NAZARITE ORGANIZATION.

Men sometimes become so impressed with hearing a matter frequently repeated that they finally believe it, not only without evidence, but in opposition to positive evidence to the contrary. This appears to be the case with Bishop Simpson, in reference to the " Nazarite Union,", or " Band." That there was such an organization among the members of the Genesee Conference of the M. E. Church, was confidently affirmed, both `in private and through the press ; though we can hardly see how it is possible that those making such affirmation did not know that it was false. But the statement is still made, as confidently as though it were a conceded fact.

It was talked of at the time as fully proved;, by those who opposed the doctrine of holiness, as specially advocated by the men who were charged with being members of such an organization. Official papers of the Church helped on the delusion. Though it was emphatically denied by those members of the Genesee Conference who had knowledge of the matter, and who were supposed to belong to the "Nazarite Band," no notice whatever was taken of their denial. And from Bishop Simpson's book, it appears that the statement is still clung to with great pertinacity. Is it on the principle that a story often told is at last believed? Or is it because it is the only shadow of an excuse that can be made for an act of ecclesiastical tyranny and proscription, which, looking back upon after the lapse of twenty years, we deliberately pronounce to be without a parallel in modern times, for its injustice?

We shall give proofs so conclusive that no such organization ever existed, as to forever set the question at rest with every person who lays the slightest claim to candor.

And first, we call attention to the following paper, which was prepared and signed by the men who were supposed to be prominent in the " Nazarite organization." It was published at the time in the Northern Independent, and in a fly-sheet form. A copy was given to Bishop Simpson.

GENESEE CONFERENCE MATTERS.

READ AND THEN JUDGE.

Certain reports having been put into circulation, charging a portion of the Ministers of the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, with the disreputable and unworthy act, of having organized a society " bearing certain marks of secrecy " under the name of the Nazarite Band or Union," the object, of which, it has been reported, is to control the appointments, and direct the affairs of the Conference ; and this charge implicating many of our Ministers as taking steps unworthy the Christian, and derogatory to the Ministerial character :

Therefore, We, the undersigned, Members of the Genesee Conference, hereby declare, that after careful inquiry, we are fully convinced that no such society has ever existed in the bounds of this Conference. The whole excitement with reference to the supposed organization, grew out of certain letters, indicating the existence of such' a society, written by a single individual, who, on the floor of the Olean Conference in 1855, publicly declared, that he alone was responsible for the whole affair. These letters were written without our knowledge, and have never received our approval. Though the existence of such a society has been repeatedly denied, in various ways and on numerous occasions, yet in public and in private, and especially through the columns of the Buffalo Christian Advocate, these reports have been spread abroad, to the injury of the Ministerial reputation, and Christian influence and usefulness of numbers of our Ministers, by creating an unjust prejudice against them; among whom are some of our most able and efficient men.

Connected with the charge of association, is that of encouraging fanaticism, and extravagance in religious exercises and worship. This charge we declare to be as groundless as the other. We have never encouraged excesses, and with them we have not the least sympathy. But while we stand opposed to all improprieties in religious exercises and worship, we declare ourselves in favor of a consistent and vitalized religion; not a dead formalism, but the power of Godliness. Not that form of religion that expresses itself in confused irregularities on the one hand, or on the other,, in sermons without life and without adaptation, the abandonment of social meetings, and the neglect of family and private prayer; but in a religion that moves the heart, and prompts to every good work; not of beneficence alone, but also of devotion.

These charges then, of forming an association or encouraging fanaticism, having their origin, in the opinion of some, in ambition and jealousy; made and reiterated, it has been feared, with a design and for effect—if applied to us, we unhesitatingly pronounce to be unjust, iniquitous, slanderous and FALSE.

A. ABELL, JOHN P. KENT, SAMUEL C. CHURCH, LORREN STILES, JR., JOHN B. JENKINS, W. GORDON, A. W. LUCE, J. MILLER, Le Roy,	ISAAC C. KINGSLEY, C. D. BURLINGHAM, A. LARD, B. T. ROBERTS, E. S. FURMAN, R. E. THOMAS, DANIEL B. LAWTON, WM. KELLOGG, J. BOWMAN."
September 1857.

The seventeen members of the Genesee Conference who signed this emphatic denial, were prominent among those commonly designated as " Nazarites." If there was any such association, they must have known it ; for they were the men of whom this association was said to be, in the main, composed. Five of the number had been presiding elders, and four of them members of the General Conference. Out of the entire number, only three were ever members of the Free Methodist Church. One we believe, afterwards joined the Presbyterians, another, the United Brethren. The rest, so far as we know, are either in the M. E. Church, or remained in it until they died. Some of them, in process of time, became the most bitter enemies of the Free Methodist Church. Yet we have never heard that any of them ever made any statement, inconsistent with what they here say.

