It has been claimed, however, that there were “Documents of the Nazarite Union ;“ and the inquiry has been raised, “Does not the existence of such ‘Documents’ assume the existence of such an organization ?“ We reply, Not necessarily so. It is universally known that it is the very nature of fiction to represent events to which it relates as though they were actual occurrences. But no one on that account quotes them as authentic history. The only show of proof adduced of the existence of a “Nazarite Union” unto this day, so far as we have been able to discover, is based upon the writings of a single man—his personal letters, and his “Documents of the Nazarite Union of the Genesee Conference of the M. E. Church;” and on the action of the Genesee Conference based on said “Documents.”

     The “Documents” are comprised in a pamphlet [1]  which the Rev. Joseph McCreery read before the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Olean, New York, in 1855. But McCreery was particular to state very definitely at the time that he constituted “the Nazarite Union,” and that he alone was responsible for the whole affair. Others, supposed to belong to this “Union,” corroborated his statement, all agreeing that the whole matter was a creation of McCreery’s own fancy. Moreover the author of the “Documents” practically avers the same in the Preface to his pamphlet, when 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.”

     Thus the author of the pamphlet containing the “Documents” virtually declares that no such society existed, and that “It is as yet only a mere proposal to return to ‘the old paths.’” Is there not a manifest difference between “a mere proposal” and an accomplished fact? Is not proof of the proposal having been put into effect necessary to justify the positive assertion of the existence of such a society? And has Bishop Simpson, or any one of the several who have written on this matter, furnished any such proof? No one can affirm that they have, because no such proof is in existence.

     The fact is, the statement regarding Free Methodism having originated in a “Nazarite Union,” or “Organization,” partaking the character of a secret society, etc., was made originally without warrant, and with a view to casting odium and discredit upon the new movement; and those who have since given dignity to the fabrication by incorporating it in Cyclopedias or Histories have either done so through willingness to give the falsehood as wide a circulation as possible, or through allowing themselves to be misled in the matter by their failure to investigate the case as its merits deserved. It is not at all complimentary to such authors, whichever alternative they or their friends may choose to take; but the facts should be known, whatever the consequences may be.

     Here it will be proper to furnish further evidence that the alleged “Nazarite Union” was a matter for which one member of the Genesee Conference was solely responsible, and that whatever may have been his intention, the matter was chiefly fictitious, and never became anything more than “a mere proposal.” At the session of the Conference held in Perry, New York, in 1858, Joseph McCreery testified as follows:
 

     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 arid prospective, and I alone was responsible for the whole concern. The Preface to the pamphlet is a mythical concern altogether.

     Here we have the case plainly stated, and that by the very man whose fancy conceived the idea of the “Nazarite Union,” but who himself had never formally taken the Nazarite vow nor administered it to another, and who declares “that the whole thing was provisional, and that he alone was responsible for the whole concern.” Can anything plainer or more definite be desired?

     “But did not the Genesee Conference, as a matter of fact, declare by its vote that such an organization or society existed? And did not the same Conference at a later time order and conduct a judicial investigation of the alleged ‘Nazarite Organization?’ And are not both of the foregoing actions matters of record on the Conference Journal ?“ To these questions an affirmative answer must be given. Having answered them affirmatively, we inquire, What of it? The record of a Conference action only shows that the Conference took such action; it can not show whether said action was right or wrong, based on fact or fiction.

     In his “History of the Genesee Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church” the late Rev. F. W. Con-able, quoting from Dr. F. G. Hibbard, says: “The first time the Genesee Conference came in formal contact with Nazaritism was at its session in Olean in 1855. The following action was taken at the first sitting: ‘Resolved, That all papers in hand relating to the Nazarite Society be now read to the Conference.’” We are then informed that “The reading of papers and discussions engrossed two days.” The final action of the Conference at that time is given as follows:

     “Resolved, That while we doubt not there is much room for improvement among us in spiritual religion, and in observance of our beloved institutions, 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 Band,’ 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 especially, but affectionately, condemn the calumnious expressions read in relation to the Methodist Church and her ministers within her bounds; and we do hereby submit these views to the special consideration of all who are concerned in this matter, and expect them, hereafter, to govern themselves accordingly.” [2]

     Later, at the Perry Conference, the existence of a “Nazarite Organization” having been disputed, the matter was judicially investigated. No effort was spared to prove the existence of such an organization. The only proof adduced, however, was the “Nazarite Documents,” to which we have already referred. But if the “Documents” are admissible in evidence, so is their author’s statement concerning them. Moreover, his testimony on this point should be entitled to equal weight with the “Documents” themselves. But his declaration is, that “The whole concern is a fiction—prepared and ready to become a fact, when we should see fit to make it such;” also that “the whole thing was provisional and prospective, and I alone am responsible for the whole concern.” The time never came for that which was wholly prospective and provisional, and for which one man alone was responsible, to materialize, and so the alleged “Nazarite Organization” never came into existence.

