REVIEWS.

In this chapter we will notice some points in Bishop Simpson' s article on " The Free Methodists," which we have not referred to in the preceding pages; and also the article on "Nazaritism," in Mr. Conable' s " History of the Genesee Conference of the M. E. Church.

In Bishop Simpson's article, the statements as we have numbered them, from 1 to 11, and also numbers 13 and 15, we think have been, in the preceding pages, clearly shown to be untrue.^*

The Bishop' says that the Free Methodists do not admit any members, even on probation, " without a confession of saving faith in Christ," and adds, (12)

" The reason alleged by them is, that much of the defection in other churches is due to the fact that multitudes who have joined the church as inquirers, have failed to pursue a strictly spiritual life."

Where do the Free Methodists assign any such reason for such action ? They do not in their discipline. They never have in any Conference action. I never heard any individual among them assign any such reason. The reason they give is, that there is no warrant in the New Testament for admitting a person into the church, even on probation, except on profession of saving faith in Christ.

Again we quote from the same author:

14 " In its early history some of its leaders encouraged a spirit of wild fanaticism, claiming the power of healing by the laying on of hands."

Here are two untrue statements. / The first, of encouraging " wild fanaticism," we have met in the preceding pages.^** We have shown that such men as Drs.' Reddy and Ives considered what the Bishop calls "wild fanaticism," as the proper manifestations of spiritual life.

As to "some of its leaders claiming the power of healing," this is also a mistake. None of them ever made any such claim. We acknowledge, with becoming gratitude and humility, that in answer to prayer there have been among us some remarkable cases of healing—but nothing more than has taken place among true Christians in all ages.

The most prominent person who has ever been among us, that we are aware of, who " claimed the power of healing by the laying on of hands," or any thing like it, was then, and is still, we suppose, a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church ! He was never a Free Methodist much less a leader !

We notice a few statement of the Bishop, which, though in a sense true, are misleading:.

(a) Became dissatisfied with the workings of its government."

We. never had any special dissatisfaction with the " government" of the M. E.' Church. We learned by experience that it was capable of great' abuse. We were dissatisfied with the administration—first of the Genesee Conference, and then of the General Conference, in expelling the. innocent and screening the guilty.

(b) " They professed themselves to be moved by the Holy Spirit".

No more so than Methodist preachers generally.

(c) " In Church polity the name of Bishop was abandoned, and a general superintendency substituted."

Not merely the name, but the ordination and the life tenure were abandoned. The General Superintendents are simply officers of the General Conference elected every four years.

(d) " The conference organizations were retained as in the M. E. Church, and laymen in numbers equal to the ministers were admitted to each of these bodies."

In the Free Methodist Church the lay delegates are not admitted to the Conferences they, with the preachers, compose the Conferences. The lay delegates are elected directly by the members, and not indirectly by the preacher, through a quarterly conference, which, in part, is of his, own creation. We are not afraid to trust our people.

(e) " The name of presiding elder was changed to that of district chairman."

But the district chairman may have a circuit the same as other preachers. Presiding elders do not.

(f) "They also require their members to be exceed

exceedingly plain in their dress."

No more so than the discipline of the M. E. Church requires its members.

We next call attention to the " History of the Genesee Annual Conference;" By Rev. F.W. Conable.

Perhaps we should say nothing of this book, because of the little notice that has been taken of it by the public. But as it has been indorsed by the Genesee Conference, and ordered to be placed in its archives for reference, it becomes possessed of an importance as a historical record, which, in itself it does not possess. Of its literary pretensions we will not speak.

It is in its article on Nazaritism " that we are more particularly interested. It is proper to say, in general terms, that its statements, both original and borrowed, under the head of Nazaritism," are wholly incorrect. We will notice in detail, a few of its false statements:

"Nazaritism in fact, if not in name, originated with a few ministers of the Genesee Conference—J. H. Wallace, B. T. Roberts, J. McCreery, Jr. and others." (Page 628.)

This is incorrect both in. form and fact. We have shown conclusively that there never was a " Nazarite Society," or any thing corresponding to it, among the ministers of the Genesee Conference. That by " Nazaritism " he means what in other Conferences is called "holiness," is evident from his associating the name of John H. Wallace with it. John H. Wallace had no relation with those expelled from the Genesee Conference, under the cry of their being " Nazarites," only, as before their day, he was a specially able advocate of the doctrine of holiness. Mr. Conable shows that he removed to Michigan before the difficulties in the Genesee Conference began., Ile also bears witness to his great ability and usefulness. But John H. Wallace fell, as other good men have fallen. So, to bring reproach upon the Free Methodist Church, Mr. Conable tries to associate John IL Wallace with its origin. John II. Wallace had no more relation to it than other men had who preached holiness before it was thought of. This, Mr. Conable well knows.

Mr. Conable, says:

" That Roberts and McCreery and two presiding elders, were led on from motives of envy, jealousy and unchristian ambition in the endeavor to secure for themselves the ' chief patronage ' of the Conference."

Does this man claim divine attributes that he is able to read men's motives?

