Following the second Laymen’s Convention at Albion the war against “Nazaritism” was waged more fiercely than ever. Within a few weeks after its adjournment a letter was in circulation among the “Regency” preachers strongly encouraging them in their policy. Though without any signature, it was generally understood as being the production of a certain Bishop. Either it was or it was not of Episcopal authorship. If it was, it certainly speaks badly for the Bishop. If it was not, it certainly was a worse reflection upon the men who were responsible for its circulation. It reads like the production of one who regarded himself as qualified to speak with authority. We reproduce it here, from “Why Another Sect?”:
 

January 3, 1860.

DEAR BROTHER:

     A happy New Year to you. * * My advice is decided that you should remove every leader who takes part in the Albion Convention, or any of a similar character. Do not be deterred by threats of difficulty, or of leaving the Church. Better have no members than disorderly ones. The world is wide. Sinners are numerous. We will go with the Gospel to them, and God will give us fruit. I repeat then, by all means, stand firmly by the action of the Church. Remove every leader who arrays himself against it, no matter what may be his influence, or how great his usefulness, or how it may affect your congregation, or how it will result in the end.

     As to private members, I would do nothing while they do not engage in opposition meetings. But if they get up and sustain meetings for expelled preachers, or resist Church action, I would cite them to trial, after proper admonition.

     Let me again assure you, that the safety of the Church is in straightforward action.

Yours truly,

     It now looked very much as though any measure that seemed likely to crush out “Nazaritism” would be regarded with favor by the dominant party, and that without question as to its ethical character. “Nazarites” were regarded as ecclesiastical outlaws, more to be shunned than any other class of people. “These Nazarites,” exclaimed the Rev. Thomas Carlton at the Brockport Conference, “are like Canada thistles, you cut down one and ten will spring up in its place.” The remark strikingly reminds us of how, amid the persecutions of the early Christians, for every one who was sent to martyrdom dozens seemed to arise in his stead, until it resulted in the proverbial saying, “The ashes of the martyrs are the seed of the Church.”

     The foregoing remark of Mr. Carlton, though instigated by a spirit of contempt and hatred, was not in itself so very offensive. Other remarks connected with the same speech, however, betrayed a deep-seated malignity such as it is difficult to reconcile in any way with a Christlike spirit. The Rev. C. D. Burlingham has thus described his speech:
 

     One of their leading champions, whose efficiency in originating and perpetuating the Conference difficulties is unsurpassed, and from whose official position decency if not dignity might be expected, while making a speech, In the “height of his argument,” exclaimed with a perfect yell, that he “had rather meet a thousand devils than three Nazarites”—that Is to say, in the estimation of this minister of Jesus, and General Conference official, one Nazarite is worse than three hundred and thirty-three and one third devils! But this was said in defense of the Church! Will not such zeal in her behalf be duly appreciated, and coveted honors be conferred accordingly? All such eloquence was met by the minority, as It should have been, by silent contempt.

     The chair very seldom saw proper to rebuke this kind of declamation.” [1]

     The effect of such a tirade at this particular juncture was highly inflammatory upon the “Regency” preachers. This, together with the persecuting example of the Conference, and the influence of the official but unsigned letter which has been quoted, instigated them to go to their respective appointments fully determined to rid the Methodist societies of all who uncompromisingly adhered to the doctrines and usages of original Methodism. In other words, they went forth with “Death to Nazaritism” as their slogan for the year. A few samples of their mode of procedure will now be given, but only a very imperfect idea of their spirit and manner can be conveyed thereby.