     “But is not the action of the Olean Conference, as above quoted, evidence that such an organization did then really exist ?“ Regarding this point we quote again from “Why Another Sect ?“
 

     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 marvelous. They knew that there were many societies which had “forms of secrecy.”

     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 seriously to 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 the 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 slaveholding States of this Union.

“Resolved, 3. 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 1ST. M. E. Church, believe that the vote of a Methodist Episcopal Conference proves anything more than that they passed it? [3]

     It now seems that, if human testimony is not to be altogether discredited, evidence enough has been produced to prove conclusively to every fair-minded reader that the alleged “Nazarite Organization” within the bounds of the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church was non-existent during all the years of that agitation which finally disrupted the Conference and resulted in the organization of the Free Methodist Church; that the whole affair was entirely fictitious, the product of one man’s fancy, and for which that one member of the Conference was alone responsible; that the organization of the Free Methodist Church was neither directly nor indirectly, neither proximately nor remotely, connected with any such organization or society, and could not have been, for the very best of reasons, namely, because no such organization or society ever existed; and that the attempts of certain writers to make it appear that the Free Methodist movement had its remote origin in a secret society known as the “Nazarite Band” must be accounted for otherwise than on the ground of their desire to have the history of the Genesee Conference difficulties of that period impartially written.

     The first published declaration that a “Nazarite Association” had been formed within the Genesee Conference appeared in the editorial columns of the Buffalo Advocate issued June 19, 1855. The following is a copy:
 

     We have learned from a reliable source, and have had sufficient evidence placed in our hands to prove that there exists, among the ministers of a certain Protestant sect of Western New York, a secret, religious organization, where one would be least suspected. The purpose of this Jesuitical order we will not at this time attempt to explain; but the consequences of it, unless its progress shall be arrested, and its existence blotted out, it takes no prophet’s eye to foresee,—incurable, ministerial factions and ruined Churches must otherwise be the inevitable result. This order has been designated by various appellations; but the authorized cognomen is, “THE NAZARITE BAND.” It is to be hoped that those who have assumed this solemn and suggestive title have weighed well what they, are doing, and what the solemn imposition of the name upon themselves implies. To us it appears like impious mockery, and if “any good can come out of THE NAZARETH,” then can a clean thing come forth from an unclean. We know well the men who are the originators of this singular movement, and have been watching their down-sittings and uprisings for a long time. Our editorial, secret drawer contains the secret of many curious facts relating to the ministerial career of some of these eminent and most notable characters.

     We learn that the society is constituted by three degrees or “divisions.” Into the third or highest, are admitted only the leading spirits of the order, or those whom it is supposed will heartily favor the purpose of the order. The first degree, it would appear, is so indefinitely constituted, that one may get into it, and not be himself aware of the fact It is only required of the candidate that he express his approbation of certain men and measures, and forsooth he straightway becomes a Nazarite, and that before he knows it. He is, after this, carefully approached, and his opinions drawn out with respect to certain other measures, and if he can be “trusted,” is advanced! There are many considerations which give this new organization a novel, not to say ludicrous aspect. One is, that its originators have heretofore made themselves somewhat notorious, by their blazing hostility to secret societies. They have published and spoken great and hard things. They have for years been bent on giving both lay and clerical Odd-Fellows and Masons “particular jesse.” Indeed, it is a main purpose of this Nazarite Band to oppose the influence which, it is alleged, secular secret societies are seeking to exert in religious affairs. Another beautiful feature of this new order is the peculiarly lovely, personal and religions characteristics of those by whom it was conceived and brought forth. Their character is a strange compound of sanctity and slander, of pompous humility and humble pride, of peccability and perfection. Their preaching of the Gospel of peace is always attended or followed by jealousies, heart-burnings, and fanatical dissensions. Peevish and fretful tyrants at home, they have n very ardent charity for the “dear sisters” abroad, some of whom “they lead about.” Without any remarkable “sanctity of manners undefiled,” their professions reach to heaven, and clothe them with the most spotless garment of assumed purity. As n specimen of this class, we would refer the reader to a certain individual living in Orleans County, called, according to the Nazarite nomenclature, BANI, who is, we are informed, the high priest of this new profession.

