addition to this the stewards of each pastorate
are instructed to provide, or assist the preacher to provide,
houses, by rent or purchase, as parsonages.
Perhaps the reader will think this to be quite a comfortable
liberality. And so it was for the times when every body was
poor. In looking over the East Genesee Conference statistics
for 1848, we find six churches which paid over $500 per annum,
the highest being, $703 50; five which paid $500; and ninety-
two charges which ranged from $500 down to $187. The total
deficiency on salaries for the year 1848 was $8,582. This cer-
tainly is not flattering to the hopes of a worldly mind, nor a
small sum to be deducted from their frugal allowance. With
one hundred and five pastorates the churches could boast only
of thirty-four parsonages, which, for the itinerancy, gave no
very pleasing aspect.
The total raised fur missionary purposes for the year now
under consideration was $2,704 55; the “final total for benev-
olent objects, exclusive of the Sunday-school cause,” was
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 27
€4,877 52. In the Sunday-school department they report two
hundred and forty-two schools; two thousand one hundred and
fifty-five teachers; ten thousand five hundred and eighty
scholars; seventy-five Bible classes; four hundred and three
infant classes; expense for the year, $972 47; raised for mis-
sions, $251 51; conversions in schools, two hundred and eighty-
two.
These figures give a hopeful indication, for as yet there was
only a junior growth of the churches. The education of the
public mind is slow, and the crystallization of pious thought
and feelings into public customs and habits requires time.
Our total membership was sixteen thousand six hundred
and sixty-one, a goodly company to follow in the lead of
a chivalrous band of trained officers. The country was
still new, and men had just begun to relax the rigor of the
settler’s life and enjoy somewhat of the influences of home
and home culture, not to speak of the “kindly fruits of
the earth.” Here and there were to be seen vestiges of the
forest life in the surviving log-cabin, the newly tilled field, the
unsubdued forest, and the troublesome mortgage; but more
commonly were found the newly erected frame building and
the comforts of a pleasant, though unpretending, home. As
population and wealth increased, and facilities of common _
English education and religious privileges multiplied, the
clergy and churches kept pace; rather in these things they
took the lead.
The thread of our narrative here connects with the Genesee
_ Wesleyan Seminary, and it is proper to refer to its origin and
character. This I cannot do better than in the language of
Rev. Dr. J. Dennis, in his “Opening Address” in the semi-
centennial celebration of the institution, in 1880. As early as
1829 he says:
The sentiment was widely prevalent and sharply defined that the ma-
terial, educational, and social interests of Western New York and North-
ern Pennsylvania, as well as the regions beyond, imperatively demanded
an institution of learning of a high literary character; thoroughly per-
28 Lhistory of the Late East Genesee Conference
meated with sound religious principles and pure Christian influences; an
institution, under the control of a religious denomination, competent and
responsible for such oversight; a Christian supervision, not secturian in
the popular sense of that term, but influenced by broad Christian cathol-
icism, where no test of denominational shibboleths would be required;
where all might enjoy freedom of conscience and equal privileges. Upon
these broad principles of Christian catholicism and personal equality the
founders of Genesee Wesleyan Seminary based their institution and reared
the noble structure. The inspiration of this educational enterprise was
intensified by the division of the Conference, by which the Cazenovia
Seminary passed under the supervision of the Oneida Conference, and left
the Genesee Conference without any institution of a high literary character.
The preliminary action for inaugurating the Genesee Wesleyan Semi-
nary was taken by the Genesee. Conference, at the session held in Perry, in
1829. A resolution was introduced by G. Fillmore, and seconded by L.
Grant, that a committee be appointed to obtain information and report to
the next Conference preliminary measures for the initiation of this literary
enterprise. The committee was composed of G. Fillmore, A. Chase, L.
Grant, A. Abell, and John Copeland. The committee thus appointed
was extremely active during the year, in correspondence and canvassing,
and in efforts to secure the most favorable location, and the most liberal
local subscription toward the erection of suitable buildings. The report
of this committee was presented to the Conference, at the session held in
Rochester, in 1830. The report developed a most carnest and protracted
discussion, in which the strongest and most influential members of that
body participated. Perry, LeRoy, Henrietta, and Lima were competitors
for the location; Lima won. The Conference, at once, provided for a
provisional organization, by the appointment of a board of trustees, a
building committee, and the adoption of vigorous measures for raising
funds. The institution was opened in 1882 for the reception of students,
when the halls were immediately crowded with students and a career of
almost unprecedented prosperity commenced, which has continued
through five decades.
More than twenty thousand students have gone forth from these halls,
toimpress their influence and power upon the civilization of the nine-
teenth century. They have filled prominent positions in every profession
and honorable avocation in life; in the ministry, in the professions of
law, of medicine, in journalism, in the department of education, in the
judiciary, in State Legislatures, in the executive chair, in Congress and the
Senate of the United States. Through their reputation and influence, the
Genesee Wesleyan Seminary is known and honored in every land of
Christian civilization. The men who were prominent in inaugurating
this educational movement were prominent among the ministers and lay-
menof the Genesee Conference; adapted to the exigencies of the hour;
wise, far seeing, conservative; having faith in God and confidence in
men; comprehending the responsibilities of the present and grasping the
possibilities of the future, they laid deep and broad their foundations and
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 29
reared their structures for future generations. The names of Glezen Fill-
more, Loring Grant, Abner Chase, John Copeland, Asa Abell, Micah
Seager, M. Tooker, C. V. Adgate, Thomas Carlton, Israel Chamberlayne,
John Barnard, Francis Smith, Erastus Clark, Ruel Blake, John Lober,
Gideon Hard, Luther Kelley, F. K. Blythe, with their illustrious compeers,
constitute a galaxy worthy of cherished memories and honored record, in
any time or country. The men who shall gather here fifty years hence,
to celebrate the centennial jubilee of this institution, will call this roll of
honor, and the founders of Genesee Wesleyan Seminary will be cherished
in loving hearts.
To return to our narrative. The Genesee Wesleyan Sem-
inary had been the joint planting and pride, care and nursing
of the now two Conferences, and neither felt willing to resign
its interests in that noble and growing institution. The dispo-
sition of this delicate question only evidenced that it was a
bond of inseparable unity between the two. In simple geo-
graphical position the seminary naturally fell by division into
the East Genesee Conference territory, but in the act and in-
strument of division a proviso was inserted which placed the
seminary, in all time to come, within the bounds of each Con-
ference, alternately for a period of four years, according to the
measurements of the General Conference sessions. Under this
rule the first quadrennial fell to the East Genesee Conference.
The seminary was now in its glory. With astrong and active
faculty and a living grasp upon a wide extent of patronage,
and the sympathy and confidence of the churches and the
people, its promise of extensive usefulness was almost without
limit. In the years 1848-49 they numbered eight hundred
and ninety students. Under the tutorage of James L. Alver-
son, LL.D., principal, and Maria Hyde Hibbard, preceptress,
two of the first educators of any land, the school attained a
popularity and scholarship unprecedented in its history and
equal to that of any kindred institution.
Another factor in the status quo of the East Genesee Con-
ference is the new editorship of the Worthern Christian Advo-
cate. The Rev. Nelson Rounds, D.D., had served acceptably
in that relation during the previous four years. At this Gen-
30 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
eral Conference, 1848, the Rev. William Hosmer* was elected
to that office. He was at this time presiding elder of Wells-
borongh District, and had served as an itinerant minister since
1831. Already he had approved himself by his pen and his
public character as worthy of the trust now committed to him.
His career of eight years as church editor was highly success-
ful, and gave evidence that it was his favorite, as it had now
become his providential, sphere. He possessed a singular
power of attaching men to him by his frankness, honesty, fear-
lessness, and spontaneous good-will to all, not to mention his
wit and humor. His aptitude of perception was intuitional,
and if his opponent did not escape his scathing satire, so
neither could he be offended at his provoking self-possession
and good humor. In his advocacy of legitimate reforms he
was always a leader, and no one could turn him from his con-
victions of right. Charlatanism, hypocrisy, and selfish aims
he condemned without mercy. He was always up to the
times, his banner always floated on the enemy’s ramparts, and it
need not be said that his followers sustained the flag. Say what
he might, do what he would, those who knew him loved him.
We cannot better define his general principles and policy than
* it was in the fall of 1840 that the Rev. J. E. Robie, of the Oneida Cunference, a
practical printer and a careful financier, called on me to engage with him in starting a
new weckly paper to be called the Northern Advocate. It was only about a year
before that the Genesee Conference had settled the accounts of the Auburn Lanner,
the Western New York Church paper, and had hopelessly buried it. Dr. Robie pro-
poscd now to start a new paper with better financial promise. He was ardent and full
of hope, but with him all was conditioned upon my taking the editorship. I was
thoughtful, timid, and doubtful. Time passed on until importunity prevailed and 1
consented. We worked together harmoniously. The thought, the only thought,
with me was to have a Western New York Methodist family church paper.
Fr At the end of about a yearand a half 1 reported to Dr. Robie that I could not longer
take the time from my ministerial duties in a manner to do justice either to myself or
the paper, and wished him to release me. He regretted, but wished me to name a
successor. I recommended the Rev. William Hosmer. After consultation and some
delay he accepted the call, and with such aid as myself and certain other ministers
promised, the work moved on cheerily. Brother Hosmer at that time was a rising
star in our Genesee Conference, and as a writer had made a fine impression with his
pen upon the public mind. At the General Conference of 1844 Dr. Robie sold the
paper to that hody, and it became a church paper, as it is this day. Four years later
Brother Hosmer took the editorial chair of the Worthen Advocate.
Listory of the Late East Genesee Conference. 31
by an excerpt from his introductory address upon taking the
editorial chair. He says:
Custom allows, if it does not require, an editor on entering upon his
duties frankly to avow the principles which will govern him in his edi-
torial career. True it is that prefatory promises are not of much weight,
and that the chavacter of a paper cannot be fully known till it is actually
published; but on the present occasion nothing of the kind is called for,
or at least nothing further than to notice some considerations of general
policy. The circumstances of the case sufficiently determine the course
that must be pursued. A Methodist preacher set to edit a paper for kis
Church, should he depart from Methodism, would be recreant to his trust
—a sin which we intend not to commit. In general, therefore, the paper
will be precisely what it has been—Christian, Methodistic.
All this, however, implies no servility; it imposes no obligation to raise
the cry of innovation and heresy against all those who may differ from us
in opinion. Methodism was made for man; not man for Methodism. It
owes its existence to the vigorous, independent thinking of one man,
who, if he had suffered others to think for him, would probably have
died an obscure clergyman; nor can the system be perpetuated without
emulating both his independence and his deep reflection. We shafl en-
deavor to observe the medium between too much obstinacy, which pro-
duces revolution, and too much pliancy, which blights every thing, be-
cause it keeps every thing unsettled... .
To the editor is committed the task, not merely of collecting the latest
news, but of eliciting, and in some sort presiding over, the intellectual ex-
pression of the times. In this, now inseparable feature of our weekly
issues, by far the heaviest part of his labor is found. But if here is labor,
here also is usefulness; for it is by the sentiment and spirit which a paper
manifests that it assumes its religious character, and ministers to the edi-
fication of its readers. Whatever may be tle denominational character or
literary excellence of a periodical, if it be not thoroughly Christian, its
influence must be deleterious. A religious paper misleads, if it is not at all
times a fair exponent of the views and feelings of the Church, and if its
spirit be not rigidly conformed to Christianity.
The Northern Christian Advocate has heretofore been distinguished as
sound and pacific. These invaluable qualities we hope to maintain, and
shall endeavor to maintain at all hazards. A paper which is not above
suspicion is too low to command respect, and a controversial spirit is one
of the worst influences that ever infested a public journal. Calm, dispas-
sionate inquiry on all proper subjects will always be encouraged, but
bickering and strife will find no countenance. Newspapers, no less than
persons, are under obligation to live peaceably. Nor is there the least
necessity for the wrangling which has so often disgraced religious jour-
nals. The general rule, both for editors and correspondents, is undoubt-
edly the following: ‘‘ Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are
honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsvever things are of good report;
A
32 History of the Late Eust Genesee Conference.
if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think [and write] on
these things.”
We have given this somewhat lengthy extract, not only for
its intrinsic wisdom, suitable for all times and conditions; not
only for its opportuneness at that particular time when doc-
trinal discussions and political excitement were rife; but, also,
as a true outline or type of the man who now oceupied the
editorial chair. It is also as well a representation of the lead-
ing sentiments of his patronizing Conferences. The Northern
Christian Advocate has always been held as a vital element in
Western New York Methodism.
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 33
PART ITI.
1848—1851.
CHAPTER I.
Plan of Appointments for 1848—Presiding elders’ districts—Church
growth—Contributions of pastors— Sanctification —Ultra and ascetic
piety.
THE plan and field of operation for the year 18438, and the
personnel of the operators, are best given by exhibiting, in full,
the ministerial appointments for that year. The reader will
then apprehend the whole at a glance, both men and pastoral
locations. It seems, also, just to the living, and to the memory
of the sainted dead. The plan of appointments is as follows: ~
Quest. 17. Where are the Preachers Stationed this Year ?
ONTARIO DISTRICT. Manley Tooker and B. Shipman, Agents
J. W. Nevins, Presiding Elder. of Amencan Bible Society.
Waterloo, Jolin Mandeville. R D
Seneca Falls, A. C. George. OCHESTER: ISTRICR,
Ovid, Moses Crow. SamveEL Luckey, Presiding Elder.
Canoga and Sheldrake, R. Harrington, | Rochester, First Church, J. G, Gulick.
J. L. Edson. St. John’s (now Asbury), D. D. Buck.
dunius, J, K. Tinkham. German Mission, to be supplied.
Clyde, David Ferris. Penfield, T. B. Hudson.
Alloway, Jonathan Benson. Webster, Delos Hutchins, 8. W. Woos-
Lyons, William H. Goodwin. ter, sup.
Sodus, Martin Wheeler, one to be sup-| Ontario, Porter McKinstry, William W.
plied. Mandeville.
Vienna (Phelps), E. Latimer. Palmyra, I. H. Kellogg.
Manchester, Samuel Parker. Port Gibson, David Crow.
Castleton and Hopewell, Thomas Stacy, | Newark, Jonathan Watts.
A. Sutherland. Canandaigua, J. T. Arnold, Robert Burch,
Rushville, E. G. Townsend. sup.
Middlesex, John Caine. Victor, John Raines, Robert Hogoboom.
Benton, James Durham. Honeoye Falls, R. McMahon.
Bethel, Philo Tower. Lima, Wesley Cocliran.
Bellona, A. Plumley. Avon, Elijah Woods.
Milo, Edward Hotchkiss. Rush, Freeborn G. Hibbard.
Penn Yan, Alpha Wright. Henrietta, John Robinson.
Starkey, C. L. Bown, 8. B. Rooney. Pittsford, Zina J. Buck.
Geneva, John Denuis, John Copeland, Agent of Genesee Wes-
William Hosmer, Editor of Northern| leyan Seminary. .
Christian Advocate. Henry Hickok, Missionary to China.
34
DANSVILLE DISTRICT.
Joxas Dopge, Presiding Elder.
Dansville, David Nutten.
Bath, 8. W. Alden.
Avoca, S. Judd, I. J. B. McKenney.
Naples, Robert Parker.
Cohocton, Hiram Sanford.
Jerusalem, J. Hall, W. Bradley.
Potter, John Powell.
Conesus and Springwater, T. McElheney,
W. A. Barber.
Cokesbury and Richmond, Joseph Chap-
man, J. J. Brown.
Livonia, J. K. Tuttle.
Geneseo and Groveland, A. Farrill.
Mount Morris, J. Parker.
Nunda, Asa 8. Baker, T. Tonsey.
Angelica, Carlos Gould, V. Brownell.
Rogersville, to be supplied.
Hornellsville, John Knapp, J. Spinks,
H. Harris, sup.
WELLSBOROUGH DISTRICT.
N. Fettows, Presiding Elder.
Addison, Joseph Ashworth.
Troupsbure, A. C. Huntley.
Whitesville, Curtis Graham.
Ulysses, Flisha Hudson.
Wellsborough and Covington, 8: Nichols.
O. Trowbridge.
Tioga, Luther Northway.
History of the Late East Genesce Conference.
Knoxville, William Potter.
Corning, J. Wiley.
Painted Post, S. M. Brownson.
Urbana, R. L. Stilwell, R. M. Beach.
Towanda, J. N. Brown.
Cherry, S. P. Gurnsey.
Loyalsock, J. L. 8. Grandin.
Columbia, George Wilkinson.
Canton, H. D. Edgar, C. B. Wright,
sup.
Seneca LAKE District.
A. N. Frutmore, Presiding Elder.
Tyrone and Jefferson, Chandler Wheeler,
8. L. Congdon.
Orange, A. G. Laman, H. Wisner, sup.
Southport, FE. Colson,
Jackson, William L Haskell.
Wellsburg, W. HK. Pindar.
Burlington, L. L. Rogers.
Springfield, C. P. Davison.
Catharine, D. 8. Chase.
Havana, Ralph Clapp.
Hector and Mecklenburg, John Shaw,
one to be supplied.
Lodi, Charles 8. Davis.
Trumansburg, C. S. Coats,
Jacksonville and Enfield. O. F. Comfort.
Millport, A. E. Chubbuek,
Chemung, Elisha Sweet.
Fairport and Big Flat, E. H. Cranmer.
Elmira, H. N. Seaver.
The presiding elders, as representatives and superintendents
of the whole field of operations, were well chosen, and of varied
gifts. There was J. W. Nevins, a man of sound mind and good
judgment, of stern administrative qualities, and a good
preacher; A. N. Fillmore, with his broad good-will, and
the “charity that never faileth”—clear in his conceptions of
doctrines, and in his knowledge of church law and policy, firm
in his convictions, thoroughly evangelical, and of incorruptible
integrity; Dr. Luckey—the first American Methodist, it is
supposed, that bore that title—of venerable age, great experi-
ence, the first principal of the Genesee Wesleyan Seminary,
of long-tried ability, piety, and attachment to Methodism;
Jonas Dodge, a champion of progress and reform, in his
earlier years a leading platform speaker, ready to go (as
we have personally known) in his buggy, in the worst seasons
of travel, eighty miles to attend a meeting of the trustees of
\
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 35
the Genesee Wesleyan Seminary at Lima, a “son of thunder”
when inspired, and an earnest man in whatsoever he under-
took; and not least in the group is Nathan Fellows, always
discreet, always good, always sound and true, evangelical, de-
voted, active. Nevins, Dodge, and Luckey had passed the
meridian of life, the others were in full strength, flush with
hope of the future years.
Ontario District, as to the title, appears on the Minutes this
year (1848) for the last time. Henceforward the title of
Geneva District succeeds to the honor. A comparison of the
dates, 1819-49—the years of the assumption and abolition of
the title—will intimate the progress of civilization and of the
Church during these thirty years, as the reader will see in the
note below.* The same fate awaited the title, Seneca Lake Dis-
trict, which had stood on the Minutes since 1832, and was now,
in 1849, changed to Elmira District. Susquehanna District had
already run its race from 1810 to 1829, when it was changed to
Steuben District, and in 1832 to Seneca Lake District, which,
as we have seen, was finally changed to Elmira District. But
none had had the tenacity of life and the honor equal to the
* The title ‘ Ontario District ” first appears in the Minutes of 1819, George Gary, pre-
siding elder. In 1820 Abner Chase was appointed by Bishop George. Brother Chase
says: ‘‘I remonstrated, argued, and entreated, day after day, while the Conference
was proceeding with its business; but the bishop was inexorable. On a certain day
he took me far down into a meadow, and there assured me he should appoint me to
Ontario District, unless [ absolutely refused to go. He then kneeled and prayed with
me.... After returning home to Oneida County I spent a few days in making
preparation for my journey to my district, the nearest appointment on which was, at
least, one hundred miles; and to my first quarterly meeting was another hundred
miles, after reaching my district. I was an entire stranger to the country and people,
and it was, therefore, necessary, before removing my family, to go on myself and com-
mence the work, and seek a place for them. I accordingly started, and entered first upon
my district at Catharine. From thence! passed to Big Flats and Painted Post, on the
Chemung River ; and, fording the river near where the village of Corning now stands,
which was then a comparative wilderness, I visited a family by the name of Gorton.
After learning that I was yet fifty miles distant from the place of my quarterly meet-
ing, and it being then near the evening of Friday, I recrossed the river and procecded
up the Canisteo branch, between high mountains, and through an almost unbroken
forest of pine and hemlock, intermingled with oak, until night was closing around
me, when, coming to a small log-cabin, I inquired of the inmates if they could keep me
for the night, to which they answered in the affirmative, adding that they were in the
habit of entertaining travelers. But to me it was a place that did not promise many
36 History of the Late Eust Genesee Conference.
old Ontario District. We recall these dates and names, with
their associations, not without emotion. All the elder East
Geneseans will recall many names of old compeers and vener-
erable fathers now gone to rest.
To a government like that of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, where itinerancy is the vital element and central
power of its policy, it becomes a primary duty to remove all
avoidable friction of labor and delays in its operation. The
transition from one pastoral field to another must be made with
as little delay as possible, and with the greatest possibly econo-
my of health and convenience. This is not a matter affecting
the pastor and his family only, but the people as well. From
the beginning this has been a primal care. The great thought
of home life which, in some respects, is like ‘life on the ocean
wave, and home on the rolling deep,” as identified with the new
spiritual charge, must be realized as early as possible. The
preacher’s mind must be relieved from unnecessary care at the
earliest date, and the care of souls must be the absorbing
thought. The provision of parsonages, therefore, with the
material furnishments, becomes a necessity.
comforts, either for its occupants, or travelers, and I could see nothing that could re-
fresh my weary and hungry horse. They, however, assured me that they had some
fresh grass down on the river’s brink, where they could turn him. 1, therefore, alighted
and entered the place. But I had been in only a few minutes when a peddler drove
up, and he also must stop for the night, as no other house or cabin was near. But
before we laid down for the night the family informed us that we might hear the howl-
ing of wolves or the screech of the panther around the house during the night, but
that we need not be alarmed, as they would not break in. They also informed us that
the rattlesnukes sometimes crept up from under the floor; but they would put us up
upon the cross-beams of the house, whens was a piece of ‘rude flooring, and that the
snakes could not reach us there.
‘“‘ Before we laid down it was proposed that we should have prayer. This at first
scemed to startle the family, but it was assented to, and the whole family, peddler and
all, went down upon their knees when they saw me take that attitude. During
prayer the peddler in particular seemed much affected, so that when we laid down
together upon the straw he seemed more inclined to converse and inquire with refer-
ence to things eternal, than to sleep. About four o’clock the next morning I arose to
pursue my journey, having yet some miles to travel before reaching the place of destina-
tion. But the peddler insisted that it was unsafe for me to travel alone at that hour,
it being yet dark. He, therefore, accompanied me beyond this point of danger. He
was a person of gentlemanly manners, and I have hope of meeting him in heaven.””—
Recollections of the Past, by Abner Chase, pp. 187-141.
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 37
In looking over the East Genesee Conference records, at
the date of its organization, we find, for the entire Confer-
ence, thirty-three parsonages, for over one hundred pastors. If
we distribute these by districts, we find, for Ontario (afterward
Geneva) District, eleven parsonages ; for Rochester District, six;
for Dansville District, three; tor Wellsborongh District, five ; for
Seneca Lake (afterward Elmira) District, eight. It is true that
where there were no parsonages, an allowance was made
for house-rent, in addition to their salaries proper; but if we take
the actual allowance thus made for rented parsonages in 1848,
we find that, for the seventy-three effective men, who are thus
to be supplied, there were allowed an average amount of about
$51. And yet we were in the transition state from the “good
old times,” the herote age, to the golden era that has dawned
upon us. In the two following years, however, 1848-50, thir-
teen new parsonages were added to the list, which gave a hopeful
outlook upon the growing future, not ouly in the matter of
lifting burdensome secular care and discomforts from the pas-
tor and family, but as a living testimony of church sympathy
and love in the progress and permanency of the gospel kingdom.
In other departmeuts there was also an encouraging, gradual
growth. For the two years, 1848-50, twelve hundred mem-
bership net increase were returned on the Minutes. In the
Sunday-school department, twelve hundred and sixty schol-
ars increase. Jor missions, an advance of $1,650 on the
collections. For the superannuated fund—an offering al-
ways sacred, but never adequate to the demand—only
about an average of $37 per capita, in 1850, against $31 in
1848. But small as it was, the figures indicated progress.
It is strange, however, that such contributions, which appeal
at once to benevolent feelings and sentiments of justice, should
grow upon the Church so tardily, and never reach a fair pro-
portion, either to the ability of the Church, or the real neces-
sities of the case. In all the earlier history of the Church the
claim of a superannuated preacher upon tke Conference funds
38 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
was regarded asa right vested in him, irrespective of his finan-
cial ability. Latterly the funds have been considered as a
benevolence, to be divided and dispensed strictly according to
the necessity of the beneficiary. The change has been helpful
to the funds.
1. We come now to the regular reports of progress by the pas-
tors. The preachers entered upon their work with good cheer
and earnestness. Although the field of labor was inviting, and
much had been done, still “there remained yet very much land
to be possessed.” The plan of appointments began with On-
tario District, and one of the best pastorates on the district, or
in the Conference, was Geneva. Rev. Jun Dennis was pastor
here in 1848-49.
This was an old battle-ground. In 1804 Joseph Jewell,* a
warm friend of the Dorseys, and presiding elder of Genesee Dis-
trict, Philadelphia Conference, preached, according to the best
information, the first sermon ever preached by a Methodist in
Genesee. In 1810 Bishop McKendree preached here. The
same year Rev. Gideon Draper, presiding elder of Susquehanna
District, preached. Bishop Asbury, on returning from the
first session of the Genesee Conference, says: ‘Through two
showers of rain I made my way to Geneva. I lectured in a
school-house in the evening, from James iv, 8-10. I was
directed to forcible and right words.” But these were passing
sermons.
To return to our more direct line of thought, Dr. Dennis
says: ‘* Methodism was introduced in Geneva at an early
period. The Rev. William Snow preached here in 1812, when
it was only an appointment, though a regular one, in the Lyous
Circuit. In 1818 a class was formed of thirteen members.
* Among some early lettcrs in my possession is one from Brother Jewell to Judge
Dorsey, dated June 22, 1807—three years before the organization of the old Genesee
Conference. The letter is full of notices of hard work and glorious success, personal
friendships, ete. He alludes to “ Sister Deborah? Dorsey—the lato Deborah Chapin,
a well-known member of the Geneva Church, and an early active Christian. These
voices of eighty years ago lose nothing of their force hy time,
LTistory of the Late East Genesee Conference. 39
For a time they worshiped in private houses, shops, and
school-houses. In 1821 Loring Grant was preacher in charge
of Geneva and Canandaigua Circuit, with Chester Adgate
for his colleague, and under his administration a plain and
unpretentious church edifice was erected in the north part of
the village. In 1840 the present church was finished, chiefly
through the influence of Rev. Elijah Hebard, and was dedi-
cated by the Rev. Dr. Bangs, of New York. The effort was
herculean, but successful. This new departure was the in-
auguration of a period of great religious prosperity.”
Brother Dennis says: “There were many strong and influ-
ential men in the church at Geneva at the time of my ministry
there ; among them were Luther Kelley, Robert Murray, Robert
Mitchell, A. D. Platt, Philip Crane, Anson Wheeler, John
Simpson, with many others of precious memory. The Sunday-
school was a model, the best organized, best governed, most
efficient and successful with which I have been connected.
A. D. Platt was my ideal superintendent; his superior I have
never found. The class-meetings were better attended and
more conformed to the letter and spirit of the Discipline than
any other church with which I have been connected as pastor.
Anson Wheeler and Philip Crane were class-leaders at the
time, and contributed largely to the efficiency of this means
of grace. During my pastoral term the church was relieved
of an embarrassing debt, and we were favored with a good
revival. Geneva was among the first churches.”
2. From the Nunda Circuit good tidings of growth came to
us for 1848, from Rev. Asa S. Baker, preacher in charge. It
was his second year of probation in the itinerancy. His first
year’s labor was on the Victor and Bloomfield Circuit, which,
he says, “lying within the bounds of the eastern division
[of the Genesee Conference], I was by birthright an East
Genesean.” For junior colleague he had Rev. T. Tousey,
who joined Conference on probation that year. The circuit
embraced several appointments, with Nunda and Sparta Town-
40 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
ships as centers. Brother Baker had declined a salary of
$500 as teacher, and accepted one of $185 as itinerant.
Bat, nothing daunted, and heartily seconded by his ac-
complished and heroie wife, trusting in God, he went forward.
Ile says: “About two months after Conference a new church
was completed at Sparta, the result of the faithful endeavor of
my predecessor, the Rev. Robert Parker.” At Nunda they
had no church, and the society was small and poor. An old
church was purchased of the Presbyterians, and moved to an
eligible site in that beautiful village. But to raise the money
necessary to repair and improve it was yet an unsolved problem.
However, Peleg Coffin, a layman, a man of high standing and
faith in God, ‘one of nature’s noblemen and God’s anointed,
uniting with the pastor,’ every family in the village and within
three miles of the village was visited and solicited to subscribe
something to the new enterprise. In a few weeks the requisite
amount—$1,400—was raised, and the building was finished.