That these men were in circumstances to know the truth of what they affirm, no one can question. Does Bishop Simpson, does any one believe that these seventeen men, and ministers of the Gospel, deliberately published what they knew to be false? Did the Bishop appoint, from year to year, to take charge of churches, and guide souls to Heaven, men who, as he believed, loved and made and published a lie, and stuck to it? Would the Bishop have the public understand that deliberate, wilful, persistent falsehood does not disqualify men from being pastors in the Methodist Episcopal Church? Is it Christian charity to lay, without evidence, seventeen ministers of the Gospel some of whom.died, to all appearance, in holy triumph under the imputation of wilful falsehood, in a matter concerning which they could not possibly be mistaken?

There is a plain, an irreconcilable contradiction between the statement of the Bishop, and the statement of these men. The Bishop says of the Free Methodist movement, that it commenced "Within the bounds of the Genesee Conference, and originated in an association of ministers who thought they had not been properly treated by the leading men of the Conference. They privately adopted a platform, and in this organization were known as Nazarites." These seventeen men say : " We hereby declare that, after careful inquiry, we are fully convinced that no such society has ever existed in the bounds of this Conference."

They investigated the subject under circumstances the most favorable possible for a thorough investigation. They were themselves not only suspected, but openly accused of being members of such an association. If there were any such members, apart from themselves, these men, their friends, would have found it out. They declare that they made " careful inquiry." And the result left no doubt upon their minds. They say they are FULLY CONVINCED. Their denial is not in the cautious, evasive language of those who seek to conceal the truth under a specious subterfuge. It is open, frank, and comprehensive. They do not deny merely that there is a Nazarite organization, leaving the suspicion on the mind that there was one, but it had been dissolved but they are "fully convinced that no such society has ever existed in the bounds of this Conference." They not only give the result of their inquiry as to others, but with reference to themselves they, say : " This charge of forming an association or encouraging fanaticism, if applied to us, we unhesitatingly pronounce to be unjust, iniquitous, slanderous, and FALSE." Is it possible to form a denial more specific, and more comprehensive? Either their statement is false, or the statement of the Bishop is false. There is no possible way to reconcile them.

The Bishop does not profess to speak from. personal knowledge. Relying upon information., he might easily be deceived. These seventeen ministers do profess to speak from personal knowledge. They could not possibly be deceived. If their statement is untrue, it is knowingly, and from set purpose, untrue.

In addition to signing the foregoing denial, the Rev. Asa Abell, in an article published in the Northern Independent, March 10th, 1859, says :.

" It does seem to me that I have been so circumstanced, that had there really been any such Union or Society, it could not have failed to come to' my knowledge ; and I solemnly declare that I neither know now, nor have ever known of any society called by the name in question, neither in form nor in fact : nor of any association like to the one whose existence is so boldly and positively asserted ; nor of any such league or combination whatever, by any name whatever.

All this I intend to assert, without any such mental reservation as would leave what I say to be true, and yet in some hidden and mysterious sense true, that there is, or has been such an organization or society. No man has yet proved, and I am sure no one ever can prove, the existence of such a league or society, for the reason that no one can prove a nonentity to be an entity. I never knew or heard of any meeting for the purpose of forming such a society, or league, or union, nor of any meeting of any such society ; nor of any meeting of reputed officers of any such society."

In a matter of this kind the personal character of the witnesses is to be considered. With that of the Bishop we have nothing to do. We may concede, in this respect, all that his warmest friends may claim for him.. For he does not assert that he ever attended a meeting of the " association,' or that he is a personal witness in the matter. He gained his knowledge from others. All experience has shown that it is not difficult to impose.on one of a generous and confiding nature. Free from guile himself, he is slow to suspect. that those to whom he has given his confidence, and who stand in the relation to him of personal friends and official advisers, can practice deception upon him. So that in showing the falsity of the statements of the Bishop, we make no reflection upon him. But the character of these seventeen 'men is an important element in this investigation. They are voluntary witnesses, who come forward, in order to remove an unjust aspersion, and who speak in relation to a matter which they were generally supposed to understand ; and which they claimed to understand. Are they men to be believed? Is their general character such as to render them credible witnesses? We know of but one of the entire number whose character for veracity was ever called in question. We will leave him out. As to the rest, they are men whose testimony would be given full force in hay court of justice, in any concern, however important. Some of them were men who spent long and useful lives in the ministry.

