Forms of persecution sometimes change, but the persecuting spirit never. In St. Paul’s day Christians sometimes lost their heads because of their devotion to Jesus Christ. The Apostle himself was awaiting the executioner’s ax when he wrote to Timothy, “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day.” 2 Tim. 4:6-8. Nor did he have long to wait before the fatal blow was given, and his body was sent headless to the tomb. But for him the death of the body meant the liberation of the soul, and its translation to the Paradise of God.

     Satan’s power is greatly restrained in these later days, and in civilized lands, and he is able no longer to instigate those brutal persecutions in which the heads of unoffending Christians are literally sacrificed. The spirit of persecution remains the same, however; and, though its methods are more polite and refined, its animus is as dark and damnable as ever. Though the heads of Christians are not chopped off in our day in the literal sense, yet legions of unoffending followers of the Christ have lost their heads in the ecclesiastical sense, even in this boasted age of Gospel light and freedom, because of their uncompromising devotion to the Master and the principles He represents. Moreover, it has generally been carnally-minded and compromising professors of Christianity who have been the tools of Satan for the accomplishment of this reprehensible work.

     Those agitations within the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church which we have been considering in the foregoing chapters finally issued in the ecclesiastical decapitation of many faithful men of God. When all other methods of endeavoring to suppress the revival that had been kindled failed, the “Regency” resorted to the extremity of bringing disciplinary action against prominent leaders in the work. They were charged with “immoral and unchristian conduct,” and subjected to partisan trials on trumped-up specifications.

     The first victim of this extreme method was the Rev. Joseph McCreery. He was a deeply devoted man, of striking originality, remarkable talents, and with the courage of his convictions. He is said to have been quiet rather than demonstrative in his pulpit ministrations, and yet to have wielded a power under which large audiences were not only deeply moved, but “raised to the highest pitch of excitement.” His way of putting things, which was peculiarly his own, had much to do with the effect of his preaching. He spoke to be understood and remembered. He also preached with the unction of the Spirit, and as a result he saw extensive and thorough revivals under his ministry.

     Mr. McCreery was of Methodist lineage, and took a just pride in that fact. He was a nephew of the eminent Dr. Samuel Luckey, whose name and fame were familiar throughout American Methodism toward the middle of the last century, and was a most devoted adherent and representative of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

     The Rev. B. T. Roberts says of him:
 

     His course reminds us of an Irish girl, whom her Catholic mother had driven from home, because she had been among the Methodists, and become converted.

     The girl had found a place as servant in a pious family by which we were entertained, during a session of Conference. The mother came to the house one morning, and poured upon the poor girl such a torrent of abusive eloquence as we never heard equaled. Becoming intolerable, the gentleman of the house gently put her out. She then went to the gate, and hurled back anathemas and execrations, until, overcome by her rage, she .fell in a swoon. The daughter rushed out, bathed her temples, wept over her, and became almost frantic with grief. As we endeavored to, console her, she said, with a depth of feeling seldom witnessed, “She is my mother, let her do what she will.”

     So Joseph McCreery said of the M. B. Church. When turned out on the most trivial accusation, he joined again on probation. When he was dropped, because of the clamor raised by his enemies, and the Free Methodist Church was organized by those with whom he had labored to promote Methodism, he refused for five years to join, and when at last he did unite, such were his yearnings for the Old Church, that he left the Conference in about two years, and went away to the frontier. [1]

     When Mr. McCreery was stationed at Lyndonville, in 1854, he found the work on that charge in a sadly rundown condition. Instead of being content either to let things go on as they had been going, or giving up in discouragement and quit the field, he at once went to work with a view to creating revival interest, restoring the faith of the people which had declined, and building up the work of God in general. He earnestly called upon the people to return to “the old paths” of Methodism and of primitive Christianity. In accordance with the much neglected requirement of the Methodist Episcopal Discipline, he read and explained the General Rules, and in connection therewith reminded the members of the obligations they took upon themselves in joining the Methodist Church. He also informed them that they would be expected to fulfil those obligations, but that if any did not wish to be governed by those rules, such persons would be permitted quietly to withdraw. Such a beginning may seem somewhat extreme to people of this lax age, but Methodists of an earlier time were more accustomed to it, having been educated to strictness in the enforcement of Church discipline. None of the members left, but all newly pledged themselves to conform their conduct to the General Rules, and united in looking for a general out pouring of the Spirit and revival of God’s work.

     Mr. McCreery also abolished choir singing; or, to use his own words, “Drove out the doves who were billing and cooing in the gallery, and introduced congregational singing, exhorting all and not one in ten only to join in this part of the service.” He preached the Word with great fervor, and in demonstration of the Spirit. Nor was his preaching in vain, for great interest was soon awakened, and people were attracted from miles away in all directions, though the snow-drifts were higher than the fence-tops, and a glorious revival followed.