“ A gracious revival of religion soon followed in both appoint-
ments, resulting in the addition of about one hundred and
twenty to the Church.” Brother Tousey says: “I recall with
great pleasure the work and successes of that year.” It was,
indeed, a year of battle and victory.
Brother Baker continues: “ In 1850 I was placed in charge of
the Naples Circuit, with six appointments, located in five towns
and four counties, requiring three sermons and several miles’
ride each Sabbath. Mtcv. David Nutten was presiding elder.
I labored on this charge two years. At the commencement
of the second year a beautiful new church was dedicated.
Rev. Moses Crow, Principal of the Genesee Wesleyan Sem-
inary, preached the sermon. During my labors at Naples
there were precious revivals at all the appointments, resulting
in a large accession to the Church.”
3. The Rev. Porter Mclkxinstry was appointed to the Ontario
Circuit (Rochester District), with W. W. Mandeville junior
colleague, in 1848-49. Ie says: “ We found a membership of
Ilistory of the Late Eust Genesee Conference. 41
fonr hundred, with no probationers. At the close of the first
year we reported four hundred and twenty-six members, with
forty-one probationers. At Centenary Church, Sodus, the
membership was increased, from about thirty-five to sev-
euty, A good work of grace also at Hall's Settlement,
three miles from East Walworth, as the fruit of a series of
meetinus. In my first year on the charge there was a re-
markable revival at Macedon Center; among the converts
were quite a number belonging to the society of Friends,
many families of distinction. Also in other appointments on
the circuit were conversions. We held two very successful
camp-nicetings near Walworth, at which a large number were
converted. Dr. and Mrs. Palmer, of New York, with Mrs.
Langford, were present and labored efficiently, and a goodly
number entered into the enjoyment of perfect love. These
were two years of most gracious manifestations of saving
power. I can scarcely understand how we could perform so
much work; but there are exceeding great and precious
promises, and these were graciously fulfilled. As to our
salary, we were allowed each $367, of which we realized
$349 each. Salaries were less then than now, but we were satis-
fied with these amounts. They were a kind people, and we formed
many and very agreeable and pleasant associations. Most of
those dear friends are now on the other side of the river.”
Brother J. D. Kipp says: “The Ontario Circuit at that
time embraced eight preaching appointments, namely, Wal-
worth, Macedon Center, Hall’s Center, Ridge Chapel, On-
tario, Paltneyville, Centenary, and East Williamson. The
canp-meeting,” he adds, “held a little west of Walworth, at
which many were converted, was visited near its close with a
severe thunder-storm, in which all the tents but two were blown
down. These last contained persons who had been stubborn
all throngh the meeting, but were now awakened and con-
verted, and were thence called the ‘shower converts,’ but they
all remained faithful.”
4
42 LIhstory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
Brother Mandeville says: “The financial state of the
circuit was of the most systematic and efficient character
of those days. This was the result of the labors of an
Official Board, whose equal in nuinbers and strength and prompt-
ness I have not seen elsewhere during my thirty-six years
of itinerancy. The spiritual state of the charge was healthy
and sound. Brother McKinstry and myself spent two years
on the circuit, laboring together in complete harmony.”
The pastors were assisted by G. Osband; J. Nixon, a super-
annuate of the Troy Conterence; N.Secley, J. Frankenberger,
W. Sherburne, and George Baxter, local preachers, and many
others. The last named was a native of England and came
here in 1843, settled in Sodus, and was a member of the
Centenary Church. From Clarke’s Churches of Sodus, we
learn that “he had preached for a longer period in the same
place than any minister of any denomination in Sodus, unless
it be Elder Norton, of pioneer memory. Walking in all the
ordinances of the Lord’s house blameless, for more than thirty
years, Mr. Baxter and wife won the regard of the community
by the purity of their lives, the sincerity of their faith, the
ardor of their devotion, and the generous liberality of their
dispositions. Few ministers of any denomination have entered
Sodus as thoroughly educated as Mr. Baxter, and none have
given more conscientious, careful study to the sacred word
than he. Familiar with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, he had
that freshness of illustration, that clearness of explanation, that
can seldom be obtained except by reading the Bible in the
very languages in which it was written. Regardless of wealth
or fame, he lived among his books and his friends, content
to preach Jesus Christ and him ecrucitied.”
4. The Rev. T. Tousey was received on probation as an itiner-
ant preacher at the first session of the East Genesee Conter-
ence, 1848. His first appointment, as we have seen, was to
the Nunda Circuit. De was young, energetic, gifted, and
fully devoted to his work. He says: “In 1849 my appoint-
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 43
ment was at Painted Post. This was my first ‘move’ in the
itinerancy. I was alone, and my pastoral charge numbered
seventy or eighty members, partly in the village and partly in
the surrounding valleys and on the adjacent hills, with not a
dollar’s worth of church property, not a place for the preacher
or his family, and only a hired room in the third story where
we held service. I think I did better then than I should now
under such circumstances. The thought that it was a hard
and unpromising field never entered my mind. I struck for a
new church first of all. We purchased the lot, and had much
of the material tor building on the ground when spring
- opened. I helped to score the timber, and broke the first earth
for the foundation of the pleasant edifice which stands there
to-day, only now enlarged and improved. My expenses had
exceeded my income, and my presiding elder said I had
worked hard and had been a good boy, and he would send me
to a better place. In 1850 I was appointed to Addison. Here
I found a new church, fine congregation, an active and growing
society, and had a pleasant year. The health of Mrs. Tousey
had become impaired, and her physician recommended a
change of climate, and we were pleased when, in 1851, the
bishop assigned us to Dundee and Starkey Charge.”
5. In the annual Minutes for 1848 it is recorded for the
Hector and Mecklenburg Circuit, John Shaw for pastor, and
one to be supplied. It turned out that two junior preachers
were required, and the demand was supplied by D, Leisenring
and J. M. Bull. The latter, of whom we now speak, was of
English birth, and came to this country in 1832. In the same
year he was converted, before leaving England, and found a
church home first in Newark, N. J., and next in Sodus,
N. Y. He had always felt a tender drawing toward the
ministry,and when, in 1842, he returned to England to visit his
kindred, and stood in City Road Chapel and witnessed the ordi-
nation of fifty-nine young men by Dr. Bunting, Bishop Soule,
Dr. Hannah, Dr. Newton, and others, he solemnly conseerated
44 History of the Late Hast Genesee Conference.
himself to the sacred work. He now, 1848, as a local preacher,
was called in by the presiding elder, to serve on the Hector
Circuit. The old Hector Circuit, Brother Bull says, embraced
an area of “about one hundred square miles, including Meck-
lenburg, Polkville, Burdette, Reynoldsville, Block School-
house, Peach Orchard, Yellow Meeting-house, and McIntyre
Settlement. These were Sabbath appointments, We preached
three times every Sabbath. The residences of the preachers
were s0 distributed as to give to each about an equal territory
within which to exercise severally special pastoral oversight,
though as to preaching and general work they operated equally
and unitedly. We had several week-day appointments to ac- -
commodate remote localities, and by the general plan each
preacher passed his round and visited each appointment every
three weeks. During the winter of 1848 there was a glorious
revival in Burdette. It was a mighty work. The old inhabit-
ants speak of it to this day. A dancing-schovl was in progress,
but was broken up by the meeting, the comunittee, the fiddler,
and many of the leading ones being converted. Over sixty
were brought to Christ in a little more than three weeks.
Financially, some may think it was not a success. I received
for my year’s work $200; but I was happy in my work, and
happy in God. Next year, 1849, I joined the Annual Confer-
ence on trial, and received my appointment to Catharine.
Here, also, an excellent revival was given us, and the Otticial
Board unanimously voted for my return, but the bishop thought
otherwise, and appointed me to Southport, Chemung County.
Here, also, at Webb’s Mills, the Lord blessed us, and many
shared in his mercy.”
6. We have said that the presiding elder, A. N. Fillmore,
called in two junior preachers to supply, under the direction
of the senior pastor, the demands of the cirenit. The third
preacher was D. Leisenring, a young man of good promise,
and loving ardently the work. He had not yet joined the
Conference, but did so the ensuing year. Ile says: “ There
Listory of the Late Eust Genesee Conference. 45
were twelve regular appointments on the circuit, besides several
places where we preached occasionally. The Lord prospered
the work, giving us blessed revivals at Burdette and Hector
Chapel, and some conversions at other points of the charge.
When I started out it was with some misgiving on account of
feeble health, but feeling it an imperative duty to make the
trial, I ventured. By horseback traveling, and observing the
rule ‘not too speak too long nor too lond,’ through the divine
blessing the way seemed clear, the ensuing year, to join the
Conference. The Conference session was at Elmira, 1849,
Bishop Hamline presiding, when and where I entered the
regular work on trial, and was appointed to Wellsburg Mission.
Here, with my excellent wife, whom God had given me the
preceding year, commenced at once my home and my pastoral
work. The year was marked with a good degree of prosperity,
some conversions, and a new church was dedicated. The way
seemed clear for my re-appointment, but good Bishop Waugh,
the presiding bishop, had a policy, one of the features of which
was, that no probationer of Conference should be appointed to
the same charge a‘second year. Whether this were wise or
otherwise I cannot say, but will give it the ‘benefit of the
doubt’ and regard it as wise. My appointment in 1850 was
Springfield, Pa. Nothing worthy of special notice occurred,
unless it be that the ‘estimating committee, appointed to
ascertain what was necessary for the preacher’s support vver
and above the $200 allowed by Discipline, reported to the
Quarterly Conference the sum of $35! We had on the charge
a degree of prosperity, but nothing notably out of the usual
course of things.”
In 1851-52 Brother Leisenring’s field of labor was at Bur-
lington, Pa., and the adjacent territory. He says: “Here I
found eleven preaching places ; two or three churches, all the
rest school-houses. ‘These must each be supplied once in two
weeks. I think that, with extra meetings and funerals, I aver-
aged more than one preaching service for each day during the two
46 Mistory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
years’ pastorate. Though these were years of toil, yet I record,
with grateful recollection, that they were years of success.”
7. Rev. A. D. Edgar says: “My appointment, in 1848-49,
was to Canton, Pa. This circuit had been for many years
under the cultivating hand of itinerant Methodist preachers.
My assistants were ©. B. Wright, sup., and Levi Landon,
local preacher, the latter celebrated for the great amount of
preaching and gospel labor which he bestowed in that region.
Other lay helpers, Brothers Brown, Bloom, Stone, Vandyke,
Warren, Sopers, and others, deserve special note. There was
now but one church edifice on the charge, called a Chapel, a
very plain structure, not quite in keeping with the improved
state of the country. We here found a parsonage in process
of completion, yet not so as to be occupied; the first in our
itinerant experience. What a relief! No landlord could
notify us to leave at his will. We had six regular appoint-
ments to fill every two weeks. No indication of improved
spirituality appeared until New Year’s. We held a watch-
night at a place where secession and strife prevailed; but God
graciously poured ont his Spirit, and saved the whole society
from the threatened ruin. In June, 1849, we succeeded in
getting up a camp-meeting in the town of Franklin, where we
had but a small society, and, to human view, but little to en-
courage us. But the appointed time came, and the people
came, and the power of God came to an extent beyond expec-
tation, The strong oaks bowed before the mighty power of
God, and the ery was heard in all directions, ‘ What shall I do
to be saved?’ It really seemed that all who set foot on the
ground were convicted and awe-stricken. The preacher who
kept the account reported one hundred converted! A series of
meetings held in a school-house, after the camp-meeting, found
numerous souls who were convicted. In 1849 I was ordained
elder by that good man, Bishop Hamline, and by him re-
appointed to Canton Circuit. The ensuing fall we had a good
revival, though not extensive in numbers, yet of value to the
History of the Late Hast Genesee Conference. 47
cause, especially to the Chapel society, the old hive of Meth-
odism. We held another camp-meeting on the ground oe-
eupied the previous year, though profitable, yet with apparently
less success. One of the converts became a minister of the
Gospel in another Conference; another, Ralph Brooks, be-
came an East Genesee preacher; and a third, C. M. Gardner,
reclaimed, and put into the ministry, where he still remains.
My step-father, nearing eighty, unconverted, who had resisted
conviction on the camp-ground, was so wrought upon after his
return, that his cry for mercy at the midnight hour alarmed
the house. They came and entered into prayer the remaining
part of the night. He was converted, after a few years died,
saying: ‘I leave the world in peace with God and man.’
Thus,” adds our brother, “the two years of our anxiety and
toil passed swiftly away on the old Canton Circuit, in a pros-
perous way, both to ourselves and the cause in general.”
In 1850 the Conference was at Bath, and Brother Edgar
was appointed to Knoxville, Tioga County, Pa. with N.
Fellows as presiding elder. The pastorate lay in the fertile
valley of the Cowanesque, and his residence some twenty miles
up the creek from Lawrenceville. “ Here,” he says, ‘at Knox-
ville, we found a parsonage quite old and dilapidated; yet it
was our home, and we felt thankful. We were soon settled.
If we had found-all things as inviting as the parsonage, a much
better state of things, religiously, would have prevailed. We
here found twelve appointments to be filled every fortnight. The
presiding elder provided me a colleague, in the person of Job
Goldeen, a local preacher of fair talents and a good, spiritual
brother. Onr circuit, with its twelve preaching places, extended
into Potter County, some forty or fifty miles in length, includ-
ing the rich valley of the Cowanesque, with four quite thrifty
villages, each supporting a number of stores, taverns, shops,
and one large distillery, that consumed quite a quantity of the
grain raised on these rich river flats. Yet, in the long distance
above uamed, not a single church edifice was found to invite
48 Listory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
and protect the worship of God. My predecessors had agitated
the subject of church building, and a subscription was started
for one in Elkland village, which was completed and dedicated
during my first year.”
In 1851 Brother Edgar was returned to Knoxville. The
building of a church at Knoxville was a leading thonght and
aim, and an awakened conviction of the need of one was
effected by a series of deaths of several prominent citizens,
there being no place but a school-house to convene the people
for a decent, Christian funeral service. But “the money of
the place was chiefly in the hands of infidels, who would not, as
yet, contribute to build a church even to meet the wants of a
funeral service. The death of Squire Knox, a prominent
citizen, had a marked effect in stirring up the people to serious
thought, and also of church building. Soon after this Dr.
Temple—a man of superior standing in his profession, and of
skeptical professiun—was taken seriously sick. There was a
determination, as it appeared, to shut out all pions influences
from his sick-room ; hence, at my first call, 1 was not permitted
to see him, but left for him the simple message of kind regards
and sympathy. A few days after the doctor himself sent a
message to me to call and see him. I immediately repaired to
his house. I found him willing to converse on the subject of
his soul’s salvation. I talked frecly and plainly, while the
penitential tears rolled freely down his face. A day or two
after he again sent for me. I asked the messenger, who was
an unbeliever, ‘What does he want of me?’ He replied:
‘He talks of now believing in a future state of existence.’
As I entered into his room he took me by the hand and
exclaimed: ‘O, Brother Edgar, ever since your first call on
me I have felt a great burden on my mind, and have prayed
that it might be removed. It is partly gone. I want you to
pray it may be entirely removed, so that I may be clear in my
mind. Can’t you stay with me all night, and pray for me?’
‘Yes, doctor,’ I said, ‘we will stay with you.’ So we wrestled
History of the Late Kast Genesee Conference. 49
like Jacob, and prevailed. He came out in the clear light of a
glorious Christian experience. As he spoke, the family and
the promiscuous company of friends wept profusely. What a
memorable night! One result of these divine dispensations of
judgments and mercies is, that a Union church was soon built,
but afterward gave way to two or three denominational churches
in that place.”
8. In 1841, at the urgent request of the church at Genesee, and
of the presiding elder, W. R. Babcock, Joseph Ashworth, then
in the seminary at Lima, reluctantly left his studies to supply
an imperative want in the Groveland and Geneseo Circuit. He
engaged for the balance of the year. As the result of a gracious
revival, one hundred and ten were added to the Church. The
next year, 1842, he joined the Genesee Conference, and was
appointed to Naples Circuit, with T. M’Elhenny as senior col-
league. He says: “The preaching appointments were Naples,
Cohocton, Liberty, Garling House, Hunt’s Hollow, Lent’s Hill,
Riker Hollow, Peck’s, Lincoln’s, Northrop’s, Springstead’s.
Honeoye Lake, and Doty’s Corners. At nearly all these ap-
pointments we had a series of revival meetings, resulting in
accessions to the societies. Local brethren, Peck, Bush, Trem-
bly, Springstead, and Hare, rendered efficient aid to the pastors.
My private memorandum shows a list of eighty-eight received
on trial. On this list I find the names of George Burnett and
L. D. Davis, who became ministers, the latter noted as author
of Life in the Itinerancy, Life in the Laity, Creeds of the
Churches, Early Dead, etc. In 1843 I was appointed to Tioga
and Manstield. A series of mectings was held at Covington
with apparently small results. On a rainy, dark, discouraging
Saturday night, with but few at meeting, a small boy went to
a little cousin and induced him to go to the anxious seat for
prayers. As they bowed there, Mr. Dyer, suid to be the richest
man in the county, started from his seat and knelt between
-these two little boys, and there made a surrender and conse-
cration to God. This gave a wonderful impetus to the work.
50 Listory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
Many followed his example. Another notable conversion, that
year, was that of Peter Reap. The Brick Church at Lawrence-
ville had been sold for debt the year before, and Mr. Reap had
bought it. After his conversion we received him, and his wife,
and the meeting-house, into the Church.” At Troupsburg,
1844-45, he received ninety on probation, built a parsonage, and
started the building of a church. Nota church, or parsonage, or
place for his family, except as boarders, hitherto was found on
this charge. The next charge was Whitesville, 1846-47, with its
eight preaching appointments. In 1848-49 he served on the Ad-
dison Charge. During the first year of his labors, the first Meth-
odist Episcopal church in the place was completed and dedicated,
and another semi-gothic chapel built, and paid for before dedi-
cation, at Rathboneville, one of the appointments, with only five
members in the society when the subscription was started. On
the whole charge one hundred and two were received into the
Church. During the second year at Addison, Brother Ashworth
was assisted, as ajunior preacher, by Daniel Clark, who joined the
Conference that year. He was a sincere and earnest disciple
of the Lord, possessed a good native talent, and gave promise
of good success for the future. He rendered important service
at Addison in his first year in revival work.
9. In the year of the organization of the East Genesee Confer-
ence Daniel D. Buck was appointed to St. John’s Church (now
Asbury), Rochester. Touse his own language,“he was an original
member of the East Genesee Conference, and his membership
continued as long as the Conference existed.” At thirteen years
of age he embraced religion. At nineteen years he became
a class-leader, soon after which an exhorter’s license was given
him, which was faithfully used in Rochester and vici:ity. In
1837 he was licensed to preach, and that same year joined the
Annual Conference, and was appointed junior preacher to Roy-
alton and Middleport Circuit. The circuit was chiefly in the
county of Niagara, including the towns of Royalton, Hartland,
Somerset, Newfane, and a portion of the town of Lockport—
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 51
a regular six weeks’ circuit, each of the three preachers being
_ required to visit each appointment in order once in six weeks.
There were revivals that year of considerable extent at Chest-
nut Ridge, Hess Road, Kempville (now Olcott), and Johnson's
Settlement. The next year the circuit was divided, and
Brother Buck was appointed to the Middleport section, with
Levi B. Castle senior preacher. That year they had good re-
vivals at five different points on the circuit. In 1849 he was
appointed to the Lewiston Circuit as senior. A great revival
had marked the previous year on this circuit, under the labors
of William D. Buck, brother to D. D. Buck, and the latter
was chosen by the presiding elder, Glezen Fillmore, with
special reference to the care and nurture of the converts.
Nevertheless, there were considerable revivals at Wils.»n, Ran-
somville, and several other points; but more especially, says
Brother Buck, “at Dickersonville, where the revival was pow-
erful and extensive. The place had previously been called
‘ Hardserabble,’ but after the revival the society, being largely
increased, was duly organized as a church, and took for its cor-
porate title the name of Dickersonville. Measures were taken
to build a church, which was afterward effected. As at Dick-
ersonville, so at North Ridge, a good stone church was subse-
quently erected.” At his appointment, Le Roy, in 1841, an
extensive revival was enjoyed, beginning with two awakened
persons in a prayer-meeting on a stormy night, and but few
present. At Stafford, also, the following two years, “a goodly
number were converted ;” at East Bethany, some church im-
provements and valuable additions to the membership were
realized, among which was one young man, who is now a pro-
fessor in the Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, Ill; at Roa-
noke there was a good revival and a society duly organized and
a church edifice built. In Careyville, 1844-45, the church en-
joyed a powerful revival; many of the students of the Carey
Collegiate Seminary were converted. In 1845 his appointment
was at Lima, and here also a gracious revival was realized.
52 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
Many of the students of the seminary were reckoned in the
number converted. At Dansville also, the following year, ad-
ditions were made to the membership, and an advanced spiritual
state crowned the labors of the year.
The appointment of Brother Buck at St. John’s, in 1848-49,
was judicious and acceptable. The charge had been known
as East Rochester, from which it was now first changed to
Saint John’s, and subsequently to Asbury Church, It was
now twelve years from its organization, and had been served
in succession by D. P. Kidder (1886), afterward known as
Sunday-school Editor, New York, and still later as Professor
in the Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, Ill.; by John
Parker, William H. Goodwin, Manly Tooker, Dr. 8. Luckey,
F. G. Hibbard, J. M. Fuller, and Schuyler Seager, the latter
celebrated as the Principal of Genesee Wesleyan Seminary,
and not less as a popular preacher. The society had grown
up against great financial embarrassment, and at the time now
mentioned demanded the full vigor of the twofold ministerial
talent, namely, of pastor and preacher. These they found in
the new incumbent. The work of the year was not marked so
much by revivals and accessions as by instruction, establish-
ment, and church culture. In all legitimate departments of
church growth the years of Brother Buck at St. John’s were
a success. Ie had been called to meet the exigencies of a
noble church imperiled by debt, and rightly judged that his
first duty was to conserve and upbuild the material already
brought together by revivals through the labors of his prede-
cessors. This he did, not, however, without a gradual increase
of new converts as well. In addition to all other church cares,
the German Mission Church, now in its infancy, required the over-
sight and aid of the other Methodist Episcopal churches of the
city, and the North Street Methodist Episcopal Church, also, was
organized and placed under the pastoral care of the pastor of St.
John’s. As we shall have occasion hereafter to speak more
fully of the latter church we defer further statements at this time.
LMistory of the Lute East Genesee Conference. 53
The following year (1850) we find Brother Buck at Lyons.
Prominent in the line of embarrassments, he here met the stu-
pendous scheme of building a house of worship that should
overshadow any similar structure in that region. What would
be a “new departure” in those days would be only on par at
the present. The conception was noble and praiseworthy, so
far as the ‘abstract idea is concerned, but for the times and
means then present it involved an expense and an amount of
care somewhat perilous, and not favorable to the immediate
spiritual growth of the church. In a church edifice in such
a village now $20,000 would be simply praiseworthy, not
extravagant.
Some of the more plain and conservative Methodists thought
that God would not bless the church and save souls in such a
. beautiful and expensive house. The bell, too, was grand, and
about four hundred pounds heavier than any thereabouts.
The organ required to be compromised, so that “ prelndes and
interludes and voluntaries” should be omitted. The seats
were elegant sofas, ordered from Boston. Prudent and careful
men trembled for the ark of God. ‘The society held its
meetings in the Union School building till the basement rooms
should be finished.”
“Tn the meantime,” says Brother Buck, “revival influences
began to prevail in the congregation, and evening services
were multiplied About midwinter a powerful revival was
prevailing, and people of all classes and conditions were con-
verted. The special services continued eight weeks. There
were but three or four sermons preached during all that time,
except by the pastor, who took charge of all the services, and
labored to the utmost of his ability. The uniform custom was
to dismiss the evening meetings at nine o’clock, and then re-
commence, and continue.as long as seemed profitable. Some-
times a few praying brethren would go with a group of seekers
to some house and Jabor till they had obtained the blessing.
At one of these’ late night meetings two merchants and a law-
54 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
yer were reclaimed or converted. It was not unusual to hear
of conversions that had occurred in these late meetings when
friends met in the morning. The most of the converts joined
our Church, and new families and groups were added. Not
long after the revival services closed the audience room was
finished, and the church dedicated. Abner Chase preached
the first sermon, and Henry Hickok preached in the evening.
About $10,000 were raised at that time from the price of seats.
From time to time the church debt was thus greatly reduced.
It was undoubtedly true that the powerful revival was largely
influential in helping the church through its financial difficul-
ties. Some of the old and very plain members feared that
God would not bless the Methodist people in such a beautiful
and expensive house. The new pipe organ was viewed in the
same jealous Jight. But by prudent management these were
overcome. Old Methodist hymns and tunes were used, and
one of those fearful ones finally gave in and said, ‘O this
organ is all right! it can play Methodist tunes’ ”
Thus the two years closed pleasantly.
10. Brother Thomas Stacey came to the ministry in early life.
In 1842 he joined the Genesee Conference, in the same class
with J. Ashworth, L. Northway, and R. L. Stilwell, ete., who
still live. His first impression was favorable. He possessed
good natural and acquired abilities, an agreeable voice, pleas-
ing address, with a pulpit style always chaste and elevated,
and a doctrine always sound and evangelical. With great
reverence for the pulpit, his unconscious play of the imagina-
tion relieved his style from prosaic dullness, and gave a fresh-
ness and force to his messages. He is one of the Lord’s gifted,
though chastened, ones.
Brother Stacey’s first appointment in the East Genesee Con-
ference, 1848, was at Castleton and Hopewell, with Rev. A.
Sutherland, colleague. Although, geographically, one of the
most pleasant circuits in the Conference, yet, he says, “It was
a year of severe family affliction, and of hard but successful
Lhistory of the Late East Genesee Conference. 55
work, Some revivals were enjoyed at the different parts of
the circuit. In the secular sphere we raised $600 to cancel
a troublesome debt, which thereby secured the title to the
property which was conditioned on the payment of said debt.”
In 1849-50 he was appointed to Dundee. “ Here a large
and most glorious work of God commenced immediately after
the dedication of the new church, bringing one hundred and fifty
addition to the membership the first year, and from thirty
to forty the second year, two memorable years for pastor and
people. Praise the Lord!” In 1851-53 he was appointed to
Ovid and Sheldrake, “where, amid some strifes, a gracious
revival of the work of God occurred, the first year at Ovid, and
the second year at Sheldrake, adding about eighty members to
the Church. I found a kind people,” he says, ‘on this historic
charge, with its yearly revivals. ‘Poor, but making many
rich. ”
11. In 1848 Rev. John G. Gulick was transferred from the
Genesee Conference, and stationed at Rochester, First Church.
The history of that church is as marvelous as that of the city
itself. Dr. J. Dennis says: “ The first Methodist service in
the city was conducted by Rev. Elisha Honse in the private
honse of Frabricius Reynolds, near the intersection of Fitz-
hugh and Buffalo Streets. The first Methodist society in the
city was organized in 1820. The first house of worship, built in
1826, was a plain brick structure, of seating capacity for nearly
five hundred. This church was afterward enlarged, but it was
still inadequate. The great stone church, corner of Buffalo
and Fitzhugh Streets, was erected in 1831. It was in advance
of any thing in Rochester, which was then a village of about ten
thousand, The edifice was 104 by 80 feet, with a seating capacity
of nearly two thousand. The basement rvoms were let for stores.
It had twenty-one class-rooms. Its cost was $40,000. On Jan-
uary 5, 1835, this grand edifice was consumed by tire, with no
insurance, and an indebtedness of $21,000. The society then
returned to the old brick chapel on the east side of the river.
56 Llistory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
In 1838 a new chureh edifice was dedicated by the Rev. Dr.
Noah Levings. The new church was of the same dimensions
as the former, with interior modifications. In this the society
worshiped until 1857, when it disposed of the brick church
and purchased the site on which the present church stands,
occupying the basement of the new church until it should be
completed. Dr. J. M. Reid preached the dedicatory sermon
on February 7, 1861. During the early history of this church
some of the most eminent and successful ministers served at
her altars and officiated as pastors. Among them were Elisha
House, Reuben Aylesworth, John Dempster, Zachariah Pad-
dock, Gideon Lanning, and Glezen Fillmore. During the min-
istry of Dr. Dempster a very powerful revival commenced at a
watch-night, which permeated the whole community; not less
than seven hundred are supposed to have been converted in
the different churches; two hundred of these were received into
the Methodist Episcopal Church. In these early times the germs
of church enterprise came on by degrees. The first Sunday-
school was opened in Rochester in 1818, with thirty scholars.
This was divided and held in different localities. The first
Methodist Episcopal Sunday-school was organized in 1826, and
the early superintendents were William Myers, Willis Kemp-
shall, J. Barnard, B. Colby, Nathaniel Draper, and others.”
