Three literary productions of importance have appeared during the last third of a century, from as many different authors, all representing the Methodist Episcopal Church, in which the reading public has been furnished with what assumes in each case to be a historical sketch of the origin of the Free Methodist Church.

     The first of these works is the “History of the Genesee Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,” by the late Rev. F. W. Conable, for many years a member of that Conference. We were unable to determine the exact year in which the first edition was published, as there is nothing in the volume before us (second edition) to indicate when the first edition made its appearance, save that the Preface to the volume is dated March, 1876. The author has devoted between thirty and forty octavo pages to setting forth what purports to be the history of “Nazaritism” until its alleged culmination in the formation of the Free Methodist Church.

     Next we have the “Cyclopedia of Methodism,” a quarto volume of 1,031 double-column pages, edited by the late Bishop Matthew Simpson, D. D., LL. D., and first published in 1878. This is a much more important work than Mr. Conable’s history, inasmuch as the latter work deals chiefly with matters of a more local nature, while the “Cyclopedia” deals with universal Methodism, and is for general use on the part of English-speaking people throughout the world. In this large volume about a page is devoted to the “Free Methodists.” Apparently the author of the article has drawn his information from Conable’s “History of the Genesee Conference,” though he has presented it in a greatly abridged form. If the article was not substantially drawn from Mr. Conable’s book, then it must have been written by some one in close sympathy with the views of that author, and of the faction in the Genesee Conference which he represented.

     In 1897 the “History of Methodism in the United States,” by Dr. James M. Buckley, appeared. It is in two large octavo volumes, together containing in the neighborhood of one thousand pages. The author of this work devotes a little over two pages to the “Origin of the Free Methodist Church,” and appears to have borrowed his information from one or both of the volumes just mentioned. If such be not the case, he must have obtained it from the same traditional sources. He has given us no authority for his statements, except a single reference to the Journal of the General Conference of 1860, touching the appeals of B. T. Roberts and William Cooley, which that body refused to entertain.

     Now, unpleasant as is the task, it becomes our duty to say, and then at some length to show, that a person reading any or all of the above-mentioned works touching the Origin of the Free Methodist Church, had he no other source of information, would be utterly misinformed and misled with reference to that subject. ‘Where, in works of such importance as ecclesiastical histories and Cyclopedias, authors and editors have, whether intentionally or unintentionally, allowed gross misrepresentations of historical facts to occur, it becomes the duty of such as write history later, and who have the proofs of such literary distortion and misrepresentation, to produce such proofs for the better enlightenment of the reading public. It is in no invidious spirit, however, but rather in a spirit of unswerving loyalty to truth and right, that the author now proceeds to deal with the historical misrepresentations regarding the Origin of the Free Methodist Church, to which he has referred. It is unfortunate that such grave errors should have been allowed to remain in the volumes referred to so long.

     The three works under consideration alike ascribe the remote origin of Free Methodism to the disaffection of certain ministers of the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church because they were not treated as well as they thought their characters and abilities deserved. These men, so it is alleged, formed an association, secret in character and workings, in hope of thereby obtaining control of the Conference, and under pretense of endeavoring to bring about a much-needed reform in the Methodist Church. That association, we are told, was variously known as the “Nazarite Union,” “Nazarite Band,” “Nazarite Association ;“ and those who belonged to it or who sympathized with its objects were commonly designated as “Nazarites.” All three writers assert with much positiveness the existence of such an association; all alike declare it to have been of a secret character; and all are alike in connecting the remote origin of the Free Methodist Church with the aforesaid “Nazarite Union,” or “Association.”

     Mr. Conable’s presentation of this phase of the matter is much too lengthy for reproduction here. It contains the “Documents” of the so-called “Nazarite Union,” which are lengthy. These and also a review of Mr. Conable’s book, will appear in the Appendix to this volume. [1]  Inasmuch as the “Cyclopedia of Methodism” and the “History of Methodism in the United States” give in much more concise form the gist of what Mr. Conable’s work contains on the subject, it has been decided to insert the full text (except statistics) of what those two works say regarding it, and let that here answer for all.

