The so-called “Nazarites” were generally characterized by their opponents as a set of “fanatics,” “spurious reformers,” “false prophets,” and by other equally offensive epithets, all designed to make it appear that they were made up of a class of irrational and irresponsible weaklings, to be regarded with mingled pity and contempt. It will only be fair and right, therefore, to give the reader such a view of their religion in its practical workings as the times then current variously reflected, that he may judge for himself as to whether their opponents were right or wrong in so characterizing them.

     As we learn much about the true character of early Christianity by what its enemies said and wrote about the Christians of those days, so we may learn much as to the character of the proscribed religion in the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the decade between 1850 and 1860, by what its enemies said about those who were active in its promotion.

     For the articles which the proscribed brethren of that time published the writers assumed full responsibility by publishing such articles over their own names. This is probable evidence that they wrote the truth, and were neither ashamed of it, nor afraid to assume the responsibility for what they had written. Many of those who wrote against them, however, did so over fictitious names, thereby concealing their identity, and declining to be generally known as responsible for what they wrote. For what appeared in the editorial columns of the Buffalo Advocate and the Northern Christian Advocate, the editors  naturally assumed responsibility. Numerous articles were written which were both false and basely vindictive in character by parties whose identity was not disclosed. Such writers were wholesale assassins of reputation, attacking their victims and striking their murderous blows under the cover of darkness.

     One of the basest and most reprehensible things a man can be guilty of, in the way of personally wronging others, is to try to blacken character and conceal his identity while doing so. Yet this course was repeatedly pursued with reference to those who labored to bring about religions reform in the Genesee Conference of those days. The following selections from an article, which was published in the Medina Tribune, a secular periodical of considerable local influence, September 11, 1856, about one year before the publication of “New School Methodism,” is one of the most respectable of its kind. Internal evidence shows it to have been written by some member of the Genesee conference:
 

     Spurious reformers are as plenty as blackberries, and as contemptible as plenty. Incapable of comprehending the moral condition and wants of society around them, and also of understanding the modes or processes by which reformation is to be effected, they believe, or affect to believe, that they are the chosen instruments of some greatly needed social regeneration—whose necessity or possibility, none, besides themselves, are able to discover. Mistaking a desire to do something grand, for a call to a great undertaking, and the wish to be known to fame, for a prophetic intimation of some splendid achievement—they go forth before the world, putting on strange and uncouth airs, which they expect everybody will regard as proof of the “divine fury” with which they are possessed; and repeating nonsensical and claptrap phrases, which they have mistakingly selected as the watchwords of a reformatory movement. The ridiculous figure they cut excites the laughter and jeers of all—save those who are as addled and silly as themselves. By such, however, they are frequently mistaken for real prophets; and the gaining of a few proselytes always confirms both in their lunacy.

     We, of the Genesee Conference, have such a batch of false prophets—such pseudo reformers among us. And such a group of regenerators as the Nazarites compose we can not believe was ever before brought together by the force of a common belief in a divine call to a great work. Whence, or why the idea ever struck them that they were the chosen ministers of a new reformation, will probably never be rescued from the dimness and uncertainty of speculation. They probably felt the motion of something within them—it may have been wind in the stomach—and mistook it for the intimations of a heaven-derived commission, summoning them to the rescue of expiring Methodism, and the inauguration of a new era of spiritual life in the history of the Wesleyan movement.

     To them, religion still appears to be a system of outward forms and symbols, of material ceremonies, and corporal manifestations, of animal influence and nervous sensations. With them, a long face and sanctimonious airs answer for inward purity and goodness of heart. In their creed, a high-sounding profession takes precedence of a holy life, and getting happy in a religious meeting is laid down as an indubitable proof of the divine favor. With them, a broad-brimmed, bell-crowned hat is equivalent to “the helmet of salvation,” and a shad-bellied coat to the robe of righteousness.

     But what means do these reformers employ to accomplish their ends? Do they go forth to the people with words of truth and soberness, striving to make men better by pressing, with fervent eloquence and earnest, rational appeals, the declaration of God’s Word upon the heart and conscience of the hearers? No; their harangues to the people consist of factious addresses, cant phrases, and rant; of protestations of their own spotlessness, and both open and concealed imputations upon the Christian and ministerial character of their brethren.

Junius.

     Compare the offensive style, the bitter spirit, and the coarse language of these utterances with the dispassionate, dignified, and manly tone of the paper on “New School Methodism,” and then decide which is more in keeping with the spirit, precept, and example of Jesus Christ.