From this somewhat lengthy but interesting retrospect we
resume our direct East Genesee annals. The name of John
G. Gulick always awakens grateful memories. He stood
before the Church and the world as a minister of God for fitty-
one years without the breath of complaint for impropriety, a
man of sound judgment, inflexible justice, clear perceptions,
and the charity which “never faileth.’ Like the elect of
Sardis, his garments were unstained. If he had a fault, it was
in the excess of modesty, but in questions of duty or of truth,
justice or expediency, he never lacked firmness or r unbiased
judgment. Ile wrote:
“When the East Genesee Conference was constituted, in
Listory of the Late Hast Genesee Conference. 57
1848, I fell, by geographical position, within the bounds of the
Genesee Conference. At that time I was presiding elder on
the Rushford District. The time of the division, which sep-
arated the East Genesee from the Genesee Conference, was
apparently unfortunate, because just then the leaven of cen-
soriousness and fanatical tendencies was beginning to work,
which greatly retarded the progress of our work in following
years, in that [Genesee] Conference. What would have been
the effect had the old Conference stood intact I cannot say, for
when men indulge the spirit of fanatical censoriousness, under
profession of a higher grade of piety, reason and logic have but
little effect. But as I was invited by Brother Dennis and
other early friends to identify myself with the East Genese-
ans, I gladly consented to be transferred. 1 was accordingly
transferred and appointed,” he adds, “ to the First Methodist
Episcopal Church in Rochester in 1848-49. My predecessor
was Brother John Dennis, who was highly esteemed by the
membership and congregation which he had faithfully served
the two preceding years.”
But a formidable difficulty soon met him. The Sabbath-
school, and the church taking sympathy, were divided, as to
the claims of two rival candidates for the superintendency,
both claiming to have been elected, and both set forth claims
to a legal election. The prudent advice of the pastor relieved
the question to the satisfaction of the parties as to its legal
bearing,-but failed to harmonize the feelings. A new and
“third” Methodist Episcopal church in Rochester was talked
of, and finally, by approval of the presiding elder, about one
hundred members withdrew by letter and organized as a dis-
tinct church, with Dr. 8. Luckey pastor. These, however,
after a few years, dissolved their organization, and were mostly
absorbed into the other Methodist Episcopal churches of the
city.
At this time spiritualism, as it was called, or the direct
communion and correspondence with the spirits of those who
5
58 Listory of the Late East Genesee. Conference.
have departed this life, was rampant, and many professed and
declared the communications t» be actual and valid. The fallacy
and heresy found their way into the churches. The new pre-
tensions claimed to be not only scriptural, but superior to the
written word; an advance, in knowledge of the supernatural,
upon all former discovery. They now knew of a method of
acquiring knowledge of the eternal states of the dead, and of
the past and future, more perfectly and directly than by every
other method or medium hitherto known. This necromancy,*
-as it was anciently called, was exactly that which the Old
Testament prohibited under pain of death. Deut. xviii, 9-11;
1 Sam. xxviii, 9-11. Rochester became the center and source of
these pseudo revelations, and the churches were in perplexity
to know how to antagonize, and with what measure of disci-
pline to treat, the novelty. It was clear enough, to all reflect-
ing minds, that if by some other source than that of Holy
Scripture we could obtain knowledge of the invisible world
and the states of the dead, and knowledge in advance of Bible
limits, that we might dispense with written revelation and
adopt the new methods. Witchcraft, consultation with famil-
iar spirits, necromancy, and all kindred forms of superstition,
were only pretended methods of drawing forth to mortal view
the secrets of the invisible and eternal world. And this the
heathen nations accepted with some shadow of excuse, having
no knowledge of a written, inspired revelation. But all this
was condemned by Moses and the prophets as fundamental
revolt from the true God, and a renunciation of his established
methods of revelation. And in this light the ancient Church
treated it, and is now required to estimate and treat it. The
ultimate limit and standard of knowable truth in this direction
is, “the law and testimony.” Isa. viii, 19, 20.
“This abominable delusion,” says Brother Gulick, “ de-
stroyed the influence for good of a number of our members of
*The word is derived from nekros, the dead, and manteia, to divine—diviniation
by supposed communion with the dead—a popular form of heathen superstition.
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 59
the First Church, who had formerly been useful.” Not least
among the infelicitous surroundings of Brother G. was the
remorseless impracticability of his church edifice. An andience-
room of 80 by 100 feet, with a large gallery for the singers,
however it might suit an audience of twelve to fifteen hundred,
could not seem grateful and cheering to a congregation of one
fourth that number. “If I had been a Spurgeon,” he says,
“it might have been a suitable place to gather in a great con-
gregation. But, alas! I was no Spurgeon, and on no occasion
did we need room for more than four or five hundred people.
However,” he adds, “early in the winter we marshaled our
forces for an advance movement. We had such men for
leaders as Ezra Jones, Henry Way, Willis Tuthill, Wm. Love-
craft, E. K. Blythe, Nehemiah Osborn, James Henderson,
James Crouch, and many others. The first five of the above
list have since left the militant for the Church triumphant.
Every one of them was as true as steel, and noble as true. In
a ministry of nearly half a century I never was associated with
five men in any charge that I esteemed more highly, and in
whose integrity and fidelity, piety and Christian valor, I could
more confidently trust.”
The result of the revival movement was over thirty conver-
sions, nearly all of whom joined our church. One of the con-
verts was a Roman Catholic youth. He had searched the
Bible for arguments against Millerism, or the belief in Christ’s
immediate second coming; but he soon found himself a sinner,
and dropped his controversy to seek his own salvation. His
employer had been a Christian, but was in a backslidden state.
He assured the young man, however, that religion was a spir-
itual reality. They soon both attended the meetings, and both
sought the Lord together. The backslidden brother was re-
claimed, and a little later the youth was clearly converted.
“Well, Samuel,” says Brother Gulick, “you have found the
Saviour at last.” “Yes, I have,” was the reply. That youth
was Samuel McGerald. A few years later he joined the Kast
60 LHistory of the Late Hast Genesee Conference.
Genesee Conference, and is still in the active work, a well-known,
beloved, and honored minister of the Lord Jesus Christ. That
revival had great fruit, and its fruit remains.” “The two
years as pastor of the First Church, Rochester,” says Brother
Gulick, “were years that have left many pleasant memories,
accompanied with deep regret that I could accomplish so little
where so much was to be done.”
12. As an injury to spiritual life in the churches, not only
in Western New York, but far beyond that limit, there arose
a controversy during these years on the subject of sanctifi-
cation. It was not confined to the Methodist churches. The
doctrinal aspect was twofold: one relating to the Calvinistic
theory of the new school, as culminating in the metaphysical
school of Oberlin ; the other to the ascetic and mystic construc-
tions of true scriptural spirituality. The former fell rather
within the Presbyterian Church, the latter within the Method-
ist. Mr. Finney, as representing the Oberlin view, often put
the doctrine in the trne Methodist form of phraseology, at
other times far aside from that standard. But as we are con-
fined, in our notice of this subject, to its influence on the
Methodist churches in this region, we feel inhibited from en-
tering upon its Calvinistic bearings, and, therefore, turn our
attention to its influence chiefly within our own limits.
One point of difference related to the distinction between
sanctification and regeneration, one party holding that sancti-
fication was a growth toward, and finally wnto, the perfect
manhood in Christ; the other that it was properly instan-
taneous by faith, but might also be gradual. This apparently
small difference, and seemingly easily reconciled, became
a point of sharp, dogmatic discrimination, and had the effect
to invite controversy, instead of harmony and earnest seeking
to be made now “ perfect and complete in all the will of God.”
It had the effect, in the minds of many, to hold in question,
whether sanctification were a ‘‘second blessing,” distinct and
distinguishable from justification, to be now received by faith,
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 61
or only a gradnal development of the already implanted life
in regeneration. The evil lay not so much in the necessary
difference, dialectically considered, as in the snare that it be-
came an apology for delay in earnestly seeking the grace by
prayer and faith. It was an effectual estoppel to faith, which
never exists with doubt. The “two or three” could not be
“agreed as touching any thing they should ask,” while a
doubt, or controversy, rested over the “one thing” as a pos-
sible present attainment. It was when the disciples were all
together “ of one accord, in one place,” that the Holy Ghost
came upon them.
Another evil, the offshoot of misdirected zeal and erring
reason, appeared in the guise of professed sanctification. Under
the profession of being wholly “led by the Spirit,” they
sought no instruction from the experienced, the aged, the
better-informed ; they never cousulted the proprieties of social
worship, of time, place, or circumstances, or the reasonable-
ness of things; but surrendered themselves to any sudden im-
pulse or afflatus, which was taken as a divine order, or direc-
tion, and as suddenly acted upon. Connected with this was
the belief’ that God often called men to certain acts or con-
ditions which were manifestly,out of the common order, and
out of propriety according to the common mind, simply to
humble them and bring them more perfectly under the lead
and direction of the Spirit. The more humiliating and con-
demnatory the act, as judged of by the common sense of so-
ciety, the greater victory was supposed to be hereby attained
over self, and the greater the reward.
With these licentious views of spiritual religion, it is no
wonder that the most absurd and extravagant notions followed.
Others would construe the doctrine of Christian holiness, or
sanctification, with such ascetic severities, or mystic unre-
alities, as to place that state of grace in unnecessary hostility
to the innocent and even needful enjoyments of life, laying
burdens on the conscience which the divine law has never im-
62 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
posed. And such is the effect of all “will worship,” and “ vol-
untary humility.” These things, says Panl, “have indeed a
show of wisdom,” “but are of no value as to satisfying the
flesh.” These bodily austerities have no value or adaptation
for the purpose of a natural depletion of the body, so as to
render it a fit abode of the Spirit of holiness, or to prepare it
for active service in the Lord’s vineyard; but, contrariwise, it
has always been the case that an overmuch righteousness—
carrying our Christian conscience beyond the written law—
has compensated itself in an evil judging, and intolerant and
uncharitable spirit toward others, and hence is not only injuri-
ous to others, but is reactive upon the misguided victim. For
a time our wise men paused over the question as to whereunto
this might lead us; or what might be done to avert the threat-
ened evil; but the common consent seemed to dictate non-
interference, and so, by moving on in the wonted course,
preaching the full salvation, as a present privilege and duty,
taking no formal notice of the grievance, it died away, though
not without inflicting a temporary evil. Historically it has
always proved that “the Spirit of truth” (not only truth, but
the Spirit of truth) has not only reproved, but in the end tri-
umphed over “the spirit of error,” and in that conservatory
victory it has left no wounds to be healed in those who are
honestly secking the right way.
History of the Late Hast Genesee Conference. 63
CHAPTER II.
Contributions of pastors.
1. In 1846 Andrew Sutherland joined the Genesee Confer-
ence. He was converted at nineteen years of age, under the
labors of Rev. W. D. Buck. In the spring of 1840 he went
to Lima to pursue a course of study, teaching in winter and
attending school in summer. This plan he pursued for three
years. At length, in 1843, he was induced by others to go to
Oberlin, where he entered college .and remained two years.
After reaching Oberlin, Brother W. D. Buck, his spiritual
father, sent him an exhorter’s license, saying, “Try it, and the
Lord give you souls as seals of your ministry.” “TI did try,”
he says, “noting carefully the dealings ot Providence, and the
Spirit of God, in connection with these early efforts.” But,
his health failing, he was obliged to return home to Cambria,
Niagara County. ‘I left college,” he says, “at the close of
my sophomore year, with great reluctance.”
In 1846, having been duly recommended by the Quarterly
Conference, he joined the Genesee Conference on trial. At
first he proposed to go back and join the Ohio Conference, but
his friends earnestly advising his stay in Western New York,
he became perplexed and earnestly committed the matter to
God. After great conflict he decided to stay. He says of it:
“ This is one of the few instances of my life in which I have
been governed largely by an impression which I believed to
be of God.” The struggle was so great to know the will of
God in the matter that he prayed constantly, and on his way
to Conference, he says, “I prayed along the way, sometimes
leaving my horse and carriage, and kneeling beside a tree, or
in some other secret place, asking for divine direction.” From
64 Llistory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
these intimations the reader will readily perceive a character
of sincere piety and conscientiousness, of clearness and sound-
ness of intellect, blending decision with meekness and caution.
Brother Sutherland has always stood among us as a man of
sound judgement, broad culture, gentle manners, and notable
purity of character. If he has a fault, it is in his ‘ modest
stillness and humility.”
At Conference he was adinitted on trial, and appointed to
the Starkey Circuit, with Nathan Fellows as senior colleague.
There were three churches on the charge, and two regular
school-house appointments. The church edifices were at
Starkey, Dundee, and Barrington. ‘There were,” says
Brother Sutherland, “on this charge some of the noblest of
laymen. The families by the name of Tuthill, Van Allen,
Pierce, McLean, Smith, Wright, and others, would do honor
to any station or any Christian community. My first board-
ing-place was with David Smith, an exhorter in the Church.
He was a man of no great talent or learning, but of good com-
mon sense, and some ability to talk in public. As a religious
character he was remarkable. When I first heard his account
of his experience, and of what the Lord had done through him,
I thought he might be a little beside himself, and I would
inquire about him. He would go out into the neighborhood
where there was no regular preaching, and revival influence
would nearly always attend his labors. ‘The Lord told me,’
he would say, ‘how many would be converted in places where
Theld meetings, and just that number came in.’ How this
was, of course, I do not know, but I found that all had the ut-
most confidence in him as truthful, sincere, and deeply de-
voted. He was a man of great faith and intimate communion
with God. In the winter of 1847, my second year on the
charge, we held a meeting at what was called Big Stream
Point, where Brother Smith had been to pray and ex-
hort. This place was a few miles south of Starkey Landing,
on the Seneca Lake shore. I myself visited all the families of
Listory of the Late East Genesce Conference. 65
that little place, and all seemed ready to hear and heed the
word of life. Mev. ©. L. Bown, the preacher in charge, was
with me. The laboring men of the place were mostly em-
ployed in building and repairing boats on the lake. As the
interest in our meeting increased, and the congregations grew,
the workmen took the gable end of the school-house off and set
it back and built up between, and seated the enlarged audi-
ence-room to accommodate the people. After the meeting
was over they replaced the divided house as it was before.
This was the most powerful revival, as it seems to me, that I
have ever known, though among a limited population. The
exact number of conversions I could not state, but it embraced
nearly the entire people. After I left the charge a small
church was built a little way from the Point to accommodate
the new society, and also the members at Rock Stream, a
mile off. In my own thoughts the success of our meetings on
the Starkey Circuit stands related mysteriously to the faith and
labor of Brother David Smith. A man who would go into
his closet and pray two hours before delivering a little exhor-
tation of twenty minutes, with nothing remarkable in it, except
great earnestness aud manifest love of souls, must have help
from above. ‘No man could do these miracles that thou
doest, except God be with him.’ The raost widely known and
notable layman at this time on the charge was William
McLean. He came from New York in 1844, and settled upon
a farm near Dundee village, but subsequently returned to the
city. His affability and cultivated manners, his remarkable
talent for ready and apt remarks, in a public meeting, made
him a great helper in revival work. ‘ He is equal to six ordi-.,
nary preachers in a meeting,’ says Rev. J. Copeland. He was
sixty years a class-leader. ‘The greatest class-leader I have
ever known,’ said Rev. Dr. Ferris, at Father McLean’s funeral.
He is still remembered with great respect in Dundee and that
region. Two of his sons are preachers, and all are honorably
settled, and, like their father and mother, all are great church
66 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
workers.” These mementos are grateful. I knew both the
characters above described, have worked with Brother Smith
in revival work, and both were mighty through God. Father
Tuthill was a patriarch among his people, and his children
active in the Church.
In 1848 Brother Sutherland was appointed to Hopewell. It
was in the time of the Wesleyan secession, as it was called,
an the once beautiful society in that place was rent asunder
by the loss of about half its number, but more by the con-
troversy and unhappy strife which attended the secession. The
society was so weakened and disheartened by the loss that
“little could be done,” says Brother Sutherland, “ more than
to hold our own and wait the ordering of Providence. We
had an excellent society at Emory Chapel, connected with
Hopewell, but nothing noteworthy appeared that year.” At
the Conference of 1849 he was appointed to Dresden. No
general revival was enjoyed, but the church edifice was re-
modeled and rededicated. “This made a great difference in
the congregation. The audience-room was filled. The change
was great.” In 1850, also, he was returned to Dresden.
2. The Rev. Joseph T. Arnold has an interesting, and, in
some respects, a peculiar history. He joined Conference in
1834, and was appointed to Ontario Circuit, with A. N. Fill-
more, Sr. In 1837, at Springville, Pa., he was blessed with a
great revival, assisted by Rev. T. Castleton. Over one hundred
were hopefully converted, and ninety were received into the
Church. “I there and then,” he says, “learned my calling,
to bring sinners to Christ.” At the latter part of the year he
retired from the pastoral work and went to Middletown,
Conn., to finish his regular course in the Wesleyan University.
But while there he was not idle in his ministerial call. He
says: “J had an appointment four miles ont, at Middlefield,
where they began to be converted at once. Most of the youth
and several heads of families were gathered in. In the winter
vacation, at Durham, six miles, I helped the pastor in a three-
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 67
wecks’ meeting. I took the names of one hundred and seventy
who professed conversion, mostly in the second week—the great-
est revival I had ever witnessed ; twenty a day for three days.
So I worked at my calling while pruning up at college. In
1839 I took my diploma, and a most useful ‘helpmeet,’ and
returned to Western New York. My appointment this year
was at Perry, Wyoming County. We reached our destina-
tion, and kneeled on the parsonage floor and asked God
to give us one hundred souls that year. Needing a church
(their church was destroyed by fire two years before), and
having a subscription not quite equal to the demand, my
first duty was to obtain an adequate subscription and start
the building. This the workmen began in early winter. I
also soon began to invite to the altar, and then to hold
a few extra evening meetings, till I took seventy names
of converts, I then went out to the Richardson school-
house, four miles from the village, through deep snow, the last
of February, to preach, as we had a class there. On my way
I took tea with a good member, and told him my plan of
holding some evening meetings there. ‘ Well,’ he said, ‘I can
tell you it will do no good?” ‘Stop,’ Isaid; ‘if you and every
man should say the same, I should know no better than I do
now.’ At the close of service I stated my plan to hold a series
of meetings there, and put it to vote whether they would concur.
They all rose instanter. The meeting was held, and in four
weeks of evenings I took one hundred names of those professing
conversion, some forty of whom were heads of families. When
I preached my last sermon before Conference a young lady
gave her name for probation. On going home my wife re-
minded me that my hundred asked for was full; I had ninety-
nine before. We finished the new church edifice the next year,
and received some new converts.”
- In 1841-42 Brother Arnold served at Elmira, Here, also,
he built a new church edifice, despite the hard times, and in
the arrangements secured a good parsonage, also, with good
68 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
provision for Sunday-school and class-rooms. He found two
hundred and seven members on the books, dismissed by
letter about forty, and left three hundred and fourteen}
out of which a second church was soon organized. We
next find him, in 1843-44, at Brockport, where, he says, “I
failed, through some ‘false brethren,’ to pay a heavy church
debt.” But here, also, he had some fruit for his labor. In 1845
Brother Arnold was appointed to Albion. Here he paid “a
sinall but troublesome debt, and purchased a parsonage.” His
increase by conversions was twenty-six. In 1846-47 he was
stationed at Seneca Falls. Here he found a number of
earnest and lively souls, through whom the revival work
was carried on successfully. In the two years one hundred
and fourteen converts were received, most of them into full
membership. Out of these, three young brethren became
preachers. But he failed to build a new church, as he says,
“Our most able man was immovable.” This golden oppor-
tunity thus misimproved was much lamented, and was, he says,
“a permanent backset to Methodism.”
In 1848-49 Brother Arnold was appointed to Canandaigua.
Here, with true Christian magnanimity, and with great unity
of feeling, the Congregational church worshiped with the
Methodists, while the church edifice of the former was under-
going repairs and enlargement, the two pastors arranging the
preaching service equally. The work of revival began in a
Thursday evening prayer-meeting, and continued without
extra meetings. During the two years one hundred and
fifteen converts were the fruit of labor in that direction. One
said he had marked it that some were converted each month
of the two years. He desired to rebuild the church edifice, but
a debt of $1,200 rested on the church and demanded first
attention. This was canceled, but not in time to justify the
beginning of a new enterprise involving heavy financial de-
mands. He accomplished it, however, as we shall see in our
future record.
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 69
The church in Canandaigua is among the oldest in that
region, In 1796 the first Methodist society was organized in
the town of Canandaigua, or “ Number Nine,” as it was called.
The Congregational Church in the village was organized in
1799 or 1800,* being at least four years later. The Methodist
society was in advance of all other churches in that region by
at least ten years. Other Churches operated by mission-
aries and settled pastors; the Methodists by circuits and itin-
erant pastors. The Methodist society here worshiped in a
log school-house until 1818, when it dedicated its new church
in the village, on Chapel Street, and centralized its work at
that point. In the year 1834 the society moved its church
to its present site, on Main Street. These data mark epochs
in its progressive church life. We shall have occasion to
further refer to the work of God here in the progress of our
history, especially from 1848 to 1872.
3. Wesley Cochran was one of several whose assignment
to East Genesee Conference, at the time of the division, was
pursuant to his earnest request. He was naturally, and by
grace, a son of consolation. Modest and meek in his spirit
and mien, he was not lacking in keen perceptions and incisive
thought. A man of spotless integrity, good culture, wide
reading, he has passed the years of his ministry with universal
esteem, acceptability, and brotherly affinities.
In 1847 he was appointed to the Pittstord Charge. Here,
by organizing the oficial brethren in a special order for evan-
gelical and spiritual work, good was accomplished in the
church, and a goodly number converted. At Lima, his next
appointment, “a good revival prevailed, and numbers were
converted,” mostly among the students. Here, also, he found
“a specially strong membership of Christian ladies,” among
whom were Sisters Bartlett, Dusenberre, Spencer, Welch,
Copeland, Godfrey, and others—naies ever dear, which are
written “in the Lamb’s book of life.” At Avon, his next
* See Hotchkiss’s History of Western New York, p. 30.
70 fistory of the Late Hast Genesee Conference.
charge, he had several preaching appointments, but in much
labor was enabled to hold the ground already attained. Here
he says he found no school suitable to the wants of his two
girls, which induced his faithful wife to open a school for young
ladies, in order to provide for her own. The proceeds of this
enterprise, he says, “encouraged my hope that I might lay by
enough during active service to supply the needs of our later
life.”
August, 1850, found him stationed in Groveland, a pleasant
country charge, good church and parsonage, five acres of land,
with all the material provisions for family comfort, and an in-
viting field of labor. His two years here were not without
fruit, though no general revival, “I found it exceedingly dif
ficult,” he says, “to get a break upon the ranks of the uncon-
verted, though we had a few conversions. While here,” he
_ adds, “I received the degree of A.M., in regular course, from
Dickinson College. I had regularly graduated there, on ex-
amination with the class three years previously. I had been
counted in the senior class one year, but spent only the spring
term in college with the class. In 1835 I was advanced in
the regular college course of study about one year. I then
resolved to complete my course. I spent no time in shops and
stores, or in company to while away time.” While in Grove-
land he began the book entitled The Emigrants. “My lead-
ing purpose in writing it,” he says, “was to encourage all
Christians to efforts to win souls to Christ—to emigrate from
the realm of darkness to the kingdom of Christ.”
4, A clever colleague and fellow-laborer was Edward Hotch-
kiss—a nan of fine talents, good social power, and an earnest
worker. He was such a man as one is always glad to meet.
With imperfect health, he joined the itinerancy in his twenty-
fourth year, and now, with the pressure of fourscore years, he
> He was converted in
is “ waiting for the Lord’s returning.’
1827, when twenty-one years of age, licensed to exhort in 1828,
and two years later licensed to preach. In 1830 he joined
TMistory of the Late East Genesce Ounference. 71
the Maine Conference, and served in the itinerancy till 1843,
when he was transferred to the Genesee Conference. On
almost every charge thus far he had served his full disciplin-
ary term. In Genesee and East Genesee Conferences he served
nineteen years. In the former five years and the latter four-
teen years; but from 1852 his active years have been quite
irregular, He was a useful and beloved fellow-laborer, but
from his foreign residence little is known personally to this
generation. In every place he was useful and acceptable. In
Towanda, he says, “the good Lord gave me eighty souls, hap-
pily converted to God.” In other places he gleaned many
“sheaves” for Christ.
5. The name of Jonathan Benson is a synonym of sound-
ness, and what we may call conservative reform; that is, con-
serving the present good, and moving forward in progressive
stages of legitimate improvement. He is among the oldest, if
not the oldest, in ministerial life, of the surviving East Gen-
eseans, and has exemplified, through all the years, an en-
viable character for truth, purity, and an unquestioned fidel-
ity. Asa preacher, he can appeal to hundreds and say, *‘ Fur
the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.” i Cor. ix, 2.
His preaching talent is of the earlier type, always evangelical,
practical, and acceptable, and his brethren now rise up to do
him honor. As in other cases, so in this, if we would know
the man we must look to his work and his times.
Brother Benson began his itinerancy in April, 1828, in
Lewiston Circuit, under the presiding eldership of Loring
Grant; Wilber Lloag, senior preacher, and himself and John
E. Cole assistants. He records: ‘A very good revival, and
many added to the Church in almost all the appointments.”
After the next session of Conference Brother Benson was sent
by the presiding elder to Boston Circuit, “three hundred
miles around, and preached over thirty times in four weeks.
He received that year $60 for his support, with wife
and three children, and not over $20 of this sum in
72 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
cash. The following year, 1829, he joined Conference and
was sent to Friendship Circuit. Here, with the help of his
presiding elder, John Copeland, he began a church edifice in
the village, and also purchased a parsonage. Received $120
salary. In 1830 he was appointed to Angelica, and was
favored with a good revival at two appointments of the circuit.
Received for support $180. The next year, also, at Angelica
and Mount Morris, with Merritt Ferguson as assistant; was
blessed with an encouraging revival in both the villages named,
and in each built a honse of worship. Received for salary
$280. In 1832-33 his appointment was at Lima and Livonia
Circuit. Here, also, at different points of the circuit, good re-
vivals were enjoyed. At Lima about forty students were con-
verted; among them Daniel P. Kidder, so widely known
since, whom Brother Benson baptized and received into the
Church, and gave him a letter of church standing, which he
presented at the Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.,
where he finished his collegiate course.
The next two years, 1834-35, we find Brother Benson on
the Penfield Circuit. Both years were marked with good
revivals. The work on Victor Circuit, 1837, was marked by
the dedication of a new church at North Perrington, and
saving the church property at Victor by a new and legal deed,
after much labor and danger. In 1838-39 the appointment
was to the Benton Circuit. “I had,” says Brother Benson,
“ Asbury Lowrey * for my colleague the first year, and Zina
J. Buck for the second. A new church was dedicated at
Kinney’s Corners [now Bluff Point] by F. G. Hibbard. The
second year we had a very extensive revival at Benton Center.”
In 1840-41, at Medina, the society is reported “ spiritually
* The name of Asbury Lowrey may not be familiar to some of our readers as con-
nected with the annals of Western New York Methodism. His name appears in the
Minutes of Genesee Conference for 1838 as received on trial that year. He is now
widely and reputably known as Rev. Dr, Lowrey, American editor of Lévine Life and
International Expositor, an able and excellent monthly, devoted entirely to tho
teaching and Bible exposition of Christian holiness,
Listory of the Late East Genesce Conference. 73
very good, The first year a very good revival.” In 1842, also,
on Niagara Circuit, Isaac Smith, assistant; I. Chamberlayne,
presiding elder.” This year Brother Benson reports “one
hundred and eighty received on probation; at Niagara Falls,
seventy; at Tonawanda, seventy; at almost every appoint-
ment we received additions.” In 1846-47, at Sodus, J. K.
Tinkham assistant the first year, and A. C. George the
second; revivals at several points. “Two very pleasant
years,” says Brother Benson; “the Lord was with us.”
From this to the date 1850, the limit of this chapter, noth-
_ ing remarkable occurred, though the churches he served
were in a good and healthy state and there were some con-
versions. The reader must bear in mind that these appar-
ently dry statistics are the warp in which the threads of his-
tory are woven, and by which we form our estimate of the
noble workers and their self-denials in early days.
5. Luther Northway had a notable experience in his call to
preach and subsequent labors. At sixteen years of age he was,
he says, “happily converted to God in Hornby, Steuben
County, N. Y., at my parents’ family altar.” By the advice
of his parents he joined the Presbyterian Church, of which
his father was a deacon; but upon further acquaintance with
the doctrines technically called the “ five points of Calvinism,”
he could not subscribe to them. His parents considered that
this repugnance to these doctrines arose from a rebellion
against God still existing in his heart. To increase his embar-
rassment he felt, within two months after his conversion, that
if he would retain the favor of God he must preach the Guspel.
In 1840 he became acquainted with the Methodists and their
doctrines, and at once felt that “he had found his home, and
resolved he would offer himself to that Church.” His parents
were not reconciled. He says to his father, “ You believe that
God fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass?” “Yes,”
“Well, God fore-ordained that you should believe that doc-
trine, that you should be a Presbyterian, and a deacon in that
6
v4 LTistory of the Late East Genesee Confercnee.
Church. Now, it has come to pass that I do not believe these
doctrines, and if it shonld come to pass that I should join the
Methodist Church, God has ordained that also.” He replied:
“Tf you can work in a Methodist yoke better than that of a
Presbyterian, go on.” The next day he took a church letter
and joined the Methodist Episcopal Church at Corning, April,
1840, and has been, he says, “perfectly satisfied with my home
ever since.”