     The following is the article from the first edition of the “Cyclopedia,” which remains unchanged in the second edition as to all its more important particulars:
 

     The organization of the Free Methodist Church dates from August 23, 1860, at a Convention composed of ministers and laymen, who had been members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, but became dissatisfied with the workings of its government. Though organized at that date, the movement commenced several years earlier, 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.” In their writings, and speeches, they complained of the decline of spirituality in the Church, charging the Church with tolerating, for the sake of gain, the worldly practices of its members, and its departure, both in doctrine and discipline, from the teachings of the fathers. They professed themselves to be moved by the Holy Spirit, and believed it was their duty to bear open testimony against what they alleged to be the sins of the Church. This organization, and its publications, containing such charges against the leading members of the Conference, led, in 1855, to a very unpleasant state of feeling, and resulted in various Church trials. In 1858, two of the leaders were expelled from the Conference; they appealed to the ensuing General Conference, held at Buffalo in 1860; but as they had declined to recognize the authority of the Church, and had continued to exercise their ministry, and to organize societies, the General Conference declined to entertain the appeal. Even previous to the trial, some of the ministers had established appointments, and organized societies in opposition to the regular Church services.

     At the organization of this Church in 1860, they accepted the doctrines of Methodism, as contained in the Articles of Religion, and placed a special stress on Christian perfection, or sanctification. They added an additional article which says: “Those that are sanctified wholly are saved from all inward sin, from evil thoughts and evil tempers. No wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul. All their thoughts, words and actions, are governed by pure love.

     “Entire sanctification takes place subsequently to justification, and is the work of God, wrought instantaneously upon the consecrated, believing soul. After a soul is cleansed from all sin, it is then fully prepared to grow in grace.”

     They also added a second article on future rewards and punishments.

     In Church polity, the name of Bishop was abandoned, and a General Superintendency substituted. The Conference organizations were retained as in the M. E. Church, and laymen, in numbers equal to the ministers, were admitted into each of these bodies. The name of Presiding Elder was changed to that of District Chairman. No one is admitted as a member, even after [on} probation, without a confession of saving faith in Christ. The reason alleged by them is, that much of the defection in other Methodist Churches, is due to the fact that multitudes who have joined the Church as inquirers have failed to pursue a strictly spiritual life. They also require their members to be exceedingly plain in their dress, and they prohibit any one connected with the Church from being a member of any secret society. They require not only abstinence from intoxicating liquors, but also from the use of tobacco, except as a medicine.

     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. In many cases the excitement connected with their meetings passed into extravagance, which was sanctioned by their leading men, as being evidence of the influence of the Holy Spirit. As the denomination has progressed, and has extended its boundaries, though their services are still characterized by much fervor, there is less of these manifestations. The Free Methodist Church is confined almost exclusively to the Northern states. There are at present [1878] ten Annual Conferences.
 

DR. RUCRLEY ON THE ORIGIN OF THE FREE METHODIST CHURCH

     In writing of the General Conference of 1860 he says: “This Conference had to consider the appeals of the Rev. Benjamin T. Roberts and others, growing out of an agitation in Western New York, the germs of which appeared as early as 1850, but did not attract general attention till some years later, when an association of ministers was formed within the bounds of the Genesee Conference. They claimed that they had not been properly treated by the leading members of that body; that on account of their principles on certain subjects they were ostracized, and did not receive the personal or official consideration to which their characters and abilities entitled them. They were known as ‘Nazarites,’ and their association was at first secret.

     “So long as they confined themselves in their publications and addresses to complaining of the decline of spirituality in the Church, or neglect of the Discipline, and of the ignoring of some of the fundamental doctrines of Methodism, and to bearing testimony against the sins of the Church, they were not amenable to Discipline. But when they made specific charges against prominent members of the Conference they became subjects of investigation. The Rev. Benjamin T. Roberts was adjudged guilty, in 1857, of Immoral and unchristian conduct growing out of these charges, and sentenced to be reprimanded by the Bishop presiding. As he made no change in his course during the intervening year, at the next Conference he was charged with contumacy and expelled from the Church. Similar proceedings were taken against others.