     “Arguments could not, however, be framed that could answer the spirit of this libel and caricature, so ‘offensive in style, bitter in spirit and false in statement.’ You can not argue against a sneer. The calm tone in which the facts so distasteful and discreditable to the Regency were stated in New School Methodism only awakened a spirit of bitter hatred against, and a determination to crush, its author.” [1]

     Among the older members of the Genesee Conference generally understood to belong to the class against whom the foregoing diatribe was penned were such men as Asa Abell, Benajah Williams, John P. Kent, Samuel C. Church, and Amos Hard—men whose years of loyal devotion to the cause of Methodism merited kinder treatment from the dominant party in the Conference. Then there were such men as William C. Kendall, Loren Stiles, Jr., Benjamin P. Roberts, and I. C. Kingsley, among the younger preachers,—men who, in natural ability, educational acquirements, and general information, were equal if not superior to any of those who opposed them, and in spirituality and general fruitfulness very far exceeded them. What a disgrace to the name of Methodism that such men as these should have had to bear such contempt and vilification from their own conference brethren as is contained in the foregoing article!

     As the reader compares the anonymous article on “Nazarite Reformers and Reformation” with Mr. Roberts’s article on “New School Methodism,” he should bear in mind that the former is quite respectable compared with others of its class, which have been deemed too indecent and scurrilous for general publication.

     The following, which appeared as an editorial in the Buffalo Advocate of September 15, 1859, though briefer, is quite in keeping with the extract which precedes it, and indicates how its author, as the representative of a large constituency, had so far departed from the spirit and practice of early Methodism that he could write contemptuously of the very type of worship Methodism was originally raised up to perpetuate in the earth:
 

     The approaching session of the Genesee Conference will undoubtedly congregate multitudes of people at Brockport, both friends and opposers of the Church. The Nazarite faction, we understand, are to be there in force. Exhorter Purdy [the Rev. Fay IT. Purdy, of evangelistic fame in those days] will pitch a large tent, and a thousand or less smaller ones will be smuggled into surrounding lots. We expect to see and hear a bellowing crowd, [2] and anticipate an exciting week. The Conference, of course, will do its business in its own way, irrespective of the outside pressure and attendance, for which it will be no more responsible than it would be for a circus or a menagerie.”

     Comment is scarcely necessary on an article of such a character. In endeavoring to create a wide-spread prejudice against the earnest and zealous evangelistic efforts of a true son of the Methodist Episcopal Church and those devout and godly men and women who were cooperating with him in seeking a revival of spiritual religion, the writer of the foregoing betrayed unmistakable signs of religious declension, and at the same time unintentionally gave witness that the so-called “Nazarite faction” was composed of men and women alive to God, and filled with the spirit of “aggressive evangelism,” regarding which the Methodist Church has been trying in recent years to awaken general interest.

     It must be remembered that, according to the nomenclature of the “Regency” faction, “Nazaritism” was a term used in contemptuous designation of old-fashioned Methodism, or “Christianity in earnest.” With this recollection borne in mind the reader is asked to consider the following, from the same author as the foregoing extract:
 

     “An illegitimate offspring often carries with it through life the marks of the sin which gave it being! Excitement governs more people than reason, which accounts for much of the evil, physical and moral, in the world. This quality is a very characteristic element of Nazaritism, leading its followers to improprieties and excesses in religious worship, which give offense to dignity, common sense, and even common decency. Sober, thinking men, whose minds have a balance wheel, are not Nazarites. It is the shallow one, of quick impulses, who goes off on short notice, like a brand of fire thrust into a powder magazine; these are the individuals who embrace this modern interpretation of ancient religious notions. Excitement Is their life; and if they can live by embracing Nazaritism, and be religious in the same connection, nothing is to them more acceptable. [3]

     Once more from the same editor of the “Regency” organ the reader is treated to the following:
 

     What a fit! Do these men who are constantly raving at the Church, creating divisions, and passing contempt on order and authority, suppose that anybody will believe them when they say that they are friendly to it, and mean to remain in it? Not a word of truth in the assertion. They now only remain in the Church to make a little more capital, for use, not a twelve-month ahead. No element so repulsive and disorganizing can be permitted much longer existence in a Church which seeks peace and good-will among its membership. It is noteworthy that forbearance has not long since ceased, and that these enemies of the Church and haters of its order have not been summarily disposed of and sent adrift. [4]

     The columns of the Buffalo Advocate from 1855 to 1860 abound in articles of such a character as those from which these extracts were taken. While meant to do harm to the so-called “Nazarites,” unintentionally they reflect the fact that it was opposition to their zeal, intensity, spirituality and uncompromising devotion to the principles of early Methodism that called forth such coarseness and bitterness as they clearly manifest.