     One of the first developments occurred on the Kendall circuit. There were a number of Methodist families here of more than ordinary intelligence, and who had well-defined and correct ideas respecting the doctrines and usages of Methodism. The doctrine of holiness, or Christian perfection, had been clearly and faithfully preached and enforced among them. As a result many professed to have entered into the experience, who honored their profession by uniform consistency of life. The late Conference at Brockport had sent a preacher of opposite and opposing tendencies to bring these people into subjection to the oppressive régime which it had inaugurated. It was a more difficult task than he had imagined, but he persisted, like a loyal son of the “Regency” faction. Most of the officials and leading members were stoutly opposed to “Regency” rule, and were plainly in sympathy with the proscribed preachers and laymen, and disposed to give the work of holiness their unqualified endorsement. How should he proceed? The following extract from “Why Another Sect ?“ will tell:
 

     His first move was to get control of the Quarterly Conference. This Is easily done in the M. B. Church in which the Quarterly Conference Is substantially the creation of the preacher, who appoints all the leaders, nominates the stewards, and licenses the exhorters, by whom It is mainly composed. He put in new leaders, and, in order to get more leaders than there were other members of the Quarterly Conference, he appointed two leaders to one class. When the Quarterly Conference came together, he moved that the board of stewards be declared vacant. By the aid of his leaders he easily carried it. He then put in his own followers as stewards.

     Then the preacher moved that several leading members who were known to stand opposed to the crushing-out policy of the Conference be declared withdrawn. This was also carried. In vain did these members protest that they did not withdraw, and did not intend to. The preacher read them out “withdrawn.” Henceforth they were denied the privileges of members in the Methodist Episcopal Church! This was an improvement on the farce of going through the form of a trial. What need of witnesses when the verdict is made up beforehand without the slightest regard to testimony? Why call a jury for the sole purpose of pronouncing guilty whoever the judge arraigns? So, even the forms of justice were dispensed with, and by the most barefaced despotism many were turned out of Churches of which they had been the pioneers; and from houses of worship which their own money had built.

     The Rev. A. L. Chapin, preacher in charge of the East Otto circuit, was one of the most bitter and violent tools of the “Regency party.” He proceeded with a high hand in ridding the Church at East Otto of “Nazarites” and of those in sympathy with “Nazaritism.” His admission to the Conference had been strongly opposed by the preachers of the reform party, on the ground that, though he was a man of good abilities, he was lacking in true religion. Revenge inflamed his zeal to the utmost bounds. Adopting the new, short and easy method, he expelled Dewey Tefft, Niles Tefft, E. S. Woodruff and Otis 0. Bacon from the Church. He proceeded in the following manner:

     First, he called the official members of the circuit together, and in fiery address informed them that the Methodist Discipline recognized no members who would not contribute to the support of the ministry. Then, with the aid of his official members, he made out an assessment of the amount each member should pay, with the understanding that they must either pay or be excluded from the Church. He wished the doings of that meeting to be kept strictly secret, and emphatically declared that if any one betrayed the secret, such conduct would be considered just ground for expulsion.

     Next he appointed a time when he purposed to meet the class in the Tefft neighborhood, a country appointment some two or three miles from town. They met at the time appointed, and had a plain talk regarding the support of the Church, as a result of which the entire class plainly informed the pastor that they would contribute nothing toward his support, except upon his “contrition, confession and proper amendment.” It was a daring deed for all. The Teffts, however, were men of means, highly intelligent, and with the full courage of their convictions. They had immigrated to that part of Western New York when it was a wilderness, “had been familiar with wild beasts, and were not to be frightened by the ravings of a preacher into acting contrary to their convictions.” Their heroism inspired the others to take their stand with equal courage. Hence the fury of the preacher was unavailing.

     As a third measure Mr. Chapin called another official meeting, at which he became more violent than at the former one. First, he demanded to know who had published the proceedings of their former meeting. Mr. Bacon replied to the effect that he did not know who had published its proceedings, but that he himself had informed one man of what was therein done. Mr. Chapin flew into a rage, shook his fist in Mr. Bacon’s face, and vehemently and repeatedly said, “Who ever heard the like ?“ Mr. Bacon courageously replied, “I did not know that an official meeting was a secret association, but if it is, the sooner you remove me from it the better it will be for you.” In this meeting it was finally decided that the refractory members should be brought to trial.