Asa Abell was one of the pioneers of Methodism in Western New York. He joined the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1821. During his long and remarkably successful ministry,. he was presiding elder for eighteen years. He was a member of four successive General Conferences of the. Church. When the Free Methodist Church was organized, he showed. his devotion to the principles he had always advocated, by voluntarily severing his connection with the Church to which he had given the best energies of his life ; and uniting with a few proscribed and persecuted men, when, as yet, it was doubtful whether they would be able to maintain their existence, as a denomination. During his long life, even the breath of calumny never dared whisper anything against his fair name.

John P. Kent was in the ministry for a longer period, and always bore a reputation above reproach. He never left the M. E. Church, but is an honored, superannuated minister.

The records of the Genesee Conference of the M. E. Church say of Rev. Samuel C. Church, D. D.: ".His conscientiousness would not allow him to be a neutral. His good sense and generosity kept him from mere partisanship."

Charles D. Burlingham was an able, upright, genial-hearted man, loyal to the M. E. Church, in which he died an acceptable, respected minister. The minutes of the Western New York Conference of the M. E. Church for 1875, say : " Brother Burlingham was a man of superior talents, a man of culture and sound piety, an able writer and preacher, an excellent pastor, greatly respected and loved by all who knew him. His departure was unexpected and sudden, yet he was fully prepared ; and died as he had lived, a true Christian, an honored and faithful minister of Christ."

Did Bishop Simpson, in his large experience with men, ever know one more conscientious and God-fearing than Amos Hard? Who, ever questioned his honesty of purpose? Is it possible for a man to give a better proof of genuine piety than this man did, down to the sudden end of his useful, self-denying life? Of him the minutes of the Genesee Conference of the M. E. Church for 1878, say : " Brother Amos Hard, as a Christian was thorough and earnest. He tolerated nothing superficial in himself, or others. In the words of his life-long friend, Rev. Dr. Reddy, ' He abhorred all shams.' His study and prayer to find out what the Bible meant by ` holiness,' his hunger for its experience, his wrestlings and fastings, and rigorous self-testings, and the unutterable sweetness of divine love, with which his whole soul was filled, as related by himself, constitute one of the most vivid pictures of a Christian mightily in earnest. Measured by the standard of success in winning souls to Christ, few have gone from among us to a richer reward, or leaving behind a more glorious record."

In making up a history of events in which such men bore a prominent part, is their testimony respecting these events to be set aside, without even assigning any cause? Is it to be assumed, without evidence, that they placed themselves on record as falsifiers of facts with which they were well acquainted? And is such assumption to pass into history unchallenged? ' Is partisan prejudice, or denominational pride to supercede the necessity of candidly, weighing evidence, and honestly endeavoring to ascertain and state the truth? If.no notice is to be taken of the testimony of such men as these, what is the use of human testimony? History may as well be written wholly from the imagination.

If these men are to be believed, then is Bishop Simpson' s statement that the Free Methodist Church had its origin in an " association of ministers" who " privately adopted a platform, and ' in this organization were known as Nazarites," utterly false..

But what is to be done with the " Documents of the Nazarite Union I"' Do they not assume that there was such an organization? We reply : Does not every work of fiction speak of the events which it relates as though they in reality took place? But who, on that account, quotes them as history? The only proof ever adduced, to our knowledge, (and we presume we have read all that has been written on the subject,),that such an organization ever existed, is drawn from the writings of one man, his letters and the pamphlet entitled, " Documents of the Nazarite Union of the Genesee Conference of the M. E. Church,' and on the vote of the Genesee Conference, based on these documents.

The body of this pamphlet was read by the Rev. Joseph McCreery, to the Conference at its annual session at Olean in 1855. But he stated at the same time, that he was " the Nazarite Union," that he alone was responsible for the whole affair. Others, supposed to belong to it, corroborated his statement, that the whole matter was a fancy of his own creation. Joseph McCreery more than intimates this in.the preface of his pamphlet. He says: "

A certain pamphlet published in New York has represented the Nazarites as a secret society devoted to the propagation of doctrinal tenets. It is enough to say that its author has been imposed upon by his zealous correspondent, both as to the fact. and purpose of the. Nazarites. It is only as yet a mere proposal to return to the ' old paths.' "

Notice that the author of this pamphlet states : " That it is only as yet a mere proposal to return to the old paths." But a proposal is not proof that the thing proposed is an accomplished fact. Other proof is needed to show that the proposal was carried out. That proof, in this case, does not exist.