     But what was the true character of the religion denounced in such intemperate spirit and language? Was it of that irrational, unseemly, fanatical, and dangerous character as to its manifestations which its opponents in the Genesee Conference represented? Was it revolting to men of intelligence generally, and of such a type as would appeal only to the weak-minded, the uneducated, the unbalanced, the visionary, and the erratic classes in the community? Fortunately we are not dependent alone on the representations regarding this matter which the “Regency” men of the Genesee Conference have left on record for our information. Other men, ministers from other Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, some of them of high standing, who had opportunity to see and learn for themselves, have also left on record their testimony, and that in favor and appreciation of the proscribed religion, as simple, old-fashioned Methodism. A few of these testimonies will now be given.

     The first is a report of the Bergen camp-meeting, written by the Rev. William Reddy, a devoted man of God, and for many years Presiding Elder in the Oneida Conference, and published in the Northern Christian Advocate. This camp-meeting was regarded by the Regency as one of the worst exhibitions of the religion they so vehemently denounced. It was declared by some among them to be “a hot-bed of fanaticism.” The particular meeting here referred to was held in the spring or early summer of 1858, a few months prior to Mr. Roberts’s expulsion.
 

     There were one hundred and four tents on the ground, in a delightful woods owned by the Association, and which may be very much improved with a little outlay. God was there. I believed, I felt, He was there; and many were the living witnesses of His power to save, not only to forgive, but also to cleanse from all unrighteousness. I heard old Methodists from Boston and from Connecticut say, with streaming eyes and bounding hearts, “This is as It used to be forty years ago.” I confess that I felt my heart strongly united with these “fellow citizens of the saints, and of the household of God.” The doctrine of sanctification after the John Wesley standard, the definite way of seeking the blessing, the spontaneous confessions of having obtained it, on the part of intelligent and mature persons, the duty of exemplifying it by self-denial and universal obedience, the keeping the rules of the Discipline, “not for wrath, but conscience’ sake,” the patient and loving endurance of opposition and persecution for Christ’s sake, if need be, were all earnestly taught and enforced, and many were the wit nesses. And some of “the priests [ministers] were obedient to the faith,” i. e., they were wonderfully blest and baptized.

     I learned that quite a large number were converted. I left Brother Ives preaching, while Brother Gorham, of the Wyoming Conference, was to exhort after him.

AUBURN, June 25, 1858.

WM. Reddy.

     The Rev. B. I. Ives, D. D., also reported this meeting, and much more at length. He was a man whose high and unchallenged standing in New York State Methodism guaranteed his ability to know and to judge as to whether the religious devotions of this meeting were the senseless vaporings and insane ravings of irresponsible men and women, or the simple, earnest, fervent, and intelligent worship of men and women who, like the Methodists of an earlier time, were laudable examples of “Christianity in earnest.” Hence we herewith present his report in full:
 

     The meeting was by far the largest that I have ever attended. and is said to have been the largest and best that has ever been held in Western New York. There were a hundred and four cloth tents, and many of them were very large, and all of them appeared to be well filled. The congregations were large and very attentive all through the meeting. On the Sabbath there must have been at least five thousand people present, and yet, so far as I could discover or learn, the best of order prevailed, and all appeared anxious to hear the “words of salvation.”

     There were two things connected with this camp-meeting with which I was particularly impressed. The first was the number of intelligent business and influential men that were there with their families, tented upon the ground, and who stayed all through the meeting, laboring for God and the salvation of souls. This is as it should be.

     The second thing that I noticed particularly, was the spirit of prayer and labor for the conversion of sinners, and the sanctification of believers, that was manifested from the very commencement to the close of the meeting. I saw nothing like mere visiting or idling away precious time, which I am sorry to say we sometimes see at camp-meetings. But here all appeared to feel as though they had come for one object—the glory of God and the salvation of souls. So much was this the case that when strangers came upon the ground, they were led to say, as several brethren in the ministry and others did to me, “God is here. There is power here; there appears to be a stream of holy fire and power encircling this camp-ground.” And so it was. There appeared to rest upon all, as they came within the circle of tents, a holy impression that God was there in awful power, to awaken, convert, purify, and save souls. This was realized and felt, not only in the public congregation, and under the preaching of the Word, but in the class- and prayer-meetings that were held in the different tents. Such was the power of conviction that rested upon many of the uncoverted, that in several instances they came unasked into prayer-meetings, and, weeping, requested the people of God to pray for them. And I can but believe that this would be the case all over our land, if the Church of God were baptized with holiness and power. Who does not feel like singing,—

“Oh, that it now from heaven might fall !“

     There were over thirty different ministers present, to say nothing of the large band of local preachers who were on hand, “full of faith and the Holy Ghost,” and who had a “mind to work.” There were several preachers at the camp-meeting from other Conferences, such as Bros. Parker, Gulick, Wood, Wheeler, Brown, Tinkham, of East Genesee, Wm. Reddy, of Oneida, and B. W. Gorham, of Wyoming.