After two years at the seminary, Lima, he joined the Gen-
esee Conference in 1842, and was appointed to Southport Cir-
cuit, with its nine appointments. He says: “On going to my
circuit I found the church was not satisfied with the appoint-
ment of the boy preacher, and I could not blame thei in view
of my youth and inexperience; but I resolved faithfully to do
my duty while I was on the circuit. At the Seeley Creek Ap-
pvintment I was contronted by three aged Presbyterian min-
isters who were acquainted with my father and with my
origin, and they regarded me as a renegade from the Presby-
terian Church, One of these ministers, for three Sabbaths
following my first three successive appointments, held public
meetings and criticised the doctrine of my sermons. I made
no public allusion to these criticisms, but at the fuurth visitation
to that place I preached from the following text: ‘It is
high time to awake out of sleep.’ Rom. xiii, 11. I endeav-
vred to show
“TJ, The resemblance between natural and spiritual sleep.
1. The time for sleep was a time of darkness. 2. Sleep was
an inactive state. 3. It was an unconscious state.
“TI. How sleep is produced. 1. By narcotics, opiates, poi-
sons, and remarked the devil had many spiritual opiates; among
them were, 2. Procrastination. 3. False doctrines. (1) Uni-
versalism. (2) That God fore-ordained whatsoever comes to
pass. (3) Unconditional election. (4.) Once in grace, always
in grace.
“IIT, Closed by an exhortation, ‘awake out of sleep.’
Listory of the Late East Genesee Conference. 75
“The next Sabbath my critic had but three persons to hear
him. We started a protracted meeting at my next meeting there,
and in two weeks fifty souls were converted and received on pro-
bation. At Athens Valley, one of my Sunday evening appoint-
ments, there were regular Universalist preaching and a large
number of professed Universalists. One of them interrupted
me in my first sermon. At my second appointment a dozen
or more of them stayed to class-meeting. We told them
the class-meeting was designed for each to tell how the case
stands between God and his own soul, and then invited each
to speak. But none of them responded. At the close I ex-
horted them all to repent and seek pardon of sin. At the
next appointment many wept while I was preaching, and I
started a series of meetings. In three weeks seventy were con-
verted and received on probation. Nota Universalist was left
in the neighborhood. Their minister was discharged, they telling
him they had no further work for him. We held five protract-
ed meetings on the charge with good results, and received one
hundred and sixty on probation. In 1843 I was appointed to
Springfield, Pa., having three appointments. At that village,
one of my preaching places, we commenced a meeting, and a
Universalist minister came in and put an appointment for one
evening in the same school-house. I asked if he did not know I
had an appointment there at the same time? He answered
yes, but added, his people claimed the right to occupy the
house there half of the time. I then asked him if he would
commence his meeting at 6 P. M., and close at 7:30 P. M.,
and give me the balance of the evening; and he consented.
He came out at the time with a large force and a choir, and
preached his doctrine. At the conclusion of his time I insisted
upon his closing his meeting. I opened our meeting with
prayer, and then gave out my text: ‘These shall go away
into everlasting punishment,’ and preached two hours on
future punishment, closing each argument with an exhortation;
and thus endeavoring to clinch what had been said. Asa
76 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
result of this meeting three of his prominent Universalists re-
nounced their doctrine and were converted. One was the
chorister of his church. On Sabbath following, in class-meet-
ing, he said that on that evening his bridge to heaven was torn
down, and not even a string-piece left. There were fifty re-
ceived into the church on probation.
“In 1844 I was appointed to Burlington and Springfield,
with William W. Mandeville as my colleague. We had seven-
teen appointments. There were thirty received on probation. In
1845 I was sent to Whitesville Circuit. We had thirteen ap-
pointments, and took on Wellsville in addition. Here I found
over thirty hard whisky drinking church members. We com-
menced labor with them, and all were reclaimed to abstinence
but three, whom we were forced to expel from the Church. In
1846 I was sent to Troupsburg Circuit. Here we had eighty
converts, the most of whom joined on probation. In 1847-48
I was at Tioga and Lawrenceville Circuit. I held a protracted
meeting in the rough neighborhood on the Tioga River, be-
tween the two rivers, and the third evening thirty persons came
forward for prayers, and there was but one besides myself to
pray for them. I urged them to pray for themselves. Jesus
came in power and converted fifteen before the close of that
meeting. In two weeks seventy souls were converted. We
received ninety on probation in the two years. In 1849-50 I
was at Jefferson (now Watkins). We had only four male mem-
bers in that village. During the first year we built the first
Methodist Episcopal church edifice of Watkins, 40 by 55 feet.
Received fifty into the Church during the two years.”
The experience of Brother Northway throws us back into
the revival and controversial scenes of fifty years ago. As in
the days of Nehemiah in building the city walls: “Every one
with one of his hands wronght in the work, and with the other
hand held a weapon. For the builders, every one had his
sword girded by his side, and so builded.”
6. In the year 1828, in the town of Hector, Schuyler County,
History of the Late Eust Genesee Conference. 77
N. Y., was born Daniel Clark, another candidate for the
itinerancy, who has been an honor and a blessing to the Church.
It was on the old Hector and Mecklenburg Circuit that he was
converted, in 1847, when the good Enoch H. Cranmer was
senior preacher, and William Potter his colleague. Young
Clark was brought up in the midst of strong Methodistic influ-
ences, “ for which,” he says, “I have ever since been profoundly
thankful. Long had I felt the influence of such Christian men
as Caleb Smith, Chancey Smith, Richard Andrews, Andrew
Milliman, Hiram Milliman, Samuel Shatlin, Robert Hemp;
and also of such Christian women as Electa Mathers, Eliza
Conwal, Jane Andrus, Hester Andrus, and others too numer-
ous to mention. Mainly through their instrumentality, and
that of Brother Cranmer and Potter, I was brought to Christ.”
As Brother Clark had decided to be a Methodist, and
already felt moved toward the ministry, he attended the Annual
Conference in Geneva, 1847, and witnessed the proceedings,
and was much encouraged and instructed, especially by the .
preaching of Bishops Morris and Hamline and Dr. N. Lev-
ings. Hesoon purchased books and began the study of system-
atic theology. The next two years were spent mostly at
school. In 1848 he received license to exhort. He says:
“My efforts at exhorting were not satisfactory; hence my
license was measurably unused.” Yet, despite his timidity,
he felt drawn to the ministry, and in August, 1849, he was
licensed to preach, joined the Annual Conference on trial, and
was appointed to the Addison Charge, with Joseph Ashworth,
senior. ‘I was fortunate,” he says, “in having so good a man
for a colleague. He and his excellent wife were to me valua-
ble friends. Our appointments included Addison, Red School-
house, Rathboneville, Town Line, Sanford School-house, Cam-
eron, White’s Meeting-house, Eddy School-honse, and two
others whose namesare not recollected.” The same field is now
divided into four pastorates. During the summer a camp-
meeting was held with good success, under care of Nathan
78 History of the Late Eust Genesee Conference.
Fellows, presiding elder. The meeting was specially power-
ful. ‘There was a great outpouring of the Spirit; sinners were
converted and saints greatly rejoiced.” The next summer
another was held in the town of Greenwood, in the western
part of the district. ‘There God poured ont his Spirit in a
wonderful manner. Many a sinner was converted, and some
of the people fell under the power of God. During the year,”
adds Brother Clark, “our church at Rathboneville was com-
pleted and dedicated ; also our church at Addison. We had a
good working force, and there was, in varied degrees, the re-
vival spirit among us during the entire year.”
At the next session of the Annual Conference, held in Bath,
August, 1850, the Addison Circuit was divided into two parts,
Addison and West Addison, But Brother Clark was ap-
pointed to Barrington. This charge comprised three preach-
ing places, Barrington, Pulver School-house, and Chubb Hol-
low. My home was with Brother Pulver and family, who
showed me great kindness. Though there were no marked
results of labor that year, ‘it was, on the whole, a pleasant and
profitable one.”
7. David Nutten was born in 1810. Though he was brought
up carefully and religiously, and entertained undoubting faith
in divine revelation and profound reverence for sacred things,
he did not come to the saving knowledge of the truth till in his
nineteenth year. Dr. P. E. Brown was instrumental in arous-
ing him to the importance of immediate salvation. He was
taught to believe God was talking to him when he said, “ Ask,
and ye shall receive.” He saw he had a personal work to do
in prayer and repentance. He saw, as never before, his atti-
tude of inaction was one of disobedience, and immediately
submitted, saying, “I will,” and the Lord blessed him. He
immediately began to help others and soon became impressed
that he was called to preach. He says: “I taught school soon
after, and had quite a revival among my scholars. I taught
two winters, attended two terms in Penn Yan Acadeiny, en-
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 79
tered the Genesee Wesleyan Seminary in 1832, among its first
students, spent three terms there, and then opened a select
school in Perry, Wyoming County.”
Althongh Brother Nutten purposed to preach, his exalted
ideas of that calling and profession caused him to hesitate and
delay until further qualified. In 1837 the Genesee Conference
held its session in Perry, and James Hemmingway, a presiding
elder, called a Quarterly Conference, which recommended him
for admission on trial in the Annual Conference, all without:
the knowledge of Brother Nutten till some days after. A
critic said, “ he was smuggled into Conference.”
His first appointment was on the Attica and Orangeville Oir- -
cuit, with C. 8. Baker, senior colleague, and Mieuh Seager,
presiding elder. He says: “We were both young and inex-
perienced, and were following men of age and experience.
Brother Baker had just been ordained deacon, and, so far, was
prepared for work.” Brother C. S. Baker, says: “ Brother
Nutten, from the first, was a hard student. His prog-
ress was nat, rapid, but it was steady and sure. Every-
where he made friends by the sturdy honesty and the
true, child-like sincerity and transparency of his Christian
efforts and aims. We had a delightful year; a good revival
crowned our poor efforts; and few young ministers ever
left a charge with a better record than did my colleague,
David Nutten, at the close of his first year in the itinerancy.”
Among the converts were A. D. Plumley and A. D. Wilbor,
both of whom have honored themselves and their Conference
by their ministerial gifts and usefulness in a service of forty
years in the itinerancy, and are still in the field. They often,
in those early times, came to the parsonage on Sabbath after-
noon for social prayer and counsel.
In 1838 Brother Nutten was sent to Churchville and Chili,
with “that zealous and faithful brother, for senior colleague,
Nathan Fellows.” ‘ Here,” says Brother Nutten, “we were
cheered with great success. About one hundred were received
80 Lhistory of the Late East Genesee Conference. .
on trial, and a new church was built at one of our appoint-
ments I spent a second year there, with Gideon Lanning for
senior, which was still a prosperous one.”
In 1839 he was on the Alexandria, Batavia, and Stafford
Circuit, with Richard Wright, senior colleague. There was
an interesting conversion at Staffurd. The post-master and
merchant was a friend, but not a Christian, and much sclicitude
was felt for him. One Sabbath, after preaching, and as he
was about to return home, Brother Nutten took his hand and
said to him, “ Stop till after class-meeting and I will go home
with you to dinner.” He hesitated, turned round, was agi-
tated, but finally turned back to his seat. All present wit-
nessed the scene with much feeling. As the meeting progressed
his agitation increased and was evident to all. When it came
his turn to give his testimony, he arose and asked all to pray for
him. The leader said, “ Shall we pray Aere and now?” He
fell on his knees and all united in prayer. The turning-point
had been met and passed, and in staying to class and fully
confessing Christ the work was cut short in righteousness, and
he was soon happy in God. He became one of the foremost
workers in the Church.
At the end of the first year the circuit was divided, and
Brother Nutten was left alune at Alexander. Tere quite a
revival was given. Some of the first families were converted
and joined the church. The preceptress of the academy and
her sister were among the converts. At a suburban school-
honse, also, some thirty converts were received on trial.
In 1843 his appointment was to Castile. A general religious
interest prevailed. It was “‘ Deacon Miller’s day of doom ! ”—
the time set by him for the end of time and human probation.
Extra meetings were held, and at one appointment, St. Helena,
more than one hundred were converted. His next appointment
was Albion, then and now a strong station. As leading helpers
he had “ Father Waite,” a located elder from Troy; A. J.
Grover, Hon. Gideon Tard, N. A. Graves, a lawyer and a
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 81
student from Lima. Some conversions, a pleasant term, but
no general revival. At Rushville, 1846, he had a prosperous
year, especially in the Sunday-school department, which, by
the aid of the active women in the church, was greatly en-
larged.
In 1847 he went to Lyons. Here the incumbent of the pre-
ceding year, Rev. O. R. Howard, had been removed, against
the strong wishes and remonstrances of the church, and our
brother met this infelicitous state of public feeling. With no
objection to the incoming pastor, they were not prepared for
the sudden transition. “Of course,” he said, “I had a cool
reception.” But the year was not a failure. The elements
soon scttled, and the work went on. About thirty were con-
verted and received on trial, among whom was a youth, J. R.
Jacques, “who arose coolly and calmly, in a small evening
meeting, and pledged himself to God and his service.” He
soon left for college, was graduated with honor, and is widely
and reputably known as preacher and an educator. We shall
recur to him again.
In 1848 Brother Nutten was appointed to Dansville. He
says: “I was sent to follow, as well as I could, our always
popular D. D. Buck, D.D. He had enjoyed a good revival
and left much regretted by the congregation. But still we
had a good year, of some success, and at its close, 1850, I was
sent to Bath District, greatly to my surprise. The district
embraced fifteen appointments, stretching from Bath to Canan-
daigua, and manned by an able class of pastors. Four years
of hard work were performed, yet richly enjoyed. Hard work
was the rule with pastors. In various respects the church
prospered.”
Of the general work on his district, during four years, Brother ~
Nutten says: “ Three new churches were built, one at Naples,
one at Hammondsport, and one at Cohocton, and large re-
pairs were made on old ones. Parsonages, also, were built and
repaired. Sunday-schools were nearly doubled. Revivals
82 ITistory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
were enjoyed on most of the charges. Several prominent
young men began the Christian ministry on this district. Some
notable revivals wera had, among them was one at Rushville,
under the pastoral work of Rev. Robert Parker, of blessed
memory. He engaged Rev. 8. C. Adams, a notable local
preacher of some eccentricities, but of wonderful ability to stir
things. One of the most powerful revivals I ever knew for a
country pastorate followed. Young and old, rich and poor,
were converted. Brother Parker well knew how to enlist and
utilize help.”
8. At Middlesex Brother Spinks, the pastor, had wonderful
success, At first he was completely discouraged, but at the
close of a remarkably solemn sacramental occasion, a call was
made for any who desired prayers to come forward and kneel
at the altar. Seven came forward from the first families of the
place. A flood-tide set in with wonderful power. The pastor
gave notice for meetings every night of the week, and the
work increased till about one hundred and twenty-five pro-
fessed conversion and were received in the Church on trial.
At Naples a gracious work was wrought through the ordinary
instrumentalities by the Holy Spirit. Rev. A. S. Baker was
pastor. ‘ He was accustomed to expect success, and, of course,
to work for it, and he suceceded. The efforts of the revival
were lasting. A new church was built, and ‘a noble parsonage
secured,’ so that it abides to this day among our best pastorates.
It was a new epoch to the Methodist Episcopal Church in Na-
ples. The churches generally were prosperous, and it was esti-
mated that nearly one thousand had been hopefully converted
in the fifteen pastoral charges of the district that year. Among
the prominent young men who began their ministry on this dis-
trict were J. J. Brown, now professor in the Syracuse University;
K. P. Jervis, who needs but a chance to show himself fit for any
position, and has succeeded as presiding elder, Conference secre-
tary, lawyer, delegate to General Conference, etc.; Dr. A. C.
George, talented and eloquent; also J. B. Wilson and J.-L.
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 83
Edson, modest but well-gifted, and of sterling worth. All of
these, except Dr. George, are still at work, and expect to die
in the harness, though some of them have retired from the
front of the battle.
9. Brother Richard L. Stilwell entered the itinerancy in
1842. From the beginning his record has been honorable.
With a mind cultivated and well-informed, a heart in sympa-
thy with his high and holy calling, and a social power which
always made him a welcome guest, he has met the rough and the
smooth of itinerant life with an even tenor, and accomplished
a good work. He is yet in the field, and has recently saluted
his friends and the public with a handsome 12ino. volume, *
which they have cordially weleomed. The reader will find in
it suggestive and nutritive thought, which so keeps the atten-
tion that, having opened the book, he knows not where to
close it.
lis first circuits were, in succession, Canton, Jackson, and
Pine River Mission, wherein he served the people faithfully
and acceptably. In 1846-47 he was at Covington, and
his charge comprised Covington, Mansfield, Blossburg, Block
House, and Lamb’s Settlement. Richard Videan, a- local
preacher, took charge of Block House, now known as Liberty
Valley Charge; “which then,” Brother Stilwell says, “had
only about twenty members, no church or parsonage ;” now
there are over one hundred members, with two churches and a
parsonage. Then at Blossburg there wasa small class, a school-
house, and the attic of a depot in which to preach; now, one
hundred and thirty-six members, a Sunday-school of two
hundred and twenty-four, a church valued at $5,500, and the
society paid its pastor last year a salary of $800, besides a do-
nation of $250. Then Covington had only about thirty mem-
bers and no church ; now, in connection with Lamb’s Creek, she
has one hundred and thirty members, two churches, and one
* Sermons and Reminiscences. By Rev. Richard L. Stilwell. Pp. 308. New
York: Phillips & Hunt.
84 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
hundred and fourteen Sunday-school scholars. Then Mansfield
had only about forty members and no church; now, there are
nearly two hundred members, and they have a $16,000 church,
and one hundred and twinty-one Sunday-school scholars.
Then (1847-49) the Urbana Circuit comprised Hammonds-
port, South Wayne, Sonora, Bradford Hollow, Savona, and
Campbelltown ; now, Campbelltown is of itself a charge, with
a membership of one hundred and fifty; Sonora and Savona
is another, with membership of one hundred and thirty, two
churches, and a fine parsonage. Hammondsport had no
charch, and but a small society; now, two churches and more
than one hundred and forty members and ninety Sunday-school
scholars. Bradford had no church, and only asmall class; now
it has over one hundred members and two churches, with
one hundred and seventy Sunday-school scholars. From
1849-51 I was on the Hector Circuit as junior preacher.
The first year the Rev. T. McElhenny had the charge;
the second, Rev. I. J. B. McKinney. With the former
we had, at Burdett, Reynoldsville, Davis, and Hector Chapel
(now Logan), a wonderful work of grace; the second year
Brother McKinney lost two daughters in early woman-
hood, and he was brought nigh to death himself by the same
fever. This threw nearly all the work of the charge upon my-
self for one fourth of the year. It was never my lot to become
acquainted with a nobler nature than that of Brother McEI-
henny. He buried his only son, a very promising boy, while
he was on the charge; and going from there to Towanda, and
Ito Frenchtown, adjoining, at the close of my second year,
we were often together and lived over the scenes of joy and of
sorrow in which we had mingled. One of the most blessed
years of my ministry was given me on this charge, from the
fall of 1851-52; when, having left my family for the year
at Hector, we were appointed to the Jackson Circuit, and
moved there.”
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 85
CHAPTER IIL.
Contributions of pastors.
1, Tue Rev. J. N. Brown, with whose testimony we open
this chapter, is a man of positive convictions and resolute pur-
pose. With a clear understanding and naturally strong mental
endowments, and with a steadfast adherence to doctrine and
discipline, he has filled an honorable sphere and rank among
his brethren for forty-five years past.
Of himself and his work he says: “As soon as I was con-
verted there was a conviction written upon my soul as with
a pen of fire, ‘Woe is me if I preach not the Gospel.’ I
could not escape from this conviction. It followed me night
and day, and for three full years I strove against it. Terrible
was the conflict, until at last I gave up the struggle, and, laying
my all down at the feet of Jesus, I promised him that I would
go forward as he should opeu the way, and that I would make
it a subject of prayer three times a day until the way should
open before me. After I came to this decision, in less than
three weeks, without any solicitation on my part, the Church
gave me license to exhort. It was wonderful to me. I was
poor and weak and unlearned, and I thought that the Church
might regard any intimation on my part of such a conviction
as a reflection upon the wisdom of God; and now, without
waiting for such an intimation, she had recognized my call.
From that time I set about preparing for the work as best I
could. I had to struggle through the difficulties of getting an
education alone with my own hands without aid from any one
except my heavenly Father. It was, indeed, a great struggle;
but it did me good. It tanght me to face difficulties and over-
86 Ilistory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
come obstacles, which has been a great help to me in many a
trying hour.
‘“‘T was admitted into the Genesee Conference on probation
at its session in Dansville, September 1, 1841. My first charge
was Mead’s Creek Circuit, with Benjamin F. Chase for my
colleague. The circuit was forty-five miles long, averaged
about ten miles wide, and, stretching across the hills and val-
leys, embraced fifteen preaching places. On my way from
Conference, in company with Rev. Philo Tower, we stopped
for the night at the house of Brother James Miles, on the Canisteo,
about ten miles above Addison, and the people, anxious to
hear the word, insisted upon having preaching in the evening.
Accordingly notice was circulated through the neighborhood,
and the people came together. The meeting was one of great
interest and power. Some were deeply convicted and arose
‘for prayers. Such was the interest felt that we tarried there a
number of evenings, and many persons professed to be con-
verted to God. Reaching Beaver Dam, on my charge, I met
my colleague for the first time, and found, also, that an ap-
pointment had been given out for a meeting in the evening,
and he insisted on my preaching. At the appointed hour we
found the large room crowded to its utmost capacity, end but
one solitary candle to light up the scene. As I arose to read
a hymn I deliberately snuffed out the candle, leaving all in
total darkness, and took my seat without saying a word. I
thought that was the best thing I could do under the circum-
stance. In a few moments a number of candles were obtained
from a house near by, and‘the service went on. We never
lacked for material light at Beaver Dam after that. During
the following winter we had good revivals at Oak Hill, Mead’s
Creek, Beaver Dam, aud Big Flats. My colleague’s health
being poor the burden of labor in these meetings fell on me.
The only foreign help I had was from above. My method was
to preach the plain, pointed truth, and urge it home upon the
heart and conscience of both saint and sinner, and thus
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 87
enlist the members of the church in active service, many of
whom became efficient helpers, and successful evangelists in
the work of revival. In this way from one hundred to one
hundred and twenty-five were conveited during the winter.
Onur regular circuit work required three sermons each Sabbath,
and a travel from ten to fifteen miles; also from one to four
sermons during the week. It was a year of hard labor and
glorious victories, and but very little pay, not over $100; but
we thanked God and took courage. There were many scenes
of thrilling interest witnessed on the charge that year. I love
to think of the godly men and women raised up throngh the
instrumentality of Methodism in those days: men and women
quaint and odd in many respects, but full of faith and of the
Holy Ghost.
_ “Father Fort, of Mead’s Creek, was one of this class. He
was a Dutchman, and was converted after he was forty-seven
years old. At that time he could neither read nor write. His
whole life had been one of dissipation, and he was so far gone
in intemperance that his case was considered hopeless. Every
time he left home on business his friends feared that he might
never return alive. But Jesus saved him. Ie was powerfully
converted. After his conversion, so great was his desire to
read the Bible, that he had his daughter teach him to read,
and when I saw him last he had read the New Testament
through fourteen times, and the Old Testament & number of
times. He sought and obtained the blessing of perfect love,
and I believed walked in the light thereof until the curtain of
mortality fell. His methods of illustrating his experience were
peculiar to himself, and while they would sometimes provoke
a sinile, they seldom failed to bring tears to every eye. Many
of them are vivid in my recollection yet. Brother McIntyre,
of Sugar Hill, was another of those quaint and heroic charac-
ters. He was a Scotchman, full of faith and of the Holy
Ghost. Also Sister Zuba Lee, a mother in Israel, of great
native talent and force of character, who went singing and
‘
88 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
praying and shouting through the world, winning many souls
to Christ.
“At our next Conference (1842) Mead’s Creek Circuit was
divided. Big Flats, with a few adjacent appointments on the
surrounding hills, was set off by itself, and I was sent to this
new charge. Our church on this charge was extremely week,
and required much labor. The Lord blessed us wonderfully
in spiritual things, while temporal things were very limited.
All I received during the year was $91, including a donation,
which was counted $35, although it was not worth $10 to me,
as it was made up of small articles, such as remnants of calico,
etc., and, as I was a single man, I had no use for calico.
There was a large revival at the Flats and on Reazor Hill, and
some conversions at the other appointments. Among the con-
verts at the Flats and on Reazor Hill were nearly a dozen of
the leading men and most noted skeptics of the town, from
forty to seventy years of age. At the close of this year I was
united in marriage to Miss Eliza A. Graham, of Orange County,
N. Y., which was to me one of the greatest blessings of the
year and of my life. I shall always have reason to thank Gcd
tor the unspeakable gift of a good wife, who has cheerfully and
patiently walked by my side for over forty-two years, sharing
with me the hardships and toils of the itinerancy, speaking
words of cheer and encouragement to me when my heart has
been nigh unto fainting. My expenses for living during the
year I was on the Biy Flats Charge was over $100 more than
I received.
“In 1843 Conference was held in Lyndonville, N.Y. Here
I was ordained deacon, and sent to the Mecklenburg Charge.
Here we had a very pleasant year among a warm-hearted
people. Quite extensive revivals were enjoyed at the two out
appointments, also many conversions at the village. The
whole church was greatly quickened.
“On August 11, 1844, Genesee Conference was held at
Vienna (now Phelps), N. Y. It was a time of great refresh-
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 89
ing. Bishop Hamline presided. This was his first visit to our
Conference. Dr. Olin was also with us, and, the best of all,
God was with us. It was a wonderfully interesting Conference.
From this Conference I was appointed to the Heetor Circuit.
I had scarcely settled in my new home before an order came
from my presiding elder, Jonas Dodge, to report at Havana,
and move my family to that place. On going to Havana I
found, that after Conference, at the request of the pastor, Rev.
Ira Smith, on the plea of poor health, the old Catharine Circuit
had been divided, making two stations, Brother Smith taking
the Catharine part, and leaving Havana to be supplied. The
presiding elder had exercised his episcopal authority in con-
senting to this new arrangement. I was cordially received at
Havana by the church, and, after making the necessary ar-
rangements for a home, I removed thither. During the year
the church was repaired and refurnished, a parsonage was
built at an expense of from $1,100 to $1,200. Some souls
were converted to God, and I received from thirty to forty
persons into the Church in full connection, many of whom were
heads of families. Thus Havana station was planted, and it
has continued, with growing prosperity, until the present time.
Watkins, also, which at that time was a part of Havana
Charge, has grown into an independent station, with a fine
church property.
* At the session of Conference for 1845 I was ordained elder
and appointed to the Burlington Circuit, Seneca Lake District,
with Albert G. Layman for my colleague. The cirenit em-
braced a territory about thirty-five miles long by ten wide,
with sixteen preaching places, having Burlington for the cen-
ter. Here I found a parsonage begun, and I waited over two
months for its completion before I could have a home. We
had abundance of labor on this charge and some fruit. There
was a good revival at Springfield, also some conversions at
Burlington and Ulster. A check was also put on the practice
of running lumber on the river on Sunday. A general im-
7
90 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
provement was seen throughout the charge. At the next Cun-
ference we were enabled to report progress. In 1846 I was
appointed to the Catharine Charge. During the two years on
this charge many were converted and united with the church,
while we lost many hy removals and death. The church
building was repaired and painted, a bell was placed in the
tower at a cost of over $300, the grounds were improved and
fenced, and the parsonage also was rebuilt and enlarged.
These two years of mutual labor and trial served to unite
pastor and people in the bonds of Christian love and fellow-
ship; and I left the charge at the end of my term of service
with deep feelings of regret on my part, and with a general
expression of a similar feeling on the part of the people.
“ The first session of the East Genesee Conference was held
at Rochester, N. Y., August 16, 1848, Bishop Waugh in the
chair. From this Conference I was sent to Towanda, Pa.
This charge at that time took in what is called the Bend, four
miles below, on the river, Holland Hill, and Monroeton. They
had no parsonage, but had rented a house which the official
members said was not fit for a preacher to live in; and I said
to them, ‘Then I will not live in it’ After surveying the
ground it was determined to build. One sister subscribed $50,
to be paid in pine trees standing in the forest. These were
converted into lumber, and sold at double their original esti-
mated value. Thus the parsonage was built and paid for, and
has served a good purpose unto this day. J was returned the
second year to the charge. These two years were pleasant and
prosperous. A large number were converted at the different
appointments. We had a good revival at the village, also at
Holland Hill and the Bend. Much was done in organizing
Sabbath-schools in destitute places.”
During his service at Towanda Brother C. M. Gardner was
reclaimed and Brother G. W. Coolbaugh converted. Both
entered the ministry, the former being still in the field, and
the latter called to his reward after a goodly term of years.
Listory of the Late East Genesee Cimference. 91
Brother Brown was, also, by his counsel, instrumental in help-
ing Brother R. D. Brooks into the ministry, who also died after
a successful term of nine years in the itinerancy. These were
all Geneseans.
2. It is interesting to trace the ways of Providence in selecting
and calling out his ministers, and it is a most notable commen-
dation of the Methodist Episcopal Church that she has always
looked, with godly jealousy, to the evidences of a divine call
before conferring Church authority to administer in the holy
office. William A. Runner was descended from German an-
cestry, and was early brought under the influence of a pious
mother. Clearly converted in his twentieth year, he was not
long after solicited to take license to exhort. This was during
his third year at Allegheny College. After much hesitation he
accepted his first license, February 13, 1848, signed “ Joseph
Chapman.” Feeling his great responsibility in the step taken,
he says: “I felt the necessity of the endowment from on high,
the gift of power, as did the apostles. 1 sought for that blessing.
