So far as the author has been able to ascertain no history put forth by any member of the Methodist Episcopal Church until this day, covering the period of the difficulties in the Genesee Conference which led to the organization of the Free Methodist Church, has fairly and truthfully stated the facts in the case. On the other hand those writers who have dealt with these matters have appeared with one consent determined to put the brand of reproach and disgrace upon the Free Methodist movement by the uniform misstatement of facts. When Roberts’s appeal from the verdict by which he was expelled from the Gene-see Conference and the Church was refused consideration by the General Conference of 1860, that good man turned away saying, “I appeal to God and the people.” Referring to the matter in the Preface to “Why Another Sect ?“ about twenty years later, he said:
 

     Here we should have let the matter rest, but those opposed to us will not permit it. They have published and sanctioned the most bare-faced, flagrant falsehoods, which they intend shall pass as a history of the affair. We should be wanting in our duty to the cause which is dearer to us than life, and to the noble men and women who have given us their confidence, if we allowed these falsehoods to pass uncontradicted. [1]

     The volume from which the foregoing extract is made was called forth by the gross misrepresentations contained in the “Cyclopedia of Methodism,” but not without a candid effort on the part of its author to have the needful corrections made in the periodicals of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and in future editions of the book, and so to avoid the necessity for its publication. This the following letter from his pen will show:

REV. M. SIMPSON, D. D.,
Bishop of the M. E. Church.

     Dear Sir: I think when one makes incorrect statements, he should have the privilege of correcting them. I therefore take the liberty to address you in reference to the article In your “Cyclopedia of Methodism,” on the Free Methodist Church. In your Preface you say: “The aim has been to give a fair, and Impartial view of every branch of the Methodist family. For this purpose, contributors and correspondents were selected, as far as practicable, who were identified with the several branches, and who, from their position, were best qualified to furnish information as to their respective bodies.”

     Either no such selection was made from the Free Methodists, or the information which they furnished, with the exception of the bare statistics, was not given to the public in that article. In either case, what becomes of the claim of fairness?

     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, yet are, from the manner in which they are made, misleading.

     If furnished with proof, satisfactory to candid minds, that these statements referred to are untrue, and misleading, will you correct them in the Church periodicals, and in future editions of your book? If not, will you give the authority upon which the statements complained of, are made?

Yours most respectfully,
B. T. ROBERTS.

     To this letter the Bishop returned the following reply:
 

PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 23, 1878.

REV. B. T. ROBERTS,

     Dear Sir: Returning home from a long tour in the West, I find your letter of September 13th, complaining of inaccuracies in the article on Free Methodism, but without specifying what those Inaccuracies are.

     I am not aware of any incorrect statements in the article, but if you will furnish me with corrections and the accompanying proofs, I will gladly make any alterations in a future edition, should such edition be called for. I desire to have perfect accuracy in every article, and it will give me as much pleasure to correct, as it can you to furnish the corrections.

Yours truly,
M. SIMPSON.

     The foregoing letters are worthy of careful perusal and comparison. Careful attention to their contents will disclose to the intelligent reader the following points:

1. Mr. Roberts proposes to the Bishop,

1. To furnish “proof, satisfactory to candid minds, that the statements complained of are untrue and misleading ;"
2. That he (the Bishop), in case he is furnished with such proof, “correct them in the Church periodicals, and in future editions of [his] book;”
3. That, if unwilling to do this, he “give the authority upon which the statements complained of are made.”

2. Bishop Simpson’s letter discloses the following facts:

1. That he fully assumes all responsibility for the contents of the article in question.
2. That he shows no disposition, however convincing the proof of their inaccuracy may he, to make any corrections, through the Church periodicals, or otherwise until and unless a future edition of his book be called for. In other words, he proposes to leave the article, however inaccurate, to create whatever prejudice it may, and to do all the injustice of which it is capable, until a second edition of his book is demanded, and for all time, should no such demand arise.
3. That he is utterly silent with reference to giving authority for the offensive statements.
4. That he does not claim here, as in the Preface to his book, that, in order “to give a fair and impartial view” of this “branch of the Methodist family,” he had selected a “contributor” from the Free Methodist Church who was identified with the movement, and who, “from his position, was best qualified to give information” as to this particular body. Neither does he assign any reason why this was not considered “practicable.” Right in the city where he lived were men fully informed on the subject, and every way qualified to give an accurate and trustworthy statement of the case.