     Rev. S. C. Church and Asa Abell (both ex-presiding elders, I believe) had charge of the meeting, and they both appeared very much at home in that kind of business. The preachers all appeared to vie with each other in trying the most effectually to preach Christ to the people, and of course the blessing and power of God attended their efforts. And not in a single instance were sinners invited to come to the altar and seek the Lord, but what there were more or less that came, and generally a large number.

     I left the ground the night before the meeting closed, so that I do not know the probable number that were converted or reclaimed, but there must have been a large number; and no doubt hundreds will praise God in eternity that they attended the Bergen camp-meeting.

     I must not stop until I speak of the Love-Feast that was held at eight o’clock on Wednesday morning, which was indeed a “feast of fat things,” and a time of salvation, power, and glory. I was particularly interested in hearing some of the veterans of the cross relate their experience, some of which were the richest I have ever heard; and to see their countenances beam with joy, and lighted with glory, as they would say, “This makes me think of my conversion. This reminds me of the early days of Methodism In this country. This is such a camp-meeting as we used to have thirty, or forty, or fifty years ago.”

     I saw nothing that appeared “like wild-fire,” or mere “animal excitement,” during the entire meeting. The motto was: “Order and power.” And all the people of God seemed to be baptized with the real, old-fashioned “Jerusalem fire.” And I pray God that we may have more of this in all our Churches. Praise God for camp-meetings, and let all the people say, Amen.

AUBURN, June 28, 1858.

B. I. IVES.

     The following year, but a few months after the first expulsions, another meeting was held on the same ground. The report of this meeting was also written and published by a minister from the Oneida Conference. We also reproduce it in part, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established regarding the Bergen camp-meetings, which were so decidedly offensive to the Regency party.
 

     We arrived on the ground on Friday morning (the second day of the meeting) and it seemed that the meeting was farther advanced, in interest and power, than some meetings we have attended were during their last days. It is evident that these persons live nearer to God at home and bring the real fire with them.

Saturday morning, June 23.

     B. T. Roberts preached at ten o’clock. What was remarkable in this sermon, the speaker did not as much as refer to his troubles, but the sweetest and most heavenly spirit seemed to reign through the whole discourse. If he continues to maintain the spirit he now possesses, his foes must all fall powerless at his feet. Dr. Redfleld preached at two p. in. from Matt. 5: 16.

     At four o’clock the Laymen’s Convention met.

     We did not see anything in their proceedings, but what we could indorse. These laymen are men of intelligence, power and prudence. May God give the Church more such all over this land. In the evening A. L. Backus preached from Rom. 5: 1, subject, Justification by Faith. Sunday morning the writer talked a little from Matt. 21: 22. Subject, Prevailing Prayer. The Lord helped. At ten o’clock Dr. Redfield preached from Jer. 9:3. “They are not valiant for the truth.” After this, there Were prayer circles formed all over the ground, and the power of God was greatly manifested among the people. Perfect order reigned, though there were probably 12,000 people on the ground. God’s order evidently obtained.

     This meeting was one of the strongest we ever attended. We had heard so much about this people, that when we went on the ground, for a little while we were on the come-and-see bench, but we soon found that these persons had nothing but what a few of our people have in the Oneida Conference. They are a people full of faith, and when they pray, they look for immediate results. They are as intelligent a class of people as you will find In any congregation In the State of New York. They are clear In their views of holiness, according to our standard authors, and according to Scripture. We want to be identified with the principles and doctrines held by this much persecuted people. If there Is any shame connected with them as long as they stand where they now do, we want to bear our part.

J. F. CRAWFORD.

MARATHON, July 15.

[1] “Benjamin Titus Roberts, A Biography,” by his son, Benson Howard Roberts, A. M., p. 125.
[2] Italics are the author’s.
[3] Editorial in “Buffalo Advocate” of June 23, 1859.
[4] Do., June 2, 1856.