I went, the next day, to the old Bardeen School-house, where
William Bush, a layman, was holding protracted meeting.
The Holy Ghost came down on all present with power. I was
filled with the Spirit, and spoke as the Spirit gave me utter-
ance to every person I met with, telling them of the wonderful
gift God had imparted to me. This settled the question of
entering the ministry. In June, 1850, I received a local
preacher’s license, signed by Rev. F. G. Hibbard, presiding
elder. At the ensuing Annual Conference, in August, being
duly recommended, I was received on trial with ten others.”
His first appointment was at Ulysses Mission, Potter County,
Pa., sixty miles from Bristol Center. He says: “ At that
time there was not a church of any denomination in the entire
region into which I was sent. The places of preaching were
in school-houses, private houses, and, in pleasant weather, in
barns and groves. I expected to be absent from home for
about five weeks, until after mv first quarterly meeting.
92 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
During that time I was engaged in making pastoral visits, and
in finding out how my future work was to be planned, which
required a travel of about seventy miles every two weeks,
mostly on horseback, and preaching eight times every two
weeks throughout the year, and six times a week in special
work during the winter.
“On returning home to remove our household goods to our
field of labor, I found our baby girl, a little over a month
old, had died with cholera infantum, and had been buried over
a week. With sad hearts we started for our new home. On
arriving there we found no suitable place of abode, so, taking
up with an offer to live in a room fourteen by fifteen feet, sup-
plying at once the entire conveniences of cooking, lodging, and
study, we took possession of our limited quarters. This we en-
dured through the year. During that year we labored more
abundantly, and were very much exposed to the cold. The
snow was deep. Deer tracks were as numerous as if there were
flocks of sheep running through the woods. One man went
out into the deer forest for fifteen days, returning each night,
and shot fifteen deer. We had a supply of venison and pigeon
meat, on which we lived, with bread, for a long time. The
people generally were poor, living in log and plank houses,
with wide, open fire-places. I often slept where I was obliged
to cover my face in the night to keep the snow from sifting
through the roof on it. Some nights, while away from home,
on waking up, I was so chilled that I was obliged to get up
and kindle a fire to warm me; I was in danger of freezing.
But the revival work was most powerful and thorough. Over
one hundred and fifteen persons were converted to God during
the year. Some of the converts were middle-aged men who
had been hardened in sin. One old man had passed through
the battle of Waterloo, under.Lord Wellington. He had been
wounded, and had lost one eye. He had been in the habit of
reading the bouok entitled Napoleon and lis Marshals, and
never opened the Bible. After he was converted to God he
History of the Late East Genesee Ounference. 93
gave his old favorite book to his pastor, and commenced read-
ing the Bible. He became a very devoted Christian.”
Among the converts three afterward became local preachers.
In August, 1851, the East Genesee Conference heli its ses-
sion in Penn Yan, Bishop Janes presiding, and Brother Run-
ner was returned to Ulysses Mission. This year he removed
to the town of Ulysses, where he enjoyed a more convenient
dwelling. He says: “This year was attended with greater
hardships than the preceding. The winter was more severely
cold, the mercury standing about twenty degrees below zero
for twenty-one consecutive days. I was chilled on the road,
through and through, again and again, times without number.
Provisions were scarce. Much of the stock died. One man
lost nine head of cattle from cold and lack of fodder. Trees
were cut down for browsing, but the stock would become lean
and die. Maple sugar was the staple article with the people.
Beech-nuts had been very plenty, on which the inhabitants fat-
tened their pork. The ground-squirrels became so numerous the
next season that the harvest fields of wheat were largely eaten up
by them before the wheat was ripe. Venison and maple sugar
were sold in exchange for provisions and groceries. Nathan
Fellows, my presiding elder, came to the mission twice during
the two years. AsI was not ordained, I secured the services
of ministers on adjoining charges to baptize the converts.
These were high Sabbaths with the people. I received
very light support, not enough to keep soul and body together,
had it not been for the missionary appropriation of $100. I also
sold religious books to supply the wants of the people.”
Among the converts three received license to preach. Un-
belief and absurd and antagonizing elements were found here
as in other places, In one place three padlocks were put
upon the school-house door to keep the preacher out. A sect
arose teaching that man had no immortal soul, except the few
that followed them. Brother Runner was called to attend the
funeral of a man who believed, if he lived strictly according
94 Ilistory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
to the laws of health, he would never die. A skeptical preacher
was sent for, twenty-five miles away, to officiate at the funeral,
but could not be obtained. The family desired a Christian
burial. Brother Runner consented to go, and in his address
said to the people that he had never known the deceased, and
was not prepared to say any thing concerning him, that his
business was to preach to the living, and took for his text,
“Prepare to meet thy God,” and preached a plain, pointed
sermon. Shortly after they sent $1 50 to Brother Runner for
his services.
3. The Rev. John H. Day was born of pious parents, mem-
bers of the Presbyterian Church, his father being an elder in
that Church for forty-five years. The early training of the son
was carefully religious and orthodox. At the age of sixteen
he left Warwick, Orange County, and came to Morristown,
N. J. Here he was converted to God during a gracions re-
vival, under the labors of Rev. J. Buckley. Returning to his
parents, he joined the Methodist Episcopal Church, and en-
gaged in all church work of which he was capable, in Sabbath-
school, class and prayer-meetings, and extra revival meetings ;
for in that circuit—the “Sugarloaf, or Monroe Charge,” with
its fifteen or sixteen appointments—they held extra meetings
at every preaching place. He says of himself: “I was greatly
blessed in those early years of my Christian experience. No
less than ten pastorates have risen out of that old circuit.”
In 1845 he received license to preach, signed by Rev. Marvin
Richardson, of blessed memory, and was immediately pressed
into service on the circuit. In 1846 he removed within the
bounds of Tyrone Circuit, Genesee Conference. Here he lived
and labored as local preacher till, in 1850, at the session of East
Genesee Conference in Bath, N. Y., Bishop Waugh presiding,
he was received on trial. The Quarterly Conference which
recommended him to the Annual Conference, he says, “ kindly
asked for my return to their charge, notwithstanding I had
filled part of their appointments for three successive years.
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 95
But,” he adds, “at my own request I was sent to the Loyalsock
Circuit, which, if not in every sense desirable, was at least
famous, as being what, in ironic pleasantry, was called the
‘Conference College,’ from which, if the young itinerant was
graduated with honor, he was esteemed a hero. Its scenery was
wild and majestic, with deep, rich, arable valleys set in the
frame-work of high mountains. It was settled by a colony,
mostly of Englishmen, a peaceful and devoted Christian peo-
ple. They received me as kindly as though I had been an
angel from heaven.”
He found the church, however, sadly torn and distracted by
the secession of what is called the Wesleyan (then called
Scottite) secession ; but on his arrival the last agitator had left,
and he says, “I was monarch of all Isurveyed.” At that time
the circuit had fourteen preaching appointments, requiring one
hundred and fifty miles’ travel every two weeks. Ten years
earlier, Rev. N. A. De Pew writes, “The Rey. H. Wisner *
traveled this circuit, and informed me that it was, at that time,
two hundred miles around it, and more than one appointment
for each day in the two weeks. The appointments on the cir-
cuit were then as tollows: Loyalsock Forks; Hillsgrove, nine
miles down the river; Elkland, ten iniles back on the hills
west of the river; School-honse, five miles farther on; Glass
works, or Little’s, eight miles up the river; Elkins, seven miles
* Brother De Pew gives a thrilling account of Brother Wisner having once lost his
path in the forest, and how, at night-fall, he was driven to take lodging in a tree to
escape the wolves. Their howling grew nearer and nearer to his place of refuge, and
ceased a little distance off; but their snapping and snarling and growling continued
through the night. Wisner, all night long, expected an attack. - He sang, and preached
from ‘‘ And there shall be no night there,’’? and was happy. At break of day his
savage auditors dispersed. The wolves had run down a deer,a noble buck, and seized
him near the tree in which he had taken shelter. The incident and escape made a
great sensation at the time. Traveling alone along foot-paths was often perilous, es-
pecially to the novice. ‘‘ The congregations,” he says, ‘* were often many miles apart,
separated by wild mountain ranges or deep glens, and almost impassable morasses,
with here and there a hunter’s path, or the instinctive paths of the wild denizens of
the mountains—the panther, the wolf, the bear, and the timid deer. Durmg that year
Brother Wisner traveled nearly four thousand miles, preached over three hundred
sermons, and received less than $100 salary. Wisner died, November 4, 1878, full of
years and rich in experience.”’
96 Llistory of the Late Eust Genesee Conference.
on toward Muncy Creek; Taylor’s, on Muncy Creek; Big Bot-
tom, on Muncy Creek ; Elk Lick (Davidson’s), up Muncy Creek ;
Wilcox’s (now New Albany), twelve miles from Loyalsuck
Forks to Wonder Creek; Cherry, up the south branch, now
Dushore, to Haverly’s. Besides these, several appointments
‘for preaching in private houses.” Some survivors, veterans,
may still be able to trace the circuit lines of these heroic
times.”
Brother Day says: “I found a reverence for divine worship
here such as I had never seen before nor since. When I
opened the first service at the church—the central appoint-
ment—and said, “ Let us pray,” every one in the house, young
and old, saint and sinner, kneeled before God; and although
the house was well filled, I thought that they must all be
Christians. But such was not the case, for I found the same
respect for divine worship at every appointment, except at
Laporte, the new county-seat. This new center had been
established by a gentleman from Philadelphia, who desired me
to make a stated appointment there. It was then a new place,
settled by families from different localities, who knew nothing
of the religious reverence existing in other parts of the charge.
But they were all glad to have preaching, and treated me
kindly.
“The only church edifice and parsonage on the circuit were
located where the Big and Little Sock unite, and in seasons of
high water they are quite isolated. Our quarterly meeting
was to be held there. It was the fall season, and the June
flood of the Big Sock had swept away the bridge. But amid
the storms and almost impassable roads the Rev. A. N. Fill-
nore, presiding elder, reached the place. He had forded the
streams and breasted the tempests. In looking out upon the
boiling waters of the Big Sock and up to the mountains piled
toward the clouds, he said, ‘1t was the wildest and most sub-
lime scene I had ever witnessed.” ‘Who can get here to
quarterly meeting ?? was the question. But at the hour, by
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 97
the use of boats, they came, representative men from nearly
every appointment. which is “in earthen
cation of the Church. The “ treasure’
vessels ” is lost when the “ vessel” is broken. The first execu-
tive board, appointed by the apostolic Church for secular trust,
were men “full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.” Aets vi, 3.
The circumstantial in the Church correlates with the spiritual
and the eternal.
The delicacy of changing Annual Conference boundaries
generally is fully conceded by the bishops themselves. In
History of the Late Hast Genesee Conference. 321
1864 the General Conference passed a resolution requesting
the bishops “to communicate to the General Conference of
1868 their suggestions and plans for the re-arrangement of
Conference boundaries.” At that time there was a general
question started and a desire expressed that Annual Conference
boundaries should conform to State boundaries. During the
quadrennium ensuing, statements and plans and maps were
submitted to the bishops in order to furnish them with all possible
facts and data for a judicious judgment in the matter. The
bishops, meanwhile, gave their “early and earnest attention ”
to the subject. In their report to the General Conference, in
1868, they say: ‘‘ We are not prepared to recommend the en-
actment of the Conference lines indicated (in the data and plans.
which had been submitted to them], without a proper considera-
tion of all Church interests involved. They rather indicate
what we would recommend were we undertaking the work of
Conference divisions de novo.” These are prudent and caution-
ary words, and clearly indicate and concede that there are
relations of Annual. Conference organizations, especially of
those of long-standing, which it is perilous to disturb by chang-
ing its boundaries; this should be done, if done at all, in har-
mony and by consent of all parties. They also rebuke the rash-
ness which, in mixed questions, makes no difference between
the abstract and the concrete, the possible and the actual.
A step in advance is found in the Journals of General Con-
ference for 1864. (Page 109.) 8S. W. [lilliard submitted the
following resolutions:
Resolved, 1. That in all practicable cases we give it as our judgment
that no change of boundary lines should be perfected without the knowl-
edge and consent of the Conferences geographically interested.
2. That this General Conference declare this principle of change as its
rule of action.
A motion to lay the resolutions on the table was lost; but,
on motion, a resolution to refer them to the Committee on
Boundaries was carried. This respectful and serious mode of
823 Listory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
treating the resolutions cetainly indicated, on the part of Gen-
eral Conference, that it was a step in the right direction, and
a wish that the Committee on Boundaries night give it serious
consideration.
Grave doubts are entertained of the justice of the practice of
doing up the business of debate and deliberation in the Com-
mittee on Boundaries, and cutting down debate on the General
Conference floor, so that little knowledge of the reasons which
should govern action in the case could be obtained by the body
of delegates, and the report of the committee would virtually
decide the questions. For instance, in the General Conference of
1868, J.S. Porter offered the following resolution, which was
adopted :
Resolved, That in considering the Report on Boundaries, it shall be in
order, where there are differences between the delegates of Conference
interested, for each party to have fifteen minutes, WHEN THE DEBATE SHALL
CLOSE AND THE VOTE BE TAKEN, but not so as to exclude motions
for amendments or a substitute, as in other cases, but the vote shall be
taken without debate on the amendments.
G. B. Jocelyn moved the previous question on the adoption of the res-
olution, and the motion prevailed. The resolution was then adopted.—
Journal, p. 295.
Here, then, is a total inhibition of free and adequate dis-
cussion in open Conference, so that the great majority of the
meinbers are forced to a final vote on no other ground but
that of the report of the committee; making the committee,
not the Conference, practically the supreme judge and authority.
It is important in this connection to observe that the General
Conference makes a difference of procedure and a distinction
of rights between the formation of a new Annual Conterence
and changing the boundaries of one already made. In the
former case the bishops are authorized, in fixing boundaries,
to act upon their own judgment; in the latter case, in the
Southern States and Western Territories, the bishops must
have the concurrence of two thirds of the Conference to au-
thorize a change of boundaries. In every other case the Gen-
eral Conference only could change boundaries. Thus:
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 323
Resolved, That the bishops, if in their judgment the interests of the
work shall require it, be and are hereby authorized to organize new Con-
ferences in the South, and also in the Western Territories, not now in-
cluded within the bounds of any Annual Conference, and to divide Con-
ferences which are already formed in the South, PROVIDED THAT TWO
THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF SUCH CONFERENCE on CONFERENCES SHALL
CONCUR IN SUCH DIVISION.—Journal, p. 308.
Here, again, the General Conference clearly settles the
principle that an Annual Conference cannot be divided by
episcopal authority, or its boundaries changed without a two
thirds vote of its own members. The point to be considered
is, that an Annual Conference has a conceded right to a voice
in any proposition to change its boundaries, but that this
right does not belong to the organization of new Conferences.
To the same effect are the resolutions offered from time to
time in General Conference. The Rev. I. 8. Bingham, in
1876, offered the following, and it was referred to the Commit-
tee on Boundaries,-to wit:
Resolved, That all resolutions, memorials, or petitions which ask for,
or involve, the divisions of Conferences, or the rearrangement or recon-
struction into new Conferences of territory already included within
organized Conferences, shall first be passed upon by the Annual Confer-
ences immediately interested before they shall be entertained by the
General Conference.—Journal, 1876, p. 288.
On the principle that each Annual Conference has a right
to an open or free discussion, on the floor of General Confer-
ence, of any proposition to change its boundary, Dr. A. M.
Osbon, of New York, offered the following resolution, which
was adopted, to wit:
Resolved, That the bishops be requested to consider and report to the
next General Conference whether it be lawful and practicable to deter-
mine the boundaries of the Annual Conferences without the details being
discussed on the floor of the General Conference, and, if so, to report a
plan of action.—Journal, 1868, p. 308.
Whether the bishops were ever thus called upon to report
I do not know, as I find no record of such a matter in the Jour-
nal of General Conference, and I have no personal recollection,
though a member at the time. But the indorsement and pass-
382+ — History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
age of such a resolution clearly indicate that the General Confer-
ence had grave doubtsof the legality of any change of boundaries
without such discussion. At the same time Gilbert Haven,
afterward bishop, offered the following resolution, to wit :
Resolved, That the Conferences which now cover the territory of either
or both of the Washington and Delaware Conferences be and are herehy
authorized to absorb these Conferences, so far as their territory extends,
provided either or both these Conferences aforesaid shall consent, and the
presiding bishops approve.—Journal, 1868, p. 308.
This resolution was laid on the table, probably for want of
time to discuss it, it being now June 1, in the afternoon ses-
sion, within twenty-four hours of final adjournment. But here
again appear the opinion and conviction that an Annual
Conference has a right to a choice and a full and free discussion
in open General Conference of a proposition to change, in any
degree its boundaries,
The same recognition of the right of an Annual Conference
to have a voice determinative of the question of change of
boundary is made in the report of the Committee on the State
of the Church, E. O. Haven (afterward bishop), chairman, in
1876. Thus:
Resolved, That whenever it shall be requested by a majority of the white
members, and also a majority of the colored members of any Annual Con-
ference, that it be divided, then it is the opinion of this General Confer-
ence that such division should be made, and in that case the bishop
presiding is hereby authorized to organize the new Conference or Confer-
ences.—Journal, 1876, p. 3381.
We need not further pursue this subject. It is certain that
it was the common judgment that Annnal Conferences had a
right of voice determinative of any question to change its
boundaries.
We come now to that series of precursory legislation which
resulted in the dissolution of the East Genesee Conference.
On June 1, 1868, twenty-four hours before final adjournment
of General Conference, the Committee on Boundaries was.
called on to make a final report on Black River Conference.
The official record says: “The item relating to the Bound-
EMistory of the Late Hast Genesce Conference. 825
aries of the Black River Conference was taken up, read and
adopted, and the boundaries fixed accordingly.” *
This simple:record implies and means that, by an act of Gen-
eral Conference, there were taken from the Black River
Conference and given to the Central New York Conference
over eighty-two pastorates and acting pastors, and over thir-
teen thousand members, leaving to the former eighty-two pas-
torates and'pastors, about one half their former number ; and
ten thousand four hundred and seventy-seven membership,
against nineteen thousand two hundred and ninety-two mem-
bers, their former number; also reducing their representation
in General Conference from seven to three delegates. On the
other hand, the new acquisition to Central New York Confer-
ence gave them in total over twenty-seven thousand six hundred
membership, and over two hundred and twenty-three effect-
ive ministers; and while the representatives of the Black
River Conference were reduced from seven to three, the
Central New York Conference was increased from six to eight
clerical delegates. But notwithstanding the gravity of these
results, the General Conference, upon the final report of the com-
mittee, allowed: but fifteen minutes to each side to defend his
cause, and show reasons for and against the division proposed.
Nothing remained to be done, therefore, but to enter protest
and let things take their course. This they did in the following
‘form: +
“The following protest against the action of the General
Conference in fixing the boundaries of the Black River Con-
ference was presented, and it was ordered to be entered upon
the Journal as follows:
‘“We do most respectfully protest against the action of the General Con-
ference by which the Black River Conference is thus dismembered,
* The actual boundary is thus reported: ‘‘ Black River Conference shall include the
counties of Jefferson, Lewis, Franklin, and St. Lawrence, in the State of New York.”
—ZJournal, 1886, p. 309.
+ Journal, 1868, p. 806.
326 fistory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
because, 1. It is unequal and unjust toward the Black River Conference.
2. It is unexpected and unasked for by said Conference. 38. It takvs
from the Black River Conference more than half its numbers, both of
preachers and members, and adds them to Oneida Conference, thereby
making a mammoth Central New York Conference, of more than donble
the membership of the Conference so nearly destroyed by this arrange-
ment,
“J. 8. Brneawam,
“S$. Cann.”
The next day, and just before final adjournment of the
Conterence, a “reply to the protest” of Brothers Bingham
and Call was presented by four of the Black River Conference
delegates, namely, Brethren A. J. Phelps, B. 8. Wright,
James Erwin, and A. E. Corse, in which they claim that, favor-
ing this division of their Conference, they ‘acted in good
faith, and with the full belief that they were promoting the
wishes of the Conference itself; the Conference for years hav-
ing indicated the wish and purpose to divide on this very line,”
and that this line “was the only one ever favorably considered
by the Conference,” etc. But the authors of the “reply ” did
not profess to have acted under any direct instructions or au-
thority of their Conference; the fact being that the Black
River Conference, in all their debates of the question of divis-
ion in former years, had uniformly withheld any action author-
izing division. They evidently desired a change of some sort,
but had taken no step in that direction. After the above
action of General Conterence, a motion to reconsider was
made; but a motion to postpone immediately supervened,
which, being adopted, made all further debate or interference
impossible.
The General Conference adjourned, and the delegates
returned to their homes, leaving the Black River Conference
dismantled and depleted. Nothing could be done to remedy
the state of things until the next session of General Conference
four years in the future. But in its proper time, 1872, that
body again convened. The case was early brought before the
Committee on Boundaries, and the Black River (now called
LMistory of the Late East Genesee Conference. 327
Northern New York) Conference asked to have these old bound-
aries restored. The matter was fully investigated and reported
to General Conference, and, to the astonishment of those who
understood the case, their request was granted 7 extenso.
The position of things became now appalling. It was clear
enough that something must be done. The Central New York
Conference (so the old Oneida was now called), was, in its
turn, reduced to a non-self-sustaining Conference. In the ar-
rangements of 1868 she had given two of her districts to
Wyoming Conference, and now she is left solitary, “ weeping
for her children because they are not.” No one lifted a voice,
or knew what to propose. Up to this date no one thought of
reducing the number of Conferences in Western New York.
Five Conferences had sprung from the original Genesee Con-
ference, and we supposed this number to be forever sacred,
and the integrity and faith of the sisterhood sustained through
all time. The thought came to me as I looked over the Gen-
eral Conference, and no one knew what to propose, that if the
strength and territory of the five Conferences could be equally
divided among the five, it would suffice, in all the elements,
for all ends of efficient evangelical organization, and be-
come a new bond of family unity. I spoke to several on the
subject and all seemed ready to concur. I saw the points to be
guarded, but assumed that all would act in the confidence and
good faith of brethren, not taking advantage of my hazardous
adventure by “opening a door which no man could shut.”
Whether wisely or unwisely I cannot say, but for the good of
the common Church, I proposed the following:
Resolved, That for the settlement and better arrangement of Conference
boundaries, this General Conference do hereby authorize a commission
for the Genesee, East Genesee, Central New York, Black River, Wyoming,
and Troy Conferences, to consist of seven members from each Conference,
to be elected by the said Conferences severally, who shall, after mature
counsel with their respective Conferences, in regular Conference session,
meet and arrange the boundaries of these several Conferences ; and their
decision in the case shall be final: provided, that this plan shall receive
the approval of the above Conferences, or a majority of them, in order to
make it valid,
328 Ldistory of the Late Hast Genesee Conference.
In offering this resolution, I assumed that the Black River
Conference desired a division of its territory, and that they
objected to what had been done in 1868 only upon the ground of
the unjust proportion set off. I had reason for this assump-
tion from their own actin former years. For instance, in 1864,
General Conference voted, “‘ That the Black River Conference
have power to divide within the next quadrennium, if they
deem it necessary.” And in the “ presentation of petitions,
memorials, and appeals,” James Erwin moved that “so much as
relates to the division of the Conference be referred to the
Committee on Boundaries;” and at another time, under the
same call of business, I. S. Bingham moved, “ That so much
as relates to the division of the Conference be referred to the
Committee on Boundaries.” (Journal of General Conference,
1364, pp. 63, 99, 225.) Add to this the testimony of four
delegates of the Black River Conference, which we have
already mentioned, that “for years their Conference had in-
dicated a wish and purpose to divide,” and believing that the
recent experience would induce conciliation, caution, and a
disposition for equality and mutual faith in the sister Confer-
ences, I took the responsibility of offering what I deemed a
practicable and equitable settlement of difficulties which had
now plunged the General Conference into the most grave un-
certainties and perplexities.
When the resolution came to be discussed Dr. Curry moved,
as an amendment, ‘That a commission be appointed, here and
now, of one delegate from each of the Conferences named in
the resolution [except the Troy Conference] to. consider the
subject of Conference boundaries in Central New York.” As
this amendment ignored all the cautionary provisions of my
resolution, and was, indeed, a totally different thing from all I
had proposed or thought, I immediately remonstrated and
withdrew my motion, stating to the Conference that I would
have no responsibility or connection with the matter. Imme-
‘diately the resolution was. renewed, by motion of another dele-
Listory of the Late East Genesee Conference. 329
gate, and the amendment of Dr. Curry was adopted. The
committee ths ordered was appointed, with Bishop Andrews
as their chairman. ‘As my duties were chiefly with the Com-
mittee on Episcopacy, and very engrossing, I did not go
into the Committee on Boundaries till they had finished their
business and called me in. To my utter astonishment and dis-
may, I saw that our lovely East Genesee Conference was
destroyed. Up to that moment I had never thought that such
a thing could be. Had I received any intimation that such a
division and destruction were proposed, I should have resigned
my connection with the Committee on Episcopacy and asked
to be appointed on the Committee on Boundaries, that I might
defeat, if possible, so unprecedented and unjust a measure.
As it was, I felt stunned with the blow, and felt from the be-
ginning a hopelessness which paralyzed every effort or power
to resist. It was seen by every member that something must
be done by the Conference to readjust the boundaries of the
Oneida, then called Central New York Conference. This, it
is admitted, was accomplished by the proposed action of the
committee, but it annihilated one of our best and most flourish-
ing Conferences. Then there was a strange ambition to have
large Annual Conferences, which also was met by the propose:
action. But nothing of the kind could justify so atrocious an
act as was here proposed. The session of the General Conference
was drawing to a close, which had the effect to shut off debates
on all subjects. We have already seen that, in 1868, the ut-
most that was allowed to delegates in open Conference, where
a division of sentiment obtained as to boundaries, was thirty
minutes on each side, and in the final struggle to regain the
old bounds of the Black River Conference they were allowed
only five minutes on each side* in open Conference. It was
now the last hour of the session for May 30, when the Confer-
*“ The consideration of the minority report on boundaries was resumed, and, on
motion, I. 8. Bingham and B. I. Ives were each granted five minutes additional time
to speak to the Conference on the subject.”—/ournal, 1872, p. 324.
21
330 Ilistory of the Late East Genesve Conference.
ence was impatient to close its sittings, too late for discussion,
or for recommittal, and reports on all subjects were rapidly
passed or rejected. Whatever might be done at a future Gen-
eral Conference, it was too Jate for the adoption of any new
measures now. Dr. Huntington pungently declared his dis-
sent from the report. I did the same in language I supposed
sufficiently strong. “Rev. B. I. Ives moved to suspend the
rule requiring changes of Discipline to lie over one day, and
the rule was suspended. It was moved that the report [of
Boundary Committee] be adopted. A motion to postpone the
further consideration of the subject till Saturday morning did
not prevail. A motion to adjourn was lost. D. Stevenson
called for the previous question, and the call was sustained, and
the report of the Special Commission was adopted.”
Whoever is acquainted with parliamentary proceedings will
not fail to see the hurried manner in which things were done.
The great rule of General Conference which was a sacred
guard against the evils of hasty legislation, namely, the rule
that every proposition to change the Discipline should lie over
for one day, was suspended without hesitation or debate, and
under the irresistible pressure of the “ previous question” the
bill was rushed through without debate. Subsequently Dr.
Huntington asked leave for himself and others to enter their
protest against this action; and the leave was granted.
Thus the beginning of the end of East Genesee Conference
was attained. Whether a greater good was reached through
this measure we shall not here debate. But at that time, and
from the point of view then occupied, it appeared an unmiti-
gated evil. And if in the final result it shall prove on the
whole to have been a greater good, a question I cannot decide,
still the methods adupted cannot be justified by the spirit and
intent of law, or by General Conference precedent, whatever
may be said of the letter of thelaw. That General Conference
has the power to do an act does not prove a right under the
circumstances to do it. For example, the bishops have the
History of the Late Hast Genesee Conference. 331
sole power of appointment of preachers, and of changing and
transferring them. The letter of the law makes no qualifica-
tion or limit. The vested power is simply absolute. But have
they, therefore, a right to use that power without careful in-
vestigation of circumstances, and, in special cases, the consent
of the preacher? The same may be said of the power to par-
don convicts in civil government. It is power without limit
so far as the letter of the law is concerned; but to exercise it
without consideration of cireumstances the executive has no
right; and it would be itselfa monstrous crime. Power and
right are two distinct factors in government, as are law and
equity. Equity is eternal right, law has its contingents.
“Thou shalt not kill” is, as to its letter, absolute and uncon-
ditional, but circumstances may make it “justitiable homicide,”
or even the highest justice. The territory of the East Gen-
esee Conference had been recognized as under regular Confer-
ence organization, with the snecessive titles of Genesee and
East Genesee, for more than sixty years. It had attained its
mature individuality. It was prosperous, united, and happy.
Its members had a right to be consulted; but the noble struct-
ure fell without an arm to protect or a voice to plead its cause.
The policy of large Conferences is advocated by many, but
for reasons we have never appreciated. It undoubtedly relieves
episcopal superintendency, but this could be only in a very
limited degree, and for all the purposes and ends of gospel ex-
tension, church administration, the integrity of our itinerancy,
the culture of the ministry ‘and membership in “ gifts of the
Holy Ghost,” and the enlargement and edification of the
Church of Christ, we have failed to see its superior merit.