     But on this charge lived the Rev. Dr. Chamberlayne, a superannuated preacher, who owned a farm within the bounds of the circuit, on which he resided. “He was a strong man, of a metaphysical turn of mind, cold temperament, and undemonstrative in his manners. He was an advocate of the ‘gradual’ theory of holiness. Encouraged by large appropriations from the superannuate fund, he suffered himself to be made prominent by the dominant party in Genesee Conference, in their open attacks upon those they called ‘Nazarites.’ His zeal was also quickened by the fact that his wife, a noble woman, of strong ‘mind, and deep, uniform piety, identified herself with those who were proscribed as ‘Nazarites,’ and afterward expelled.” [2]

     Having allowed himself to be made the tool of the Regency party in the Conference, Dr. Chamberlayne appears to have set about his work of entrapping “Nazarites” like one accustomed to the trapping business. During the year of Mr. McCreery’s pastorate over the circuit within which he resided Doctor Chamberlayne kept a memorandum, in which he wrote down a lengthy list of McCreery’s odd, characteristic sayings, as they were uttered from the pulpit, but detached from their original connection with the general trend of his pulpit utterances. This was evidently for the same purpose that moved the scribes and Pharisees of old to send “certain of the Pharisees and Herodians” unto Jesus—”to catch Him in His words.”

     The following are samples of Mr. McCreery’s objectionable sayings: Describing a Church festival of those days, he said: “A whiskered and blanketed blackleg will come along, and pay his quarter for the privilege of fishing a rag-baby from a grab-bag.” Referring to the opposition raised against him because of his efforts to bring Methodism back to her former simplicity and purity, he spoke as follows: “Some of the younger boys have taken my mother, the Methodist Church, in her old age, painted her face, curled her hair, hooped her, and flounced her, and jeweled her, and fixed her up, until we could hardly tell her from a woman of the world. Now when I have taken the old lady, and washed her face, and straightened out her hair, and dressed her up in modest apparel, so that she looks like herself again, they make a great hue and cry, and call it abusing mother.”

     In more recent times many a Methodist minister has been very active in securing the services of the Rev. Sam Jones, a Southern Methodist evangelist, to lecture or conduct revival services in his Church or community, and in providing largely for his remuneration, and that knowing that the chief part of his discourses would be made up of burlesque, sarcasm, and ridicule, directed against the very Church which had secured his services, compared with which the foregoing utterances of Mr. McCreery are certainly venial. But McCreery was a “Nazarite,” and McCreery was in earnest in his dealings with Methodism; and these were the things that made his utterances so offensive and intolerable to the dominant party in the Genesee Conference.

     At the next session of the Annual Conference, held at Olean, Dr. Chamberlayne read before that body the list of sayings he had culled from the Rev. Mr. McCreery’s pulpit utterances, and which he considered objectionable and offensive, and, on the strength of those statements, arrested the passage of his character. At this Conference Mr. McCreery also publicly read the “Nazarite Documents,” after which his character was passed, subject to an examination before his Presiding Elder, of any charges which might be brought against him. He was removed to another circuit. The Rev. Loren Stiles, Jr., was his Presiding Elder; and, when at last the charges were preferred, he ordered that the trial should be held in Lyndonville, where the alleged offenses were committed, and where the witnesses resided, though it was outside of his district. At the opening of the trial, the counsel for the prosecution made objection to the ruling of the Chairman, refused to proceed with the case, and so the trial was brought abruptly to a close.

     The next session of the Conference was held at Medina. Charges were now brought against Mr. Stiles for his administration in Mr. McCreery’s case. The Rev. Thomas Carlton and the Rev. James M. Fuller prosecuted the case. At the request of the defendant, the Rev. B. T. Roberts acted as his counsel, and a verdict was secured in favor of the defendant.

     This turn of affairs was naturally very, exasperating to the “Regency” party. Hitherto they had been in control of only two of the five Presiding Elderships, and were able to muster only about thirty in their secret meetings. Hence they had been unable to control votes enough to secure Mr. Stiles’s conviction. Therefore something desperate had to be done, and the necessity of the case suggested the method of procedure. By a threat made to the presiding Bishop that they would all refuse to take work unless Stiles and Kingsley were removed from the Presiding Eldership, and men of their liking appointed in their stead, which has been noted in a previous chapter, these men accomplished their purpose. Apprised of the situation, Stiles and Kingsley were transferred to the Cincinnati Conference at their own request. The design of the Regency party was thereby accomplished.