Before the Genesee conference at its session at Perry, in 1858, Joseph McCreery testified :

" I wrote everything relating to the Nazarite Band. I wrote the documents. I did design an association, and prepared the documents in anticipation of such, but when we got to Conference we had enough to do of other business. We did not organize, and the question of organization has been an open question ever since. I never administered the vow to any one and I never took it myself not formally. The association was never practically formed; I stated nearly so on the floor of the Olean Conference. I stated that the whole thing was provisional, and prospective and I alone was responsible for the whole concern. The preface to the pamphlet is a mythical concern altogether."

Is not this plain?

In a letter to Rev. H. Hornsby, Rev. J. McCreery explains still more fully :

" PARMA CENTRE, Nov. 11, 1855.

REV. H. HORNSBY :

The general argument is this : A number of preachers informally agreed among themselves to return as far as practicable to the discipline and customs of the church, and because of the comparative inability of one here and there doing this, they suggested the propriety of extending a general invitation to those deemed inclined in the same direction to join in the movement. This is the sum and substance of the whole concern. The only wonder in the case is that this should be considered a crime of such magnitude as to alarm the whole Conference and keep it in a stir for several days. For all the circumstantial trappings the mystic numbers, names, and parables I am responsible. I gave them for the purpose they have answered so eloquently well. It gave an air of mystery to the matter which could not fail to attract the most intense attention in certain quarters. It was pursued only far enough to accomplish that purpose, and then relinquished. It was only a unique incident of the concern. The Lord helped at every turn, and permitted the Buffalo Regency to humbug itself most beautifully.

No one had signed the obligation. No one had adhered to the " practical propositions." The Regency did not even suspect the existence of the " Lamentations " or " Recommendations." They thought they were fighting a mere political electioneering plot, got up by plotters like themselves. Misleading themselves by the cabalistic circulars, like. " Don Quixotte of yore they attacked a windmill "—and it is thought with about the same sort of result. The whole matter was as yet only a principle proposed. It had no formal embodiment. It was a society sans constitution, sans laws, sans members, sans everything but officers and they ignorant of their official standing. In a strict legal sense, it was a " fiction." At this impalpable. fiction the Buffalo Regency lit off the whole park of their artillery loaded to the muzzle. They fired at nothing and hit it, while the rebound of their guns kicked the whole battalion " hors du combat." The report was frightening, deafening, but nobody was killed, for the very good reason that there was nobody there to be killed. The terrible Nazarite Band " was " non est inventus," and the passage of the famous compromise resolution leaves it non est inventus still. Hence my second of the same.

The hue and cry of " censoriousness " is but the flapping of empty sails with the wind taken out of them. No one either makes or hears it seriously. It is " gammon" by common " consent. All the artillery in the world, and the Buffalo Regency to boot, can not shoot a ghost, and at the same time a ghost is more terrible out of the body than in. My judgment is that we should keep it in its present ghostly condition, without form, and void of organic properties, urging every where its principles and threatening its embodiment only in case the Buffalo Regency refuses to become defunct. Already, like Banquo's ghost, it haunts them in all their ways. They have already scared tl emselves into madness by gazing upon it.

The Buffalo Regency brought the war upon as. They made the strife. They cried, and roared, and bellowed. They disturbed the peace. They read intercepted private letters to cause strife. They read scandalous bills of information. They railed and ridiculed Bishop and Presiding Elder. They passed resolutions of insubordination, of refusal to take appointments except such as they had parceled out to themselves in advance of Conference.. They called for pacification committees, to be frightened by sham threats of location into their service, to recommend to the Bishop a compliance to their demands. This they did causing all the strife there was. They were the doers of everything done ; we were only the " did." And as an evidence of our quiet and Christian spirit in the midst of all this commotion we sat serene in peaceful silence, " like Patience sitting on a monument, smiling at grief." We did not even laugh at their farcical attempts to befool the Conference and the Bishop. All we did was to sit still and let them fume and fret it out.

Our special argument is this : will a close and positive adherence to the forms and customs of Methodism engender a departure from its doctrines'? Is it likely to encourage any other " ism " than Methodism? On the contrary is there not a special reason, founded on the prevalence, in these days, of all these vagrant " isms " for a more explicit and firm adhesion to Methodism?

So that instead of favoring fanaticism, it is our only sure defense against it, —a defense eminently demanded by the times. An emphatic and decided Methodist is of all men the least likely to fall into any of the numerous delusions around us. It is only when men forsake the fountain of living waters that they hew out to themselves the broken cisterns of Odd-fellowism, spiritualism, and the like.