     Charges were soon formulated and preferred against them. They were charged with “contumacy,” the customary charge against so-called “Nazarites,” and, in addition, with “taking and circulating the Northern Independent.” Mr. Bacon was also charged, in one of the specifications, with objectionable words used in debate at the official meeting, and in another, with preaching in a remote neighborhood when forbidden to do so by his pastor. There appears to have been an effort on Mr. Chapin’s part to cut the people of that neighborhood off from preaching services as a punishment for their contumacy. But Mr. Bacon refused to be a party to this work of proscription, greatly to the chagrin of his pastor.

     The following exciting episode in connection with one of the trials is thus described:
 

     During the trial of Dewey Tefft, Mr. Chapin was so arrogant and overbearing that the manhood of one who came to the trial as one of his adherents revolted. Rising to his feet greatly excited, in thundering tones, Mr. Scott demanded, addressing Mr. Chapin:

     “Who are you?”

     “The grandson of Ethan Allen,” replied Chapin, rising to his feet.

     “How mightily the race has degenerated,” replied Scott. “You may be a smart man, but you are not smart enough to be judge, jury, prosecutor, and all, In one case. Now take your proper place and keep it. I want to see fair play.”

     For a time the wildest excitement prevailed.

     Like all the other cases we have considered, and which were very clearly predetermined, these trials resulted in the expulsion of all the accused persons from the Church. In pronouncing sentence, however, the preacher in charge took special care to state that they were not expelled for any breach of the rules of morality and religion, but for “a violation of our rules.”

     The action of the Brockport Conference thus began to bear fruit in the extermination of so-called “Nazarites” and “Nazaritism” from the Methodist Episcopal Church in Western New York. But the end was not yet.

     Similar work of expulsion was vigorously prosecuted at Asbury Church, near LeRoy, by the Rev. S. M. Hopkins. Cyrus Sperry, Martin Seekins, Hiram Husted, and Sylvester Near—all reliable laymen and noble Christians, were expelled as a result of the most farcical trials. Mr. Sperry, stanch, dependable, and of unbending rectitude, was tried on a bill of charges, said to cover two pages of foolscap, based on the proceedings of the Laymen’s Convention. Similar charges were brought against the others. “Mr. Seekins was at work in his harvest field when summoned before the Church tribunal to answer charges which were then first presented to him. He asked for a delay of one hour. This was refused.” Such summary proceedings could not be justified, save in case of most flagrant crimes.

     At the expiration of the Conference year Mr. Hopkins was sent elsewhere, and the Rev. J. B. Lankton took charge of this work, and proceeded to finish what his predecessor had so vigorously begun, namely, the crushing out of “Nazaritism” from the circuit. First he summoned Mrs. Olive Sperry to answer to “Contempt and disobedience to the order and Discipline of the M. E. Church, by attending, and being interested in favor of a seditious meeting, on the 9th of August last at the meeting-house, and voting for some or all the resolutions there passed, which were violently rebellious against the Discipline and government of the M. E. Church.”

     The “resolutions” referred to in the foregoing charge were to the effect that those who voted for them would stand upon their rights, as members of the M. E. Church, to withhold support from such preachers as they believed had proved themselves unworthy of the same. We have failed to ascertain anything connected with the circumstances more “violently rebellious against the Discipline and government of the M. E. Church” than voting for those resolutions. Yet Mr. Lankton expelled fourteen or fifteen members on charges similar to those preferred against Mrs. Sperry.