This is not only false, but malignant, and foolish. Did not the two presiding elders already occupy the highest position in the Conference? They were placed there without any effort or desire of their own.

As to my humble self, no man can truthfully say that I ever, in any way, sought position in the M. E. Church. I never asked, directly or indirectly, for any appointment. Mr. Conable never even heard that I did, I will venture to say. The whole statement is utterly baseless ! If I had then felt any ambition in that direction, it could have been easily gratified. After the leaders of the holiness movement were sent off Rev. E. Thomas to California, and Messrs. Stiles and Kingsley to Ohio, I was offered, if I would leave the persecuted, holiness people, better appointments than the Genesee Conference had to give. Though Mr. Conable seems ignorant of it, there is such a thing as standing by the right from no other motive than a desire to do right, and obey God. In speaking of the Estes pamphlet, Mr. Conable says:

" The printer refused to testify as to the authorship, and 'we have no law to oblige attendance at an ecclesiastical court." (Page 646.)

Mr. Conable, and all of his indorsers who were at the Perry Conference, know that this is not true. The most unscrupulous, unless rendered desperate, seldom venture upon a falsehood so glaring. The printer of the Estes pamphlet was present at my trial! , One of the preachers opposed to me, took him there and back, about seventy miles across the country in a carriage. They did not call upon him to testify.

Mr. H. N. Beach, editor of the Brockport Republic, the gentleman referred to, in a note to us, says:

" Rev. E. M. Buck got me to go to Perry in the case, at the time of the Conference; but I was not called to testify, because, I suppose, my evidence was not what was wanted."

Thus Mr. Conable crowds two known, great false-hoods into one short sentence. 1st. The printer did attend the court. 2d. He did not refuse to testify ! And such statements are voted into the archives of the Genesee Conference as history, by men who know that there is not one word of truth in them !

In speaking of my trial, Mr. Conable says:

" The chief effort of Mr. Roberts in his protracted defense, was to convince the public—not that he had not written and circulated such allegations as were charged against him, but that the allegations were really true."—Page 647.

For this assertion Mr. Conable has no apology. He and his indorsers well know it is false. That I did not write the Estes pamphlet, I proved to the Conference in the most conclusive way that a man can prove he did not write any document, by the testimony of the real, avowed author, that he himself wrote it.

George Estes testified to the Conference: " Brother Roberts HAD NOTHING to do with the writing of the part that bears my name."

Again, Mr. Conable says that the defendant had been

"According to his own public admission, granted every possible appliance for his aid, and defense, consistent with the discipline of the church."—Page 648.

This man seems utterly incapable of telling the truth about these matters ! He knows that nearly two whole sessions were employed in my trying to obtain, and my opposers trying to prevent me from obtaining, either a change of venue, or a trial by a committee ! He knows that I was refused the aid of the counsel I asked for !

In my closing plea, I thanked Bishop Janes for the able and impartial manner in which he had presided, and for the kind spirit he had manifested; but. that does not warrant the above assertion. Yet it is all he has to make it out of.

Again, Mr. Conable says:

" The charges and specifications were voted sustained, by not far from two to one." Page 648.

The minutes and Conference roll for that year show that there were one hundred and sixteen preachers in full connection in the Conference, at that time. Of these, fifty-four voted against me, and thirty-four for 'me, leaving a clear majority who did not vote to sustain the charges.

Some were terrified to. that degree they did not dare to vote for me and they had too much conscience left to vote against me.

Mr. Conable says:

" Strange and fraudulent methods were employed to deprive presiding elders and regular pastors of their support."—Page 650.

What he means by this accusation, I cannot imagine. Many refused to pay " presiding elders and regular pastors," who had participated in the wicked acts of the majority. But in this there was nothing " strange or fraudulent." The " strange " part was that any honest man would help support any of them.

Mr. Conable, in apologizing for those he calls" loyal preachers," says:

" A few of them in their zeal In opposition to Nazaritism, and in order to the preservation of.church order, overstepped the lines of administrative propriety a little, if not more, for which they suffered arrest and correction at the Conference." page. 655.

The "arrest and correction" part is a piece of news, and we strongly suspect, a fabrication.

Again he says:

" One or more preachers in charge had illegally declared several members, Nazarites, withdrawn. This being reported to Conference by the parties deeming themselves injured, made some work."—Page 655.

What work? The members were kept out, and the preachers were passed all right.

Mr..Conable says:

" Charges, in some instances of a gross character, were preferred against one or more of the Presiding Elders and some other preachers at Conference, which could not be sustained !" (Page 655.)

Why could not these charges of "a gross character" be sustained? It was not for want of proof, abundant, clear, conclusive, and of the highest order. It was for want of a disposition to do right, on the part of the majority. So they would not entertain most of these charges, or even hear a statement of the several cases, but promptly voted to lay the whole matter on the table. For the nature of some of these grave charges see pages 143-146 of this book.

Mr. Conable says:

" Roberts and Stiles united their fortunes in the secession movement, leading to the organization of "The Free Methodist Church." (Page 660.)

What ! drive men out of a church, after their most earnest efforts to stay in, and then call it a "secession movement !" Does this man take it for granted that his readers have not common sense?