Nor have we reached the sublime height of philosophic repose,
not to say indifference, which regards Annual Conference
boundaries as simply imaginary lines, to be moved and
changed as a mere matter of ecclesiastical polity. Each Con-
ference has its individuality, its own history, its responsibility,
its rights, its esprat de corps.
332 LMistory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
If the five Western New York Conferences which sprang
from a common parentage had been sustained in their integ-
rity, on the basis of an equal division the average number of
itinerant pastors for each Conference would have been about
one hundred and thirty-five. This may seem a small number
for an Annual Conference; but East Genesee Conference, at
its organization, numbered only one hundred and four pastors,
exclusive of editors and agents. Oneida, that same year, had
one hundred and fifty-five active pastors in the field. She had
grown since 1828, the date of organization, to this magnitude,
from ninety-seven pastors, the number at beginning. If she
could increase fifty-eight pastors and pastorates in twenty
years she had no cause of discouragement. The original Gen-
esee Conference, “the mother of us all,” began in 1810 with
only sixty pastors. The later Genesee Conference, at the
division of 1848, numbered sixty-nine pastors. Black River
Conference, at its organization, in 1836, numbered eighty pas-
tors; and Wyoming Conference, at its origin, in 1852, fifty-
seven pastors; making the average of pastors for their several
Conferences, at the time of their organization, only about
eighty-one effective men.
The representation of Oneida Conference in General Con-
ference was greater at the date of organization than that of the
parent Genesee, the former having seven delegates and the
latter six. The membership also was greater than that of the
East Genesee Conference at the dates of organization, the
Oneida being nineteen thousand three hundred and twenty,
and the East Genesee being sixteen thousand five hundred‘and
seventy-five. Certainly the Oneida Conference had no cause
of complaint. The lines had fallen to her in pleasant places,
and she had a goodly heritage. But to all this must be
added the important fact that the territory and population of
each Conference are such as to assure the increase of pastorates
and hence of pastors in an indefinite degree. Every year adds
new pastorates, calling for new pastors, and the time must
history of the Late East Genesee Conference. 333
come, if the churches and preachers do their duty, that the now
large Conferences will come to be unwieldy, and will call for
the reconstruction of the fifth Annual Conference, whether it
shall bear the title of East Genesee or some other insignia of
honor. The East Genesee Conference, during twenty-three
years of its existence, added seventy-six pastorates to its juris-
diction, or over an average of three annually. Have any of
the Conferences done better? If all the Western New York
Conferences do half as well, in proportion to their numbers,
they will have on hand, twenty-three years hence, a body of
effective itinerants, one hundred and ninety strong, with their
pastoral charges. Will not this suffice for a fifth Conference?
The news of the dissolution of the East Genesee Conference
spread over the land with lightning speed, and fell like the
pall of death upon the preachers and societies. “ What can be
done?” was the instant question. Nothing could be done till
the next General Conference. Four years must drag their
slow lengths along before the decree of restoration could be ob-
tained; probably not then. Meanwhile there was a general
impression that a meeting should be called of the East Gen-
eseans to look over the ground, deliberate, and take the in-
cipient steps to obtain, if possible, a reversal of the fatal decree.
Although the majority approved calling a convention, many
doubted and some feared. Dr. D. D. Buck was the first to
draw the form of call for a convention. After drawing the
form, he says: “The next question was, Who shall head the
list of signatures? No one seemed willing.” He then again
took the lead and signed his name. Some utterly refused.
Some signed after persuasion. A goodly number, however,
were not only willing but anxious to append their names.
Some of the brethren, however, after signing the call wrote to
Brother Buck requesting that. their names might. be erased.
In a single letter seven made this request. One of the presid-
ing elders endeavored to dissuade Brother Buck from the
measure, assuring him that it would prove his ecclesiastical
334 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
ruin. Many were afraid of ecclesiastical collisions and dis-
approvals, Over seventy, however, signed the call for the
convention who did not express any wish to withdraw their
names.
It must be considered that the East Genesee Conference was
not yet dissolved, but stood in her dignity and grace, so that
brethren still acted as East Geneseans. Brother K. P. Jervis,
the day after the fatal act which divided us, had the fore-
thought to offer two resolutions, the one being as follows:
Resolved, That the action taken yesterday, dividing the territory of
East Genesee Conference between the Central and Western New York
Conferences, shall not be operative for the destruction of said East Gen-
esee Conference until the first day of September next.—Journal, 1872,
p. 369.
The fact that they still constituted their old Conference,
acting under her authority and for her existence, gives char-
acter to their proceedings.
The convention thus called met at Mount Morris, August 18,
1872. Bishop Simpson, by request, was present, and was
unanimously elected to preside. Upon ealling the roll it
was ascertained that one hundred and four members, seven
probationers, and seven lay delegates were present. Bishop
Simpson, in a brief address, stated that he was not there to
restrain or control, but wished the utmost freedom from all
members. The convention then proceeded to elicit informa-
tion and appoint committees. The details of the proceedings
need not be stated. Two great thoughts occupied all minds:
the reversal of the decree of General Conference by which the
East Genesee Conference was dissolved, and the methods to
be employed for the accomplishment of this end. As the
Committee on Resolutions covered this entire ground, we
need do little else than give to the reader their clear, able,
and exhaustive reports, in order to place before him the
breadth, the complications, and the gravity of the objects
sought by the convention, as also its animus. The occasion
LTistory of the Late East Genesee Conference. 8385
was great, but not beyond the grasp and control of the men
who were called to meet it. On the second day of the con-
vention, the report of the Committee on Resolutions being called
for, it was presented as follows:
Report of the Business Committee of the East Genesee Conference
Convention, held at Mount Morris, N. Y., Aug. 13, 14, 1872. Bishop
Simpson, president; and O. L. Gibson, secretary. ;
The Committee on Resolutions reported, and after a few verbal emenda-
tions the report was adopted as follows:
Whereas, Our Church has guaranteed to all her members, both lay and
clerical, the right of appeal, so that all may, in case of real or supposed
aggrievance, avail themselves of constitional methods of redress;
And whereas, A Conference as such, as well as lay and, ministerial mem-
bers, has its own distinctive rights, and may. therefore, be aggrieved by the
action of other Conferences, or by the ruling of the bishops, or by the
General Conference itself, and ought, therefore, to have a constitutional
method of appeal and redress;
And whereas, We believe that the breaking up and consequent dissolu-
tion of the East Genesee Conference, notwithstanding the known and
duly expressed wish of Conference in opposition, was without sufficient
warrant, and was, in the essential circumstances, without precedent in
the usages of the Church, and that it is subversive of constitutional and
ecclesiastical rights, calculated to unsettle the stability of our Church
institutions, and to impair the confidence of our people and the geueral
public in the wisdom of our legislation, and is a precedent fraught with
alarming danger; therefore
Resolved, 1. That we, the members of the East Genesee Conference, duly
assembled in Conference Convention previously to the time appointed for
our dissolution, and acting in our capacity and right as the East Genesee
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, do hereby aprran from
the action of the last General Conference, by whose order we are to be
broken up, and will apply to the next General Conference for redress.
And whereas, The usages of our Church furnish no method of appeal for
an Annual Conference except by the presenting of the case by the dele-
gates duly elected by their respective Conferences ;
And whereas, We, as a Conference, shall be broken up and dissolved
before the next regular election of delegates to the General Conference,
and shall consequently be deprived of representatives elected in the usual
manner, and shall, therefore, be denied the opportunity of presenting and
urging our appeal, unless it shall be done by delegates of other Confer-
ences in our help; therefore
2. That, to insure our rights as a Conference, and to conform to the
usual method of appeal and redress, by providing for the due representa-
tion of our cause at the next General Conference, we will formally request
the Western New York and the Central New York Conferences, in which
336 Llistory of the Late Lust Genesee Conference.
the action of the General Conference distributes us, to enter into an agree-
ment, to be duly recorded in the respective Journals, to instruct the
delegates that they may elect to the next General Conference to favor the
presentation of our appeal, and to urge, if it should be nevessary, the re-
hearing of our case.
3. That if these two Conferences shall in good faith enter into such
agreement, then we will in good faith, notwithstanding our deep sense
of the wrong and injury done to us as a Conference, pledge ourselves
faithfully and peaceably to enter upon the work that was assigned to us
by the bishops in connection with these two Conferences, and will, faith-
. fully as ever heretofore, scek the peace and the upbuilding of the Church
within their bounds.
4, That in offering this olive-branch to the two Conferences into which
we are involuntarily brought by the division of our territory, we are per-
suaded that it must commend itself to the candid judgment of all intel-
ligent persons asa thing right in itself and honorable to all, and absolutely
necessary as a basis of security, confidence, and harmony in our Conference
relations.
5. That in view of the possibility of the non-compliance of the two
Conferences in the matter of accepting the olive-branch which we tender
them, inasmuch as we cannot consent to be deprived of our right of
appeal, and of the only constitutional method of redress; and inasmuch
as, without any neglect or fault.of our own, we shall be prevented from
securing representatives to the next General Conference elected in the
usual manner, believing that. extraordinary emergencies may require and
justify extraordinary measures; and believing that intelligent, candid men
will duly consider the embarrassment of unprecedented circumstances,
and will not withhold justice on appeal when the best available means of:
conforming’ to established usage have been earnestly desired and unsuc-
cessfully sought; therefore
6. That we will now proceed to elect a commission of: six to. take
charge of our appeal, to act in connection with the delegates of the two
Conferences inthe presentation of the appeal to the next General Confer-
ence, or to take the sole charge of it in-case the two Conferences decline
to accede to our proposal.
7. That in this connection, before the East Genesee Conference ceases
to exist we will prepare a memorial to be presented to the next General
Conference, respectfully but most earnestly asking that body to restore
this Conference, so far as its boundaries and title are concerned, as it was
on June 1, 1872.
8, That we now appoint two brethren from each division of our Con-
ference to present this matter to their respective Conferences at as early a
period of the session as may be practicable, and that they be instructed
to communicate with each other at the earliest possible moment the result
of the presentation to their respective Conferences.
9. That in the foregoing expression of our purpose to seek, by all hon-
orable means, redress of our grievances as a Conference, we intend no
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 337
disrespectful reflections upon the late General Conference, and no dis-
respect to the two Conferences into which we are distributed. And while
we entertain no rebellious feeling or purposes against any constituted
authorities of the Church, yet we feel in honor bound to defend the integ-
rity of our beloved Conference by all prudent and lawful means; and we
assure our brethren of these two Conferences, as well as the whole Church,
of our unwavering fidelity to the interests of Methodism, and of our con-
fidence in the desire and purpose of the Church to do rightly by us. And
we hereby express our willingness to submit with true loyalty to the final
decision of our supreme Church council, after the due presentations and
rehearsing of our case.
10. That we request the bishops who shall preside in the Central New
York Conference so to arrange the ninety-five charges of the East Gen-
esee Conference falling within the bounds of that Conference as to give
them four presiding elders’ districts; also, that we request the bishops who
shall preside over the Western New York Conference, to give the seventy
charges falling within that Conference three presiding elders’ districts
during the next four years.” ;
D. D. Bucx, Chairman. O. L. Gipson,
T. B. Hupson, WILLIAM MANNING,
Joun DENNIS, G. W. Pappocx, :
; Committee.
Wiiiiam H. Goopwin, J. T. BROWNELL,
N. A. De Pew, Joun ALABASTER,
A. SUTHERLAND, D. LrisenriInG, J
Provision was made in the report of the Committee on Res-
olutions for an appeal to the General Conference for tlie resto-
ration of East Genesee Conference to its boundaries as they
stood on June 1, 1872. The following is their report, as pro-
vided and accepted, to wit:
To the Bishops and the Ministerial and Lay Members of the General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to be held at Baltimore, on
the first day of May, in the Year of our Lord 1876.
VENERATED FATHERS AND BRETHREN :
We, commissioners of the late East Genesee Conference, duly appointed
thereby and definitely instructed, as hereinafter stated, beg leave, for and
in behalf of said Conference, to address you on matters of vital interest,
as we conceive, to the whole Church.
The East Genesee Conference, previous to its dissolution, duly appealed
to your honorable body for redress from the action of the last General Con-
ference by which it was destroyed. Asa formal appeal from an Annual
Conference is unusual, if not unprecedented, we ask permission. to state a
few of the facts in the case for your better information.
In 1848 the Genesee Conference, then occupying nearly the whole of
Western New York, and a range of counties in Northern Pennsylvania,
338 Listory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
was judged tohe too large for convenience; and, according to its own
request, it was divided by a central line running north and south; the
Genesee River being in the main the line of division. The part lying
west of the river retained the old name Genesee, and the territory cast of
the river was called East Genesee. The new Conference was in the main
distinctly limited by natural boundaries, to wit: On the west by the Gen-
esee River, on the north by Lake Ontario, on the east by Lake Cayuga
and the Susquehanna, on the south by mountains and streams almost
impassable.
The territory of East Genesee was very compact, and every part was
easily accessible. Jt had all the diversity of territory and all the variety
of appointments for the successful development and operation of the mul-
tiform interests of the Church, with sufficient opportunity and room for
healthy expansion. It was, perhaps, as complete in itself, as harmonious
and successful in its operations, and as true and loyal to Methodism as
any Conference in the connection. The esprit de corps was strongly de-
veloped. We loved our Conference with true affection; and we were
content with our division of the general work. We were apprised of
changes, with more or less dissension, in Conferences east of us, and we
knew that we had something to fear from a Conference west of us; and
we were not willing to be a party to any proposal for change implying
partition, or consolidation, but desired to remain as we were, complete as
a Conference—neither too large nor too small—and occupying a territory
bounded distinctly by the Providence of God. With some apprehension
of attempted interference on the part of others, we uttered our remon-
strance in advance in the following resolution, which passed by a unani-
mous vote at the last session of our Conference, previous to our dissolution:
Resolved, That we reaffirm our resolution, passed three years ago, dis-
approving any effort tending to the change of our Conference boundaries,
or in any way leading to our disintegration, or consolidation with any
other Conference; and we hereby request our delegates, lay and clerical,
to carry out our desires thus expressed.
After twenty-four years of almost uninterrupted prosperity, we reported
a membership of twenty-six thousand; churches, two hundred and forty-
four; parsonages, one hunndred and thirty-one; value of Church prop-
erty, $1,465,280. We had three hundred and fifty-eight Sunday-schools
and twenty-two thousand five hundred scholars. Our collections for
missions amounted to $12,000. We then had ministers in full connection,
one hundred and ninety-eight, with six districts, and one hundred and
sixty-three pastoral charges. We had several incorporated institutions
for benevolent, educational, and Church purposes, and our Conference,
equally with several others, was a corporator of Syracuse University, en-
titled by the charter of that institution to perpetual representation in the
Board of Management, and in consideration of our corporate relation to
that institution we pledged our full proportion of the original endow-
ment, and took all suitable measures for securing and collecting it in good
faith,
History of the Late Hust Genesee Conference. 339
Such was the state of things in East Genesee, when the last General
Conference, with undue haste, as we are constrained to believe, decreed
our dissolution as a Conference, and the distribution of our members
among other New York Conferences.
When this entirely unexpected decree of the General Conference was
announced, no language can adequately express the astonishment, the
grief, the alarm, and the indignation which prevailed almost universally
throughout the length and breadth of East Genesee. Many of our most
wise, most prudent, and reputable ministers were overwhelmed with sur-
prise and regret, and for atime it seemed doubtful whether the Confer-
ence would submit to the fatal decree.
The General Conference had provided for our assembling, if we should
judge it expedient, before the time appointed for our dissolution, for the
adjustment of our local institutions; and in conformity with this pro-
vision a call was issued by seventy-five of our ministers, including four of
the presiding elders, for a convention to be held at Mount Morris, where
we had expected to meet at the annual session of the Conference. Bishop
Simpson, who had presided at our last session, and was still our president,
according to the usages of the Church, was invited to be present and to
preside at the convention, to which he kindly consented. The conven-
tion was largely attended, nearly as many ministers being present as
usually attended the annual sessions of the Conference.
We shall not ask you to listen to a full statement of what was done at
the Mount Morris Convention; but only so far as may be necessary to
give you full and authentic information of the nature and grounds of the
appeal. Guided, as we believe, by divine leadings, we determined not
to rebel, not to continue iu a state of agitation, and not to initiate or en-
courage insubordination, but to submit loyally to the decree that de-
stroyed us as a Conference, and to go quietly to the work that the Bishop
might assign us, hoping that the next General Conference, on the due
presentation of our case, would re-open the question of our dissolution,
and afford us a patient hearing. They, therefore, put their plan in the
form of an appeal, as hereinafter appears; and trusting for redress to the
wisdom and justice of your honorable body, we have, as the bishops can
inform you, remained loyally and quietly at our work, though feeling
keenly the unwisdom of the act that destroyed our Conference. We
have encouraged ourselves to believe that we should lose nothing at the
hands of the General Conference by refraining from agitation, by discour-
aging dissension, and by trusting our cause in the form of a calm appeal
to the supreme authorities in the Church.
Some of the reasons for our appeal have already been indicated; such
as: 1. The completeness, the compactness, and the convenience for Con-
ference purposes of the territory of East Genesee. 2. The harmonious
and successful operation of our Conference during the whole period of its
existence. 8. Our being content with ourselves, and our disinclination
to interfere with other Conferences. 4. Our unanimous remonstrance
against any proposed partition of our territory, or any contemplated con-
340 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
solidation with any other Conference. 5. Our chartered rights and finan-
cial interests in the Syracuse University. 6. And to this we may add
our chartered and financial interests in the Genesee Wesleyan Seminary,
located within our own boundaries, which we, in connection with the
Genesee [now Western New York] Conference, founded, built up, and
sustained; where many of us received our academical education; where
many of our sons and daughters have graduated; where we have scholar-
ships, and. where our chief educational interests centered. By our de-
struction as.a Conference all these rights and relations are interfered with,
and a very large proportion of our patronizing territory of that important
institution was separated from it, and would be expected (as it has since
been required) to withdraw contributions and: patronage from.that insti-
tution, which has the original and rightful claim, as we conceive, for the
benefit of another entirely beyond our boundaries, and with which we
had no official or property connection; and at the very time that Genesee
Wesleyan Seminary was in the greatest need of all the patronage and
financial assistance that her original supporters could give her. 7. We
judge, likewise, that the reason assigned for the destruction of the East
Genesee Conference, to wit: that the interests of the Syracuse University
required it, wus not justified by any instruction, request, advice, or
authority of that institution, was not in harmony with our natural in-
stincts of right and wrong, and was not in accordance with sound phi-
losophy. And we are impressed that the destruction of one of the
original Conference corporators of that institution, notwithstanding the
unanimous official remonstrance of the corporator, is a precedent calcu-
lated to shake the confidence of far-sighted men in the stability and suc-
cess of our chartered institutions, and is fraught with the most alarming
tendencies. Thoughtful men will reason, whether we would or not; and
the right implied in the destruction of one corporator, without consent,
implies the same right to destroy another and another; and who shall say
where the right reaches its ultimate limitation ? We are impressed that
this precedent, if uncorrected, must be a very serious obstacle in the way
of permanent success to Conference and educational institutions. 8. And
we still further urge that the grievous wound and the alarming shock
given to: what we conveniently term the esprit de corys, which was so
strongly developed in East Genesce, is a serious injury to that important
original principle of human nature that is the chief source of human hap-
piness and permanent success in our domestic, municipal, educational,
and ecclesiastical interests. 9. Our appeal is grounded likewise in the
impolicy and injustice, as we conceive it. to be, of sacrificing a Confer-
ence, which was certainly blumeless in respect to boundary difficulties,
for the purpose of adjusting the difficulties and dissensions of other Con-
ferences for which they were themselves responsible. 10. And we ap-
peal from the act that. blotted us out of existence as a Conference, because
of the manifest, and, we believe, now generally conceded, fact, that there
was no necessity for reducing the number of the Conferences within the
patronizing territory of the Northern Christian Advocate, where for many
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 341
years of progress and triumph five Conferences had existed, and where
there must be not less than five, and probably not less than six, to carry
on advantageously the work that divine Providence has indicated for us.
The two Conferences that absorbed East Genesee are undeniably too
large for the greatest convenience, and three Conferences within that ter-
- ritory would be better than two. And if there should be another Con-
ference within this large territory, as we think there must be, why not
grant the earnest petition of East Genesee to be restored? Has any Con-
ference a better right to exist? East Genesee did not deserve to die.
There was no necessity for her destruction. She deserved well of the
Church. She officially, earnestly, unanimously remonstrated against any
attempt at her dissolution. But when the sentence was uttered that
destroyed her, she obediently submitted to her fate. In her dying mo-
ments she appealed to you to be restored. She duly appointed her com-
missioners to represent her to your honorable body, and instructed them
to speak to you officially in her behalf, and to beseech you—who have the
power of life and death—to grant her petition to live.
Respected Fathers and Brethren: We thank you for listening so consid-
erately to our appeal. It is East Genesee that has spoken through us to
you, and by our hands has presented to you her dying request. You
have kindly listened to her voice. Will you now grant her petition, and
bid the suppliant Conference live ?
Danie D. Bucx, Joun DENNIS,
D. W. C. Huntinetron, Wini1amM BrapDuey,
Otis L. Gipson, A. F. Morsy,
Commissioners for Hast Genesee Conference.
The six commissioners who signed the appeal were appointed
by the Convention to go to the seat of Gencral Conference
and see to the proper and thorough presentation and manage-
ment of the whole case. Committees were appointed to pre-
sent to the Central and Western New York Conferences the
case of the East Genesee Conterence, so far as it related to its
restoration. Dr. Huntington also offered a resolution that a
committee of five be appointed to fix the time, place, and pro-
gramme for a reunion of the members of the East Genesee
Conference some time in 1875; and D. W. C. Huntington,
K. P. Jervis, J. Dennis, T. Tousey, and D. D. Buck were made
that committee. Other details of business were provided for,
and the business of the convention closed. Bishop Simpson,
as president of the convention, thanked the convention for
their cordiality and good wishes to him, for the harmony and
342 Listory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
good feeling that prevailed, and his prayer was that the four
years to come might be years of great prosperity and success.
If on any of the charges there should be a disposition to fan
the flame it would be a loss to Christ. Important as are Con-
ference boundaries, it is more important to gain sinners to
Christ. In this spirit the convention adjourned sine die.
Three years rolled away, during which the members of the
dissolved East Genesee Conference took their appointments
from the bishops as usual, one division acting under the title
ot Western New York and the other of Central New York
Conference. In the interim, however, various committees at-
tended to their various duties. Particularly the committee of
five, created at the Mount Morris Convention to watch the
current of public sentiment so far as the preachers and so-
cieties of the East Genesee Conference were concerned, and to
call a reunion of said ministers and members, “some time in
1875.” Suid committee faithfully tested the general senti-
ment on the subject, and in their meeting of July 23, 1878,
they decided ‘ That we now proceed to arrange for a Confer-
ence reunion, as it was contemplated at the Mount Morris
Convention.” They also decided that “it shall be held in
the summer of 1875, at such place as may be hereafter des-
ignated.” Pursuant to this call the members of the recent
East Genesee Conference met in Asbury Church, Rochester,
N. Y., June 8, 1875. Bishop Janes was present. The
meeting temporarily organized with Rev. John Dennis, D.D.,
chairman. J. Benson and J. Parker conducted the relig-
ious services; O. L. Gibson was elected secretary pro tem. W.
C. Mattison, the last secretary of the East Genesee Conference,
called the roll, and fifty-five members responded to their
names. ‘Ihe following officers were then duly elected: John
Dennis, D.D., president; Bishop Janes, vice-president; *
* Bishop Janes excused himself from acting as president, on the ground that in the
progress of the meeting questions might arise which, though proper in themselves,
might make it improper for him to act in that capacity.
Tistory of the Late East Genesce Conference. B43
O. L. Gibson, secretary; W. C. Mattison and A. W. Green,
assistant secretaries. A few committees were appointed. E.
H. Latimer was reporter. Dr. Buck addressed the convention,
taking the ground that the General Conference had no right
to dissolve an Annual Conference. In the afternoon session
J. N. Brown conducted religious services. “ Dr. Dennis de-
livered a strong, pointed, eloquent, historical address.” Dr.
Buck read interesting and profitable memoirs of thirteen East
Genesee Conference members who had died since the disso-
lution of the Conference, and appropriate addresses were made
in honor of the dead. The evening session was devoted to a
love-feast and the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
The second day of the reunion, Dr. Buck, from the Business
Committee, submitted the following report, to wit:
Resolved, 1. We have duly considered the several papers referred to us.
2. We do not deem it advisable to attempt any new departure in mat-
ters relating to our Conference at this convention. e-affirmation, not
origination, we deem the true line of wisdom and duty.
3. We therefore submit, for the action of the Convention, the following:
Whereas, The East Genesee Conference, previously to the time fixed by
General Conference for its disruption and dissolution, and while it yet
remained a Conference intact, regularly assembled at a convention duly
called at Mount Morris, August 13, 1872, in conformity with a provision
of the General Conference for such Conference convention for various
purposes, did then and there, by preamble and resolutions, passed by a
nearly unanimous vote, for reasons therein assigned, as a Conference, in
Conference capacity, so far as the nature of the case admitted, formally
and solemnly appeal from the action of the last General Conference, by
which our Conference was fatally dismembered and destroyed, directly in
conflict with our unanimously expressed wishes as a Conference; and,
Whereas, Our Conference, in Conference capacity, as far as the nature
of the case permitted, did then and there elect commissioners, to take
charge of and appeal, and in such relations represent, East Genesee Con-
ference at the next General Conference, to which we appeal; and,
Whereas, After three years of experience, observation, and reflection,
we have discerned no good reason for a change of our views concerning the
action of the Gencral Conference, of which we complain, and from which
we appealed, and no good reason for a change of our purpose in reference
thereto; therefore,
Resolved, 1. That we now reaffirm the expression of our convictions
and purposes as embodied in said preamble and resolutions.
2. That we intrast to our duly elected commissioners in charge of the
3t4 Llistory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
casc, the papers referred to us at this convention, and a preparation of a
digest of said preamble and resolutions, as well as any other documents
which they deem expedient to use in furtherance of the object for which
they were appointed. All of which is hereby respectfully submitted.
Rev. D. D. Buck, D.D.,
Rev. Joan Dennis, D.D.,
Rev. K. P. Jervis,
Rev. A. SUTHERLAND,
Business Committee.
The wisdom and clearness of this report cannot well be
overrated. Different views had been advanced by different
persons, who thoroughly believed in the righteousness of seek-
ing redress through appeal, but wished, also, other methods,
adapted to their various views of the moral and legal relations
of the act of dissolution. These would lead to controversy,
division, and hence defeat. From the beginning it had been
clearly stated that the nature of the wrong done was both
ethical and conventional, and the ground of hope for redress
was to be sought in suasive influences, and convictions of moral
and conventional fitness. To those who would multiply issues
it was wisely said, ** We do not deem it advisable to attempt
any new departure in matters relating to our Conference at this
convention. Re-affirmation, not origination, we deem the
true line of duty.” Aitter submitting the report, a lengthy
discussion followed, by Brethren Jervis, Huntington, Buck,
Baron, Gibson, Tousey, Bradley, Brown, Copeland, and Suth-
erland. The vote on the adoption of the report was then
taken, and it was adopted by ayes, sixty-four; nays, one.
The business of the reunion was now mainly done. “ Bishop
Janes,” says the secretary, “addressed the convention in a
few words we shall never forget, impressing upon all the sweet-
ness and nobility of his spirit.” The following resolution was
then unanimously adopted:
Resolved, That we desire to express our great satisfaction at the pres-
ence with us of our beloved and honored senior bishop, Janes, at our
reunion. We are rejoiced at his apparent improvement in health and
strength, and earnestly hope that we may often see him among us and
hear his counsels. Rey. O. L. Grson,
Ruy. K. P. Jervis.
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 345
In the afternoon session the convention “ requested their
commissioners to appoint at least one of their number from
each of our Conferences, to attend the General Conference.”
This the commissioners did in their meeting at Rochester,
March 21, 1876, when they chose of their number Brethren
J. Dennis and D. D. Buck. The General Conference were to
convene at Baltimore on the first of May following. A com-
mittee was also appointed who should have “ power to call a
meeting of the old members of the East Genesee Conference,
whenever in their judgment it should be necessary or de-
sirable.” Thus every contingent: was met and provided for,
and all felt secure that our just cause had been fully defended,
and whatever was possible, and for the greatest good upon the
whole and in the final result, must be realized. But if the
change was overruled for a future good, there still remains a
question to settle; namely, whether all has been done in equity
and in brotherly ince
22
346 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
CHAPTER IL.
The case brought before General Conference in 1876—New and impor-
tant legislation touching the changing of Annual Conference boundaries—
The case of East Genesee Conference referred to Committee on Bounda-
ries—Action of committee, substantially restoring the East Genesee Con-
ference—Action of committee mutilated by sub-committce—Great dissat-
isfauction with its mutilated form—Proposition to consolidate with the
‘Western New York Conference, and change the title back to Genesee
Conference—Consolidation effected and former title resumed—a further
and final division.
‘ Tux General Conference of 1876 met at Baltimore May Ist.