     This kind of work was now spreading like a contagion. The Rev. B. F. McNeal adopted the same policy on the Tonawanda and Ridgeville circuit. John Corliss and Anthony Ames had been efficient class-leaders for years, but he removed them from their office without due cause. Then the Presiding Elder, Rev. P. Woodworth, at the next Quarterly Conference, ruled that Tristram Corliss, superintendent of the Sabbath-school at Pendleton, on the Tonawanda and Ridgeville circuit, was not a member of the official board, because of Tonawanda being the first named society of the circuit. A board of stewards was then created composed of members of the circuit who would vote according to the wishes of the preacher in charge. The following Sabbath, the Rev. McNeal, without their consent, or even their knowledge of what he was going to do, “read out” as “withdrawn” from the Church, Anthony Ames and John Corliss, class-leaders; Tristram Corliss, Sabbath-school superintendent; W. B. Wilcox, J. Hunt, and Henry Kayner, stewards, and their wives; M. Folger and wife, and Mrs. Henry Pickard.

     The rage for expulsions reached the Belfast circuit. The Rev. J. W. Reddy, one of the preachers who was located under the test resolutions at the Brockport Conference, was the first victim. A charge was brought against him for “evil speaking,” in asserting that the Genesee Conference had expelled four of its holiest members for nothing, and also a charge of “disobedience to the order and Discipline of the Church,” in holding separate religious meetings at the time of the regular services at the Church. When labored with for these things, Mr. Reddy explained that if he said those ministers were expelled for nothing, he did not mean to be understood in a literal sense; but that what he meant to express was that they were expelled for no crime meriting such action, but simply because of the uncompromising stand they took for earnest Christianity.
 

     On the 12th of March; the charges were stated to Brother Reddy, with the specifications, verbally; and he was cited to trial In the same way, at the Quarterly Conference to be held the ensuing Saturday. lie then asked for a written copy of the charges and specifications, that he might be able to prepare his defense. This was denied him by the preacher in charge, who said that he could and would bring him to trial, without any written charges. After the religious services of the Quarterly Meeting on Saturday, a copy of the charges was handed to Brother Reddy, and the Conference immediately met (not in the Church, as usual, but in the parlor of the parsonage, which was barely sufficient to admit the official members, to the exclusion of the private members, with one exception), and within half an hour proceeded to the trial. Before this, however, that the proceedings might be harmonious, four class-leaders, and one steward, who were supposed to have some sympathy with the accused, were removed.

     Brother Reddy was arraigned, and pleading not guilty, asked for an adjournment of the case, in order that he might have time to secure counsel, and prepare his defense. This request was refused. The form of trial was then gone through with, the accused found guilty, condemned, and expelled.

     Not all who were known to be opposed to the test resolutions passed at the Brockport Conference suffered arrest of character. A few were left without being pressed for a decision, supposedly in hope that witnessing the fate of others, who were more aggressive in withstanding the oppressive measures of the Conference, would cause them to weaken and finally submit to the “Regency” power. This was the effect with some, but not with all. After the refusal of the General Conference to entertain the appeals, which is yet to be considered, Asa Abell, C. D. Brooks and A. F. Curry withdrew from the Genesee Conference and from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and soon identified themselves with the Free Methodist Church, which had been founded in the meantime.

     The case of the Rev. Henry Hornsby should also be noted here. He was a doughty Englishman, well-read, especially familiar with the history and traditions of Methodism, and with ecclesiastical jurisprudence. He was also a preacher of ability, who adhered to the principles of primitive Methodism, and was in full sympathy with the work of revival that had been going on in the Conference for some years. He was one of the most genial of men, but a hater of hypocrisy and of shams of all kinds. He was also devout and pious—a man against whom nothing could be found, except it should be respecting his sympathy for “Nazaritism.”

     The Genesee Conference of 1861 was held at Albion. At this session the character of the Rev. Amos Hard was put under arrest, because of his having affiliated with those who had been expelled and those who had withdrawn. He was in feeble health, and hence could not assume the responsibilities of circuit work, though able to preach once a Sabbath. He was in love with the work or God, and delighted to labor as his health would allow for the salvation of men. Mr. Hard’s preaching was too straight-edged, however, to be popular in the Conference, and so he had been invited to preach but three times during the year. Being invited to preach to others, he followed the disciplinary rule for preachers, “Go not only to those who want you, but to those who want you most,” and accepted the invitation.