Again he says, same page:

" Which should be the greatest was a question, but the career of Stiles was short, as, early after building their church at Albion, and effecting a permanent church organization, he was called away by death.. Roberts became " General Superintendent " of the Free Church, as such, of course, claiming ordaining authority."

There never was any question " which should be the greatest." None more gratefully and cordially than B. T. Roberts acknowledged the correctness of the popular verdict, that Loren Stiles was one of the greatest preachers in Western New York:

Mr. Stiles nominated Rev. B. T. Roberts for General Superintendent of the Free Methodist church, the first time he was elected to that office, and the vote for it was quite unanimous. The Superintendent did not " claim ordaining authority," whatever that may mean. The discipline made it his duty to ordain those elected by an Annual Conference.

Conable says: " As to J. A. Wells, he lost confidence in B. T. Roberts." Page 660. Where did Mr. Conable get this information? A man may join another denomination for other reasons than a loss of confidence. Mr. Wells, in a letter before us, says he " did not lose confidence in B. T. Roberts."

Of the Bergen Camp Ground, Mr. Conable says:

" The Bergen Camp Ground charter was changed by application to the legislature, and the clause which gave the Methodist Episcopal Church any control or supervision over the grounds, or meetings held there, was stricken out. This arrangement, however, to secure the Camp Ground to Nazarite uses, did not hold very long, as in due time, under the sanction of the Conference, measures were instituted which were successful in securing the same, according to the forms of law, to the Genesee Camp Ground Association, for the ownership and use of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in harmony with disciplinary provisions and church usage."

We will show what these " successful measures " were, and in so doing will give a brief history of this Camp Ground.

1. I made a bargain for the ground—twenty-five acres, intending to use it for a camp ground, if we could raise the money to pay for it. Meeting with encouragement, B. T. Roberts and Loren Stiles took a contract for the land, May 8th, 1856. On the 11th of July, 1856, it was deeded, by absolute conveyance, to Asa Abel, Benjamin T. Roberts, and Asa Allis.

2. The following winter I drew up the charter of

The Genesee Camp Ground Association," went to Albany, and got it passed by the legislature. To this Association, we deeded the ground in trust.

3. After they began to expel the camp-meeting people, we got the charter amended.

4. The so called Regency party, held a camp-meeting on that ground after they had turned us out of the church. The trustees, all of whom but one be came Free Methodists, made no opposition, but hoped it would do them good. But they assumed judicial powers and declared that those trustees who were not members of the M. E. Church were not legal trustees. Yet the law made no such qualifications for trustees. After declaring a vacancy they went on to elect themselves to the vacancy.

5. Having thus gained possession, they threatened us with a law suit if we went on the ground to hold any more meetings. We appointed no meetings for a few years, hoping to fairly settle the matter. We made them the following offers:

(1). We would hold the ground and let them hold camp meetings there whenever they wished, free of charge.

(2). Or they might hold the ground, and let us hold meetings when we wished.

(3). Or we would sell the ground and divide the proceeds among the two churches, in the proportion we had paid. Those who became Free Methodists had paid about two-thirds of the price of the ground.

All these offers they rejected.

6. To keep possession, they held sham camp-meetings for the election of trustees. At one time they had but one tent,—a canvass thrown over a pole.

Preachers, from the stand, preached to an audience seated in the stand.

7. We appointed a camp-meeting to be held there in June, 1867. They got out an injunction. We heard of it, and went to another ground with the meeting. The third day of the meeting, the Sheriff served the writ of injunction upon " B. T. Roberts, and all associated with him." The Sheriff was doubtless instructed to delay serving the writ in order to break up the meeting. The injunction was tried and we beat them. They then set men to work cutting wood on the camp-ground, to sell; to pay the costs.

8. The deed conveyed the land to the trustees, in trust, that they " shall not cut down or destroy, or cause, or permit or allow to be cut down or destroyed,, the woods or trees, or any part thereof upon said piece or lot of land, except as may be necessary for the fencing of said lot, or the better fitting of it, for the purposes of holding camp-meetings." We therefore got out an injunction restraining them from cutting down the timber.

9. On the trial, the so-called Regency trustees, among whom were three Conference preachers, swore that " all the trees and timber cut upon said camp-ground referred to " in the complaint, " were. either lying upon the ground, or dead, unsound, and more or less decayed." " That said trees were old," that no sound trees have been cut upon said ground; " " that the cutting and removal of said trees " " have not only benefited and improved it for the purposes of said Association, but was indispensable for the safety of those who might attend religious meetings upon said ground."

We could only swear to the stumps and wood. We found eighty-seven green, sound, stumps the wood was also sound and green. They beat us of course.

It is scarcely necessary to add, after thus "'improving " the ground, they ceased to hold camp-meetings there, and very soon after sold the ground.

One of the best lawyers in the state said, after thoroughly examining the case, " They have no right to that land, either in law, or in equity." But we have neither time nor taste for litigation, even were it an easy matter to obtain justice in our courts, against a power as great as that of the M. E. Church, aided by such secret society influence as it could control.

** See Chapter VI, Page 118.