     Then followed an act of administration which can only call forth the disapproval and condemnation of intelligent and unbiased minds. The charges against the Rev. Mr. McCreery were withdrawn, and a series of resolutions reflecting seriously upon him were adopted, in place of a conviction by due process of law. Then, under the reflections thus cast upon him by his Conference, he was again sent forth to shepherd “the flock of God,” and to labor for the salvation of lost men. The final action in his case is detailed in a subsequent chapter.

     Of course, the men who could be guilty of such unrighteousness in their administration of discipline, could be equally blind to ethical demands when members of their own party were involved in dishonest and scandalous transactions, as the sequel will clearly show.

     Complaints of a serious character were lodged against three members of the “Regency” faction at this same Conference. Regarding the character of those complaints and the way they were dealt with by the Conference, we quote from “Why Another Sect ?“ as follows:
 

     Enoch Pease, an old Methodist of Niagara County, had lent these preachers about one thousand dollars. They gave him for security what they said was a first mortgage, duly recorded, upon a piece of real estate which they claimed to own, at Lima, N. Y. He let the mortgage run till it was due. The parties meanwhile had failed. On the suit for foreclosure, it was shown that they had bought this property of Dr. T. They paid down only a nominal sum, and gave back a mortgage for the purchase money. At the time of the purchase, Mrs. T. was away from home. The deed and mortgage were both left with the lawyer who drew them up, until Mrs. T. could sign the deed, and then both deed and mortgage were to be recorded together. While these papers thus lay in escrow, this mortgage was executed to Enoch Pease. He never got his money. These men might not have known which mortgage would hold—but they did know that they had given to one or the other of the parties with whom they were dealing, a worthless security. As soon as the complaints were brought before the Conference, one of the leading men of their party, I think it was T. Carlton, moved to lay the whole matter on the table. It was seconded and carried, and there It still lies.

     With the guilt of the parties we have nothing to do; but we do hold that the Conference which refused to investigate such complaints, made by such a man as Enoch Pease,—in such a manner— for we took his affidavit of the facts in the case, WAS GUILTY OF COVERING UP FRAUD!

     Another case is as follows: The same firm, consisting of these three prominent preachers, again wished to borrow money. One of them took a note which the three had signed to Geneseo to borrow five hundred dollars of a Brother White, a Methodist man, who kept a private bank there. Being strangers to him, he took the note to his pastor, the Rev. Jonathan Watts, of the East Gene-see Conference, and asked his advice. Mr. Watts told him that he supposed the men whose names were on the note were honest, they were Methodist preachers in good standing, and ought to be, but he knew nothing of their financial responsibility. “But,” said he, “the father-in-law of one of them, Dr. B., I know to be a man of means; if he indorses their note, it will be safe.” Mr. White took the note back to this preacher, and told him if he would get Dr. B. to indorse it, he would himself indorse it and go to another bank and get the money for them, as he had no money on hand, and would like to accommodate them. The preacher returned the next day with the note indorsed with the name of the Doctor. Mr. White indorsed It, and got them the money on it. The note when due was protested, and Brother White looked to his indorser, Dr. B., for the pay; but instead of him, the Doctor’s son, who was financially irresponsible, at their request had signed the note! The note and costs amounted to six hundred dollars, and not a cent was ever paid to Brother White. Soon after, he failed in business, and was reduced to want. He requested Mr. Watts to see one of these preachers, and ask him, as he was getting a good salary as pastor of one of the leading Churches, to pay his proportion or a part of it, to relieve his pressing necessities. This, he utterly refused to do. Rev. Mr. Watts sent Brother White money at the time, to keep him and his family from starvation.

     We made complaint of this fraudulent transaction to the Conference, backed up by the statement of Rev. J. Watts, in substance as here given. The complaint was promptly laid upon the table.

     Why did not the victims of such dishonesty prosecute these preachers in a criminal court? Enoch Pease was an old man, wealthy, and did not want the trouble of a prosecution, as he knew he could not get back his money. He was a devoted Methodist, and did not want the Church disgraced.

     Mr. White got the preacher who negotiated the note with him indicted, and the preacher fled the state. He joined a conference West, and was, the last we knew of him, a regular preacher In good standing, In the M. E. Church.

     At this same session, the Rev. L. Stiles stated to the Conference that he had letters, written by men of good standing in the community, two of them members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, calling in question the business integrity and honesty of a member of the Conference. He asked that a committee might be appointed, to whom these letters might be referred for such action as the committee might deem proper. But the Conference refused to appoint the committee, or even to hear the letters! [3]

     Do not these things show the animus of the “Regency” faction in its persecution of the so-called “Nazarites,” and in its professed zeal to stamp out fanaticism from Western New York Methodism?

[1] “Why Another Sect?” p. 139.
[2] “Why Another Sect?” pp. 140, 141.
[3] Pages 143-147.