     The accusation against all parties supposed to be concerned in the alleged “Nazarite Association” is very specific and strong in the foregoing editorial, while the spirit in which it was written does not appear to have been commendable. The promised proof that such an organization did then exist was never furnished, however, because the “sufficient evidence” failed the editor of the Advocate in his time of need. From the next number of the paper it appears that the accusation had received a prompt denial by the only person competent either to affirm or deny the charge. That was the man who alone was responsible for the letters written concerning a “Nazarite Union” and for the “Documents.” In a straightforward, manly way he came forward and assumed the responsibility for all that he had written on the subject, and fully exonerated his misrepresented brethren.

     The editor of the Advocate then found himself under the necessity of making some sort of apology or defense, and his manner of meeting this responsibility appears in the following extract from a succeeding number of his paper:
 

     We learn that “Bani” denies that the NAZARITES are an organized band, as we asserted them to be in our last week’s issue. We would remind this very conscientious and notable individual of the importance of keeping truth on his side, as far as circumstances will permit; and not by gratuitous and voluntary denials of facts, place himself in a very embarrassing position, and one in which honest men seldom find themselves. Bani, it is not right, it is decidedly wrong to make statements which you know to be false, and you must not do so any more.

     The foregoing extracts, which are fair samples of various articles appearing in the columns of the same periodical from time to time, speak for themselves as to the spirit by which they were dictated. Certainly it was not the Spirit of the Master. Their spirit is bitter, their language coarse, vulgar, and unbrotherly, and their declarations are false. Moreover, the last of the foregoing extracts shows a disposition on the part of its writer to be wittily and sarcastically evasive, where straightforwardness and love of truth would have led him to humble confession and apology for the wholesale misrepresentations contained in his former article.

     The sum of the whole matter regarding the alleged “Nazarite Union” is thus given in “Why Another Sect?”:
 

     Rev. Joseph McCreery wrote several letters to different preachers, proposing that they work in harmony in their efforts to persuade the people to return to the old paths of Methodism. There, in all probability, the matter would have rested; but some of these letters were shown to the editor of the Buffalo Advocate, who made the most of them, and stirred up some excitement. Anticipating that the subject would be brought up at Conference, the Rev. J. McCreery prepared a statement of the whole affair, including copies of the letters he had written. This he read to the Conference at Olean in 1855. This “Document” or “Roll,” as it was called, was greatly misrepresented. To correct these misrepresentations it was published by Rev. Wm. C. Kendall. This is all there was to this affair as far as the preachers belonging to the Conference were concerned. After the FREE METHODIST CHURCH was organized, some who opposed its organization, held meetings by themselves, and called themselves “Nazarites.” Some of these still retained their membership in the M. E. Church, and some did not; but all arrayed themselves against the FREE METHODIST CHURCH.

     They have always been its unrelenting opponents. They insist that a great mistake was made in leaving the M. E. Church, or in not, when thrust out, uniting with it again, and keeping up the agitation within its pale. [4]

     We have now given a true account of the alleged “Nazarite” movement within the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, from which movement various writers of that Church have positively and persistently affirmed that Free Methodism sprang. We have furnished the proofs for our statement of the case, while they do not make the slightest attempts to furnish proof or to cite authority for their statements, except in case of Mr. Conable, who cites the action of the Conference, as formulated by Dr. Hibbard, regarding the investigation of “Nazaritism.” This, as has been shown, proves nothing except that the Conference took such action.

     We believe we have shown to the satisfaction of unprejudiced readers that the versions of the Origin of the Free Methodist Church as given in Conable’s “History of the Genesee Conference,” Simpson’s “Cyclopedia of Methodism,” and Buckley’s “History of Methodism in the United States,” are clearly historical misrepresentations.

[1] See Appendix C.
[2] Pages 638 - 640
[3] Pages 39 - 43
[4] Pages 62, 63.