     When he was arraigned before the Conference, Mr. Hornsby, as his personal friend, ventured to speak briefly in his behalf. The case of Mr. Hard was left with a committee, to be investigated during the year; and attention was then directed to Mr. Hornsby, who had been so injudicious (?) and “contumacious” (?) as to interpose in his defense.

     “You are in the same boat with this man!” exclaimed the Rev. J. B. Wentworth, one of the most relentless persecutors of the so-called “Nazarites,” “and we will attend to you; and though your character has been passed, it shall be reconsidered.”

     Then, on his motion, a committee was appointed, consisting of A. P. Ripley, J. B. Wentworth and A. L. Backus, to investigate the case of the Rev. H. Hornsby. The following is the sequel to the case:
 

     The committee in his case reported that at different times during the year he had attended irregular meetings, and officiated with expelled members of the M. B. Church, and closed with the following resolution, viz.:

     “That he make open and frank confession of his faults in the matters above enumerated, and that he promise to conform In his conduct and administration in the future to the resolutions adopted at the Brockport Conference.”

     The Conference accepted the report and adopted the resolution. This report was presented in the forenoon, and he was called upon to answer to the resolutions. He told the Conference that he opposed the passage of the resolutions at Brockport, and refused to submit to them at that time, and was of the same mind now. Conference adjourned at noon, and in the afternoon session his case had the floor. C. D. Burlingham and S. C. Church tried to get the matter dismissed, but no! Dr. Chamberlayne, T. Carlton and J. B. Wentworth said no! It was submission, abject submission, such as no man would give, much less a Christian minister. He told them from the beginning he should not promise to be governed by the resolutions, as he would not bend. A. D. Wilbor came to him and said, “Now, Bro. H., you seem determined to make the Conference come to your terms, why not say yes, and it will be all right.”

     It was after five in the afternoon when his case was sent to the committee for trial. At seven p. M. that evening, T. Canton was appointed prosecutor. Mr. Hornsby asked for the charges, If he was to be tried. Thomas Carlton replied, “They will be furnished in time.” Mr. Hornsby went at the appointed time. Canton came at 7: 20, and gave him the Bill of Charges. “Contumacy. In violating a series of resolutions.” Fourth specification was “refusing to confess to his sin in contemning the advice of the Conference in his case.” He asked to locate. “No,” says K. D. Nettleton, “if Mr. Hornsby should locate, he would be loose, and cause us more trouble than he has already. I think we had better go on with the case.” He asked to be permitted to withdraw. The request was granted. The Conference did not know what the charges were upon which he was to be tried. It might infer what they would be, but they were never read in Conference. Neither did he have any time to prepare for trial. Common decency was trampled upon. Some of them seemed in a hurry to get him out. Some said, “He is a Nazarite all over, and may as well go now as any time.” [2]

     Matters went on in this way throughout the Conference generally until, and even for some time after, the General Conference of May, 1860. In the meantime a third Laymen’s Convention was held at Olean, N. Y., February 1 and 2, 1860.

     Just previous to the Olean Convention Mr. Roberts started a monthly magazine, called the Earnest Christian, of which he was editor and proprietor. The first number appeared in January, 1860. Its object was stated as that of furnishing the increasing number of sincere and earnest persons throughout the land anxiously inquiring for “the old paths,” dissatisfied with being outer-court worshipers, desirous of “dwelling in the secret place of the Most High,” and “anxious to know the conditions upon which eternal happiness can be secured,” with a religious journal that should meet their needs. Mr. Roberts continued to edit and publish the Earnest Christian until his death, in the early part of 1893.

[1] “Outline History,” p. 52.
[2] Reprint in “Way Another Sect?”