     Mr. Roberts’s letter does not charge the Bishop with the willful misrepresentation of a single fact, but on the contrary assumes that the errors had crept into the book unwittingly on his part, and that, on being satisfied of their inaccuracy, he would be glad to make the proper corrections. This the Bishop would not consent to, except in a second edition of his book, should one be called for. Inasmuch as that might never be, Mr. Roberts proceeded to write and publish, upon the request of the General Conference of the Free Methodist Church, “Why Another Sect ?“ a volume of 333 pages. Regarding the production of this work he writes as follows in the Preface:
 

     With the leading facts which I narrate in this volume, I was personally acquainted. I have endeavored to state them plainly, in a Christian spirit, and without the slightest exaggeration. I have given proofs which can not be set aside without practically denying the validity of human testimony. But I am conscious of laboring under this great disadvantage: the action of the Genesee Conference, sustained by the General Conference, was so unjust and unprovoked—so contrary to anything which we might look for in a body of respectable men, even though they laid no claim to piety, that the plainest narrative of the events looks like wild exaggeration. But I have endeavored to give the simple truth, without the slightest coloring. I have read my manuscript to several intelligent, judicious brethren, familiar with the facts, and they give it their hearty endorsement.

     Dr. Buckley’s “History of Methodism in the United States” did not appear until eighteen years after Mr. Roberts’s “Why Another Sect ?“ was published. Either its author knew of the existence and character of that work, or he did not know thereof. If he did know of these things, and refused to recognize the charges made by Mr. Roberts, and the abundance of proof furnished to sustain those charges, it would seem to be a grave reflection upon his boasted love of historical accuracy and his loyalty to truth; and if he did not know of “Why Another Sect ?“ and its contents, then we submit that he must have written this particular part of his “History of Methodism in the United States” without that fullness of research which a work of such importance demands, and for the making of which a reputable writer of history should spare no pains.

     Now, with reference to the statement made in the “Cyclopedia of Methodism,” and reiterated by Dr. Buckley, which identifies the remote origin of the Free Methodist movement with “an association of ministers” in the Genesee Conference who “privately adopted a platform, and in this organization were known as ‘Nazarites,’” the author is prepared to show that the alleged “Nazarite Organization,” “Union” or “Band,” never had any existence, but was wholly a fictitious affair. Still, upon the authority of such pretentious volumes as Bishop Simpson’s “Cyclopedia of Methodism,” and Dr. Buckley’s “History of Methodism in the United States,” it has been written of as a matter of historical verity, and as partaking the character of a secret society, in which the movement originated which resulted in the formation of the Free Methodist Church. During all the intervening years the erroneous and damaging statements have been spreading, and their harmful influence has been increasing.

     During the troubles in the Genesee Conference back in the fifties those ministers who were opposed to the distinctive work of holiness then in progress confidently affirmed, both privately and through the press, that a “Nazarite Union” or “Band” existed within their bounds, and that those preachers who were identified with the work of holiness were members of the alleged organization, and especially advocated it with a view to accomplishing the desired reformation in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Official papers gave room to statements specially intended to helping the delusion on.

     Although repeated denials were made, of the most emphatic character, regarding the existence of any such organization, and made by those ministers of the Genesee Conference who were in a position to know the facts, and who were supposed to be members of the “Nazarite Band,” their denials were ignored, and their opponents continued persistently to affirm the existence of such a society; and it is difficult for the broadest charity to credit them with sincerity and honesty in those affirmations.

     Great as is this difficulty, however, it is much more difficult to understand how honest and unprejudiced men, writing from twenty to forty years later, and with all the historic facts available which have been committed to the general public since that time, and which abundantly refute those earlier allegations regarding the existence of a “Nazarite Band,” should feel hound to perpetuate these misstatements.

     “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 ?“

     In further discussing this question frequent extracts from Mr. Roberts’s “Why Another Sect ?“ will be made, because of the undoubted honesty and integrity of its author, his personal, undisputed, and comprehensive knowledge of the facts, the abundance of the evidence he furnishes to substantiate his positions, and the general spirit of fairness and justice with which he writes. Moreover, the author hopes to present such proofs of the wholly fictitious character of the alleged “Nazarite Band” as will abundantly satisfy any candid reader that what has been written by various authors assuming to connect the remote origin of Free Methodism with such an organization is utterly without foundation.
 

[1] Page vi.