‘Among the experiences of the past which loudly called for leg-
fslative interference, the subject of fixing Annual Conference
boundaries had now become a matter of serious and imperative
concern. There was an obvious wrong, of ominous magnitude,
in our church law on the subject, which had never fully dis-
covered itself until by the light of recent events. The peace
of the connection at large, and of individual Conferences, now
called for more protective legislation. As it was, and as it had
been, the Annual Conference had, by the letter of law, no
individual right of choice, or individual power of protection
against any disturbance, change, division, or annihilation of its
organic form, or even its existence, which might arise from any
quarter. The Annual Conference might send its delegates to
General Conference in good faith, but only to be returned
home with their Conference mutilated and disorganized, and
its members dispirited and dishonored, with no legal provision
for redress. The power of the General Conference in the
premises was absolute. We need only to look back over the
doings and decisions on this subject since 1868, as far as re-
lates to the Western New York and Troy Conferences, to
justify all we have said. From time to time during this period,
LTistory of the Late Hast Genesee Conference. 347
as we have seen in the preceding chapter, resolutions were
offered in General Cunterence by thoughtful and considerate
men, which anticipated the needed reform. But at length
events, which are more imperative than opinions or majorities,
roused the church to action. With a wise, clear, and appre-
ciative view of all the bearings and relations of the snbject,
the Committee on Boundaries on May 31, 1876, reported to the
General Conference as follows, to wit:
Your committee received from this body a paper proposing a plan for
the settlement of questions arising upon the matter of Conference bound-
aries, and having carefully considered it in all its bearings recommend
the adoption of the following order by the General Conference to regulate
future action on this subject.
1. No petition, resolution, or memorial asking for, or involving the
division of Conferences, or the organization of new Conferences out of
territory already occupied by organized Conferences, or the absorption of
Conferences already existing, shall be entertained by the General Confer-
ence until it has been submitted to the Annual Conferences immediately
affected by such proposed action.
2. No proposition for any change in Conference boundaries shall be
entertained by the General Conference until due notice shall have been
given by the Annual Conference desiring such change, or by a majority
of the presiding elders thereof, to the Conference or Conferences which
are to be affected by such proposed action.
8. Any two or more Conferences which may be mutually interested in
the re-adjustment of their common boundaries may at any time raise a
joint commission, consisting of five members from each Conference im-
mediately interested, and the decision of such joint commission, when it
shall be approved by the bishop or bishops who may preside in these
Conferences next ensuing, shall be final. But if the commission so ap-
pointed shall fail to agree, or the presiding bishops shall not concur, then
the case, with a statement of its facts, together with the records of the
commission, shall come to the General Conference for final adjudication.
Had this law, so wise, so important, and so righteous, been in
force in 1872 the East Genesee Conference weuld never have
been divided and destroyed, nor in any way seriously affected
by change. But now, at this late hour, the new law interferes
in behalt of common justice and right. Although it came too
late to rescue and defend the noble East Genesee Conference,
it nevertheless, for the time to come, vested in the Annual
Conferences a power tv modify and change boundaries by
348 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
mutual agreement, with no embarrassing contingents or re-
strictions. Ifthe East Genesee Conference could not be re-
stored as it was, there might at least be an arrangement more
congenial to our wants and preferences than that which Gen-
eral Conference had provided. It was the third item of the
above report, now by its adoption become law, which supplied
the basis and authority for the reunion and consolidation of
the Genesee and the restored portion of the East Genesee
Conferences, hereafter to,be noticed in its place.
Meanwhile this same committee that formed and reported
the above most righteous law were considering the question
of the restoration of the East Genesee Conference, and hearing
and weighing the arguments of her commissioners. At an
early day, the fourth day of the session, the subject was brought
before the General Conference. The record says: “K. P.
Jervis presented a paper relative to a restoration of boundaries,
and requested that it be read. The request was not granted.
It was then moved that the Conference instruct the Committee
on Boundaries to fix a time for hearing the case, and notify all
parties concerned, which motion was laid on the table.
A motion by A. Lowrey to reconsider the vote just men-
tioned, by which the Conference refused the reading of the
paper, was laid on the table. De Witt C. Huntington moved
to take from the table the motion to instruct the Committee on
Boundaries, which was agreed to, and the motion was then
passed.”——Journal, pp. 81, 82.
By this motion the Committee on Boundaries (a committee
of eighty members) stood instructed to give the fullest courte-
sies and hearing to the representative commissioners of East
Genesee Conference. There was a wide-spread knowledge
and feeling in regard to the case; and, while simple Justice to
East Genesee was patent to all, still the interests had now: be-
come so complicated and serious, far beyond the common
measure, that opposition was strong.
‘The preparations of the appellants seemed quite ample and
History of the Late Eust Genesee Conference. 349
complete. An important factor of suecess w s found in the
fact that Dr. De Witt C. Huntington, then of Central New
York Conference, and Rev. J. N. Brown, and Rev. K. P.
Jervis, of Western New York Conference, all East Geneseans,
were members of General Conference, and rendered material
aid, especially before the committee, where lay “the brunt. of
battle.” The committee held the balances with discreet im-
partiality, allowing full scope to arguments on all sides, The
debate was earnest and protracted. Dr. Huntington, being a
delegate from the Central New York Conference, excused
himself from acting as one of the commissioners of the East
Genesee Conference, and explained to the committee that
should the East Genesee Conference be restored, provision
must be made for increasing the territory of the Central New
York Conference by restoring to it, in part at least, that which
had, been previously given to Northern New York and Wy-
oming Conferences.
Dr. Dennis says: “ The commission were invited to address.
the committee in support of the appeal, which they did, and
were heard attentively, and treated with Christian courtesy.
The committee consisted of one member from each Annual
Conference—about sixty members were present. After an
earnest and protracted debate, in which the merits of the case
were fully discussed, the following resolution was presented
and adopted, with but one vote in the negative, to wit:
_'** Resolved, ‘That the East Genesee Conference be restored, with..the
boundaries substantially as they were in May, 1872.’”
_ When the vote for restoration had passed the committee, the
delegates from Central New York Conference requested a
further hearing upon the subject, and on Dr. Huntington’s
motion that Conference was heard by such of its delegates as
desired to.speak, and by others, not members of the General,
Conference. When this hearing was concluded Dr. Hunting-
ton .presented a map, showing the relations and relative sizes
of the Conferences interested, with. the numbers of. effective
350 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
ministers in each, after which a motion to reconsider was made
and lost.
The East Genesee Conference by this action was now re-
stored, so far as the power of the committee could secure it,
and if the case could have come before the General Confer-
ence in this form there is little room to doubt its confirmation.
But the action of the committee was not yet formulated for its
presentation to General Conference, and a snbcommittee was
created “ whose duty it should be to frame a description of the
boundaries of East Genesee Conference, as restored according
to the action of the committee” just mentioned. ‘“ But, con-
tinues Dr. Huntington, instead of restoring substantially the
former boundaries of the East Genesee Conference, they took
the liberty so to describe the lines as to cut off a large section
of its former territory, and place it in the Central New York
Conference. Every effort was made to induce this subcom-
mittee to conform their boundary lines to the evident meaning
of the action of the Boundary Committee, but without success.
“Believing that such a mutilation of the old Conference
would not be satisfactory to any, it was finally proposed, by
mutual consent, that the restoration of the East Genesee Con-
ference should be abandoned, and that the Conferences inter-
ested should remain, as to their boundaries, as they had been
since 1872. The members of the Committee on Boundaries
from the Central and Western New York Conferences both
agreed to the plan, and reported their agreement to one of the
bishops.
“But at this juncture a member of the Central New York
delegation, who was not in the Committee on Boundaries,
placed himself in opposition to it. He was a member of the
subcommittee by whom the lines had been drawn, and for
some cause he seemed exceedingly desirous that those lines
should remain intact. The parliamentary attitude of the ques-
tion before the Committee on Boundaries had become such that
it could not be brought up for further consideration without:
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 351
unanimous consent, a motion to reconsider having been lost.
The member of the Central New York delegation alluded to
interviewed a lay delegate who was a member of the Com-
mittee, and secured from him a pledge that he would always
object to the matter being brought up. Again and again did
the members of the Boundary Committee from the Central and
Western New York Conferences ask that the matter might be
allowed to come up long enough to admit a motion which
would place the boundaries in question just where they had
been for the four years before; but the Arkansas layman, true
to his pledge, was always on hand with his objection. When
asked why he thus objected, he replied that he knew nothing
of the merits of the question, but he had given his word, as
above stated, that he would watch the case and always object.”
In this posture of things the report of the Committee on
Boundaries submitted their work to the General Conference,
there to be confirmed, or annulled, or modified, at their
discretion. The “Report No. 2” of the Committee on
Boundaries being thus finally rendered, the depleted condition
of the East Genesee Conference was thus therein stated as fol-
lows: “ East Genesee Oonference shall be bounded on the west
by the Genesee River, including the city of Rochester, in the
State of New York; on the north by Lake Ontario; on the
east by a line beginning at Sodus Bay and running south on
the east line of the towns of Sodus and Lyons, in Wayne
County, and the east line of Ontario County to Seneca Lake;
thence southward up said lake to Watkins; thence south to
the New York State line, leaving the charges of Watkins,
Havana, Millport, and Horseheads in Central New York Con-
ference. It shall also include the territory in the State of
Pennsylvania known as the Troy District.”
This report of boundary, the reader will understand, takes
from the former East Genesee Conference two full districts,
including Clyde, Waterloo, Seneca Falls, Elmira, with all of
Seneca County, and parts of Tompkins, Schuyler, and Che-
352 History of the Late Hast Genesee Conference.
mung; leaving it a third-class Conference. The question of
accepting it became now an absorbing thought. The General
Conference, in adopting the report, had given us a compromise
between something and nothing, and the now mutilated and
dismantled Conference, if accepted, would cripple all our enter-
prises, and impair our social status. Besides, it did not satisfy
the Central New York Conference, and gave us no assurance
of future peace. The division of judgment became serious, and
the general feeling becamealarming. The report of the above
Cominittee on Boundaries was given May 31st, and the East
Genesee Conference, in its mutilated condition, was to open its
next session the 4th of October following. The four months
intervening were sufficient to settle opinion and diversities of
opinion on the question. The wound was deep and the gen-
eral feeling was correspondingly so. We had waited long for
redress, and our hopes were blasted. Men trembled for the
ark of God. The extinction of our beloved Conference in 1872
was a stunning blow; and its return to us now in this muti-
lated and degraded form, though less sudden, was scarcely less
severe.
The 4th of October, 1876, came, and the East Geneseans,
though resolute, yet, like a “forlorn hope,’ assembled in the
Asbury Church, Rochester, Bishop Simpson presiding. On
the first day’s session, E. J. Hermans presented the following :
Whereas, The action of the late General Conference concerning the
boundaries of Western New York, East Genesce, and Central New York
Conferen:es is unsutisfactory, and, as we believe, injurious to the efficient
work of the Church in these Conferences; therefore,
Resolved, That we appoint a commission of five, to act with commis-
sions appointed by the Western New York and Central New York
Conferences, to restore substantially the boundaries of Central and West-
ern New York Conferences as they were prior to the General Conference
of May, 1876.
A motion to adopt was laid on the table by a count vote of
sixty-tliree for, to forty-eight against. This vote showed clear-
ly how large a proportion of the ministers stood disaffected at
the decision of the General Conference in not restoring the
Mistory of the Late Hast Genesee Conference. 358
full East Genesee Conference boundary. They considered that
a mutilated Conference would only be as a perpetual reminder
of their depressed and humiliated condition. They demanded
“substantially ” the restoration of the old boundaries. But
the resolution was not allowed to sleep. The next day it was
moved “to take from the table the resolution laid on the table
the previous morning. The motion prevailed by a vote of
seventy-one ayes to sixty-two nays.” This, however, only
proves that the majority called for debate without delay, how-
ever the question might be decided after debate. The Minutes
of Conference further record: “ Moved, that an equal time be
given to the two sides in this debate. A motion was made to
lay this motion on the table. The motion to lay. on the table
did not prevail. A substitute for the original motion was
adopted, providing that all restrictions should be removed from
the debate. A motion was made that, when we adjourn, we
adjourn to meet at two P.M. for debate. A motion was made
to lay this motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table
did not prevail. The original motion was then adopted. De-
bate now became inevitable. A motion was made that the
debate: be postponed until to-morrow. The motion was laid
on the table.” A little later, ‘A motion was made that we
hear the delegates of the Western New York Conference at
two P.M.” This hinted a new and an important movement at
an important crisis of affairs. The feeling of the Conference
had risen to unprecedented height, and at this moment breth-
ren became more anxious for the Christian spirit and harmony
of the debate than for the result, ecclesiastically considered, of
the final vote. .
It will be remembered that the Western New York Confer-
ence, which now meant the Genesee Conference, was in session
at Le Roy at the same time that the East Genesee Conference
held its session at Rochester. The distance between the two
places—less than an hour's ride on the cars—allowed an easy
and rapid inter-communication. While the East Genesee
354 Ilistory of the Late East Genesee Conference.
brethren were balancing the question of acceptance of her dev-
astated boundaries, a new scheme was suggested, and pre-
pared, which would at once meet every reasonable demand
and obviate every legitimate objection. The memorable day
and hour arrived. After the opening service Bishop Simpson
announced the transfer of Rev. J. N. Brown to the East Gene-
see Conference. I cannot better explain the posture and
sequence of affairs than by giving the reader Brother Brown’s
own words. He said: “I was a member of General Confer-
ence for 1876. . . Knowing from good and substantial evidence
that a combination was entered into at Baltimore, by the dele-
gates of surrounding Conferences, to break up the East Gene-
see Conference at the session of the next General Conference, I
proposed a plan for re-uniting the Western New York and East
Genesee Conferences so as to be strong for mutual defense ;
for the Western New York Conference delegates had not en-
tered into the combination referred to above. I laid my plan
before Bishop Simpson while in Baltimore; and he said that
it was the best suggestion that had yet been made to bring
about harmony, and requested me to push it through. I ac-
cordingly addressed myself to that work as soon as I returned
home. I soon found that a majority of the Western New York
men would favor the reunion, and that the most of the East
Geneseans would also vote for it. These facts I learned before
the session of the two Conferences-—East Genesee Conference
met in Rochester, October 4, 1876; andthe Western New York
Conference met at Le Roy, N. Y., at the same time, Bishop
Simpson presided over the former and Bishop Ames over the
latter. There was a deep feeling and great depression of
spirit in both of these Conferences. A discussion of the
boundary question, which would probably have resulted in
alienated feelings, seemed inevitable. I went to Le Roy,
had an interview with Bishop Ames, laid my plan before
him, and asked a transfer to the East Genesee Conference.
He approved of my plan; gave me my transfer, and said:
History of the Late East Genesee Conference. 355
‘Take that and go to Rochester, and don’t return until the
union is accomplished.’ [ then got together some of the lead-
ing Western New York men, and requested them, as a Con-
ference, to be in readiness to act promptly. A commission
of Conference had already been appointed by the Western
New York Conference, and all that remained to be done was for
the East Geneseans to concur, and thus give them full power
to close up the business. I returned to Rochester early in the
morning. East Genesee Conference opened at the usual hour,
and my transfer was read by the bishop. Soon the Western
New York Conference commissioners arrived. The battle
was set in array, and the great disenssion was abont to open,
when the proposition to unite the two Conferences in one was
presented You know the rest.”
After announcing the transfer of Brother Brown, as above,
and the introduction of some visitors by the bishop, Dr. 8. Hunt
[we follow the Minutes], addressed the Conference on the subject
of Conference boundaries, whereupon George Van Alstyne
presented the following, as a substitute for the resolution taken
from the table in the morning session:
Whereas, A proposition has come to us from the Western New York
Conference to consolidate with us, forming one Conference of the two;
therefore,
Resolved, That we accept the proposal, and appoint a commission for
perfecting such consolidation.
Bishop Simpson, being called upon, expressed his opinion
concerning the legality of such action; and the Conference ac- ,
cepted and adopted the substitute by a vote of one hundred
and twenty-one in favor, and none against. Being reqnested,
by vote of the Conference, the bishop nominated the commis-
sioners as follows, namely: K. P. Jervis, F. G. Hibbard,
William Bradley, G. Van Alstyne, and R. Harrington. These
immediately retired for consultation with the commission from
the Western New York Conference. Soon they returned, for
there was now nothing to debate, and nothing required but to
formulate the consolidation. The record says:
856. History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
“The commissioners on boundaries returned and reported:
that the joint commission had unanimonsly adopted the fol-
lowing, namely :
‘Resolved, That the division boundary between East Genesee and West-
ern New York Conferences be removed, and made to coincide with the
eastern boundary of the East Genesee Conference, and that the territory
thus united shall be called the GENESEE CONFERENCE.”
It was now Jate in the afternoon, and Conference soon ad-
journed. On the opening of Conference the next morning,
“it was moved by J. N. Brown that we invite the Western
New York Conference to meet with us at their earliest con-
venience, to consummate the action of the joint commission, in
merging the Western New York and the East Genesee into
the Genesee Conference. This resolution was adopted. A
resolution was adopted to invite the Western New York Con-
ference to join with us during the remainder of the annual
session, and J. N. Brown was made a committee to telegraph
said resolution to the Western New York Conference. The
bishop then addressed the Conference upon the subject of
Conterence boundaries.
“Tt was ordered that the Committee on Public Worship
arrange for the reception of our brethren of the Western New
York Conference, and for a suitable social and religions serv-
” Soon after “ the Committee on Reception reported, nom-
inating a receiving escort and arranging for a session of the
ice.
Conference with suitable service. The report was adopted.”
During the afternoon session the brethren from Western New
York Conferenee arrived at Rochester, and were received in
the Asbury Church with many hearty hand-shakes, with tears,
and rejoicing. Joy and thanksgiving were prevailing and
universal. Comrades in arins, old and young, here met, met to
part no more by ecclesiastical dictation. ‘Our feet were on
our native soil, and our name” was Genesee. . In the public
prayers on the occasion the spirits of the mighty dead seemed
hovering round. Above all, the Holy Spirit was there. We
’
LMistory of the Late East Genesee Conference. 357
were about to launch into the boisterous sea of debate when
the dove with the olive-leaf came to us, and the waters
assuaged.
The two Conferences had: consummated their consolidation,
and they now sat together in the holy sanctuary. The official
record of their union is thus given:
Organization of the Genesee Conference, October 6, 1876, by the consolida-
tion of the East Genesee and Western New York Conferences.
The East Genesee and the Western New York Conferences held their
first united session in Asbury Church, in the city of Rochester, at four
o’clock P. M., of the above date, Bishop Simpson presiding, associated
‘with Bishop Ames, president of the Western New York Conference,
Rev. J. N. Brown, in a few happily chosen words, introduced Bishop
Ames, and the members of the Western New York Conference, to Bishop
Simpson and the members of East Genesee Conference.
Bishop Simpson announced the hymn:
“And are we yet alive,
And see each other's ‘face ?
Which was sung with true Methodistic inspiration. At the request of the
bishop Brothers. Harrington and Waite led in highly appropriate and
fervent prayers, especially thanking God for mercies of former days, for
the present auspicious and happy meeting, and earnestly invoking the
divine blessing on the consolidated Conference in the new associations
and united labors.
An address of greeting and welcome to the bishop and members of the
-Western New York Conference was then given by Bishop Simpson. The
address was pertinent and cordial and encouraging, and was received with
hearty responses and frequent cheering by the crowded audience. Bishop
Ames responded with much wit and innocent pleasantry, mingled with
many sound practical suggestions and warm congratulations.
By.request Dr. Hibbard spoke for the brethren of East Genesee with
characteristic terseness, sound philosophic reflections, and humorous com-
parisons and allusions. It was a happy blending of the serious and the
humorous, and was richly enjoyed by all.
Dr. 8. Hunt, by invitation, briefly responded for the brethren of the
Western New York Conference with warm Christian geniality, and val-
uable practical reflections.
The following paper was then ‘presented by the recording secretary,*
Dr. Buck; and C. C. Wilbor, the secretary of the Western New York Con-
ference; and was, by a rising vote, unanimously adopted:
* Rev. K. P. Jervis, the Conference’ secretary, being called away, Dr. D. D. Buck,
our recording sceretary, became now the acting secretary.
358 Lhistory of the Late Last Genesee Conference.
Whereas, The East Genesee and Western New York Conferences ap-
pointed commissioners to adjust the boundaries of the two Conferences;
And whereas, Said commissioners have agreed to the union of said
Conferences in one Conference, to be called the Genesee;
And whereas, The presiding bishops have concurred with the com-
missioners, and have approved the union;
Therefore we, the former members of the East Genesce and the West-
ern New York Conferences, now assembled as one Conference, in the
Asbury Church in Rochester, do hereby ratify and approve said proceed-
ings, and do declare ourselves to be one Annual Conference, to be hence-
forth known as the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church.
D. D. Buck,
Recording Secretary of East Genesee Conference.
C. C. WiLBor,
Secretary of Western New York Conference.
The bishops then formally announced their official coneur-
rence by reading the following paper:
We do hereby concur in the terms agreed upon by the commissioners
of the Eust Genesee and the Western New York Conferences, whereby
they unite in one Conference, to be called the Genesee; and we hereby
recognize the members of said Conferences, now assembled in the city of
Rochester, as the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church.
M. Srrson,
President of East Genesee Conference.
E. R. Ames,
President of the Western New York Conference.
RocuEster, Oct. 6, 1876.
Here should have ended that series of persistent efforts which,
for a period of eight years, had kept the churches in a state of
unrest and alarm. But it turned out that, in the consolidation
of the Western New York Conference with the mutilated form,
ot East Genesee, now to be called the Genesee Conference,
this new organization was stronger than Central New York
Conference. Such a result was unanticipated. At the
General Conference of 1880, therefore, the subject was again
brought before the Committee on Boundaries, and through
them before the Conference. The movement now conteim-
plated would so change the eastern boundaries of the old East
Genesee Conference as to take a large section out of the heart
History of the Late Hast Genesee Conference. 259
of the East Genesee territory, and attach it to an eastern Con-
ference with which it had no historic associations. The area
desired and sought embraced many of the best churches of
Western New York, and however this measure last proposed
might come nearer a balance of power of the two Conferences,
yet, as an instance of ecclesiastical surgery with which we had
now become somewhat familiar, the pain of dismemberment
was not the less severe. We wait the slow unfolding of events
to determine whether all things have been done in wisdom and
equity, in the faith of brotherhood and for the glory of God.
If for the, greater good we are content. This is the law of
heaven, and to it we bow; steadfastly looking to the consnm-
mation when, “according to the arrangement of the fullness of
the periods, He will gather together the all [sum total] who
are in Christ, both which are in heaven and upon the earth ;
even in him; by whom also even we have been chosen by lot.”
History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
IN MEMORIAM.
361
DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE EAST GENESEE CONFERENCE.
#18
BP i Beis S,
Date of Birth, NAMES, Time of Death. | Age.| | =) 2
; a |
Mar. 1, 1784) Parker Buel................. May 30, 1851) 63 | 1818 | 33
1813 | John Caine...... ededas jeans 1853) 40 | 1843 10
1787 | Jonathan Heustis............ Feb. 8, 1854] 67 | 1810 | 44
2 1783 pase Eas rn Geese ees April 27, 1 71 | 1810 | 44
ina J. Buck..... cee eee ee eee 18 .. | 1829 25
Jan. 5, 1801} Gideon Osband......... +..--|dune 7, 1855) 54 | 1828 | 27
1778 | Robert Burch ............... July 1, 1855) 77 | 1804] 51
1788 | William D. Jewett........... Nov. 10, 1855] 67 | 1830 | 25
1787 | Ira Fairbank...... eG ees May 31, 1857| 70 | 1811 | 66
Sept. 8, 1788 | Elijah Hebard............... June 28, 1858| 69 | 1811 | 47
Mar. 5, 1780] Palmer Roberts....... Seas April 19, 1858]'78 | 1811 | 47
April 11, 1825) Ralph D. Brooks............. Jan. 9, 1859} 34 | 1859 9
1816 | Moses Crow......5.....00005 Oct. 3, 1859] 43 | 1835 | 24
* Sheldon Doolittle. .......... 1860] .. | 1828 | 32
Nov. 3, 1833] Henry C. Brown............. Sept. 22, 1860] 27 | 1856 4
July 31, 1800) James Durham.............. Mar. 2, 1861] 60 | 1831 | 30
1786 | Gideon Draper:............5. Dec. 8, 1861} 81 | 1803 | 57
July 2, 1788) Nathan B. Dodson........... Sept. 6, 1862) 74 | 1813 | 49
Oct. 25, 1811] Elbridge G. Townsend........ Sept. 10, 1862] 51 | 1836 | 26
Nov. 4, 1773} Cyrus Story............0.005 Dec. 15, 1864] 91 | 1818 | 46
1805 | Ebenezer Colsen.............| Dec. 16, 1864] 58 | 1844 | 20
Aug. 25, 1807] Chandler Wheeler............ - 1865) 34 | 1831 | 34
~ 1837) Eli H. Brown ............08. Mar. 21, 1865 | 28 | 1859 6
Feb. 27, 1805] Hiram Sanford.............. May 16, 1865] 60 | 1835 | 30
Feb. 6, 1806} David Ferris .............. May 27, 1865] 60 | 1839 | 21
Sept. 29, 1829] John E. Hyde............... Oct. 6, 1865) 35 | 1852 |: 13
1813 | Edward O. Hall........... -.|Mar. 2, 1866] 53 | 1835 | 31
Sept. 25, 1810} John Mandeville...... sie OE e'e's Mar. 29, 1866] 55 | 1838 | 28
Sept. 29, 1829) Joseph Pearsall.............. Sept. 22, 1866] 77 | 1835 | 31
1798) Salmon Judd.............088 Aug. 14, 1867} 69 | 1831 | 36
Aug. 14, 1802 John Robinson ............ -|Jan. 9, 1868] 65 | 1832 | 35
Jan.. 26, 1826 | Sylvester L. Congdon. .«.| May 27; 1868) 42 | 1847] 21
1839 | John J. Wilson..... seseeeees| Nov. 28; 1868) 29 | 1867 1
July 11, 1807) John Shaw.............0.06. Jan. 16, 1869| 62 | 1831 38
' 1810] Elisha Sweet..... sere AA SA 4 Sept. 7, 1869] 59 | 1847] 28
April 18, 1791 | Samuel Luckey.............. Oct. 11, 1869) 78 | 1811 | 58
Dec. 29, 1823 | George E. Haven....... .e.e-|May 27,1870] 46 | 1853 | 17
Feb. 25, 1789| Loring Grant............5... Sept. 13, 1870] 81 | 1809 | 61
* Charles S. Davis........ «..-.| Nov. 5, 1870] .. | 1838 | 30
July 14, 1783| William Snow...............|July 5, 1871] 88 | 1807 | 64
July 31, 1815} Jonathan W. Putnam........./Sept. 9, 1871} 66 | 1842 | 49
1798 | Manly Tooker............ ...| Dec, 30, 1871] 73 | 1820 | 52
July 21, 1837] Charles Z. Case..... eveeeeee-| Oct. 19; 1872] 35 | 1861] 11
July 26, 1818] Thomas B, Hudson Dec. 6, 1872|:'59 | 1849 |} 23
Jan. 19, 1832] Edward D. Rousa............ May 6, 1873} 41 | 1852] 21
April -1, 1799 | Benjamin Shipman......... ...| Dee. 11; 1873) :74 | 1822 | 51
Mar. 30, 1792| Robert Parker...........+4.. Dec. 3, 1874) 82 | 1820] 64
Mar. 16, 1810} Veranus Brownell............| Dec. 11, 1874} 64 | 1828 | 46
May 15, 1809] Calvin S. Coates............- Feb. 11, 1875 | 66 | 1831 | 44
23
* No authentic data.
362 History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
DECEASED MEMBERS—Continued.