     “Against both these decisions Roberts appealed to the General Conference. This action was taken:

“‘The committee having heard and considered the minutes, documents, and pleading of the first appeal case of Benjamin T. Roberts, who appeals from the decision of the Genesee Conference whereby he was adjudged to be reprimanded before the Conference, proceeded to vote in the case with the following result: On the question of affirming, nineteen voted in favor and nineteen against it. On the question of remanding the case for a new trial, the committee voted almost unanimously in the negative. On the question of reversing the action of the Conference, eighteen voted in favor and twenty-eight against, a result which, as the General Conference has decided, leaves the decision of the Genesee Conference as the final adjudication of the case.
J. T. CRANE, Secretary.

     “‘The committee have considered the second appeal of B. T. Roberts, who appeals from the action of the Genesee Conference whereby he was expelled from the ministry and the Church.

     “‘The representatives of the Genesee Conference objected to the admission of the appeal on the ground:

     “‘1. That B. T. Roberts subsequently to his trial and condemnation joined the Methodist Episcopal Church as a probationer, and thus, tacitly at least, confessed the justice of the action of the Conference in his case.

     “‘2. That B. T. Roberts since he was deprived by his expulsion of his ministerial authority and standing has continued to preach and thus rebelled against the authority of the Conference and the Church.

     “‘3. That B. T. Roberts since he declared his intention of appealing to the General Conference has connected himself with another organization, contemplating Church ends independent [of] and hostile to the Church to whose General Conference he now appeals.

     “‘The committee, after hearing the statements and pleadings of the representatives of the parties,

     “‘Resolved, That the appeal of B. T. Roberts be not admitted.’

     “Similar action was taken in the case of William Cooley (Journal of the General Conference of 1860).

     “The ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church who sympathized with them met in Pekin, Niagara County, N. Y., on the 23rd of August, 1860, and organized the Free Methodist Church, adopting, with slight modifications, the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, but in government provided that the members should have an equal voice with the ministers in the councils of the Church.” [2]

     The foregoing extracts are given at length, first, in order that the reader may have the complete statements of these authors for comparison with what we shall have to offer regarding them by way of criticism and dissent; and, second, because of the several occasions we shall have for referring to the different parts of those statements.

     In the book entitled, “Why Another Sect ?“ written and published by the Rev. B. T. Roberts in 1879, that author, who writes in review of the article on “The Free Methodist Church” in Bishop Simpson’s “Cyclopedia of Methodism,” says: “In this article there are some fifteen statements or re-statements, which are utterly untrue, and some five or six statements which, though in a sense true, are from the manner in which they are made, misleading.” [3]  Mr. Roberts seems to furnish abundant proof of his statements before concluding his review. Moreover, we do not hesitate to state that at least half a dozen of the most important statements in the foregoing extract from Dr. Buckley’s version of “The Origin of the Free Methodist Church” are also utterly incorrect.

     The only items from the foregoing extracts, however, with which we shall be immediately concerned, are those in which the remote origin of the Free Methodist Church is ascribed to a “Nazarite Organization,” “Union,” or “Band,” formed within the Genesee Conference some years before the organization of the Free Methodist Church, as a sort of secret society. Statements to this effect had been commonly made, and for so long a time, both privately and through the Methodist Episcopal press, that the Bishop who edited the “Cyclopedia of Methodism,” and the eminent author of the “History of Methodism in the United States,” may have come to believe them true; although it is difficult to see how those who were originally responsible for such unauthorized statements could have made them otherwise than with the intention to deceive the uninformed. Moreover, it is equally difficult to conceive of how such honored men as the two last named authors could have been betrayed into giving general currency to such unauthorized, inaccurate and harmful statements, especially when they both knew of the fact that those statements had been challenged and denied by as respectable and credible men as Methodism had ever produced, many of whom were then living, and all of whose challenges and denials had been printed over their own signatures. The most charitable view that can be taken of their action in this matter is to attribute it to prejudice on their part. But even this is a reflection upon their credibility as historians.

[1] See Appendix A.
[2] “History of Methodism in the United States,” pp. 168-170.