We shall go right on in the path of " Old Line Methodism," and whoever or whatever meets us in an opposite direction must either give the road, or run against us as heretofore. We shall neither seek nor shun any strife. We shall neither attack any foe, nor flee from him. We shall simply, in the name of the Lord our God, run through whatever troop, and leap over whatever wall crosses " the path our fathers trod. Amen.

J. MCCREERY."

At the Perry Conference the question of the existence of a " Nazarite organization" was judicially investigated. The utmost pains were taken to prove its existence. But all the proof that was brought was the " Documents" in question. But if these " Documents " are admissible as evidence, then the declaration of their author concerning them is equally admissible, and is entitled to equal weight. But this declaration, in his own' language is, that " The whole concern is a fiction prepared and.ready to become a fact, when we should see fit to make it such." 'That time never came.

But it is said that the Olean Conference voted that there was such a society. Their vote relating to this matter is published in the minutes as follows :

 " We regret that in view of such deficiencies as may exist, and with the ostensible purpose of returning to first principles, any of our members should have associated together, as we find they have done, under the name of the Nazarite Bauid," or.other similar appellations, with some forms of secrecy, and with the claim to be peculiar in this respect; and we pass our disapprobation upon such associations,,and hereby express our full expectation that it will be abandoned by all members of this Conference."

We must confess Our inability to understand this language. It looks absurd to charge that the " Nazarites " " claimed to be peculiar " in respect to having " some forms of secrecy." That men who had for years been opposing secret societies, should be charged with making such a " claim," seems extremely marvellous. They knew that there were many societies which had " forms of secresy."

It is by no means certain, supposing this to be a true copy of the record,  that the record is correct. We have known instances where secretaries quite as competent as the one who made that record, have, without intending it, in copying documents upon the journal, made such mistakes as to seriously affect the meaning.

But supposing the copy and the record to be correct, 'suppose the Conference voted as it is here said they did, their vote that a fact existed does not prove that it actually existed. Shall we concede infallibility to the Genesee Conference, blinded by partisan fury, when we deny it to the Pope and his General Council, acting in a dispassionate manner? The vote does not even prove that the Conference believed that what they voted was true. It simply proves that they had power to pass such a, vote, and did pass it. This same Genesee Conference at its session at LeRoy in 1857, voted as a fact what every man voting KNEW was not a fact. They did so on my trial. With my printed article before them, they voted that I said in that article, what they knew I did not say. I called their attention to it, and made it so plain that the dullest could not fail to see it.

That a vote of a Conference that a fact exists is no proof of its existence, is shown by the records of a far more respectable body of the M. E. Church than the Genesee Conference.

The Journal of the General Conference held at Philadelphia, May, 1864, has the following record:

" The long contest on the subject of slavery seems drawing to a close, and no doubtful tokens indicate the will of God, and point unerringly to the destruction of a system so inhuman.

We rejoice that we have, from the beginning been foremost among American Churches in the contest against slavery."

The men who voted this self-congratulation were elected from the various Conferences to represent the piety and the wisdom of the Church. They were men above the average of Methodist preachers.

These men must have known that there were upon the journal of the General Conference, having the force of law, resolutions passed only twenty-eight years before, which. plainly contradict the above claim to " have from the beginning been foremost among American Churches in the contest against slavery."

We doubt whether any respectable body ever gave a greater insult to a reading people.

We copy from the Journal of the General Conference of the M. E. Church for 1836 :

Resolved by the delegates of the Annual Conferences in General Conference assembled :

1. That they disapprove, in the most unqualified sense, the conduct of two members of the General Conference who are reported to have lectured in this city recently upon, and in favor of modern Abolitionism.

Resolved, 2. That they are decidedly opposed to modern Abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and slave as it exists in the slave-holding States of this Union.

Resolved, That the committee appointed to draft a pastoral letter to our preachers be, and they are hereby instructed to take notice of the subject of modern Abolition that has so seriously agitated the different parts of our country, and that they let our preachers, members, and friends know that the General Conference are opposed to the agitation of that subject, and will use all prudent means to put it down."

Can you, after reading the action of these two General Conferences of the M. E. Church, believe that the vote of a Methodist Episcopal Conference proves anything more than that they passed it?

Are you not then convinced that the assertion of Bishop Simpson, that the Free Methodist movement " originated in an association of ministers, who privately adopted a platform, and in this organization were known as Nazarites," is utterly false? Can you possibly come to any other conclusion? Ought not the Bishop to have given these facts some candid attention, before he admitted into his book, a statement so foundationless and false?

His fundamental assertion being proved false, it follows that all those dependent upon it are equally false.

If there was no organization, then it could have had no name, no platform, and no publications.