- Ss
Date of Birth, NAMES. Time of Death. | Age. 3 4
g | &
a le
Jan. 8, 1809 Nathan Fellows.............. Mar. .., 1875] 68 | 1830 | 45
Jan. 8, 1809} Theodore McElheney......... Mar. 23, 1875| 66 | 1837 | 38
1815 / Dallas D. Lore............24. June 20, 1875| 60 | 1838 37
Mar. 13, 1807] Henry Wisner........ entesegues Noy. 4, 1875| 71 | 1833 38
Feb. 15, 1799] Carlos Gould ............... Dec. 4, 1875) 77 | 1833 | 42
June 12, 1812] William H. Goodwin......... Feb. 17, 1876| 64 | 1833 | 42
Jan. .., 1840] Horatio C. Corey...........-- May 30, 1876] 36 | 1871 6
July 28, 1788] William Jones............0.. June .., 1876| 88 | 1816} 60
Aug. 26, 1819] Joseph A. Swallow.......... Sept. 21, 1876] 56 | 1856 | 20
Noy. 28, 1829} William Wollgemuth......... Oct. 26, 1876] 46 | 1862 14
Nov. 3, 1814] William E. Pindar............ Dec. 3, 1876| 62 | 1842 34
Nov. 25, 1790 | George Wilkinson ..........- Feb. 7, 1877| 78 | 1829 | 48
Jan. 14, 1818} John Raines ..............66 1877] 58 | 1845 | 32
Feb. 22, 1800] John Parker,.........2..005 , 1878] 78 | 1822 | 56
Sept. 18, 1815] John Powell...........0.006 , 1878} 63 ; 1842 36
Sept. 18, 1796] Asa Oreutt............. 1878} 81 | 1821 57
Feb, 12, 1814| James McClellan.... , 1878] 63 | 1846 32
Dec. 6, 1797 | Samuel Parker. , 1879) 82 | 1830} 49
1828] Sylvester H. Aldrich......... Oct. 31,1879} 54 | 1852 27°
Oct. 5, 1818} William Potter.............. Feb. 22, 1880] 61 | 1847 Ba
June 4, 1819 Mlijah Wood,.............-. Feb. 23, 1880] 61 | 1845 35
Oct. 19, 1807] Asahel N. Fillmore........... Aug. 23, 1880] 73 | 1830 | 50
* Inman J. B. McKinney.......] Oct. 5, 1880) * | 1829] 51
1800 | Joln Copeland.............. Oct. 7, 1880] 80 | 1822 | 58
1812/ Enoch H. Cranmer,.......... Oct. 8, 1880] 68 | 1840 | 40
1828 | George J. Dubois............ Mar. 21, 1881] 53 | 1853 | 28
April 19, 1801 | John W. Nevins............. )May 19, 1881] 80 | 1830 51
June 14, 1788| James Hemmingway......... Aug. 27, 1881] 93 | 1824 | 57
July 20, 1831] Otis L. Gibson..... ......... Nov. 14, 1881] 50 | 1858 23
Jan. 19, 1790] Ralph Clapp.......... +-.../dan, 19, 1882] 92 | 1844 | 38
1796 | Richard Wright ...........6. Feb. 24, 1882] 87 | 1820] 62
June 16, 1810] Austin BE, Chubbuck.......... April 15, 1882] 71 | 1844 | 38
May 6, 1820] Charles L. Bown........ .....|May 8, 1882] 62 | 1841] 41
Nov. 26,1817) ‘'homas J. O. Wooden........ Sept. 8, 1882] 65 | 1851] 31
Jan. 16.1823} Claudius G. Curtis........... Aug. 18, 1882] 59 | 1868] 14
1790 | James Hall................. 1882} 92) 1813 | 69
Oct. 1, 1800 , Delos Hutchins.............. Feb. 14, 1883] 82 | 1834] 49
1824} Charles L. F. Howe.......... Feb. 28, 1883] 59 | 1859 ; 24
Mar. 23, 1833 | John W. Jenner....... sib cael June 13, 1884; 50 | 1871 | 13
Nov. 22, 1822] Robert Hogoboom............ Aug. 9, 1884| 62 | 1846 | 38
Oct. 5, 1801 | Joseph Chapman..........:..|Sept. 7, 1884] 83 | 1832 | 52
June 22, 1811 | Joseph K. Tinkham.......... Sept. 30, 1884] 73 | 1838 | 46
April 22, 1824 Augustus C. George........ ..|Aug. 17, 1885] 61 | 1847 | 38
Feb. 5, 1823 | Isaac Everett.............00. Sept. 25, 1885] 62 | 1857 28
April 13, 1806 | Kdward Hotchkiss........... Jan. 15, 1886] 80 | 1830 55
June 30, 1817] George Loomis.............. Feb. 13, 1886] 69 | 1861 25
1859 | Stephen C. Hatmaker.........|May 15, 1886] 47 | 1874] 12
Aug. 24, 1836] Jolin VT. Brownell............ May 26, 1886] 50 | 1865 21
Dec. 31, 1798} Kbenezer Latimer............ June 10, 1886] 88 | 1833 | 53
June 12, 1833) Johu W. Brown........ paeie ad June 11, 1886] 53 | 1868 | 18
1803 | John Spinks ................ June 12, 1886] 83 | 1848 | 38
Mar. 26, 1811] John G. Gulick.............. July 22,1886} 75 | 1885 | 51
Feb. 27, 1810} David Nutten............... Nov. 13, 1886] 76 | 1837 | 49
* No authentic data,
Je Sy
TO THE NAMES OF THE BISHOPS AND MINISTERS REFERRED TO
IN THE FOREGOING HISTORY.
A
Abell, Asa, 28, 29.
Ackerman, G. E., 290.
Adams, 8. C., 82, 104, 154, 183.
Adgate, C. V., 29.
Alabaster, John, 337.
Alden, 8. W., 25,734.
Alverson, James, 29.
Alverson, John B., 23, 120.
Ames, Bishop, 242, 299, 307, 354,
357, 358.
Andrews, Bishop, 329.
Andrews, Richard, 77.
Armstrong, William, 188, 191, 192.
Arnold, Joseph T., 25, 38, 66, 67,
68, 196, 197, 198, 199.
Asbury, Bishop, 9, 16, 19, 38.
Ashworth, Joseph, 25, 34, 49, 54,
77, 127, 208, 256.
Aylesworth, Reuben, 56.
Babcock, W. R., 49.
Baker, Asa §., 34, 39, 40, 82, 106,
134, 254, 255.
Baker, C. 8., 79.
Bancroft, A. M., 141.
Bangs, Heman, 315.
Bangs, Nathan, 114.
Barber, W. A., 34.
Barnard, John, 29.
Beach, Richard M., 25, 34.
Beers, Nathan N., 25, 120, 304, 305.
Beman, N. 8. §8., 114.
Benham, A. B., 266.
Benham, William R., 266, 267.
Bennett, Charles W., 313.
Benson, F., 180, 132, 133.
Benson, Jonathan, 24, 33, 71, 72,.
228, 289, 342.
Bingham, I. §., 323, 326.
Blake, Ruel, 29.
Blythe, F. K., 29, 59.
Boehm, Henry, 9, 19.
Bowen, Elias, 161.
Bown, Charles L., 25, 33, 65, 300,
301.
Bradley, Wm., 25, 34, 154, 341, 355.
Brooks, Ralph D., 47, 91, 187.
Brown, George, 172.
Brown, J. J., 84, 82, 294. ~
Brown, John N., 25, 84, 85, 187,
188, 139, 199, 225, 247, 843, 349,
354, 355, 356, 357.
Brown, Philo E., 78, 188.
Brownell, J. T., 129, 337.
Brownell, Veranus, 25, 34, 109.
Brownson, 8. M., 34.
Buck, Daniel D., 25, 33, 50, 52, 58,
81, 135, 136, 137, 221, 258, 262,
263, 264, 312, 333, 337, 341, 343,
344, 345, 357, 358.
Buck, William D., 51, 63.
Buck, Zina J., 24, 33, 72, 178.
Buckley, J., 94.
Buel, Parker, 24.
Bull, J. M., 48, 44, 98, 168, 221,
222, 265.
364
Bunting, Jabez, 43.
Burch, Robert, 24, 33, 101.
Burnett, George, 49.
Cc
Cain, John, 25, 38.
Carlton, Thomas, 23, 29.
Castleton, T., 66.
Chamberlayne, Israel, 29, 78, 284.
Chapman, Joseph, 24, 34, 91.
Chase, Abner, 24, 28, 29, 54, 101, 284,
Chase, Benjamin F., 86.
Chase, Daniel §., 25, 34.
Chase, L. D., 128, 175, 215, 216.
Chubbuck, Austin E., 25, 34.
Clapp, Ralph, 25, 34.
Clark, Daniel, 50, 77, 147, 148,
149, 187, 249, 250.
Clark, Erastus, 29.
Coats, Calvin 8., 24, 34, 166, 167,
230, 312.
Cochran, Wesley, 25, 33, 69, 205,
206, 207, 257, 258, 264.
Coffin, Peleg, 107.
Cole, John E., 71.
Colson, Ebenezer, 25, 34, 249. ©
Comfort, O. F., 25, 34.
Congdon, L. F., 203.
Congdon, §. L., 34, 190, 202, 313.
Cook, Valentine, 10, 11.
Coolbaugh, G. W., 90.
Copeland, John, 24, 28, 29, 33, 65,
69, 72, 134.
Corse, A. E., 326.
Crane, Philip, 39.
Cranmer, Enoch H., 25, 34, 77.
Crow, David, 25, 33.
Crow, Moses, 25, 33, 40, 184, 147,
167, 312.
Crouch, James, 59.
Curry, Daniel, 328, 329.
Curtis, E. G., 252.
D
Davis, Charles §., 25, 34, 175.
Davis, L. D., 49. :
History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
Davison, Alva, 231, 232.
Davison, C. P., 34.
Day, John H., 94, 96, 97, 98, 165,
167, 168, 215, 217, 259, 260.
Dean, J. A., 284.
Dennis, John, 21, 28, 24, 25, 27, 33,
38, 39, 55, 57, 106, 154, 172, 173,.
198, 217, 229, 275, 276, 283, 289,
309, 312, 337, 841, 842, 344, 345,
349.
Dempster, John, 56.
De Pew, Nelson A., 95, 109, 110,
111, 152, 300, 337.
De Puy, W. H., 166, 289.
Dodge, Jonas, 28, 24, 34, 89, 175,
284, 312.
Dodson, Nathan B., 24, 152.
Doolittle, Sheldon, 24.
Draper, Gideon, 24, 38, 132, 143.
Dryer, G. H., 217.
Duncan, James, 226, 227.
Durbin, John P., 815.
Durham, James, 24, 33, 284.
E
Easter, John, 298, 294, 295.
Easter, John, Sr., 293.
Eddy, Lyman A., 297.
Edgar, Abraham D., 25, 46, 47, 48,
152.
Edgar, H. G., 34.
Edson, James L., 25, 33, 82, 83, 104,
178, 179, 180, 252, 279, 280, 281.
Erwin, James, 326.
F
Fairbanks, Ira, 24.
Farrell, Alexander, 25, 34.
Fellows, Nathan, 24, 34, 47, 64, 77,
78, 79, 93, 108, 150, 155, 160, 182.
Ferguson, Merritt, 72.
Ferris, David, 25,33, 65, 167.
Fillmore, Asahel N., 24, 84, 44, 66,
96, 98, 167, 308, 312.
Fillmore, Glezen, 23, 28, 29, 51,
56, 119, 173.
Index. - 865
Fisk, Wilbur, 315.
Fleming, Thornton, 11.
Fuller, J. M., 52.
G
Gardner, C. M., 47, 90, 182, 183,
244, 308, 304.
Garrettson, Freeborn, 10.
Gage, W. D., 99.
George, A. C., 33, 85, 73, 82, 883,
133, 313.
Gibbard, Isaac, 222, 223, 272, 273.
Gibson, Otis L., 151, 257, 264, 335,
337, 341, 342, 343, 344.
Goodwin, William H., 25, 38, 52,
189, 243, 282, 312, 313, 337.
Gould, Carlos, 25, 34.
Graham, Curtis, 25, 34.
Grandin, J. L. 8., 25, 34.
Grant, Loring, 28, 29, 39, 71.
Green, A. W., 305, 306, 343.
Green, Theron R., 208.
Gulick, John G., 25, 38, 55, 56, 58,
59, 60, 147, 190, 283, 236, 289, 312.
Gurnsey, 8. P., 34, 153.
H
Hall, James, 24, 34.
Hall, U. S., 218, 219, 220, 286, 261,
262.
Hamline, Bishop, 46, 77, 89.
Hancock, R. T., 25, 146.
Hard, Amos, 258.
Hard, Gideon, 29.
Harrington, Rausley, 25, 33, 104,
355.
Harris, Horace, 25, 34.
Harris, Bishop, 248.
Haskell, William L., 34.
Hatmaker, 8. C., 301.
Haven, E. O., 324.
Haven, Gilbert, 299, 324.
Hebard, Elijah, 24.
Hedding, Bishop, 115.
Hemingway, James, 24, 79, 173.
Hemp, Robert, 77.
Henderson, James, 59.
Hermans, E. J., 167.
Heustis, Jonathan, 24, 284.
Hibbard, B., 114.
Hibbard, F. G., 33, 52, 72, 91, 107,
112, 118, 115, 116, 117, 134, 146,
158, 154, 167, 188, 184, 202, 258,
270, 277, 282, 801, 306, 307, 308,
312, 318, 355, 357.
Hickok, Henry, 25, 33, 54.
Hilliard, 8. W., 321.
Hitchcock, J. C., 251, 252, 253.
Hitchcock, Lucius Charles, 189.
Hoag, Miller, 71.
Hogoboom, Robert, 338, 251, 260,
313.
Hosmer, William, 23, 24, 30, 33,
124, 160, 312.
Hotchkiss, Edward, 24, 33, 70.
House, Elisha, 55, 56.
Howard, R. O., 81, 293.
Hudson, Elisha, 34.
Hudson, Thomas B., 25, 38, 313,
337.
Hunt, Sandford, 299, 355, 357.
Huntington, De Witt C., 195, 298,
318, 330, 341, 348, 849, 350. 439 —4
Huntley, Alexander C., 25, 34.
Hutchins, Delos, 25, 178, 283.
Hyde, John E., 162.
I
Ives, Benoni I., 330.
J
Jacques, J. R., 81, 160, 185, 186,-
187.
Janes, Bishop, 93, 147, 229, 249,
272, 806, 807, 342.
Jenks, A., 15.
Jervis, Kasimir P., 82, 169, 170,
171, 228, 224, 274, 312, 318, 334,
341, 344, 848, 349, 355.
Jeroloman, J., 151.
Jewell, Joseph, 38.
Jewett, William D., 24.
366
Jocelyn, G. B., 322.
Jolly, Thomson, 231, 295, 296, 305.
Jones, Ezra, 59.
Jones, William, 84, A.
Judd, Salmon, 24, 34.
Judkins, Dr., 269.
K
Kelley, Luther, 29, 39.
Kellogg, Israel H., 25, 33, 99, 137,
268, 269, 290.
Kidder, D. P., 52, 72, 161.
Kilpatrick, Jseoph, 108.
Kipp, J. D., 41.
Knapp, John, 25, 34.
L
Laman, Albert G., 25, 34.
Landon, Leir, 46.
Landreth, James, 161, 168, 208.
Lanning, Gideon, 56, 284.
Lanning, Ralph, 17.
Latimer, Ebenezer, 24, 33.
Latimer, E. H., 343.
Latimer, James E., 313.
Layman, Albert J., 89.
Leisenring, D., 43, 44, 45, 337.
Levings, Noah, 56, 77.
Lindsay, John W., 313. de
Lober, John, 29.
Lovecraft, Wm., 59.
Lowrey, Asbury, 72, 348.
Luckey, Samuel, 24, 33, 34, 52, 57,
114,”
M
McElhenny, Theodore, 25, 34, 49,
84, 140.
McGerald, Samuel, 59,
McKendree, William, 18, 19, 38.
McKinney, I. J. B., 24, 34, 84.
McKinstry, Porter, 25, 40, 42, 135,
163, 312.
McMahan, Isaiah, 25.
McMahon, R., 33.
Maffit, J. N., 315.
Mandeville, Austin, 256.
History of the Late East Genesee Conference.
Mandeville, John, 25, 38, 179, 190,
256.
Mandeville, William, 175.
Mandeville, William W., 25, 33)
40, 42, 76, 256.
Manning, William, 159, 160, 337.
Mather, F. D., 176, 277.
Mattison, H., 152, 303.
Mattison, Seth, 150.
Mattison, William, 193, 194.
Mattison, William C., 150, 151, 160,
342, 343.
Merrill, Bishop, 270.
Miles, James, 86.
Milliman, Andrew, 77.
Milliman, Hiram, 77.
Mitchell, Robert, 39.
Morris, Bishop, 77, 170, 175.
Morey, A. F., 128, 229, 288, 289,
290, 341.
Murray, Robert, 39.
N
Nash, Charles, 151.
Nevins, John W., 23, 24, 38, 84,
98, 173, 188.
Nichols, Samuel, 25, 34.
Nixon, J., 42.
Norris, C. H., 290.
Northway, L., 25, 34, 54, 73, 140,
185, 247.
Nutten, David, 25, 34, 40, 78, 79,
81, 128, 1384, 140, 141, 175, 195,
233, 235, 280, 301.
Oo
O’Fling, E., 178.
Olin, Stephen, 89, 147, 284.
Orcott, Asa, 24.
Osband, Gideon, 24, 42, 109, 284.
Osbon, A. M., 323.
Osborn, Nehemiah, 59.
P
Paddock, G. W., 154, 209, 214, 387.
Paddock, Zachariah, 56.
Index.
Palmer, Ray, 41, 175, 290.
Parker, John, 24, 34, 52, 101, 342.
Parker, Robert, 24, 34, 40, 82.
Parker, Samuel, 24, 38, 175.
Pearsall, Joseph, 24, 131.
Pease, Lewis, 118.
Peck, George, 169.
Peck, J. T., 229, 280, 257, 268, 289.
Perry, Daniel, 15.
Phelps, A. J., 826.
Pindar, William E., 25, 34.
Platt, A. D., 39.
Plumley, Albert, 25, 33, 79.
Porter, J. 8., 822.
Potter, William, 34, 77, 219.
Powell, John, 25, 34.
R
Raines, John, Jr., 25.
Reap, Peter, 50.
Reid, J. M., 56, 291, 312, 313.
Richardson, Marvin, 94.
Roberts, Palmer, 24, 182.
Robie, J. E., 30.
Robinson, John, 24, 38, 151.
Rogers, Lewis L., 25, 34.
Rooney, Samuel B., 25, 38.
Rounds, Nelson, 29.
Rumsey, W. H., 175.
Runner, William A., 91, 93, 94,
141, 202, 203.
Runyan, W. W., 284, 285, 297.
Ss
Sanford, Hiram, 25, 34.
Scott, Bishop, 184, 269.
Seager, Micah, 79.
Seager, Schuyler, 23, 29, 52, 203,
229.
Searles, William, 303.
Seaver, Horatio N., 25, 34, 160,
243, 312. :
Shatlin, Samuel, 77.
Shaw, John, 24, 34, 48, 178, 284.
Shipman, Benjamin, 24, 33, 160,
202.
367
Shurtleff, A. H., 175, 176, 183, 277,
278.
Simpson, John, 39.
Simpson, Matthew, 217, 269, 334,
835, 341, 352, 354, 357, 358.
Smith, Caleb, 77.
Smith, Chancey, 77.
Smith, Francis, 29.
Smith, F. M., 301, 303.
Smith, Ira, 89.
Smith, Isaac, 73.
Smith, James, 11.
Snow, William, 24, 38.
Soule, Bishop, 43.
Spencer, John, 15.
Spencer, Moses, 241.
Spinks, J., 34, 170.
Stacey, Thomas, 25, 88, 54,
1538, 188, 204, 256.
Steele, Allen, 104,
Stilwell, Richard L., 25, 34, 54, 83,
1538, 208, 259.
Storey, Asa, 24,
Story, Cyrus, 24,
Sutherland, A., 38, 54, 68, 64, 143,
144, 145, 194, 246, 887, 344.
Sweet, Elisha, 34,
55,
T
Tefft, B. F., 312.
Thomson, Bishop, 274.
Tinkham, Joseph K., 25, 38, 73.
Tooker, Manly, 24, 29, 38, 52.
Tousey, T, 34, 39, 42, 150, 201,
202, 254, 257, 285, 313, 341.
Tower, Philo, 33, 86.
Townsend, Elbridge G., 25, 33, 102.
Transue, G. S., 209, 258.
Trowbridge, Orrin, 25, 34,
102, 150, 176, 227, 228.
Tuthill, Willis, 59.
Tuttle, Joseph K., 25, 34, 194, 202,
312.
101
,
Vv
Van Alstyne, George, 290, 291, 355.
Van Benschoten, Henry, 249.
|
368 History of the Late Hast Genesee Conference.
Van Nest, Peter, 15.
Vidian, Richard, 151.
Vosburg, Henry, 270, 291.
Ww
Wager, Jacob, 171.
Waite, ‘‘ Father,” 80.
Watts, James, 108, 197, 287, 274.
Watts, Jonathan, 33, 108, 109, 181,
182, 312.
Waugh, Beverly, 24, 45, 90, 94, 98,
209, 231.
Way, Henry, 59,
Whedon, D. D., 308.
Wheeler, Anson, 39.
Wheeler, Chandler, 24, 34.
Wheeler, Martin, 33, 107, 228, 229.
Wilbor, A. D., 79.
Wilbor, C. C., 357, 358.
Wilcox, Lucius, 196, 306.
Wiley, John, 24, 34.
Wilkinson, George, 24, 34.
Williams, Dwight, 297.
Wilson, J. B., 82.
Winchester, O. W., 294.
Wisner, Henry, 24, 34, 95, 33.
Wood, Elijah, 25, 33.
Wood, John A., 241, 243.
‘| Wooden, T. J. O., 167, 218.
Woodworth, Philo, 23.
Wooster, Samuel W., 24, 33.
Wright, Alpha, 25, 33.
Wright, B. 8., 326.
Wright, Charles B., 25, 34.
Wright, C. H., 277, 296.
Wright, C. P., 46.
Wright, Richard, 24, 80.
INDEX
TO THE CIRCUITS, STATIONS, AND DISTRICTS. —
A
Addison, 43, 50, 77, 183, 246, 247.
Alexander, Batavia, and Stafford
Circuit, 80.
Allegany, 305.
Alloway and Lock Berlin, 108.
Andover, 233.
Angelica Circuit, 72, 206.
Attica and Varysburg Circuit, 79.
Avoca, 304.
Avon, 141, 195, 291.
Avon Springs, 247.
B
Barrington, 78, 147, 219,
Bath District, 140.
Benton Center, 189, 254.
Benton Circuit, 71, 72, 228.
Bethel and Voak, 178.
Big Flats, 88, 301.
Bloomfield, 133.
Blossburg, 838, 297.
Boston Circuit, 71.
Brattleboro, 242.
Bristol Center, 305.
Brockport, 68.
Brookfield Mission, 140.
Brookfield, Pa., 191, 227, 232.
Brookville, 226.
Buffalo and Batavia, 15.
Burlington, 45, 76, 302.
Index.
Cc
Caledonia Colony, 15.
Canada, Upper, First Circuit of, 18.
Canandaigua, 69, 196, 223, 262, 291,
306.
Canisteo, 207, 304.
Canoga, 104, 132, 167, 300.
Canona, 305.
Canton, Pa., 46, 83.
Careyville, 51.
Castile, 80.
Castleton, 265.
Castleton and Hopewell, 54.
Catharine Circuit, 121, 143, 220.
Cazenovia, 297.
Chapinville, 154, 265, 288.
Chemung, 120, 261.
Cherry Mission, 111.
Churchville and Chili, 79.
Clifton Springs, 153, 183, 204, 221,
307.
Clyde, 100, 195, 199, 224, 255, 268.
Cohocton, 304.
Corning, 135, 140, 197.
Covington, 83, 102.
Covington Mission, 150.
D
Dansville, 52, 81, 171.
Dansville District, 116.
Dresden, 1438, 204, 296, 301, 305.
Dundee, 55, 121, 300.
Dundee and Starkey, 138, 146, 244.
E
East Bloomfield, 229.
East Genesee Conference embraced
the territory of the first conquests
of the old Genesee Conference, 9;
its organization in 1848, 20-25 ;
its territory, 22 ; status and out-
look, 26, 273 its personnel, 33;
its presiding elders, 34; increase,
87; first session of, 90.
East Palmyra, 168, 205, 285, 286.
Elmira, 67, 135, 224, 254.
24
869
F
Farmington, 226.
Friendship Circuit, 72.
G
Genesee District : earliest outline
of Genesee Conference, 14 ; total
strength of in 1816, 16; govern-
ment of prior to 1810, 16; prolific
motherhood of, 18 ; dissatisfaction
of organization of, 18; wisdom of
the act, 19; relative strength of,
in 1848, 20.
Geneseo and Groveland, 49, 70, 193,
Geneseo, 173, 181, 214, 238, 274.
Geneva, 137, 202, 290, 291.
Geneva, Earliest Methodist history
of, 38; later history, 38, 39, 115,
116; district, 117.
Gorham and Voak, 260, 301.
Groveland, 291.
hh
Hammondsport, 84.
Havana, 148, 217, 220, 301.
Hector, 76, 84, 217.
Hemlock Lake, 176.
Henrietta, 198, 251.
Holland, 305.
Holland Purchase Mission: first ap-
pearance of a circuit of, 14; rela-
tive strength of in 1810, 16.
Honeoye Falls, 138, 165, 185, 255,
289.
Hopewell, 66, 259.
Hornellsville, 99, 129, 134, 195, 238,
243, 256, 300.
Hornellsville District, 247.
Horseheads, 216, 304.
Hotchkiss, 70.
H
Trondequoit, 139.
Italy Hollow, 2038.
J
Jackson, 83, 153.
Jacksonville, 151.
370
Jamesville and De Witt, 278.
Jasper, 302.
Jefferson (now Watkins), 76.
Jerusalem Circuit, 128. ‘
Junius, 295.
Junius and Tyre, 108.
Kanona, 296.
Knoxville, Pa., 47, 226.
L
Lawrenceville, Pa., 121, 187, 305.
Le Roy, 51.
Lewiston Circuit, 51, 71.
Liberty, 271.
Lima and Livingston Circuit, 72.
Lima, 115, 246, 267.
Livonia, 176, 199, 253, 285.
Lodi, 137, 177, 195, 280.
Logan, 301. .
Loyalsock Circuit, 95.
Lyons, 53, 81, 221, 225.
Ma
Mainsburg Circuit, 148.
Mansfield, 83, 102, 158, 205, 208.
Marion, 285.
Mead’s Creck Circuit, 86.
Mecklenburg Circuit, 43, 88, 121,
215.
Middlesex, 82, 190,
Middleport Circuit, 51.
Milo, 301.
Monterey, 277.
Mount Morris, 72, 130, 179, 180, 803.
oF
237.
N
Naples Circuit, 40, 49, 82, 108, 249.
Newark, N. Y., 109, 194, 195, 275,
201.
North Hector, 304.
Nunda, 106, 107, 131,
Nunda Circuit, 39.
253, 279.
®
Ontario Circuit, 40.
Orange, 152.
History of the Late Last Genesee Conference.
Orange Circuit, 112.
Otsego Circuit, the oldest, 10.
Ovid, 121, 197.
Ovid and Sheldrake, 55, 183.
P
Painted Post, 42, 170.
Palmyra, 188, 254. 269.
Penfield Circuit, 72, 255.
Penn Yan, 115, 135, 147, 268.
Perry, Wyoming County, 67, 115.
Phelps, 199, 291.
Pheenix, 278.
Pine River Mission, 83.
Pittsford, 69, 99, 109, 168, 255.
Port Gibson and East Palmyra, 109,
222, 286, 288, 297, 300.
Potter, 167, 227.
Prattsburg, 108, 236, 305.
Proctorsville, 242.
Pultney, 209, 305.
Pultneyville, 140, 176, 185, 222.
Rr
Wading Center, 301.
Richmond and Canadice, 205.
Rochester, 55, 136, 138, 172, 203,
237, 244, 248, 276, 290, 298, 307.
Rochester District, 274, 276.
Rochester, Village of, in 1812, 15.
Rogersville, 109, 129, 227.
Royalton and Middleport Circuir,
50.
Rush, 129, 178,
Rushville, 108, 121, 228, 206.
a
223.
§
Scottsville, 272.
Seneca Castle, 265.
Seneca Falls, 254, 272.
Seneca Lake Circuit, 10, 11.
Seneca Lake District, 89.
Sheldrake Circuit, 104.
Sodus, 108.
South Dansville, 236.
Southport, 74, 98, 261.
Index.
South Sodus, 249, 277, 295.
Springfield Circuit, 75, 97, 187.
Springville, Pa., 66.
Springwater, 208, 227.
Starkey Circuit, 64, 108.
St. John’s Church, Rochester, 50,
116.
Susquehanna District, 143.
T
Thetford Center, 241.
Thurston, 230, 294.
Tioga and Lawrenceville Circuit, 76,
Tioga and Mansfield Circuit, 49.
Tioga Circuit, 10.
Tonawanda, 271.
Towanda, Pa., 145.
Towlesville, 227.
Townsendville, 120.
Troupsburg, 50.
Troy Circuit, 175.
Troy District, 257.
Trumansburg, 127, 194, 256, 281.
Tuscarora, 802.
Tyre, 220.
Tyrone, 188, 271.
371
U
Ulster and Smithfield, 192, 305.
Ulysses Mission Circuit, 91, 93, 293.
Urbana, 84.
Vv
Victor, 72, 102, 268, 300.
Vienna (Phelps), 88, 134.
Virgil, 278.
w
Walworth and Macedon, 275.
Warner’s, 278.
Waterloo, 228, 229.
Watkins, 182, 204, 262.
Wayland, 277, 285, 252.
Wayne, 305.
Webster, 251.
Wellsborough, 153, 155, 263.
Wellsburg, 147.
Wellsville, 198, 250.
Westfield, 227, 282.
West Webster, 256.
Whitesville and Andover, 151, 226.
Williamson, 177.
s
|
OC
AS SS \
~~ \\ _
SA NX
AX
\N SN
\
~ \
\< SS
\
\
CC ~ \
\\
~
VAAL ~
~
\ ~ \ \
~~ ~ \
—
\
—
SS
\
SN
SS
—
_
a
\ XK
SS
\\
LX \
Wi
Ss
WEAN
—
AX ~ <<
—
~
SS _
\\
\
\
AN
NS
.
=e
aA
YE
Yi
WE
——
Yi
CELL